Is Intel's low-end becoming a worse value for money than it used to be?

[ShintaiDK]

You forget, that chip wasn't marketed world-wide, it was only test-marketed in China.

If it had been available in the USA, I guarantee Intel would have sold a bunch of them.

But enough to justify it? I dont think so.

And thats back to the core of the issue. I want something, maybe a few others will. But in reality its something that would be considered a special order. Limited run if you like. Thats not how to do business in large scale.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Try sticking an E5200 in a rock bottom board and see what overclock you can get and how long it lasts. So realistically we are talking about a 200-300% more expensive setup for CPU and mobo and that is completly ignoring the fact the E5200 will be snorting juice like a crack whore compared to the G530.

Uhm, I have an E5200 @ 4GHz on a Gigabyte G41MT-D3. Not exactly PC Chips, but not high end either (it couldn't push much further past ~350FSB).
The whole point of the E5x00 was being high-multi 45nm C2Ds

Hard for me to justify upgrading that setup (using it as a Hackintosh). If the G5x0 chips could be FSB overclocked, they'd be a perfect replacement.

 

[VirtualLarry]

But enough to justify it? I dont think so.

And thats back to the core of the issue. I want something, maybe a few others will. But in reality its something that would be considered a special order. Limited run if you like. Thats not how to do business in large scale.

One of the factors too, was with chips from the E5xxx series, multiplier wasn't the limiting factor in the overclock, for the most part. Most boards could do 350FSB (G31/41), maybe 400 (P35 and better), and that was enough to reach the limit of the chip (around 4Ghz) with the high multis inherent in those CPUs, since they were designed for a 200FSB.

 

[Arkaign]

One of the factors too, was with chips from the E5xxx series, multiplier wasn't the limiting factor in the overclock, for the most part. Most boards could do 350FSB (G31/41), maybe 400 (P35 and better), and that was enough to reach the limit of the chip (around 4Ghz) with the high multis inherent in those CPUs, since they were designed for a 200FSB.

yep, and accordingly, one could use average DDR2-800 memory (or even overclocked 667 ram) most of the time. It's not like there weren't dividers on almost all of those boards as well, I know all my Gigabyte and Asus MicroATX G31, G33/etc had no problems giving pretty solid overclocks from cheap duallies.

 

[soccerballtux]

I hope so, AMD needs breathing room

 

[VirtualLarry]

considering that bus overclocking on llano is fail too, I don't think AMD is any better in this regard.

 

[Concillian]

Well, cept you needed a highend (by that time) x38 board and very expensive memory plus an aftermarket cooler. While the E6750 would be able to run the same with cheap memory, cheap board and stock cooler.

You keep talking about needing other expensive components... my $110 i3-530 is overclocked on a $70 motherboard. I had to spend a whopping $30 on a cooler to unlock that 35% overclock.

So for $200 what can you get now that's comparable in performance to a 4 GHz i3? A CPU OR a motherboard?

Value? not anymore. It's Intel squeezing out the budget OCers and making us pay for our performance.
I can't really fault them for this, but on the flip side, there's also nothing wrong with lamenting the death of budget OCing on a forum that, at one time, had a fair number of people into that kind of thing.
What it's done for me is I've pretty much stopped buying things I would have if they hadn't changed their ways. They didn't push me into higher profit markets, they just dropped me out of the game.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You keep talking about needing other expensive components... my $110 i3-530 is overclocked on a $70 motherboard. I had to spend a whopping $30 on a cooler to unlock that 35% overclock.

So for $200 what can you get now that's comparable in performance to a 4 GHz i3? A CPU OR a motherboard?

Value? not anymore. It's Intel squeezing out the budget OCers and making us pay for our performance.
I can't really fault them for this, but on the flip side, there's also nothing wrong with lamenting the death of budget OCing on a forum that, at one time, had a fair number of people into that kind of thing.
What it's done for me is I've pretty much stopped buying things I would have if they hadn't changed their ways. They didn't push me into higher profit markets, they just dropped me out of the game.

Considering you can get a 45$ LGA1155 board+150$ 3450 with stock cooler thats roughly twice as fast as your 210$ overclocked system I dont see the issue.

 

[AtenRa]

Considering you can get a 45$ LGA1155 board+150$ 3450 with stock cooler thats roughly twice as fast as your 210$ overclocked system I dont see the issue.

Heh, two and a half years after the Core i3 530 release. :whiste:

At the time of release, there was no competition for an overclocked Core i3 530 at that price.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Heh, two and a half years after the Core i3 530 release. :whiste:

At the time of release, there was no competition for an overclocked Core i3 530 at that price.

Neither is there for a 3450 thats twice as fast today for a smaller total price.

 

[AtenRa]

Neither is there for a 3450 thats twice as fast today for a smaller total price.

And that's because we dont have an overclockable Core i3 today.

 

[AtenRa]

Just think of this,

22 January 2010 we had the release of Core i3 530 at $115.
You could OC that baby to 4GHz or more and have almost the performance of the $200 Core i5 750.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-530-overclock-lga-1156,2626-8.html

July 2012,

We dont have a $115 core i3 that can be OCed to have the performance of the $200 Core i5.
We actually have to pay $200 to have the performance of a $200 CPU.

So for OverClockers, YES Intel's low-end has worse value than it used to be.

For non overclockers, a $115 will get you a 2 core 4 threads CPU as in 2010.
(before anyone rush and say that today's 2 core 4 threads CPUs are faster, you have to remember that 4 core CPUs are after too. Analogically, you spend the same money for a given performance as two and a have years ago)

 

[KompuKare]

What it's done for me is I've pretty much stopped buying things I would have if they hadn't changed their ways. They didn't push me into higher profit markets, they just dropped me out of the game.

+1. That is exactly how I feel. Since I have never paid more than about £60 for a CPU (mobo ~ £50), and since atm anything in that price is hardly an upgrade from my overclocked E5300 I simply do not upgrade.

Prior to that my upgrade strategy was to buy a new budget CPU every two years so but only if it would give me around double the performance. ATM, the only upgrade would be some locked SB Pentiums or unlocked Llano. The Pentiums are not really any faster than my overclocked E5300 and the Llanos are only an upgrade for heavily threaded stuff. About the only thing either have going is much better idle power usage and I'm not sure that's enough to upgrade for.

I'm sure the Intel fan-club will chime in with my desire to get something for nothing etc. etc. (which is the reason I didn't reply to this thread so far) but no matter how brilliant Intel's K series CPUs are compared to Extreme edition CPUs and so on - none of this matters to me since I would never be in the market for an Extreme edition CPU...

 

[Akantus]

About the only thing either have going is much better idle power usage and I'm not sure that's enough to upgrade for.

And much, much better load power usage (like few times lower).
Well at least for the pentium.

 

[StrangerGuy]

+1. That is exactly how I feel. Since I have never paid more than about £60 for a CPU (mobo ~ £50), and since atm anything in that price is hardly an upgrade from my overclocked E5300 I simply do not upgrade.

Prior to that my upgrade strategy was to buy a new budget CPU every two years so but only if it would give me around double the performance. ATM, the only upgrade would be some locked SB Pentiums or unlocked Llano. The Pentiums are not really any faster than my overclocked E5300 and the Llanos are only an upgrade for heavily threaded stuff. About the only thing either have going is much better idle power usage and I'm not sure that's enough to upgrade for.

I'm sure the Intel fan-club will chime in with my desire to get something for nothing etc. etc. (which is the reason I didn't reply to this thread so far) but no matter how brilliant Intel's K series CPUs are compared to Extreme edition CPUs and so on - none of this matters to me since I would never be in the market for an Extreme edition CPU...

You won't buy a $220 2500K because the extreme editions are so hilariously overpriced to begin with? WTF are you talking about.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You won't buy a $220 2500K because the extreme editions are so hilariously overpriced to begin with? WTF are you talking about.

Obviously the 200-225$ 2500K/3570K is the new 1000$ CPUs after the great deflation...oh wait

 

[AtenRa]

You won't buy a $220 2500K because the extreme editions are so hilariously overpriced to begin with? WTF are you talking about.

I may be wrong but i believe he meant that the $200 and $300 CPUs when OCed have the same performance of the $1000 CPUs.

Examples are,

Core 2 Quad Q9450 ($300) OCed to 3.2GHz equals the Core 2 QX9770 ($999)
Core i7 920 ($300) OCed to 3.33GHz equals the Core i7 975 ($999)

 

[KompuKare]

Hm, let me see... what did I mean

I'm sure the Intel fan-club will chime in with my desire to get something for nothing etc. etc. (which is the reason I didn't reply to this thread so far) but no matter how brilliant Intel's K series CPUs are compared to Extreme edition CPUs and so on - none of this matters to me since I would never be in the market for an Extreme edition CPU..

Ok, brilliant might not have been the right word. Let me try this again:

but no matter how great value Intel's K series CPUs are compared the $200+ CPUs of yore and so on - none of this matters to me since I have never be in the market for a $200+ CPU. So if Intel are dependent on offering compelling upgrades (the whole Intel competes with Intel argument), they are failing on that score since in my budget they have nothing compelling to tempt me to ditch my OC’ed Pentium E5300.

Ok, that’s a bit clearer.

 

[Concillian]

Considering you can get a 45$ LGA1155 board+150$ 3450 with stock cooler thats roughly twice as fast as your 210$ overclocked system I dont see the issue.

Lol.... not really... only in multithreaded apps... I use very few apps that utilize more than 2 cores, and all the locked down CPUs are slower than what I have in the apps & games I use regularly, and the fact that they go from 2 to 4 cores means the power savings of the newer architecture is completely negated by the extra overhead. I already have idle and load consumption as good or better than I'd have with a newer quad.

 

[ExcaliburMM]

I remember buying an E2140 that was 1.6 stock and running it at 3.2. A 100% OC on air for a chip that costed what? 80$ at the time? I don't know if we'll ever see anything like that in the low end again.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Lol.... not really... only in multithreaded apps... I use very few apps that utilize more than 2 cores, and all the locked down CPUs are slower than what I have in the apps & games I use regularly, and the fact that they go from 2 to 4 cores means the power savings of the newer architecture is completely negated by the extra overhead. I already have idle and load consumption as good or better than I'd have with a newer quad.

I doubt, I really doubt. A 3450 will use less than your i3 530 at stock. And OCed your i3 530 will use alot more.

 

[Akantus]

So if Intel are dependent on offering compelling upgrades (the whole Intel competes with Intel argument), they are failing on that score since in my budget they have nothing compelling to tempt me to ditch my OC’ed Pentium E5300.

Yeah, that is true, but only for now. In few years non-overclockable low-end will be good enough upgrade for you and then everything is non-overclockable so you'll be able to upgrade in the usual way.
Consumer loses a bit, but intel doesn't.

I think Intel just want people to pay for the performance they need, and if they need more performance than Intel's SKU's can offer there are the K chips.

 

[Vesku]

Back in the Core 2 days, I OCed a Pentium 2xxx series with a crappy ECS ultra low budget board. Since when do you need premium parts to OC a budget CPU?

Well, cept you needed a highend (by that time) x38 board and very expensive memory plus an aftermarket cooler. While the E6750 would be able to run the same with cheap memory, cheap board and stock cooler.

That OCed E1200 just got more expensive than a E6750...

But thats something people often forget.

 

[clok1966]

do they even bin chips anymore.. same chip tested for speedn and marked acordingly?
I htink it strange to see people (wth PC knowledge ) think OC is bad in any way.. get free performance alwasy seemed "smart" to me.. I OC'ed for years, it was fun, it was even more fun to watch joe spend $1000's and replace it in a years time when you spent $100's to do the same and have the same. Money is nothing to some people. Back then the slow chip was often the same as the fast chip, it just didnt test as well.. as time went on and manufacturing improved the CHIPS where the same.. it was just cheaper to not even test, mark um and sell um..

Havent OC'ed since the 8400's, life just got to busy an other things entertain me now.. Heck I dont even know whats fast anymore.. i think my current rig has a 2600 in it...

 

[Concillian]

I doubt, I really doubt. A 3450 will use less than your i3 530 at stock. And OCed your i3 530 will use alot more.

Doubt all you want, I read the reviews and look closely at power consumption. They are higher than my kill-a-watt readings on my machine at idle and load.

I am not pushing mass volts into my CPU. That' needed for 4.4Ghz, but I'm only at 4.0. Big difference in power consumption between the two.

Regardless of power consumption, why would I spend as much as I spent on CPU + Mobo for JUST a CPU that's about the same speed as mine in lightly threaded apps or single threaded apps when that's most of what I do? Makes no sense.