Is Intel too expensive?

[VirtualLarry]

What I don't get is why Intel hasn't released a fairly-priced, unlocked, dual-core SKU. With or without hyperthreading.

My conclusion is, lack of competition leads to lack of consumer choice.

 

[mrmt]

What I don't get is why Intel hasn't released a fairly-priced, unlocked, dual-core SKU. With or without hyperthreading.

My conclusion is, lack of competition leads to lack of consumer choice.

Marketing. Intel thinks it's not worth to field an SKU like the one you are describing.

 

[cbn]

Well, for example, you could get an E5200 for $50 (I paid $43 for a couple of mine), and OC to 3.75Ghz (what my friend's OCed to). Nowadays, you can get a 2.5Ghz SB, or a 2.6Ghz IB Celeron for the same price, and cannot OC.

I don't like the lack of overclocking on the current (SB/IV) budget chips either, but according to the following article Haswell will change this via ability to make coarse adjustments to bus speed.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14176/

Significantly, the BCLK coarse ratio adjustments of 1.00, 1.25 and 1.67 which allow BCLK to change without unwanted overclocking of those SATA ports and other components, will feature in the new Haswell mainstream parts.

P.S. With regard to Intel ULV, I do find it interesting that the Acer C7 (with SB 1.1 Ghz Celeron ULV) can be purchased for $199.99. Granted it doesn't have a Windows license, but that is a really cheap price for a device with an Intel Core processor in it. In fact, if that trend continues I have to consider the possibility of Core displacing atom in the Tablet form factor. Actually, I really look forward to the day I can buy a cheap Android Tablet with an Ivy Bridge or Haswell Celeron in it.

 

[Bill Brasky]

$500 for my 3930k and I consider it well worth it. I rarely use the extra two cores, I just like them being there because its cool.

It's fun to open the task manager and see 12 little graphs.

And I think intel CPU's are fairly priced. It's the graphics cards I'm not to pleased with.

 

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14176/
Even overclocking on laptops is to be officially supported, with Intel sanctioning the use of overclocking features such as turbo buttons on the system case on top of the improvements explained above.

Laptops, with a "turbo" button?? That's different. Glad to hear that bus overclocking on mainstream parts is coming back.

 

[Rezist]

When you factor in that you need a Z77 mobo and a K processor to do any kind of overclocking it does kinda suck. For those who don't want to do extreme over clocking but mild overclocking with cheaper mobo's and the stock HSF they kinda killed that market where you could buy the cheapest quad or dual core and OC it 500-600 mhz or so.

 

[Haserath]

Do you mean the years old gross margins or the (very) recently cratered gross margins?

Intel cpu's are overpriced and have been for years. Die sizes get smaller, intel gets richer on the same prices. Their market segmentation is beyond a joke now and I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually end up segmenting to a single dollar.

The gross margins are used for Capex and R&D, which is then used to make better processors.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Voted - No, they are not too expensive,
they have really good prices up to i7 3770, after that they charge too much IMO

 

[cbn]

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14176/
Even overclocking on laptops is to be officially supported, with Intel sanctioning the use of overclocking features such as turbo buttons on the system case on top of the improvements explained above.

Laptops, with a "turbo" button?? That's different.

I am glad about standard voltage laptops/ Ultra books/Ultra Pads supporting overclocking, but according to testing in the following Anandtech review the ULV chips need some type of cooling help.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6194/asus-ux31a-putting-the-ultra-in-ultrabooks/8 )

In fact, you can set the UX31A to 25W TDP, but it appears the cooling solution isn’t actually able to deal with the higher TDP for longer periods of time and thus the CPU ends up dropping back to 17W after a few minutes of heavy lifting. That’s hardly surprising, considering how thin the UX31A is—there’s just not much space for air to flow through.

So I have been trying to predict how Intel could solve this (and the standard voltage laptop) problem :

1. Cooling Pad. (The current solution, but I am not sure how well this works as a stand alone.)

2. Add an external GPU (via some type of Thunderbolt port) in order make the Intel ULV or standard voltage iGPU "dark silicon". This connected to either the laptop screen or external monitor should free up *some* overclocking headroom for the CPU.

3. Add the ability to remove battery from the standard voltage laptop, ultra Pad or ultrabook chassis and replace with supplemental cooling fans that plug into the same spot. This, of course, would only work with the laptop connected to AC power....but if overclocking does the user really want to use battery power?

 

[Insomniator]

I have no problem with Intel CPU prices -- they have excellent low power dual core chips for office work for under 50 bucks. My 2500k was 200 bucks 2 years ago and is still a great gaming chip, overclocked or not.

Yeah they make you pay a little more for overclocking now... but the chips are excellent performers at stock clocks and when you do pay the extra for the 'K' --- 5 freaking ghz is attainable.

 

[pyjujiop]

No, not at all. You might make an argument for the top-end i7's being expensive, but those are the only game in town at that performance level. When AMD had the Athlon 64 FX chips eight years ago and Intel had nothing but factory-overclocked, power-hungry Netburst CPU's to compete against them, they charged an arm and a leg too.

The i5-3570K costs no more than the FX-8350 does, and it performs just as well, in some cases better. I usually use AMD stuff in systems I build, but there's nothing wrong with Intel's pricing.

 

[dma0991]

I think that they are fairly priced given that they could jack up the prices a little bit higher due to lack of competition. Still wish that they could do the same for their NUC's. Wouldn't mind getting one of those as a secondary PC that is never turned off, if it is slightly cheaper than it is right now.

 

[Torn Mind]

For something to be overpriced, the pricing must be more costly than some alternative, whether that alternative is a plausible hypothetical or an actual alternative.

Not being able to overclock a chip is not a good indicator of something being overpriced or not. Not being able to overclock a chip means that performance cannot be increased beyond what you get upon purchase; hence performance per dollar cannot be increased as well. That does not mean the performance per dollar spent is necessarily awful.

Using performance per dollar does show some Intel chips are stuck in "dead zones" or doldrums, such as the i3-3240, practically the entire Pentium line, or the Celeron G465. One would only buy these chips purely because budget restricts them to that much they can spend on extra performance.

 

[Haserath]

Overpriced... How can you even tell if something is 'Over' its worth?

Intel makes the best processors, and it's not like somebody else can just pop one out willie nillie.

Water in the city is priced at pennies while water in the sahara desert is priceless.

These processors are so complex, it's almost lucky that we can buy them like candy.

It's all up to you what something is 'worth'.

One example is Team Fortress 2. People value virtual hats with real money, and I think they're worthless. I buy games with them. I have my fun and I eat the cake too!

 

[SammichPG]

Yes, the dirt cheap Celeron I purchased on Friday was too expensive, especially considering it's as good as any AMD equivalent at the same price.

I'd like you to try to virtualize anything on that CPU, enjoy your lack of VT-x.

Intel needs to stop "segmenting" their processors in such a dumb way, same for multiplier unlocked -k i5 or i7 that don't come for 50-80$

 

[gammaray]

So....Intel has a monopoly?

:hmm:

its a quasi monopoly...AMD isn't really having the same revenues, and

i don't think AMD is putting pressure on Intel to lower their prices.

Who else compete with Intel, so the consumers can have better prices?

 

[Borealis7]

The question isn't "are they expensive now" but rather "will they be more expensive in the future" and i think so. The cost of building new fabs and developing new node processes isn't getting any lower.
Maybe the move to 450mm wafers would help reduce the cost per unit even by a little.

 

[blastingcap]

Most Intel CPUs are not too expensive when you consider how much you can pay for things like CPU coolers... some higher-end CPU coolers cost almost as much as the CPU and they are nothing more than hunks of metal with plastic fans attached to them. Many higher-end PSUs cost as much as the CPU as well. Etc.

 

[Haserath]

The question isn't "are they expensive now" but rather "will they be more expensive in the future" and i think so. The cost of building new fabs and developing new node processes isn't getting any lower.
Maybe the move to 450mm wafers would help reduce the cost per unit even by a little.

EUV could hopefully reduce the cost per unit as well.

 

[Torn Mind]

its a quasi monopoly...AMD isn't really having the same revenues, and

i don't think AMD is putting pressure on Intel to lower their prices.

Who else compete with Intel, so the consumers can have better prices?

In the space of x86, Intel is the monopoly. But in the entire market of processors in general, including x86, Intel is a lagging loafer desperately trying to whip itself into shape because they have no substantial presence in the mobile market for processors...yet

 

[Torn Mind]

I'd like you to try to virtualize anything on that CPU, enjoy your lack of VT-x.

Intel needs to stop "segmenting" their processors in such a dumb way, same for multiplier unlocked -k i5 or i7 that don't come for 50-80$

Celerons have VT-x. They do not have VT-d.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/58667,63913,69363,53414,53415,53416,53417,53419,69115,53418

And Virtualbox for Linux runs fine on the G550 rig in my sig.

 

[2is]

Do you mean the years old gross margins or the (very) recently cratered gross margins?

Intel cpu's are overpriced and have been for years. Die sizes get smaller, intel gets richer on the same prices. Their market segmentation is beyond a joke now and I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually end up segmenting to a single dollar.

If decreasing die size was such an easy and inexpensive endeavor, AMD would be doing it at least as fast as Intel to cut their costs.

 

[Imouto]

Is not like Intel is expensive, the whole chip industry is upside down and more and more industries are following this pattern. For example the Audi group selling the very same engine under 4 brands and then tweaking it to make 4 versions of the same car. 16 cars for all pockets with the same engineering.

So you sell the same chip for 80$ and 300$, it's np.

 

[SiliconWars]

What I don't get is why Intel hasn't released a fairly-priced, unlocked, dual-core SKU. With or without hyperthreading

Because intel would get less money. Why pay $80 for a pentium when you can pay $40 and overclock it to the same speed? It doesn't even matter that we're talking about a handful of millions in intels pool of billions - they are exercising their control over you and the market and telling you that you will get exactly what you pay for.

 

[SiliconWars]

The gross margins are used for Capex and R&D, which is then used to make better processors.

And it could also be said to bribe Dell, waste on expensive failures like Larrabee and overspend on antivirus. God knows what else we don't know about.

Thats $15-$20 billion right there btw.