Are Intel joking re: i3 pricing?

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Ok so yeah replace my above comment with Pentium and it still makes sense, the whole masking of true ability with these comical and confusing names is simply a misdirection approach, the everyday consumer won't know the difference while only thing they can say is "it feels slow"
 


Its misdirection if your paranoid. The last tine I checked AMD has a dual core NAMED Phenom II , black edition the same as its flag ship quad core the 965.
Are you really this easily confused ?
 
there is at least X2 and X4 and X3 that is easily IDed in the title of what is underneath


not 343, 534, and 9435 (its over 9000! its a quad core with HTT bus of doom and it makes cakes) to indicate what is in there actually
 






No AMD just happens to still sell Phenom right along side Phenom II. You make the mistake of studying and say hey this ones a good deal a Phenom x4 be, but then you've just bought a good door stop because you were tricked in to buying the original Phenom based on all the Phenom II reviews. This is what you paranoid AMD zoners sound like. Making a argument based on the masses being "idiots" and such. You all think highly of yourself but feel society just can't keep up ?
FAIL> !
 


It's not that odd actually, and it shows that intel's marketing department knows a thing or two.

Celeron will forever be the budget brand, something intel want to remove themselves from.

Pentium is still very famous, especially amongst middle aged people I'd bet. There are a lot of people out there who will 'remember' the Pentium brand as being something good, and the Celeron as being not so good.
 
The naming schene is confusing.
No doubt, and AND is simpler, especially to those who dont have all the nitty gritty details. I already did a nVidia/Intel thread, and that was the consensus there, mix it all up, makes for better sales.
Nothing wrong with that, from the companies POV, but still makes it confusing none the less
 


lol sadly yes, there needs to be a major thing for people to understand what is better:

higher numbers is actually better, 4 > 2 is good

secondly the placement of said numbers, for example core 2 duo vs say core 3 duo would be nice, there needs to be a de facto way of iding what is underneath that thing you just brought

with AMD , the first number you see the Phenom or Phenom II is the key ID, then followed by X2 X3 or X4, or else you are looking at athlon II or athlon or A64 which is older or lower cost parts, and then sempron line which i think is gone by now.

but I can see your argument that there isn't much difference as there should be esp they are socket compat in one direction. the old days of Pentium (version number) (mhz speed) was the hayday of consumer understanding imo (maybe not the P4 but hey i bash that thing so), where the end user can easily compare two processors where if one had higher mhz, it was usually better, and if both had same mhz, then the one with high version is better (in terms of features i guess) and celecron were garbage or OCing king parts that select few and milk with the appropriate mb ram and etc.
 
Part of the issue is now there are more things that impact performance significantly. It used to be that clockspeed was the biggest indicator, then it was clockspeed and cache, now clockspeed, cache, and cores are all being used.

AMD's naming is pretty simple, Phenom II vs. Athlon II is just L3 cache, X# is # of cores, and clockspeed is just the higher number.

Intels approach is confusing mostly because of the Core i5 750. Otherwise i7 = 4core/8thread + Turbo, i5 = 2c/4t + Turbo, and i3 = 2c/4t + no Turbo. But, of course, we have the funny i5 750 which is 4c/4t + turbo. The dual-socket thing is kinda funny, too.
 
Intel could have done a better job, but this doesnt speak to the needs of what theyre doing.
HT is needed, as is turbo for more serial apps etc.
Intel just kinda muddied the waters, by offering "more" for certain segments
 


Hmm, having waded through 4 pages of this thread (and with Zooty's posts you really need hiphigh waders to make it through the gushing raw sewage :)), I think you make an excellent point here. With the recession businesses have postponed their upgrade cycles. Intel seems perfectly poised to cash in bigtime on the rebound, since the overall system costs will probably be lower.

Also I find it quite funny that Intel got fusion at least a year before AMD will 😛...
 
Funny thing is that the 661 (dual core) is more expensive than the 750 .... Clock for clock that is a rip-off.... Like the 950 all over again but this time as a dual core....

32nm or not... I would never pay 200.00$ + for a dual core, even if it made breakfast in a Victoria Secret thong.....
 



I think that some people forget that these companies probably do a bit of research before they release a product or set prices. The truth is that people who say that i3/i5 is a failure either don't understand the cpu market or are people who want Intel to fail.
 


To beat yourself over the head with every time you argue with me? 😀
 
i3 has a few things going for it from Intesl POV. It handles the fusion thing, and places them as the leader here, tho in perf.....
It also allows for a good business model as well
It procures their marketshare of gfx sales
Its using the new process, and brings with it some improvements

I guess the biggest knock is pricing in channel, and to me at least, Id loved to have seen even more IGP perf, but at what cost? I blame this partially on Intel, as the costs wouldnt be alot higher if theyd put more into their IGPs earlier, but at the sacrifice of the casual gamer, as described by Dr who, to make the business model priority, since alot of people do casually game.
Its just costly at this point
 
The way I see it, this must be the first time in years that a new process has entered the fray and actually performed worse than an equivalently priced part.

People can argue cores vs cores all they want, at the end of the day price/performance is what matters and Clarkdale must be amongst the worst cpu's around on that scale.
 
It's not that odd actually, and it shows that intel's marketing department knows a thing or two.

Celeron will forever be the budget brand, something intel want to remove themselves from.

Pentium is still very famous, especially amongst middle aged people I'd bet. There are a lot of people out there who will 'remember' the Pentium brand as being something good, and the Celeron as being not so good.
Click to expand...

It's not middle-aged people; spintels deception is widespread in the general population, as is illustrated by most fanboy infested threads such as this one; and especially evidenced to speak clearly against what is purely a spin release.

What you say is amazingly true in some disadvantaged countries - you could show them a monstrous AMD sys, and beside it a Pentium IV 1700mhz sys, and they would choose the early P4 - all they know is p4 p4 p4 - it has to be p4 or they don't want it. Show them a 790Fx w a 965 and 5870, and you need to hold them at gunpoint to force them to accept it. p4 p4 p4 I want p4 p4 p4.

Which is sad; but their history is also sad. This example story came from some one who lived in South America somewhere.

Bur please don't pick on middle aged people; they were there when all this bs started.

 
I think what Jenny is getting at is that it's the middle-aged people who mostly remember the "Intel Inside" P4 TV ads (hell even I remember them, not that I knew what a P4 or an Intel was at the time). AMD rarely if ever mass advertises, and certainly not on TV. Have you seen talking AMD processors? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom