Are Intel joking re: i3 pricing?

[notty22]

Heres some backwards logic for you. They are going to buy a cpu clocked at 2.6 for gaming? Then pair that up with a 70 dollar m/b ? Ok then they will be on here in 2 sections :
Why can't I o/c my 620 past 2.8 +
Am I bottlenecking my 400 gpu with a AMD 620 ?
Oh and that $ 70 m/b that won't give them any o/c is the one thats going to carry them through some famous AMD upgrade paths. NOT

 

[AMW1011]

Heres some backwards logic for you. They are going to buy a cpu clocked at 2.6 for gaming? Then pair that up with a 70 dollar m/b ? Ok then they will be on here in 2 sections :
Why can't I o/c my 620 past 2.8 +
Am I bottlenecking my 400 gpu with a AMD 620 ?
Oh and that $ 70 m/b that won't give them any o/c is the one thats going to carry them through some famous AMD upgrade paths. NOT

You realize that the motherboard you are slandering is based off of one that has won overclocking awards right?

look at all those awards:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ta785ge_128m

Also I've overclocked an Athlon II X4 250 to 4.1 Ghz on it, but backed it down to 3.6 Ghz for 24/7 for a friend.

I hate to break this to you, but if the 2.6 Ghz quadcore bottlenecks gaming than the 2.8 Ghz dualcore will as well, both must be overclocked.

The Athlon IIX4 620 can go to 3.6 Ghz without a hitch and over 4.0 GHz if you are lucky.

Please do not speak of things that you clearly do not understand.

 

[mindless728]

I've been going through common benchmarks and seeing what compiler they use. It seems the most common is Microsoft's compiler, so I don't think many of these sites can be accused of using software butchered by Intel's compiler in order to do their reviews. Games probably won't be affected much by the compiler anyway, but other software would.

maybe we should get some of the open source benchmarks and start compiling them with different compilers, maybe use intel's, GCC, and microsoft's to see if there is a noticable (>5%) difference in speed on AMD's chips and intel's chips if it is even to get the fanboys to shut up

and maybe instead of using benchmark scores we do it relevant to the cpu speed so this way the speed of the processor doesn't matter

 

[notty22]

*Yawn*
That bull picture ought to go in to a couple guys sigs around here. One fellow has had personal experience with every cpu, in every post. Yeah right.




Another VVVVVVVVVV below, who can't read. Those are shipped prices at Microcenter, sorry if this hurts your price rants, lol

 

[noob2222]

Anyone can buy the i530 shipped for $99.00.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0325943
And the 720 is 155.00 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103649&cm_re=720-_-19-103-649-_-Product
And the 550 is 99.00

Sorry ,but the "new" intel dual core wins hands down.
Oh and you get hdmi HD

First off, you missed the "in store pickup only", good luck getting it shipped from microcenter.
Second 720 for 155 .... HAHAHAHA try using your own website to compare prices, $119 from microcenter.

The 550 is nothing but a failed quad core, but in some cases for an overclocker, you can turn it into a quad core, not bad for $93 from microcenter.

The i3s and fanboys are only praising it because its the fastest dual core cpu available, and fail to mention its 2x the price with a crap integrated gpu that can play WoW at minimum settings. And so far the only reviews out there test the i5-661's GPU wich has a 20% faster GPU which costs $210.

Personally I want what I pay for, and that means not buying an integrated graphics, be it i3 or amd's 785g boards. I don't ccare if its dual core or quad core, I want the best for my budget, wich leaves intel out, especially since I don't have to buy a new MB.

And for the record jimmy AM2+ is still supported, so saying its shorter than the 775 is a lie. The only difference with AM2+ and AM3 is the memory you put in the board, ddr2 vs ddr3

The am2 is only unsupported by motherboard makers because they refuse to update the bios, A pII could run, but with slower HT speed, and maybe a limited multiplier setting, but we will never know. AM2 was killed by manufacturers not AMD.

 

[AMW1011]

Again there's that word again. "Stock Speeds". Why is everyone so fascinated with stock speeds? :lol: As for the 550 being a great overclocker. Give me a break. It probably needs LN2 to get over 4Ghz just like every other amd chip. The clarkdale goes over 5Ghz on AIR.

Still waiting for my Athlon II X3 and 4 Benchmarks Overclocked

...The new AMD CPUs are known to get to 4.0 GHz pretty easily and top off pretty quickly after that. But, no one needs ANY CPU over 4.0 GHz so it doesn't really matter.

 

[AMW1011]

The am2 is only unsupported by motherboard makers because they refuse to update the bios, A pII could run, but with slower HT speed, and maybe a limited multiplier setting, but we will never know. AM2 was killed by manufacturers not AMD.

High end AM2 boards DO support Phenom II... They just don't overclock worth a damn.

 

[mindless728]

High end AM2 boards DO support Phenom II... They just don't overclock worth a damn.

and there are ones that are not officially supported that can run the Phenom II (eg M2N-SLI Deluxe)

 

[notty22]

Ok that was the 965,
not "the new amd's"
and from the same article.

"This is about 300MHz higher than we got the Phenom II X4 955 processor when we reviewed it a few months ago. "

Which means the 955 was all done by 3800mhz. Sorry "Mouth = insert foot"

 

[Guest]

High end AM2 boards DO support Phenom II... They just don't overclock worth a damn.

My 790gx lets me take my year old 940 BE to 3.9 ghz with a little complaining. I could probably validate it at 4ghz+ as well.

 

[yannifb]

Ok that was the 965,
not "the new amd's"
and from the same article.

"This is about 300MHz higher than we got the Phenom II X4 955 processor when we reviewed it a few months ago. "

Which means the 955 was all done by 3800mhz. Sorry "Mouth = insert foot"

The reason it reached 4.2 Ghz was b/c it was the c3 stepping. Now you can but c3 steppings of 955s and 965s. What I understood from your post is that you think the 955 can't reach 4.2, but it can. And if thats not what you were saying then sorry 'bout that.

 

[jimmysmitty]

No? If it comes to perf, why do some say "of course more cores will win in MT apps"?
If it comes to price, why some say "its only a dual against more cores?", when the price is less for more cores?
Not sure if core counts are important here, it all comes down to perf, as in, average Joe and most of us here have agreed, good enough is good enough, so it comes down to price, right?
Do you think average Joe cares why AMDs chips are cheaper and have better perf? So what? Its a quad, and its better

My point is why do the same people wanting to compare a dual core to a tri/quad core back when tri cores first hit cried foul when it was compared to a quad core.

No.
do you mean you are paid to promote spintel by any twisted logic?

Am I the only one getting sick of this guy calling anyone who doesn't support AMD 100% a paid Intel schill?

In the end, you make yourself look like a complete idiot.

This thread is gone.

BTW Jenny, what happened to never coming back? Guess you missed this hell hole of a forum......

And 32nm.... Most of the time a die shrink promotes lower voltages, less power usage, lower heat output and more transistors in the same die space. I have never seen a die shrink give more than a 5010% performance increase at max. Even Phenom 65nm to 45nm gave a very small performance increase.

 

[sighQ2]

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7475&pageid=6388

So the i3 only has half the cores, but hey they have the awesome SMT right so 4 cores 4 thread vs 2 cores 4 threads.

And the clock speed is 0.33ghz more on the i3.

And the i3 has almost double the amount of cache.

And the i3 is based on a superior 32nm process.


Why is the number of cores being used as an excuse when the i3 has all of those advantages?

None of it matters, all that matters is that the AMD makes much better use of the 300 million or so transistors each has. No gimmicky SMT, just real cores. No huge amount of cache that only barely delivers in games - but even at that they are still about even because more *real* cores still clearly count.

What was their respective prices?

$99 Athlon

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103706&cm_re=x4_athlon-_-19-103-706-_-Product

$125 i3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115222&Tpk=i3%20530

-----

This is so one sided it's almost embarrassing, and I havent even started on the platform cost. Seriously AMD should raise prices on the X4 to about $150 or so, make this a fair competition. All it would take for intel to lose billions would be a mass outbreak of common sense and waking up by the general population. That is how shaky a peg their jackets are on. If people just woke up and smelled the coffee intel would go bankrupt in a matter of weeks because nobody with a brain would want anything to do with Clarkdale.

oh I like this: 😍

All it would take for intel to lose billions would be a mass outbreak of common sense and waking up by the general population. That is how shaky a peg their jackets are on. If people just woke up and smelled the coffee intel would go bankrupt in a matter of weeks because nobody with a brain would want anything to do with [insert most blatantly obvious King of Antitrust here].

HINT: sounds like "spin" 😴

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

"My point is why do the same people wanting to compare a dual core to a tri/quad core back when tri cores first hit cried foul when it was compared to a quad core. "


Which is a good point, tho ignoring my point. More cores, more perf, right?
Then it comes to price, if you can get more cores for the same price, or even less, then why not?

Now, I'll give you that these duals do pretty good, but that wasnt acceptable with the triple cripples as it were, back then, they were just a joke.
So, Im not saying these duals are a joke, tho some are, and I dont see the difference quite frankly

 

[sighQ2]

Ok let me caps and bold it, hell I'll underline it too.

THE QUAD CORE IS CHEAPER AND FASTER.

Now armed with that amazing life-changing knowledge, tell me why you would want an i3...or why you even care that it's faster than an E8600.

He's still thinking about it.

I nominate this for post of the week.

haha - or maybe the MOST HELPFUL POST award.


but:
If we had more unbiased, reliable review sites; similar statements could be said for the PII's as well.
- but they insist on crippling them so spintel can look good and justify hundreds more for SAME PERFORMING SYSTEMS.

And then the spintel boys recommend AMD GRAFX CARDS so that the cpu performance is hidden, and it barely matters.
And yet people insist on spending hundreds more (cpu, mobo, hsf, triple ram) cos they think games are still cpu driven - like in the days of 486 cpu's.
And meanwhile it's Phenom that gets described as "smooth".
And also, the AMD platform approach is disregarded.

The spintel bs is so thick. It's getting funnier.

 

[Guest]

He's still thinking about it.

I nominate this for post of the week.

haha - or maybe the MOST HELPFUL POST award.


but:
If we had more unbiased, reliable review sites; similar statements could be said for the PII's as well.
- but they insist on crippling them so spintel can look good and justify hundreds more for SAME PERFORMING SYSTEMS.

And then the spintel boys recommend AMD GRAFX CARDS so that the cpu performance is hidden, and it barely matters.
And yet people insist on spending hundreds more (cpu, mobo, hsf, triple ram) cos they think games are still cpu driven - like in the days of 486 cpu's.
And meanwhile it's Phenom that gets described as "smooth".
And also, the AMD platform approach is disregarded.

The spintel bs is so thick. It's getting funnier.

The spinning goes beyond fooling the noobs and hurding the sheep. Its the rebate scandals, ammassinng billions to aid towards their shilling of tech sites. And you sickophants eat it up and this forum especially spew it out. They hide behind AMD's superior GPU's covering up the compiler and the gimmick benchmarks that have so many repeating the lies its a sign of times or a picture of my fellow man thats ugly and perverted, like a crime. A theif in the night, but you could just buy the better cpu, the one not cheating and lying and not giving rebates and

I think I should go see a phyciatrist because I display extreme anti-social and paranoid behavior, most sites have banned me bananna tech and my beloved AMDZONERS but you wonder why , because I am truly wacko !

 

[sighQ2]

Sorry guys, cant have it both ways. As SMT makes the real difference between AMDs top and Intels top where SMT is effective, and yes, they do have slightly higher IPC, but not alot. If you claim that SMT makes the huge difference, when confronted by real cores, it fails, and then to cry foul just doesnt work, period, not if prices are the same, again, period.
Now, is this taking away from SMT? No, but at a given point, where we see SMT going up against real cores, at the same price point, it comes down to perf, nothing more, or, SMT doesnt count when evaluating them with same core count. 1 way or the other, as you cant have both.
My question is, hypothetically, what happens when AMD makes tripples with their version of SMT and they absolutely kill duals? Will this then be a "you cant use AMDs SMT" thing here?
Ive never said having SMT being a better outcome for those that use it as their primary reason for opting for certain cpus, my only problem and disappointment is the tripple cripple the walletbook memory channel/server thing, which is now argued about memory size as a pro, which only then makes this even that more finite, and makes for an even smaller user base as an excuse, andf then turns to the negative aspects of buying large mem sticks as being too expensive?
If youre happy with your rig, be happy, and dont let people make you question your buy. If you spread SMT this, or core that or whatever to undecided users, just make sure your thoughts are sound, as we all know, more cores are better, not everyone needs tri channel etc, and theres cheaper better solutuions out there, from both companies

I appreciate the call to honesty.

However, only one of the aforementioned companies is staring down the gun barrel of eventually 5 FIVE count'em =5= antitrust cases.

I wonder how your standards would work there. And if you think the paid shills and the unpaid shills and the idiot flameboys that are pro-spintel have any respect for honesty, morality, the greater good - etc - then I suggest they need real cores, too - ya know?

Of course, they say AMD isn't perfect either; and then they suggest ALL corporations are sleezy - and so we should accept that as just ok.

but:

It's not ok, somehow.

And this site has much more similar notions broadcast daily, stay tuned for more. jdj, you don't say junk like this - but a lot of others are obviously hosing people into a lot of poor choices - it's obvious, and it is standard fare here.

While I appreciate the warning to the noobs; it's far worse. And posting a sign on the door about the nature of the build your own sys section, and others, would be a good idea; but then the cleanup remains. And I wonder who really owns this website.
.

 

[jimmysmitty]

sighQ2, if you think there is any one corporation that is angelic, godly and loves you more than your mother does then you are a sad sad person.

Every company has their corruption and sleaze. Even AMD. The whole thing that happened with their ex CEO hector or the fact that somehow AMD had a shortage of HD5K series GPUs, the price goes up and then magically they ship 2 million faster than they shipped the HD4Ks which DIDN'T have the same shortage.

But the smaller the company, the easier it is to hide said corruption.

You know the biggest difference between me and you though? I know Intel is corrupt. I know AMD is the same. The difference is I go for whatever performs the best and don't just sit idly by supporting one company because of something I have no control over.

 

[Guest]

BTW Jenny, what happened to never coming back? Guess you missed this hell hole of a forum......

Actually the reason why i left (5 day ban) was overturned after a day after it was discovered i was the victim of a planned attempt to get me banned by some people at xtremesystems.

I still had no desire to come back until MM banned me again after making baseless accusations. To put it mildly, this place needs me and more people like me here to help root out the pro-intel corruption going on.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Actually the reason why i left (5 day ban) was overturned after a day after it was discovered i was the victim of a planned attempt to get me banned by some people at xtremesystems.

I still had no desire to come back until MM banned me again after making baseless accusations. To put it mildly, this place needs me and more people like me here to help root out the pro-intel corruption going on.

Huh. And what about the pro AMD coruption that goes on here.... or is it ok to be pro AMD but not pro Intel..............

Oh I forget. AMD will cure herpies.......

 

[sighQ2]

maybe we should get some of the open source benchmarks and start compiling them with different compilers, maybe use intel's, GCC, and microsoft's to see if there is a noticable (>5%) difference in speed on AMD's chips and intel's chips if it is even to get the fanboys to shut up

and maybe instead of using benchmark scores we do it relevant to the cpu speed so this way the speed of the processor doesn't matter

agner's blog has some info on this mess - lots actually.

Just by switching the CPUID dispatcher, they got a 50% improvement on a VIA cpu. !!!! and some 25% on an AMD. just by identify it as a phony "genuine intel".


LINK quoted below:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/david-manners-semiconductor-blog/2009/12/intel-skewed-compilers-to-slow.html

= but here's the general scoop =

"Apparently, Intel also put code its compilers which would slow down any PC which used an AMD chip.

"Allegedly, Intel secretly redesigned key software, known as a compiler, in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors' CPU chips', says the FTC, 'Intel told its customers and the public that software performed better on Intel CPUs than on competitors' CPUs, but the company deceived them by failing to disclose that these differences were due largely or entirely to Intel's compiler design."



= AND IT GETS WORSE = in the gpu scene.

"After illegally skewing the CPU market, Intel then turned to trying to skew the GPU market, says the FTC.

GPUs have lessened the need for CPUs, says the FTC, and therefore pose a threat to Intel's monopoly power.

The FTC states: 'Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel's unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets. '


= ABOVE THE LAW? =

"The FTC is the fifth anti-trust action to be brought against Intel. In actions by Korea, Japan and Europe, Intel has been found guilty of anti-trust illegalities and fined; a fourth action from the State of New York has still to be heard. The FTC's action makes it five".

= AND EVEN THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE GUNNING THEM =

"Meanwhile Intel's shareholders are bringing civil class actions against Intel and its management alleging that shareholders' interests have been damaged by Intel's alleged anti-competitive practices".



HERE'S AGNER'S BLOG INFO: linked and discussed at amdzone with special appearance by agner himself
http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=137238

and the blog itself:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=25
.


This is a good read. This is what the fuss is all about. And there are many other articles.

 

[yannifb]

Huh. And what about the pro AMD coruption that goes on here.... or is it ok to be pro AMD but not pro Intel..............

Oh I forget. AMD will cure herpies.......

I wish AMD cured herpies...

Oh crap i didn't mean to type that

 

[Guest]

It's fine to be pro AMD and pro intel but that doesn't mean you can lie and cheat or just plain refuse to accept some simple facts.

There are plenty of AMD supporters here who will tell you Phenom I was garbage, mostly because it's hard to deny.

There are a lot of intel supporters and owners saying these Clarkdales are garbage too. Mostly because they are.


The only people left supporting Clarkfail are the most extreme intel fanboys, ie yourself (Jimmy), Badtrip, Notty and Psycho.

 

[Guest]

doive1231 = ohreally

Why didnt I get it earlier, im so slow. lol

Heh, no I'm not the op.

 

[Chad Boga]

Huh. And what about the pro AMD coruption that goes on here.... or is it ok to be pro AMD but not pro Intel..............

Oh I forget. AMD will cure herpies.......

I think a few AMD fanboys are also hoping AMD can help them out with tertiary sphyillis.