Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 out, no phenom II 965 price drop, wtf?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 14, 2009 4:37:10 AM

i5 benchmarks add 6-15 fps to your top end games, shake 10-20 seconds per 100 meg off processing, and sells for $209 on newegg yet the 965 is still at $245, am I missing something here? Drop that damn price to like 150 where it belongs and I'm going to buy it, one more week and I'm going with the i5, this is just frustrating
September 14, 2009 4:43:21 AM

my guess is that amd will lower prices when their new 5000 series cards come out so that they can do it all at once and not spend to much time in having to slash prices on cpus then gpus separetly.
September 14, 2009 5:06:16 AM

I am sure now that you have made your intentions here clear on buying the I5 over the 965 b.e. in one week that AMD will drop the price on their flagship processor to $150 for you so you will buy it. :sleep: 
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 5:25:11 AM

Sorry AMD does have a fan base with some die hard fans, there not going to drop the price just so you can afford it. Its been over priced from the get go, no reason to bring it down just cause Intel made another CPU it cant beat.
September 14, 2009 5:32:21 AM

I agree with you daship, it has been over priced from the get go, but it follows AMDs norm for there new release processors on the Phenom II line. If the OP isn't just flaming and really is debating the Phenom II line then smart choice would just be go with the 955 b.e. and call it a day, the 965 b.e really doesn't bring anything to the table that the $180 dollar 955 b.e. doesnt' bring.

Looking at all the new threads being started up, I think there is just a run on noobs trying to get points waving there Intel Pom poms... :lol: 
September 14, 2009 6:43:49 AM

I think the price will drop at some point but I don't think it will happen until about another month or so goes by. Because they will probably try to wait it out and see if they are still able to sell their Phenoms and when they realize they aren't selling near as well since the Intel Core i5 CPU release they will drop the price most likely.
September 14, 2009 6:58:53 AM

TwatLlama said:
i5 benchmarks add 6-15 fps to your top end games, shake 10-20 seconds per 100 meg off processing, and sells for $209 on newegg yet the 965 is still at $245, am I missing something here? Drop that damn price to like 150 where it belongs and I'm going to buy it, one more week and I'm going with the i5, this is just frustrating


No you're not missing anything. A smart consumer would just grab a 955 or an i5 and call it a day. I believe that 965 isn't aimed at the mainstream but its target competitor is 1366 i7. Gosh, I just wonder why people just do not bother using the search function and post the same question over and over again.
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 12:44:41 PM

Its AMDs best chip. Its not gonna go down at all, and if it does certainly not to $150.

Intels best chips are over $1000 so suck it up.
September 14, 2009 2:58:15 PM

Quote:
It's cheap chips beat it in performance tho. Sad huh


Yes it is sad indeed but nothing can really be done. Let's just wait and see what comes next and how they retaliate. This time, consumers win.
September 14, 2009 3:08:16 PM

AMD fanboyz won't even discuss the X965 chip -- the price/performance gap is soooooo large compared with the INTEL steamrollers. It's AMDs best-shot, and simply NOBODY is buying it !

Perhaps the X965 can find a market in Xigmatics new line of chrome_plate WAFFLE_MAKERS ... I mean it does have 140 W to contribute.
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 3:48:46 PM

Quote:
I5 out, no phenom II 965 price drop, wtf?



It's been pointed out by myself and others that AMD need to stop bleeding cash and actually make money on the chips they sell, rather than undercutting into CH 11 proceedings for the sake of gaining/maintaining marketshare. (Made Up Numbers for the sake of an example, actuals welcome)- After all, it's common sense that if participating in a market that costs $1.25/unit, but you can only sell the output for a dollar, then you might be better off staying home. What AMD need to do is figure out where to get the missing quarter/unit, plus a little.

Perhaps someone has made up their minds AMD are going to stop undercutting so much. I do note their marketing has shifted from the individual components (processors, in this case) to pitching the value of their platform as a whole. It's not a bad story, and easily understandable by non-technical folks. So it may work and help to get AMD to the next step in their plans.

my $0.02

a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 4:09:58 PM

^ +1. AMD is between a rock and another rock :) . They don't have a lot of wiggle room IMO.

However they might be considering a price shift by the end of the month or so, giving some notice to the OEMs so the latter don't get stuck with too much overpriced inventory.

I've read here and elsewhere that OEMs get pretty ticked off with unannounced (or at least unplanned) price cuts, simply because it undermines their prices and financials. Much better to plan your component purchases knowing in advance how much they will cost you and how much you can then sell the product for.
September 14, 2009 5:13:21 PM

Plan all you want. Run spreadsheet pricing formulas all month long! If nobody buys X_kit because it soooo underperforms then who makes any money ?

Sure, a few AMD_teen fanboyz will take-pity on the X965. They buy it at premium price, build water-heaters for their splashy LED_infested boxes and overclock like madmen. Pops pays da electric bills .

No adult does that. Ever. For years AMD has been more-than-pleased to soak their buyers for CPUs with minimal advantage over INTEL product. Shoes change feet, but AMD wants the soaking to continue. I think not.
September 14, 2009 5:23:08 PM

nss000 said:
Plan all you want. Run spreadsheet pricing formulas all month long! If nobody buys X_kit because it soooo underperforms then who makes any money ?

Sure, a few AMD_teen fanboyz will take-pity on the X965. They buy it at premium price, build water-heaters for their splashy LED_infested boxes and overclock like madmen. Pops pays da electric bills .

No adult does that. Ever. For years AMD has been more-than-pleased to soak their buyers for CPUs with minimal advantage over INTEL product. Shoes change feet, but AMD wants the soaking to continue. I think not.



Thats really funny,

No adults do that?? EVER?? I believe there are quite a few custom builders on here that have the I7's 920, some even with the I7 975, phenom II 955b.e. 940 b.e, that added water cooling to there rigs, Led's to case, and we all pay the electric bill. AMD has one overpriced processor in the Phenom II line up, ATM, how many does Intel have in there line up, I would say atleast 4, which is in line with there x4 price on there higher end processors.
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 5:58:55 PM

nss000 said:
Plan all you want. Run spreadsheet pricing formulas all month long! If nobody buys X_kit because it soooo underperforms then who makes any money ?


AMD are, and have been for some time, selling their chips at a loss. Now, they absolutely require a certain amount of sales volume to meet cash flow needs. But at some point, you *have* to stop the bleeding. I would also point out that AMD's platform is perfectly fine for all but the most demanding desktop applications.


Please keep in mind my post was conjectural. I speak for neither AMD nor Intel; though I'm sure there are a number of individuals here who would happily tell you I'm an Intel Shill/Plant - if only to discredit for the times I take runs at them for their overstatements (and occasional blatant falsehoods). That being said, I shall now take a (small) run at you for yours:


nss000 said:
Sure, a few AMD_teen fanboyz will take-pity on the X965. They buy it at premium price, build water-heaters for their splashy LED_infested boxes and overclock like madmen. Pops pays da electric bills .


I would hardly call AMD's product line 'Premium Priced', as their 'best' is available at prices INTC charge for their low/mid processors. For some time this has been AMD's strategy: Operate where the 900 pound gorilla isn't sitting. What's happened with the i5 is the gorilla moved. A fully predictable event, which I'm sure AMD were fully aware would happen - though I would opine they (hoped) it wouldn't until closer to spring.



nss000 said:
No adult does that. Ever. For years AMD has been more-than-pleased to soak their buyers for CPUs with minimal advantage over INTEL product. Shoes change feet, but AMD wants the soaking to continue. I think not.



I feel this is a pretty strong overstatement - AMD's offerings are still Performance/Value competitive for desktop usage, and Intel are the ones charging the premium for their (largely better performing) products. And even so, the differences aren't as great as are often implied. This being the Internet, hyperbole is a frequent literary tool.
September 14, 2009 6:05:43 PM

Scotteq said:
AMD are, and have been for some time, selling their chips at a loss. Now, they absolutely require a certain amount of sales volume to meet cash flow needs. But at some point, you *have* to stop the bleeding. I would also point out that AMD's platform is perfectly fine for all but the most demanding desktop applications.


Please keep in mind my post was conjectural. I speak for neither AMD nor Intel; though I'm sure there are a number of individuals here who would happily tell you I'm an Intel Shill/Plant - if only to discredit for the times I take runs at them for their overstatements (and occasional blatant falsehoods). That being said, I shall now take a (small) run at you for yours:




I would hardly call AMD's product line 'Premium Priced', as their 'best' is available at prices INTC charge for their low/mid processors. For some time this has been AMD's strategy: Operate where the 900 pound gorilla isn't sitting. What's happened with the i5 is the gorilla moved. A fully predictable event, which I'm sure AMD were fully aware would happen - though I would opine they (hoped) it wouldn't until closer to spring





I feel this is a pretty strong overstatement - AMD's offerings are still Performance/Value competitive for desktop usage, and Intel are the ones charging the premium for their (largely better performing) products. And even so, the differences aren't as great as are often implied. This being the Internet, hyperbole is a frequent literary tool.



Well said and I agree.

How is that the I5's release is any different then the I7's release when it comes to performance? Almost no difference. The only thing I am seeing here is that Intel has slimmed down there motherboard specs, making the new I5 socket motherboards cheaper or at AMD chipset prices, giving you less of a motherboard, for the same price as AMD's chipset, or more expensive then AMD's chipset. Sure the I5 seems to be a very good processor, however the only reason the new I5's are even in the price range of the best AMD, Phenom II line up right now is because of the new boards with less on them. You can pick up a Phenom II 955 b.e right now with a full featured 790FX mother board for around $333.00 dollars which still beats the best deal you can get on a I5 and motherboard combo by $50, and you have a motherboard that has full 16x16 pci-e slots for $50 less then a platform that splits them into 8x8 or just one running at x4. The choice seems very clear to me, IMO
a c 126 à CPUs
September 15, 2009 7:25:32 AM

nss000 said:
AMD fanboyz won't even discuss the X965 chip -- the price/performance gap is soooooo large compared with the INTEL steamrollers. It's AMDs best-shot, and simply NOBODY is buying it !

Perhaps the X965 can find a market in Xigmatics new line of chrome_plate WAFFLE_MAKERS ... I mean it does have 140 W to contribute.


I am guessing that people are not willing to spend more money for a OCed 955 when for less they can get the 955 and get a better cooling system and OC it to just as high as a 965 stock and the same as a 965 can OC.

Well at least I wouldn't buy the same chip with a bit higher clock speed. Thats why the Core i7 920 is the main Core i7 everyone buys or talks about. Its cheap and OCs just as well as the Core i7 965 but for a fraction of the price.
September 15, 2009 7:38:28 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I am guessing that people are not willing to spend more money for a OCed 955 when for less they can get the 955 and get a better cooling system and OC it to just as high as a 965 stock and the same as a 965 can OC.

Well at least I wouldn't buy the same chip with a bit higher clock speed. Thats why the Core i7 920 is the main Core i7 everyone buys or talks about. Its cheap and OCs just as well as the Core i7 965 but for a fraction of the price.



Good point and I agree.

Seems to me that there are alot of noobs here on a run since the I5 release. Funny thing is to me, that it seems that the 965b.e is all the Intel fanboys want to talk about. As you brought up, forget the 965b.e. and just go with the 955b.e and overclock it to and past 965b.e. speeds. One could even go for the Athlon II 550 and unlock the other two cores and Overclock it, at $102 for the chip, I guess that would really shoot down the knocking on the price vs performance issue that they like to bring up with the 965b.e.
September 15, 2009 7:52:35 AM

medjohnson77 said:
Good point and I agree.

Seems to me that there are alot of noobs here on a run since the I5 release. Funny thing is to me, that it seems that the 965b.e is all the Intel fanboys want to talk about. As you brought up, forget the 965b.e. and just go with the 955b.e and overclock it to and past 965b.e. speeds. One could even go for the Athlon II 550 and unlock the other two cores and Overclock it, at $102 for the chip, I guess that would really shoot down the knocking on the price vs performance issue that they like to bring up with the 965b.e.


Yes that's precisely it which is why I (and many others) believe that 965's price will not be lowered. For AMD, it's easy because they produce the same chip for all lines be it Deneb, Heka or Callisto. Only difference is that they either have disabled cores or some cache struck out. Many fanboys believe that with i5 out, Intel has won the war. It is not so. Yes performance wise, Intel has the upper hand but production wise, AMD has the upper hand. Think about the number of production lines that Intel has. Core 2 (until they are discontinued) is one line, 1156 is another line and 1336 is another line. All these add up to production costs. For AMD, it's easy - 1 chip for all.

Also note that AMD has Ati on its hand. Intel may have come up with i5, but don't discount AMD just yet. Imagine what it can do, scaling ATI with AMD processors. I'll wait and see what Bulldozer is really capable of.

Note: I'm a fan of neither side. I purchase what's of good value for money and right now, i5 seems to have the upper hand in my opinion. I just hate all these feverish fanboyism. Learn a thing or two before coming up with something like i5 runs 965 all over. It clearly isn't the case.
a c 126 à CPUs
September 15, 2009 8:06:05 AM

medjohnson77 said:
Good point and I agree.

Seems to me that there are alot of noobs here on a run since the I5 release. Funny thing is to me, that it seems that the 965b.e is all the Intel fanboys want to talk about. As you brought up, forget the 965b.e. and just go with the 955b.e and overclock it to and past 965b.e. speeds. One could even go for the Athlon II 550 and unlock the other two cores and Overclock it, at $102 for the chip, I guess that would really shoot down the knocking on the price vs performance issue that they like to bring up with the 965b.e.


Yep. Only I myself would never be able to bring myself to unlocking cores for the fear that they were actually bad ones and in time end up sorrupting the living crap out of your OS and files leaving you screwed in the end.

But to each their own.

Its like back during the Pentium D days THG did a review on two CPUs that were cheap and pretty awesome. The Pentium D 805 ($125 at the time) and the Pnetium M (laptop but Asus made a laptop 478PGA to socket 478 desktop adaptor for their mobos).

The Pentium D 805 was cheap and with a decent HSF it would OC like crazy past a Athlon FX and Pentium D EE as well as outperform and because it was based on the later Ceadermill core it was much cooler and 65nm (best for its time).

The Pentium M was the same. OCed very well with proper cooling and outperformed everything out there, considering it was the Core 2 predecessor I can see why it did.

alikum said:
Yes that's precisely it which is why I (and many others) believe that 965's price will not be lowered. For AMD, it's easy because they produce the same chip for all lines be it Deneb, Heka or Callisto. Only difference is that they either have disabled cores or some cache struck out. Many fanboys believe that with i5 out, Intel has won the war. It is not so. Yes performance wise, Intel has the upper hand but production wise, AMD has the upper hand. Think about the number of production lines that Intel has. Core 2 (until they are discontinued) is one line, 1156 is another line and 1336 is another line. All these add up to production costs. For AMD, it's easy - 1 chip for all.

Also note that AMD has Ati on its hand. Intel may have come up with i5, but don't discount AMD just yet. Imagine what it can do, scaling ATI with AMD processors. I'll wait and see what Bulldozer is really capable of.

Note: I'm a fan of neither side and I purchase what's of good value for money and right now, i5 seems to have the upper hand in my opinion. I just hate all these feverish fanboyism. Learn a thing or two before coming up with something like i5 runs 965 all over. It clearly isn't the case.


Well AMD cannot handle lowering prices much more, or thats my belief. Their CPUs came out pretty cheap when they were brand new and they had just built a 45nm plant and set it up for it. Thats not cheap and making up the cost of that lies in the CPU pricing itself. AMD needs one chip to be a high end solution that can be priced near Intels high end (LGA1366 Core i7).

ATI is a big part but they still don't consume enough of the market share to fully keep AMD afloat. Hopefully the HD5K series will be able to grab the performance crown and keep it in the wake of nVidias G300 core. But that would only be possible IF nVidias G300 core is just a C200 core with simple stepping updates and tweaks. Every time ATI seems to bash nVidia back down nVidia just knocks ATI right back down to second best.

Don't get me wrong as I love ATI and always have since my 9700Pro. Currently am running a 4870 1GB OCed(its a Sapphire Toxic without the OCing stock, just did it manually and viola Tocix edition HD4870 1GB).

As for AMD and ATI scaling, while they could tweak drivers a bit I will doubt it would be enough to really change the game. AMD needs to be like Intel and get in with game developers to optimize the software for their CPUs. Much like Intel and Microsoft are working together for Windows 7 to be optimized to run even better on Intel CPUs as well as multiple cores (better handling if multiple threads, and I am running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 RTM right now and its fast woot). Just like ATI needs to get back together with the game devs like they did before the AMD buyout. Hell Source is still best played on ATI and has the least problems on ATI. but that was the last game engine I was with the ATI logo on the box.

But if AMD would just work with the software and game devs they could possibly close the gap performance wise to be a more considerable threat overall. I mean Intels software and driver divison is larger than Microsofts. Hell its the largest in the world. I understand AMD is smaller in size but if they truly want to compete that is what they will do instead of trying to beat Intel through sheer muscle.

Well thats my thoughts on it.
September 15, 2009 9:02:06 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Yep. Only I myself would never be able to bring myself to unlocking cores for the fear that they were actually bad ones and in time end up sorrupting the living crap out of your OS and files leaving you screwed in the end.

But to each their own.

Its like back during the Pentium D days THG did a review on two CPUs that were cheap and pretty awesome. The Pentium D 805 ($125 at the time) and the Pnetium M (laptop but Asus made a laptop 478PGA to socket 478 desktop adaptor for their mobos).

The Pentium D 805 was cheap and with a decent HSF it would OC like crazy past a Athlon FX and Pentium D EE as well as outperform and because it was based on the later Ceadermill core it was much cooler and 65nm (best for its time).

The Pentium M was the same. OCed very well with proper cooling and outperformed everything out there, considering it was the Core 2 predecessor I can see why it did.



Well AMD cannot handle lowering prices much more, or thats my belief. Their CPUs came out pretty cheap when they were brand new and they had just built a 45nm plant and set it up for it. Thats not cheap and making up the cost of that lies in the CPU pricing itself. AMD needs one chip to be a high end solution that can be priced near Intels high end (LGA1366 Core i7).

ATI is a big part but they still don't consume enough of the market share to fully keep AMD afloat. Hopefully the HD5K series will be able to grab the performance crown and keep it in the wake of nVidias G300 core. But that would only be possible IF nVidias G300 core is just a C200 core with simple stepping updates and tweaks. Every time ATI seems to bash nVidia back down nVidia just knocks ATI right back down to second best.

Don't get me wrong as I love ATI and always have since my 9700Pro. Currently am running a 4870 1GB OCed(its a Sapphire Toxic without the OCing stock, just did it manually and viola Tocix edition HD4870 1GB).

As for AMD and ATI scaling, while they could tweak drivers a bit I will doubt it would be enough to really change the game. AMD needs to be like Intel and get in with game developers to optimize the software for their CPUs. Much like Intel and Microsoft are working together for Windows 7 to be optimized to run even better on Intel CPUs as well as multiple cores (better handling if multiple threads, and I am running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 RTM right now and its fast woot). Just like ATI needs to get back together with the game devs like they did before the AMD buyout. Hell Source is still best played on ATI and has the least problems on ATI. but that was the last game engine I was with the ATI logo on the box.

But if AMD would just work with the software and game devs they could possibly close the gap performance wise to be a more considerable threat overall. I mean Intels software and driver divison is larger than Microsofts. Hell its the largest in the world. I understand AMD is smaller in size but if they truly want to compete that is what they will do instead of trying to beat Intel through sheer muscle.

Well thats my thoughts on it.


Well said there. Although I agree with you that they should work more with the developers, there's one thing that you ought to understand. AMD does not have full ownership of x86. They pay Intel royalty to produce the their processors. Also, AMD Phenoms support up to only SSE4a, their own version of instruction sets whereas Intel processors offer much more. The instruction sets may not be direct factors that cause the slowdown, but they certainly play a role in the process. I may be wrong but that's what I believe and in case I'm wrong, correct me :) .

The 965 is their flagship processor. They can afford to lower prices for 955 and below. Just not the 965 as its their only competitor against 1366 i7.

Like I said, any bright consumers would just pick between 955 and i5 and call it a day. I just find it disturbing to see fanboys coming out with a statement like i5 runs all over 965, reduce it to 150 or below.
September 15, 2009 6:07:00 PM

alikum said:
Well said there. Although I agree with you that they should work more with the developers, there's one thing that you ought to understand. AMD does not have full ownership of x86. They pay Intel royalty to produce the their processors. Also, AMD Phenoms support up to only SSE4a, their own version of instruction sets whereas Intel processors offer much more. The instruction sets may not be direct factors that cause the slowdown, but they certainly play a role in the process. I may be wrong but that's what I believe and in case I'm wrong, correct me :) .

The 965 is their flagship processor. They can afford to lower prices for 955 and below. Just not the 965 as its their only competitor against 1366 i7.

Like I said, any bright consumers would just pick between 955 and i5 and call it a day. I just find it disturbing to see fanboys coming out with a statement like i5 runs all over 965, reduce it to 150 or below.



I am not sure that they are Intel fanboys. It could just be that their momy and daddy told them we will get you the 965b.e. when it comes down to $150 dollars. So they see this a perfect time to get there dream processor at $150 bucks. :lol: 
September 16, 2009 12:23:29 AM

In what way do the new 1156 socket MOBO's have less on them then AMD's am3 socket type MOBO's ? I mean yes I'm fully aware of the PCI-e difference when your running two GPU's because on the 1156 you can only run x8 x8 where as the am3 socket type boards you can have two x16 PCI-e .. But other than that what else extra features do the AMD boards offer that the new 1156 socket MOBO's don't offer?

Both of them can be expanded to 16Gb's of RAM. So as far as memory their upgrade possibilities are roughly same if not at least close. Also in all the Multi-GPU set-up test that AnandTech performed the Intel Core i7 870 did basically exactly the same FPS rates that the AMD 965BE did... Now trust me I know I don't know a ton about computers so I'm not trying to act like I think I do or anything, I would just like to try to understand both sides of the argument since everyone is mostly on the Intel side of the fence its interesting to get to hear the other side of things. Seeing as with everything there is always two sides to every story.
September 16, 2009 1:13:16 AM

I'm one of the "nobodys" the bought the 965BE. Why? I just upgraded from a dual core AMD 939 Toledo 4800 that has been rock solid for years. Intel holds the crown but I'm pleased with AMD. BTW, this quad core is real solid.
September 16, 2009 1:43:25 AM

ComputerNovice said:
In what way do the new 1156 socket MOBO's have less on them then AMD's am3 socket type MOBO's ? I mean yes I'm fully aware of the PCI-e difference when your running two GPU's because on the 1156 you can only run x8 x8 where as the am3 socket type boards you can have two x16 PCI-e .. But other than that what else extra features do the AMD boards offer that the new 1156 socket MOBO's don't offer?

Both of them can be expanded to 16Gb's of RAM. So as far as memory their upgrade possibilities are roughly same if not at least close. Also in all the Multi-GPU set-up test that AnandTech performed the Intel Core i7 870 did basically exactly the same FPS rates that the AMD 965BE did... Now trust me I know I don't know a ton about computers so I'm not trying to act like I think I do or anything, I would just like to try to understand both sides of the argument since everyone is mostly on the Intel side of the fence its interesting to get to hear the other side of things. Seeing as with everything there is always two sides to every story.



That is a reasonable question, And you hit it on the head, Its the PCI-e lanes. Even back when I build my x2 6400 build, I went with a quality mother board with 16x16 on the lanes instead of the cheaper Asus mother board with only 8x8. Maybe I just bought into the hype and spent an extra $50 at the time for nothing, however I did pick up the on board Wifi with that price. I understand that AnandTech did bench's on it to test this, however with new cards coming out(5800 series) I would not want a board with lesser pci-e lanes then 16x16 for CF setups in my gaming rig. We will see when the new cards are out if it bottle necks the performance on them or not. I think, and this is just my opinion, not fact, that we are going to see some interesting things performance wise with AMD's new hardware. If you look at some of the boards for the I5's, the cheaper ones, around $100 dollars, are they running just one lane at x16, or is it @x8? Just seems to me that they have really skipped on these boards, and the ones that cost $200 and even $229 only run at 8x8. Time will tell if this hurts performance or not.
September 16, 2009 1:49:26 AM

guskline said:
I'm one of the "nobodys" the bought the 965BE. Why? I just upgraded from a dual core AMD 939 Toledo 4800 that has been rock solid for years. Intel holds the crown but I'm pleased with AMD. BTW, this quad core is real solid.



I don't think it is a matter of calling you a nobody. If it is what you wanted and your happy with it then that is really what matters. You had other options that would of been cheaper and gotten the same performance, (955b.e.) but what matters is you happy with its performance, and I am sure it is rock solid. I know I love the performance on my 940b.e at 3.6ghz and as much as I want to upgrade and build another build just be on AM3, I am going to go with the 5800 series and just wait it out this round. I am going to have to see some very nice jumps in performance before I upgrade my main high end rigs CPU and board wise.
September 16, 2009 2:39:22 AM

medjohnson77 said:
That is a reasonable question, And you hit it on the head, Its the PCI-e lanes. Even back when I build my x2 6400 build, I went with a quality mother board with 16x16 on the lanes instead of the cheaper Asus mother board with only 8x8. Maybe I just bought into the hype and spent an extra $50 at the time for nothing, however I did pick up the on board Wifi with that price. I understand that AnandTech did bench's on it to test this, however with new cards coming out(5800 series) I would not want a board with lesser pci-e lanes then 16x16 for CF setups in my gaming rig. We will see when the new cards are out if it bottle necks the performance on them or not. I think, and this is just my opinion, not fact, that we are going to see some interesting things performance wise with AMD's new hardware. If you look at some of the boards for the I5's, the cheaper ones, around $100 dollars, are they running just one lane at x16, or is it @x8? Just seems to me that they have really skipped on these boards, and the ones that cost $200 and even $229 only run at 8x8. Time will tell if this hurts performance or not.


Very true statements man, Like you said so well, we won't ever really know for sure until they come out with the new GPU's how much the PCI-e 8x8 will effect things. Like you said only time will tell.

For me personally though I just can't wait until my build is finished..... Its so hard looking at my case and my PSU and CPU and not having the test of the parts. I can't wait to start gaming on my new set-up!!!!
September 16, 2009 3:34:54 AM

Just wait for the 58X0s to come out, then they will have a sick platform out. There should be some very sick 965/790X/58X0 combos coming in the near future. And 5870s *will* bottleneck a 8x-8X PCI-E interface.
September 16, 2009 4:21:31 AM

Saying that it will for sure in a very strong statement, however time will tell and I am not willing to blow $400-$600 to find out, nor could I recomend to anyone I build for to go with the I5 platform at this time, until we see some real testing to know for sure.

Yeah that really sucks ComputerNovice, I feel your pain, i have been there and waiting on parts blows. Let us know how your new build turns out. It should be very good I am sure.
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2009 4:46:32 AM

smithereen said:
Just wait for the 58X0s to come out, then they will have a sick platform out. There should be some very sick 965/790X/58X0 combos coming in the near future. And 5870s *will* bottleneck a 8x-8X PCI-E interface.

That's only if you want to CF though - a single 5870 would do great on an i5.
September 16, 2009 9:33:09 AM

cjl said:
That's only if you want to CF though - a single 5870 would do great on an i5.

Very true as well :) 
September 16, 2009 9:41:03 PM

cjl said:
That's only if you want to CF though - a single 5870 would do great on an i5.



Yes very valid point, however if you want to upgrade down the road time will tell, however IMO looks like you may be screwed going with I5 platform
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2009 9:48:41 PM

I really don't see how, honestly. Very few people (yes, TH is a skewed sample) actually go with multi-GPU setups, and Intel is planning on keeping 1156 for quite a while (well into 32nm). If I were in the market for a new system, I'd strongly consider an i7-860 right now.
September 16, 2009 10:43:17 PM

Well thats just were our opinions very, and that ok, were all different and have different views. I just can't see giving Intel $294 bucks for there I5 860 when I could just go with the I7 920 and get, IMO a stronger plateform, so if you ever want to go with SLI or CF, you have the option. Nice thing about it is that if all the info out is close to the truth with the new 5800's, one may not need to go CF to see a very bad ass gaming system.
September 17, 2009 1:04:36 AM

I have to wonder why they did that, though. Obviously, it lends authenticity to the i7 9XX platform again, but it also opens the door for AMD to sell a package deal of 955-790X-crossfire and say "Look, we have the better performing platform" if the 5870 does significantly bottleneck a X8 lane.

On the other hand, if a 5870 bottlenecks a X8 lane, doesn't it seem likely that a 5870X2 will bottleneck a X16 lane?
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 1:47:08 AM

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20230&page=1

This sucks why wont intel drop the price on the i5 to match its performance against the new Athlon X4 620?? I want to pay $120 for my i5, not to mention half as much as what I need to pay for a mobo! One more week and I'm gonna buy this Athlon 620, this is just frustrating.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 2:02:55 AM

You will buy an 870, we all know that :) 
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 2:05:56 AM

Intel won't drop the i5 750 price to the level of the Athlon x4 because it completely destroys the Athlon in every way. It isn't even close.







The i5 won't drop in price at all, since it competes quite favorably with the PhII 955, which is priced around the same area as the i5 is. Nice though it would be to pay $120 for an i5, it just doesn't make any sense at all for Intel to lower the price at this point.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 2:07:07 AM

You really missed the point didn't you cjl? :p 

I'll give you a hint, the x4 620 costs less than half as much of an i5. Does it perform half as badly in anything?
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 3:33:38 AM

When has the CPU market ever had a perfect scaling of price to performance? The question isn't whether the CPU that is twice as expensive is twice as fast - the question is whether the CPU that is twice as expensive is the same price as the other manufacturer's comparably performing model. In this case, the i5 is about the same price as the PhII 955, and cheaper than the 965. Considering it outperforms both (though by a fairly slim margin), this pricing makes perfect sense. In addition, you could build a total i5 system for significantly less than double the cost of a total Athlon II system, which would be a much more valid comparison IMHO.
September 17, 2009 5:23:19 AM

Quote:
Microcenter has the I7 860 @ 229.99, I5 750 @ 149.99 and the 920 @ 199.99



Well then for the people looking to build a new rig and close to a Micro center and that don't mind the slimed down 8x8 lanes the prices are looking very good on the I5's and atleast. I believe Micro Center is still charging $199 on the I7 920 so I would go with that over the both if 16x16 was important. $229 dollars for a motherboard that doesn't have 16x16 lanes, no thanks.
September 17, 2009 5:56:41 AM




Nope your right you sure don't, however my point is that there higher priced boards seem to be watered down. In around a week or two we will find out how watered down they really are. If lowered 8x8 doesnt' effect CF performance great, but if it does, Phenom II's with decent mother boards around the same price or very little more then what you just posted, or I7 920 with decent motherboards will be the way to go for gamers that want CF.
September 17, 2009 6:01:52 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the pci-e x8 x x8 a limitation of the CPU and not the actual pci-e bus?
September 17, 2009 6:19:24 AM

I am not for sure either on that croc, but it seems like it is not, given the fact that when I bought my Asus M2n32 sli deluxe board, there were other options for less money, but I didn't go with them because I wanted to SLI my 8800 GTS's and not have the 16x8 PCI-lane. Anyone know for sure on this one?
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 6:27:06 AM

Croc is correct for the 1156 CPUs though - they are the first to have the PCI-E controller directly on the CPU itself. This means it is significantly lower latency, but motherboard manufacturers are limited to 16 lanes of total bandwidth, unless they decide to add an Nforce 200 style chip.
September 17, 2009 6:40:58 AM

Ah I see, thanks for that info cjl, I guess that would explain why there entire 1156 platform don't offer 16x16, not a mother board issue after all, processor Issue, well a issue only if it bottles the newer cards in CF or SLI. Can't wait to see what they do with them. Could turn out to be interesting for the ones who bought into the new next best thing, and want to CF or SLI the next best things in Grafix cards.
September 17, 2009 6:47:46 AM

Well according to AnandTech's review of how the x8 would effect SLI or Crossfire. They used a ton of different PC's that where using multiple GPU's and when they check the FPS rates the Intel Core i5 and Intel core 870 did basically just as good.


Here's a link to AnandTech's review
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=363...
September 17, 2009 3:09:15 PM

You must not be looking at the same results I'm looking at... and that's with current-gen technology. There's a a 15% drop from one HD4870X2 to two.
!