Are Intel joking re: i3 pricing?

doive1231

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2007
631
0
18,990
4
Are Intel having a laugh? £100 for an i3 530, £115 for an i3 540 and £80 for a motherboard is not the value pricing consumers (including me) were expecting for what is essentially an average chip (not to mention DDR3 @ £45 for 2Gb). In the reviews I have seen (xbitlabs i3 540) it is only as fast as a £70 AMD chip (Phenom II x2 550) in Sysmark productivity. In some games and media apps it is beaten by an AMD Athlon II X4 630 (£86). Given AMD mobos can be found for £60 I'm more than perpelxed by Intel's pricing. These are not the value chips we expected after i7. The premium cannot be justified as the i3's performance is beaten by older quad cores (Q8300 is £105) in lots of apps too.

In additon, we have the usual hype merchants telling us these chips are the best thing since sliced bread. They say the chip is very energy efficient but only some mention that the H55/57 mobos use more energy and so overall the power savings are negligble or even greater. It is also unclear how long this socket will last, so the disaffection I had with LGA775 compared to AMD's AM2,2+ and 3 sockets continues. Spell it out Intel.

I'm not falling for this hype anymore and will stick with my current computer until I feel the products are good value or buy AMD, so tough luck Intel for being inefficient or greedy/stupid.

 

warmon6

Splendid
Jul 24, 2009
4,153
0
22,960
78



Well a few things.

First as badtrip said, new tech always has a premium.

Second, your trying to compare core i3 (dual core cpu) against athlon II x4 and core 2 quad Q8300 (both are quad cores). Quad cores cpu will always beat dual cores in multi-threaded applications.


For the value market, this is the best intel can truthfully do without wiping AMD out of competition. If AMD went out of business we would be seeing these intel cpus at the price of current core i7.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Oh please it's got nothing to do with 'wiping AMD out of competition'.

AMD make $1bn a quarter selling all their cpu's, intel probably make around 3x-4x that selling these kinds of cpu's.

The reason they cost so much is because they are intel's bread and butter. If they were to cost $50 less intels profits would be harmed too much, that is why AMD have always been far better value at budget to midrange.
 
G

Guest

Guest
And make no mistake - intel are making more and more cash every quarter because they are asking more and more cash for cpu's that are much cheaper to make.

You don't like it, you know there is an alternative. Why anyone would even consider any of these clarkdales is frankly beyond me. If people used their brains it would be intel getting wiped out at the budget to midrange, not the other way around.
 

notty22

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2009
2,958
0
21,160
103
Oh please it's got nothing to do with 'wiping AMD out of competition'.

AMD make $1bn a quarter selling all their cpu's, intel probably make around 3x-4x that selling these kinds of cpu's.

The reason they cost so much is because they are intel's bread and butter. If they were to cost $50 less intels profits would be harmed too much, that is why AMD have always been far better value at budget to midrange.
Yes its very much like ATI fabricated the 5 series gpu shortage before december, then raised the prices 50 bucks on their popular cards and magically was able to sell a million more in December.
One MILLION X $50 price gouge = 50 million extra bucks to line the CEO"s pockets.
http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Sells+Over+2+Million+DirectX+11+GPUs+Celebrates+With+Radeon+Cake/article17349.htm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Yeah problem with that is, we have TSMC admitting that they had supply issues, the simple FACT that you couldn't buy a 5-series ATI card almost anywhere and btw they added $20 not $50.

Intel will have no problems shifting these awful cpu's at the price they command. They are designed for clueless people and those people will easily pay $100 more on the intel tax.

The rest of us with brains will avoid them like the plague.
 

doive1231

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2007
631
0
18,990
4
Well, if we look at the cost of the i5 750, it is still at the same price as when released (approx £150) so I don't think the i3 price will drop very soon. This shows that demand must be high (kudos to Intel), and the fact that older CPUs are beating newer CPUs in some situations at the same price only bolsters my argument re: overpriced i3.

However, the i3 is an excellent all round performer whereas AMD (and the LGA775 quad cores) can't quite create a product with such good all round abilites. Team that with Intel's world class marketing/hype machine and we see the reason for current pricing. I do agree there is a mobo premium and hope mobo prices come down soon.

If AMD's current GPU products and future profit forecasts are anything to go by, I would be wary of any Intel sensitivity regarding wiping out the competiton.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm not sure about AMD not being able to create a cpu with good all round abilities. I'm sure the 720 X3 will beat these i3's in just about everything. Those will be interesting benchmarks to see.

So far, intel hasn't even forced a tiny price cut on AMD's cpu's. With a new process that is just utter fail. AMD were supposed to be terrified of these clarkdales but if anything they could probably RAISE prices on their months old cpu's to bring them in line with the clarkdales.
 

AMW1011

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2009
2,589
0
20,960
60


I agree with this post, except for "it is unclear how long this socket will last", it will last a good many years don't worry about that.

However I totally agree with the rest, clarkdale does not in anyway impress me. At every price point AMD has a better solution. Why pay $130 for the bottom end i3 dualcore with HT when you can get a REAL quadcore from AMD for $100 that at least performs as well if not better. Also the $200-$300 i5 dualcores are absolute ridiculous, the i5 750 beats them for the same or less. The only decent point about any of them is that they overclock well, which is fun, but that wont make a difference considering anything over 3.6-3.8 GHz is just for bragging rights, which the Athlon II X4 can do as well.

All in all, clarkdale is pretty much a joke.
 

AMW1011

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2009
2,589
0
20,960
60
Oh and lets not forget the integrated graphics. You can get a horrible Intel IGP in an $130 CPU with a $85 motherboard, all minimums, or you can get a faster $100 quadcore with a $60 motherboard that has a much faster IGP.

I'm not seeing any pros here, only cons.
 

sighQ2

Distinguished
Sep 30, 2008
541
0
18,990
4


Where did you learn that; magic 8-ball? Maybe you should help AMD with it's pricing - ya think?

AMD's new tech doesn't follow your spinner logic either.

Thanx to spintel's antitrust tactics, we get amazing products from AMD at great prices. The attempted destruction of AMD by spintel, has come back to destroy the great monopoly itself. It's amazing AMD survived the abuse - read the evidence. And now spintel, and people like you, think we should be respectful of some lame offerings which are full of trix and deceptions - after spintel essentially copied the tek used by AMD for nearly a decade - which seems to have triggered the urge to bribe oem leading suppliers - as if 80% market share isn't enough.

It's easy to reject this infinite and endless pile of excrement when you tune out the marketing hype and the benchmarketing; AND LEARN THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF.

Even if spintel presents something decent
- it is barely better and only in some situations
- it is overpriced
- it uses more energy, cos they lie/ misrepresent TDP
- which means you need a better heatsink
- the stock heatsink is junk at stock settings (more $$)
- the bencheez are simply not truthful, and are used to discredit true competitors thru misrepresentation and exaggerated significance
- things are somehow always different in the real world experience - after you get it home
- the real cost to you is hidden - as mentioned by OP
- it will be obsolete in 9 months due to socket changes


and
beyond that
- you have to believe that antitrust is a good thing that does not harm consumers
- you have to sleep at night knowing you undermine your own world by cosigning spintel's above the law bs.
- you have to be willing to turn a blind eye to underhandedness and secret backroom scams
- spintel cares not - as long as they discredit truth and people believe and innocents throw money away unnecessarily
- above the law is not a good image - busted several times for antitrust, and still the arrogance continues - but the legal eagles will fix it

This is easily researched as public opinion, public information, actual evidence, and a closer look reveals even more - or you can pretend that everything is just fine, and believe in benchMarketing from a glorified legally harassed con that has seriously hampered progress and innovation - and you pay for that too.


it's endlessly unbelievable
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
I somewhat agree here, in this way.
Just as Intel took the Ghz path, using P4, and learned alot about power and cooling along the way, as well as creating fast clocks, they came in with C2D

Now, just as AMD has learned at times to find ways to outdo Intel, but always under a low priced model, getting alot out of a little, when this changes, meaning more sales not held back, if they have a killer part coming, and even now, where pricing is showing here, Intels overhead is obviously higher per dollar in, and we also saw AMD have high pricing in the channel, as it was 1 of few outlets for sales, whether this trend would continue in the future ? Who knows. If not tho, AMD will benefit from high pricing like never before, and if not, theyll continue to beat out Intel in pricing, and go after marketshare.
To me, thats why its always harder to stay on top
 
G

Guest

Guest


I agree. Nvidia fanboys are like...a minor mystery but I at least get that Nvidia were a great company at one time.

Intel fanboys, especially those who blindly continue to follow intel through all the recent bad news are a major mystery to me. Rather than just do the right thing, which is abandon this evil corporation, they continue to support and make excuses for intels behaviour over and over.

Had AMD released these Clarkdales they would be getting PANNED for crap performance and garbage IGP. And rightly so because that is exactly what these Clarkdales offer at a high price.
 

AMW1011

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2009
2,589
0
20,960
60


I'm going to put numbers to your points to make this easier.

1. Correct, clarkdale sucks.
2. Read number 1
3. No, both platforms will use about the same energy, any differences will be negligible.
4. More power consumption =/= more heat produced, and in fact the 32nm process allows the clarkdale to run cooler.
5. Yep
6. There is no evidence or proof of this. You can not look at one article and formulate an opinion. There are so many variables that the only way is to read a multitude of articles to get a consensus, at that point you have discovered the truth.
7. Refer above. Unless you get the exact parts, set them up the same way, and use the same software then you will always get dissimilar results, that is why you read many articles.
8. I'm not sure how this one works, a calculator easily shows the costs.
9. No, intel sockets last as long, if not longer, than AMD sockets in general, but there is no backwards compatibility. Right now LGA 1156 is new and should have atleast 2-3 years like every other socket. The backwards compatibility is a value one must take into account themselves. For me, I upgrade every 3 years so the LGA 1156 is more than new enough for me. I never go with the same socket because advancements usually come with new motherboards or sockets (IE architectures).
10. Why do you have to believe antitrust is a good thing to buy the superior product, assuming it is Intel in your circumstance? As a consumer you should buy the better product and let natural order and government handle competition.
11. I sleep great knowing my processor is the best that I could afford, I have no responsibility to what OEMs Intel bribes.
12. Your right I should just stop buying ANYTHING because it all comes from evil corporations!
13. Your right Intel doesn't care as long as not caring makes them money, just like AMD and every other company.
14. Right, as they produce some of the best products for consumers to buy.

Look Intel does bad things like every other company, but that is not going to make me sell my i5 750 for the inferior Phenom II 965 which does not perform as well, although close, and does not fit my needs with the features I desire.

Your notion that it is best to buy AMD because they are the underdogs and are less corrupt than the competition, while selling inferior products in same instances, truly is endlessly unbelievable.
 

Raidur

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2008
2,365
0
19,960
68
The new dual cores I'm sure are aimed towards gamers mostly.

I couldn't see justice in any office computers using these, they should have made some real budget ones so they could have a cheap CPU with a decent upgrade path.

We'll see how far the prices go.
 
He is miffed because because it will take 2 McDonalds paychecks to buy one. I don't want to get into a fanboy fight here or anything, but the Clarkdales just do not appear very enticing to me, performance or price point. I think that Intel is once again, for about the 5th time in their history, banking on the average person buying these because
A: They are less expensive than their flagship platform.
B: "I want a kumpooter with one a' dem dar Antel Pendalum chips in it."
 

doive1231

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2007
631
0
18,990
4
My own personal opinion is that going to 32nm and creating the fastest CPUs has been costly for Intel and they're trying to recoup those costs by charging premium prices (rightly for the best CPUs). The issue of contention is when they charge a premium for the Clarkdale CPUs when it's not justified. The consumer should be aware of this and not be swayed by positive reviews.
 

jerreece

Splendid
I'm not super enthused about the new i3 offerings either. But comparing them with Quad-Cores as the OP has done is just not logical. As far as pricing goes, Intel almost has to keep their prices slightly above AMD if even just for marketing purposes. Intel of course paints their processors as better than AMD (and vice versa). If Intel says they are better, yet costs a bunch less, it would make sense that many folks would question, "Seriously...?"

Let's face it, better products usually cost more. And although the i3 CPUs are NOT the same as the i5 or i7 products, they are part of the same "family". The general populace is going to assume the i3 is just as good as the i5/i7 machines, just not quite as fast and less expensive. They aren't going to be comparing specs, data, benchmarks, etc. And let's all be honest here. AMD is using a specific strategy to win sales. They've created a pretty good system in their Phenom II series, and have intentionally priced their product lower than Intel as a means of attracting sales. It's a strategic option, price them less in hopes you sell more because of it, thereby making up your "profit loss".

And as far as the mass market in concerned, the i3 system allows for a fairly powerful Dual-Core system with an integrated graphics system that's better than last year's... For your average "computer" owner who surfs the web and pays bills online, this system is going to thrill them.

For patrons of Tomshardware, this system is a joke. So it's all in perspective.

Would I build an i3 system for gaming? No. But that has more to do with the fact that it's dual-core than anything else. And obviously I'd never use the onboard graphics system, which should go without saying.
 

yannifb

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2009
1,093
0
19,310
7


Aimed at gamers? Since when do gamers like to use Intel integrated graphics?
 

jerreece

Splendid


LOL I assumed he meant the "dual-Core" CPU itself, and not the integrated graphic system built into them. Even with that being the case, I think the definite trend in the "gamer" market is becoming quad core.
 

yannifb

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2009
1,093
0
19,310
7
Lol yeah the cpu itself is pretty nice, but your right gamers nowadays use quad cores.

Also to the OP I think its "is Intel" not "are Intel".
 

smithereen

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2008
1,088
0
19,310
6
While Intel's audacity is amazing sometimes, it's possible they are just getting their 32nm process warmed up and trying to avoid the FTC's wrath. It's obvious AMD would have no room to compete if they sold these CPUs any cheaper.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS