Is Intel going 'girls gone wild' while AMD takes a 'chill pill'?

[Apocalypse23]

I have a feeling that Intel may have gone crazy with their latest releases. The problem is that their chips are too vast and to me it confuses the average buyer, maybe even the enthusiast with so many similar options.

They are releasing E8xxx series, Corei3, Corei5 and Corei7s. I think this may confuse the buyer and the prices are still not as competitive as with AMD's lines.

Think of it this way, you are on a budget, but want the fastest quad core for the buck, what do you buy?

The average Joe will probably say: "I want a quad core since those are nice! But I want something in my price range, lets see what options I have:

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz - $200
Intel Core i7- 920 2.66ghz - $300
Intel Corei5 - 750 3.33ghz - $219

MY buddy told me AMD was good, the phenom is AMD's best cpu right now, its at 3.4 ghz which sounds faster than the other ones, and its cheaper than the intel Core i 7 too. Man I don't understand this Core i5 and Core i3 stuff, too confusing, screw it I'm buying AMD!"

AMD 1 Intel 0

What I'm saying is that it seems that AMD is still taking the lead here (price wise especially in the Quad core segment), enthusiasts on a budget will probably be getting an AMD Phenom 965 if I am right, rather than blowing money on a Core i7, Core i5 would be there other option if they go the intel route.

The thing is that I think Intel has released too many chips in the last two years. They've even released e8700s. The bottom line is that it's confusing the market, AMD seems to be on the ball here with just some primary key chips and key price ranges while offering mid to high end performance, if not extreme performance.

Who wants to pay $300 for a Core i7 anyway?

 

[llee]

yea, i agree. i was looking forward to buying an i5-750 for $160 at microcenter in december, but with the release of all these new chips the priced has been bumped back up to $190. intel, it's not really competitive pricing if you're structuring prices UPWARDS.

 

[cbn]

I have a feeling that Intel may have gone crazy with their latest releases. The problem is that their chips are too vast and to me it confuses the average buyer, maybe even the enthusiast with so many similar options.

They are releasing E8xxx series, Corei3, Corei5 and Corei7s. I think this may confuse the buyer and the prices are still not as competitive as with AMD's lines.

Think of it this way, you are on a budget, but want the fastest quad core for the buck, what do you buy?

The average Joe will probably say: "I want a quad core since those are nice! But I want something in my price range, lets see what options I have:

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz - $200
Intel Core i7- 920 2.66ghz - $300
Intel Corei5 - 750 3.33ghz - $219

MY buddy told me AMD was good, the phenom is AMD's best cpu right now, its at 3.4 ghz which sounds faster than the other ones, and its cheaper than the intel Core i 7 too. Man I don't understand this Core i5 and Core i3 stuff, too confusing, screw it I'm buying AMD!"

AMD 1 Intel 0

What I'm saying is that it seems that AMD is still taking the lead here (price wise especially in the Quad core segment), enthusiasts on a budget will probably be getting an AMD Phenom 965 if I am right, rather than blowing money on a Core i7, Core i5 would be there other option if they go the intel route.

The thing is that I think Intel has released too many chips in the last two years. They've even released e8700s. The bottom line is that it's confusing the market, AMD seems to be on the ball here with just some primary key chips and key price ranges while offering mid to high end performance, if not extreme performance.

Who wants to pay $300 for a Core i7 anyway?

I'm not so sure AMD really is that much better on price.

Main advantage I see is the ability to carry over DDR2 memory for Phenom II x4. In fact, I had a 4 GB set of low bin Micron DDR2 533 Mhz that would have worked nicely with an unclocked Black Edition processor. (Too bad I sold that kit. I only use 2 GB at the moment due to being on a 32 bit OS)

 

[VirtualLarry]

The thing is that I think Intel has released too many chips in the last two years. They've even released e8700s. The bottom line is that it's confusing the market, AMD seems to be on the ball here with just some primary key chips and key price ranges while offering mid to high end performance, if not extreme performance.

The alternative viewpoint might say that AMD hasn't released enough of a variety of chips, that some of their market segments are still underserved. For example, what do they have to counter Atom and/or the ULV market?

And of course, AMD has nothing to answer Intel at the high end, either.

 

[Jd007]

I think one of Intel's problems right now is their confusing socket types. There's the LGA 775, LGA 1156, and the LGA 1366, with no compatibility between each other. Making matters worse is the naming scheme - they have i7 CPUs on both LGA 1156 and 1366. AMD clearly wins with their socket compatibility.

As for AMD having no answer to Intel's high-end chips, I don't see that as a big issue. Most consumers aren't enthusiasts and won't buy $300+ CPUs anyway. At most it's a publicity thing where Intel can say that they have the fastest chip on the market today. AMD has tremendous value around the $100 range with some quad cores, yet Intel has no quad core chips under $140. The Core i3s are overpriced right now, IMHO.

 

[teddyv]

I was going to build an i5 system originally but with all the confusion over new chips, bad sockets, etc. I think I will just build an AMD (Athlon II X4 630) system. It is flexible, will do everything I need it to, and I can toss the mobo and cpu without much pain should I want to upgrade sooner than expected.

 

[Allio]

yea, i agree. i was looking forward to buying an i5-750 for $160 at microcenter in december, but with the release of all these new chips the priced has been bumped back up to $190. intel, it's not really competitive pricing if you're structuring prices UPWARDS.

Microcenter was warping the perceived value of Intel chips by selling them at massive discounts (ie. way below cost) to get people through the door. Quite annoying for people without access to one. I got sick of people considering the 750 to be a "$150" CPU whenever someone asked for advice on a bang-for-buck system.

 

[RussianSensation]

Newegg's pricing is:
955 = $159.99
965 = $179.99
Core i5 750 = $199.99
Core i7 860 = $279.99
Core i7 920 = $288.99

5770 = $164.99 (without rebates)
5850 = $289.99

Obviously, for gaming, a Phenom II 955 + 5850 = $450 >>>> Core i7 920 + 5770 = $454

That's why AMD has been gaining market share on Intel. Again AMD offers $100-$125 quads that are also better than Core i3 unless all a person does is game. On a budget, AMD is untouchable right now. The main reason I went with a Core i7 is because I got microcenter pricing, when Core i7 860 actually cost less than the 965 processor (September 8, 2009)!

 

[OBLAMA2009]

I'm not so sure AMD really is that much better on price.

Main advantage I see is the ability to carry over DDR2 memory for Phenom II x4. In fact, I had a 4 GB set of low bin Micron DDR2 533 Mhz that would have worked nicely with an unclocked Black Edition processor. (Too bad I sold that kit. I only use 2 GB at the moment due to being on a 32 bit OS)

no, the main advantage is stability and compatibility

 

[HannibalX]

I don't think AMD or Intel do a particularly good job of marketing their processors. IMO both companies have an overly complex line with terrible naming conventions. Part of me thinks this is done on purpose though.

 

[Hyperlite]

I don't think AMD or Intel do a particularly good job of marketing their processors. IMO both companies have an overly complex line with terrible naming conventions. Part of me thinks this is done on purpose though.

I think it's an easy rut to get into though. You keep releasing new processors in the same architectural generation, that may be on the same or different sockets, with different features...and you want to differentiate them, but you don't want to make completely separate product lines...

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

A P2 965 system is not much cheaper than an i5 750 system and is not even close to the performance or power consumption. AMD is great on the low-end for now but once i3 comes down in price, they'll only be competitive in the value market.

 

[Ben90]

I think one of Intel's problems right now is their confusing socket types. There's the LGA 775, LGA 1156, and the LGA 1366, with no compatibility between each other. Making matters worse is the naming scheme - they have i7 CPUs on both LGA 1156 and 1366. AMD clearly wins with their socket compatibility.

The average joe doesn't even know about sockets, they go to www.dell.com/hp/gateway/whatever else/bestbuy and pick a cheap option

 

[Meghan54]

The average joe doesn't even know about sockets, they go to www.dell.com/hp/gateway/whatever else/bestbuy and pick a cheap option

And that's the truth. AMD is still almost an unknown quantity in the average consumer's mindset and given Intel's advertising budget pushing the Core i3, i5, and i7 cpus, not sockets, not quad core, dual core, etc., all the unwashed go into BB or on Dell's site look for is the Intel sticker/name.

What most on this and other enthusiast forums fail to realize is that we enthusiasts represent such a small slice of the overall computer market that we almost don't matter....we're a niche of the computer buying public.

The majority go buy solely by brand name.....HP, Compaq, Apple, Sony, Dell, Acer and Intel. Start talking sockets, dual channel vs. triple channel memory, etc., and you can watch their eyes glaze over and the ear muffs go on.

All they want is "Does it surf the internet good?", "Can it play Farmville on Facebook?", "Can I watch YouTube videos on it?", "Will my camera work with it?"

So, Intel's advertising is focused on getting its processor names recognized, about all there is to it. The consumer will look for those nice Core i3, i5, i7 stickers on the case......and wonder who or what a Phenom is, if they even stop and look at an AMD-powered machine.

 

[DrMrLordX]

In all fairness to Intel, at least as far as the i3/i5 dual core chips are concerned, they do have much better power consumption numbers compared to AMD's top-of-the-line quads (955BE C3 stepping, etc). The power delta just gets bigger once overclocking is factored in.

Back in the day, several posters here (including me) lambasted the old Pentium D 805 for being cheap only initially due to the high power bill that would come along with it. Over the life of the system, we reasoned that the 805D would cost you as much (if not more) than an X2 all the while providing inferior performance. While I can't claim that you'd get better performance out of an i3 530 before or after overclocking than you would with a 955BE, you most certainly will save a little on your power bill with the i3. Those kinds of savings will add up, especially if you push your machine hard for extended periods of time.

 

[nonameo]

All they want is "Does it surf the internet good?", "Can it play Farmville on Facebook?", "Can I watch YouTube videos on it?", "Will my camera work with it?"

The sad thing is, you could do all of that on a computer 3-4 years old easily. Probably even older.

 

[zsdersw]

no, the main advantage is stability and compatibility

What, exactly, is unstable and incompatible with Intel platforms?

 

[nyker96]

For most people in the know, Intel lineup isn't too confusing. However, for the average guy, the overlapping i3s with 775s must be very confusing. esp. when they over price dual cores into the 1156 quad territory. on top of that dualz with HT claiming to be virtual quads vs 'real' quads without it. I'm not sure average buyer can tell all these apart unless s/he did his/her research. but then again if they figure all these things out then they wouldn't be average buyer anymore.

 

[StrangerGuy]

What, exactly, is unstable and incompatible with Intel platforms?

Thankfully AMD provides their own chipsets nowadays because Nvidia is terribad at making chipsets for AMD after nforce2.

 

[shaolin95]

Are you serious dude?
NF3 and NF4 gave us two legendary boards from DFI so you either have bad memory or didnt try either..

 

[Kraeoss]

well i think that amd is much more like a mid area contender... theyre not really gunning for the highest or lowest... more like a gamer's choice...

 

[exar333]

AMD makes sense if your on a budget or primarily game, otherwise Intel is better. Period.

Kind of reminds me of the Athlon-XP days against the P4Cs. I was on a budget, and used my machine for gaming, thus AMD was my perfect choice.

 

[aigomorla]

Are you serious dude?
NF3 and NF4 gave us two legendary boards from DFI so you either have bad memory or didnt try either..

yeah and those were the last time nvidia gave out good chipsets.

after that they been nothing but flunk.

 

[yh125d]

AMD isn't much simpler in practice

I mean yeah, intel has i7s for 1366, i7s i5s and i3s for 1156, two general types of 1156, and can be a lot more confusing than the older C2D/C2Q/775 setup, but AMd has Athlon X2s, Phenom Is, Phenom II X2/3/4, Athlon II X2/3/4, several e versions, and still has some confusion on AM2/AM2+/AM3

And intel is competitive at the lower end now, i3 530 for $125 is very good value. AMD still has them in <$100 and 150-200, but 100-150 intel is viable again

 

[Nemesis 1]

I have a feeling that Intel may have gone crazy with their latest releases. The problem is that their chips are too vast and to me it confuses the average buyer, maybe even the enthusiast with so many similar options.

They are releasing E8xxx series, Corei3, Corei5 and Corei7s. I think this may confuse the buyer and the prices are still not as competitive as with AMD's lines.

Think of it this way, you are on a budget, but want the fastest quad core for the buck, what do you buy?

The average Joe will probably say: "I want a quad core since those are nice! But I want something in my price range, lets see what options I have:

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz - $200
Intel Core i7- 920 2.66ghz - $300
Intel Corei5 - 750 3.33ghz - $219

MY buddy told me AMD was good, the phenom is AMD's best cpu right now, its at 3.4 ghz which sounds faster than the other ones, and its cheaper than the intel Core i 7 too. Man I don't understand this Core i5 and Core i3 stuff, too confusing, screw it I'm buying AMD!"

AMD 1 Intel 0

What I'm saying is that it seems that AMD is still taking the lead here (price wise especially in the Quad core segment), enthusiasts on a budget will probably be getting an AMD Phenom 965 if I am right, rather than blowing money on a Core i7, Core i5 would be there other option if they go the intel route.

The thing is that I think Intel has released too many chips in the last two years. They've even released e8700s. The bottom line is that it's confusing the market, AMD seems to be on the ball here with just some primary key chips and key price ranges while offering mid to high end performance, if not extreme performance.

Who wants to pay $300 for a Core i7 anyway?

What makes you think Intel can price the same as AMD pricies. Seems to me your just trolling . If intels pricies their cpus the same as AMD . Than AMD won't sell a single cpu in the larger more important OEM market. If AMD reduces pricies even further and Intel does the same . All will cry Intel is using its monolithic monopoly power to put AMD out of business . Read these forums and see how quickly the worm turns. Your topic is a troll topic plain and simple . If intel matches AMD pricies they get flake . If they price higher as they have for a superior products . They get Topics like this . Its a circle for circle jerkers, around and around we go . Have you ever stopped to think???