Are Intel joking re: i3 pricing?

[Upendra09]

oic, and that's fun, huh?

and this is the edited version.

ever heard of abuse? - the problem w abuse, is when you abuse someone, you abuse yourself - having fun yet?
in order to do it, you have to first identify with the victim role. psych 101 or maybe 210/ whatever.

i don't know baanaatek and other crap
ok - you are the idiots.
what is hypocrisy - is that when you dish it out better than you take it? Or something more cryptic.

really?

3 questions

1. Are you drunk? or high?
2. Do you understand english?
3. do you understand english but like to misinterpret it?

i never said that was fun, i don't find insulting people fun unless i am joking and they know i am joking

Hypocracy is when you say don't do something but you do it yourself or say to do something and don't do it yourself.

you make no sense anymore and everything you say screams " I am an AMD paid schill!!! Bow down to me or else i will start ranting like a drunkard!! "

so why don't you go get a life and some sense and then come back to this forum.

what do you mean you don't know about banatek and spintel? you say it in almost every post


warning to everyone else SighQ2 is obviously a very manipulative person, and paid by AMD to spew crap left, right and center stay away from this drunk

 

[cjl]

Hopefully this time Intel will be smart and lower the CPU pricing on these chips, as opposed to the 975 which Intel has sold a mere 10% of their total units. lower prices, more competition and more sales. I would rather sell 5,000 units at 500 a pop than sell 1,500 units at 1,000 a pop....You do the math....

Ahh, but wouldn't you rather sell 1000 units at $1k each for the people who are willing to pay for the absolute fastest and an additional 4500 units at $500 each for the people who still want fast but can't afford $1k? That's what Intel is doing by having processors that are available at more than one price range. The absolute highest end CPU (whether Intel or AMD is making it at the time) will always be priced out of most people's budget for exactly this reason. The only possible exception would be if both Intel and AMD were almost precisely even, and had pushed each other down out of that price range.

 

[someguy7]

Today I read something that amazed me.

PC Format magazine gave the i5 661 only 60% rating. I was amazed because PC Format magazine is known for giving high marks to the newest tech by default.

The 661 got panned, just like it should have been panned by every review site.

Cpu's like this really help to figure out who is on the take and who isn't.

Let's have a look at Anand's final words.

When I first started testing Clarkdale I actually had to call Intel and ask them to explain why this wasn't a worthless product. The Core i5 661 is priced entirely too high for what it is, and it's not even the most expensive Clarkdale Intel is selling! The Core i5 670 is going to retail for nearly $300 and it won't even be able to outperform $200 quad-core competitors.

Anand hit the nail on the head. But you still got to review the chip. Thats what the reviewers have done/are doing. They review the hardware and test how it performs. It is the best dual core ever made. Which is pointless IMHO. The IGP performance is huge leap forward for Intel. But once all that is said it done with it is just impossible to justify the cost of these fricking chips and why anybody would buy them.

 

[OvrClkr]

Ahh, but wouldn't you rather sell 1000 units at $1k each for the people who are willing to pay for the absolute fastest and an additional 4500 units at $500 each for the people who still want fast but can't afford $1k? That's what Intel is doing by having processors that are available at more than one price range. The absolute highest end CPU (whether Intel or AMD is making it at the time) will always be priced out of most people's budget for exactly this reason. The only possible exception would be if both Intel and AMD were almost precisely even, and had pushed each other down out of that price range.

Negative, Intel has hardly sold any 975's... The only people that purchased a CPU of that caliber were either rich, got it from another source or just plain dumb. The 975 does not justify squat when it comes to what you pay vs. what you get. I could understand if Intel sold that same CPU at 500 dollars less than the actual cost, giving the CPU some kind worthy'nesss... But at a grand that is just plain ridiculous... Just my opinion 😉

As far as the 750/860 and 920, no totally the contrary... Just those 2 overpriced chips...

 

[notty22]

Negative, Intel has hardly sold any 975's... The only people that purchased a CPU of that caliber were either rich, got it from another source or just plain dumb. The 975 does not justify squat when it comes to what you pay vs. what you get. I could understand if Intel sold that same CPU at 500 dollars less than the actual cost, giving the CPU some kind worthy'nesss... But at a grand that is just plain ridiculous... Just my opinion 😉

As far as the 750/860 and 920, no totally the contrary... Just those 2 overpriced chips...

Care to share how you know how many cpu's Intel has sold, link ?

 

[OvrClkr]

No but this is obvious, how many people that you know or have actually seen with such a chip? The only reviews that I have seen and/or people here on a forum are users that got a free-bee from Intel for "promotional purposes" or just got it for "e-peen purposes" I have not seen one person here or anywhere "say" wOW!! i GOT WHAT i PAID FOR !!!... nobody, it's non-existant .... Yea the reviews from legit sources are going to praise the chip. This is also obvious since they are paid "under the table" for such practices =)

 

[pausert20]

OvrClkr, Please show where you got the information that the sites are paid for such practices?

 

[randomizer]

OvrClkr, Please show where you got the information that the sites are paid for such practices?

All sites are paid Intel shills, don't you know?

 

[mindless728]

@pausert20 take statements like that with a grain of salt as there is (more than likely) no way to prove it either way

the only way to know what is better than what is to buy the stuff yourself and test it then try to sell it after you review it

@randomizer and you forgot that anyone who says otherwise is part of the spintel conspiracy

(and yes it hurt to use spintel instead of intel)

 

[pausert20]

Hey Random, is that because only Intel has the deep pockets to pay them. If Intel paid off the Reviewers, I would think that word would have gotten out already. Especially if what OvrClkr is implying that all sites are paid off.

 

[randomizer]

There are lots of theories about how Intel "pays" reviewers, be it money, extra hardware to make them "feel good" (??) etc so that they twist the conclusions and/or actual results. However, all the theories are based on no evidence or weak evidence that can be interpreted in a number of ways by fanboys on both sides of the fence, with both sides claiming that their view is clearly the only interpretation. If you don't think Intel are paying off reviewers you're an Intel fanboy to the AMD fanboys and a realist to the Intel fanboys. If you do think Intel do it then you're an AMD fanboy to the Intel fanboys and a realist to the AMD fanboys. There is no middle ground.

 

[OvrClkr]

OvrClkr, Please show where you got the information that the sites are paid for such practices?

So you are saying that Intel has never induced in such practices? What was the nice whoop-ass lawsuit that AMD recently won over Intel... Was that for law-full practices?

 

[randomizer]

Was that for law-full practices?

AMD didn't win any lawsuits, they dropped the suit. Regardless of whether Intel was guilty or not, it's completely unrelated to the topic of Intel paying off reviewers and is a perfect example of the "evidence" I was talking about in my previous post.

In essence: Intel are capable of paying off reviewers, therefore they must be.

 

[smithereen]

really?
warning to everyone else SighQ2 is obviously a very manipulative person, and paid by AMD to spew crap left, right and center stay away from this drunk

I know AMD's marketing isn't as good as Intels, but they're not that bad.

 

[yannifb]

I know AMD's marketing isn't as good as Intels, but they're not that bad.

They used to actually have commercials... Which for some reason beyond me they stopped. Believe it or not commercials actually work.

 

[OvrClkr]

AMD didn't win any lawsuits, they dropped the suit. Regardless of whether Intel was guilty or not, it's completely unrelated to the topic of Intel paying off reviewers and is a perfect example of the "evidence" I was talking about in my previous post.

In essence: Intel are capable of paying off reviewers, therefore they must be.

I do not disagree with you, im just saying that Intel Intel's trust has suffered as a consequence of their actions.... *** happens, not everyone is perfect 😉

 

[randomizer]

I don't trust Intel or AMD. Anyone who trusts a company needs to get their head checked

 

[OvrClkr]

The benchmarks prove a point. We all know what Intel CPU's are capable of. I would just like to see prices that are worth paying, that's all....

 

[randomizer]

Don't be silly, all benchmarks are flawed because of the Intel compiler scandal. :lol:

 

[jimmysmitty]

Free market doesn't mean intel free to do what they like.

That is the difference between now and back then, and Apple have already told intel they don't want the pos igp for their laptops.

Actually a truly free market means the govenment imposses no rules and just allows whatever to happen happen. They don't step in, there is no anti-trust or monopoly rules. Its dog eat dog and only the toughest survive.

THATs a truly free market. What we have in the US is semi free controlled by the government who is in turn controled by the corporations.

But don't forget to trust your governement. They have your best interests at heart........ wait a second......

And one HAS TO CONCLUDE Apple does not want a AMD pos cpu to run in any of their products by the very obvious omission of even a choice.\\

**Just another misleading statement from the manifesto of Intel hating.

LOL.

Plus Apple wont even make a Netbook because "its below them" yet their computers have crappy mid end GPUs and CPUs for more.

There are lots of theories about how Intel "pays" reviewers, be it money, extra hardware to make them "feel good" (??) etc.

Intel meets the reviewers in a sleazy motel on the side of an abbandoned highway that has color TV and gives them the good ol heave ho.

They used to actually have commercials... Which for some reason beyond me they stopped. Believe it or not commercials actually work.

Yea and then the marketing guy though "Hey lets not use the TV but instead have crappy YouTube videos comparing different levels of CPUs ONLY in gaming. Yep that works. No need to penetrate the highly watched TV...."

Yea I plan to shoot the AMD marketing guy. He is an idiot.

The benchmarks prove a point. We all know what Intel CPU's are capable of. I would just like to see prices that are worth paying, that's all....

You know back when Core 2 Duo hit with 45nm it was a nice jump from its 65nm parts. A equally clocked dual core CPU was $300 (i3). The i3 530 is $124 and it blows away even the highest end dual core from the 45nm gen at a lower clock PLUS it has a IGP with it for those who don't game thats fully capable of HD video playback in full 1080p. Take the mobo plus the CPU and you have $200 +/- depending on taxes and prices. Not too bad for a budget system. Pair it with 4GB of DDR3 at $85 and thats still not $300.

I would probably build one with that for my grandparents because they don't upgrade for a long time and in the end I can do what everyone who buys a low end AMD CPU does and thats upgrade the CPU to extend the life.

I just find it funny how a few years ago the prices were $300 and that was decent for a dual core but $124 is way too much and Core i3 is meh. I think its a great little CPU thats perfect for certain things.

 

[amdfangirl]

Don't be silly, all benchmarks are flawed because of the Intel compiler scandal. :lol:

Just like Nvidia and 3dmark. 😛

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

People forget what is a general term for free market. Back in the days before unions, companies treated their employees bad, did the sort of things said here, no safety concerns etc.
To say free market as some claim here is to say to take osha away, and shows how far some will go to discredit some things.
We punish the companies that use sweat shops too, but thats just part of a free market in some peoples discriptions.
We can twist all we want, but we all know what a free market should mean, and what part government should play in it for the most part, so no crying over spilt milk

 

[notty22]

I would just like to give some food for thought,

I can remember a few years back the owner of TechPowerUp.com (W1zzard) once said openly that he often gets approached by Intel and Nvidia and other large companies to fiddle the benchmarks results in favour of their products on a regular basis. Obviously he denies their scandalous offers as far as we know.

Oh please , lol. Trying to do your part in the misinformation of the amd/ati conspiracy.
How about a link ? How about those other companies being AMD/ ATI ?

 

[mindless728]

hey, why are there no VIA fans saying that both Intel and AMD are pushing them out of the mrket

 

[theholylancer]

because VIA are more about embedded more than anything, if you can't tweak it your self, or be forced* into using one, no one cares

* anyone whom uses a PC these days for work or play has to have a intel or amd cpu, the via stuff is mostly specialized things or used in things like a set up player or others that you buy willingly your self to make things simpler instead of a must have that is not exactly designed to be simple to use.