Settle down everyone at least AMD is trying.

[Arachnotronic]

If you guys don't think that an i5 3570K is reasonably priced then...well, I don't know what to tell you. $219 just isn't a lot of money for something that you'll use almost every day for years straight.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If you guys don't think that an i5 3570K is reasonably priced then...well, I don't know what to tell you. $219 just isn't a lot of money for something that you'll use almost every day for years straight.

Pretty much this.

$200<->$250 seems to be a price/performance sweet spot, usually.

 

[9enesis]

no sure if this has been posted already....sounds intriguing enough i think...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...mportant_Strategy_Announcement_Next_Week.html

 

[Ben90]

+ an upgrade path.

I could not do that at this price point with Intel.

I remember in 2008 a major driving factor for AM3 sales against 1366 was the much touted "upgrade path". Nearly every thread had at least one post about how 1366 was a dead socket and the next generation phenoms would spank Bloomsfield.

I feel both gitty and sad that my 920 @ 4.2 still matches the best of the best from AMD. Although I guess most AM3 users have upgraded to SB since then so they might get the last laugh.

 

[jumpncrash]

I remember in 2008 a major driving factor for AM3 sales against 1366 was the much touted "upgrade path". Nearly every thread had at least one post about how 1366 was a dead socket and the next generation phenoms would spank Bloomsfield.

I feel both gitty and sad that my 920 @ 4.2 still matches the best of the best from AMD. Although I guess most AM3 users have upgraded to SB since then so they might get the last laugh.

it is pretty retarded that a cpu that old can still be so competitive

 

[KAZANI]

If you guys don't think that an i5 3570K is reasonably priced then...well, I don't know what to tell you.

Noone here says that, but people here use elusive "hot deals", with a ton of strings attached, to prove the cost of an i5 build is less than that of a Trinity one. We all have our views on how much AMD is price competitive at the moment, but actually suggesting that Intel is cheaper takes an argument too far.

 

[Eureka]

Noone here says that, but people here use elusive "hot deals", with a ton of strings attached, to prove the cost of an i5 build is less than that of a Trinity one. We all have our views on how much AMD is price competitive at the moment, but actually suggesting that Intel is cheaper takes an argument too far.

Except, it's not elusive. The i5 has been sitting at $190 + ($50 off any motherboard) for the last six months at microcenter, the only strings being gas and tax. Also newegg and tigerdirect had it on for a good two weeks.

And while it's still not cheaper than an AMD system, you're getting a huge bump in performance. Of course, AMD barebones can go for around $100 now. Both companies thrives on discounts; hell AMD's graphics competitiveness stems primarily from its bang for $ value.

 

[jihe]

The real story: there was only single core processors. AMD was first to intruduce 64bit and dual core cpu's. Then Intel fired back with the Core 2 series. Then AMD died on its ass.

Ok I remember when there was only single core processors. AMD was first to intruduce 64bit and dual core cpu's. Then Intel fired back with the Core 2 series. Then AMD fires back with quads of their own.

Here is where I think AMD is trying to move forward while Intel is on a dead stop.

IMO for hardcore users not gamers. Cores are more important. Since 2007 Intel desktop has been quad core. That is not enough if you have 50 synths playing in realtime and 100 plugins in the project. This is with my Q6 processor. Sandy bridge I heard gives it a 50 percent boost in power. That is nice.

But the thing is I need cores. I am a believer a true core is faster then a threaded core. At least AMD since 2007 has moved on to 8 core processors while intel is 4 core. and if you want 6 core intel you pay 600 to 1k. While you can pay 300 and get the fastest amd 8 core.

I run DAW and I have a strange feeling a simple 8 core AMD would pown a sandy 2600k or ivy 3570k 4 core 8 threads, in Sonar X2 it will show 8 but their not actual cores. Actual cores might be better for me. Hmm I don't wan't to go AMD but seems like by the time Im ready for a new upgrade in 2013 ,, if I want 6 core I pay 1k, or I can pay 300 and get 8 core and overclock it under water to 5Ghz. 5Ghz , 8 cores.. sounds nice, and we know gaming wise it will perform same with Intels higher models and the rest is desktop work you do.

AMD did something right for the consumer video editor, Adob Premiere , I bet it encodes faster if you OC it too. And for DAW people...

BTW question. What is the best most powerful consumer CPU from amd. I know its 8 core but whats the model cuz theres like 5000 models literally.

Intel should have followed suit and put 8 core 16 threads to the table in 2012 and 2013, but no....... all you get is a hexacore Haswell for 1 thousand dollars. yikes.... :twisted:

:whiste:

 

[lamedude]

Also, applaud AMD for introducing multiplier unlocked CPUs at reasonable prices. The Phenom Black Editions came before the Intel -K CPUs. Before that, the only multiplier unlocked chips were Intel Extreme Editions costing $1000.

It was AMD that introduced unlocked CPUs at unreasonable prices. We went from $100 unlocked Athlon XP's to $733 Athlon FX's then later $999 to match the P4 Emergency Edition. Before that we went from unlocked K6's to needing a goldfinger device to change a Slot A Athlon's multiplier.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It was AMD that introduced unlocked CPUs at unreasonable prices. We went from $100 unlocked Athlon XP's to $733 Athlon FX's then later $999 to match the P4 Emergency Edition. Before that we went from unlocked K6's to needing a goldfinger device to change a Slot A Athlon's multiplier.

CPUs was unlocked way before by both.

I think people fail to understand why the companies locked down CPUs and basicly who caved in first. It was called counterfeit. But people only tend to remember what they wish to remember.

 

[Idontcare]

It was AMD that introduced unlocked CPUs at unreasonable prices. We went from $100 unlocked Athlon XP's to $733 Athlon FX's then later $999 to match the P4 Emergency Edition. Before that we went from unlocked K6's to needing a goldfinger device to change a Slot A Athlon's multiplier.

Counterfeiting became a HUGE issue at the time, and naturally the counterfieters tended to follow the market. Whatever was the high-priced CPU of the time was what was counterfeited by using cheaper/lower-clocked versions and then overclocking them or spec'ing them at higher multipliers by re-silkscreening the ID on the chip.

I doubt the CPU makers actually lost much money from counterfieters in a direct sense, whether you bought a $700 cpu or a $300 cpu that was counterfieted to be a $700 version, the cpu company still made money.

But the real damage was in terms of brand association with stable/unstable platforms. An OC'ed rig would be more prone to reboots, silent data corruption, etc...and in the end the person is going to associate that experience with the brand of CPU in their computer. And that stood to cost the company a lot more money in terms of bad-will and negative mindshare.

Plus their large account OEMs were not happy to have smaller competitors underselling them...when DELL's BoM for a computer is higher than the listed selling price in Computer Shopper for a mom&pop built box then things are not happy with DELL and their Intel account rep who is supposed to be giving DELL preferential volume discounts to prevent that from happening. But the discounts don't work if the mom&pop business is using (or doing it themselves) counterfeit lower-binned CPUs.

 

[TerryMathews]

CPUs was unlocked way before by both.

I think people fail to understand why the companies locked down CPUs and basicly who caved in first. It was called counterfeit. But people only tend to remember what they wish to remember.

You mean that Intel locked up first right? Because i distinctly remember having a slot A machine i could change the multipliers on via GFD and a slot 1 that was locked via microfuses.

AMDs processors went throufh various stages of multiplier control but at least through the Athlon XP days it was overcomable. Intentionally? I dont know but they had a lot of time to copy the Intel method if they wanted to.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You mean that Intel locked up first right? Because i distinctly remember having a slot A machine i could change the multipliers on via GFD and a slot 1 that was locked via microfuses.

AMDs processors went throufh various stages of multiplier control but at least through the Athlon XP days it was overcomable. Intentionally? I dont know but they had a lot of time to copy the Intel method if they wanted to.

AthlonXP also suffered heavily from counterfeit. Not exactly a good experience for endusers.

It wasnt about copy, it was about to find the most cheapest and simple way.

That you could unlock/overclock was a mere sideeffect. None of the companies cared about that at the time.

It also took AMD along time to get thermal monitor and control. So the CPUs couldnt just die from overheat. Why didnt they just copy Intel several years before? Its too easy to say such

 

[TerryMathews]

AthlonXP also suffered heavily from counterfeit. Not exactly a good experience for endusers.

It wasnt about copy, it was about to find the most cheapest and simple way.

That you could unlock/overclock was a mere sideeffect. None of the companies cared about that at the time.

It also took AMD along time to get thermal monitor and control. So the CPUs couldnt just die from overheat. Why didnt they just copy Intel several years before? Its too easy to say such

I think you're a fool if you believe that overclocking and the community surroundings it bears no impact on decision making. It did then and it does now. The unlocked multiplier SKUs show thay your premise there is false.

So you believe Intel locking CPUs tighter than a drum was done out of the goodness of their heart that is two sizes too big?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think you're a fool if you believe that overclocking and the community surroundings it bears no impact on decision making. It did then and it does now. The unlocked multiplier SKUs show thay your premise there is false.

So you believe Intel locking CPUs tighter than a drum was done out of the goodness of their heart that is two sizes too big?

I think you confuse two time periods. Today overclocking got PR value and is spread via the internet. In 2001 for example, overclocking meant close to nothing and had zero PR value. Overclocking back then was only seen as a problem, since counterfeit companies sold rebranded overclocked CPUs.

Its also why Intel only unlocks the highest bin in a model, since you cant counterfeit it then.

If AMD is so good to overclockers, why aint all AMD CPUs unlocked?

 

[NTMBK]

If AMD is so good to overclockers, why aint all AMD CPUs unlocked?

Just because they're not as good to OC'ers as they theoretically could be, doesn't mean that they're not still better than Intel...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Just because they're not as good to OC'ers as they theoretically could be, doesn't mean that they're not still better than Intel...

That wasnt the question.

 

[TerryMathews]

That wasnt the question.

No, it was the answer though.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No, it was the answer though.

Nope.

 

[NTMBK]

Nope.

Yup.

 

[bononos]

I remembered the counterfeit Pentiums which had their tops sanded off and re-engraved at a higher speed rating. I think AMD/Intel cracked down on their oem channels at around the same period to push ordinary consumers to buy the retail boxed cpus instead of the bare tray version partly to squeeze down on the gray market where chips can get diverted for counterfeiting and also to make sure consumers buy proper heatsinks.

 

[TerryMathews]

I think you confuse two time periods. Today overclocking got PR value and is spread via the internet. In 2001 for example, overclocking meant close to nothing and had zero PR value. Overclocking back then was only seen as a problem, since counterfeit companies sold rebranded overclocked CPUs.

Its also why Intel only unlocks the highest bin in a model, since you cant counterfeit it then.

If AMD is so good to overclockers, why aint all AMD CPUs unlocked?

If Intel is such a good company, why do their product lines stagnate and their prices inflate when effective competition is absent?

I also strongly disagree with your assessment. I was very active in the overclocking community during the period you are referencing. Overclocking was very relevant then. What was your level of activity at the time?

 

[ShintaiDK]

If Intel is such a good company, why do their product lines stagnate and their prices inflate when effective competition is absent?

I also strongly disagree with your assessment. I was very active in the overclocking community during the period you are referencing. Overclocking was very relevant then. What was your level of activity at the time?

CPU prices basicly havent been cheaper than they are today. And R&D budgets to improve havent been higher either.

 

[TerryMathews]

CPU prices basicly havent been cheaper than they are today. And R&D budgets to improve havent been higher either.

I understand you think AMD isn't competition today, but it really is. I was referring to the pre-K7 days.

 

[cytg111]

it's not rocket science, when intel keeps a 5-10% increase pr tick tock and amd does a 10-15%. While slower atm (and not counting power), amd will catch up .. even on dozer arch.