# Computex report: intel to discontinue cheap i7s?



## human_error (May 28, 2009)

Been reading some info from computex and the following two pieces of information look worrying:

Intel to discontinue cheaper i7 cpus to leave room for i5

Intel p55 motherboard material costs higher than p45 motherboard material costs

Both reports cite motherboard manufacturer sources, so it could be incorrect/subject to change but both these things worry me.

From the reports intel will stop the i7 920 and 940 cpus from being manufactured to prevent them stepping on the toes of i5 which is going to launch 1st september apparently.

The second report says that the i5 motherboards could cost more than the p45 motherboards as intel are charging the same amount for the southbridge on the p55 as they do for the northbridge and southbridge on current boards, which seems a little unfair. This drives the cost of making the motherboard to above that of a p45 board. The rumoured prices are between £150-£200 at the moment (US users be aware that is probably with the UK charge-more-for-no-reason tax put on electronics so it won't directly translate to US$).

Other information included is that the integrated graphics based i5s wont launch for a while.

All this info is bad really - discontinuing cheap i7s, expensive i5 boards and not launching i5 with integrated graphics for a while make me


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 28, 2009)

That's not very nice
I just hope that i5s can match the i7


----------



## iandh (May 28, 2009)

Charge more for less, sounds great!


----------



## The Haunted (May 28, 2009)

They just realized that there is no point in buying a 1000$ cpu when you can get a 4ghz i7 for 250$ (i7 920).


----------



## human_error (May 28, 2009)

This is exactly what happens when intel loses competition at the high end - they charge more and more for no reason. AMD remain competetive against the core2 series but unless they can start competing with core i5 fully then this is how it's gonna be. :shadedshu

At least Intel are being sporting and giving AMD a chance to catch up at the high end again.


----------



## vbx (May 28, 2009)

human_error said:


> This is exactly what happens when intel loses competition at the high end - they charge more and more for no reason. AMD remain competetive against the core2 series but unless they can start competing with core i5 fully then this is how it's gonna be. :shadedshu
> 
> At least Intel are being sporting and giving AMD a chance to catch up at the high end again.



I don't see why AMD can't compete with the high end cpu's.  I mean, they have the resource to do so, all they have to do is make them, and just charge a bit less then what Intel is offering. 

It's not like AMD can't produce high end cpu's.  I think they just don't want to charge a leg and and arm for it. But AMD should realize that there is a huge market and AMD should just take some chances.


----------



## Assassin48 (May 28, 2009)

i agree they should make a processor that can hit 4.2ghz on air

don't forget 





> Real Men Use Real Cores


 lol


----------



## human_error (May 28, 2009)

vbx said:


> I don't see why AMD can't compete with the high end cpu's.  I mean, they have the resource to do so, all they have to do is make them, and just charge a bit less then what Intel is offering.
> 
> It's not like AMD can't produce high end cpu's.  I think they just don't want to charge a leg and and arm for it. But AMD should realize that there is a huge market and AMD should just take some chances.



I didn't say they couldn't compete ever, athlon 64s were amazing compared to intel's pentium 4s. They can't compete at the high end now is the issue as none of their cpus can match i7 and probably i5 in cpu intensive applications. Plus the "all they have to do is make them" part is the hard part - if they could they would but it's not a simple task, especially with how powerful modern day cpus are.


----------



## El Fiendo (May 28, 2009)

The i5 doesn't have the IMC right? Ugh I'm skipping builds for the next year. I don't like this different pin count / differing chip feature bull.


----------



## human_error (May 28, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> The i5 doesn't have the IMC right? Ugh I'm skipping builds for the next year. I don't like this different pin count / differing chip feature bull.



i5 has the memory controller on the same package, but since there is the cpu die and a northbridge die and the northbridge die is the one with the memory controller then yeah it lacks an IMC - still better than core2's memory setup as the penalty for not having the memory controller on the same die is a lot less with i5 (it uses a QPI link to the northbridge part of the package i believe). The pin count thing is terrible - we have core i7, nehalem ex i7, i5 without igp and i5 with igp sockets now, which is horrible.


----------



## Darren (May 28, 2009)

Guys,

AMD have their roadmap planned for the next 2 years, they've already announced a Instanbul 6-core CPU, they _could_ fast track it and start manufacturing it immediately and give i7 competition but why bother? They are making plenty of money from OEMs and enthusiasts with their Phenom II range, AMD even announced that their Phenom II X3 range is selling like hot cakes so why mess-up the money when they can cream as much money from the Phenom II X3 range as possible first?

i7 can be as fast as it wants but if know one can afford it Intel makes little profit which defeats the purpose! Ask yourself would you rather be the loosing boxer and get paid £10 million or be the winner in the fight and get paid £2 million?

I would rather be the looser very time!

Personally I _want_ Intel to raise the prices more so I can buy the opposing brands product for cheaper


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (May 28, 2009)

Darren said:


> Guys,
> 
> AMD have their roadmap planned for the next 2 years, they've already announced a Instanbul 6-core CPU, they _could_ fast track it and start manufacturing it immediately and give i7 competition but why bother? They are making plenty of money from OEMs and enthusiasts with their Phenom II range, AMD even announced that their Phenom II X3 range is selling like hot cakes so why mess-up the money when they can cream as much money from the Phenom II X3 range as possible first?
> 
> ...





Until ur rep catches up to you and ppl wouldnt watch you for free


----------



## human_error (May 28, 2009)

Darren said:


> Guys,
> 
> AMD have their roadmap planned for the next 2 years, they've already announced a Instanbul 6-core CPU, they _could_ fast track it and start manufacturing it immediately and give i7 competition but why bother? They are making plenty of money from OEMs and enthusiasts with their Phenom II range, AMD even announced that their Phenom II X3 range is selling like hot cakes so why mess-up the money when they can cream as much money from the Phenom II X3 range as possible first?
> 
> ...



More expensive intel = more expensive amd. We won't see phenom prices increase of current cpus but new models will have their prices reflect the price of the competition - amd will charge what it can to get the best balance between volume sales and profit per unit sold - if intel's competing products are all more expensive then amd can afford to increase their cpu prices and suffer no loss of sales - they are still $x cheaper than the intel competition.

Plus the 6 core istanbul cpu isn't going to destroy the i7 lineup as intel has a 6 core i7 variant with HT giving 12 logical cores lined up for release on the 32nm production node for the end of 2009/early 2010.


----------



## Darren (May 28, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> Until ur rep catches up to you and ppl wouldnt watch you for free



lol, very true.

But when you are competing with a boxer that has a existing good rep (Intel) the viewers will watch and pay regardless.


Edit:

lol, very true.

But when you are competing with a boxer that has a existing good rep (Intel) the viewers will watch regardless.


Edit:

human_error,

Hopefully AMD doesn't increase prices as Intel increases prices. Hopefully AMD has enough sense to keep prices low as its their bread and butter of making profit.

I do not want to speculate on the i7s vs Istanbul performance wise, i would rather wait and see the benchmarks when the time comes in 2010. But even if the Istanbul isn't faster as long as its cheaper the OEMs will be happy and yet again enthusiasts would view the i7 as "too expensive" a bit like today.


----------



## Binge (May 28, 2009)

That sounds like a load of sh*t to me.  If they discontinue the 920 they are basically f*cking the sh*t out of their entire workstation level chipset.  This leads me to believe either this website is serious or they aren't giving us the full story.  The full story being that if they stop making the 920 then the W3250 will be it's replacement.  Can anyone say Xeons?  I still call BS.  None of my sources have said a thing about discontinued i7 processors this year.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 28, 2009)

human_error said:


> This is exactly what happens when intel loses competition at the high end - they charge more and more for no reason. AMD remain competetive against the core2 series but unless they can start competing with core i5 fully then this is how it's gonna be. :shadedshu
> 
> At least Intel are being sporting and giving AMD a chance to catch up at the high end again.



I don't think you will see AMD making a $1000 proc anytime soon. They just released a very successful line of processors that do very well midrange and will compete with i5's (not the $500). And the top end BE's with no cold bug crush the i7's right now for WR's, so there really is just no point in releasing anything more.

I wouldn't really call that giving AMD a chance, after January AMD as been doing pretty good, and with the release of the 4770 the AMD/ATi lineup is doing even better. Not saying they are matching Intel sales, but they don't have to maintain profitability as a smaller company.

But either way I still don't see the issue. It's going to probably be a bit more than the p45, but the p55 is still going to be quiet a bit less than the x58. And the i7 920 will be gone, you the low end i5 and a p55, will still be quiet a bit less than the i7 920 and cheapest x58. So it helps Intel move farther into the AMD market since the x58 boards aren't the cheapest. Seems like a good move to me, but it will all depend on how the midrange i5 does compared to the i7 920, if it has the same performance then no biggie, but if it doesn't hold up then they will be loosing out on the high end midrange segment.


----------



## Wile E (May 29, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I don't think you will see AMD making a $1000 proc anytime soon. They just released a very successful line of processors that do very well midrange and will compete with i5's (not the $500). And the top end BE's with no cold bug crush the i7's right now for WR's, so there really is just no point in releasing anything more.
> 
> I wouldn't really call that giving AMD a chance, after January AMD as been doing pretty good, and with the release of the 4770 the AMD/ATi lineup is doing even better. Not saying they are matching Intel sales, but they don't have to maintain profitability as a smaller company.
> 
> But either way I still don't see the issue. It's going to probably be a bit more than the p45, but the p55 is still going to be quiet a bit less than the x58. And the i7 920 will be gone, you the low end i5 and a p55, will still be quiet a bit less than the i7 920 and cheapest x58. So it helps Intel move farther into the AMD market since the x58 boards aren't the cheapest. Seems like a good move to me, but it will all depend on how the midrange i5 does compared to the i7 920, if it has the same performance then no biggie, but if it doesn't hold up then they will be loosing out on the high end midrange segment.


AMD isn't releasing a $1000 cpu simply because they can't offer a cpu that's good enough to charge $1000. If they could, they would. And Phenom doesn't crush all world records. Perhaps they have the top in a few 3D benches, making it a one-trick pony, but Intel embarrasses them in cpu benches. Not to mention, the official 975XE benches haven't released, so the king still remains to be seen.

At any rate, Intel isn't going to phase these chips out. Well, technically, they are phasing out the 940, but replacing it with the faster 950, at the same price point, so that doesn't really count. 

Too great a market exists for them. Plus, if anything, they'd rather sell these chips on the i7 platform, and prune similar performing cpus from the i5 lineup, as they would make more money that way.


----------



## fire2havoc (May 29, 2009)

This seems like a rumor...


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 29, 2009)

Wile E said:


> AMD isn't releasing a $1000 cpu simply because they can't offer a cpu that's good enough to charge $1000. If they could, they would. And Phenom doesn't crush all world records. Perhaps they have the top in a few 3D benches, making it a one-trick pony, but Intel embarrasses them in cpu benches. Not to mention, the official 975XE benches haven't released, so the king still remains to be seen.
> 
> At any rate, Intel isn't going to phase these chips out. Well, technically, they are phasing out the 940, but replacing it with the faster 950, at the same price point, so that doesn't really count.
> 
> Too great a market exists for them. Plus, if anything, they'd rather sell these chips on the i7 platform, and prune similar performing cpus from the i5 lineup, as they would make more money that way.



Plus the i7 920 is the best selling out of the i7 line I seriously doubt they discontinue it. well unless they are planning a revision for slightly higher, I could see that. but I seriously doubt they'd make their cheapest i7 649$ (the 950).


----------



## vbx (May 29, 2009)

human_error said:


> I didn't say they couldn't compete ever, athlon 64s were amazing compared to intel's pentium 4s. They can't compete at the high end now is the issue as none of their cpus can match i7 and probably i5 in cpu intensive applications. Plus the "all they have to do is make them" part is the hard part - if they could they would but it's not a simple task, especially with how powerful modern day cpus are.



I'm pretty sure they could.  The reason they do not is because they want to target a different market and to charge less.  They can charge more and make one that are in the high end, but the price would go up and AMD, for now, wants to sell processors at a lower cost compared to intel. 

I mean, with your Logic, you're saying Nissan can't compete with BMW.  But they can, with Infiniti. Of course the prices of an Infinti are more than a Nissan. Weak analogy I know.


----------



## a_ump (May 29, 2009)

vbx said:


> I'm pretty sure they could.  The reason they do not is because they want to target a different market and to charge less.  They can charge more and make one that are in the high end, but the price would go up and AMD, for now, wants to sell processors at a lower cost compared to intel.
> 
> I mean, with your Logic, you're saying Nissan can't compete with BMW.  But they can, with Infiniti. Of course the prices of an Infinti are more than a Nissan. Weak analogy I know.



i have to say i agree with others, if AMD could make a processor for $1000, that would mean they'd have to have an architecture that can compete and fight back and forth in benches/performance with the i7. If they did have that, don't u think that Phenom II would be a better performing chip? Not to mention that if they did have such architecture, there'd be no hesitation about manufacturing the chip as chips that expensive are for enthusiasts who would know that the chip was on par or better than the i7. I do not believe they could make a chip that good right now, as i'm pretty sure they'd push it out fast just to show that they are equal with intel again, and as a marketing gimmik of "look at us, we're at the top". I am interested in how they do with their next CPU as they've been doing much better financially this year so they should be able to put more time and money into developing a much better chip.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

a_ump said:


> i have to say i agree with others, if AMD could make a processor for $1000, that would mean they'd have to have an architecture that can compete and fight back and forth in benches/performance with the i7.




AMD have had faster architectures many times in the past and never charged $1,000!


By no means are AMD broke, they are financially able to develop a powerful CPU if they wanted, but like I said earlier they are out to make money, you do not need the fastest architecture to make money. Their business plan at current and previously was to focus on the enthusiasts whom want a cheaper alternative especially now due to the economical down-turn enthusiasts can not afford Intels offerings.

Even when AMD was on top in performance their high-end desktop CPUs were always cheaper than Intel’s. I can remember the Athlon 64s being a lot cheaper than the Pentium 4s and I can remember the Athlon X2s being cheaper than the Pentium Ds and yet again AMD was ontop and still remained cheaper!

My point is even when AMD was ontop their business plan was never to overcharge and exploit it with unrealistic prices, competitive prices was always built into AMDs business plan whether the architecture is faster or slower.


----------



## a_ump (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> AMD have had faster architectures many times in the past and never charged in $1,000!
> 
> 
> By no means are AMD broke, they are financially able to develop a powerful CPU if they wanted, but like I said earlier they are out to make money, you do not need the fastest architecture to make money. There business plan at current is to focus on the enthusiasts whom want a cheaper alternative due to the economical down-turn.
> ...



i wasn't into computers much when AMD was on top but i do remember my bro having told me the athlon x2's were better than PD. Well even if they don't want to develop an architecture to challenge intel around $600+, i'm confident that if they had a chip that would perform at the top to challenge say the i7 920, then it'd sell just fine. Like mad i would thk if AMD would price it less than the i7, which they would.


----------



## rpsgc (May 30, 2009)

True or not, it's one more good reason to get myself a cheap Core 2 Quad and hold on to it until hexa and octo-cores arrive. It's not like i7 is that much faster at gaming than a C2Q


----------



## a_ump (May 30, 2009)

very true, it's not ahead of the q9650 at all, cept for well multi-threaded apps like Supreme commander. Even my q6600 is plenty acceptable as long as it's overclocked to 3.2ghz+.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> AMD isn't releasing a $1000 cpu simply because they can't offer a cpu that's good enough to charge $1000. If they could, they would. And Phenom doesn't crush all world records. Perhaps they have the top in a few 3D benches, making it a one-trick pony, but Intel embarrasses them in cpu benches. Not to mention, the official 975XE benches haven't released, so the king still remains to be seen.



I didn't say they beat it in every bench, but the most published benches they do, you don't see "New Cinebench WR" promoted. And at either rate, it holding some WR's over a proc 4x it's price wouldn't be a one trick pony, now if there was a $1000 PII and it was getting it's face beat in, but held 1 WR, then I would consider it, but that massive price gap, the procs normally shouldn't even be considered a competitor.

Also I said AMD would release a $1000 processor if they could, so I know they can't, just was saying that the PII lineup is doing very well and letting them play a bit of catchup.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Also I said AMD would release a $1000 processor if they could, so I know they can't



Not to sure about that, AMD have had plenty of opportunity in the past to release $1,000 desktop CPUs but never did.

Also, 

releasing a product is not as simple as putting it on the shop shelves. There is a lot of marketing involved to develop strong and consistent sales, AMD would be silly to release a $1,000 processor or even a $1 processor without the correct marketing and time is needed to market the new line-up (Istanbul).

AMD's marketing team need time to make the customer want it, need it and jump-ship from the opposing brand to obtain it, even steal money to fund the their CPU fixation. They need many months or even years to brand the CPU by slowly releasing the specification, making teaser videos, ensuring all the online technology journals and magazines are talking about the new CPU, make sure the enthusiast community anticipate its release, leak benchmarks and overclocks to generate a buzz, ensure that software developers are willing to sponsor or endorse the CPU etc

My point is AMD are in the business of making money and to make money effective marketing and promotion is needed, rushing a i7 killer without marketing does not equal profit guys.


----------



## BumbleBee (May 30, 2009)

here is a interesting article about AMD in anti-competitive practices like Intel



> "Today I was thumbing through the news and noticed something. The spin put on about Palit leaving AMD and going back to being an nVidia only shop. Yes there were quite a few articles about it. Some even touched on why, but none talked about or really even mentioned what it means in reality.
> 
> Simply put if AMD/ATi is controlling what partners can do with the GPUs they purchase, and allowing other partners preferential treatment it makes AMD just as shady as Intel. It also goes a long way to explaining why someone would want to use Intel or nVidia over AMD/ATi. Here were all of these Intel bashing articles over the EU fine and Intel’s shady business practices and not one talking about the ramifications of having a partner cut off from buying chips because they wanted to make a non-reference design.
> 
> ...



Source


----------



## Studabaker (May 30, 2009)

I'm going back to AMD.  I see a Phenom II with DDR3 in my future.

*Drools*


----------



## Baam (May 30, 2009)

BumbleBee said:


> here is a interesting article about AMD in anti-competitive practices like Intel
> 
> 
> 
> Source



Actually that's not the reason. Gainward is Boohooing over ATI not wanting them to make a GDDR5 4850, which defeats the purpose of a 4870.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...mpatible_with_Gainward_s_Palit_s__Report.html


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> AMD have had faster architectures many times in the past and never charged $1,000!



ummm hello fx-55, fx57, and fx-60 all released at above the 1000$ pricepoint. 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8..._x2_3800_game_performance_compared/index.html



> Price: FX-60 comes in at a massive $1011 while the X2 3800+ costs a more respectable $295.



so yes amd has charged over 1000$ for a desktop cpu before and will do so again if they have the performance lead. although your comment could be construed as any cpu in which case their server cpu's max out at 1630$ (8000 series opteron quad core) on the egg. intels highest server quad core is 1699$ granting that intel has a few six cores out that max out at 2399$


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> *Not to sure about that, AMD have had plenty of opportunity in the past to release $1,000 desktop CPUs but never did.
> *
> Also,
> 
> ...





Darren said:


> *AMD have had faster architectures many times in the past and never charged $1,000!
> *
> 
> By no means are AMD broke, they are financially able to develop a powerful CPU if they wanted, but like I said earlier they are out to make money, you do not need the fastest architecture to make money. Their business plan at current and previously was to focus on the enthusiasts whom want a cheaper alternative especially now due to the economical down-turn enthusiasts can not afford Intels offerings.
> ...


Yes they most certainly did charge $1000 for cpus when they had the performance advantage.

FX-55 was $827 when it released, and FX-57, FX-60, and FX-62 all released at $1031.

They don't have a chip that can compete on the highest tier, so they can't make a $1000 cpu. They would if they could. When they have the ability, they happily charge $1000 for their cpus. The fact is, their architecture is behind in performance, so they can't release to the top end. But trust us when we tell you, they most certainly want to release in the top end. Companies don't make a lot of money selling the top tier goods, but having goods that perform at that level gives a better image. So people see that AMD has the fastest cpu, they can't afford it, so they buy a lower level AMD because, "hey, it has to be nearly as good." Releasing top end products produces advertising revenue, all on their own. 

The BS about them choosing to stay in the mid range is just that. It's BS. They said the same thing when they were behind in the gpu wars, but low and behold, the 48xx series released, and suddenly they started making top-tier gpus again.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Yes they most certainly did charge $1000 for cpus when they had the performance advantage.
> 
> FX-55 was $827 when it released, and FX-57, FX-60, and FX-62 all released at $1031.







yogurt_21 said:


> ummm hello fx-55, fx57, and fx-60 all released at above the 1000$ pricepoint.



At the Super high-end CPUs the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 and 965 was just as expensive if not more expensive than the Athlon FX. Its not like AMD exploited their pricing due to their faster architecture at the time because the Pentium Extreme Editions was slower and intel was still ignorant enough to jack the prices higher than AMD.



> Lucky for Intel, their latest addition to the Pentium XE lineup, the 965 processor fared much better thanks to its extreme clock speeds. Reported to be available at certain e-tailors for close to US$1,100



Source

Also, 

In the era of the Athlon FX series AMD could of held off releasing the Athlon X2 series and kept it on the back burner as they had the better architecture, however with AMD still gave us the high-end Athlon X2 series at a cheaper price than Intel’s  Pentium D offering! Why would a company that is already on top still bring out a CPU range cheaper than its slower opponents both in the super high end (FX Vs Extreme Edition) and high end (X2 VS PD) market? this clearly shows that jacking up prices is not their main agenda like Intel. 

AMD was always the cheaper alternative to Intel, both when their processors were architecturally faster and slower. Its their business model.


Edit:

At least when AMD cannot compete performance wise they have the dignity and courtesy to compete on prices even more, Intel overprice their CPUs regardless even when their CPUs are performing like crap. *Pentium 4 cough cough*  *Pentium D cough cough*


Edit 2:

R9,

What is this bug with 12 GBs of ram about. I tried googling it and couldn't find anything?


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2009)

Well the news hit the 920 is going to be axed, interesting.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> At the Super high-end CPUs the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 and 965 was just as expensive if not more expensive than the Athlon FX. Its not like AMD exploited their pricing due to their faster architecture at the time because the Pentium Extreme Editions was slower and intel was still ignorant enough to jack the prices higher than AMD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter that AMD was slightly cheaper than Intel's Extreme editions. Intel could sell $1000 cpus when they were slower because of their marketing, advertising and brand recognition. AMD's marketing and advertising strategy has always been a bit lacking, so they had to rely on lower pricing, even when they were ahead in performance. It had nothing to do with them doing the right thing, it was because they couldn't get away with charging more than Intel.

None of that is the point tho. AMD, at that time, had a cpu that they could charge top tier prices for, and they did. Cheaper than Intel or not doesn't matter, what does matter is the price brackets. AMD and Intel both had cpus in the highest bracket (top tier). Right now, they have no cpu that they can charge top tier for, even if they wanted to, because they can't compete on that level, again, even if they wanted to. If they could compete on that level again, they would. To think anything otherwise is pure naivety.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It doesn't matter that AMD was slightly cheaper than Intel's Extreme editions. Intel could sell $1000 cpus when they were slower because of their marketing. AMD's marketing strategy has always been a bit lacking, so they had to rely on lower pricing, even when they were ahead in performance. It had nothing to do with them doing the right thing, it was because they couldn't get away with charging more than Intel.
> 
> None of that is the point tho. AMD, at that time, had a cpu that they could charge top tier prices for, and they did. Cheaper than Intel or not doesn't matter, what does matter is the price brackets. AMD and Intel both had cpus in the highest bracket (top tier). Right now, they have no cpu that they can charge top tier for, even if they wanted to, because they can't compete on that level, again, even if they wanted to. If they could compete on that level again, they would. To think anything otherwise is pure naivety.




AMDs business model is not to be _cheap_, its to be _cheaper _than Intel.

It really doesn't matter why AMD rely on pricing, all that matters is that they do. For the consumer it doesn't matter whether AMDs marketing is lacking and hence rely on prices, or whether they are "doing the right thing" by customers and hence price competitively or whether their share-holders sat in a room and verbally agreed to compete on prices as a business model etc. All that matters is for years AMD have been the cheaper alternative and their motives are irrelevant.


----------



## BumbleBee (May 30, 2009)

ATI needs some programmers...


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> AMDs business model is not to be _cheap_, its to be _cheaper _than Intel.
> 
> It really doesn't matter why AMD rely on pricing, all that matters is that they do. For the consumer it doesn't matter whether AMDs marketing is lacking and hence rely on prices, or whether they are "doing the right thing" by customers and hence price competitively or whether their share-holders sat in a room and verbally agreed to compete on prices as a business model etc. All that matters is for years AMD have been the cheaper alternative and their motives are irrelivant.



You are still missing our point. AMD does not have a cpu that costs near $1000, not because they want to be cheaper than Intel, but because they have no architecture that they could charge those prices for. AKA: They don't have the capability to make a top tier cpu. Sure if they did, they may be cheaper than Intel, but they would still be in the same price bracket.

Even back in the Extreme vs FX days, both had their cpus in the same price range. AMD only undercut Intel by a small percentage.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Phenom II has overclocking headroom around  800MHz (3.0GHz to 3.8GHz) or 26%  yes that is great. But if you compare it to i7 920 (2.66 to 4.2) 1600MHz or 58% it is like Phenom II is preoverclocked. 
Main advantage of AMD platform is whole cost compared to Intel. 
But now it is time for AMDs DDR3 CPU which is more expensive DDR3 motherboard which is more expensive DDR3 memory which is more expensive all in all the price premium to i7 is not that big for CPU that is faster at lower frequency and it could be overclocked further.
AMD is leaving too much space again so Intel could do this. If Phenom II sales are actually hurting Intel sales as everybody are thinking(including me while ago) than this would be like shooting in leg for Intel. But it is not.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

And the difference in price for AMD "peoples" platform: 






In same class mobo for AMD AM3 and i7 are identical.
And i7 costs 34$ more.
When you combine it in tho PC it would cost around 1000$ do you know how much is 34$ from 1000$ and how much faster is i7 920 than PII 955 ?

34$ from 1000$ it is 3%. So i7 platform is 3% more expensive and around 40% faster than AMD. Gee I wonder what I would buy if I had 1000$.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 30, 2009)

> Interestingly, or, unfortunately, we were told the bill of materials (BOM) for P55 boards is higher than current P45 boards, despite the fact that P45 is a two chip solution. Our sources said that although "P55" is really just "ICH10.5" (a term thrown around a lot in Taiwan) as it's simply just a southbridge with DMI link to the CPU, Intel is selling it at the same cost as both P45 and ICH10R together.


That's stupid.  You pay more for the processor because it has the northbridge integrated and you're paying the same for less on the southbridge.  You'd think they'd lower the price of the southbridge to counter the increase in the processor price.

Me thinks Intel is getting greedy.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> You are still missing our point. AMD does not have a cpu that costs near $1000, not because they want to be cheaper than Intel, but because they have no architecture that they could charge those prices for. AKA: They don't have the capability to make a top tier cpu. Sure if they did, they may be cheaper than Intel, but they would still be in the same price bracket.



There are many factors why AMD or Intel will not release a £1,000 desktop CPU today, its not one cut and dry answer. 

If you truly believed AMD would charge £1,000 for a superior desktop architecture today, Intel would be doing it themselves with the i7 already as they are in that position or architecture superiority at the moment?, do not get me wrong the i7 is over priced but they are not £1,000 either despite them having the architecture to do so. My theory is because of the economical downturn people are spending less, people are becoming redundant and hence can not afford those luxury £1,000 CPUs and hence it will translate into bad sales for Intel but I believe if the US had the same economy as back then and back when the media wasn't always bad-mouthing the economy the i7 would indeed be £1,000 and the Phenom IIs would be cheaper, perhaps £900, not much cheaper but yet cheaper.




Wile E said:


> Even back in the Extreme vs FX days, both had their cpus in the same price range. AMD only undercut Intel by a small percentage.



Like I said their business plan is to be cheaper than Intel, not cheap. Even a few percentage is still cheaper.

R9,

The world does not revolve around the United States, there is a huge world away from the US's secluded world of ignorance. UK prices the gaps is a lot wider, I would presume other countries in Europe would be the same.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> There are many factors why AMD or Intel will not release a £1,000 desktop CPU today, its not one cut and dry answer.
> 
> If you truly believed AMD would charge £1,000 for a superior desktop architecture today, Intel would be doing it themselves with the i7 already as they are in that position or architecture superiority at the moment?, do not get me wrong the i7 is over priced but they are not £1,000 either despite them having the architecture to do so. My theory is because of the economical downturn people are spending less, people are becoming redundant and hence can not afford those luxury £1,000 CPUs and hence it will translate into bad sales for Intel but I believe if the US had the same economy as back then and back when the media wasn't always bad-mouthing the economy the i7 would indeed be £1,000 and the Phenom IIs would be cheaper, perhaps £900, not much cheaper but yet cheaper.
> 
> ...


This conversation started with you claiming that AMD never released a *$*1000 cpu. £ was never mentioned until just now.

As $ is the basis of the current debate, yes, Intel does have a $1000 cpu, the i7 965XE. AMD does not, because they are not in a position to have a cpu in that range.

In fact, you claimed that AMD would never release a $1000 cpu if they could, but we have already shown you that they did. ANd have tried to point out they would again, if they were capable.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

@Darren 
I`m from Macedonia. And here too i7 costs a arm and a leg but guess what also the PII 955.
The difference here it is not 34$ it is 6000den equal to 100eur but that it is still no more than 10% from the price of the whole system.
And forgot to mention that lovely bug where you can`t put 4 sticks of DDR3 it would not run on rated speed you will have to downclock the mem. What kind of shit is that. I`m paying 1000 eur or $ or what ever and I can`t use no more than 4GB of ram. i7 would be happy with 12GB of ram.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> This conversation started with you claiming that AMD never released a *$*1000 cpu.



Indeed, I made two major statements:

1. One was that AMD have always competed on prices, which I still stand by.

2. Was about AMD never releasing a $1,000 CPU which I admit to being wrong about, the FX range was indeed in the $1,000 area in US dollars (but to be fair Intel's was still higher despite its lack-luster architecture)



Wile E said:


> £ was never mentioned until just now.



Indeed I was talking about US dollars, the UK pounds reference was in regards to R9 illustrating that the price difference between the Phenom and i7 is small - Small perhaps in the US but not in the UK or certain parts of Europe.

The i7 965XE has more or less gone undetected in the UK, its unavailable in most retailers and etailers, I do not think i've seen it stocked at all so I would be unaware of its pricing. But if its truely $1,000 then Intel are cowboys.


----------



## Baam (May 30, 2009)

You forgot about the combo deal with the same AMD processor and mobo -25.

Reason why i stick with AMD is price. I don't need to run out and buy a new motherboard every time AMD releases a new Processor i might want.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.191955


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

How can some one believe that some company is working for the people.
I know that this may come as a shock but AMD as Intel is in it for the money.
If ever AMD makes fastest CPU you could bet that it would cost 1000$.
How can HD4770 cost as 9800GTX+. It has smaller die size build in even smaller process it has 256bit PCB if 9800GTX+ is 110$ 4770 should cost 50$. 4770 is half as expensive to build than 9800GTX+. They are selling it for 110$ because it can perform as GTS250  if PII 955 would perform as i7 965 or something you could bet that it would cost much much much more.
I`m simply not buying that for the people marketing BS from AMD.
If AMD would more competitive Intel would not done that.
But when intel saw that PII 955 is sold for 250$ they are thinking hell we gonna overclock i7 920 a bit and we could sell it for 400$ why not.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Baam said:


> You forgot about the combo deal with the same AMD processor and mobo -25.
> 
> Reason why i stick with AMD is price. I don't need to run out and buy a new motherboard every time AMD releases a new Processor i might want.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.191955



Another 35% and you will prove a point.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> R9,
> 
> What is this bug with 12 GBs of ram about. I tried googling it and couldn't find anything?








Long story short you cant populate 4 slots with 1333 DDR3 memory. And if you do you need to downclock it to 1066MHz. AMD calling it work around I`m calling it bigtime handicap.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Baam said:


> You forgot about the combo deal with the same AMD processor and mobo -25.
> 
> Reason why i stick with AMD is price. I don't need to run out and buy a new motherboard every time AMD releases a new Processor i might want.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.191955



Except if you bought a 939 board.   Amd isn't a bunch of angels themselves.

@ r9 - Use the edit button buddy. Triple posting is heavily frowned upon.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> How can some one believe that some company is working for the people..



I do not believe that anyone on TPU truely believes that AMD is working to please people, that is not how organisations work, they work to please share-holders by generating profit. 

The method of how profit is generated varies depending on the business model, AMDs business model for decades has been to under-cut its main competitor.

I'm not interested in their motives so much (e.g. cant perform, marketing, pleasing customers, economy etc) as that is a issue for their share holders, as a consumer i'm only interested in them being cheaper than Intel so I can get the best deal.





r9 said:


> I know that this may come as a shock but AMD as Intel is in it for the money



Why would it be a shock? knowone works for free, they are not a charity and are out to make as much profit as possible - using their predefined business models as methods.




r9 said:


> If ever AMD makes fastest CPU you could bet that it would cost 1000$.



Perhaps, _"If ever AMD makes fastest CPU you could bet that it would cost 1000$"_ Intel will be priced _above _1000$ still! (as proved in FX vs Pentium Extreme)




r9 said:


> How can HD4770 cost as 9800GTX+. It has smaller die size build in even smaller process it has 256bit PCB if 9800GTX+ is 110$ 4770 should cost 50$. 4770 is half as expensive to build than 9800GTX+.



In the UK the ATI 4770 is ALOT cheaper than the 9800 GTX+ 


Edit:




Wile E said:


> Except if you bought a 939 board.   Amd isn't a bunch of angels themselves.



To be fair socket 939 was AMDs downfall they shouldn't of changed sockets to AM2 soo fast and expect customers to change. But that is in their past, for people that are buying new systems or are upgrading or building new new rigs the fact that AMD has cross compatibility is only a bonus.

Edit 2:

Obviously Intel have not learnt from AMD as they are releasing two sockets, one for i5 and another socket for i7!


----------



## Baam (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> Another 35% and you will prove a point.



Well i could use my 2 year MSI sb600 with AMD's newest chips. That enough to knock off your 35% ?


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> To be fair socket 939 was AMDs downfall they shouldn't of changed sockets to AM2 soo fast and expect customers to change. But that is in their past, for people that are buying new systems or are upgrading or building new new rigs the fact that AMD has cross compatibility is only a bonus.



Oh, I agree, but I was just trying to prevent that whole, "AMD doesn't change sockets" argument before it started. lol

And yes, I believe Intel is shooting themselves in the foot with this move.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 30, 2009)

The reason AMD got off 939 is because no one except AMD wanted DDR in production anymore.  Because DDR2 had more pins, they were forced to update their socket.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

R9, surely that 1333 MHz downlock to 1066 MHz issue has been resolved? I can remember AMD announcing that a while ago, it was actually posted here on TPU and a few people in the thread who owned Phenom II rigs said they were not effected despite running memory above 1066 MHz using all slots.

But atleast AMD admit to their bugs, unlike Intel that deny it and fix it on the sly.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Baam said:


> Well i could use my 2 year MSI sb600 with AMD's newest chips. That enough to knock off your 35% ?



I would like to see put DDR3 in that board. I`m talking AM3. And if they made Phenom what they claimed that it would be you did not even have to change CPU. The only reason that Phenom is compatible to Phenom II is because PhenomII = Phenom + L3 cache + 45nm. Redo of a Phenom which was big fail for AMD.

@darren AMD don`t have to point to their mistakes they are gigantic they are visible from the sky.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> How can some one believe that some company is working for the people.
> I know that this may come as a shock but AMD as Intel is in it for the money.
> If ever AMD makes fastest CPU you could bet that it would cost 1000$.
> How can HD4770 cost as 9800GTX+. It has smaller die size build in even smaller process it has 256bit PCB if 9800GTX+ is 110$ 4770 should cost 50$. 4770 is half as expensive to build than 9800GTX+. They are selling it for 110$ because it can perform as GTS250



Got to step in a say that the 4770 is a brand new chip, where as the 9800GTX+ is quiet a bit older and retailed originally at a MUCH higher price. But as with time things drop as will a 4770, I'm sure it wasn't easy to migrate a 40nm process nor cheap, the prices will drop on it with time, but yes they will price something according to performance, just how it is.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

Why would you put DDR3 in any board? its not like the performance gain from DDR2 to DDR3 exists outside of benchmarks.

Indeed AMD do not need to point to their mistakes, but they do, so they get extra respect for being upfront. - The majority of AMDs bugs do not even effect the majority of users anyways yet they still are upfront.


1Kurgan1, I agree prices for hardware is always expensive on release. I must admit looking at UK prices and even US prices the 4770 is a fair bit cheaper than both the 9800GTX+ and GT250 despite it only being out a few weeks. What more do people want?

I believe 4770 is almost as cheap as the slower 4830! and is much cheaper than the 4850. Which isn't bad price wise.


Edit:



r9 said:


> Phenom II has overclocking headroom around  800MHz (3.0GHz to 3.8GHz) or 26%  yes that is great. But if you compare it to i7 920 (2.66 to 4.2) 1600MHz or 58% it is like Phenom II is preoverclocked.



You've missed the point although the i7 overclocks further you are paying for the pleasure. For enthusiast Phenom II users are paying and getting the same performance as i7 users with a small overclock, whilst saving money in the process!


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Got to step in a say that the 4770 is a brand new chip, where as the 9800GTX+ is quiet a bit older and retailed originally at a MUCH higher price. But as with time things drop as will a 4770, I'm sure it wasn't easy to migrate a 40nm process nor cheap, the prices will drop on it with time, but yes they will price something according to performance, just how it is.



Only one thing is important how it performs and how much it cost at the given moment.
If you notice that ATI product cost 5$ less that their counter parts.

Comparing GTX260/GTX275 to HD4870/HD4890 ATI GPU dies are 2.5X smaller they use cheeper PCB because of narrower mem bus 256bit vs 448bit one thing only more expensive is DDR5.
If AMD were friendly as they say they are how they work with larger profit per card.
My point is that AMD would sqeeze every last penny from people just like Intel would.
And that whole nonsense about number of sockets. How about on LGA 775 you could put P4 and C2D. I would like to see how you gonna put Phenom on 939 socket.
When Intel are relising new socket they are relising new CPU as well.
AMD released now socket AM2 and they did not brig new CPU.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

You've missed the point although the i7 overclocks further you are paying for the pleasure. For enthusiast Phenom II users are paying and getting the same performance as i7 users with a small overclock, whilst saving money in the process!

If you are looking that way you could buy Q6600 or Q8200 with small overclock getting the same performance as PII  whilst saving money in the process!

And my mistake HDD4770 is positioned vs 9800GT not 9800GTX+ and it is slower than 9800GTX+. So you gonna need to recalculate.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> If you are looking that way you could buy Q6600 or Q8200 with small overclock getting the same performance as PII  whilst saving money in the process!



If you've got a existing socket 775 motherboard..Indeed 

Also if you've got an existing socket 775 motherboard one would be better off buying a Q9xxx series and oc'ing it to i7 spec for the same performance 

Its a recession all the pennies count!

However, for a fresh build in the UK a Phenom II build is cheaper or equivalent in price to an Q6600 or Q8200 build so it would be pointless. But yes if you've currently got Socket 775 certainly.


----------



## mudkip (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> If you've got a existing socket 775 motherboard..Indeed
> 
> Also if you've got an existing socket 775 motherboard one would be better off buying a Q9xxx series and oc'ing it to i7 spec for the same performance
> 
> ...



You think that a oc'ed Q9450/9550/9650 can beat a i7?

lol  appearently you haven't tried a i7 yet


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> If you've got a existing socket 775 motherboard..Indeed
> 
> Also if you've got an existing socket 775 motherboard one would be better off buying a Q9xxx series and oc'ing it to i7 spec for the same performance
> 
> ...



When DDR3 was pricier and PII940 come out I don`t argue that has great value.
But now AMD is moving to AM3 and DDR3 PII 955 I`m talking about that situation. That configuration is coming close to i7 build.
Also I would recommend 720BE over E8XXX any day.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

mudkip said:


> You think that a oc'ed Q9450/9550/9650 can beat a i7?
> 
> lol  appearently you haven't tried a i7 yet



Benchmarks do not lie


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2009)

DDR3 wasn't really a mistake, it really helped the push for them to adopt it too. When it was only possible on Intel setups the prices were pretty outrageous, but if you notice when AMD jumped on the band wagon prices plummeted. I am not completely sure about in the UK, but in the US prices are really not too much worse than DDR2 now. And there is a small performance gain, nothing huge, but the price difference isn't much now so not too big of a deal.



r9 said:


> Only one thing is important how it performs and how much it cost at the given moment.
> If you notice that ATI product cost 5$ less that their counter parts.
> 
> How about on LGA 775 you could put P4 and C2D. I would like to see how you gonna put Phenom on 939 socket.
> ...



The money in the end is most important, but you are still comparing a product that is so new it is sold out at almost every single vendor in the US, to a older product that has been given to to drop in price numerous times.

And wasn't the P4's the generation before the C2D? Here's the route my GF's comp has taken. AM2CPU/AM2 MOBO - Then AM2+ mobo upgrade - then AM2+ CPU upgrade, now could go AM3 CPU, then AM3 board. 

P4 to C2D would have been P4board/P4CPU - C2D upgrade... I could be wrong maybe there was something inbetween but I don't think so. And if thats the case, it just is far from the same thing. I'm not really sure what this has to do with the i7 920 being phased out though


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> DDR3 wasn't really a mistake, it really helped the push for them to adopt it too. When it was only possible on Intel setups the prices were pretty outrageous, but if you notice when AMD jumped on the band wagon prices plummeted. I am not completely sure about in the UK, but in the US prices are really not too much worse than DDR2 now. And there is a small performance gain, nothing huge, but the price difference isn't much now so not too big of a deal.



But lower DDR3 prices are not going in to AMD way. Pricy DDR3 was advantage for AMD when looking the price of complete build. Now both would use DDR3 so the intel is more expensive now just in CPUs and mobo(which is not much). DDR3 is still more expensive than DDR2 and it is not bringing anything to PII. 
And about that DDR3 being fixed that mean that now can run 1333 but with same effort i7 would run 1800GHz I would not say that is fixing. Just wile ago was reading Fits i7 thread he both cheep DDR3 1066 and clocked it to above 2+ GHz on his i7 and that is triple channel. 
Some how I don`t think that that is possible on PII.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> But lower DDR3 prices are not going in to AMD way. Pricy DDR3 was advantage for AMD when looking the price of complete build. Now both would use DDR3 so the intel is more expensive now just in CPUs and mobo(which is not much). DDR3 is still more expensive than DDR2 and it is not bringing anything to PII.
> And about that DDR3 being fixed that mean that now can run 1333 but with same effort i7 would run 1800GHz I would not say that is fixing. Just wile ago was reading Fits i7 thread he both cheep DDR3 1066 and clocked it to above 2+ GHz on his i7 and that is triple channel.
> Some how I don`t think that that is possible on PII.



Your trying to make this a contest, stop.... I wasn't comparing anything, was just saying the prices have dropped, I could honestly careless about what price is better for what side, not everything has to be an argument.


----------



## mudkip (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> Benchmarks do not lie









indeed


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

478 LGA775 LGA1366
SocketA Socket754 Socket939 SocketAM2 SocketAM2+ SocketAM3

That is the route from AthlonXP vs P4 till now.

If it is not clear enough I could put numbers in front if you like.

The i7 it is not showing much faster in realworld because everything is bottlenecking it. Slow HDDs slow GPsU slow everything. But faster hardware would come up and faster CPU is going to be needed PII users will have to upgrade much sooner. In long run I don`t see some one saving money I see "The poor paying the price twice". But that is not big deal AMD would make another CPU for the same socket .


----------



## rpsgc (May 30, 2009)

mudkip said:


> http://i44.tinypic.com/gaw.png
> 
> indeed



Why don't you post the results for all the games instead of picking the ones where the i7 has the advantage? Fanboy much?
And from where are those results? Test methodology? System used? Oops?


----------



## mudkip (May 30, 2009)

rpsgc said:


> Why don't you post the results for all the games instead of picking the ones where the i7 has the advantage? Fanboy much?
> And from where are those results? Test methodology? System used? Oops?



I don't think you understand any dutch? 

http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/articles/amdnZ2ptZGCa/Intel_Core_i7_Uitgediept/


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

mudkip, I suggest you remove the image otherwise you will be made to look silly.

In games the i7 is not much faster than the Q9650, a modestly overclocked Q-series can take on a i7 in that domain. Even the AMD haters will agree with me.

Edit:

mudkip, 

PS. Where was the Q9-series overclocked in that image, I must of missed it?


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> Also I would recommend 720BE over E8XXX any day.


Indeed the E8xxx series costs more and is slower (again Intel not competing with prices despite slower CPU?)



r9 said:


> My point is that AMD would sqeeze every last penny from people just like Intel would..



Why do you keep saying that, we know that we have already agreed that both AMD and Intel are out to make money and that both companies are penny pinchers this has been established long ago and we are all in agreement! The only deference is AMD is more competitive price wise in comparison to Intel, know one is saying that AMD not care about money or shall i say our money, but they are cheaper and that is undisputed. Whether its a penny cheaper or a pound cheaper a dollar cheaper or a euro cheaper, they are still cheaper.



r9 said:


> And that whole nonsense about number of sockets. How about on LGA 775 you could put P4 and C2D. I would like to see how ..




Wait hold on a second, didn't the earlier socket 775 fail to be fully compatible with the newer Core 2 Quads? I can remember some issues with some older socket 775s failing to pick up some Worfdales Core 2s as forcing people to buy new boards!




r9 said:


> And my mistake HDD4770 is positioned vs 9800GT not 9800GTX+ and it is slower than 9800GTX+. So you gonna need to recalculate.



That is debateable, the 9800GTs gets its arse handed to it by the 4830, the 4770 would slice right through it. (oh yeah the 4830 is cheaper than the 9800 GT too  )


In either event the recalculation is just in! 

According to overclockers.co.uk, the 9800 GT is the same price as the 4770! Both are £89.99 despite the 4770 only being in the market a few weeks! 

9800 GT

4770


Edit :

Indeed, failing to pay the mortgage for an extra 5 FPS for i7 lol.

And if those Q9xxx's were overclock the core 2 Quads would probably win majority


----------



## rpsgc (May 30, 2009)

I think I'd rather trust some more reliable sources like...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=62,69&tid=2
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=62,69&tid=4
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=62,69&tid=6

or

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-core-i7_12.html#sect0
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2008/11/11/intel-core-i7-cpu-value/1
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16570


The i7 is 5 or 10fps faster at 1024x768! That's totally worth the price premium! Go e-Peen! And your link shows the i7 having little or no advantage without Crossfire or SLI. And that's just for the sake of argument because those numbers do not match other much more respectable sources.

You're just trying to justify your own purchase. Meh. Spend your money how you want to but please do not come here spreading FUD. I'm sure you love your i7, I'm sure it's great for a lot of people and for a lot of purposes but for gaming it's just not worth it. Unless said person has CrossfireX or Tri-SLI, in which case he/she has more money than brains.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> Indeed, failing to pay the morgage for an extra 5 FPS for i7 lol.
> 
> And if those Q9xxx's were overclock the core 2 Quads would probably win majority of the time.



LOL is for failing to pay the morgage because of buying yet another CPU that provable still is not going to beat i7 920.
If I look things yours paying 200$ for PII is dumb because I could play any game at max with E5200 at 4.2GHz if there was a game that not run on max definitely it is not the E5200 it would be my GPU. 
So what is the point that of PII.


----------



## rpsgc (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> Indeed, failing to pay the morgage for an extra 5 FPS for i7 lol.
> 
> And if those Q9xxx's were overclock the core 2 Quads would probably win majority of the time.



QFT.

I already have a good S775 motherboard and 8GB of DDR2. Why would I buy an overpriced X58 motherboard and more expensive DDR3 when I can (and will) get a cheap Core 2 Quad and have, for all intents and purposes, the same performance at 1920x1200 single GPU gaming?

And re: P4 and C2D motherboards, earlier socket 775 motherboards were not compatible with Core 2 Duo. That's a fact.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> LOL is for failing to pay the morgage because of buying yet another CPU that provable still is not going to beat i7 920.



An overclocked Q9xxx series can take on a i7 very well in a lot of tasks, even at stock they are very comparable.

Are you doubting a Q9xxx series OC'd @ 3GHz-4 GHz against a stock i7.

Please see sense.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> An overclocked Q9xxx series can take on a i7 very well in a lot of tasks, even at stock they are very comparable.
> 
> Are you doubting a Q9xxx series @ 3GHz-4 GHz against a stock i7.
> 
> Please see sense.



The components for their value should be tested as they would be used. For me is pointless benching at stock speed I`m not going to use it at stock.

How the time will pass i7 will distance from Q9xxx and PII. Like a said it is bottlenecked.
Put crysis at ultrahigh 8xAA 16xAF 2600x1200 and you could compare my CPU with i7.

I can`t find source but there was done tri sli with GTX 280 ( I`m not 100% sure) my point is that i7 was much much faster than Q9xxx. Because it was supplied with enough GPU power so it could stretch his legs.


----------



## rpsgc (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> I can`t find source but there was done tri sli with GTX 280 ( I`m not 100% sure) my point is that i7 was much much faster than Q9xxx. Because it was supplied with enough GPU power so it could stretch his legs.



No one is arguing that. But do you care about Tri-SLI? Or two HD4870X2 in Crossfire? I know I don't. To me it's a moot point.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> The components for their value should be tested as they would be used. For me is pointless benching at stock speed I`m not going to use it at stock.
> 
> How the time will pass i7 will distance from Q9xxx and PII. Like a said it is bottlenecked.
> Put crysis at ultrahigh 8xAA 16xAF 2600x1200 and you could compare my CPU with i7.



At high resolutions CPU is not a huge factor why even bring the "ultrahigh 8xAA 16xAF 2600x1200" into the debate? most of the time is a negligible difference of a few mere frames per second like in mudkip failed example.

I’m not a fortune teller and neither are you so to make speculations on future bottle necks based on evidence farfetched. 

But what I can say today, a overclocked Q9xxx series is very comparable to an i7, especially in games. Do you agree with me yes or no?

Please no waffle. Yes or No! time.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> At high resolutions CPU is not a factor why why even bring the "ultrahigh 8xAA 16xAF 2600x1200" into the debate? most of the time is a neglagable difference of a few mere frames per second like in mudkip failed example.
> 
> Im not a fortune teller and neither are you so to make specutations on future bottle necks based on no evidenece farfetched.
> 
> ...



Yes agree.
But do you agree that in time when i7 would not be bottle necked it would be faster that Q9XXX ?
I`m telling you put tri SLI GTX 285 and you will see 30% difference.
That is pointless at the moment but in one year time two more generations of GPUs would came up. The second generation single GPU would compare in power to two even three GTX 285. So then be sure that the difference would be evident.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> Yes agree.
> But do you agree that in time when i7 would not be bottle necked it would be faster that Q9XXX ?



End of debate. You are agreeing with me yet you are still arguing? I think you have a compulsion to disagree whether you are right or wrong.

The bottom line is the Q9xxx overclocked is equivalent and sometimes better than the i7, you've agreed, drop it. If you want to debate on some of the previous discuss topics fine but I'm not debating a well known fact and a fact you agree with too.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> End of debate. You are agreeing with me yet you are still arguing? I think you have a compulsion to disagree whether you agree or not.
> 
> The bottom line is Q9xxx overclocked is equivalent and sometimes better than the i7, you've agreed, drop it. If you want to debate on some of the previous discuss topics fine but I'm not debating a well known fact and a fact you agree on too.



I can`t be more clear. You are putting bugatti veyron true a city streets with speed limit of 50km/h and you are saying that is as fast as 50cc scooter. Yes I agree 100%.
You are paring CPU with GPU that even a God could push it it would not move past 30FPS at that game and settings and want to see a difference.
Like I said at that res and settings my E5200 would give close FPS to i7. Because of the BOTTLENECK.

For real world performance i7 is ahead of his time. And his time would come.


----------



## mudkip (May 30, 2009)

Darren you're just a egoïstic bastard.. there's no point arguing with you.

A Q9550 cost about the same amount as a i7 in the netherlands, for that price I'd choose for a i7. And a overclocked Q9550 is faster/the same as a stock 920. But if the running at the same clock speed the 920 is still faster. also ''only'' 5FPS more can be the difference if a game is playable or not.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> I can`t be more clear. You are putting bugatti veyron true a city streets with speed limit of 50km/h and you are saying that is as fast as 50cc scooter. Yes I agree 100%.
> You are paring CPU with GPU that even a God could push it it would not move past 30FPS at that game and settings and want to see a difference.



Well the benchmarks (currently) say otherwise. The benchmark shows very little difference between in games between the Q9xxx, i7, and Phenom II even at stock - Either one of the Phenom II or Q9xxx would have a huge advantage if they were OC'd and the i7 is left at stock. I can not believe you are even arguing against this (despite agreeing previously)


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

If we run both bugatti veyron and 50cc scooter both at 50 km/h who would be faster ?
Which is heavier 1 kilo iron or 1 kilo of feathers.
So that means that IRON is as heavy as bird feathers and bugatti veyron is not faster than a scooter. 
Great logic I must say do you agree ?


----------



## rpsgc (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> I can`t be more clear. You are putting bugatti veyron true a city streets with speed limit of 50km/h and you are saying that is as fast as 50cc scooter. Yes I agree 100%.



Saying a Core i7 is a Bugatti Veyron and a C2Q 9xxx series is a 50cc scooter is just plain retarded. You've just lost all your credibility. Please take your fanboyism elsewhere.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Go first educate your self what is bottlenecking then you may understand what I`m saying. Even do I doubt that you are capable of that.
Go read this and you may figure it out. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16285&page=1


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

mudkip said:


> Darren you're just a egoïstic bastard.. there's no point arguing with you.
> 
> A Q9550 cost about the same amount as a i7 in the netherlands, for that price I'd choose for a i7. And a overclocked Q9550 is faster/the same as a stock 920. But if the running at the same clock speed the 920 is still faster. also ''only'' 5FPS more can be the difference if a game is playable or not.



I agree if you are running stock speeds the i7 is faster than the Q9xxx series, however I clearly said "overclocked" in my previous post yet you jumped down my throat and started posting stock benchmarks! (which still showed equivalency in performance)

If you said stock I would of agreed with you! 

In terms of pricing it varies country to country, if you're a building a new rig and pricing in your country is the same get the i7, but I was merely arguing that if you've already got a socket 775 motherboard a small overclock to a Q9xxx will give you i7 performance in certain tasks. I was not saying do not buy i7.

5 seconds can be the difference between playable an unplayable, but when we are talking about Intel’s high-end processors loosing 5 frames for the sake of looking £200-400 for the entire build is negligible especially when would are achieving FPS in the near 100 FPS.

I challenge you to spot the between 100FPS opposed to 105 FPS


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> 478 LGA775 LGA1366
> SocketA Socket754 Socket939 SocketAM2 SocketAM2+ SocketAM3
> 
> That is the route from AthlonXP vs P4 till now.
> ...



Then what I said holds true, P4 to C2D was as far as the generation jump was allowed to go. and the AMD upgrade path extends a bit farther across more generations. I know the socket order on AMD side, I had a socket A, 754, 939, AM2, AM2+, so no you don't need to make anything clear or use a snappy line, but you do need to calm down and stop looking for an argument.


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

rpsgc said:


> Saying a Core i7 is a Bugatti Veyron and a C2Q 9xxx series is a 50cc scooter is just plain retarded. You've just lost all your credibility. Please take your fanboyism elsewhere.



Limit is 50km/h no mater what you put when is limited to 50km/h. Are you that dumb or you just play one.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> Go first educate your self what is bottlenecking then you may understand what I`m saying. Even do I doubt that you are capable of that.
> Go read this and you may figure it out. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16285&page=1



Go educate yourself on finances and you will understand what I'm saying


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> Go educate yourself on finances and you will understand what I'm saying



What is it you cant read.
I7 vs Q9XXX same clocks in 1920 res when the bottle neck is smaller and is powered with enough GPU power it i7 was 25% faster.


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> What is it you cant read.
> I7 vs Q9XXX same clocks in 1920 res when the bottle neck is smaller and is powered with enough GPU power it i7 was 25% faster.



Perhaps, but at 25% the financial cost in certain countries. 


Your definition of a good financial bargain need adjusting


----------



## r9 (May 30, 2009)

The whole point of i7 and PII is to last at least year or two PII wont last that long. You are going to have switch two rigs in the same duration of time. For what for saving 100$ on purchase. You are going to pay triple when you are going to upgread your lazy PII 955.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> The whole point of i7 and PII is to last at least year or two PII wont last that long. You are going to have switch two rigs in the same duration of time. For what for saving 100$ on purchase. You are going to pay triple when you are going to upgread your lazy PII 955.



I think your blowing this a bit out of proportion here, not even a bit, a MASSIVE amount. I don't know what you are doing with your PII especially the 955 that it would need to be replaced in a year. I guess you must be running benchmarks that involve HT on all day long. Because as far as gaming performance goes the PII's hang right with a i7 920 and at higher res the PII's are actually slightly better. Don't know about you, but I game a hell of a lot more than I benchmark. I'm going to use your E5200 as a prime example, that is an old proc, it may not stick with the current generation from either camp, but with the OC potential it will play any of todays games fine. But by your standards you should bring it up back and put a bullet in it, it's useless, horrible, slow, and ancient.

 I think you need to step back for a bit man, you seem to be foaming at the mouth here, posts are getting personal and getting out landish. It's just a forum, it's just hardware, not life or death, if you like i7 cool, fantastic, don't need to get defensive, rude, angry, and snappy over it.


----------



## a_ump (May 30, 2009)

interesting debate there r9/darren . must say i agree with 1kurgan1. r9, u say the i7 is bottlenecked, and i too remember reading reviews that showed when you use tri-sli or xfire(3-4x) the i7 performance is noticable over c2q, dunno bout PII. Now pricing wise with i7 vs c2q in the USA-newegg.com, the q9650=$324, i7 920=$279. Gig X48-DS5=$189, MSI X58 Pro=$184. G.Skill 2x2gb DDR2 1100 cas 5 @1.8-1.9v-$69, DDR3 1333 G.Skill 3x1gb cas 7@1.5-1.6v=$59.

..i7=$522
c2q
q9650+X48=$582
q9650+P45=$512
q9550+X48=$527
q9550+P45=$457

Now i did that simply to show that price wise there isn't a significant difference if your stuck between a c2q or i7 rig and are thinking SLI/xfire. I only chose an X48 instead of P45 because X58 offers SLI/xfire, and X48 offers xfire so closest i can find in compatability. If your not thinking xfire, then grabbing a P45 for $119(gigabyte UD3R) would save some cash, but then the c2q 9650 costs ~$50 more than the i7 920. So you could go c2q 9550 $269, but idk if anyone would say the 9650 warrants an extra $50, i say anyone purchasing one of those CPU's should have oc knowledge and the difference is negligible. I have no clue how that X58 performs but it was the best i could find for a price around the X48 in fact the best i could find for cheap. I chose that DDR2 ram as 1100mhz at 5 cas with 1.8v is good for DDR2, and i'd guarantee that it could reach 1200+ at 2.1v. I then simply looked for some DDR3 in triple-channel around the same price with good rating, and that's what i found. Idk how good that ram is as there's plenty of DDR3 1600 with tighter timings than those DDR3 1333 sticks.  

I really don't think price is a reason anymore to pick c2q over i7, as there seems to be almost no difference, but your situation and the build in mind can fluctuate the price enough that it really can't be argued on a forum as someone can always thk of a build that is cheaper, but then it usually takes away from a component's ability(IE: P45 to X48 u gain good xfire) but then one could argue but somone may not need xifre/SLI, then u could argue that a good c2q heatsink is only $32(xig S-964) but an i7 HSF is $40+, it never ends so situation is deciding factor. imo i7=good c2q build now. If your not going xfire, then grab a q9550 and P45. If you are, there's no reason to not go i7 as the price difference is not there. But then if your going SLI and thking c2q, nvidia's chipsets do not overclock well, at least that is my xp with my 680i LT, and i still hear the 7X0i series is fail in comparison to intels. Too many variables in components needed to make a strait up decision if i7 is more expensive than c2q build.

I just thought i'd try and end a price argument i'd read earlier and just put some quick money info in here, and i was bored


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

r9 said:


> Go first educate your self what is bottlenecking then you may understand what I`m saying. _Even do I doubt that you are capable of that.
> Go read this and you may figure it out. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16285&page=1[/I]_


_


You made yourself look silly again despite me previously telling you to drop the issue in a calm and gentlemanly manner. But if you want me to look at your benchmarks then I shall!

Where in that link does it show the Q9xxx series overclocked? The entire debate was the i7 performing similarly to a overclocked Q9xxx series especially in games and you failed to show a benchmark with the Q9xxx series overclocked which defeats the purpose.

The fact that you're send me a link that does not meet the basic requirements of an "overclocked Q9xxx" shows that you have an unnecessary tendency to argue about topics with no logical basis.


Moving on, complying reluctantly to your benchmark from Hexus.net when researching the highest resolution a Tri-SLI configuration in games the results are as follows: (i'm the doing highest resolution because R9 claims high resolutions is when Core 2 Quad bottle neck occurs)

Company of Heros:2,560x1,600 4xAA 0xAF
Core i 965 Extreme: 124.6 FPS
Core 2 Extreme:121 FPS
*Difference: 3.6 FPS *

Anyone that says that a 3.6 FPS difference is a bottleneck is stupid - You mean i7 which is Intel’s flagship CPU can not even shake off a last generation Core 2 Quad past double digits

Verdict : No bottle neck


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quake Wars: Enemy Territory: 2,560x1,600 4xAA, 16xAF!
Core i 965 Extreme:132.0 FPS
Core 2 Extreme: 131.3 FPS
*difference: 1.3 FPS*

Wait a min only 1.3 FPS difference that is a really major bottle neck huh 

You mean Intel’s flagship i7 is only 1.3 FPS faster than the rusty old core 2 architecture? Oh the lag 1.3 FPS extra will make my games more playable. Not you must be smoking 

verdict: No bottle neck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call of Duty 4: 2,560x1,600 4xAA, 16xAF!

Core i7 965 Extreme: 121.4 FPS
Core 2 Extreme: 155.6 FPS
*difference: 34.2 FPS*

Wait hold on, the i7 looses, I just paid all this money for a bloody processor that looses by such a large gap to its younger brother

At least when the i7 was winning previously it only  between 1-8.6 FPS. But the Core 2 Quad kicks its ass by 34.2 FPS. Damn I so want so see you guys justify your purchase 

Verdict: No bottleneck (if anything i7 is bottleneck on this test)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Far Cry 2: 2,560x1,600 

Core i 965 Extreme: 91.9 FPS
Core 2 Extreme: 83.3 FPS
*difference: 8.6 FPS*

only 8.6 FPS OMG, my game is so unplayable, I wish I had that extra 8.6 FPS, I'm going to spend loads of money throw away my socket 775 motherboard and replace it with a i7 build for a mere 8.6 FPS increase, because I do not have the common sense to upgrade my video card which would be the cheaper alternative whilst benefiting for more frames. 

Verdict: No bottle neck.

*Conclusion:*

In a Tri-SLI configuration according to respected website Hexus and recommended by R9 when comparing the Core 2 Extreme with Intel’s flagship i7 965 extreme the performance difference is negligible. It shows a minimum of a 1.3 FPS increase in games and only a maximum of 8.6 FPS increase. One would not need to hold a PHD degree in quantum physics to realise that the performance in games according to the findings is small indeed and hence leaves me to believe any association with bottlenecking and the Q9xxx series is due to ones psychological deformity which causes one to argue with no basis._


----------



## a_ump (May 30, 2009)

Darren said:


> Call of Duty 4: 2,560x1,600 4xAA, 16xAF!
> 
> Core i 965 Extreme: 155.6 FPS
> Core 2 Extreme: 121.4 FPS
> ...



eh u put the Core i7 965 with 155.6 fps, not the C2E lol. some nice vocabulary+grammer in there . So your post plus mine=no signifigant difference, the builder's use of system is really the only thing that matters when choosing between the 2, IE: if you benchmark and are all about it, render, decode then it's i7, but if your like most of us and use your pc for gaming, few benchmarks just to test performance not break WR, and daily use, then it's whichever is cheaper. Usually c2q however as i pointed out they are rather close.

EDIT: though r9 did use games that favor i7, they do so because they are multi-threaded quite well. So we can slightly say that the i7 *may* pull ahead in future games as they will be multi-threaded much better than today's game. WiC is perfect example of how i hope games future released will be multi-threaded, no longer will a c2d outdo my q6600


----------



## Darren (May 30, 2009)

Thanks Ump, I've made the corrections 

I just wanted to illustrate that in gaming whether one has a Core 2 Quad or an i7 your games are fine, even if you want to go Tri-SLI or Crossfire or Quadfire etc the difference is very small as per Hexus's findings.  We need to stop throwing around this "bottle necking" terminology as an excuse to upgrade to a new platform when today's current generation of Q9xxx are still up to the task or as an excuse to justify bad financial purchase choices.

I can not believe all this started because a few people can not accept that:

A.) AMD have always competed with Intel in pricing
B.) An overclocked Q9xxx competes with i7 in games

Two small statements caused so much chaos.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 31, 2009)

im still with my p45 , for this crap nest move will be AMD , im back again AMD


----------



## Wile E (Jun 1, 2009)

What I want to know is, since when is gaming the only purpose a computer serves? Why do people only bring up gaming benches? What about encoding? What about rendering? What about the countless other cpu intensive multithreaded apps? i7 earns it's price premium when it comes to those things.


----------



## mudkip (Jun 4, 2009)

mudkip said:


> *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax *





btarunr said:


> not hoax





mudkip said:


> prove me wrong , if the info doesn't come from intel itself it's just a hoax trying to make people buy an i7





btarunr said:


> I have a source to cite. I don't need any more proof. Of course Intel won't tell you it's discontinuing two of its chips months in advance, just as it doesn't officially tell anything about the chips that are slated for months later.



*Intel Answers: The future of Core i7 920
*



Intel Answers: The future of Core i7 920

*Intel makes the claim that the popular Core i7 920 won't be discontinued and what Lynnfield WON'T be called.
COMPUTEX 2009: Having breakfast while ogling over the prohibitively expensive and ludicrously fast Core i7 975 this morning, we nailed down some details about the supposed demise of Intel's Core i7 920 and future naming of its Lynnfield CPUs.

First, the Core i7 920. Despite being told quite the opposite just last week, Intel vehemently reaffirmed the i7 920 will still exist for the foreseeable future. However, there was absolutely no commitment to a timescale.

Only the 940 will go, claimed Intel, as it will be replaced by the 950 – which we already know. Intel was adamant that a range of CPUs will remain available for the platform long after Lynnfield launches on September 1st.

Secondly, Intel said its Lynnfield processors would NOT be branded Core i5 like the rumours have suggested, but the spokesperson stopped short of what the name would be.

In fact, Intel stopped short on a lot of detail this morning – only that Lynnfield’s Turbo mode will be finer tuned and greater than that of Nehalem, which is certainly nice, but upon being probed for actual details like numerical values, Intel kept mum.

Will anyone from Intel go on record to give us a firm roadmap for the life of its i7 products and get us some numbers? You know how to get hold of us guys. For the rest of you, let us know your thoughts in the forums. 

*

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/06/03/intel-answers-the-future-of-core-i7-920/1

Didn't I tell you?


----------



## human_error (Jun 4, 2009)

Hmm, well there we have it. I'm still skeptical - Intel could just be doing a Sony on denying any product launches/changes until the day of announcement to avoid losing out on sales. We can only really tell in Spetember/October time what Intel will do.

I also wonder if Intel is playing up with the i5 name and to have an excuse for more news will call it i6 instead of i5 just so it will be different from what people expect.


----------



## Naekuh (Jun 4, 2009)

920 discontinued...  -->  get W3520   

Problem solved.


----------



## human_error (Jun 8, 2009)

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/06/05/confirmed-core-i7-920-940-950-to-go-soon/1.

Looks like Intel was lying when they said core i7 920s weren't going anywhere, their roadmap shows them killing of the 920 early next year (link does not show roadmap, but is based off what the roadmap they saw said).


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> What I want to know is, since when is gaming the only purpose a computer serves? Why do people only bring up gaming benches? What about encoding? What about rendering? What about the countless other cpu intensive multithreaded apps? i7 earns it's price premium when it comes to those things.



Because the time most of us are going to spend gaming is far greater than th time we spend encoding or any of those other things. Some people that may not be true, that work in a specific industry, but those just are not everyday tasks most of us do. I game probably 20 - 30 hours a week, and encode.... never?



Naekuh said:


> 920 discontinued...  -->  get W3520
> 
> Problem solved.



Will that be worth the price premium though, looks to be about $60 more. Just wondering how that 2.8ghz i5 for $280ish is going to go toe to toe with the i7 920.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 8, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Because the time most of us are going to spend gaming is far greater than th time we spend encoding or any of those other things. Some people that may not be true, that work in a specific industry, but those just are not everyday tasks most of us do. I game probably 20 - 30 hours a week, and encode.... never?


That's you, and possibly the majority of the people on this site, but you have to realize one thing, computer gamers are a vast minority. The majority of the computers out in the world never so much as see a game, and thus the cpu is much, much more important.


----------



## stefanels (Jun 8, 2009)

LOL... just sold my i7 today....


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That's you, and possibly the majority of the people on this site, but you have to realize one thing, computer gamers are a vast minority. The majority of the computers out in the world never so much as see a game, and thus the cpu is much, much more important.



Majority of computer users in the world wouldn't know a peice of ram from a horse shoe and buy vastly underpowered computers that they could careless about encoding times, thats a vast majority of the world 

My parents used a 1Ghz Celeron with 128MB RAM from like 2001 till 2008, when they finally cracked and let me build them a basic comp. 3800+ X@, 1gb ram, 2600xt, and they think the thing is fast as lightning, they love it.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 9, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Majority of computer users in the world wouldn't know a peice of ram from a horse shoe and buy vastly underpowered computers that they could careless about encoding times, thats a vast majority of the world
> 
> My parents used a 1Ghz Celeron with 128MB RAM from like 2001 till 2008, when they finally cracked and let me build them a basic comp. 3800+ X@, 1gb ram, 2600xt, and they think the thing is fast as lightning, they love it.



Encoding isn't the only benefit, either, but, almost everyone I know aged 18-40 encodes a great deal. Whether it's home movies, converting things for their PMP, editing family photos, etc, etc. Encoding is much, MUCH more common than gaming on a computer. 

On to another point, if your parents bought a more powerful computer in 2001, they could've used it even longer.  That's the way people do it when they can afford it. "How long will this last me?" is at the forefront of their mind. I've been building computers on the side for 14 years. That is one of the most common questions I get. And my response is always, "the more powerful the cpu, the longer it can last you." Now, I don't go suggesting the $1000 extreme editions are worth it for longevity, but I would certainly suggest an i7 920 over a Phenom II for the few extra dollars. People always want the most for their budget, and if a Core i7 is in their target budget, it is the most cpu for the money, period.

That wasn't even my whole point, anyway. My point is, the only thing anyone posts about in this thread is gaming performance. AKA: picking only the benches that suit their point of view, instead of looking at the whole picture.


----------



## n-ster (Jun 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Encoding isn't the only benefit, either, but, almost everyone I know aged 18-40 encodes a great deal. Whether it's home movies, converting things for their PMP, editing family photos, etc, etc. Encoding is much, MUCH more common than gaming on a computer.
> 
> On to another point, if your parents bought a more powerful computer in 2001, they could've used it even longer.  That's the way people do it when they can afford it. "How long will this last me?" is at the forefront of their mind. I've been building computers on the side for 14 years. That is one of the most common questions I get. And my response is always, "the more powerful the cpu, the longer it can last you." Now, I don't go suggesting the $1000 extreme editions are worth it for longevity, but I would certainly suggest an i7 920 over a Phenom II for the few extra dollars. People always want the most for their budget, and if a Core i7 is in their target budget, it is the most cpu for the money, period.
> 
> That wasn't even my whole point, anyway. My point is, the only thing anyone posts about in this thread is gaming performance. AKA: picking only the benches that suit their point of view, instead of looking at the whole picture.



My thoughts exactly and one reason why I will be getting the i7...

Also, it probably will be better at gaming later on, since future games and GPUs will obviously demand more power


----------



## Naekuh (Jun 9, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Will that be worth the price premium though, looks to be about $60 more. Just wondering how that 2.8ghz i5 for $280ish is going to go toe to toe with the i7 920.



the alternative is a 950 which would be almost 2x priced?

i'll take the $60 premium.  

Also im seeing a track record right now on W35X0 cpu's overclocking a bit better then the 920's.

guys i honestly think the mainpoint in lynnfield was its IGP. So far i havent seen jack that supports if that IGP is any better or not. The big WOW is the 2x turbo on feature on 1 core.. but woop di do... if your an overclocker +1x multi on 1 core wont mean jack because you'll most likely run into a ram wall or a bclk wall to get any big improvement. 

So i dont see the hype in lynnfield at the moment. i7 isnt that far priced.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jun 9, 2009)

stefanels said:


> LOL... just sold my i7 today....



OT: for how much?


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Encoding isn't the only benefit, either, but, almost everyone I know aged 18-40 encodes a great deal. Whether it's home movies, converting things for their PMP, editing family photos, etc, etc. Encoding is much, MUCH more common than gaming on a computer.
> 
> On to another point, if your parents bought a more powerful computer in 2001, they could've used it even longer.  That's the way people do it when they can afford it. "How long will this last me?" is at the forefront of their mind. I've been building computers on the side for 14 years. That is one of the most common questions I get. And my response is always, "the more powerful the cpu, the longer it can last you." Now, I don't go suggesting the $1000 extreme editions are worth it for longevity, but I would certainly suggest an i7 920 over a Phenom II for the few extra dollars. People always want the most for their budget, and if a Core i7 is in their target budget, it is the most cpu for the money, period.
> 
> That wasn't even my whole point, anyway. My point is, the only thing anyone posts about in this thread is gaming performance. AKA: picking only the benches that suit their point of view, instead of looking at the whole picture.



Those types of tasks for your average user are not very stressful tasks, they most likely are using very simple programs that do not put a ton of stress on either CPU, Photoshop filters would be most likely far over their head.

I agree about the more powerful PC though, but in 2001 they picked it up for $500, so really gotta compare that too now. And we didn't even have a computer before that, so it was really better than nothing, plus a 56k connection the comp and the connection were in lag races, now they realize how slow it was.

And everyone is picking benches that suit their results, as your using encoding benches for your examples. Both procs have their + and -, I don't know if I would recommend a 920 for an extra 30 or so for the proc and could be 80 or more for the mobo. Thats over $100, then if you carry that philosophy out with everything, "might as well spend $20 more on vid card" and "$25 more on RAM", heck get a 790FX over a 790GX, it will nickel and dime  you until you wonder where this massive price came from. Thats really my point, people say it isn't much more, but it really can be especially if you chose to spend that little extra on everything when you are trying to hit it under a certain budget point.

Now I'm not saying the i7 920 isn't a great proc, because it is, but the price difference can be made pretty huge, use DDR2 instead of DDR3, stuff like that for an average user isn't going to be noticeable. You aren't going to see them OC'ing , and they most likely won't be able to tell the difference between 40 and 60 fps in a game or 5 and 8 seconds for something to encode, as both are pretty short times.



Naekuh said:


> the alternative is a 950 which would be almost 2x priced?
> 
> i'll take the $60 premium.



No the alternative I mentioned was the i5 thats 2.8ghz, isn't that releasing at a very close price with the i7 920, which is why I had mentioned that proc...


----------



## Wile E (Jun 10, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Those types of tasks for your average user are not very stressful tasks, they most likely are using very simple programs that do not put a ton of stress on either CPU, Photoshop filters would be most likely far over their head.
> 
> I agree about the more powerful PC though, but in 2001 they picked it up for $500, so really gotta compare that too now. And we didn't even have a computer before that, so it was really better than nothing, plus a 56k connection the comp and the connection were in lag races, now they realize how slow it was.
> 
> ...


But regardless of all of that, the potential longevity of the i7 will be much greater than the PII, so yeah, it's worth the extra $100 if they can afford it.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 10, 2009)

If thats in their price range I maybe would agree, but really, any of these procs are fast, the difference is minuscule really. Even my lowly $145 at stock clocks was darned impressive. But if it's stretching it, like I said, "just $100 more on those, well might as well spend $20 on this, $20 on that, $15 on this, $30" for an entire build, then your just looking at a big price increase.

Like when I was looking at new videocards, start with 4850 TOP, looked great, then got that and was like, 4870 isn't much more, well 280 isn't much more, ah hell 4870x2 isn't much more, went from spending $160 to spending $500 just by taking that little price jump, you can easily keep going with it, but at some point a line has to be drawn as to what is going to work just fine.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 10, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> If thats in their price range I maybe would agree, but really, any of these procs are fast, the difference is minuscule really. Even my lowly $145 at stock clocks was darned impressive. But if it's stretching it, like I said, "just $100 more on those, well might as well spend $20 on this, $20 on that, $15 on this, $30" for an entire build, then your just looking at a big price increase.
> 
> Like when I was looking at new videocards, start with 4850 TOP, looked great, then got that and was like, 4870 isn't much more, well 280 isn't much more, ah hell 4870x2 isn't much more, went from spending $160 to spending $500 just by taking that price jump, you can easily keep going with it, but at some point a line has to be drawn as to what is going to work just fine.


Upgrading the cpu/mobo/mem doesn't mean having to upgrade everything else. The lowest of the modern ATI and NV cards are just fine for a non-gaming build. Like I said, if i7 is in their budget in a non-gaming build, there is no other choice. Only when i7 is out of budget, or gaming is the primary concern, is i7 not always the way to go.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Upgrading the cpu/mobo/mem doesn't mean having to upgrade everything else. The lowest of the modern ATI and NV cards are just fine for a non-gaming build. Like I said, if i7 is in their budget in a non-gaming build, there is no other choice. Only when i7 is out of budget, or gaming is the primary concern, is i7 not always the way to go.



I was just using that as an example, case is a good example, quality fans that aren't going to flake out asap, a brand name PSU, DDR3 over DDR2, a nice keyboard, nice mouse, nice monitor lots of things can stack up pretty quick. When the average user is just fine using a few year old processor, the difference to them is just going to be negligible. I'm not saying there won't be one as the i7 920 is a great proc, I'm saying will they really notice it? Probably not.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 10, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I was just using that as an example, case is a good example, quality fans that aren't going to flake out asap, a brand name PSU, DDR3 over DDR2, a nice keyboard, nice mouse, nice monitor lots of things can stack up pretty quick. When the average user is just fine using a few year old processor, the difference to them is just going to be negligible. I'm not saying there won't be one as the i7 920 is a great proc, I'm saying will they really notice it? Probably not.



You are still missing the point. Noticing the difference is not the point. Longevity is the most important point, and PII doesn't hold a candle to i7 in that regard. It provide the most for the money if it is in the budget.

And all of my client builds use only top quality psus. Everything else is sacrificed for that, first and foremost. So when I say Core i7 is in their budget, I mean after the proper supporting components are chosen. Most don't give a shit about the case tho. They're almost all fine with the lowest priced Rosewill on Newegg. As long as it's all black, they usually don't care. Very few want a fancy or specific case. I would never, in a million years, sacrifice getting a Core i7 over high quality case fans tho. The higher quality fans can be bought later, if needed. So long as the fans chosen for the build give the necessary flow, that's all that matters.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> Benchmarks do not lie



I really had to do this:

There are three kinds of lies:
1) Real Lies.
2) White Lies.
3) Benchmarks !


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> You are still missing the point. Noticing the difference is not the point. Longevity is the most important point, and PII doesn't hold a candle to i7 in that regard. It provide the most for the money if it is in the budget.
> 
> And all of my client builds use only top quality psus. Everything else is sacrificed for that, first and foremost. So when I say Core i7 is in their budget, I mean after the proper supporting components are chosen. Most don't give a shit about the case tho. They're almost all fine with the lowest priced Rosewill on Newegg. As long as it's all black, they usually don't care. Very few want a fancy or specific case. I would never, in a million years, sacrifice getting a Core i7 over high quality case fans tho. The higher quality fans can be bought later, if needed. So long as the fans chosen for the build give the necessary flow, that's all that matters.



No I'm getting the point, but I still think your missing what I'm saying. Is that the average user just isn't going to notice that difference. Either one of them will be good for a long time as the PII's are far far far from slow. Most average users when going to buy a new computer won't even fork out the cash to get a PII or i7, as most of them go to Gateway, Dell, Bestbuy, or some other company.

The PSU I use in almost all builds for customers is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817339019 and one's in my gf's comp, I've even had my 4870x2 on it for a bit, still haven't ever had one with an issue. HEC is a good brand, I always check reviews, paying top dollar for a brand name isn't something I ever see as an option unless the competition sucks.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 10, 2009)

Over here, prices on the AM2+ Phenom II based systems are obviously less than an i7 build, but the difference between an AM3 quad core (955BE, if you want to hope to match the OC potential) based system and an i7 isn't much - Hence in the local forums here there are plenty of 940BEs in builds, but there are very few 955BEs in builds, since at that point, the i7 makes more sense. While there are cheaper AM3 motherboards when compared to X58s, one should remember that X58s are the only boards out there that allow for both CF and SLI, which to an enthusiast is well worth the price premium.

Granted, enthusiasts and overclockers are a tiny percent of the world's computer user population, but the people who actually need a quad core CPU nowdays (Or will need one in the next few years) are also a small fraction of PC users world-wide.

People like my mom or my dad (A university Professor and a BioTech VP of Research) don't even need more than a cheap dual core, or even a single core celeron. My mother gets along just fine, with no complaints (And I asked her if she wanted to upgrade, repeatedly) with the small mini-PC I built her about a year and a half ago based off a Via C7-D at 1.5Ghz. Both my parents do not use the PC for more than listening to music, checking e-mail, looking up information in Google and using MS Office/Open Office and this is more indicative of the common PC use than any encoding or gaming need.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 10, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> No I'm getting the point, but I still think your missing what I'm saying. Is that the average user just isn't going to notice that difference. Either one of them will be good for a long time as the PII's are far far far from slow. Most average users when going to buy a new computer won't even fork out the cash to get a PII or i7, as most of them go to Gateway, Dell, Bestbuy, or some other company.
> 
> The PSU I use in almost all builds for customers is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817339019 and one's in my gf's comp, I've even had my 4870x2 on it for a bit, still haven't ever had one with an issue. HEC is a good brand, I always check reviews, paying top dollar for a brand name isn't something I ever see as an option unless the competition sucks.


I would never buy that for a customer build. The PSU is the heart of the system. If it blows, it can take out every single other piece of equipment in the computer with it. That particular unit is marketed as a 485W psu, yet is only rated 350W according to the manufacturer's product page. That's not a good sign, IMO.

I've used this in the last 4 client builds: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139008 (Although I got it for only $40 a piece).


----------



## motanacu (Jun 10, 2009)

...but q6600 is no longer available.it`s gonna take a while till we have the software optimized for C2Q and CI7


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 10, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> People like my mom or my dad (A university Professor and a BioTech VP of Research) don't even need more than a cheap dual core, or even a single core celeron. My mother gets along just fine, with no complaints (And I asked her if she wanted to upgrade, repeatedly) with the small mini-PC I built her about a year and a half ago based off a Via C7-D at 1.5Ghz. Both my parents do not use the PC for more than listening to music, checking e-mail, looking up information in Google and using MS Office/Open Office and this is more indicative of the common PC use than any encoding or gaming need.



Thats exactly what I'm talking about, average users just dont need even quad core power, like I said my parents 3800+ x2 just blow them away, they can't believe how fast it is, lol.



Wile E said:


> I would never buy that for a customer build. The PSU is the heart of the system. If it blows, it can take out every single other piece of equipment in the computer with it. That particular unit is marketed as a 485W psu, yet is only rated 350W according to the manufacturer's product page. That's not a good sign, IMO.
> 
> I've used this in the last 4 client builds: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139008 (Although I got it for only $40 a piece).



HEC is a good brand, granted the Orion series is the lower brand, but I have built at least 5 (I can't remember all off the top of my head) using that PSU, and not one of them has ever had an issue, and the last build I did using one of those was 1.5 years ago, not to mention the 4 egg rating, they are pretty reliable. 

I just don't buy into the Corsair ball stomp your wallet thing, samething with my PSU, people said "get a Corsair" I can toss out a few reviews that put it right with them, but people won't even read it, they'll just say a brand namer again. They are nice PSU's, but especially on a budget I wouldn't fork that much as it isn't needed. What I have been using in the last few builds is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171028 though, which is a bit more, and has awesome reviews, as I am a Cooler Master convert 



motanacu said:


> ...but q6600 is no longer available.it`s gonna take a while till we have the software optimized for C2Q and CI7



 C2Q has been out for a long time, i7 though with the HT, I would agree.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 12, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Thats exactly what I'm talking about, average users just dont need even quad core power, like I said my parents 3800+ x2 just blow them away, they can't believe how fast it is, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You cannot go by newegg reviews at all. I go by Jonny Guru, and other testers that actually push these things using a dedicated psu testing machine, and the Corsair I listed costs as much as it does because it has higher output, efficiency, and reliability than either of the psus you listed, despite the label only saying 400w. 

Corsair *earned* it's rep because it uses only top quality components, and they vastly underrate their psus when it come to power output. The 400w Corsair has the same power output as the 500W Cooler Master ExtremePower Plus, and the Corsair is rated for that output in 50C heat, while the Cooler Master is rated at normal temps. AT 50C, the Cooler Master will actually put out LESS than the 400w Corsair I listed.

HEC and Cooler Master cannot hold a candle to Corsair psus. If I don't grab Corsair for a client build, it's Seasonic, one of the top tier CWT rebrands (Like Thermaltake Toughpowers, for instance), PCP&C, certain Silverstone models, etc., etc. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

I don't have a full-blown business. I don't have the luxury of insurance, so my client builds must be of the highest reliability, and as such, require the most reliable psus. Anything less, and I risk having to buy them a whole new computer, out of pocket, if a lesser psu takes out their components.


----------



## damtachoa (Jun 12, 2009)

Intel just made a good decision because it's a waste (of money) for gamers.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 12, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> HEC is a good brand, granted the Orion series is the lower brand, but I have built at least 5 (I can't remember all off the top of my head) using that PSU, and not one of them has ever had an issue, and the last build I did using one of those was 1.5 years ago, not to mention the 4 egg rating, they are pretty reliable.



HECs aren't anywhere near the reliability of Corsairs, Seasonics, Hipers and other good brands. The only one out of the four HEC PSUs I used (One a cheap 300W, one a Cougar 750W, one a 500W TRT and the HEC 250W SRT) that didn't fail within a year was the 250W one in my Via C7-D build.

HECs are nothing special. At all.


----------

