Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel so overpriced

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 22, 2012 1:34:55 AM

Hello,
I am building a new computer rig used for video editing, photo editing, and running a game server. I am trying to pick a processor, either the Intel 3930k or the AMD Bulldozer FX 8150. Why is the Intel, with much lower specs than the AMD (6 Core 3.2GHZ for Intel vs. 8 core 3.6GHz for AMD) so much more expensive ($600 for Intel vs. $250 for AMD). and what should I pick?

More about : intel overpriced

Best solution

a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
August 22, 2012 1:54:05 AM

A lot of reasons, but a much cheaper (although still not as cheap as the 8150) 3770K would still be better than a 8150. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=551

As you can see, the 8150 has no chance against a 3770K (a 4 core/8 thread CPU, mind you) and that's a big part of the cost difference. You get what you pay for...

Will a 8150 work for what you need it to? Yes, but a 3770K will do it better.

Edit: Here's the 3930K vs. a 8150, in case you were wondering, just to drive that point home, as well. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=552

Now, in posting that, you can see that going with a 3770K is a much more cost effective way to go, for not a ton worse performance than a 3930K.
Share
August 22, 2012 2:02:05 AM

Because the intel 6 core is aimed at very high end users who are willing to pay £400+ for just a cpu. There's much cheaper intel cpus about that will still leave the AMD standing in most things.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 472 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
a c 119 À AMD
August 22, 2012 2:02:21 AM

Intel Socket 2011 CPUs are considered "Enthusiast" CPUs. Real enthusiasts want performance above all else. They are the ones who would say paying $$$ more just 100MHz more speed is worth it because their CPU intensive tasks are so demanding that they are willing to pay a premium to reduce the amount of time it takes to do whatever they do.

Specs clockspeed don't mean much anymore, not since AMD showed Intel that if the CPU can process more Information Per Cycle (IPC), it does not have to be clocked as high as a CPU with less IPC. That was the classic Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 battle back in 2002. AMD was able to reign as king of hill in terms of overall performance from that point on.... for a few years. AMD CPUs even sold for more than Intel CPUs for a short period of time because of the performance difference.

Intel has taken that page right out of AMD's playbook and was able to completely dominate CPU performance ever since the release of the Core 2 Duo / Quad CPUs back in mid-2006. IPC... it's all about IPC. Click below for benchmarks of the FX-8150 and the i7-3930k.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=552

Is the performance difference worth the price difference? That depends on whatever you believe in.

Is the GTX 680 worth $100 more than the GTX 670? The performance difference is only about 10%. Is the GTX 690 worth double the price of the GTX 680 if the performance difference is only about 45% on average.

The more performance you want the more it will end up costing you.

I wish I could buy a Ferrari 599, but sadly I can only afford to by a Chevy Camaro.
Score
0
a c 171 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
August 22, 2012 2:14:40 AM

Superoswald said:
Hello,
I am building a new computer rig used for video editing, photo editing, and running a game server. I am trying to pick a processor, either the Intel 3930k or the AMD Bulldozer FX 8150. Why is the Intel, with much lower specs than the AMD (6 Core 3.2GHZ for Intel vs. 8 core 3.6GHz for AMD) so much more expensive ($600 for Intel vs. $250 for AMD). and what should I pick?


Current generation Intel processors don't have lower specs than current generation AMD processors, quite the opposites actually.

Sandybridge/Ivybridge processors get approximately 2.5 times the integer throughput per clock per core. That puts a 3930k on par with a similarly clocked 16 core bulldozer CPU.
Score
0
August 22, 2012 2:54:34 AM

Best answer selected by Superoswald.
Score
0
August 22, 2012 2:56:10 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
A lot of reasons, but a much cheaper (although still not as cheap as the 8150) 3770K would still be better than a 8150. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=551

As you can see, the 8150 has no chance against a 3770K (a 4 core/8 thread CPU, mind you) and that's a big part of the cost difference. You get what you pay for...

Will a 8150 work for what you need it to? Yes, but a 3770K will do it better.

Edit: Here's the 3930K vs. a 8150, in case you were wondering, just to drive that point home, as well. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=552

Now, in posting that, you can see that going with a 3770K is a much more cost effective way to go, for not a ton worse performance than a 3930K.


Thanks, Im going for a 3770k.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 22, 2012 4:33:34 AM

This topic has been closed by Nikorr
Score
0
!