I don't get it at all , there must be a pretty significant performance boost for the few 100 pounds people dish out for i7 computers. It would cost at least 700 pounds here for a decent i7 rig , for a decent x6 rig it would only cost around 350 to 400. I just don't get it.
It's because AMD's current architecture can't compete with Intel clock-for-clock so they have to engage Intel in a price war. You get what you paid for essentially. Hopefully, AMD Bulldozer will turn the tide allowing AMD to have an equal footing in terms of competition. $100 for a quad core? Not complaining here personally. deltatux
Yeah , its only like 130 for a 6 core , its insane the price differences , i was told the black edition 6 core only just about competes with the high end i5 / low range i7 , is that true?
well my hexacore at 4ghz matches the old intel 975x i7 in cpu related tasks that support the extra threads, which isnt too bad considering the price difference. however, you also have to factor in that intel cpus can overclock too and perform better than amd cpus when overclocked. in cpu related tasks, the amd cpus are decent bang per buck when six threads are supported. but when four or less threads are supported, ie games, the intel with its better performance per clock is better.
Even though AMD does have slower cpus compared to Intel, they still offer decent performance plus a great price for it.
Other then a few seconds here and a few points there, you pay for the name basically. No different then paying for the name BMW... The truth is if you took a 3GHz AMD PC and a 3GHz Intel PC with same OS and memory and covered the case and let someone actualy browse the internet and stuff like that, they would not be able to tell you what one was actually faster.
So you can spend more on the GPU! Seriously, save that $100 you would have spent on the Intel and use it toward the fastest GPU you can afford. Well thats not really a reason, just how I percieve it. Its like an AK vs an AR-15. Why is it you can buy the AK for less than $400, vs an AR-15 which is almost always $1000? To get the product to more people. There are of course always those who will think one is better than the other and have the funds to do so.
Not true. Even though Intel is currently the performance king, a few years back When AMD introduced the Ahlon 64X2 Intel's Pentium 4 architecture couldn't compete. Who knows, When AMD and Intel introduce their new CPU architectures next year AMD may well be top dog again.
I guess you can also put Intel's brand recognition as well as marketing expenses as a reason. They are more popular to the common user so they can also afford to have a price premium (also to recoup the expenses in marketing their products to the masses)
Think about what you're saying. It's not true even though Intel is currently the performance king... Which makes it true. OP, AMD's are cheaper 'cause they're not as good. Intel stock probably is priced up a bit due to branding and all that jazz, but at the end of the day they can get away with it because they're better.
Dont think im ever going to get a straight answer Intel fanbois are saying there faster , but i still reckon AMD machines are better for gaming , and not only that only a idiot would go out and a spend all that money on a i7 computer when they can easily get a x6 Black edition for a fraction of the price of i7. If intel are faster its not by much.
It doesn't matter how much faster they are. They are the performance king right now. They can up the price by another $100 if they wanted to and there will still be people that will buy it because they want the best product. It's just like the 5970 4GB cards. Why the hell would anyone spend so much money on those?
Partially true! AMD is slower but it also has better bang for the buck. Intel is faster yet overpriced. If we strictly talk about performance intel wins hands down because people who want the best performing CPU dont care about price and will go for intel i7! On the other hand people who want to save money and get the best performance for the buck will go for AMD! In the end i dont care which one i buy Intel/AMD or Nvidia/ATI as long as my PC can provide me with 30+ FPS in the latest games, all eyecandy on,im satisfied!
i disagree. amd machines were better for gaming, but they're hitting their limit. my 1090t at 4ghz bottlenecks my single gtx580 at 1920x1080. theres no chance i'll get any benefit from slapping in another gtx580 for sli as i originally planned. with the next gen gpus around the corner, no doubt they'll be bottlenecked too. at the moment, intel are better for gaming. we'll have to wait for bulldozer to see if amd can turn things around.
