Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why are AMD processors cheaper than INTEL Processors??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2010 1:33:27 PM

Amd believesin price per performance while intel is better, the amd quad core is more powerful than the core 2 duo and quad. That is ifyou. Uy the phenom ii architecture of the amd brand. Intel prices there cpus higher because they can, and they equakize competition (sort of). Hope this helped!
Score
0
a c 159 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
June 1, 2010 1:33:56 PM

Performance and market share. Amd can't compete with Intel's high end cpus, but at the low to mid range, they sometimes offer a better value.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2010 2:20:56 PM

You could think of AMD as the poor man's Intel.
Score
0
June 1, 2010 2:26:45 PM

Well bought a CORE2DUO E8400 for my old computer . Now i was wandering that is it good then AMD PHENOM x4(as it has four cores for less price)??
Score
0
June 1, 2010 2:58:03 PM

Well... What i learn and have knowledge.

Amd are cheaper then intel cause it build suitable for gaming only and little program.

Intel are expensive cause the processor can do a lot then Amd can do such are gaming, extreme programming and more.

Both are good and best depend all your budget and use.... :-)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2010 3:12:53 PM

AMD is price for performance.

The highest end Core2Quads are equal to the highest end PhenomII x4.
The PhenomII x6 are equal to the higher end i5 Quads and lower end i7 Quads.
Score
0
a c 102 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 1, 2010 3:27:55 PM

If you take into account you get more for your money with AMD motherboards they are generally better for your money unless you can afford the i5 750 at this price and above Intel tends to be better unless you are running applications that use the extra cores in the X6s
Score
0
June 1, 2010 3:51:23 PM

If the market share were swapped!
i.e if Amd had 80% and intel only 20%, you would be asking otherwise.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 1, 2010 4:32:21 PM

shreejan86 said:
Well bought a CORE2DUO E8400 for my old computer . Now i was wandering that is it good then AMD PHENOM x4(as it has four cores for less price)??


Socket 775 chips are mostly a bad value now, either the Phenom II system or an I3 system would perform better for less money than the E8400.

AMD doesn't have as good of an architecture as Intel right now, they seem to give you more cores for less so that you get better multithreaded performance from them while loosing single threaded performace to Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2010 6:05:01 PM

Intel has the performance crown. AMD has the price crown. It's all about trying to capture market share. Intel dominates the high end game, where as AMD focuses on the low to mid-range products because they can't keep up with Intel developmentally. Intel has more money, and can research and produce newer products faster so it seems. So AMD has been behind for a couple/few years now.

Between the E8400 and a Phenom II X4, I might slightly lean toward the AMD chip. Simply because we're finally at a point now where Quad Core CPUs are beginning to help (games these days finally are supporting them). The E8400 was a beast in it's day though.

On the Intel end though, the i5-750 CPU (Quad Core) is the best choice compared to the Phenom II X4 chips.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2010 9:34:55 AM

Intel's name/marketing/advertising also gives them a chance to charge a premium.

TBH, the average person probably hasn't even heard of AMD, which is quite sad.
Score
0
June 2, 2010 10:09:58 AM

Maybe because Intel is more popular so they can priced their products more.

BUT we should thank AMD because AMD processors are cheap, Intel tries not to increase their price too much otherwise more and more people will to AMD.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 2, 2010 10:15:29 AM

To be frank, it's because Intel currently has the faster CPU architecture, and thus has the faster processors. They possess the majority of the high-end mainstream to enthusiast sector, while AMD, with their slower CPU architecture (clock for clock), 'controls' the budget to middle mainstream sector. AMD's Phenom II X4 965 3.4GHz Black Edition processor used to cost $240. However, when Intel released their Core i5 750 2.66GHz processor which was faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE, and had a price of $200. This dropped the price of the Phenom II X4 965 BE to $180, where it currently sits.
Score
0
June 2, 2010 10:43:39 AM

Simple answer : Because Intel is more popular, and ordinary people has not heard of AMD. Just ask a normal person.


Complicated answer : Intel currently has the fastest stock processor, so to attract customers they need to adjust their prices.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2010 11:33:07 AM

shreejan86 said:
Why are AMD processor (quad core) are cheaper than intel (dual core). Are the AMD quads poor than the inte dual core processors?? or whats the reason ??


AMD does not advertise as much as Intel therefore whatever savings made on this are passed on to the consumer. So next time you buy an AMD CPU, do them the favor and pass the good word.
Score
0
June 2, 2010 4:52:38 PM

Intel is running on much newer fab processes and have brand-new arch, so they're charging a premium for the Newest... plus the normal Intel brand tax.

AMD does make great products. If you want the absolute fastest stock CPUs, go Intel. If you want a cheap CPU that OCs well for 1/2 the price and runs all your games just fine, go AMD.

I like my i7 more than any AMD offerings, but AMD still makes a damn good product.
Score
0
June 4, 2010 5:48:20 PM

Raidur said:
Intel's name/marketing/advertising also gives them a chance to charge a premium.

TBH, the average person probably hasn't even heard of AMD, which is quite sad.


yeah some of my friends at work are so much blinded by core 2 duo ***... :fou: 
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2010 6:49:53 PM

stridervm said:
Simple answer : Because Intel is more popular, and ordinary people has not heard of AMD. Just ask a normal person.


Complicated answer : Intel currently has the fastest stock processor, so to attract customers they need to adjust their prices.


Simple answer is wrong. When Athlon X2 was the top end CPU, AMD charged a premium. Its mainly based on who has the clock per clock top end performance. If Phenom II matched or beat Nehalem, i would be priced like Athlon X2 was with a premium.

Thats how it always is. In terms of GPUs for example, ATI has always been the "underdog" and less known vs nVidia but when the 9700Pro came out and spanked the G4K series, ATI charged a premium.

Thats how i is in the PC world. The best performing hardware parts always charge a premium.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2010 10:09:26 PM

^ +1.

Also, the main reason why AMD CPUs are cheaper than Intel CPUs, is because AMD charges less money for theirs :D ...
Score
0
June 4, 2010 10:29:57 PM

I also have a E8400 cpu. With stock cooling. I have it O/C'd to 3.6 Ghz. I am going to buy a Cool Master V8 cooler. And O/C it to 4.0 Ghz easy. ANd I bet it will perform Better than AMD x4 Phenom 965. The only thing I hate about intel is that the change the Sockets too much.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
June 5, 2010 12:59:48 AM

Actually AMD dropped their bag of marbles on the playground and are still in the process of picking them back up.

Of course that reference was probably before your time of simpler days of fun and games.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2010 9:54:24 PM

witcherx said:
yeah some of my friends at work are so much blinded by core 2 duo ***... :fou: 


Yeah, most 'non computer literate' I've talked to about processors usually still think Pentium 4 is the best series. :pfff: 
Score
0
June 8, 2010 10:06:50 PM

Intel has to pay for all those different sockets some how...
I mean how many different sockets for P4 alone?
no I kid, I kid.
I personally have never felt a difference. x4 3Ghz is x4 3Ghz.
I dont like how Intel hsa different priority in processing,
but I also hate how I cant increase priority past high with AMD.

Realistically, Intel charges what they do, because they can. AMD, could charge more, easily, but they usually play the checks and balances role. Which is nice.

Without one, there would be a monopoly, and that would be bad for market.
I wont pay 1K for 3.33 when I can get 3.4 or 3.6 for $300, but thats just me. Like stated above, I believe in price for performance, just like AMD does.
Niether one is bad, and for the most part, I can't tell a difference between same number of cores, and same Mhz.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2010 1:30:43 AM

shreejan86 said:
Well bought a CORE2DUO E8400 for my old computer . Now i was wandering that is it good then AMD PHENOM x4(as it has four cores for less price)??


Short answer: It could be.

Long answer: You haven't even said what you do with your computer.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
June 9, 2010 3:33:55 AM

witcherx said:
If the market share were swapped!
i.e if Amd had 80% and intel only 20%, you would be asking otherwise.


aaafirmative! :whistle: 
Score
0
June 20, 2010 9:12:33 AM

ksampanna said:
You could think of AMD as the poor man's Intel.


..you could, but you'd be wrong.
Score
0
June 20, 2010 9:25:41 AM

4Ryan6 said:
Actually AMD dropped their bag of marbles on the playground and are still in the process of picking them back up.

Of course that reference was probably before your time of simpler days of fun and games.



....in fairness they were very excited to find themselves in the position they found themselves in....good comment, even as an AMD nut I can live with this one.... :pt1cable:  Not so good for us who wanted to adopt a dualie of the day, burnt a hole in my pocket that's for sure.....but the pain was worth it.... :sol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2010 11:25:38 AM

@OP: Are you talking about either the dual core i5 or C2D?

Dual core i5's pricing are just idiotic except the i5-530. C2D is too old and so they are short of stock. Thus, overpriced.

If you are thinking of getting either of these, I would suggest that you grab a i5-750 instead. It is much better than PII-X4 when OCed.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2010 11:31:03 AM

witcherx said:
If the market share were swapped!
i.e if Amd had 80% and intel only 20%, you would be asking otherwise.

Not really have to. You would see that if AMD was better than Intel in performance as in 2005.
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 20, 2010 1:00:31 PM

Why are AMD processors ... ?

If AMD charged more, they would lose market share.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 21, 2010 10:23:25 PM

Falsepuppet said:
Intel has to pay for all those different sockets some how...
I mean how many different sockets for P4 alone?
no I kid, I kid.
I personally have never felt a difference. x4 3Ghz is x4 3Ghz.
I dont like how Intel hsa different priority in processing,
but I also hate how I cant increase priority past high with AMD.

Realistically, Intel charges what they do, because they can. AMD, could charge more, easily, but they usually play the checks and balances role. Which is nice.

Without one, there would be a monopoly, and that would be bad for market.
I wont pay 1K for 3.33 when I can get 3.4 or 3.6 for $300, but thats just me. Like stated above, I believe in price for performance, just like AMD does.
Niether one is bad, and for the most part, I can't tell a difference between same number of cores, and same Mhz.



I would have to disagree due to observational evidence. When AMD were Top dog with the AMD Athlon64 X2, they charged a premium, when Intel released their Core 2 Duo line things changed. Intel dropped the overall pricing structure of their CPUs to far bellow not only what they used to charge but also what AMD charged.

This forced AMD to drop their prices on their entire lineup.

When you lose the "halo" effect granted to your entire product line by having the "performance crown"... enthusiasts will generally then snub your products.

It is the same for AMD or Intel.

Sorry to say but AMD is not some benevolent white knight riding in on his pale horse to save you, the damsel in distress, from uncertain doom (high prices).
Score
0
June 21, 2010 11:58:36 PM

AMD believe in Price/Performace whilst Intel charge as much as they can because they can. Intel believe in quality and the human mind interprates costly=good. IMO AMD are better for budget builds but if you want a powerhouse I suggest you go with Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 12:41:10 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Sorry to say but AMD is not some benevolent white knight riding in on his pale horse to save you, the damsel in distress, from uncertain doom (high prices).

*cough* Athlon 64 FX *cough*
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 2:38:36 AM

xtream_ocer_intel_nvidia said:
AMD believe in Price/Performace whilst Intel charge as much as they can because they can. Intel believe in quality and the human mind interprates costly=good. IMO AMD are better for budget builds but if you want a powerhouse I suggest you go with Intel.

NO NO NO!

Worse companies believe in Price/Performace whilst the best ones charge as much as they can because they can.
As I mentioned previously, AMD charged more than Intel in 2005 when Intel was with the so failed Pentium D.

In fact, sometimes Intel is the kind guy that make you AMD fanboys get bargains. For example, the PII-955 would still be extremely
overpriced if i5-750 was not released.

Do you think AMD would sell you bargains if they are superior than Intel? NO WAY!

Both AMD and Intel are commercial companies instead of charity organizations who care nothing but profit. They will charge as much as they can.
Thus, being a fanboy of either company is just foolish. I always stick with whichever is better.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 3:34:19 PM

Geez - I hope JennyH never reads these comments about AMD overcharging if they could - she'd have a stroke fer shure! :kaola: 

After all, everybody knows AMD CPUs cure cancer, stops Gulf oil leaks, and raises their user IQs by a factor of 2!

Of course, unfortunately for the last part, that still means just 2 digits in their IQs :D .
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 4:39:43 PM

randomizer said:
*cough* Athlon 64 FX *cough*


Yep... I remember the AMD Athlon64 FX.. especially the FX-51 which I owned and which cost me over $1K CAD.

Socket 940 was the socket my FX-51 used (due to Registered and ECC DRAM requirements).

That platform lasted but a few months before being replaced.

Some people tend to neglect history when they claim AMD to be a benevolent white knight lol

Right now AMD is doing the performance/price thing because they have the inferior product and need to do as such in order to keep their heads above water.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 5:45:20 PM

When Intel and AMD were struggling neck and neck, processor prices came down precipitously. At one point, I'm quite sure that Intel was taking a loss with processor sales in order to create and edge on AMD. Intel had the money to spare, since they were fighting for the performance crown.

Now that Intel has regained that crown, you will find that prices for their kit is expensive when AMD isn't able to offer up competition, while AMD is having to price their high-end lineup against Intel's medium high end product. This means that AMD processors are a very good deal right now, while Intel is putting all their profit in the bank for the next time AMD decides to make another run at the performance crown. This is the reason why AMDs lineup and price structure seem so compressed, and why there is a huge price gap between the middle and high end Intel product.

If AMD takes a nosedive, this spells doom for us as the consumer, since the forces of competition are no longer keeping prices in check and we will see Intel charge through the nose for all their product, not just the high end.

To be honest, the end user would barely be able to tell the difference between Intel and AMD processors. The difference in performance to the average lay person is marginal, measured in thousandths of a second. The average person can barely discern the difference between 30 FPS and 80 FPS. Yes, if you know what you are looking for, it would make a difference to you. But for the average consumer, it doesn't really matter, except for the hype.

Currently, I have both Intel and AMD kit sitting under my desk. Both run Windows 7 just fine, and they both also run any number of Posix distros. Anyone who wants to point out the differences between the high-end products would be better off circumcising a gnat for all the differences.
Score
0
August 28, 2010 12:29:40 PM

"To be honest, the end user would barely be able to tell the difference between Intel and AMD processors."

That's exactly right, but they sure would notice the difference between the performance of Intel Integrated Graphics and a mid range Radeon....wouldn't they? It's a tough life when you get behind....
Score
0
August 28, 2010 12:54:16 PM

jsc said:
Why are AMD processors ... ?

If AMD charged more, they would lose market share.



....and so too would Intel...They can only charge outrageous prices for the extreme top end.... and for the same reason as AMD .... 980X's and the like could not meet the demand for a mainstream processor....one needs to get ones fill on bread and butter, not premium steak....

...and although Intel has a small slice of premium steak, AMD bakes the better bread.....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 28, 2010 1:26:34 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!