AMD@$4.15, So when is the Q9550 pricedrop to finally kill them off? - Page 3

Last message on previous page:

It is kind of fun, isn't it. Kind of like watching a train wreck.

You don't want to look... but just can't stop yourself.

(BTW... carry on.I have heard you are the master on this forum and I am but a newbie. I'll just watch.)

You mean like this?

Mainconcept H.264 Encoder
24 sec HDTV 1920x1080 mpeg2 (mpeg2 to H.264)

Phenom 9700 = 63 sec
Phenom 9600 = 65 sec
Phenom 9500 = 68 sec

qx6700 = 63 sec
q6600 = 69 sec
e8500 = 85 sec
e8400 = 90 sec
x6800 = 98 sec


From THG CPU Charts

Huh?? So a 20% performance advantage must only translate into a 20% price premium?

Using your (il)logic, Bugatti is obviously using illegal pricing to try to drive Toyota out of business!!

Why?

Well a Bugatti Veyron can do about 200mph. While a typical $25K Toyota can do about 100mph.

So Bugatti performance = 2 X Toyota performance.

According to you that means Bugatti should be priced at 2X Toyota's price.

Which means Veyron should be no more expensive than $50K. Not the $1.5M they're asking for.

Somebody better alert the FCC. Bugatti is using "illegal pricing" to drive Toyota out of business!!

And who's holding back other companies from coming up with their own CPU?? Nothing.

That's why you have PowerPC, SPARC, in addition to x86.

Just like you have Linux, MacOS in addition to Windows.

What? You're saying PowerPC and SPARC don't count because they aren't compatible with x86?

Then why are you bringing up Linux and MacOS? Guess what - they aren't compatible with Windows either.

Intel at least sell license to x86 to its competitors. Do you think Microsoft sell license to their Windows API so that other companies can produce Windows clones?? Come on, just take one guess...

I was comparing the price from last year of E6600 and Q6600. The Q is two Es, but was only $70 more. $229 vs. $299

No one can overturn MS because of Direct X. If you can't have DX, you can't do anything with Windows. Intel is a different beast than MS also because MS only sells intellectual property whereas Intel actually sells physical products. That's why they have been convicted of anti-trust nearly everywhere in the world. They know how hard it is to prove "predatory pricing"or erecting an illegal barrier to entry. Not saying they're doing that.

Before E6600 was decommissioned in Q2 07, E6600 costs 224 USD (tray price), while Q6600 costs 530 USD (tray price). So there's no "predatory pricing" there, by your definition.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/Intel_ [...] /4920.html


By Jul-22, E6600 was already decommissioned, and Q6600 was dropped to 266USD. The similar clocked dual core E6550 cost 163 USD. Since there's only one packaging for the quad core as opposed to two E6550, the cost of Q6600 is cheaper by a small margin.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/Intel_ [...] /4976.html

Seriously BM, stop it. Go back and write your screenplay.

VR Zone doesn't sell processors. Newegg does. That's where I got those prices. Let's see if we can ask them how much the chips were last year. I don't need to lie. CPUs are NOT selling near the tray prices anymore. 9850 tray price was 235 and the retail price was 235.

That came from inflated mobile prices. Check the prices of mobile vs. desktop and the rate of sale of each. They knew that they could use mobile and destroy AMDs desktop profits. AMD is hanging in because of server chips and the move from 200mm to 300mm wafers.

So you're saying that if you don't know about OCing, you are not getting shafted if you buy a QX9650 rather than a Q6600? And if so, is that good for customers?

x86 licences (a.k.a Intel). The worldwide common definition of "CPU" - although incorrect - is something that can run x86 code (a.k.a 90% of what is written nowadays).

So, how is the average user supposed to take advantage of that? Can he buy one of those and run what we wants/needs?

They're softwares. Anyone can write a damn software - unless it is a perfect clone -, even if it does the exact same thing that another one does. I won't have to pay Symantec or Microsoft if I want to develop and sell an anti-virus software or an OS.

Yes, I am, since no average end-user can really take advantage of them. BTW, where could one buy a SPARC? I'm just curious.

Of course they aren't: they don't want to be. They choose not to be. However, take a look at WINE. It allows a Linux user to run Windows-based code through a implementation of the Microsoft API (with 100% non-Microsoft code). Do the creators of WINE have to pay Microsoft for that? Does the end-user have to? They don't "block" anything: they are simply created in different ways which require different code because they want to. Yet, they have a nice "interoperability".

Read above. ;D

So, what happened to VIA? They have a x86 license - just as they "had" a FSB licence - and yet they don't have anything to compete with Intel except for NANO (and I bet it's not simply because they don't want to or can't do it at all). If I remember correctly AMD also had a FSB licence. Then Intel decided it wouldn't give them a 1333 FSB one after the ATI merger, although AMD would still pay for it. Why? Of course Microsoft won't open source its code - and they can choose not to do that -, but that doesn't prevent anyone from developing its own OS. You don't have to pay them if you want to create "MyOS". However, you can't create a x86 based CPU if Intel doesn't want you to, even if you're willing to pay for it. Note that by letting someone create a x86 based CPU it doesn't mean Intel has to lend its engineering secrets, but just LET someone come up with their own x86 based architecture - and nobody can do even that. It's like saying that I can't make a SODA because Mountain Dew already does that, even if I don't intend to use their formula.

Um yea... so far the preliminary benches (with a grain of salt) from Anand on Nehalem on a clock per clock level (2.66GHz) vs a Q9450 was anywhere from 20-50% in most areas in effect giving a average of about 25%. Where you got this 10% crap when there has yet to be enough benchmarks is beyond me..

Now granted one benchmark is not enough to go on but considering that was very eraly samples and a very early mobo its not that bad to see.

Now you must not have read my post more over just jumped to a conclusion. I wasn;t mentioning anything about price. My whole point was if the performance of a E8500 and QX9770 was the same it would mean the programs used were only optimized for up to 2 threads. Barons stated 2x the performance whatever he said I was just stating that if you take a E8500 vs a QX9770 in a program that can use more than 2 threads the results tend to always favor the quad over the dual, like in the post wisecracker made.

I also said nothing about AMD or them dying or whatever. All I said is comparing a dual to a quad means overall and not just using benchmarks that scale to 2 cores only.

As for the price, the only reason AMD cannot put their Phenoms higher in price (much like the K8 days with chips in the high) is because the performance does not warrant it. Let me ask you thins. Would you rather pay $250 for a Q6600 that can OC to 3GHz or $500 for a Phenom 9750BE that cannot unless it has a newer specific SB chip? Earlier this year if Phenom did arrive at that as a price point it would not have sold at all. Charging $500 dollars for a chip that on a clock per clock level is not outperforming a rival chip just does not work.

But please next time read my post don't put words in my mouth. And please refrain from insulting people because I never did anything to you.

Why would AMD pay for the 1333 FSB when they use a IMC now and consitently bash Intels FSB? Every chip AMD has has a IMC. I understand what you are saying really but it doesn't make any sense.

Considering that Intel does have the petent and are the sole inventors of the x86 arch I would imagine as long as there is one competator (AMD) Intel would have control over the license and would decide if they want to have a person be able to use it.

Of course someone could easily try to create a x86 based arch but then if they did not have a license they would be sued out of business. Just like if someone created a OS and then a API that would run DX based games. Unless they had MS go ahead they would be gone.

I personally have nothing wrong with a company creating something and getting credit for it as long as they use it. What I have a problem with is Universities and other people creating something, petenting it and never using it for anything but a way to wait and get a lawsuit out of it.

Man this forum is going downhill faster by the minute. All these people and the down voting and the stupidity. Bleh is annoying.

Awesome rating results.

Awesome ...

Been looking forward to this sort of response for some time.

The trolls are being wiped from the threads.

TC would be so proud of us all .... LOL !!!

LoL -3 already oh well whatever.

Word, Playa.

I have one account spud.

The rating system was largely ignored until TC made such a big deal out of it ... and stirred up all of the Intel fanboys.

A lot of people who were often just trying to be a bit funny or making a joke found themselves being rated down.

A few have stopped posting over the last few weeks ... I have tended to take a bit of a break myself ... for that reason.

Now it is just getting a bit silly.

I argued to just get rid of it.

Interesting that BM has never been more popular.

I quite like the guy ... I don't get the animosity some seem to have for him ... targeting him maliciously ...

Hell ... I find thunderman hilarious ... maybe I have a warped sense of humour?

VIA4WIFE !!!

Um wow.... did ya look at the Anand tech review? They did more than just the ones THG did.

And reynod, the system was barely abused like this even after TC mentioned it. In fact before it was normal use for dumb posts.

Now its probably just BM doing it because he doen't like people who disagree with him....as you can see only those who agree with him or himself have + where as those who disagree and prove him wrong have - posts.

Even spud who never made a comment bout CPUs got - posts.

If you like BM thats great. The guy is full of it if ya ask me.

That pretty much sums everything. After I-am-legend-Baron returned I thought he would get spanked by the rating system - since most people argue a lot with him, although I like many of his posts - , yet, he's all the rage on the rating system. He's definitely not bad, but usually overrated. And then I decide to give the hidden posts a chance and find most of them perfectly reasonable - simply disagreeing with someone's, now usually Baron's.

I'm now using "Show comments: All" for the sake of my conscience.

I've never denied Core2Duo being an Improvement over past Intel offerings...I just feel people have been mislead over the abilities. The problem with the FSB is it will bottleneck a system quite severely when the demand is high. When it is claimed the Core2Duo and their Doublecheese burger Quad offerings outperform AMD's offerings this is not true. Those in Professional environments need their processors to multi-task well and That's why AMD still have the overall lead when it comes to complete system performance. Yes the Intel might be better in Quake FPS, only because they overclock better. Clock for Clock the Phenom can match Intel in games..the Intel's pull a lead because of the higher overclocks...However AMD's K10 advanced capabilities means it's better overall. On the Overclocking side... AMD has made huge improvements with the Black edition..when they go 45nm this should improve overclocks substantially meaning Intels overclocking lead is pretty much toast.

Nehalem is an improvement for Intel because now they can join the native Quad IMC club. I said in a previous post Nehalem will fail...I didn't state my reasons why. As an expert I can give my analysis on why the Nehalem will fail. We know AMD has better servers, please read my thread about the world record performance of AMD's Opteron which leaves current Intel's for dust, the prove is there to be read. Why would any company want to upgrade to Nehalem when they can upgrade their existing AMD platforms?...which works out more cost effective. Also on the desktop side the performance expectation is looking bleak because it hardly outperforms Core2Duo in set applications. Nehalem will almost certainly destroy C2D and Core2Cheeseburger where multi-tasking is concerned...it's just AMD have been offering this kind of superior mult-tasking performance for a long time..so Nehalem is too little too late. Add to the fact Nehalem is basically stolen AMD technologies...this means Nehalem owners will feel down about not owning the original article the K10.

Feel the smoothness of Using K10! Multi-tasking like never before!

AMD4LIFE!!!! AMD4LIFE!!! AMD4LIFE!!!

Thunder, I almost rated you up for this one, pal. I admire you for writing this long text of yours - especially since you usually don't post in the middle of a thread -, but those parts in bold wouldn't allow me to give you a fair +1.

They were awesome, though. Hahaha. I don't know what it is, but you definitely got some, boy. You have that "special nameless thing". O:

^^lol.......double cheese burger........i lik that.....
and may be me took it too far with the nehalem owners feeling down but i don think nehalem will change the face of this earth.......maybe nex time when intel betters its MC, but i don think this time.....

I have ONE ACCOUNT. Troll on. And I have yet to vote on any posts. I don't care enough.

Why would this mess of a post be rated up by anybody? Its a grammatical MESS, not even correct English.

This topic has been closed by CompTIA_Rep