A Discussion on Microcenter In Pricing Comparisons

[Chiropteran]

The young generation really has no idea what life was like back then.

I remember waiting near an hour for games to load off tape on a Commodore64.

Then someone would walk by and bump the power cable, reset it, and we would have to wait again.

There were also games on cartridge which loaded instantly, but it always seemed like the ones on cassette were more fun.

 

[grkM3]

you know what crazzy tho,we were doing what we do now even without the net or anything,I can remember changing jumpers and seeing the cpu mhz higher and I was like wow and discovered overclocking on my own and wanted to tell eveyone that you can clock them higher but only a few of my friends could find out.

You guys rmember how hard it was to install a new hard drive?

boot disk with format on it and you needed to partion it but if you didnt do a long format it wouldnt set to active lol

It litterally took like an hour to get the darn drive to show up as c:\

 

[Edrick]

Haha, I'll be thirty before long and this still predates me

Thanks.....rub it in why dont you?!?

 

[Edrick]

You guys rmember how hard it was to install a new hard drive?

I didn't have a HD until my 3rd PC. And then it was a 40MB one. That was my AST 286 (with Turbo to 10mhz). That was also my first PC to have 1MB RAM and the new 1.44MB floppy.

Remember having to setup any RAM over 640k as either extended or expanded? And only certain apps could use one or the other. You had to change your config.sys file and reboot. Those were the days.

 

[Chiropteran]

I didn't have a HD until my 3rd PC. And then it was a 40MB one. That was my AST 286 (with Turbo to 10mhz). That was also my first PC to have 1MB RAM and the new 1.44MB floppy.

Remember having to setup any RAM over 640k as either extended or expanded? And only certain apps could use one or the other. You had to change your config.sys file and reboot. Those were the days.

It was really annoying at first, until the DOS version came out that let you create a start-up menu with multiple sets of config.sys/autoexec.bat options. I had a options like basic DOS, windows (windows 3.0), and a games submenu with different configurations for wing commander, ultima 6/7, civilization, etc.

It was annoying to a degree, but also kinda fun and satisfying to have that much control and ability to tweak settings.

 

[AtenRa]

here you go...239.99 10 bucks cheaper than the fx and has 8 threads

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115083

First off all this CPU cost $39,99 more than FX8120
Secondly, can you OC that CPU ???

Its also interesting when you mention overclocking that its competitive.Im going to take a wild guess and think that maybe you dont know how well sandys overclock also?



if you want to start about overclocked performance there is no AMD chip in the line up that can compete with a overclocked sandy.

EVEN IN ZIP 7 lol

It takes a 5GHz OC for the Core i5 2500K to overcome the 8-core FX at 4.8GHz in multithreaded apps like Cinebench, x264 second pass, AES (i dont remember about 7zip) etc. So i know very much what Im talking about.



FX4100 overclocked is faster and cheaper than any Core i3
FX6100 overclocked is faster and cheaper than any Core i5 up to 2400.

Why is it so hard for you and others to except that 8-core FX-8120 is competitive in multithreaded apps vs Intel 2500K while being cheaper ???

 

[EskLuxor]

i live about an hour away, i only go there when i can get a better deal then an online price i.e. newegg. considering gas prices, ive only been there a few times.

 

[grkM3]

Now were talking about the 8120? There is a 210 dollar xeon to go up against that 🙂 ohh and when i talked about over clock im talking about the 2600k

Those xeons were low end 8 threads and if you want to compare overclocked results the extra 70-80 overa 2500k is well worth the performance gain.

A 5ghz 2600k will pretty much beat any fx chip at any bench.

Stock for stock that 239 dollar xeon will basically beat the 8150 in 99% of the time enless you like to zip files its about 1-2% slower at those speeds

 

[Edrick]

FX4100 overclocked is faster and cheaper than any Core i3 FX6100 overclocked is faster and cheaper than any Core i5 up to 2400.

I am not sure what your point here is?

So an OC FX4100 (4-Core, Overlocked, twice the heat, twice the power) performs better than a i3 (2-cre, No OC, half the heat, half the power). Did you think anyone does not already know this?

The only surprise here is that the FX4100 is priced lower. Well, it has to. Do you think AMD wanted to price it lower? No. Do you think AMD designed it with the goal of competing with the i3? No. But performance dictates the price. Does that mean it is a good CPU? Nope.

 

[AtenRa]

Now were talking about the 8120? There is a 210 dollar xeon to go up against that 🙂 ohh and when i talked about over clock im talking about the 2600k

Those xeons were low end 8 threads and if you want to compare overclocked results the extra 70-80 overa 2500k is well worth the performance gain.

A 5ghz 2600k will pretty much beat any fx chip at any bench.

Stock for stock that 239 dollar xeon will basically beat the 8150 in 99% of the time enless you like to zip files its about 1-2% slower at those speeds

We were talking about FX8120 vs Core i5 2500K all that time and now you taking the 2600K because the FX is price/performance competitive ??? give me a brake 😛

 

[Chiropteran]

Now were talking about the 8120? There is a 210 dollar xeon to go up against that 🙂 ohh and when i talked about over clock im talking about the 2600k

Those xeons were low end 8 threads and if you want to compare overclocked results the extra 70-80 overa 2500k is well worth the performance gain.

A 5ghz 2600k will pretty much beat any fx chip at any bench.

Stock for stock that 239 dollar xeon will basically beat the 8150 in 99% of the time enless you like to zip files its about 1-2% slower at those speeds

So if you take the price of the i3, the performance and overclocking of the 2600k, the ECC support of the e3 xeon, and also somehow get a free motherboard out of the deal, you can have an intel cpu that beats the 8120 on all counts?

That is amazing!

Now back to reality, you can't pick and choose your features and prices. You need to pick a single CPU and that is it.

Pick the Xeon. Cool, you got a CPU with ECC just like the FX-8120. Probably a bit faster at base speeds. But it costs a lot more, and can't overclock. A loser.

Okay, instead pick the 2600k. Now you have some higher base clocks, and you can overclock further. Except now it costs even more, and you lose ECC support. A loser.

Okay no problem, instead take a cheap i3-2100. Now you have a cheaper CPU. Except after you pay for a motherboard, it's not cheaper anymore. Also, it performs worse, can't overclock, and lacks ECC. A loser.

Nobody has ever said you can't get a faster CPU than an 8120 by paying more for a high end Intel. You can, it's true. But you give something up. You pay more, you lose your ECC support. Or if you go crazy and build a Xeon system, you pay more, lose your unlocked multiplier.

Intel makes a lot of great CPU, but they lose in this specific case.

 

[AtenRa]

I am not sure what your point here is?

So an OC FX4100 (4-Core, Overlocked, twice the heat, twice the power) performs better than a i3 (2-cre, No OC, half the heat, half the power). Did you think anyone does not already know this?

You tell me, all i hear is FX sucks :whiste:

The only surprise here is that the FX4100 is priced lower. Well, it has to. Do you think AMD wanted to price it lower? No. Do you think AMD designed it with the goal of competing with the i3? No. But performance dictates the price. Does that mean it is a good CPU? Nope.

Does it matter what goal AMD designed that CPU for ??? NO , at current prices does an overclocked FX4100 beat any Core i3 while being cheaper ?? YES.
Do everyone has to buy the FX4100 ?? NO. If you only care about performance/price you buy the FX, if you care about power consumption buy the Core i3. Same for FX6100.

So now only low power consumption makes a CPU good ??? Then clearly your SB-E 2011 sucks like the FX CPUs because it has higher power consumption than Core i7 2600K with a higher platform cost.

When Intel CPUs cant compete in performance they are still the better CPU because they use less power. I get it, FX Sucks no matter what 🙄

 

[Edrick]

Pick the Xeon. Cool, you got a CPU with ECC just like the FX-8120. Probably a bit faster at base speeds. But it costs a lot more, and can't overclock. A loser.

I will say this again. Nod if you understand.

People who need ECC RAM, are the people who need very STABLE systems. Their data is precious. They are NOT going to OC their systems. With that said, the Xeon is not a loser by any means.

Until you show me a situation where someone needs to OC a CPU and doesnt care about stability there, yet needs ECC for a specific reason, you arguement is NOT VALID and you are making up a non existing scenario just to skew your arguement.

 

[Edrick]

You tell me, all i hear is FX sucks

I have said in the past that the FX CPUs do not suck. They perform their job and have a specific place in the market. And in some cases, they are the best choice (VM Server).

However, I do feel they were a flop for AMD. At first the FX8120 was going to compete with Gulftown. Then they lowered the expectations to the 2600K. And finally, lowered even further to compete with 2500K. Not to mention that the most of the FX line can't even beat their previous Phenom line. Based on that, I call them a flop.

Lets put it this way, if Intel releases Haswell 4C and it can't even beat a i3 2100, yet only charges $79 for it, is it considered a flop or success? Some will say success because 4 Intel cores for $79 is a steal. Others will say flop because it went backwards in performance.

 

[Chiropteran]

I will say this again. Nod if you understand.

People who need ECC RAM, are the people who need very STABLE systems. Their data is precious. They are NOT going to OC their systems. With that said, the Xeon is not a loser by any means.

Until you show me a situation where someone needs to OC a CPU and doesnt care about stability there, yet needs ECC for a specific reason, you arguement is NOT VALID and you are making up a non existing scenario just to skew your arguement.

Look, it's my made-up situation. If you want to argue that the hypothetical situation is bogus, then do that from the start. Instead you wait and watch while I shoot down every counter argument about how a xeon or 2500k is perfectly viable and cheaper (viable sure, but not cheaper by any measure) and then only after pages and pages of this do you come in and argue your point.

You might think it's absurd, but I like having ECC as an option. Guess what? I have 2 FX-8120 boxes each running multiple video cards mining bitcoins 24/7. I am using regular RAM. I am not overclocking. But the potential for ECC support, and the potential to overclock are still big pluses as far as I am concerned. One day I might want to use one of these systems as a server or workstation of some kind, and maybe I will want to use ECC ram. Or maybe when summer heat makes bitcoin mining unprofitable, I'll want to test and see just how far I can overclock these systems, just out of curiosity.

Even if I NEVER use ECC and overclock at the same time, I still want the features available for my potential use later- especially if the features are free. And given the savings vs buying a 2500k, they are better than free- the system as a whole is about $140 cheaper than they would be if I built them with 2500k CPU instead of FX-8120.

 

[AtenRa]

I have said in the past that the FX CPUs do not suck. They perform their job and have a specific place in the market. And in some cases, they are the best choice (VM Server).

However, I do feel they were a flop for AMD. At first the FX8120 was going to compete with Gulftown. Then they lowered the expectations to the 2600K. And finally, lowered even further to compete with 2500K. Not to mention that the most of the FX line can't even beat their previous Phenom line. Based on that, I call them a flop.

Lets put it this way, if Intel releases Haswell 4C and it can't even beat a i3 2100, yet only charges $79 for it, is it considered a flop or success? Some will say success because 4 Intel cores for $79 is a steal. Others will say flop because it went backwards in performance.

Well, almost everyone were expecting the BD to perform better, they dont, FX8150 is not faster than 2600K.

FX does have lower idle power and 8-core models are faster than 6-core Phenoms in multithreaded apps. Also FX series does have new ISAs like AVX etc. Im not saying they are the best CPUs in the planet but at current prices (up to FX-8120) they are price/performance competitive against the Intel CPUs.

Does Intel IV Core i7 3770K sucks because it only has a 5-10% higher performance than 2600K ??? NO, it has lower power consumption and it can OC higher.

Same thing with FX, it has lower power consumption than Phenom, higher Multithreaded performance and new ISAs.

 

[Edrick]

Look, it's my made-up situation. If you want to argue that the hypothetical situation is bogus, then do that from the start.

I thought I did say that from the beginning. I know I said it in the thread which got locked. That was my arguement from the start regarding ECC.

You might think it's absurd, but I like having ECC as an option.

No I dont. It is nice to have. Do I wish Intel had it on all their CPUs for free? Of course I do. But it is not a deal maker or breker for 95% of the computer users out there. IPC, in my opion, is a much greater factor when deciding on a CPU for most general needs.

Personally, I like having quad channel RAM, 40 lanes of PCIe 3.0 and 10MB L3$ on my 3820 and paid less $$ than a 2700K would have cost. But I sacrafice a little OC ability. But that does not mean the 2700K is bad CPU.

 

[Avalon]

Hey, not everyone likes going to work either. But for most people, the negatives are outweighed by the positives of getting money, health care, and not being homeless.

In the same way living in a city has both negatives and positives. If you don't want to live in a city, more power to you, but don't blame me when you pay more for computer hardware, can't get broadband, don't have 24 hour grocery stores, and you can't find a good job.

Not liking work and not liking big cities are completely different. Besides, I live in Orlando. Still no reasonable access to MC.

 

[grkM3]

So if you take the price of the i3, the performance and overclocking of the 2600k, the ECC support of the e3 xeon, and also somehow get a free motherboard out of the deal, you can have an intel cpu that beats the 8120 on all counts?

That is amazing!

Now back to reality, you can't pick and choose your features and prices. You need to pick a single CPU and that is it.

Pick the Xeon. Cool, you got a CPU with ECC just like the FX-8120. Probably a bit faster at base speeds. But it costs a lot more, and can't overclock. A loser.

Okay, instead pick the 2600k. Now you have some higher base clocks, and you can overclock further. Except now it costs even more, and you lose ECC support. A loser.

Okay no problem, instead take a cheap i3-2100. Now you have a cheaper CPU. Except after you pay for a motherboard, it's not cheaper anymore. Also, it performs worse, can't overclock, and lacks ECC. A loser.

Nobody has ever said you can't get a faster CPU than an 8120 by paying more for a high end Intel. You can, it's true. But you give something up. You pay more, you lose your ECC support. Or if you go crazy and build a Xeon system, you pay more, lose your unlocked multiplier.

Intel makes a lot of great CPU, but they lose in this specific case.

they dont loose at all,the 239 dollar xeon with 8 threads is an awesome bang for the buck cpu.It will work in a z68 board and it can work with normal ram and ecc and it will beatout most benchmarks vs the 8120.

Its basically a locked 2600 without a gpu

You know whats crazzy,this whole time I thought were were talking about the 8150 lol

I just looked at a bunch of reviews of the 8120 and that 8 thread xeon will beat it in just about everything,heck its better than the 8150 in most cases.

You dont even need to overclock it as it will still beat an overclocked 8120

 

[Chiropteran]

I just looked at a bunch of reviews of the 8120 and that 8 thread xeon will beat it in just about everything,heck its better than the 8150 in most cases.

You didn't have to look at reviews, I could have told you an $220~ CPU will beat an effectively $89 CPU.

 

[grkM3]

You didn't have to look at reviews, I could have told you an $220~ CPU will beat an effectively $89 CPU.

bro the 8120 is 199 on newegg and that 240 8 threaded xeon would put a beating on it in most tests.

 

[nyarrgh]

All this talk of microcenter made me buy a CPU/MB today, arrrgh. I was planning to wait for April/May when Ivy Bridge drives down the price.

Anyway, I got a 2500K for 179$ and an ASUS P8Z68-V LX for 69$ (price appears if put in a cart with a 2500K). I am sure I will regret this in two months.

 

[shelaby]

All this talk of microcenter made me buy a CPU/MB today, arrrgh. I was planning to wait for April/May when Ivy Bridge drives down the price.

Anyway, I got a 2500K for 179$ and an ASUS P8Z68-V LX for 69$ (price appears if put in a cart with a 2500K). I am sure I will regret this in two months.

picked that combo up a couple weeks ago, runnin 4.6 @ 1.215 (stable for my use, havent done a burn test on it yet)

 

[Chiropteran]

bro the 8120 is 199 on newegg and that 240 8 threaded xeon would put a beating on it in most tests.

You can buy one at newegg for $199, I'll buy mine at MC for $189 and save another $100 off my MB, thus net cost $89. Don't forget the topic of this thread 😛

 

[Edrick]

You can buy one at newegg for $199, I'll buy mine at MC for $189 and save another $100 off my MB, thus net cost $89. Don't forget the topic of this thread

Now you are just adding fuel to the fire!