whatever bottom line amd cpus suck compare to new intels ones:stewpid: get a benchmark on ADM doing better and I shut up:infinity:
+11. Intel also has a monopoly over AMD,and "big blue" has tried to kill them off many times before. Maybe if AMD had a ad or two people might recognize them better. AMD made the first true quad core cpu,intel just stuck 4 chips together,compared to the amd it seemed crude.
Yeah, but kinda funny how AMDs "true quad core", Barcelona, still had its arse handed to it on a plate by Intels 'non-true' quads. So what was the point? :nerd:
Last check IBM is an AMD partner. Maybe your big blue is referring to Intel? Try not to because around the industry, Big Blue is IBM and not Intel, can get confusing. deltatux
Think of the average joe out there who buys a new computer. they have either heard of Intel or notice how common Intel is and assume they must be better somehow. which in some ways may be true in terms of power and fabrication process's. When spending alot of money, people tend to want the product they think will have the best support, compatability along with power and may think of AMD as the generic brand. Plus Apple only uses Intel which is another large selling point. Really it comes down to Intel's marketing muscle...kinda like Microsoft. Most consumers on average really don't have much of a clue about what their really buying, thats why everything is so dumbed down.
That's a very good point, and I assembled a copy of my rig on Newegg, but with an Intel board and processor. The total cost of my current rig is about $700. If I would have chosen to use Intel, it would be about $1800 for the same performance. :biggun:
It's hard to say one thing or another for Intel's pricing. There's a lot to consider when generalizing how well one company prices its hardware against the competition. In the high-end market, they only have few price points (around $200, $300, $500, and $1000). Intel's CPU price scaling is a lot more exaggerated compared to AMD's. A "low-end" Pentium G9650 built on the 32nm Clarkdale core is effectively priced at ~$83 MSRP (Newegg's listing is $100) and it will undoubtedly appeal to the budget OC'er. But looking at the high-end range of Clarkdale CPUs (dual core Core i5 models), it's easy to tell that $200+ dual core CPUs won't fare well when a similar but much faster quad core offering can be found for less (i5 750). That's the philosophy for buying hardware that makes sense to me most of the time: buy the lowest-end model of the highest-end technology (and then overclock it ). The same deal goes for the i7 800 and 900 series, and probably for AMD's lineup as well. It even works with graphics cards sometimes. The Core i5 750 is a great competitor to the 965BE and at around $200, in my opinion, it's effectively priced. It outperforms the 965BE just enough. Of course, if you look at MicroCenter, the $150 750 makes it difficult to justify buying a Phenom II X4 if you live near one. Ultimately, it boils down to retailers and how they price their processors as well as your client's needs. Intel does not necessarily price their CPUs more than AMD when looking at the entire spectrum (excluding the higher-end outliers), nor is it very apparent vice versa. Since AMD's Phenom II's can't duel with the i7's outside of gaming performance (which is usually hampered by the GPU), their lineup is squashed and price differences are smaller. I would think that the price gaps between the many CPU models would be greater should they get less competition from the i5 750.
Lol,referring to "big blue" as Intel. Yet Intels "non true" quad cost near $300,AMD's was only $100-$200. I'd rather have the true Quad,OC it and have some Intel's arse handed to it on a plate.
+1. Most don't notice that diff between a Intel and AMD,same performance for less. The reason Intel is "#1" because they've tried to kill off AMD many times,they got tactics of all kinds,also marketing,but AMD and others have sued Intel. Everyone's heard of intel,and apple has a monopoly over their sort of product so using more costly intel's can give them even more excuse to drive up the cost of a overpriced apple computer. At the time i got my store bought cheapo pc,the competing Intel's in the same price range were crappy Pentium dual cores.
I lol'ed. Uber Win! Yeah. But Intel finally realized that AMD's cpu's are cheaper and do the same thing just as well. The new cheap I5 dual has Hyperthreading so it acts like a Quad and "pwnz" the PII965 ,even so a AMD true X4 would do better in gaming& real world tasks that use multi cores. AMD just needs to add hyperthreading or whatever to their next 6 core cpu.:rpg::biggun:
Ah... 6 cores... That's an awesome thought, but currently it is impractical, as my CPU usage NEVER goes over 60%. It's probably going to end up being pretty large and hot, just as the early quad cores were. That's why I wait a few quarters before thinking about buying a new product. :nerd: On a completely unrelated note, does anybody find this odd? :3eyes: The "Core" is the reading from my CPU. Which I have overclocked from 3.4GHz to 4.0GHz.
So, you're saying that a single-core Pentium @ 1.5 GHz is faster than my AMD core? PLEASE, do go on! :flip: No, I'm not comparing the two, I'm showing you how vague your statement is. WHY are they faster?
Even during the time of the disasterous Netburst drama Intel cost more than AMD. They have the monopoly and, with their dirty practices, they have kept it. Hopefully they will start abiding by the law now and stop paying OEM's, and we might see AMD increase its market share. Then Intel will drop their prices and we will have cheaper Intel CPU's. This is why a monopoly is a danger to everyone and Intel need to be crushed under the weight of the law, which they have been breaking, to our detriment, for years.
Yup, just like Microsoft... >.> HEY, WE'RE GONNA MAKE YOU PAY OUT THE RECTUM FOR A COUPLE EXTRA FEATURES THAT YOU HAVE NO WAY TO GET WITHOUT! - Bill Gates Sure, I have Windows 7 Ultimate, but I'm using my friend's extra license that he gave me.