Intel Retailers Raise CPU Prices After Bulldozer Launch

[voltronn]

http://guru3d.com/news/intel-retailers-raise-cpu-prices-after-bulldozer-launch/

I only see maybe a 5 or 10 euro difference in the 2500k, but yup the 2600k has definitely gone up a bit, now's the time to buy!

 

[Ancalagon44]

Thanks AMD! Years late, performs worse than Phenom II, costs more to make than Phenom II, and now it pushes up the price of Intel CPUs because it sucks so much.

Is it going to resurrect Hitler next?

 

[3DVagabond]

Thanks AMD! Years late, performs worse than Phenom II, costs more to make than Phenom II, and now it pushes up the price of Intel CPUs because it sucks so much.

Is it going to resurrect Hitler next?

Global Warming is AMD's fault too.

 

[Keysplayr]

Global Warming is AMD's fault too.

Neither global warming or earthquakes are AMD's fault.

I believe these are your words:

"Anyone who is naive enough to think that competition isn't a major contributor to pricing and tech advancement needs to go back to school. The days of companies charging a fair price have been gone for decades."

I happen to agree.

 

[mosox]

Thanks AMD! Years late, performs worse than Phenom II, costs more to make than Phenom II, and now it pushes up the price of Intel CPUs because it sucks so much.

I wrote this a few days ago in some other thread

Any firm constantly evaluates the market's response to their products and not only, to those of their competitors. The more hype, the more expensive the product (demand and offer).

Repeating everywhere that Bulldozer is worse than it actually is (and it's not that good but far from being a dud or a fail) will lead to Intel raising the prices. That's Capitalism 101.

Apple has a history of selling good but overpriced products based on the hype perpetrated by their fanboys everywhere and those fans were hurting themselves. The more they praised the Apple products and the more they trashed the competition the more money they had to pay for their favorite brand.

You can bet that somewhere in the Intel HQ some marketing guys are arguing for price increases for the Sandy Bridge line and this Bulldozer thinghy will affect the pricing of the Intel future products as well and not in a good way.

Imagine AMD announced a year ago that Bulldozer will be mainly for heavy multithreaded apps, how much would you had to pay for your 2500K? $350? $400?


So, if you like Intel and think that Bulldozer stinks you may want to keep that to yourself. Of course if somebody asks for your help in deciding what platform, recommend Intel but don't unnecessarily put down AMD or your next Intel CPU might be $600 and be named "i-Vybridge" or i-Ntel.

So also thank yourself and all those who attacked the new CPUs and added to the Intel hype instead of minding their own business.

 

[Keysplayr]

I wrote this a few days ago in some other thread



So also thank yourself and all those who attacked the new CPUs and added to the Intel hype instead of minding their own business.

So if I have this straight, you're blaming everyone who ranted negatively about Bulldozer and not blaming the actual performance of said Bulldozer.

 

[dma0991]

I knew the prices would rise after the BD launch. If only I was 100% sure I would have bought a SB before BD launch. Now all I can do is wait for IB and hope that it doesn't cost too much compared to SB.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Glad I bought my 2500k for $180....could've had it for $150

 

[aphelion02]

I wrote this a few days ago in some other thread



So also thank yourself and all those who attacked the new CPUs and added to the Intel hype instead of minding their own business.

I would rather CPUs cost $2000 rather than toe the bullshit AMD line about that over polished piece of turd that is Bulldozer.

Frankly, I think that your insinuation that people here somehow have an obligation to lie and sugarcoat Bulldozer's true performance should get you banned for trolling.

 

[3DVagabond]

Neither global warming or earthquakes are AMD's fault.

I believe these are your words:

"Anyone who is naive enough to think that competition isn't a major contributor to pricing and tech advancement needs to go back to school. The days of companies charging a fair price have been gone for decades."

I happen to agree.

Intel or the retailers are responsible for price increases on Intel processors.

 

[Keysplayr]

Intel or the retailers are responsible for price increases on Intel processors.

Did something trigger this? Possibly? Some recent event, perhaps?
Or do you believe Intel, or the retailers, just decided to raise prices without cause? Just for the fun of it?
Something must have happened.

 

[Ancalagon44]

So I should have paid AMD for a processor that is slower and more power hungry (when overclocked) than their previous generation? And then told the world how I loved being penetrated by AMD?

Someone pass me the vaseline, mine is finished and my bum is sore.

 

[3DVagabond]

Did something trigger this? Possibly? Some recent event, perhaps?
Or do you believe Intel, or the retailers, just decided to raise prices without cause? Just for the fun of it?

No. Because they can. Your competition can drive your prices down. Only you can decide to raise them.

 

[Keysplayr]

No. Because they can. Your competition can drive your prices down. Only you can decide to raise them.

Ok, we are getting warmer and making progress. although it is like pulling teeth.

Who is the competition?

 

[3DVagabond]

Ok, we are getting warmer and making progress. although it is like pulling teeth.

Who is the competition?

Don't try playing fools games with me. It's insulting. Just say what you have to say.

 

[Riek]

Yeah... the european prices have increased. Its not like the euro has kept its market value compared to the dollar...

The cost difference seems to be perfectly in line with the euro dollar ratio. Basically i would expect similar things on alot more products for which their costprice is defined in $.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

It's not like I don't have a CPU already. This just makes me hold off upgrading even longer than I had originally planned. So this actually saves me money.

 

[nanaki333]

they're still really cheap at microcenter

 

[mosox]

So if I have this straight, you're blaming everyone who ranted negatively about Bulldozer and not blaming the actual performance of said Bulldozer.

I quoted my post, why don't you read it?

and it's not that good

Yes, it's not that good and Intel is better for the regular user but Bulldozer is far from being a fail, dud, shitty, crap, slow, turd, etc etc.

Actually if you take into account the fact that they moved to a new process AND a completely new architecture simultaneously, the Bulldozer is quite an accomplishment. The next ones will be better, in the meantime nobody is forced to buy. Let's see Intel try that and do better.


A small number of enthusiasts who have wet dreams with the IPC, single threaded performance and useless synthetic benchmarks filled the Internet (including the major social sites) with such pejoratives about the Bulldozer and here's the result.

The same people blasted the Thuban a while ago and for the same reasons (slower than the X4, etc). Now they claim that the Thuban is not so bad.

BTW, for the regular user the IPC and single threaded performance is sufficient since the days of the C2D and C2Q.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

^LOL? Not sure if serious. Thuban was considered great from the beginning in multi-threaded applications, and OCing potential was comparable to Intel's. Price was quite good as well. No one called Thuban a failure, and no, it wasn't slower than Deneb.

Bulldozer is a huge fail, and IPC is one of the most relevant things for desktop workloads. It's better to have four wide cores that have on average about the same or higher performance than eight small ones. That way you have great performance in EVERYTHING. That's the problem with Bulldozer; it only does good in a very small number of scenarios. Thuban had an IPC deficit, but the gap from Thuban to Nehalem is much smaller when it comes to that metric than that from Bulldozer to Sandy Bridge.

Anyway, US prices haven't changed and remain quite good.

 

[TemjinGold]

I quoted my post, why don't you read it?

Yes, it's not that good and Intel is better for the regular user but Bulldozer is far from being a fail, dud, shitty, crap, slow, turd, etc etc.

Actually if you take into account the fact that they moved to a new process AND a completely new architecture simultaneously, the Bulldozer is quite an accomplishment. The next ones will be better, in the meantime nobody is forced to buy. Let's see Intel try that and do better.


A small number of enthusiasts who have wet dreams with the IPC, single threaded performance and useless synthetic benchmarks filled the Internet (including the major social sites) with such pejoratives about the Bulldozer and here's the result.

The same people blasted the Thuban a while ago and for the same reasons (slower than the X4, etc). Now they claim that the Thuban is not so bad.

BTW, for the regular user the IPC and single threaded performance is sufficient since the days of the C2D and C2Q.

So let's take stock for a moment. BD...

1) Costs more than its performance warrants (though not more than the market will initially bear apparently.)
2) Is at least sometimes slower than its own predecessor and most of the time slower than the competition.
3) Costs more than its own predecessor and said competition.
4) Was massively delayed.
5) Is so bad the competition is now raising prices.
6) Is NOT power efficient.
7) Is NOT cheap to make.

So really? It's not a failure? It's actually "quite an accomplishment"? Please enlighten me because I'm REALLY curious now. What would it have taken to be a failure? Does it need to blow your house up? Rape your women and children?

 

[dma0991]

Intel launches the Core i7-2700K, reduces pricing on some CPUs

Core i3 2120 = -15%
Pentium G850 = -13%
Pentium G630 = -15%

Price reduction on the lower end to counter some price increase on the higher end.

 

[zsdersw]

I quoted my post, why don't you read it?

Yes, it's not that good and Intel is better for the regular user but Bulldozer is far from being a fail, dud, shitty, crap, slow, turd, etc etc.

Actually if you take into account the fact that they moved to a new process AND a completely new architecture simultaneously, the Bulldozer is quite an accomplishment. The next ones will be better, in the meantime nobody is forced to buy. Let's see Intel try that and do better.


A small number of enthusiasts who have wet dreams with the IPC, single threaded performance and useless synthetic benchmarks filled the Internet (including the major social sites) with such pejoratives about the Bulldozer and here's the result.

The same people blasted the Thuban a while ago and for the same reasons (slower than the X4, etc). Now they claim that the Thuban is not so bad.

BTW, for the regular user the IPC and single threaded performance is sufficient since the days of the C2D and C2Q.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Get a grip. Stop acting like some kid on the playground stole your ball because some people are being more critical of Bulldozer than you think they should be.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Intel launches the Core i7-2700K, reduces pricing on some CPUs


Price reduction on the lower end to counter some price increase on the higher end.

Very nice. The pricing reduction for the Pentiums makes a lot of sense, and unfortunately AMD is now pretty much doomed at every price point. AM3 CPUs are also on a dead socket, and all CPUs are less efficient than their Sandy Bridge competition.

For $57 we have the Celeron G530, faster than the Athlon II X2 250/260. For $73 we'll have the Pentium G630, about 12% faster than the Celeron G530 and consuming the same amount of power. It'll be faster than the Athlon II X2 270, and comparable to the Athlon II X3 445/450. For $85 we'll have the Pentium G850, 10% faster than the G530. Also faster than the Athlon II X3 455/460. For $90 there's the Athlon II X4 631, which is on a current FM1 socket, not that inefficient, and a decent price. Only real saving grace. For $100 AMD is alone, but the X4 640 isn't that good of a deal. Looking up, for $120 we have the Core i3-2120. The Phenom II X4 955 would be slower overall, a lot more inefficient, and even taking into account overclocking it wouldn't be much faster. At $150 the Phenom II X6 1055T remains a good deal, as does the Phenom II X6 1090T at $170. At $190 and up, though, it's all Intel starting with the Core i5-2400.

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

No. Because they can. Your competition can drive your prices down. Only you can decide to raise them.

"Anyone who is naive enough to think that competition isn't a major contributor to pricing and tech advancement needs to go back to school. The days of companies charging a fair price have been gone for decades."

I happen to agree.

Yeah... the european prices have increased. Its not like the euro has kept its market value compared to the dollar...

The cost difference seems to be perfectly in line with the euro dollar ratio. Basically i would expect similar things on alot more products for which their costprice is defined in $.

These 3 posts are the most relevant in this thread, though I suspect the dollar-to-euro
exchange rate is the most likely cause.

BD's are selling pretty good, despite reviews. We (enthusiasts) make up a minscule amount of the market.