I was going to wait for Sandy Bridge but...

[SickBeast]

The lack of overclocking on the platform killed it for me. Why should I pay $200+ for a "K" chip that can overclock, when I can get a Phenom II and a motherboard for $140? I did just that and am running happily at 3.8ghz.

I just don't understand Intel. To me, this just proves that they do not care about the enthusiast market.

I would have waited for Bulldozer but the Black Friday deal I got was too good to pass up on.

 

[Edrick]

Good thing for Intel that they are releasing their "mainstream" lineup and not their "enthusiast" lineup in January.

I wonder how many times that has already been said......

 

[edplayer]

Thanks for letting us know!

 

[SickBeast]

So long as Intel won't let me overclock mainstream CPUs, I'll be sticking with AMD.

 

[iCyborg]

On the other hand we're getting unlocked multis on $200 chips which a year ago or so were available only on $1000+ chips

 

[Concillian]

Hasn't Intel tried to lock things down in one way or another since like Pentium IIs? Yet the mobo MFRs always find a way around it. I know very little about SB, there's no way to get around it for SB?

 

[Deathhorse]

oh rly thanks for letting me know. i love intel sorry but ill shall wait

 

[eternalone]

They better be dropping at least 1 $99 dollar SB cpu if they are going to be un overclockable. That with IGP faster than my 4830 would be a good enough combo for light to moderate gaming, me hopes.

 

[smakme7757]

I'm still planing on getting an i7-2600K if it's performance is up to par!

 

[ydnas7]

The lack of overclocking on the platform killed it for me. Why should I pay $200+ for a "K" chip that can overclock, when I can get a Phenom II and a motherboard for $140? I did just that and am running happily at 3.8ghz.

I just don't understand Intel. To me, this just proves that they do not care about the enthusiast market.

I would have waited for Bulldozer but the Black Friday deal I got was too good to pass up on.

I'ld say that the current quad Phenom II is about the same as the upcoming quad Llano CPU which is about equivalent as the dual core Sandybridge. As Intel isn't leaking about 'K' versions of the dual core Sandybridge. I doubt we would see one (except as a spoiler to Llano at its release, when i do expect it to appear)

 

[amenx]

So long as Intel won't let me overclock mainstream CPUs, I'll be sticking with AMD.

Intels current gen CPUs OC quite well and outperform whatever AMDs are out there. So you're argument looks a little spotty tbh.

 

[faxon]

considering my usual performance demands for my systems i always aim at the $300 price point for my CPUs when i can, which is right where the 2600K should slot in. not arguing here personally, i have no issue buying an AMD cpu for my cheaper systems, since i never have extreme performance demands on them anyway and always buy AMD on principle for the whole support the underdog thing.

 

[IntelUser2000]

They may have few more SKUs that roadmaps and leaks haven't shown yet.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The lack of overclocking on the platform killed it for me. Why should I pay $200+ for a "K" chip that can overclock, when I can get a Phenom II and a motherboard for $140? I did just that and am running happily at 3.8ghz.

I just don't understand Intel. To me, this just proves that they do not care about the enthusiast market.

I would have waited for Bulldozer but the Black Friday deal I got was too good to pass up on.

You know a Phenom II a 3.8Ghz is no where near as fast as an i7 at 3.8Ghz?

 

[ilkhan]

Why should I pay $200+ for a "K" chip that can overclock, when I can get a Phenom II and a motherboard for $140?

Because that 2500K is faster than anything AMD produces and at 4-5Ghz it'll run with or laugh at anything else Intel makes...
From the preliminary info, clock for clock Sandy is going to be the fastest CPU available, and it'll pretty much out clock anything as well.

 

[aigomorla]

laugh at anything else Intel makes...

oh really? Without the same price point? Because...

my 990X says otherwise.


OP your looking for LGA2011, however it will be pricey.
And the LGA2011 will have unlocked PCI-E multi's which i think everyone is looking for, because of bclk adjustments.

 

[RavenSEAL]

A lot of people don't have the money to spend $400-500 on "enthusiast" CPUs and therefore, the "mainstream" CPUs become more attractive, AMD has been beating the price/performance ratio of intel in that category for the last year or two. An $80 X4PII @ 3.0GHz beats a $180 i5 any day in my book when you consider the over clocking abilities of the AMD chip.

 

[Lonbjerg]

A lot of people don't have the money to spend $400-500 on "enthusiast" CPUs and therefore, the "mainstream" CPUs become more attractive, AMD has been beating the price/performance ratio of intel in that category for the last year or two. An $80 X4PII @ 3.0GHz beats a $180 i5 any day in my book when you consider the over clocking abilities of the AMD chip.

They have paided a dear price for their price policy...look at their bottomline.

AMD didn't choose to be a nice guy, the price their products as their performance dictates...forced by Intel's performance.

I know people have shor memories, but I remeber AMD's $1000 CPU's...AMD ain't your friend...their products just don't have the performance for such a pricetag today.

And you speak like Intels OC's bad...when infact they OC better than AMD.

This is the state of performance today:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend.html

 

[f4phantom2500]

A lot of people don't have the money to spend $400-500 on "enthusiast" CPUs and therefore, the "mainstream" CPUs become more attractive, AMD has been beating the price/performance ratio of intel in that category for the last year or two. An $80 X4PII @ 3.0GHz beats a $180 i5 any day in my book when you consider the over clocking abilities of the AMD chip.

please tell me where to get a 3GHz PII X4 for $80

 

[RavenSEAL]

They have paided a dear price for their price policy...look at their bottomline.

AMD didn't choose to be a nice guy, the price their products as their performance dictates...forced by Intel's performance.

I know people have shor memories, but I remeber AMD's $1000 CPU's...AMD ain't your friend...their products just don't have the performance for such a pricetag today.

And you speak like Intels OC's bad...when infact they OC better than AMD.

This is the state of performance today:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend.html

I'm not saying Intel's CPUs are worse, if you were to ask me any day to choose between an i7 and an X6, i'd be all over the i7 before you finish asking the question, but the matter of the fact is that not a lot of people can't spend $400 on a chip, and when it goes for budget, $80 for a quad core that can OC from 3.0GHz to 3.5GHz with very little issue, i think there is no question for those that have a situation in which money comes before performance, AMD is the right choice.

 

[RavenSEAL]

please tell me where to get a 3GHz PII X4 for $80

I saw this one on sale during black friday for $80, it's only $95 for regular price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-644-_-Product

 

[RussianSensation]

So long as Intel won't let me overclock mainstream CPUs, I'll be sticking with AMD.

Have you considered the performance difference? Just because you overclocked the AMD CPU doesn't mean much when AMD needs 3.4ghz+ just to compete with a 2.7ghz Core i7
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend_5.html#sect0

A stock 2500/2600 SB will be faster than a 3.8ghz Phenom II...even current i7s like the 860/920 can be faster. Bang for the buck, AMD has the lead when you are budget constrained between a CPU and a GPU upgrade. In that case, your decision was a wise one. At the same time, you are not considering the resale value of the processors. So the relative cost of ownership is actually a lot smaller than you make it to be.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I'm not saying Intel's CPUs are worse, if you were to ask me any day to choose between an i7 and an X6, i'd be all over the i7 before you finish asking the question, but the matter of the fact is that not a lot of people can't spend $400 on a chip, and when it goes for budget, $80 for a quad core that can OC from 3.0GHz to 3.5GHz with very little issue, i think there is no question for those that have a situation in which money comes before performance, AMD is the right choice.

If you like C2Q performance sure...but I moved on.
When AMD's hexa-cores winning some, loosing some to C2Q CPU's then the term "performance" is really relative.

 

[RavenSEAL]

If you like C2Q performance sure...but I moved on.
When AMD's hexa-cores winning some, loosing some to C2Q CPU's then the term "performance" is really relative.

Again...most people with a budget go into the store knowing that. Heck, if you got the money, grab the most expensive things you can find, but being in a budget is wholenother story...

 

[Lonbjerg]

Again...most people with a budget go into the store knowing that. Heck, if you got the money, grab the most expensive things you can find, but being in a budget is wholenother story...

You can preach all you want, the fact i that Intels outsells AMD in every segment...and makes a profit doing so.

If AMD had a choice, they charge more...but they can't.

AMD is pressed so hard and forced to sell so cheap it's having a painfull effect on their bottom line.

And I'd sure iif you look into price/performance/OC...the $80 AMD suddenly isn't such a good deal after all.