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?
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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....
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.
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....
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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
The extra money was worth 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).
Once you get beyond architecture, all that matters is your expertise in the BIOS.
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.
Thrax, are you planning to build a i7-920 system, or waiting for a newer model or lower price?
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.
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/
Mirage, do you have an i7 based system?
Generally Intel mobos are more expensive too.
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.
FACEPALM*
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.
Now,
I give you all $300.00.
I want a mATX mobo w/ onboard video, CPU, and 4 gigs of ram.
GO!
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
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.
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.
So, we agree