Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are Intel joking re: i3 pricing?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 9, 2010 2:30:58 PM

Are Intel having a laugh? £100 for an i3 530, £115 for an i3 540 and £80 for a motherboard is not the value pricing consumers (including me) were expecting for what is essentially an average chip (not to mention DDR3 @ £45 for 2Gb). In the reviews I have seen (xbitlabs i3 540) it is only as fast as a £70 AMD chip (Phenom II x2 550) in Sysmark productivity. In some games and media apps it is beaten by an AMD Athlon II X4 630 (£86). Given AMD mobos can be found for £60 I'm more than perpelxed by Intel's pricing. These are not the value chips we expected after i7. The premium cannot be justified as the i3's performance is beaten by older quad cores (Q8300 is £105) in lots of apps too.

In additon, we have the usual hype merchants telling us these chips are the best thing since sliced bread. They say the chip is very energy efficient but only some mention that the H55/57 mobos use more energy and so overall the power savings are negligble or even greater. It is also unclear how long this socket will last, so the disaffection I had with LGA775 compared to AMD's AM2,2+ and 3 sockets continues. Spell it out Intel.

I'm not falling for this hype anymore and will stick with my current computer until I feel the products are good value or buy AMD, so tough luck Intel for being inefficient or greedy/stupid.

More about : intel joking pricing

a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 2:38:33 PM

New tech always demands a premium. The prices will drop.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 2:59:09 PM

doive1231 said:
Are Intel having a laugh? £100 for an i3 530, £115 for an i3 540 and £80 for a motherboard is not the value pricing consumers (including me) were expecting for what is essentially an average chip (not to mention DDR3 @ £45 for 2Gb). In the reviews I have seen (xbitlabs i3 540) it is only as fast as a £70 AMD chip (Phenom II x2 550) in Sysmark productivity. In some games and media apps it is beaten by an AMD Athlon II X4 630 (£86). Given AMD mobos can be found for £60 I'm more than perpelxed by Intel's pricing. These are not the value chips we expected after i7. The premium cannot be justified as the i3's performance is beaten by older quad cores (Q8300 is £105) in lots of apps too.

In additon, we have the usual hype merchants telling us these chips are the best thing since sliced bread. They say the chip is very energy efficient but only some mention that the H55/57 mobos use more energy and so overall the power savings are negligble or even greater. It is also unclear how long this socket will last, so the disaffection I had with LGA775 compared to AMD's AM2,2+ and 3 sockets continues. Spell it out Intel.

I'm not falling for this hype anymore and will stick with my current computer until I feel the products are good value or buy AMD, so tough luck Intel for being inefficient or greedy/stupid.



Well a few things.

First as badtrip said, new tech always has a premium.

Second, your trying to compare core i3 (dual core cpu) against athlon II x4 and core 2 quad Q8300 (both are quad cores). Quad cores cpu will always beat dual cores in multi-threaded applications.


For the value market, this is the best intel can truthfully do without wiping AMD out of competition. If AMD went out of business we would be seeing these intel cpus at the price of current core i7.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 3:34:00 PM

Oh please it's got nothing to do with 'wiping AMD out of competition'.

AMD make $1bn a quarter selling all their cpu's, intel probably make around 3x-4x that selling these kinds of cpu's.

The reason they cost so much is because they are intel's bread and butter. If they were to cost $50 less intels profits would be harmed too much, that is why AMD have always been far better value at budget to midrange.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 3:36:45 PM

And make no mistake - intel are making more and more cash every quarter because they are asking more and more cash for cpu's that are much cheaper to make.

You don't like it, you know there is an alternative. Why anyone would even consider any of these clarkdales is frankly beyond me. If people used their brains it would be intel getting wiped out at the budget to midrange, not the other way around.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 3:45:51 PM

Quote:
Oh please it's got nothing to do with 'wiping AMD out of competition'.

AMD make $1bn a quarter selling all their cpu's, intel probably make around 3x-4x that selling these kinds of cpu's.

The reason they cost so much is because they are intel's bread and butter. If they were to cost $50 less intels profits would be harmed too much, that is why AMD have always been far better value at budget to midrange.

Yes its very much like ATI fabricated the 5 series gpu shortage before december, then raised the prices 50 bucks on their popular cards and magically was able to sell a million more in December.
One MILLION X $50 price gouge = 50 million extra bucks to line the CEO"s pockets.
http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Sells+Over+2+Million+Direc...
January 9, 2010 3:48:04 PM

I can think of 2.7 billion reasons why, .... so far
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 3:49:59 PM

Yeah problem with that is, we have TSMC admitting that they had supply issues, the simple FACT that you couldn't buy a 5-series ATI card almost anywhere and btw they added $20 not $50.

Intel will have no problems shifting these awful cpu's at the price they command. They are designed for clueless people and those people will easily pay $100 more on the intel tax.

The rest of us with brains will avoid them like the plague.
January 9, 2010 3:50:08 PM

Well, if we look at the cost of the i5 750, it is still at the same price as when released (approx £150) so I don't think the i3 price will drop very soon. This shows that demand must be high (kudos to Intel), and the fact that older CPUs are beating newer CPUs in some situations at the same price only bolsters my argument re: overpriced i3.

However, the i3 is an excellent all round performer whereas AMD (and the LGA775 quad cores) can't quite create a product with such good all round abilites. Team that with Intel's world class marketing/hype machine and we see the reason for current pricing. I do agree there is a mobo premium and hope mobo prices come down soon.

If AMD's current GPU products and future profit forecasts are anything to go by, I would be wary of any Intel sensitivity regarding wiping out the competiton.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 3:56:21 PM

I'm not sure about AMD not being able to create a cpu with good all round abilities. I'm sure the 720 X3 will beat these i3's in just about everything. Those will be interesting benchmarks to see.

So far, intel hasn't even forced a tiny price cut on AMD's cpu's. With a new process that is just utter fail. AMD were supposed to be terrified of these clarkdales but if anything they could probably RAISE prices on their months old cpu's to bring them in line with the clarkdales.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 4:01:03 PM

doive1231 said:
Are Intel having a laugh? £100 for an i3 530, £115 for an i3 540 and £80 for a motherboard is not the value pricing consumers (including me) were expecting for what is essentially an average chip (not to mention DDR3 @ £45 for 2Gb). In the reviews I have seen (xbitlabs i3 540) it is only as fast as a £70 AMD chip (Phenom II x2 550) in Sysmark productivity. In some games and media apps it is beaten by an AMD Athlon II X4 630 (£86). Given AMD mobos can be found for £60 I'm more than perpelxed by Intel's pricing. These are not the value chips we expected after i7. The premium cannot be justified as the i3's performance is beaten by older quad cores (Q8300 is £105) in lots of apps too.

In additon, we have the usual hype merchants telling us these chips are the best thing since sliced bread. They say the chip is very energy efficient but only some mention that the H55/57 mobos use more energy and so overall the power savings are negligble or even greater. It is also unclear how long this socket will last, so the disaffection I had with LGA775 compared to AMD's AM2,2+ and 3 sockets continues. Spell it out Intel.

I'm not falling for this hype anymore and will stick with my current computer until I feel the products are good value or buy AMD, so tough luck Intel for being inefficient or greedy/stupid.


I agree with this post, except for "it is unclear how long this socket will last", it will last a good many years don't worry about that.

However I totally agree with the rest, clarkdale does not in anyway impress me. At every price point AMD has a better solution. Why pay $130 for the bottom end i3 dualcore with HT when you can get a REAL quadcore from AMD for $100 that at least performs as well if not better. Also the $200-$300 i5 dualcores are absolute ridiculous, the i5 750 beats them for the same or less. The only decent point about any of them is that they overclock well, which is fun, but that wont make a difference considering anything over 3.6-3.8 GHz is just for bragging rights, which the Athlon II X4 can do as well.

All in all, clarkdale is pretty much a joke.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 4:04:34 PM

Oh and lets not forget the integrated graphics. You can get a horrible Intel IGP in an $130 CPU with a $85 motherboard, all minimums, or you can get a faster $100 quadcore with a $60 motherboard that has a much faster IGP.

I'm not seeing any pros here, only cons.
January 9, 2010 4:35:34 PM

BadTrip said:
New tech always demands a premium. The prices will drop.


Where did you learn that; magic 8-ball? Maybe you should help AMD with it's pricing - ya think?

AMD's new tech doesn't follow your spinner logic either.

Thanx to spintel's antitrust tactics, we get amazing products from AMD at great prices. The attempted destruction of AMD by spintel, has come back to destroy the great monopoly itself. It's amazing AMD survived the abuse - read the evidence. And now spintel, and people like you, think we should be respectful of some lame offerings which are full of trix and deceptions - after spintel essentially copied the tek used by AMD for nearly a decade - which seems to have triggered the urge to bribe oem leading suppliers - as if 80% market share isn't enough.

It's easy to reject this infinite and endless pile of excrement when you tune out the marketing hype and the benchmarketing; AND LEARN THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF.

Even if spintel presents something decent
- it is barely better and only in some situations
- it is overpriced
- it uses more energy, cos they lie/ misrepresent TDP
- which means you need a better heatsink
- the stock heatsink is junk at stock settings (more $$)
- the bencheez are simply not truthful, and are used to discredit true competitors thru misrepresentation and exaggerated significance
- things are somehow always different in the real world experience - after you get it home
- the real cost to you is hidden - as mentioned by OP
- it will be obsolete in 9 months due to socket changes


and
beyond that
- you have to believe that antitrust is a good thing that does not harm consumers
- you have to sleep at night knowing you undermine your own world by cosigning spintel's above the law bs.
- you have to be willing to turn a blind eye to underhandedness and secret backroom scams
- spintel cares not - as long as they discredit truth and people believe and innocents throw money away unnecessarily
- above the law is not a good image - busted several times for antitrust, and still the arrogance continues - but the legal eagles will fix it

This is easily researched as public opinion, public information, actual evidence, and a closer look reveals even more - or you can pretend that everything is just fine, and believe in benchMarketing from a glorified legally harassed con that has seriously hampered progress and innovation - and you pay for that too.


it's endlessly unbelievable
January 9, 2010 4:47:53 PM

I somewhat agree here, in this way.
Just as Intel took the Ghz path, using P4, and learned alot about power and cooling along the way, as well as creating fast clocks, they came in with C2D

Now, just as AMD has learned at times to find ways to outdo Intel, but always under a low priced model, getting alot out of a little, when this changes, meaning more sales not held back, if they have a killer part coming, and even now, where pricing is showing here, Intels overhead is obviously higher per dollar in, and we also saw AMD have high pricing in the channel, as it was 1 of few outlets for sales, whether this trend would continue in the future ? Who knows. If not tho, AMD will benefit from high pricing like never before, and if not, theyll continue to beat out Intel in pricing, and go after marketshare.
To me, thats why its always harder to stay on top
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 4:50:31 PM

sighQ2 said:
it's endlessly unbelievable


I agree. Nvidia fanboys are like...a minor mystery but I at least get that Nvidia were a great company at one time.

Intel fanboys, especially those who blindly continue to follow intel through all the recent bad news are a major mystery to me. Rather than just do the right thing, which is abandon this evil corporation, they continue to support and make excuses for intels behaviour over and over.

Had AMD released these Clarkdales they would be getting PANNED for crap performance and garbage IGP. And rightly so because that is exactly what these Clarkdales offer at a high price.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 4:56:47 PM

question is will AMD's prices drop?
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 5:03:38 PM

sighQ2 said:
Where did you learn that; magic 8-ball? Maybe you should help AMD with it's pricing - ya think?

AMD's new tech doesn't follow your spinner logic either.

Thanx to spintel's antitrust tactics, we get amazing products from AMD at great prices. The attempted destruction of AMD by spintel, has come back to destroy the great monopoly itself. It's amazing AMD survived the abuse - read the evidence. And now spintel, and people like you, think we should be respectful of some lame offerings which are full of trix and deceptions - after spintel essentially copied the tek used by AMD for nearly a decade - which seems to have triggered the urge to bribe oem leading suppliers - as if 80% market share isn't enough.

It's easy to reject this infinite and endless pile of excrement when you tune out the marketing hype and the benchmarketing; AND LEARN THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF.

Even if spintel presents something decent
1- it is barely better and only in some situations
2 - it is overpriced
3 - it uses more energy, cos they lie/ misrepresent TDP
4 - which means you need a better heatsink
5 - the stock heatsink is junk at stock settings (more $$)
6 - the bencheez are simply not truthful, and are used to discredit true competitors thru misrepresentation and exaggerated significance
7 - things are somehow always different in the real world experience - after you get it home
8 - the real cost to you is hidden - as mentioned by OP
9 - it will be obsolete in 9 months due to socket changes


and
beyond that
10 - you have to believe that antitrust is a good thing that does not harm consumers
11 - you have to sleep at night knowing you undermine your own world by cosigning spintel's above the law bs.
12- you have to be willing to turn a blind eye to underhandedness and secret backroom scams
13 - spintel cares not - as long as they discredit truth and people believe and innocents throw money away unnecessarily
- above the law is not a good image - busted several times for antitrust, and still the arrogance continues - but the legal eagles will fix it

This is easily researched as public opinion, public information, actual evidence, and a closer look reveals even more - or you can pretend that everything is just fine, and believe in benchMarketing from a glorified legally harassed con that has seriously hampered progress and innovation - and you pay for that too.


it's endlessly unbelievable


I'm going to put numbers to your points to make this easier.

1. Correct, clarkdale sucks.
2. Read number 1
3. No, both platforms will use about the same energy, any differences will be negligible.
4. More power consumption =/= more heat produced, and in fact the 32nm process allows the clarkdale to run cooler.
5. Yep
6. There is no evidence or proof of this. You can not look at one article and formulate an opinion. There are so many variables that the only way is to read a multitude of articles to get a consensus, at that point you have discovered the truth.
7. Refer above. Unless you get the exact parts, set them up the same way, and use the same software then you will always get dissimilar results, that is why you read many articles.
8. I'm not sure how this one works, a calculator easily shows the costs.
9. No, intel sockets last as long, if not longer, than AMD sockets in general, but there is no backwards compatibility. Right now LGA 1156 is new and should have atleast 2-3 years like every other socket. The backwards compatibility is a value one must take into account themselves. For me, I upgrade every 3 years so the LGA 1156 is more than new enough for me. I never go with the same socket because advancements usually come with new motherboards or sockets (IE architectures).
10. Why do you have to believe antitrust is a good thing to buy the superior product, assuming it is Intel in your circumstance? As a consumer you should buy the better product and let natural order and government handle competition.
11. I sleep great knowing my processor is the best that I could afford, I have no responsibility to what OEMs Intel bribes.
12. Your right I should just stop buying ANYTHING because it all comes from evil corporations!
13. Your right Intel doesn't care as long as not caring makes them money, just like AMD and every other company.
14. Right, as they produce some of the best products for consumers to buy.

Look Intel does bad things like every other company, but that is not going to make me sell my i5 750 for the inferior Phenom II 965 which does not perform as well, although close, and does not fit my needs with the features I desire.

Your notion that it is best to buy AMD because they are the underdogs and are less corrupt than the competition, while selling inferior products in same instances, truly is endlessly unbelievable.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 5:07:30 PM

The new dual cores I'm sure are aimed towards gamers mostly.

I couldn't see justice in any office computers using these, they should have made some real budget ones so they could have a cheap CPU with a decent upgrade path.

We'll see how far the prices go.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 5:12:37 PM

He is miffed because because it will take 2 McDonalds paychecks to buy one. I don't want to get into a fanboy fight here or anything, but the Clarkdales just do not appear very enticing to me, performance or price point. I think that Intel is once again, for about the 5th time in their history, banking on the average person buying these because
A: They are less expensive than their flagship platform.
B: "I want a kumpooter with one a' dem dar Antel Pendalum chips in it."
January 9, 2010 7:32:50 PM

My own personal opinion is that going to 32nm and creating the fastest CPUs has been costly for Intel and they're trying to recoup those costs by charging premium prices (rightly for the best CPUs). The issue of contention is when they charge a premium for the Clarkdale CPUs when it's not justified. The consumer should be aware of this and not be swayed by positive reviews.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 7:59:37 PM

I'm not super enthused about the new i3 offerings either. But comparing them with Quad-Cores as the OP has done is just not logical. As far as pricing goes, Intel almost has to keep their prices slightly above AMD if even just for marketing purposes. Intel of course paints their processors as better than AMD (and vice versa). If Intel says they are better, yet costs a bunch less, it would make sense that many folks would question, "Seriously...?"

Let's face it, better products usually cost more. And although the i3 CPUs are NOT the same as the i5 or i7 products, they are part of the same "family". The general populace is going to assume the i3 is just as good as the i5/i7 machines, just not quite as fast and less expensive. They aren't going to be comparing specs, data, benchmarks, etc. And let's all be honest here. AMD is using a specific strategy to win sales. They've created a pretty good system in their Phenom II series, and have intentionally priced their product lower than Intel as a means of attracting sales. It's a strategic option, price them less in hopes you sell more because of it, thereby making up your "profit loss".

And as far as the mass market in concerned, the i3 system allows for a fairly powerful Dual-Core system with an integrated graphics system that's better than last year's... For your average "computer" owner who surfs the web and pays bills online, this system is going to thrill them.

For patrons of Tomshardware, this system is a joke. So it's all in perspective.

Would I build an i3 system for gaming? No. But that has more to do with the fact that it's dual-core than anything else. And obviously I'd never use the onboard graphics system, which should go without saying.
January 9, 2010 8:01:47 PM

Raidur said:
The new dual cores I'm sure are aimed towards gamers mostly.

I couldn't see justice in any office computers using these, they should have made some real budget ones so they could have a cheap CPU with a decent upgrade path.

We'll see how far the prices go.


Aimed at gamers? Since when do gamers like to use Intel integrated graphics?
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 8:05:12 PM

yannifb said:
Aimed at gamers? Since when do gamers like to use Intel integrated graphics?


LOL I assumed he meant the "dual-Core" CPU itself, and not the integrated graphic system built into them. Even with that being the case, I think the definite trend in the "gamer" market is becoming quad core.
January 9, 2010 8:22:20 PM

Lol yeah the cpu itself is pretty nice, but your right gamers nowadays use quad cores.

Also to the OP I think its "is Intel" not "are Intel".
January 9, 2010 9:28:46 PM

While Intel's audacity is amazing sometimes, it's possible they are just getting their 32nm process warmed up and trying to avoid the FTC's wrath. It's obvious AMD would have no room to compete if they sold these CPUs any cheaper.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2010 9:35:33 PM

They could sell the i3 530 for $89.99 and it still wouldn't be worth it over the Athlon II X4 620 since there are far better and cheaper AM3 boards out there.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 12:05:08 AM

smithereen said:
While Intel's audacity is amazing sometimes, it's possible they are just getting their 32nm process warmed up and trying to avoid the FTC's wrath. It's obvious AMD would have no room to compete if they sold these CPUs any cheaper.


No you're way off actually smithereen.

Clarkdale actually costs a lot more to make than the Athlon X4. On simple transitor count alone the cpu portion of the clarkdales is about the same as the athlon x4. Yep two cores the same as 4 AMD cores.

Removing L3 cache on the Athlons was an absolute masterstroke by AMD. All that silicon real estate which is not worth it on a transistor/die space - performance ratio.

Intel are basically attempting to justify the cost of these Clarkdales because of their IGP. That is garbage. Intel cannot go lower on price, they are not making 32nm quad cores in 2010.

Put two and two together there. Intel have their *own* market carved up perfectly and they cannot change it in any big way else they lose profits. If these Clarkdales were just 32nm quads with HT? They would blow away any other current cpu in the intel lineup.

That's why they are coming much later, after the uninformed have wasted their cash on this garbage called Clarkdale.
January 10, 2010 12:57:02 AM

Jenny,

Concentrate on the pendulum swinging in front of you. You are becoming sleepy and are open to suggestion. Now you are to despise everything AMD and ATI, and will focus all of your love on Intel and Nvidia. You will toss your AMD in the trash and feel the urge to purchase an i7 975 and a GTX 295 video card. When you wake up you will not remember being told this, but will carry out what was told to you. :kaola: 
January 10, 2010 1:01:01 AM

If you want to get the best for your money, it doesnt come down to company, core count and if you throw out morals etc, morals either, but cost vs perf, period.
Yes, compare the same price brackets, as thats what both companies do.
At which bracket do we have our product? And how does it compare to the competitions parts in that bracket?
If excuses are used from either side, or by others its nuts.
Say, if AMDs duals we killer, but Intel offered better chips thatre quads for less, or same, then wouldnt AMD be full of it? Same goes for Intel, or anyone else stating such things
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 1:20:29 AM

Upendra09 said:
question is will AMD's prices drop?


Well if you go by Neweggs pricing on the X3 720 it doesn't look likely they were $119 about a moth ago and then went to $140 and today are $156 !! (Glad I got mine when they had it with a GIGabyte AM3 790GX MOBO for $193 the first week of DEC. - (Not sure if the price increase is designed to get users to buy the 955 instead so they don't have to disable anymore perfectly good 4th cores (Mine is reenabled and running with no instability at all) or they saw the performance\price of the I3's and figured they could get more !!
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 1:21:32 AM

Quote:
I'm not sure about AMD not being able to create a cpu with good all round abilities. I'm sure the 720 X3 will beat these i3's in just about everything. Those will be interesting benchmarks to see.


yeah if you compare a dual core to tri core of course the tri core is going to do better, now if you compare the i3s to the Regors then the i3 will definitely do better

jitpublisher said:
B: "I want a kumpooter with one a' dem dar Antel Pendalum chips in it."


lol



@ jenny i agree the removal of L3 cahce on the propus was a great idea which is why it is part of my first build :sol:  just want the 620 to drop prices
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 1:39:53 AM

Upendra09 said:
yeah if you compare a dual core to tri core of course the tri core is going to do better, now if you compare the i3s to the Regors then the i3 will definitely do better


You forget to mention that the i3s only do a little bit better for 3 times the price!
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 2:27:48 AM

yeah most likely
January 10, 2010 2:41:27 AM

I think you guys are insulting Jenny accusing her of being ZootyGay.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 10, 2010 2:45:47 AM

doive1231 said:
Are Intel having a laugh? £100 for an i3 530, £115 for an i3 540 and £80 for a motherboard is not the value pricing consumers (including me) were expecting for what is essentially an average chip (not to mention DDR3 @ £45 for 2Gb). In the reviews I have seen (xbitlabs i3 540) it is only as fast as a £70 AMD chip (Phenom II x2 550) in Sysmark productivity. In some games and media apps it is beaten by an AMD Athlon II X4 630 (£86). Given AMD mobos can be found for £60 I'm more than perpelxed by Intel's pricing. These are not the value chips we expected after i7. The premium cannot be justified as the i3's performance is beaten by older quad cores (Q8300 is £105) in lots of apps too.

In additon, we have the usual hype merchants telling us these chips are the best thing since sliced bread. They say the chip is very energy efficient but only some mention that the H55/57 mobos use more energy and so overall the power savings are negligble or even greater. It is also unclear how long this socket will last, so the disaffection I had with LGA775 compared to AMD's AM2,2+ and 3 sockets continues. Spell it out Intel.

I'm not falling for this hype anymore and will stick with my current computer until I feel the products are good value or buy AMD, so tough luck Intel for being inefficient or greedy/stupid.


Thats why when you buy a mobo you make sure that its a decent brand name. BTW, LGA 775 outlasted AM2 and AM2+ in terms of years. But you buy a low end mobo then don't expect support.

As for the pricing, its not bad. A Core i3 540 is $124 on Newegg, only about $10 bucks more than a Core 2 E7400 and much much faster.

notty22 said:
Yes its very much like ATI fabricated the 5 series gpu shortage before december, then raised the prices 50 bucks on their popular cards and magically was able to sell a million more in December.
One MILLION X $50 price gouge = 50 million extra bucks to line the CEO"s pockets.
http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Sells+Over+2+Million+Direc...


Wow. Yet a friend of mine keeps trying to buy one and every time the card is "sold out".

Me smells a pretty smelly scheam here.......
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 3:46:04 AM

warmon6 said:
For the value market, this is the best intel can truthfully do without wiping AMD out of competition. If AMD went out of business we would be seeing these intel cpus at the price of current core i7.

No we wouldn't. Nobody would pay that much for a CPU, not even the OEMs who would never be able to sell a $1.5k PC when they'd previously been selling them for $1k. There's got to be a difference between low end, midrange and high end. Prices would rise undoubtedly, but not that much.

sighQ2 said:
Where did you learn that; magic 8-ball? Maybe you should help AMD with it's pricing - ya think?

AMD's new tech doesn't follow your spinner logic either.

Athlon 64 FX.

yannifb said:
Also to the OP I think its "is Intel" not "are Intel".


Only in America.
January 10, 2010 3:59:02 AM

How come the lamest posts on here go on and on and on forever and really say nothing at all............................

Kinda makes you wonder..........


January 10, 2010 4:01:07 AM

No, it is is, as Clinton would say. Speaking if something about Intel would requre are, speaking of them a is, okeydokely?
January 10, 2010 4:05:19 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Thats why when you buy a mobo you make sure that its a decent brand name. BTW, LGA 775 outlasted AM2 and AM2+ in terms of years. But you buy a low end mobo then don't expect support.

As for the pricing, its not bad. A Core i3 540 is $124 on Newegg, only about $10 bucks more than a Core 2 E7400 and much much faster.



Wow. Yet a friend of mine keeps trying to buy one and every time the card is "sold out".

Me smells a pretty smelly scheam here.......




A i3 540 is $144.99 on new egg. You are thinking of the i3 530. For a new build i3 can be fine but if you have a 775 system you can just pick up a quad core.
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 4:10:30 AM

caamsa said:
How come the lamest posts on here go on and on and on forever and really say nothing at all............................

Kinda makes you wonder..........

Because it's easier to say alot of nothing than something about alot.
January 10, 2010 4:30:06 AM

Depending on if what is, is
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 4:32:52 AM

jimmysmitty said:

As for the pricing, its not bad. A Core i3 540 is $124 on Newegg, only about $10 bucks more than a Core 2 E7400 and much much faster.


Yeah but the AMD Athlon II X2 240 is only $50. The Phenom II X3 720 is $110. The Athlon II X4 620 is $100.

The cheapest LGA 1156 board is $85, an AM3 board can be had for $50 and up.

How is that not a bad value compared to AMD's offerings?
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 4:41:10 AM

PsychoSaysDie, I know your happy with your new build but you have to admit that between AMDs cheaper offerings and the i5 750 there is no real room for clarkdale unless you just want to overclock very high for the sake of it.

$130 + $85, the cheapest you can get, will get you a good Phenom quadcore that outperforms any clarkdale CPU and come very close to i5 750 performance.
January 10, 2010 4:41:18 AM

Quote:
Can someone explain to me what "Crap Performance" is anyway? I think everyone here needs to take a step back and realize what the Clarkdale's are. They are the best dual core ever produced. I sit and laugh at everyone in this thread saying how they can get a Phenom II X3 or X4 for that price. Do you know why amd prices there chips so low? Because's Amd's baddest and most performing chips get beat down by the I5 and I7 lineup. They CANT price them close to intel's quads because they're garbage.

For Example :

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=10...

Amd loses in almost EVERY test to the 750 and the 750 doesn't even have HT. Even with an almost 800mhz advantage it gets its ass kicked. What happens when you go clock for clock? It loses even harder.

Want more?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=10...

Ha! I don't even want to hear the excuses. "Intel is Evil", HT is Cheating", "Turbo is Wrong". Amd fanboi's are just pissed that amd can't make chips that aren't absolute crap compared to intel's. That's why you compare quad core's and X3's to intel's dual core's. Because those are the only chips amd has a chance at beating.

Back to the clarkdale's. Intel crippled these chips because if they had anything like the 750's memory controller they would be putting a hurt on the 750 sales. These chips overclock like crazy and shouldn't be overlooked.

http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww252/2MCHBoost/48.jpg

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=936054

I havnt said anything contrary to Intel having better perf, its more those who say it doesnt matter about the perf, its a dual etc vs etc.
No, its all about costs and perf, period.
Doesnt matter why x cpu cost y amount, or x cpu has y amount of cores etc

Does x beat n? Does it cost less as well? Then whos the idiot preferring n?
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 10, 2010 4:47:12 AM

caamsa said:
A i3 540 is $144.99 on new egg. You are thinking of the i3 530. For a new build i3 can be fine but if you have a 775 system you can just pick up a quad core.


Whoops. Thought it as the 530. Still comparing it to that in price/performance its a winner especially since a decent P45 mobo is over $100 now and a decent set of 4GB of DDR2 is over $80 while a decent Giagbyte 1156 mobo is under $100 and DDR3 is too.

AMW1011 said:
Yeah but the AMD Athlon II X2 240 is only $50. The Phenom II X3 720 is $110. The Athlon II X4 620 is $100.

The cheapest LGA 1156 board is $85, an AM3 board can be had for $50 and up.

How is that not a bad value compared to AMD's offerings?


But if you compare ONLY on price you wont get a full comparison. The Core i3 itself beats the Athlon II X2 240 in performance, power and scaling therfore that $50 dollars might not be worth it. BTW, buy that $50 dollar AM3 mobo and see how great it is. Most likely you will end up with a POS. I never spend less than $100 on a mobo but thats because I buy a brand thats easier to trust than most: Asus. Every mobo they have is pretty decent.

Of course we can't use THGs Core i3 results because they are paid Intel schills as will any other site that says that Core i3 is the best dual core choice out there.

besides you know that if Intel did price them at the same level as AMD, how many sales do you think AMD would get before the FTC cried foul? My bet would be so few that everyone would claim anti-trust all over again.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 10, 2010 4:50:51 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I havnt said anything contrary to Intel having better perf, its more those who say it doesnt matter about the perf, its a dual etc vs etc.
No, its all about costs and perf, period.
Doesnt matter why x cpu cost y amount, or x cpu has y amount of cores etc

Does x beat n? Does it cost less as well? Then whos the idiot preferring n?


I can agree to a point with you here JDJ. Back when the Phenom II X3s first hit any site comparing them to a Intel quad core was considered unfair or Intel biased. They wanted to compare them only to Intels dual cores......

So no that Intel and AMD both have their next gen dual cores out its not fair to compare Itnels dual core to AMDs dual core but instead compare Intels dual core to AMDs tri/quad core.

See what I mean?
January 10, 2010 5:00:42 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I can agree to a point with you here JDJ. Back when the Phenom II X3s first hit any site comparing them to a Intel quad core was considered unfair or Intel biased. They wanted to compare them only to Intels dual cores......

So no that Intel and AMD both have their next gen dual cores out its not fair to compare Itnels dual core to AMDs dual core but instead compare Intels dual core to AMDs tri/quad core.

See what I mean?

No? If it comes to perf, why do some say "of course more cores will win in MT apps"?
If it comes to price, why some say "its only a dual against more cores?", when the price is less for more cores?
Not sure if core counts are important here, it all comes down to perf, as in, average Joe and most of us here have agreed, good enough is good enough, so it comes down to price, right?
Do you think average Joe cares why AMDs chips are cheaper and have better perf? So what? Its a quad, and its better
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 5:03:41 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Whoops. Thought it as the 530. Still comparing it to that in price/performance its a winner especially since a decent P45 mobo is over $100 now and a decent set of 4GB of DDR2 is over $80 while a decent Giagbyte 1156 mobo is under $100 and DDR3 is too.



But if you compare ONLY on price you wont get a full comparison. The Core i3 itself beats the Athlon II X2 240 in performance, power and scaling therfore that $50 dollars might not be worth it. BTW, buy that $50 dollar AM3 mobo and see how great it is. Most likely you will end up with a POS. I never spend less than $100 on a mobo but thats because I buy a brand thats easier to trust than most: Asus. Every mobo they have is pretty decent.

Of course we can't use THGs Core i3 results because they are paid Intel schills as will any other site that says that Core i3 is the best dual core choice out there.

besides you know that if Intel did price them at the same level as AMD, how many sales do you think AMD would get before the FTC cried foul? My bet would be so few that everyone would claim anti-trust all over again.


You can easily get a good motherboard for less than $100 nowadays, motherboards just plain do and matter less. Your right a good AM3 board costs about $70:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Yeah the i3 530 outperforms the Athlon II X2 240, but not by much. If that difference REALLY means a lot to you then you can STILL pay LESS and get MORE performance from the Athlon II X4 620. That is the point, there is better for less.

Let us even pretend that the i3 530 could match the Athlon II X4 620, its still more expensive. The truth is that the Athlon II X4 620 is a quadcore, and the i3 530 is a dualcore with hyperthreading. Sure if the i3 was actually a quadcore is would rock the Athlon II X4 620, but it isn't, hyperthreading just can not compete with the real thing.
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 5:11:34 AM

Quote:
The clarkdale is a niche market. It's for those crazy bastards who love to overclock. I'll admit it myself. I should have bought the 750 but i really don't need it. Is the 750 faster then me at 4.8Ghz. In some apps yes but for everyday computing 4.8Ghz beats a 4Ghz 750. I can't wait to feel what 5.2Ghz feels like.


In honesty a clarkdale CPU @ 4.8 Ghz is no faster than a i5 750 @ 4.0 GHz, at that point you have to have a piss poor CPU not to do well. In the end the extra 2 cores wll make the i5 750 come out on top, but for $70 more. In that comparison the clarkdale is not bad, but the i5 750 is barely cost effective as it is with the competition from AMD let alone clarkdale.

Your right, at 4.0 GHz+ the difference is going to be basically non-existent, except when doing something very multi-threaded, which you most likely do not do, hell I don't. You get the added benefit of just having fun with some insane clocks for a bit less, I understand it perfectly.

Clarkdale = E8600 all over again. I know, I once got an E8600 to 5.0 GHz on water (it was a bad chip and needed 1.625v to get there while most E8600s manage it with 1.5v!).

I will be surprised if you go over 5Ghz on an early 32nm chip, if that is possible so easily then the newer 32nm quads should be insane.

Quote:
I can't wait to feel what 5.2Ghz feels like.


I hope you have CPUz up constantly otherwise you wont feel anything, hell I didn't feel anything after 3.6 GHz.
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2010 5:17:31 AM

Hell, on the topic of feel alone, 4.2GHz is an almost unnoticeable difference from stock on my i7. It sure cuts down on computation times, but the computer itself doesn't feel any snappier.
    • 1 / 12
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!