The "REAL" price difference between a Phenom 2 and I7 System - Page 4 - CPUs

Last message on previous page:
To me, the AMD wins hands down because most people upgrading to the Phenom II are not starting from scratch. We're people looking to stretch our existing technology as far as it can go and dropping a Phenom II into our existing AM2/AM2+ Mobos and DDR2 Ram is a slam dunk compared to upgrading RAM, CPU, and Mobo.

Even further, we can still have the option of going DDR3 and a newer Mobo a little while down the line and still have a decent setup.

Not everyone, especially in this economic climate, can afford the highs costs for each upgrade that Intel likes to make us do. Sure after 3 years we will both probably have spent somewhere near the same amount, but Intel makes us do it all at once here, while AMD gives us a "flexible payment plan"

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Gator_Shawn

Register or log in to remove.

Keith stop your nonsense. You're a AMD fanboy.

Its not about the features of the cpu. Whohoo Intels unlocked EE is $1000 bucks. The x4 920 unlocked is 940 is 220.

Only a complete fanboy troll like yourself compares those two cpus. Like I said before. Only a troll compares either companies EE/FX cpus vs the rest. If AMD takes back the peformace crown from Intel like they had with k8s you best believe the FX series will come back. And you best believe they would cost just as much. If this was the scenario again only a Intel troll would compare the Intel mainstream part to the AMD FX

I think Intel is basically stupid as hell to even sell any EE editions at that price. I am not a fanboy of either company. Somewhere in this thread my 1st post was something of the likes wow we got a Intel version of enigma. Which meant a Intel fanboy making the cheapeast possible i7 build vs the most expensive PII build.

Me a fanboy. HAHA thats funny. Keep on comparing a $200 dollar cpu to $1000 one you troll.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to someguy7

Im not so sure youll see those kinds of prices on any AMD product for awhile, and it wont be because of perf either. A prime example of this is the 4870x2, until recently, the fastest gpu around. It came in under 100+$ of the G280 pricing, which was the old standard, and old way of pricing. Even now, nVidia 295 isnt as expensive as the first G280 prices, as they learned how to too. Itll be awhile before Intel gets it, but their EEs are way too pricy, and theyve just created a 2 tier level of perf on their cpus. I would also suggest that listing any i7 as Intel does is deceptive, as they all clock up, just like C&Q . It just so happens that until now, all former cpus were rated at their top operating speed, and Intel is trying to change this with a gimmick. If it is so sensitive as claimed, then it is nothing more than a C&Q type thing, and these cpus should be listed accordingly, not at lower clocks, where almost nothing keeps them there

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

jaydeejohn wrote :

Maybe they should should just take the EE out? Thatd be fine with me. Whowants to pay that much for a chip anyways? Like I said awhile ago, its the old way of thinking Intel is stuck on, and its phail city. Too much for their highend. Isnt this the mindeset were trying to reform nowadays? I think it should be brought up, and discussed, and Im sure most dont like what theyre doing. Sure, draw a premium for an unlocked chip, but not 4x the price of their lowest same model series. If enough people complained, and dissuaded people from buying these things, maybe theyd drop the prices on them.
Anyways, a valid point, and shows how Intel hasnt gotten it yet, but Im sure they will eventually

Intel offers the EE's because (1) they can, (2) to clearly stake out the performance lead, and (3) there's probably enough e-peen enthusiasts around to make it worth their while . As long as they have customers for it, it's not "phail city" - it's similar to the mindset of 'having the best' that drives a portion of the Mac market, and probably 100% of the Alienware market, whether it makes any practical sense or not.

Intel also offers Atom CPUs for the extreme low end, which AMD does not cover to any degree - does that make AMD somehow out of tune with the current economy?

Personally I doubt many people here would buy an i965 or i975, when they know they can just oc the i920.

Reply to fazers_on_stun

someguy7 wrote :

Keith stop your nonsense. You're a AMD fanboy.

Its not about the features of the cpu. Whohoo Intels unlocked EE is $1000 bucks. The x4 920 unlocked is 940 is 220.

Only a complete fanboy troll like yourself compares those two cpus. Like I said before. Only a troll compares either companies EE/FX cpus vs the rest.

Basically the QX9650 is the same things as the Q9650 except it is also unlocked and may have a different stepping. It is 3x the price to get that unlocked clock. You pay the additional money merely for the benefit of having the unlocked feature.

Somehow it is different when the company that provides the unlocked feature is not Intel and is basically giving that feature away. BUT nobody is allowed to point that out or you get upset and start ranting.

Okay I understand completely. I'll stop posting now so you can live in your fantasy world.

I might also point out that your post beats mine in the amount of times you call me a fanboy and/or troll. (I guess you believe that if you do that enough that you might warp reality so that what you want to believe will become true? It's not going to work.)

jaydeejohn wrote :

and Intel is trying to change this with a gimmick.

Don't call it a gimmick. That will upset people like the honored gentleman I answered above. It won't matter that any Intel CPU that has this "feature" that gets put into most professional situations will have both Turbo Boost AND hyperthreading disabled. Somehow people want to pretend that won't happen.

Reply to keithlm

Look, guys, we all know that market segments are created by both ATI and Nvidia, AMD and Intel in two ways:

1. By disabling a feature that doesn't work on a product, whether core for AMD or cache for AMD and Intel. On the GPU side, shaders are disabled with different clocks and varying amounts or generation of memory. It all allows for a product that might fail at the high end to work well at the mainstream or entry level.

2. By offering CPU's with unlocked multipliers or essentially cherry picked factory overclocked GPU's for people willing to pay the premium, no matter how foolish that seems to most of us (and envy is part of it -- I've put $2,000 into upgrades, new builds some years but that had to cover 3 or 4 PC's, not one enthusiast high end, sure I wish I could afford $6,000 a year LOL).

That is all business as usual. It's normal. It's not a fail. It's allowed all four companies to do quite well at various times.

I'm an ATI/AMD fan, but it's clear to me that nothing Intel's doing with their CPU's right now is unethical the way the OEM rebate program was. I just do not want an i7. What I want is a native 3.6 gigahertz black edition Phenom II quad @ 95 watts for under $200. I can wait, I can wait...

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by yipsl on 03-07-2009 at 12:29:49 AM

------------------------------ Phenom 8750, ASUS M3A78T
4 gigs Kingston DDR2 800 two 1T SAMSUNG HD103UI
Sapphire 4870x2, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM
Antec Neo 650 PSU Antec Nine Hundred, Acer H213H 1080p LCD
Reply to yipsl

yipsl wrote :

Look, guys, we all know that market segments are created by both ATI and Nvidia, AMD and Intel in two ways:

1. By disabling a feature that doesn't work on a product, whether core for AMD or cache for AMD and Intel. On the GPU side, shaders are disabled with different clocks and varying amounts or generation of memory. It all allows for a product that might fail at the high end to work well at the mainstream or entry level.

2. By offering CPU's with unlocked multipliers or essentially cherry picked factory overclocked GPU's for people willing to pay the premium, no matter how foolish that seems to most of us (and envy is part of it -- I've put $2,000 into upgrades, new builds some years but that had to cover 3 or 4 PC's, not one enthusiast high end, sure I wish I could afford $6,000 a year LOL).

That is all business as usual. It's normal. It's not a fail. It's allowed all four companies to do quite well at various times.

I'm an ATI/AMD fan, but it's clear to me that nothing Intel's doing with their CPU's right now is unethical the way the OEM rebate program was. I just do not want an i7. What I want is a native 3.6 gigahertz black edition Phenom II quad @ 95 watts for under $200. I can wait, I can wait...

Me too. I am waiting til fall, cause:

a) AMD is supposedly only going to release certain stuff in April (925/945)
b) I am hoping AMD has something up their sleeve for about the Q3 2009 timeframe (pre-holidays) to release a 955-ish to 975-ish 3.4-3.6 GHz core

That will let me get into a 925/945 AM3 and a (hopefully if they come out by then) 8xx series AM3 mobo and some DDR3-1600 memory cheaper around Thanksgiving for a gaming machine that I can use for the next 2 years.

And like I said: If Intel came out with a chip that was new tech that beat AMD hands-down at the same/less cost for deployment, I'd buy it instead. I'm not too proud to save a couple hundred and put that into more ram, more disk, faster disk, more video. I want the best machine for my budget. And, I usually spend $1500-2500 on a machine.

I like what does me best for the money. Given, I mostly game or browse the web.
I do software development, but I do that on a AMD Athlon64x2 5600+ w/8GB and 3-500GB drives in RAID with a 500GB backup drive.

So, I just want most bang for my buck even tho I spend quite a bit compared to most people.

Reply to jcknouse

nVidia charged 600+$ cause "they could". Now, I ask this. The much more expensive to make 295 is that price. Why not? They "should" be able to charge that much? Its almost the same in perf compared to its AMD/ATI counterpart as the EE is to P2. I dont think this is immoral,illegal etc. I think its phail. The more people that think this, which happens to be more and more, from at least what FUaD claims, as AMD picks up marketshare, proves this. ATI has picked up marketshare using these same tactics. Yes, tactics, its all it is, but like I said, itd be much nicer to see a 600$ EE today. Or, does Intel think theyre above this? And who appreciates that? Isnt even 600$ enough for this? Wont even 600$ for a cpu make a owner proud of its eliteness? Or is it just not enough? It does remind me of little men and big cars with huge engines heheh. I wouldnt defend that thought myself

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

jaydeejohn wrote :

nVidia charged 600+$ cause "they could". Now, I ask this. The much more expensive to make 295 is that price. Why not? They "should" be able to charge that much? Its almost the same in perf compared to its AMD/ATI counterpart as the EE is to P2. I dont think this is immoral,illegal etc. I think its phail. The more people that think this, which happens to be more and more, from at least what FUaD claims, as AMD picks up marketshare, proves this. ATI has picked up marketshare using these same tactics. Yes, tactics, its all it is, but like I said, itd be much nicer to see a 600$ EE today. Or, does Intel think theyre above this? And who appreciates that? Isnt even 600$ enough for this? Wont even 600$ for a cpu make a owner proud of its eliteness? Or is it just not enough? It does remind me of little men and big cars with huge engines heheh. I wouldnt defend that thought myself

I can't disagree. I think that it is sick that any component that offers...say...40% performance increase...any company charges a premium for...say 2-3x...is wrong.

in my next build, in the fall, if the ATI video cards don't come down to a reasonable level (4870x2s), I will go either with 4870 1GB or 4850x2 1GB.

Paying a big premium for decent performance returns is not what I want. That's why I'll never drop $4k+ on a build. Because, that build (probably within 10-18 months) is worth 30-50% of what you paid.

And if I want to lose money that fast, I'll invest in stocks. :lol:

Reply to jcknouse

Gator_Shawn wrote :

To me, the AMD wins hands down because most people upgrading to the Phenom II are not starting from scratch. We're people looking to stretch our existing technology as far as it can go and dropping a Phenom II into our existing AM2/AM2+ Mobos and DDR2 Ram is a slam dunk compared to upgrading RAM, CPU, and Mobo.

Even further, we can still have the option of going DDR3 and a newer Mobo a little while down the line and still have a decent setup.

Not everyone, especially in this economic climate, can afford the highs costs for each upgrade that Intel likes to make us do. Sure after 3 years we will both probably have spent somewhere near the same amount, but Intel makes us do it all at once here, while AMD gives us a "flexible payment plan"

Its not that way unless you look at it that way. Intels S775 lasted 5 years. And most of the old P945 chipsets support the newst S775 C2D/C2Qs as long as the mobo maker updated the BIOS.

On the other hand you had AM2 and AM2+. AM2 is prtty much dead as it doesn't always support Phenom or Phenom II and will not wupport Phenom II AM3 chips.

Intel as always pushes the newest memory tech first. And thats a choice the person has to make. About 2 years ago it would cost about $1K-$1500 (depending on your choice for GPU) for a Intel Q6600, 4GB of DDR2 and a nice mobo. And if you got a P35 mobo you can now upgrade to any Yorkfield.

Core i7 is different as is Core i5. What that means is that they will be more like AMD but they are already able to provide DDR3 now. What this means is that their LGA1366 or LGA 1156 will support the next gen (32nm) GPUs Intel will release in 2009/2010 and possibly support the Sandy Bridge CPUs. Hopefully AMDs AM2+ will go further but I doubt it will. I bet it will end once AM3 is released.

Now the question you always have to ask yourself is this: Do you want to use the same mobo and are you able to go that long without being able to utilize the newest tech? Not talking about CPU. I mean like USB 3.0, SATA III and so on and so forth. Things that will help remove other bottlenecks such as the HDD.

Anywho. As I said before, value is in how you see it. My 6 year old P4 beats everything out right now value wise since its still being used 24/7 and my current Q6600 build is only a bit over a year old but will probably last me 3 since thats what I planned since I knew games would utilize quads. But I can still make it last longer with a CPU upgreade and GPU upgrade as well as go to 8GB of DDR2. Thats still pretty damn good if ya ask me.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------

http://www.steamcalculator.com/76561197970703804/camo_sig.png

Reply to jimmysmitty

AM2+ will be dead next year as well since the bulldozer chips only support ddr3.

But you know people will still buy am2+ boards, because the equivalent am3 board is £50 more and then after ram it comes to £70 more which is the difference between a 4830 and a 4870.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Helloworld_98

jimmysmitty wrote :

What this means is that their LGA1366 or LGA 1156 will support the next gen (32nm) GPUs Intel will release in 2009/2010 and possibly support the Sandy Bridge CPUs.

Jimmy, did you see official confirmation of that yet? I've been looking and haven't come across any Intel confirmation. If true, that'll be a welcome upgrade path.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to fazers_on_stun

Helloworld_98 wrote :

AM2+ will be dead next year as well since the bulldozer chips only support ddr3.

But you know people will still buy am2+ boards, because the equivalent am3 board is £50 more and then after ram it comes to £70 more which is the difference between a 4830 and a 4870.

Not too many people I suspect - Gartner is predicting >30% drop in desktop sales this year. OTOH, netbooks are predicted to jump by 80%. And while AMD's off-again, on-again push to 32nm may happen next year, they have confirmed delaying BD until 2011.

While some here claim AMD is better positioned to weather the current economic crisis, X3's are still part of the desktop market, and Intel has the Atom.

Reply to fazers_on_stun

fazers_on_stun wrote :

Jimmy, did you see official confirmation of that yet? I've been looking and haven't come across any Intel confirmation. If true, that'll be a welcome upgrade path.

I read on a site that they did confirm with Intel that Westmere is supposed to be supported by current LGA1366 and 1156 mobos but have yet to see anything for Sandy Bridge. Hell I have yet to hear much about it and what its going to hold. In fact I can find more info on Larrabee than Sandy Bridge right now.

Message quoted 2 times

------------------------------

Reply to jimmysmitty

I call them like it is kieth. You're a AMD cheerleader. You're on the same boat as thunderpants, enigma, baron.

Only a newbie or a troll would compare the price of PII BE to a Intel EE. And you're not a newbie.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to someguy7

jimmysmitty wrote :

I read on a site that they did confirm with Intel that Westmere is supposed to be supported by current LGA1366 and 1156 mobos but have yet to see anything for Sandy Bridge. Hell I have yet to hear much about it and what its going to hold. In fact I can find more info on Larrabee than Sandy Bridge right now.

Well that's encouraging - i920 would be cheap enough to buy now and then drop in a 32nm 6-core in a year, if Microcenter still has their sale on. Just checked and yes it's $229.99.

Newegg used to have the i920 at $229 last month, at least the one time I checked the price. Today it's $288. Guess it's a supply vs demand thing.

Reply to fazers_on_stun

jimmysmitty wrote :

In fact I can find more info on Larrabee than Sandy Bridge right now.

Maybe Intel's putting it on hold for the following reasons:

1. i7 is costly for the consumer and Core 2 does well enough against Phenom II, aka "milk the mature tech for all it's worth".

2. Intel needs AMD CPU's in the market to avoid the ire of regulators and doesn't need to push beyond i5 quite so early.

3. Larrabee's allegedly going into the Playstation 4 and thus generates more excitement than another overpowered desktop CPU.

4. Intel doesn't "need" ATI or Nvidia in the market because regulators aren't concerned about Intel's IGP share, thus Intel can pull out all the stops in bringing Larrabee to market.

Despite all the above speculation, I hope that the Playstation 4 sells as badly as the Playstation 3 and that Larrabee is an epic fail on the desktop because Intel's always failed us before with IGP products. While I went out and bought a Blu-ray drive for my PC, the PS 4 is rather overpriced for a console right now so I won't support it.

I'm also an ATI fan who's also enjoyed Nvidia's CEO Jen-Hsun ranting against Intel. Those rants are the funniest thing in tech news today. Whenever an Intel fanboy (not fan, but fanboy, there's a difference) opines that AMD's about to go bankrupt, Jen-Hsun's rants make me think that Nvidia will get there first because their CEO sounds like he needs to be on medication.

We will probably see Sandy Bridge coming to market at the same time AMD brings Bulldozer to market. Not before, there's no business need for that, which is probably why there's not much recent news.

Message edited by yipsl on 03-08-2009 at 04:43:15 PM

------------------------------ Phenom 8750, ASUS M3A78T
4 gigs Kingston DDR2 800 two 1T SAMSUNG HD103UI
Sapphire 4870x2, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM
Antec Neo 650 PSU Antec Nine Hundred, Acer H213H 1080p LCD
Reply to yipsl

I hope Larrabee is excellent, as Intel usually supports their products well, and I have been unhappy with both Nvidia and ATI drivers many times recently. They seem to be working right now, but I would still love to see another competitor in the market.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

The problem with Larrabee is that Intel's never known what to do with their graphics offerings. They do "just enough" for the business IGP crowd. Will that change with Larrabee? Despite the amusing Nvidia tiff with Intel, I'd rather not see Intel get any kind of a share of console or desktop discrete graphics. They're large enough already.

I was wrong about the Playstation 4. That rumor's all over the web, but Sony denies it:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] &Itemid=38

Message quoted 2 times

------------------------------ Phenom 8750, ASUS M3A78T
4 gigs Kingston DDR2 800 two 1T SAMSUNG HD103UI
Sapphire 4870x2, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM
Antec Neo 650 PSU Antec Nine Hundred, Acer H213H 1080p LCD
Reply to yipsl

yipsl wrote :

The problem with Larrabee is that Intel's never known what to do with their graphics offerings. They do "just enough" for the business IGP crowd. Will that change with Larrabee? Despite the amusing Nvidia tiff with Intel, I'd rather not see Intel get any kind of a share of console or desktop discrete graphics. They're large enough already.

I was wrong about the Playstation 4. That rumor's all over the web, but Sony denies it:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] &Itemid=38

I have to disagree. Well except with the PS4 part. Haven't been a fan of consoles since the Dreamcast. Larrabee presents the ability to put nVidia in a tight spot as well as help drive down the prices which would benefit you in your ATI card purchases. And we all know that would be nice.

And the thing with Intel is that the IGPs they have are mainly for business use or they would have actually done discrete before Larrabee. This iwll also open a entire platform for Intel as well which may benefit people. Plus the biggest market Intel is pushing Larrabee for is real time rendering, used highly in the medical field.

On a side note, I myself got a Blu-Ray drive. $100 bucks LG drive. Love it. Better than the Sony one and cheaper as well as more feature packed. Can't wait to see if Vista SP2 include Blu-Ray support for WMC. I hope so as I prefer it over PowerDVD.

------------------------------

Reply to jimmysmitty

yipsl wrote :

The problem with Larrabee is that Intel's never known what to do with their graphics offerings. They do "just enough" for the business IGP crowd. Will that change with Larrabee? Despite the amusing Nvidia tiff with Intel, I'd rather not see Intel get any kind of a share of console or desktop discrete graphics. They're large enough already.

I was wrong about the Playstation 4. That rumor's all over the web, but Sony denies it:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] &Itemid=38

Intel's current IGPs are not designed to be high performance, they are designed to work, be reliable, and be stable, which they do quite well. Besides, the team working on Larrabee isn't the team that does Intel's IGPs, it's actually the same team that did Nehalem.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

Just ask M$ how usefull Intels igps are, especially for Vista heheh. Well, at least they MAY be able to do the REAL Vista now heheh.
Im still wondering how good LRB is going to be. Its going to be a GPGPU, but other than that, its full abilities may be hampered comparitively to todays gpus. Alot of high hope for it, but again, time will tell for it

Message quoted 2 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

someguy7 wrote :

I call them like it is kieth. You're a AMD cheerleader. You're on the same boat as thunderpants, enigma, baron.

Only a newbie or a troll would compare the price of PII BE to a Intel EE. And you're not a newbie.

Let's review your argument:

One brand has a feature that costs a lot of money. The other brand also has that same feature but doesn't charge for it.

But since YOU personally don't really think that the feature is very important then nobody should care about it. Anyone that cares about this feature and points out that it is an issue that should be considered during a comparative analysis must be called one of the derogatory names you have so graciously provided in several of your posts.

I think that pretty much sums up your argument. (Or lack thereof.)

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by keithlm on 03-09-2009 at 04:36:02 AM

Reply to keithlm

jaydeejohn wrote :

Just ask M$ how usefull Intels igps are, especially for Vista heheh. Well, at least they MAY be able to do the REAL Vista now heheh.
Im still wondering how good LRB is going to be. Its going to be a GPGPU, but other than that, its full abilities may be hampered comparitively to todays gpus. Alot of high hope for it, but again, time will tell for it

The current Intel IGP runs Vista Aero just fine, it isn't a problem unless you want to game or run a 3d app.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

jaydeejohn wrote :

Just ask M$ how usefull Intels igps are, especially for Vista heheh. Well, at least they MAY be able to do the REAL Vista now heheh.
Im still wondering how good LRB is going to be. Its going to be a GPGPU, but other than that, its full abilities may be hampered comparitively to todays gpus. Alot of high hope for it, but again, time will tell for it

If I remember correctly you used a comparison of what Larrabee was expected to do that had no real affect on a GPUs actual game performance (the TFLOPs output).

------------------------------

Reply to jimmysmitty

The igp from Intel wasnt Vista ready, and this is the main cause of the Vista ready riff going on now, as M$ buckled under for Intel to "claim" it so. Thought people knew this? Anyways, LRB will have to show 100% scaling from what we know, to show how great itll actually be. Now, for some reason Im thinking using a driver, and interacting thru PCI, etc etc, having cavche etc etc, that it wont be abywheres near 100% scaling, which then puts it in a very mortal range of performance, which is what most expect to see, and as for the next iteration of it, itll be better, but by how much over how the original does?

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

TFlops shown are 100% possible, no higher. Its calculations in time interval done, but yes, it has everything and only part of the what any gpus capability is. LRB is showing alot of TFlops, plenty, in consideration its all done in DP as well. But DP can slow things itself at times, and these "guesstimates" show potential without losss. Not truly having all the info makes it all a guess at this point. But yes, T Flops do play a role as to its ability, it just doesnt define it well enough to truly say

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

OK OK - I've been lurking here a little while. You ALL are forgetting the "REAL" price difference between anything!! WHAT IS YOUR TIME WORTH?? If you value your time at all - then you can't help but get the i7. It spanks the PII in almost all real world tasks. Now I can save $100 or $200 but over the life of the machine - say a year or two - if I can save just 10 hours it's worth it. My time is worth WAYYY more than $10 or $20 an hour.

In fact, it doesn't even really pay to build your own machine - unless you just like doing it for the fun of it. I use computers to get stuff done that I want to get done so the "time cost" of building one I can never recover. For example, let's say I can buy a machine with EXACTLY what I want in it for $2000.00. To build this machine, the components cost me $1600.00. So I save $400.00 right?? No. I have the time to source all the parts, order them, receive them, RMA the bad ones, get the replacements, build the machine, burn it in, load the OS, test it all, etc. etc. Let's say I can do all this in 20 hours. I know what you are saying "I can build a machine in less than 20 hours". OK smarty... try it. Really. Get together a list of all the parts that you want to use. Research them. Source them all. Buy them all. Receive them all. Test them all. Now... if you know the list off the top of your head - you are just a computer geek and this isn't a fair comparison. But if you are just a user like me then you need to research all this crap. Spend hours googling to get the best prices on each one. Etc. Etc. I bet you are 5 to 10 hours in just getting all the pieces to your door.

I think 20 hours would be CONSERVATIVE for the entire process for a one off machine. Sure Dell does it in an hour but they have a standard config and just build it. This is different.

So Ive swapped 20 hours for $400.00 - $20.00 an hour. No thanks. I'd rather have the 20 hours to spend with my kids.

So the next thing is, there is a PRACTICAL LIMIT to how much you should spend - again based on the value of your TIME. If I can spend $1,000.00 but by spending $5,000.00 the machine would be 1% faster, I'd have to use it for about 20 years to make up the difference. But if I could save 2 or 3 hours a day I could justify $4,000.00 easily. I don't know what kind of computing you'd be doing to save 2 or 3 hours a day but I'm sure there is some (CAD/CAM, video editing, some scientific apps, heavy duty graphics layout, 3D modeling, CGI, etc.).

So instead of looking at raw cost, you have to look at work done per unit of time and what that costs you. Here's the machine I just bought:

Dell Studio XPS 435MT
Core i7 920
4GB RAM
500 GB HD
Radeon 3650 HDMI
DVD RW dual layer
Bluetooth
19 way media reader
Wireless pre N
BluRay 2X burner
Win Vista Home Premium 64 bit

$778.00 delivered

Could I have saved $100 with a PII?? Maybe... Worth it?? NO WAY!! I was using it in 20 minutes after opening the box and watching BD on my HDTV. Seriously....there is no comparison. If you want to build a box for fun or get a PII because you love AMD that's different. But in terms of $ for work per unit of time invested I don't see how you could do much better than this rig...??? Yeah no overclocking, Dell sucks, blah, blah, blah... I'm working you are tinkering. If you are a tinkerer then fine. If you need to do stuff I'm done already while you're getting the latest drivers to go be stable going 1% faster... See ya. ;-)

Bottom line is, if you value your time at all, speed will always trump lower cost given that you use the platform long enough. You will ALWAYS get a payback. Nuff said!

Just IMHO... :sol:

P.S. FYI.... CPU Mark is over 6,000 right out of the box. OUCH!!

Reply to swezey

This is an enthusiast site. Do you honestly believe those that rebuild an old 47 Ford pickup do it so itll be the fastest truck? And there you may be talking thousands of man hours. This is a hobby. If you can get a 100$ part work like a 300$ part, theres satisfaction there that cant be bought with any amount of monies.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

I'm assuming we're talking about non-prebuilts...
And according to most benchmarks the i7 is about 20% faster than the Phenom II.
And the main benefit of the PII is that it drops into old AM2+ mobos...it's an easy upgrade path.

Oh, and your time argument is a piece of crap. Seriously.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to The Third Level

keithlm wrote :

Let's review your argument:

One brand has a feature that costs a lot of money. The other brand also has that same feature but doesn't charge for it.

But since YOU personally don't really think that the feature is very important then nobody should care about it. Anyone that cares about this feature and points out that it is an issue that should be considered during a comparative analysis must be called one of the derogatory names you have so graciously provided in several of your posts.

I think that pretty much sums up your argument. (Or lack thereof.)

Ok enigma067. Back to amdzone where you belong.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to someguy7

He does have a point:

I'll have wasted hours building, tweaking and improving my system. (And reading internet forums.) Whereas he won't have to worry about spending all that time tweaking and improving his pre-built Dell. And I predict he won't be happy with the responses he gets on internet forums about his pre-built so he won't be wasting a lot of time there. I guess he wins.

PLUS:

My case and cooling alone will have cost more than his entire computer when I'm completely done. I guess I fail.

someguy7 wrote :

Ok enigma067. Back to amdzone where you belong.

#1: I'm not Enigma.
#2: I guess you didn't like having somebody point out reality to you, eh? I guess you fail also.
(I would tell you to go back to IntelZone but since there isn't one you will probably find this forum acceptable; there are a lot of people of your caliber here.)

Message edited by keithlm on 03-27-2009 at 09:07:07 PM

Reply to keithlm

jaydeejohn wrote :

This is an enthusiast site. Do you honestly believe those that rebuild an old 47 Ford pickup do it so itll be the fastest truck? And there you may be talking thousands of man hours. This is a hobby. If you can get a 100$ part work like a 300$ part, theres satisfaction there that cant be bought with any amount of monies.

OK boys - bring out the flamethrowers!!

JayDee - I KNOW this is an enthusiast site. That's why I said:

"In fact, it doesn't even really pay to build your own machine - unless you just like doing it for the fun of it."

AND

"If you want to build a box for fun or get a PII because you love AMD that's different."

AND

"If you are a tinkerer then fine."

But... In the real world where time is money and both are in short supply, you need to choose wisely. I value my time more than money (I can always make more money, I can't make more time) so I choose speed. Yes, an i7 940 or a 965 would have been slightly faster but in my value judgment the extra performance wasn't worth the $$$. I realise that I may sound like I'm defeating my own argument but remember I said that you have to weight the cost vs. the benefit received. For $100 or $200 the jump to i7 is just to great to ignore.

Reply to swezey

Ill point out again, youre not preaching to the choir here. If I want to work 16Hrs a day, then itd be a no brainer, but since we all but a rare few value our free time more than our working time, liking to do what we do is the point, in our spare time. And as far as not having that 965 is part of that point. We all work within our budgets, thus the 100$ working like a 300$ part is important, plus the satisfaction factor. To you 100/200$ is an acceptable loss, but others see it differently, regardless of brand. Theres no cut n dried, black and white scenario

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

The Third Level wrote :

I'm assuming we're talking about non-prebuilts...
And according to most benchmarks the i7 is about 20% faster than the Phenom II.
And the main benefit of the PII is that it drops into old AM2+ mobos...it's an easy upgrade path.

Oh, and your time argument is a piece of crap. Seriously.

OK boys - bring out the flamethrowers!!

TTL - I'd say if you have an existing system that you can make go a LOT faster with an inexpensive upgrade than you SHOULD do that! Seems to me that makes sense from the time vs. $$$ argument I presented. That wasn't an option for me as I was coming from a laptop (with a Sempron so I don't care Intel vs. AMD either way).

But, IF my time argument is crap than you must feel that your time is not worth anything. Please tell me why my time argument is crap - I'd love to know. Why do we say "Time is money"? Why do economists and accountants talk about "The time value of money"? Why do we adjust for inflation over time?? Why do we do calculations like "Net Present Value" and "Internal Rate of Return"? And if your time isn't worth anything to you, I'd love for you to come work for me for $5.00 an hour!! I could sure use some cheap labor to do crap around the house - that would be great! Thanks!! (See you Saturday - say 7:00 AM???)

Reply to swezey

Hypothetical scenario :
You have 1000$ to buy a OEM system. Youre a gamer. Option 1 is a i7 setup with a class B gpu, Option 2 is a setup with i7 with a class A gpu. The 2nd option would obviously be the better scenaio for this buyer

Message edited by jaydeejohn on 03-27-2009 at 09:40:02 PM

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

jaydeejohn wrote :

Ill point out again, youre not preaching to the choir here. If I want to work 16Hrs a day, then itd be a no brainer, but since we all but a rare few value our free time more than our working time, liking to do what we do is the point, in our spare time. And as far as not having that 965 is part of that point. We all work within our budgets, thus the 100$ working like a 300$ part is important, plus the satisfaction factor. To you 100/200$ is an acceptable loss, but others see it differently, regardless of brand. Theres no cut n dried, black and white scenario

JDJ - I agree there is no B&W. Everyone has to make their own time value judgment and those judgments likely will change over time. When I was 16, I was totally psyched to be making $3.35 an hour. Now I don't get out of bed unless we're talking at least 4 figures. But everyone is different - I agree. And if you like to build and tinker and tweak than it's a hobby and NOT a "business" decision. The logic goes out the window and emotion takes over. I collect guitars and have paid a lot more than I should have for ones I wanted. But that's a hobby. It's just funny people on here trying to justify their EMOTIONAL decisions with "FACTS"... If it's a hobby, buy what you want and let everyone else alone. If you are trying to make a VALUE judgment - i.e. "business case", "bang for the buck" whatever - then you MUST take speed, efficiency and the time value of money into account. There are no two ways about it.

Reply to swezey

Keith, you did not fail!!!
Lets do the math>
Presently I'm running at a 20% OC, which probably scales to 10% ( ruff est.). 10% translates into, lets make it easy 10 min. an hour
8 hour day you just saved an 1 hour
5 hours a week (hey I can get off early Friday LOL)
20 hours a month (can you say 3 day weekend)
240 hours a year
Now let translate that into money
240 hours times $20 bucks an hour = $4800 + $400 (initial savings)= $5200
Hey, look at that!! I just made $260 an hour by doing my research and building my own machine and had fun doing it.
Not to mention 220 hours saved.
Just think of all the hours the kids can spend fighting over who's turn it is to play the next game on it. LOL

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to unclefester

You're assuming the time I spend building the PC will be out of the time I spend working. I can easily do it in my free time. In fact, I WILL do it in my free time. I'm not skipping work to build myself a computer.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to The Third Level

unclefester wrote :

Keith, you did not fail!!!
Lets do the math>
Presently I'm running at a 20% OC, which probably scales to 10% ( ruff est.). 10% translates into, lets make it easy 10 min. an hour
8 hour day you just saved an 1 hour
5 hours a week (hey I can get off early Friday LOL)
20 hours a month (can you say 3 day weekend)
240 hours a year
Now let translate that into money
240 hours times $20 bucks an hour = $4800 + $400 (initial savings)= $5200
Hey, look at that!! I just made $260 an hour by doing my research and building my own machine and had fun doing it.
Not to mention 220 hours saved.
Just think of all the hours the kids can spend fighting over who's turn it is to play the next game on it. LOL

UF - BRAVO!! Now THIS is what I'm talking about!! Although I HOPE you don't sit in front of your PC 8 hours a day, 5 days a week all year. If you do, please have a good optometrist!

P.S. How are you going 10% faster than me for $378.00?? If I had that option I would have taken it!!

Reply to swezey

You know an even easier solution?
I spend 5 minutes, make an account on this website, post a topic about asking for a good computer parts list for my budget.

I check back a day later, seeing 20 replies of a list posted then reviewed by 10 people. I go to Newegg, buy the parts, let them sit at home. Then on a Saturday, when I have nothing much to do, I spend a few hours building my computer.

It's really not that hard when the alternative is going to Dell's website and buying a piece of *** in a box.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to The Third Level

The Third Level wrote :

You're assuming the time I spend building the PC will be out of the time I spend working. I can easily do it in my free time. In fact, I WILL do it in my free time. I'm not skipping work to build myself a computer.

TTL - No no... you are missing the point! I'm NOT saying that you are going to skip work to build a PC. But if you can build the same PC (spec wise) that took me 10 minutes to order, and it costs you $100.00 less but it takes you 10 hours, then you traded 10 hours of your life for $100.00 or $10.00 an hour. The end result is the same - we have identically functioning machines. I did something else with my 10 hours. Now if you ENJOY building the machine than you saved $100.00 and did something you like. That's fine. Some people collect stamps. Some people like to drink. If you did it just to save $100.00 than you basically said "my time is worth no more than $10.00 an hour to me". I assume everyone here loves building PC's, but I don't. I want to get stuff done that NEEDS a PC. I don't care who built it. Am I not explaining this right??

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to swezey

unclefester wrote :

Keith, you did not fail!!!

No. You are wrong. I am full of fail:

My HOME machine is not always pegged at 100% CPU usage for daily tasks. In fact the only time it is at 100% is during benchmarking OR if I'm folding; neither of which save me time or money. So I'm not saving time and therefore I must be wasting it. I fail.

Actually I am wasting time right now: it's friday... weekly work is done... I'm waiting till I can go out and get a margarita... Luckily with last nights blizzard here in Colorado I have this:

Message edited by keithlm on 03-27-2009 at 09:58:04 PM

Reply to keithlm

The Third Level wrote :

You know an even easier solution?
I spend 5 minutes, make an account on this website, post a topic about asking for a good computer parts list for my budget.

I check back a day later, seeing 20 replies of a list posted then reviewed by 10 people. I go to Newegg, buy the parts, let them sit at home. Then on a Saturday, when I have nothing much to do, I spend a few hours building my computer.

It's really not that hard when the alternative is going to Dell's website and buying a piece of *** in a box.

Sorry... I'd have to do the research myself. I'm WAYYY to much of a control freak and basically don't trust anyone. And anyone who calls themselves an "expert" - I RUN THE OTHER WAY FAST!

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to swezey

That is just a scenario. And my computer is an all in 1 machine, home theater, gaming machine, Hi-Fi and net research for various things.
And no I probably not running 10% faster than you. But with a personally built machine you could OC 10 to 20% faster whether AMD or Intel.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to unclefester

swezey wrote :

TTL - No no... you are missing the point! I'm NOT saying that you are going to skip work to build a PC. But if you can build the same PC (spec wise) that took me 10 minutes to order, and it costs you $100.00 less but it takes you 10 hours, then you traded 10 hours of your life for $100.00 or $10.00 an hour. The end result is the same - we have identically functioning machines. I did something else with my 10 hours. Now if you ENJOY building the machine than you saved $100.00 and did something you like. That's fine. Some people collect stamps. Some people like to drink. If you did it just to save $100.00 than you basically said "my time is worth no more than $10.00 an hour to me". I assume everyone here loves building PC's, but I don't. I want to get stuff done that NEEDS a PC. I don't care who built it. Am I not explaining this right??

I traded 10 hours of my life (try more like 5-6...) doing something FUN while getting a better computer for less money. If you NEED a PC, pay some neighborhood geek 50 bucks +parts to build you one...

Reply to The Third Level

Nice looking unit Keith. And a lot warmer than skiing

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to unclefester

Its only 1 point of view, valid for some, but not most.

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

POP QUIZ: How many hours has he wasted today arguing about how much time he MIGHT save with his faster CPU?

If he keeps up this argument... he will have wasted enough to time to invalidate any possible merit his argument might have had.

unclefester wrote :

Nice looking unit Keith. And a lot warmer than skiing

(Thanks... and to think.. that picture was with the SMALL tires.)

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by keithlm on 03-27-2009 at 10:03:02 PM

Reply to keithlm

swezey wrote :

Sorry... I'd have to do the research myself. I'm WAYYY to much of a control freak and basically don't trust anyone. And anyone who calls themselves an "expert" - I RUN THE OTHER WAY FAST!

So you come on an enthusiast forum to tell us to buy prebuilt PCs because YOU are a lazy control freak?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to The Third Level

Hey!!
I forgot to mention endless hours of debating in forums!!!

Reply to unclefester

Focus On

The "REAL" price difference between a Phenom 2 and I7 System - Page 4

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - The "REAL" price difference between a Phenom 2 and I7 System