- Status
Facts are a stubborn thing I’ve read over the years….. Your average CPU/Graphic card test follows the same format as your average muscle car magazine test. On the front cover are several cars that .01 percent of the market for cars has any interest in or the ability to pay for and at the end of the day the one that cost over a million beats the run of the mill $100,000 Z1 Corvette…..
The average selling price for CPUs where 99% of the personal computer market is sold cost about $100.00. The average selling price of what most people buy for a complete desktop system is between $750-850.00 today. None of the SB models or even the 6 Core AMD models has any presence in the overall market compared to what actually sells in volume and keeps the lights on at both Intel and AMD.
The difference in price between a 2600K or even the 2500K and an AMD 940 quad represents a lot of extra memory, larger faster hard drive or an SSD replacement or better graphic card. Since most people do not really need the performance of a discrete graphic card at this point in time more memory and/or a faster storage system will make a lot more day to day performance difference. Once you connect to the internet by any means the CPU you buy becomes secondary to all the other bottlenecks holding back even a low end computer system today.
The bottom line here is what keeps both AMD and Intel in business is meeting the demands of people who won’t spend the kind of money the top of the line CPU or graphic cards demand. As good as the SB 2600K is compared to about 30 years of SXing the market with its gimmicks; it has no play for 99% of the market at $300.00+. None.
To those that think the SB is the end all to end all between Intel and AMD you might want to take at least one course in economics before thinking something that has no presence in the mass market retail chain is going to drive the company out of business that thieves where you find nothing but the low end Intel I5 and I3 stuff selling.
Just to put all this in perspective, if you shrink the die on the current crop of 6 core AMDs to 32 NM, add two cores (a 33% increase in total CPU power), increase the cache to compensate for the extra cores (wasn’t done with the 6 cores due to TDP limits) another 5% say, up the clock rate to levels the die shrink will allow and get a modest per clock rate per instruction rate improvement, say 10% you end up bringing a AMD 1100 to equal or slightly better than the 3.4 Ghz SB 2600K. If AMD were to meet their traditional target of a 20% per clock rate improvement then they would exceed the SB 2600K by a bit with the current generation of CPU designs. Considering the importance such things mean to 0.01 percent of the personal computer market this should produce earthquakes somewhere…….
If the Bulldozer design improves upon this a bit then what is the SB going to do? Up the official clock rate? That would be meaningless to those that find such matters moot given the K models can be over clocked off the chart now with air and even more moot in market terms since the bulk of the market that buys custom stuff doesn’t over clock their systems and void their warranties. Again we are back to discussions about which is faster the $1,300,000 plus Bugattes of the world or the bland $100,000 ZR1 Corvette? I just don’t know how I’ve made it 22 years with my Honda Accord and what was I thinking when I decided to buy a $20,000 2012 Civic? Everybody knows the ZR1 will blow the doors off the Civic….
The SB 2600K is the best thing Intel has ever produced and the only thing the word “value” can be connected to since the 8808 I used to have to use… back in the early 80s….. The days of paying thousands for personnel computer systems are gone as are the days of paying hundreds for just the CPU in systems averaging in hundreds sold by the hundreds of millions. By the time Intel get through SXing the SB down to something they can offer around $100.00 you won’t recognize it as a SB which speaks to why AMD is not wasting hundreds of millions trying to sell Bugattes…..
The average selling price for CPUs where 99% of the personal computer market is sold cost about $100.00. The average selling price of what most people buy for a complete desktop system is between $750-850.00 today. None of the SB models or even the 6 Core AMD models has any presence in the overall market compared to what actually sells in volume and keeps the lights on at both Intel and AMD.
The difference in price between a 2600K or even the 2500K and an AMD 940 quad represents a lot of extra memory, larger faster hard drive or an SSD replacement or better graphic card. Since most people do not really need the performance of a discrete graphic card at this point in time more memory and/or a faster storage system will make a lot more day to day performance difference. Once you connect to the internet by any means the CPU you buy becomes secondary to all the other bottlenecks holding back even a low end computer system today.
The bottom line here is what keeps both AMD and Intel in business is meeting the demands of people who won’t spend the kind of money the top of the line CPU or graphic cards demand. As good as the SB 2600K is compared to about 30 years of SXing the market with its gimmicks; it has no play for 99% of the market at $300.00+. None.
To those that think the SB is the end all to end all between Intel and AMD you might want to take at least one course in economics before thinking something that has no presence in the mass market retail chain is going to drive the company out of business that thieves where you find nothing but the low end Intel I5 and I3 stuff selling.
Just to put all this in perspective, if you shrink the die on the current crop of 6 core AMDs to 32 NM, add two cores (a 33% increase in total CPU power), increase the cache to compensate for the extra cores (wasn’t done with the 6 cores due to TDP limits) another 5% say, up the clock rate to levels the die shrink will allow and get a modest per clock rate per instruction rate improvement, say 10% you end up bringing a AMD 1100 to equal or slightly better than the 3.4 Ghz SB 2600K. If AMD were to meet their traditional target of a 20% per clock rate improvement then they would exceed the SB 2600K by a bit with the current generation of CPU designs. Considering the importance such things mean to 0.01 percent of the personal computer market this should produce earthquakes somewhere…….
If the Bulldozer design improves upon this a bit then what is the SB going to do? Up the official clock rate? That would be meaningless to those that find such matters moot given the K models can be over clocked off the chart now with air and even more moot in market terms since the bulk of the market that buys custom stuff doesn’t over clock their systems and void their warranties. Again we are back to discussions about which is faster the $1,300,000 plus Bugattes of the world or the bland $100,000 ZR1 Corvette? I just don’t know how I’ve made it 22 years with my Honda Accord and what was I thinking when I decided to buy a $20,000 2012 Civic? Everybody knows the ZR1 will blow the doors off the Civic….
The SB 2600K is the best thing Intel has ever produced and the only thing the word “value” can be connected to since the 8808 I used to have to use… back in the early 80s….. The days of paying thousands for personnel computer systems are gone as are the days of paying hundreds for just the CPU in systems averaging in hundreds sold by the hundreds of millions. By the time Intel get through SXing the SB down to something they can offer around $100.00 you won’t recognize it as a SB which speaks to why AMD is not wasting hundreds of millions trying to sell Bugattes…..
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
bustapr
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2009
- 1,613
- 0
- 19,780
[citation][nom]Thom457[/nom]Facts are a stubborn thing I’ve read over the years….. Your average CPU/Graphic card test follows the same format as your average muscle car magazine test. On the front cover are several cars that .01 percent of the market for cars has any interest in or the ability to pay for and at the end of the day the one that cost over a million beats the run of the mill $100,000 Z1 Corvette….. The average selling price for CPUs where 99% of the personal computer market is sold cost about $100.00. The average selling price of what most people buy for a complete desktop system is between $750-850.00 today. None of the SB models or even the 6 Core AMD models has any presence in the overall market compared to what actually sells in volume and keeps the lights on at both Intel and AMD. The difference in price between a 2600K or even the 2500K and an AMD 940 quad represents a lot of extra memory, larger faster hard drive or an SSD replacement or better graphic card. Since most people do not really need the performance of a discrete graphic card at this point in time more memory and/or a faster storage system will make a lot more day to day performance difference. Once you connect to the internet by any means the CPU you buy becomes secondary to all the other bottlenecks holding back even a low end computer system today. The bottom line here is what keeps both AMD and Intel in business is meeting the demands of people who won’t spend the kind of money the top of the line CPU or graphic cards demand. As good as the SB 2600K is compared to about 30 years of SXing the market with its gimmicks; it has no play for 99% of the market at $300.00+. None. To those that think the SB is the end all to end all between Intel and AMD you might want to take at least one course in economics before thinking something that has no presence in the mass market retail chain is going to drive the company out of business that thieves where you find nothing but the low end Intel I5 and I3 stuff selling. Just to put all this in perspective, if you shrink the die on the current crop of 6 core AMDs to 32 NM, add two cores (a 33% increase in total CPU power), increase the cache to compensate for the extra cores (wasn’t done with the 6 cores due to TDP limits) another 5% say, up the clock rate to levels the die shrink will allow and get a modest per clock rate per instruction rate improvement, say 10% you end up bringing a AMD 1100 to equal or slightly better than the 3.4 Ghz SB 2600K. If AMD were to meet their traditional target of a 20% per clock rate improvement then they would exceed the SB 2600K by a bit with the current generation of CPU designs. Considering the importance such things mean to 0.01 percent of the personal computer market this should produce earthquakes somewhere……. If the Bulldozer design improves upon this a bit then what is the SB going to do? Up the official clock rate? That would be meaningless to those that find such matters moot given the K models can be over clocked off the chart now with air and even more moot in market terms since the bulk of the market that buys custom stuff doesn’t over clock their systems and void their warranties. Again we are back to discussions about which is faster the $1,300,000 plus Bugattes of the world or the bland $100,000 ZR1 Corvette? I just don’t know how I’ve made it 22 years with my Honda Accord and what was I thinking when I decided to buy a $20,000 2012 Civic? Everybody knows the ZR1 will blow the doors off the Civic….The SB 2600K is the best thing Intel has ever produced and the only thing the word “value” can be connected to since the 8808 I used to have to use… back in the early 80s….. The days of paying thousands for personnel computer systems are gone as are the days of paying hundreds for just the CPU in systems averaging in hundreds sold by the hundreds of millions. By the time Intel get through SXing the SB down to something they can offer around $100.00 you won’t recognize it as a SB which speaks to why AMD is not wasting hundreds of millions trying to sell Bugattes…..[/citation]
Summary, AMD somthing fast that would sell and give people interest. Intel makes super fast CPUs that cost alot and everyone knows what they are, but dont sell too well. People would rather buy the fast cheap one, than the super fast one that will dry their pockets.
hence the reason SB wont be the doom of AMD no matter how bulldozer turns out.
Summary, AMD somthing fast that would sell and give people interest. Intel makes super fast CPUs that cost alot and everyone knows what they are, but dont sell too well. People would rather buy the fast cheap one, than the super fast one that will dry their pockets.
hence the reason SB wont be the doom of AMD no matter how bulldozer turns out.
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
Ragnar-Kon
Distinguished
- Apr 13, 2010
- 517
- 0
- 18,990
[citation][nom]malmental[/nom]^I'm not reading all of that.[/citation]
Hehe, my thoughts exactly.
And I agree with what has been said here by almost everyone. Performance per dollar, AMD dominates Intel, and it is the main reason why I almost always buy AMD.
I just can't justify spending $150 more just to get an extra 5 frames per second.
BUT, the Intel i5 2500K is a VERY good CPU and actually reasonably priced considering it is coming from Intel. And I admit that if I built a system today I would probably buy that CPU.
But right now I'm dirt poor so that 'aint happening for awhile.
Hehe, my thoughts exactly.
And I agree with what has been said here by almost everyone. Performance per dollar, AMD dominates Intel, and it is the main reason why I almost always buy AMD.
I just can't justify spending $150 more just to get an extra 5 frames per second.
BUT, the Intel i5 2500K is a VERY good CPU and actually reasonably priced considering it is coming from Intel. And I admit that if I built a system today I would probably buy that CPU.
But right now I'm dirt poor so that 'aint happening for awhile.
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
dude, I'm in an awfully awkward place right now....
everything I have is all solid quality hardware but, nothing is the latest and greatest / state of the art.
my Intel i5 is a 760 and not 2500K; I can deal with that for now and especially with Ivy Bridge coming out with not a huge price increase. can wait..
but the AMD units I have is the headache.
hurts so bad it can give an aspirin too a headache.!
my AMD units are AM2+ meaning running on DDR2 RAM not DDR3 as you know.
I'm fully aware of the minor differences in performance in DDR2 and DDR3 but I'm thinking about USB3 and SATA3 speeds when I'm on SATA2, USB2 boards.
so I might want to upgrade the AMD for that reason but, I LOVE my current motherboards.
they're 'flagship' boards in there class and hard ass hell to find (M3N78-EM Asus are the ones in question) and the M4A785-M is awesome too..)
this is where I pull my hair out, what to do.
I have to make space and consolidate a unit or two for any new technology to come in, I have no more space.
every-time I do break down a unit and sell parts or perform upgrades, I end up with so many spare parts that with one or two strategic purchases...
I'll have another unit regardless.
it's like a vicious circle.
the HTPC unit is really the ol' lady's and she does not want it upgraded anymore.
gets mad when I even think about it...
Eyefinity is all spare parts and just for play, i use the open case as a test bench really, that's what i got it for.
my daily unit (phenom ii x4 / gtx 460 768mb / etc.) has is the real headache I speak of and I just upgraded that this past week...
quicksilver98
Distinguished
- Mar 16, 2010
- 53
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]AMD will be royally screwed once Ivy Bridge comes out.[/citation]
Boy you people will just say anything to say it. Back up that comment with some fact... I'll bet you a brand new 2600K SB chip. 0_o
Boy you people will just say anything to say it. Back up that comment with some fact... I'll bet you a brand new 2600K SB chip. 0_o
mlcaouette
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2011
- 1,189
- 0
- 19,460
I think AMD is wise to put their assets and time into the mobile market. The mobile market is where the money is at. To quote Steve Jobs and the obviously successful Apple, "we're in a post-PC era". Next time you go into a retail store take a look at how many laptops and mobile devices they have for sale and compare it to the three or four desktops. Don't get me wrong building custom PC's is my hobby and I would gladly take a custom PC over any laptop. But to say AMD is "royally screwed" (JOSHSKORN), well you're just ignorant.
[citation][nom]mobrocket[/nom]Yep just like Honda should shut its doors cause it cant compete on speed vs Ferrari... Moron, you should be happy AMD exist, without them Intel would be still pushing Pentium 2s out at $500 a pop[/citation]
I seriously think this is the best post I've read....and probably the most accurate as well...
[citation][nom]quicksilver98[/nom]I love how a bunch of teenagers talk so much crap about stuff they know nothing about.. Are any of you old enough to remember when AMD dominated Intel with the K6-2, K6-3, Athlon XP (Tbird and Barton), Athlon 64, and Athlon 64X2? I made lots of money off of AMD through Stock during these high times. Just remember all companies have ups and downs, and AMD is just having a down time. If AMD folded up shop do you think Intel would keep making such large strides in the CPU market? I think not because competition breeds advancement and R&D!Oh and what do you think the largest portion of CPU sales are? That's right the low to mid range!I rest my case.[/citation]
AMD didn't dominate Intel with the K6-2 or K6-3.... The K7 was only slightly faster than the Pentium2/3 equivalents....The Athlon64 and Athlon64 X2 processors were where AMD really grew a performance lead.
BTW....I'm not a "teenager"....my first computer was an "XT"....
I seriously think this is the best post I've read....and probably the most accurate as well...
[citation][nom]quicksilver98[/nom]I love how a bunch of teenagers talk so much crap about stuff they know nothing about.. Are any of you old enough to remember when AMD dominated Intel with the K6-2, K6-3, Athlon XP (Tbird and Barton), Athlon 64, and Athlon 64X2? I made lots of money off of AMD through Stock during these high times. Just remember all companies have ups and downs, and AMD is just having a down time. If AMD folded up shop do you think Intel would keep making such large strides in the CPU market? I think not because competition breeds advancement and R&D!Oh and what do you think the largest portion of CPU sales are? That's right the low to mid range!I rest my case.[/citation]
AMD didn't dominate Intel with the K6-2 or K6-3.... The K7 was only slightly faster than the Pentium2/3 equivalents....The Athlon64 and Athlon64 X2 processors were where AMD really grew a performance lead.
BTW....I'm not a "teenager"....my first computer was an "XT"....
r0ck3tm@n
Distinguished
- Sep 27, 2009
- 136
- 0
- 18,690
[citation][nom]brisingamen[/nom]amd's chips are still awesome, people that say otherwise are just fanboi's swinging of the current leaders nutz like bugs.[/citation]
I totally agree, I just would not have said it in such an inflammatory way. I have never really thought of AMD as being less than Intel, just smaller. I just love my Phenom II X6 and Bulldozer is giving me a ############.
I totally agree, I just would not have said it in such an inflammatory way. I have never really thought of AMD as being less than Intel, just smaller. I just love my Phenom II X6 and Bulldozer is giving me a ############.
JonnyDough
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2007
- 2,235
- 3
- 19,865
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]This is really sad. AMD should just dismantle itself if it can't compete against Sandy Bridge.[/citation]
I'd love to hear your logic, except I think you're stupid.
Intel is ten times the size of AMD. For AMD to even be competitive with the giant that is Intel is an extraordinary feat in itself.
I'd love to hear your logic, except I think you're stupid.
Intel is ten times the size of AMD. For AMD to even be competitive with the giant that is Intel is an extraordinary feat in itself.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
A higher baseline for higher overclocks, maybe. But nothing that an enthusiast can simply get by turning the multiplier higher on his 955.
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]i5-2500K completely dominates this latest (and every other) AMD CPU but still costs less and uses less power. And when Bulldozer comes out, it'll still be slower than Sandy Bridge, not to mention Ivy Bridge which is expected by the end of the year. AMD is dead, surviving only on the charity of fanboys.[/citation]
Are you serious, or are you plain retarded? AMD's Operating cost amount to several million dollars a year, do you really think that is being supported by the 10K fanboys generate? Get over it, man, be a bit more mature and aknowledge that AMD's existence makes sense and is very good for you, Intel fanboy.
Are you serious, or are you plain retarded? AMD's Operating cost amount to several million dollars a year, do you really think that is being supported by the 10K fanboys generate? Get over it, man, be a bit more mature and aknowledge that AMD's existence makes sense and is very good for you, Intel fanboy.
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
bottom line is AMD and of course Intel are not going anywhere, and to be honest, they need each other.
period.
and now with the addition of SLI back to AMD and Bulldozer, the battle will continue and get even more fierce.
to all the ignorant fanbois out there, if you all just shut up and sit back, you too will benefit and maybe learn something about business...
period.
and now with the addition of SLI back to AMD and Bulldozer, the battle will continue and get even more fierce.
to all the ignorant fanbois out there, if you all just shut up and sit back, you too will benefit and maybe learn something about business...
It's funny how the arguments made against the Pentium 4 are now the same arguments AMD fans are making in favor of AMD processors.
Does anyone realize that Intel sells chips below USD $1000 or that back in the day AMD was just as expensive on their high end? Some people like to attach personality to corporations and pretend one or the other actually cares about them other than a dollar sign.
Does anyone realize that Intel sells chips below USD $1000 or that back in the day AMD was just as expensive on their high end? Some people like to attach personality to corporations and pretend one or the other actually cares about them other than a dollar sign.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 5
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
Latest posts
-
Question New Build, Fans Running, RGB working, no mouse, no keyboard, no display- Latest: drivinfast247
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram