Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by TonyR, Dec 6, 2010.
same here, i dont trust them xD
Because AMD needs to price them cheaper to stay in the game. P2 is slower than Nehalem and Lynnfield clock for clock, no doubt about that. Is it a big deal? Depends on what you want to be doing. This horse has already been beaten to death several times.
Intel and AMD processors are currently aimed at different markets, AMD is aimed at the lower to mid range market simply because of the limitations of the Phenom II processors. They can't make a good case for charging large amounts of money for the performance they provide. I like this because it means I can build rather simple computers for cheap that are pretty fast and come with tons of functionality, there's really good value to be had with AMD processors. I picked up an Athlon II X4 when they came out and it made the perfect processor for my server at home, which runs file services, and hosts game server for friends (Minecraft, BF2 : AIX2, MTA:San Andreas) and acts as a media center for my home (hooked up to a 37" LCD). It's these sort of applications that they are quite good for especially for the price. I also picked up a cheap Athlon II X2 for a torrent box that streams all my music over the local network using multicasted RTP (16bit 44100khz stereo) using pulseaudio, acts as my MSN/teamspeak/google chat client, handles all my network routing (there's 5 gigabit network cards in this box) and obviously does all my torrenting/downloading. These simple computers give me good real world experience in networking and using different operating systems (Linux on AMD boxes, Windows on my Intel machines) which translate well to my profession.
My intel on the other hand I need for squeezing the most I can out of my HD5xxx series video cards, although that hasn't been much of an issue since I got 3 displays for eye finity.
To be honest, if I didn't pick up this i7 and its mobo cheap I would have gone for a P2 1090T as I'm interested in developing for such multi-core systems.
You gave the reply yourself, because they are the performance Kings.
A 1 year old card that beats the most recent card, I think its a valid enough reason.
I can put the same question to you, why would anyone buy a 980X when they can get a 950 and not notice the difference? Unless you're benching and aiming for world records...
Some people just want the best despite the price, if they can get the best, they will buy the best, simple as it is.
Why would you have an i7 980X with a 5770?
How about doing some heavy tasks instead of browsing the Internet and stuff like that, cause that is what CPU's are aimed for in first place.
Here the best performer can set the highest price, while the lower performer will try to push the price.
Comparing CPU's with cars is a bit out of place, since you don't have a Smart vs BMW situation.
It is not just the name you pay for when it comes to cars, but research for new technology is probably what sets most of the price.
Wrong, they aim both for the same market, home user CPU's isn't the only thing they produce.
Let me be more specific then. Intel and AMD consumer level CPUs are generally aimed at different markets, where Intel can aim at low-mid and high end markets, AMD is generally stuck in the low to mid categories (or if you want more granularity, amd low-mid-high, intel ultralow-low-mid-high-ultrahigh).
AMD can only compete performance and power consumption wise with the CULV intel CPUs, while it generally has no competitor for the Intel Atom, as they have stated they clearly don't aim at this market. AMD also has nothing that competes with the i7 980x or any high end i7 CPU, I'm sure AMD has said this is because they don't aim at this market but I'm sure that in both the ultra-low and ultra-high end cases they simply don't have the necessary technology to deliver these products. This lack of competition means intel has price control over each market segment and hence the high prices.
The server market, which I only assumed the OP wasn't interested in as I doubted he'd have much to do with as it is a different ball game, which is what I assume you are referring to, while technically correct is besides the point of the thread and irrelevant.
Very interesting thread with good input, I am going to add some other things to ponder on
1.) From what I was told from a good friend who is a chemical engineer who works for Intel where I live. One main reason that Intel is more expensive from his stand point is that Intel makes ALL of their processors and boards. Where I live, many processors are manufactured for around the world
2.) Recently, I believe, AMD has outsourced all of their processor manufacturing. This is a good reason for price cuts
3.) People who have all AMD parts will usually gain a slight advantage over Intel/AMD(ATI) setups, because AMD is engineered to work together, especially with the new Barts GPU's and the 890fx series chipset. Also, in the near future AMD will no longer support SLI on their chipsets, so an nVIDIA based chipset will be required.
I have always been a proponent of the best setups Intel plays best with nvidia and amd plays best with itself, some pun intended.
I however do know that Intel is marked up quite a bit on their 'high' end processors.
Don't get me started. You can only do so much until you reach a point where it actually takes away from your productivity. For example, you can have MSN open chatting away while listening to a MP3. You can also be burning a DVD or if you are into it coding a DIVX. What else could you honestly be doing at the exact same freaken time? Playing a vid game? LOL unless you are playing Sims I don't think so. You think you could be playing BF2BC2 while doing all the above and actually paying attention to what you are doing?
Intel can not get around this, as this is basic human attention! Use common sense, don't be a fool!
^^^ HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaFaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiill ^^^
*cough cough*......excuse me? :3eyes:
uhh, last time i checked, since the acquisition of ati, amd never really released a board that directly supported sli. it was always nforce based boards that added support. and unless ive missed something, nvidia stopped making nforce chipsets a while back as well.
its possible to run SLI on a crossfire board though. theres an SLI hack for it.
That would be called crossfire moron......................
edit, not you pill, the guy you quoted that didn't show in the quote!!!
don't worry, most games don't take much advantage of the power of a single 580, let alone 2 480's :heh:
Oh well live and learn I guess.......
1) Intel branded boards if I'm not mistaken are manufactured by Foxconn unless they changed that now.
2)AMD didn't outsource their chips, they just spun off their manufacturing arm as a separate entity.
3) AMD chipsets which were formally ATi chipsets never had SLi support in the first place. Single NVIDIA GPU and AMD CPUs work perfectly, the only thing you lose out is SLi because you need an NVIDIA chipset for SLi (there are workarounds to get SLi to work with CrossFire boards but that's not official).
@ Pill Monster and mykledw, I know what CrossFire X and SLI are. Their differences/similarities revisions behind them so on and so forth. My point to that was, even though there is a work around, AMD is removing it for further releases.
1.) Their boards may be, more likely Foxconn. For that I stand corrected
2.) AMD officially said many of their lower end chips were being outsourced, may not apply to the higher end. In order to focus on development.
3.) I never stated AMD/ATI chips had SLI support, the amd chipsets which I should have said had unofficial support. For that I stand corrected as well. Plus I should have specified that AMD chips and nvidia sli would no longer work even with workarounds in future chipsets. Never meant to say that nvidia cards and amd cpus/chipsets do not work together. Sorry for wordage.
iirc, AMD only "outsourced" some chip production to Chartered Semiconductors for different markets. However, it isn't really outsourced since Chartered Semiconductors is now part of GlobalFoundries which is the manufacturing arm that AMD spun off which AMD still owns stocks to so AMD still plays a role.
So technically, there's no outsourcing due to this lol.
Then I was wrong about what I said. I had read that AMD divested the rest of their manufacturing process, so obviously divested was a poor description of it. Plus when I was researching GlobalFoundries I believed that ATIC owned about 80% of it, which made AMD a minor partner, when in fact its a 60/40 split ATIC/AMD respectively .
I guess to get back to my original point was that AMD is a fabless company in order to cut costs which in turn would make their chips cheaper to the consumer.
There is no unofficial support, it's a hack afaik...
Ok, if you say so....
Yeah they will, sooner or later someone will release a hack........
I wouldn't stress about making a mistake either, at least you were man enough to admit it. A lot guys wouldn't...
Flashback 2005. AMDs X2 range:
X2 4800+ $999
X2 4600+ $822
X2 4400+ $619
X2 4200+ $579