Intel slashes Core 2 prices

Robert Hallock 20 Jul, 2009 at 1:11pm ET Article published in Tech

Intel Corporation has slapped some price cuts on its Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad line of processors in advance of AMD’s Tuesday earnings announcement.  Ah, isn’t competition just darling?

Comments

1. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 1:17pm shwaip If you're thinking of getting one of these and want to run XP Mode on Win7, make sure it supports hardware virtualization:
   
   http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx
2. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 1:40pm Cliff_Forster Unless you are thinking about an upgrade to an existing Intel platform, even with these price Intel won't get close to competing with AMD's current processors dollar for dollar. People who are minding their budget should still be buying AMD, Intel price cut or not.
   
   As a direct comparison, you can cut the inflated price of the E7500, comparable it directly to the Athlon II X2 250 which will run neck and neck with that Intel offering and look here, its priced over 40% less.
   
   http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103681
3. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 2:06pm MAGIC http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3572&p=1
   I didnt see many instances of neck and neck between the pheonom x2 250 and the E7500. Really, the 550 does come close in some instances but still gets edged out. The 550 costs 99 bucks and the 7500 costs 113. You pay an extra 13 dollars for a slightly faster processor. Makes sense to me.
4. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 2:08pm Thrax In all the Anand benchmarks, the 7500 is about 10% faster. The 7500 is about 10% more expensive.
   
   I don't see what you're getting at, Cliff.
5. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 2:17pm BuddyJ Hey, I heard you can get a Core i7 920 for cheap now.
6. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 2:33pm Cliff_Forster In my testing my 2nd machine armed with an inexpensive, currently $79.99 Athlon II X2 250 gets multithreaded cinebench scores of 6900 (andan gets 400 points less somehow? hmmmm). Either way, that CPU costs 40% less, and at absolute worse is just a little off the E7500 performance wise. I'm talking about the less expensive Athlon II now, not the Phenom II X2, which is also a damn fine part for just a little more.
   
   I am just saying, it may be a price cut, but when you compare it dollar for dollar in a fair value comparison you find that they are still catching up to AMD in that respect. If price were a driver in the value segment (where most users are positioned), then AMD is the clear winner.
   
   Don't like my $79.99 dual core vs. the E7500 argument because you may be loosing 5% on a benchmark here and there (at a 40% cost savings). Okay, tell me how $113 for an E7500 is even an remotely better deal than an Phenom II triple core, 710, priced 13% less, but performing better. Performs better, costs less, that's AMD.
   
   Here is where I am getting at. Intel has two niche differentiated products in its entire line. On the low end, you have Atom, a nice little energy efficent chip for users with low expectations for portable performance. Then you have the i7, more performance than 95%+ of the market demands, but its the fastest consumer desktop part, I can't debate that.
   
   Point being, the mainstream market is everywhere in the middle. That's where the grand majority of computers are purchased, and if you make a hard value comparison at all products in that range, compared performance per dollar, AMD is absolutely handing Intel their ass, but nobody talks about it, because I guess offering the best mainstream consumer value isn't that sexy or something?
7. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 2:44pm Snarkasm Somebody left out by far the biggest part of the Intel pie - Core 2.
8. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 2:53pm Cliff_Forster I did not leave out the core 2 so much, as I am saying, its totally non differentiated. In other-words, you name me a core 2 product, and I can name you a comparable AMD part that offers a better dollar for dollar value. In other-words, in the fattest most significant segment of the market, Intel 15% price cut or not, AMD is still beating Intel up dollar for dollar.
   
   In conclusion, this announcement from Intel, does not do much to reposition them against the current market value leader, AMD.
9. 
   20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:05pm MAGIC That would be a great argument if you could go to the cpu store and say i want this much performance for this many dollars and they build you a proc to that specification, but you cant. CPU's are sold in price points and for the given price point Intel beats AMD in performance.
   
   The e7500 beat the 250 from 8% to 30% on all the benches. If you think Anand is bias than thats another issue entirely, but i have trusted their reviews for as long as i can remember. The intel chip costs 30% more than the amd, and i'm not arguing that 80 dollars for a cpu isn't a bargin, but when it comes down to it your paying for what you get.
10. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:12pm ardichoke Not true MAGIC, all cliff is saying is this. Take your performance score, divide it by what you paid for the chip and AMD is going to come out with the higher number. That means that for each dollar you shelled out for the processor, you get a larger return on your investment by buying an AMD chip. Granted, if you want the absolute fastest possible chip on the market, you would buy an Intel i7 (and pay through the nose for it). What Cliff is saying though is that if you say "I want the best performance I can get for under 100$" you would want to buy an AMD chip. This is because if you take an AMD chip that is priced the same as an Intel chip and compare those two chips, the AMD will give you better performance at least in the midrange market.
11. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:12pm Cliff_Forster Magic,
    
    How about we pit the AMD triple cores against the E7500 then? Where does that land us?
    
    Okay, even better get, lets take your arguement that a "10% performance gap (sketchy at best)" is worth a 30-40% price premium. At $149 I know the Phenom II X4 920 knocks the snot out of the $113 E7500. Point being, we could counter argue all day long, but if you honestly analyze what this 15% price cut means for Intel, all it really means is they still have dollars to cut if they have any hope at catching up with AMD in terms of performance per dollar.
    
    <cite class="ic-username"></cite>ardichoke understands where I am getting at.
12. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:22pm MAGIC

    Cliff_Forster wrote:

    Magic,
    
    How about we pit the AMD tripple cores against the E7500 then? Where does that land us?
    
    Okay, even better get, lets take your arguement that a "10% performance gap" is worth a 40% price premium. At $149 I know the Phenom II X4 920 knocks the snot out of the E7500. Point

    
    You originally said that the 250 runs neck and neck with the e7500. I simply looked at the benches, calculated the margin that the e7500 beats the 250 by, calculated the price difference and the numbers aproximately match up. You get what you pay for.
    
    Now, when the average person builds a computer they have a budget. They say i am goin got spend between 80 and 120 dollars on my cpu, and if they are unbias they go to a reveiw site such as Anand and say "WELL GOOD GOD DAMN" this processor is faster than this one, its in my budget, ill get this one. They dont calculate how many Sysmarks/dollar they get, they want the best they can buy at the price point.
13. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:27pm shwaip At $150, you've gotten within $10 of the Q8400, which is basically a push with the x4 920.
14. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:29pm ardichoke and that processor is an AMD. You can pick up a Phenom II X3 720 for 119$. That will smoke the E7500 according to the benchmarks that I've seen.
    
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/Performance-Index,1407.html
    
    In fact.... that 720 smokes the E8500 as well according to these performance marks and the E8500 lists at 190 on NewEgg right now Magic. Your point is invalid.
15. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:33pm Cliff_Forster But if that budget is up to $120 he would be foolish to buy the E7500 when he could have the Phenom II X3 720 BE unlocked for $119.
    
    I stand by my argument, the only two differentiated products Intel has are the Atom, and the i7, everything else falls into the much larger and more important mainstream battleground, and if you do a comparative anaysis dollar for dollar, after these price cuts, what it will tell you is that you were way overpaying for Intel yesterday, and now you still are overpaying but by a slighter slimmer margin.
    
    All I am saying is this, Intel could cut price another 15% for each of these products, and AMD would still have comparable offerings beating them in the value comparison. Like Intel's new prices because you have an existing platform that you would like to upgrade, thank AMD for driving them there.
    
    Want to build a new system in the mainstream market positioned with CPU's positioned anywhere under $175 or so, it only makes sense to start with AMD, even when you factor in Intel's lower prices.
    
    ps....
    
    <cite class="ic-username"></cite>ardichoke and I are both making the same arguments real time, its cool, and kinda creepy at the same time.... :*)
16. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 3:37pm ardichoke Just to illustrate the argument even further. Based on the performance score I listed in my previous post. These two processors are almost the same:
    
    AMD Phenom II X4 955 - 1046.17
    Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 - 1034.38
    
    Now then, lets look at the prices for each on our favorite site, NewEgg.
    
    AMD: $215 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674)
    Intel: $319.99 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115130)
    
    Now then... when we take the performance score and divide by the price we get this.
    
    AMD: 4.866 points per dollar
    Intel: 3.233 points per dollar
    
    I think it's pretty clear which processor is the better value there. If you go down the list on that entire chart, what you will find is the same correlation. AMD may not have the fastest processor on the market... but when it comes to processing power per dollar argument, they take the cake.
17. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 4:15pm MAGIC Theres a little more realistic comparison for you seen as my argument is based on price points not points per dollar.
    Intel Core i7 920 $265
    1151.6 4.346 points per dollar
    
    Pretty evenly matched in points per dollar, but i would still get the Intel because it performs better, and i would pay more for a better performing chip. And, i havent even touched on the actual performance/ dollar you would get from overclocking the chip.
    
    Like Cliff said we would be able to go back and fourth on this forever because we both have different frames of mind. All that i would care about at the end of the day is if we each had 500 dollars to build a computer, you build amd and i build intel, whos would be better? I think i can build a better pc with an intel chip, and so do many others.
18. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 4:47pm ardichoke First off, where are you getting your Core i7 920 price? Because at NewEgg, which is where I was doing my calculations off of (IMO to keep it fair the calculations should be done from the same retailer) the Core i7 920 is 280.
    
    Core i7 920 = 1151.60 / 280 = 4.113 points per dollar
    
    That is still a 15.4% lower point per dollar rating than the Phenom II X4 955.
19. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 5:12pm Snarkasm It was going for $199 at Microcenter the other day, I believe.
20. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 5:23pm ardichoke Microcenter has neither the i7 920 or the Phenom II 955 right now so it would be pretty hard to make a comparison. Like I said, if you can't compare both from the same reseller I'd consider the comparison tainted as different resellers have different markups. This is why I stuck with NewEgg for all comparisons.
    
    Though, if you want to try and make the Mircocenter comparison, the Phenom II X3 720 is currently 119... you could try and extrapolate up to the 955 from there... but that would still be pretty questionable.
21. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 5:25pm shwaip I don't understand why you shouldn't compare based on the lowest prices.
22. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 5:33pm ardichoke Because different resellers have different business models, keep different stock on hand, mark up differently, have different overhead, etc.
    
    If you want to go lowest price... a quick google shopping search gives me this
    
    Phenom II 955 : $199
    i7 920: $249.99 (sorry, not including EBay in this comparison)
    
    Which gives the following PPD:
    
    Phenom: 5.25
    i7: 4.606
23. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 5:37pm shwaip Right. So if you were going to buy a processor today, would you buy it for the cheapest price on the processor you wanted, or go to somewhere that had both processors?
24. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 5:48pm ardichoke If I wanted to buy a processor today I'd order it from NewEgg. This is mostly due to the fact that when I buy a new processor I'm usually also buying a new motherboard and memory. I know and trust NewEgg, they're not always the cheapest but they're usually close and I've found that spending hours shopping around for every part and paying for shipping from multiple sites tends to outweigh the slight money savings. Also, as I just pointed out, the lowest prices according to Google product search holds up the argument that myself and cliff were making.
    
    I'm not trying to disparage Intel. They make good products (except their graphics chips, those suck). I'm just pointing out (and so is Cliff as far as I can tell) that even with the slight price drop, their mid-range processors still have a higher PPD than AMD.
25. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 5:52pm Cliff_Forster Shwaip,
    
    Retailers aside, what this article is about is suggested retail. And honestly, I don't want to turn this into an i7 vs. debate, because that is my point, its Intel's only real differentiated product on the high end.
    
    This price cut is about mainstream performance, and even with it, Intel still looses in that market. Lets talk about mainstream cost dollar for dollar, and forget the i7 920 even exists for a moment. Also bear in mind, when your talking i7, your no longer talking about just the cost of a CPU upgrade, your talking about moving to a whole new build, so you have to talk chip, triple channel memory, so on so forth.
    
    If you want to make a CPU to CPU comparison on existing platforms, and analyze what this 15% price cut really means, you have to look at mainstream offerings, the bread and butter chips, the bulk of the market, and see how it all adds up. My point being, Intel lowers price, and they are still a dollar for dollar performance looser when you are talking chips from about $175 down, where most people buy.
26. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 6:04pm Snarkasm Only Cliff could turn a measly price cut news piece into a 26-post überthread.
    
    Every time, I get a little admiration... and then I get sick of hearing the same "value" argument.
27. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 6:06pm Thrax Why buy a Ferrari when you can have a Prius?!
28. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 6:13pm ardichoke I believe Cliff covered this point Thrax... If you're in the market for a mid-range car you're not even looking at a Ferrari. Also, theres way more car makers and way more differentiation between cars than processors.
29. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 6:16pm Thrax I'm just being a troll. I buy the architecture with the best performance, and that's the Core i7. Before that it was the Core 2 Duo, and before that it was the Athlon 64.
30. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 6:33pm ardichoke Whereas I don't see the value in spending that much for the top of the line when it's only going to be that good for a few months. I want to get good performance to dollar ratio and that usually means buying a not top of the line processor... then I make it last as long as I can and recycle it into computers for my family members afterwards or use it for test platforms, etc. Just two different ways of approaching technology. Not going to say either one is right overall... but I will say that the way I do it is right for me since I don't have a ton of disposable income to spend on my computers.
31. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 6:39pm Thrax I buy the best there is so it will last me longer, precisely because I don't have a ton of disposable income to spend on my PCs. Why would I buy into a weaker architecture that isn't the best, never will be the best, and will fall further behind faster than its competitor?
32. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 6:51pm Sledgehammer70 I am not seeing how it can fall behind the same chip it was made to compete against? as both those chips are always going to be the same. Any new chip coming out will have a modified version of the architecture but is not the same.
    
    While for the last several years Intel has had the better chip by far... But it has not had the cheapest platform. Does that make an AMD purchase better off? Nope! But I still run a great chip that pushes gaming and my programs to the fullest with no hickups and saved a few hundred bucks at the time.
    
    So overall yes I might be sad my PC is 24% slower, but in all honesty I have never noticed a difference in how fast my games run or programs run. Par your system with great memory and a great GPU and your games will still run great
33. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 7:01pm Thrax If I am buying a CPU for the long haul, let us say I have two choices: The fastest one, and one that is 10% slower. The one that is 10% slower will -- for the sake of easy math -- cash in its chips 10% sooner.
    
    The extra money was worth it.
34. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 7:21pm ardichoke I've never had a problem with longevity even though I buy AMD. I bought an Athlon XP 1800+ back in 2002 when I graduated high school. That chip lasted me until January of 2008 when I got an X2 5200... even though it wasn't the "top of the line fastest" chip that I could have bought at the time and I didn't have to pay the Intel premium. How long did your last thousand dollar top of the line Intel chip last before you replaced it?
    
    My 5200 is still going strong now, a year and a half later. I'm still able to run everything I need without a problem. My games render as well as I could want. Really, the only thing I'm considering upgrading is my video card (XFX 8600 GTS).
35. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 7:26pm Thrax Why the hell would I ever buy a $1000 chip?
    
    Once you get beyond architecture, all that matters is your expertise in the BIOS.
36. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 7:29pm ardichoke You're the one making the argument that you should buy the most powerful processor on the market regardless of cost because it is going to last you the longest. The current fastest desktop Intel chip is about $1000. So by your reasoning you would buy that processor because it would last you the longest.
37. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 7:38pm Thrax You're missing my point for the sake of being pedantic.
38. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 7:47pm ardichoke You're disregarding mine for the sake of making yours. Unless you're going to buy the thousand dollar super top of the line chip, AMD has a chip that can match it, or come damn close, but at a lower price. That's not even mentioning the fact that the absolute top of the line chips don't even offer you that big of a real performance increase. You probably won't even notice the difference unless you're actually benchmarking them.
    
    I'll concede that Intel has the most powerful chip on the market, but unless you want to shell out nearly a grand so you can say I have the most powerful chip in the world for a few months, AMD chips are a better value.
39. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 7:49pm Thrax And what of AMD's dead-end AM3 socket? What about reserve performance in the Core i7 thanks to HT that the AMD chip doesn't have?
40. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 8:01pm ardichoke I don't buy the HT crap. We tried this whole Hyperthreading before. It didn't give anywhere near the performance gains as Intel claimed. Plus, if the HT was giving such great performance, how come the i7 can only beat the phenom ii by about 15-20% in benchmarks despite the fact that they cost up to 4x as much money? If I'm going to shell out 4x more money for a processor, I want 4x the performance. As for AM3 being dead-end... when I'm projecting that my processor is going to last me 3-5 years, it doesn't matter... I'm planning on buying a new motherboard for the next CPU upgrade anyway. The only people that need to worry about dead end sockets are ones that constantly upgrade every time a new chip comes out and that's just wasting money AFAIC.
41. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 8:04pm mirage WOW, I missed this thread today! It is good to see AMD guys are voicing their enthusiasm with confidence again. It is undeniable that AMD is back in competition.
    
    Thrax, are you planning to build a i7-920 system, or waiting for a newer model or lower price?
42. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 8:06pm Thrax No, but I will most likely be building a Westmere system in the winter. Aaah, sweet unmatched architectural progress.
43. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 8:14pm mirage Resisting the $199 i7-920 at MC was difficult for me but it was totally unnecessary when my Q6600 is running so good. But I have an eye on Phenom II X4 prices too. I might upgrade one of the older Core 2 Duo systems with a PII-X4 soon, if my urge to build becomes irresistible. My last AMD was an Opteron 165.
44. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 9:40pm Sledgehammer70 Sockets have never been a road block for me. But in fairness I should point out that I am not one to buy a CPU every time a new wave comes. When something new comes along usually the MOBO's of that time provide a better platform over the old. In all I have always just bought an entirely new system... even if that meant buying a newer version of the current socket I was already running. I did that with the 939 socket way to many times....
45. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 10:09pm MAGIC

    ardichoke wrote:

    how come the i7 can only beat the phenom ii by about 15-20% in benchmarks despite the fact that they cost up to 4x as much money?

    
    Why do people dump tens of thousands of dollars into cars to make them 10% faster? BECAUSE FASTER IS BETTER, even if its marginally better. People pay a premium to have the fastest, newest, best technology.
    
    Using your theory for buying a processor, If i could get a cpu for 10 dollars that scores 500 is Sysmark thats 50 marks per dollar. OMFG JUMP ON THAT BOAT. Even though its not as fast as a intel chip look at how it performs for the money... doesn't make sense.
46. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 10:22pm Cliff_Forster I tried to keep this debate on task, but anytime someone wants to talk about Intel vs. AMD, they just want to turn it into an i7 vs. the world argument.
    
    I was just asking for a broader comparative analysis in considering what exactly this approximate 15% price drop on mainstream core 2 parts meant in the competitive marketplace.
    
    Even with the cuts, Intel is still behind AMD in that segment. You know, the part of the market where most people actually buy....
    
    http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/13686/35/
47. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 10:57pm mirage I agree with your argument considering the general market. The problem is you are arguing with elite geeks who do not represent the market. They would not hesitate spending more than the cost of CPU on expensive PSUs and exotic coolers to squeeze every bit of performance out of that sucker. Value has a different meaning here
48. 
    20 Jul 2009 ~ 11:58pm ardichoke Apparently I'm not an "elite geek" then since I won't spend myself into the poor house buying ridiculously overpriced hardware when the more moderately priced hardware will do damn near just as good of a job. Guess I don't belong here.
49. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 12:04am Cliff_Forster

    mirage wrote:

    I agree with your argument considering the general market. The problem is you are arguing with elite geeks who do not represent the market. They would not hesitate spending more than the cost of CPU on expensive PSUs and exotic coolers to squeeze every bit of performance out of that sucker. Value has a different meaning here

    
    Mirage, do you have an i7 based system?
50. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 7:45am Zuntar psst.....
    
    Generally Intel mobos are more expensive too.
51. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 7:50am mirage No, not yet. I have 6 PCs right now. One of them is mine, base on an overclocked Q6600. The others, Core 2 Duos, for kids playing games and movies and 2 Linux servers. If I was upgrading mine right now, I would choose i7. But I would not hesitate choosing Phenom ii X4 for the others.
52. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 8:02am mirage The prices for LGA 1366 motherboards start at ~170 and you get some unique capabilities like SLI+Crossfire, triple-channel memory. So the price is not just for the brand name. If you buy a high-end AMD motherboard you pay the same price and there is no chance of getting those unique capabilities. And I know, most of the people would not care about SLI+Crossfire, or any of them separately. But for the ones who care they are available.
53. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 8:48am MAGIC Well, when you have an inferior piece of technology the only viable option you have is to undercut price.
54. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 11:57am Cliff_Forster

    mirage wrote:

    No, not yet. I have 6 PCs right now. One of them is mine, base on an overclocked Q6600. The others, Core 2 Duos, for kids playing games and movies and 2 Linux servers. If I was upgrading mine right now, I would choose i7. But I would not hesitate choosing Phenom ii X4 for the others.

    
    So its safe to say, many months after the i7's launch, you are an enthusiast that still has trouble justifying the expense to upgrade from a Q6600?
    
    Once again, not looking to dumb this down to an i7 vs. the world thread, but the point being that the i7 chip is only showing about 1% market penetration, its fun to talk about if your an Intel fan, but it ultimately is not driving the buying behavior of 99% of the market, many enthusiasts included (yourself as well in fact).
    
    So, I know its hard, but lets just see the i7 for what it is, its a differentiated high cost chip that few people will justify the expense on, and it has absolutely zero to do with the current price cut.
    
    Back on topic,
    
    Magic, how is the Phenom II inferior to Core 2? Its not. Its as good at least, and better dollar for dollar, despite Intel's new run of price cuts.
55. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 12:25pm BuddyJ The Phenom II falls behind Core 2 in clock-for-clock comparisons easily. Compare the Phenom II X2 550 BE to the Core 2 Duo E8400. The Phenom II, even with a 100mhz higher clock, lags behind the E8400 in the overwhelming majority of tests.
56. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 12:38pm MAGIC

    Cliff_Forster wrote:

    Magic, how is the Phenom II inferior to Core 2? Its not. Its as good at least, and better dollar for dollar, despite Intel's new run of price cuts.

    
    FACEPALM*
    

    MAGIC wrote:

    The e7500 beat the 250 from 8% to 30% on all the benches.

    
    When in the history of computer components has price/performance been a linear equation? You pay a eponential premium to have the best piece of hardware at the time. At the time Intel has the best piece of hardware clock for clock.
57. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 12:57pm Thrax Phenom architecture has been inferior to Core architecture since it was born. They've been able to cobble together competitive performance by aborting the disgusting Phenom I and ramping clockspeeds, but the facts -- the hard numbers, science and testing -- prove that Phenom remains inferior to Core 2/i7 architecture.
58. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 12:58pm Zuntar

    Thrax wrote:

    Phenom architecture has been inferior to Core architecture since it was born. They've been able to cobble together competitive performance by aborting the disgusting Phenom I and ramping clockspeeds, but the facts -- the hard numbers, science and testing -- prove that Phenom remains inferior to Core 2/i7 architecture.

    True.
    
    Now,
    
    I give you all $300.00.
    
    I want a mATX mobo w/ onboard video, CPU, and 4 gigs of ram.
    
    GO!
59. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 1:18pm BuddyJ +1UP mITX is better
    
    Here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500027
    
    Is this like the Windows commercial? Since it's $210, can I keep the other $90? Oh wait, RAM. Throw in two of these. $50. I'm still $40 under your budget.
    
    /me pockets $40
60. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 1:43pm mirage

    Cliff_Forster wrote:

    So its safe to say, many months after the i7's launch, you are an enthusiast that still has trouble justifying the expense to upgrade from a Q6600?

    
    Yes, what you say is correct. The only processor that can really upgrade the performance of an overclocked Q6600 system is an i7 system. And, Q6600 performance is still so good, I can not justify the expense right now. It is about my personal finance and Intel's product line. AMD does not even enter the equation here. I wish Phenom II X4's were available at the time I bought Q6600, I would have seriously considered them.
    

    Cliff_Forster wrote:

    Once again, not looking to dumb this down to an i7 vs. the world thread, but the point being that the i7 chip is only showing about 1% market penetration, its fun to talk about if your an Intel fan, but it ultimately is not driving the buying behavior of 99% of the market, many enthusiasts included (yourself as well in fact).

    
    i7's market penetration is due to Intel's marketing strategy. They designated i7 as the cream-of-the-crop, top-of-the-line, high-profit-margin product segment. They did not even release a budget chipset for that, remember it is only X58. Phenom II processors (and only Phenom II) compete with Core2 line. By the way, I am not an Intel fan. You have seen me recommending Phenom II systems at several other threads.
    

    Cliff_Forster wrote:

    So, I know its hard, but lets just see the i7 for what it is, its a differentiated high cost chip that few people will justify the expense on, and it has absolutely zero to do with the current price cut.

    
    So, we agree See my previous comment, we say the same thing.
61. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 2:14pm mirage

    Zuntar wrote:

    True.
    
    Now,
    
    I give you all $300.00.
    
    I want a mATX mobo w/ onboard video, CPU, and 4 gigs of ram.
    
    GO!

    
    Thank you, I don't want that
62. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 3:06pm MAGIC

    Zuntar wrote:

    True.
    
    Now,
    
    I give you all $300.00.
    
    I want a mATX mobo w/ onboard video, CPU, and 4 gigs of ram.
    
    GO!

    
    You're missing the point.
63. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 3:56pm Cliff_Forster

    Zuntar wrote:

    True.
    
    Now,
    
    I give you all $300.00.
    
    I want a mATX mobo w/ onboard video, CPU, and 4 gigs of ram.
    
    GO!

    
    Phenom II 920 quad for 149.99
    
    AMD 790GX micro ATX mobo $85
    
    $65 left should cover the 4 gigs of DDR.
    
    I think that outperforms the Intel Itx suggestion by a handy margin.
64. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 4:06pm BuddyJ How garish!
    
    My svelte option is the better choice. It's cooler, smaller, and cheaper (despite coming with a PSU).
65. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 4:08pm Thrax Zotac Mini-ITX ($51): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500010
    Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 ($174): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115057
    4GB OCZ DDR2-800 ($45): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227195

    ---

    TOTAL: $270
    
    Gosh, cheaper, smaller and faster than Cliff's AMD rig. Amazing.
66. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 4:16pm BuddyJ Mertesn suggested we now have a performance/cm^3 metric.
67. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 4:22pm Cliff_Forster

    Buddy J wrote:

    Mertesn suggested we now have a performance/cm^3 metric.

    
    Well, the Phenom II 920 should pace about even with the Q8400 in most benchmarks, but the chip set? The 790GX will piss on the Nvidia 7050, so make sure you include a couple graphics benchmarks for measure.....
68. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 4:25pm Snarkasm Blah blah value blah AMD blah blah AMD blAMDah blah blah AMD blah blah value blah AMD.
69. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 4:27pm BuddyJ I missed the part where Zuntar said he wanted 3D graphics. Are we changing the criteria and I just didn't get the memo?
70. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 4:48pm ardichoke If you look at the combined benchmark I posted earlier in this "discussion" (read: rampant back and forth fanboyism) you'll see that (while neither the Phenom II 920 or Q8400 are on that chart) the Phenom II 910 quite handily beats the Q8200... I'd say chances are pretty good the next step up in each line would show the same stats.
    
    In fact, here's the side-by-side: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/compare,1407.html?prod[2609]=on&prod[2631]=on
71. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 5:01pm BuddyJ You can continue guessing or move to quantified benchmarks. Their prices are off now, but the performance numbers stand. Consider the average performance graph.
72. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 5:02pm Cliff_Forster

    Buddy J wrote:

    I missed the part where Zuntar said he wanted 3D graphics. Are we changing the criteria and I just didn't get the memo?

    
    We are comparing the value of the platforms. If you wanna just talk about how the chips perform realitive to each other, its simple, they are neck and neck performance wise, while AMD's cost about 20% less in this comparison.
    
    But he did specifically spec a micro ATX board with Integrated Graphics and Sound, so I would assume he would want his chip set not to suck. If anything will do, there are plenty of $50 AMD mobos, so I could spend more on the CPU at that point and beat your Q8400.
    
    Really though, you guys are just trollin me now, you know AMD wins the value segment, I have made my point.
    
    Game, Set, Match. - AMD
73. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 5:04pm Snarkasm

    Snarkasm wrote:

    Blah blah value blah AMD blah blah AMD blAMDah blah blah AMD blah blah value blah AMD.
74. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 5:23pm mirage Icrontians, this thread is going out of control. Just saying ....
75. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 5:58pm lordbean Personally, my next planned CPU upgrade isn't out yet. I'm gonna be all over a Lynnfield-based i5 system when that platform launches. The only significant limitation I saw in the chipset (apart from the loss of one of the three ram channels) was the fact that the i5s will be limited to dual-graphics setups, no tri-fire or tri-SLI. For a midrange performance desktop though, two graphics cards are more than enough.
76. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 6:16pm Thrax Socket 1156 is going to be a dead-end socket. I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole. D:
77. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 6:22pm lordbean Unless they release a processor between $200-300 in the 1366 socket, it's not likely the route I'm going. I don't like the idea of shelling out $400 easy after tax on my CPU.
    
    As far as 1156 being a dead-end socket, that may be true, but so is 775... a core i5 will beast anything I can put in an LGA775 socket, at a better price.
78. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 6:24pm Snarkasm

    lordbean wrote:

    Unless they release a processor between $200-300 in the 1366 socket...

    
    A Core i7 920 was recently going for $200, retails for around $280. There's your processor - and it has massive overclocking headroom.
    
    In fact, here it is again.
79. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 6:25pm lordbean That's in USD though. Hidden trick: I'm in Canada... monetary values are usually fired right up in Canadian dollars since I'm too lazy to translate to USD :P
80. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 6:26pm Snarkasm $200 US is $220 Canadian. Go for it!
81. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 6:28pm lordbean Haha... if I see one in that range, believe me, I will.
    
    So far I haven't seen them going for any less than $320 CDN before tax.
82. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 7:50pm BuddyJ If rumours pan out the Core i7 920 should see a good price drop soon. I believe it's on the phase-out list already. Keep a close watch at NCIX or whatever Canadian Retailer you use!
83. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 7:55pm lordbean That'd be sweet. In an ideal world, my gaming rig would in fact have a largely-overclocked 920 in it.
84. 
    21 Jul 2009 ~ 9:55pm Zuntar Thank you sirs for the posts!
    
    My point is.....IMHO.... most people don't need a core i7 or even a quad core for that fact, if your just surfing and emailing and facebooking and twittering and playing basic games and burning cd's and bla bla bla. SO....
    
    Every time I have tried to look at getting my wife or mom a lower end upgrade, I ALWAYS find the Intel systems more expencive then the AMD systems when lookeng at similar performance measures.
    
    BTW I realy DO want to buy a lower end system that is seriously nice and cheap. My wife's athlon xp3000 754 aint cutting it any more since we watch TV online at least 1 to 2 times a week. All I can aford to spend is about $300 to $375 including a hard drive and probably a small simple case.
85. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 9:53am Zuntar Ok seriously a good integrated graphics option and smallish form factor is just not panning out in my searching unless I go with AMD. I might even be able to go up in price, but i will not go to a full ATX board and a descret video card as the size needs to be smaller.
    
    Basicly, as it was stated, don't want nor should i settle for a sucky chipset. I honestly want to go intel, as i agree their cpus are better, nevertheless the cpu is but one part of the system.
    
    help me see the light, please!
86. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 11:02am Cliff_Forster

    Zuntar wrote:

    Ok seriously a good integrated graphics option and smallish form factor is just not panning out in my searching unless I go with AMD. I might even be able to go up in price, but i will not go to a full ATX board and a descret video card as the size needs to be smaller.
    
    Are you sure full ATX is not an option? AMD has some boards based on the 770 that are decent for about $75, pair it with the 7850 dual core for $60 and an inexpensive but realtively decent 4650 graphics card for about $45, 2GB of DDR2 for $25, you only spend a hair over $200 and you get a system that can easily handle HD video, has a current chip set, is equipped to handle the high end CPU's if you plan to upgrade at some point.
    
    
    
87. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 11:27am MAGIC

    Zuntar wrote:

    Ok seriously a good integrated graphics option and smallish form factor is just not panning out in my searching unless I go with AMD. I might even be able to go up in price, but i will not go to a full ATX board and a descret video card as the size needs to be smaller.
    help me see the light, please!

    
    Well damn, if you budge on price go with a micro atx p45 motherboard for 110, a e7500 for 113, and a low profile 9600gt for 110. For 335 your still in reason of your budget, its small, and will stop the hell out of any AMD onboard graphics system.
88. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 12:03pm BuddyJ Here's an mITX system that'll do everything you've mentioned and falls under the $375 budget with case and hard drive.
    
    ZOTAC IONITX-A-U Atom N330 1.6GHz Dual-Core 441 NVIDIA ION mITX board w/ PSU - $210
    ARK PI-01 black mITX case w/ 300w PSU - $35
    4GB OCZ SLI-Ready DDR2-800 - $46 - $10 rebate
    1TB Hitachi 0A38016 7200rpm 16MB cache SATA 3.0 HDD - $75
    
    That's $366. The motherboard will run quietly and is capable to 1080p playback. It has 802.11n WiFi and HDMI to hook to your network and TV. Windows 7 should run without any problems on it.
89. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 1:01pm Zuntar This makes me have to say no to the atom. A little more ass shall be required.
90. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 1:17pm BuddyJ I don't understand your reasoning. Their testing shows it does everything you're asking for it to do, with less power consumption and a smaller physical footprint than anything else. What more do you want?
    
    The Atom comes short when you're playing modern 3D games. Are you playing games?
    The Atom comes short when you're doing video encoding, albeit it's not as bad thanks to the ION/CUDA stuff now. Are you encoding movies?
    The Atom comes short when you're Folding. Is this a Folding box?
    
    Don't get me wrong, I'll admit that it's NOT a perfect system and that it doesn't have much horsepower under the hood. But it's a very well optimized platform for doing everything it sounds like you're trying to do.
91. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 2:14pm shwaip Yeah, It says it does everything you want except decoding h.264 through software...but then it shows it'll work fine if the program knows to offload to the gpu.
92. 
    22 Jul 2009 ~ 4:11pm Zuntar Lets see, she/we will be using the full office 2007 suite, surfing, watching HD vid's from of the net, basic games, and playing with the Ipod. Most of the time she multi tasks several programs/ and or users.
    
    I guess i am concerned that it won't be "snappy" and quick. Thoughts?
    
    I am liking what Mr. Thrax through out and the whole mITX form factor part of it.
93. 
    25 Jul 2009 ~ 7:29am Zuntar This article, posted by Buddy J, contains my concerns and offers yet another opinion in the defense of my belief that the atom/ion is not what I should be looking at.
    

    [FONT=verdana,geneva]based on the Atom platform, there will always remain one big restriction, aka 'bottleneck', and that is overall Atom CPU performance. [/FONT]

    [FONT=verdana,geneva]The reality however is that you can pickup, say an AMD 780G chipset based motherboard with Athlon X2 770BE processor and for the same kind of money you have much more power yet the very same features at your disposal, as it will also come with a video processor and thus embedded GPU. But that solution is bigger and will consume more power. But yeah, that is also something you guys need to think about because as an upgrade path that solution would simply offer more.[/FONT]
94. 
    26 Jul 2009 ~ 8:45pm BuddyJ Newegg is having a sale. C2Qs + G45 mITX boards. Worth a look.