Are Intel joking re: i3 pricing?

[AMW1011]

They could sell the i3 530 for $89.99 and it still wouldn't be worth it over the Athlon II X4 620 since there are far better and cheaper AM3 boards out there.

 

[Guest]

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.

No you're way off actually smithereen.

Clarkdale actually costs a lot more to make than the Athlon X4. On simple transitor count alone the cpu portion of the clarkdales is about the same as the athlon x4. Yep two cores the same as 4 AMD cores.

Removing L3 cache on the Athlons was an absolute masterstroke by AMD. All that silicon real estate which is not worth it on a transistor/die space - performance ratio.

Intel are basically attempting to justify the cost of these Clarkdales because of their IGP. That is garbage. Intel cannot go lower on price, they are not making 32nm quad cores in 2010.

Put two and two together there. Intel have their *own* market carved up perfectly and they cannot change it in any big way else they lose profits. If these Clarkdales were just 32nm quads with HT? They would blow away any other current cpu in the intel lineup.

That's why they are coming much later, after the uninformed have wasted their cash on this garbage called Clarkdale.

 

[TonyLee]

Jenny,

Concentrate on the pendulum swinging in front of you. You are becoming sleepy and are open to suggestion. Now you are to despise everything AMD and ATI, and will focus all of your love on Intel and Nvidia. You will toss your AMD in the trash and feel the urge to purchase an i7 975 and a GTX 295 video card. When you wake up you will not remember being told this, but will carry out what was told to you.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If you want to get the best for your money, it doesnt come down to company, core count and if you throw out morals etc, morals either, but cost vs perf, period.
Yes, compare the same price brackets, as thats what both companies do.
At which bracket do we have our product? And how does it compare to the competitions parts in that bracket?
If excuses are used from either side, or by others its nuts.
Say, if AMDs duals we killer, but Intel offered better chips thatre quads for less, or same, then wouldnt AMD be full of it? Same goes for Intel, or anyone else stating such things

 

[JDFan]

question is will AMD's prices drop?

Well if you go by Neweggs pricing on the X3 720 it doesn't look likely they were $119 about a moth ago and then went to $140 and today are $156 !! (Glad I got mine when they had it with a GIGabyte AM3 790GX MOBO for $193 the first week of DEC. - (Not sure if the price increase is designed to get users to buy the 955 instead so they don't have to disable anymore perfectly good 4th cores (Mine is reenabled and running with no instability at all) or they saw the performance\price of the I3's and figured they could get more !!

 

[Upendra09]

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.

yeah if you compare a dual core to tri core of course the tri core is going to do better, now if you compare the i3s to the Regors then the i3 will definitely do better

B: "I want a kumpooter with one a' dem dar Antel Pendalum chips in it."

lol



@ jenny i agree the removal of L3 cahce on the propus was a great idea which is why it is part of my first build just want the 620 to drop prices

 

[AMW1011]

yeah if you compare a dual core to tri core of course the tri core is going to do better, now if you compare the i3s to the Regors then the i3 will definitely do better

You forget to mention that the i3s only do a little bit better for 3 times the price!

 

[Upendra09]

yeah most likely

 

[Chad Boga]

I think you guys are insulting Jenny accusing her of being ZootyGay.

 

[jimmysmitty]

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.

Thats why when you buy a mobo you make sure that its a decent brand name. BTW, LGA 775 outlasted AM2 and AM2+ in terms of years. But you buy a low end mobo then don't expect support.

As for the pricing, its not bad. A Core i3 540 is $124 on Newegg, only about $10 bucks more than a Core 2 E7400 and much much faster.

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

Wow. Yet a friend of mine keeps trying to buy one and every time the card is "sold out".

Me smells a pretty smelly scheam here.......

 

[randomizer]

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.

No we wouldn't. Nobody would pay that much for a CPU, not even the OEMs who would never be able to sell a $1.5k PC when they'd previously been selling them for $1k. There's got to be a difference between low end, midrange and high end. Prices would rise undoubtedly, but not that much.

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.

Athlon 64 FX.

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

Only in America.

 

[caamsa]

How come the lamest posts on here go on and on and on forever and really say nothing at all............................

Kinda makes you wonder..........

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No, it is is, as Clinton would say. Speaking if something about Intel would requre are, speaking of them a is, okeydokely?

 

[caamsa]

Thats why when you buy a mobo you make sure that its a decent brand name. BTW, LGA 775 outlasted AM2 and AM2+ in terms of years. But you buy a low end mobo then don't expect support.

As for the pricing, its not bad. A Core i3 540 is $124 on Newegg, only about $10 bucks more than a Core 2 E7400 and much much faster.



Wow. Yet a friend of mine keeps trying to buy one and every time the card is "sold out".

Me smells a pretty smelly scheam here.......

A i3 540 is $144.99 on new egg. You are thinking of the i3 530. For a new build i3 can be fine but if you have a 775 system you can just pick up a quad core.

 

[randomizer]

How come the lamest posts on here go on and on and on forever and really say nothing at all............................

Kinda makes you wonder..........

Because it's easier to say alot of nothing than something about alot.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Depending on if what is, is

 

[AMW1011]

As for the pricing, its not bad. A Core i3 540 is $124 on Newegg, only about $10 bucks more than a Core 2 E7400 and much much faster.

Yeah but the AMD Athlon II X2 240 is only $50. The Phenom II X3 720 is $110. The Athlon II X4 620 is $100.

The cheapest LGA 1156 board is $85, an AM3 board can be had for $50 and up.

How is that not a bad value compared to AMD's offerings?

 

[AMW1011]

PsychoSaysDie, I know your happy with your new build but you have to admit that between AMDs cheaper offerings and the i5 750 there is no real room for clarkdale unless you just want to overclock very high for the sake of it.

$130 + $85, the cheapest you can get, will get you a good Phenom quadcore that outperforms any clarkdale CPU and come very close to i5 750 performance.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Can someone explain to me what "Crap Performance" is anyway? I think everyone here needs to take a step back and realize what the Clarkdale's are. They are the best dual core ever produced. I sit and laugh at everyone in this thread saying how they can get a Phenom II X3 or X4 for that price. Do you know why amd prices there chips so low? Because's Amd's baddest and most performing chips get beat down by the I5 and I7 lineup. They CANT price them close to intel's quads because they're garbage.

For Example :

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=109

Amd loses in almost EVERY test to the 750 and the 750 doesn't even have HT. Even with an almost 800mhz advantage it gets its ass kicked. What happens when you go clock for clock? It loses even harder.

Want more?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=108

Ha! I don't even want to hear the excuses. "Intel is Evil", HT is Cheating", "Turbo is Wrong". Amd fanboi's are just pissed that amd can't make chips that aren't absolute crap compared to intel's. That's why you compare quad core's and X3's to intel's dual core's. Because those are the only chips amd has a chance at beating.

Back to the clarkdale's. Intel crippled these chips because if they had anything like the 750's memory controller they would be putting a hurt on the 750 sales. These chips overclock like crazy and shouldn't be overlooked.

http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww252/2MCHBoost/48.jpg

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=936054

I havnt said anything contrary to Intel having better perf, its more those who say it doesnt matter about the perf, its a dual etc vs etc.
No, its all about costs and perf, period.
Doesnt matter why x cpu cost y amount, or x cpu has y amount of cores etc

Does x beat n? Does it cost less as well? Then whos the idiot preferring n?

 

[jimmysmitty]

A i3 540 is $144.99 on new egg. You are thinking of the i3 530. For a new build i3 can be fine but if you have a 775 system you can just pick up a quad core.

Whoops. Thought it as the 530. Still comparing it to that in price/performance its a winner especially since a decent P45 mobo is over $100 now and a decent set of 4GB of DDR2 is over $80 while a decent Giagbyte 1156 mobo is under $100 and DDR3 is too.

Yeah but the AMD Athlon II X2 240 is only $50. The Phenom II X3 720 is $110. The Athlon II X4 620 is $100.

The cheapest LGA 1156 board is $85, an AM3 board can be had for $50 and up.

How is that not a bad value compared to AMD's offerings?

But if you compare ONLY on price you wont get a full comparison. The Core i3 itself beats the Athlon II X2 240 in performance, power and scaling therfore that $50 dollars might not be worth it. BTW, buy that $50 dollar AM3 mobo and see how great it is. Most likely you will end up with a POS. I never spend less than $100 on a mobo but thats because I buy a brand thats easier to trust than most: Asus. Every mobo they have is pretty decent.

Of course we can't use THGs Core i3 results because they are paid Intel schills as will any other site that says that Core i3 is the best dual core choice out there.

besides you know that if Intel did price them at the same level as AMD, how many sales do you think AMD would get before the FTC cried foul? My bet would be so few that everyone would claim anti-trust all over again.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I havnt said anything contrary to Intel having better perf, its more those who say it doesnt matter about the perf, its a dual etc vs etc.
No, its all about costs and perf, period.
Doesnt matter why x cpu cost y amount, or x cpu has y amount of cores etc

Does x beat n? Does it cost less as well? Then whos the idiot preferring n?

I can agree to a point with you here JDJ. Back when the Phenom II X3s first hit any site comparing them to a Intel quad core was considered unfair or Intel biased. They wanted to compare them only to Intels dual cores......

So no that Intel and AMD both have their next gen dual cores out its not fair to compare Itnels dual core to AMDs dual core but instead compare Intels dual core to AMDs tri/quad core.

See what I mean?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I can agree to a point with you here JDJ. Back when the Phenom II X3s first hit any site comparing them to a Intel quad core was considered unfair or Intel biased. They wanted to compare them only to Intels dual cores......

So no that Intel and AMD both have their next gen dual cores out its not fair to compare Itnels dual core to AMDs dual core but instead compare Intels dual core to AMDs tri/quad core.

See what I mean?

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

 

[AMW1011]

Whoops. Thought it as the 530. Still comparing it to that in price/performance its a winner especially since a decent P45 mobo is over $100 now and a decent set of 4GB of DDR2 is over $80 while a decent Giagbyte 1156 mobo is under $100 and DDR3 is too.



But if you compare ONLY on price you wont get a full comparison. The Core i3 itself beats the Athlon II X2 240 in performance, power and scaling therfore that $50 dollars might not be worth it. BTW, buy that $50 dollar AM3 mobo and see how great it is. Most likely you will end up with a POS. I never spend less than $100 on a mobo but thats because I buy a brand thats easier to trust than most: Asus. Every mobo they have is pretty decent.

Of course we can't use THGs Core i3 results because they are paid Intel schills as will any other site that says that Core i3 is the best dual core choice out there.

besides you know that if Intel did price them at the same level as AMD, how many sales do you think AMD would get before the FTC cried foul? My bet would be so few that everyone would claim anti-trust all over again.

You can easily get a good motherboard for less than $100 nowadays, motherboards just plain do and matter less. Your right a good AM3 board costs about $70:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138167

Yeah the i3 530 outperforms the Athlon II X2 240, but not by much. If that difference REALLY means a lot to you then you can STILL pay LESS and get MORE performance from the Athlon II X4 620. That is the point, there is better for less.

Let us even pretend that the i3 530 could match the Athlon II X4 620, its still more expensive. The truth is that the Athlon II X4 620 is a quadcore, and the i3 530 is a dualcore with hyperthreading. Sure if the i3 was actually a quadcore is would rock the Athlon II X4 620, but it isn't, hyperthreading just can not compete with the real thing.

 

[AMW1011]

The clarkdale is a niche market. It's for those crazy bastards who love to overclock. I'll admit it myself. I should have bought the 750 but i really don't need it. Is the 750 faster then me at 4.8Ghz. In some apps yes but for everyday computing 4.8Ghz beats a 4Ghz 750. I can't wait to feel what 5.2Ghz feels like.

In honesty a clarkdale CPU @ 4.8 Ghz is no faster than a i5 750 @ 4.0 GHz, at that point you have to have a piss poor CPU not to do well. In the end the extra 2 cores wll make the i5 750 come out on top, but for $70 more. In that comparison the clarkdale is not bad, but the i5 750 is barely cost effective as it is with the competition from AMD let alone clarkdale.

Your right, at 4.0 GHz+ the difference is going to be basically non-existent, except when doing something very multi-threaded, which you most likely do not do, hell I don't. You get the added benefit of just having fun with some insane clocks for a bit less, I understand it perfectly.

Clarkdale = E8600 all over again. I know, I once got an E8600 to 5.0 GHz on water (it was a bad chip and needed 1.625v to get there while most E8600s manage it with 1.5v!).

I will be surprised if you go over 5Ghz on an early 32nm chip, if that is possible so easily then the newer 32nm quads should be insane.

I can't wait to feel what 5.2Ghz feels like.

I hope you have CPUz up constantly otherwise you wont feel anything, hell I didn't feel anything after 3.6 GHz.

 

[cjl]

Hell, on the topic of feel alone, 4.2GHz is an almost unnoticeable difference from stock on my i7. It sure cuts down on computation times, but the computer itself doesn't feel any snappier.