Is Intel too expensive?

[VirtualLarry]

I think so. I wonder what you think.

 

[Rakehellion]

Compared to what?

 

[Lonyo]

Yes, the dirt cheap Celeron I purchased on Friday was too expensive, especially considering it's as good as any AMD equivalent at the same price.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, for example, you could get an E5200 for $50 (I paid $43 for a couple of mine), and OC to 3.75Ghz (what my friend's OCed to). Nowadays, you can get a 2.5Ghz SB, or a 2.6Ghz IB Celeron for the same price, and cannot OC.

Now, I know that IPC and memory bandwidth have increased between 45nm C2D and SB/IB. But I don't believe that they have increased enough to make up for a 50% increase in clock speed. (single-threaded IPC certainly hasn't increased 50% between 45nm and 32nm.)

For another example, consider the $120 i3-2120, and the $110 Q9300. You can easily OC the Q9300 to 3.0Ghz, and it's a true quad-core. The i3-2120 comes in at 3.1Ghz, but cannot be OCed. The i3 has a slight advantage for single-threaded performance, but the Q9300 has the advantage in things like WCG, apps that can take full advantage of multiple true cores.

I guess I just don't see the progress, as far as price/performance increases, for non-gaming tasks. Losing the ability to OC, makes current Intel CPUs far too expensive for what they are.

 

[Vectronic]

Compared to what?

Indeed.

I got a 3570K, ~$200 Canadian... does everything I need it to, within reasonable times (in fact completely blown away but my previous CPU was Q6600), and should keep doing it for years.

If I call that 5 years, that's 10 cents a day.

I could get an AMD for half the price, but... it's not going to do the same workload, at the same speed. 5 cents a day, for those 5 years, however, after 2 years I'll probably want to upgrade.

Theoretically, AMD could still be cheaper in a NOW NOW NOW buying pattern assuming sockets and whatnot remained the same.

So, for me... Intel is the better choice... could they be cheaper? absolutely, so could AMD... or VIA, or Nuvoton whatever.

 

[Ferzerp]

Well, for example, you could get an E5200 for $50 (I paid $43 for a couple of mine), and OC to 3.75Ghz (what my friend's OCed to). Nowadays, you can get a 2.5Ghz SB, or a 2.6Ghz IB Celeron for the same price, and cannot OC.

Now, I know that IPC and memory bandwidth have increased between 45nm C2D and SB/IB. But I don't believe that they have increased enough to make up for a 50% increase in clock speed. (single-threaded IPC certainly hasn't increased 50% between 45nm and 32nm.)

For another example, consider the $120 i3-2120, and the $110 Q9300. You can easily OC the Q9300 to 3.0Ghz, and it's a true quad-core. The i3-2120 comes in at 3.1Ghz, but cannot be OCed. The i3 has a slight advantage for single-threaded performance, but the Q9300 has the advantage in things like WCG, apps that can take full advantage of multiple true cores.

I guess I just don't see the progress, as far as price/performance increases, for non-gaming tasks. Losing the ability to OC, makes current Intel CPUs far too expensive for what they are.

MSRP for E5200: $72 (source: http://ark.intel.com/products/37212/Intel-Pentium-Processor-E5200-2M-Cache-2_50-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)
MSRP for G1610: $42 (source: http://ark.intel.com/products/71072/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1610-2M-Cache-2_60-GHz)

$72 is 171% of $42.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Intel has good processors at all price points, so I don't know what you're complaining about. For dirt cheap you can get a Celeron G550, and that clocks in at a reasonable 2.6GHz, is a dual-core, and is based on the Sandy Bridge architecture... All for a mere $43.

At that price you could get an AMD A4-3400, but it's significantly inferior given the Celeron should be at least 25% faster and consume less power, not to mention better platform upgrade-ability given it's not on a dead socket. The A4 has a faster IGP, but it's still too slow to play anything other than casual games at decent settings or more demanding games at the lowest settings, so that leaves us with HD video playback and in that both are the same.

The only AMD CPUs that make sense to buy are the Phenom II X4 965 at under $100, the FX-6300 at under $140 and the FX-8350.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I think so. I wonder what you think.

No. You get every dime of what you pay for.

 

[VirtualLarry]

No. You get every dime of what you pay for.

Or to put it another way, since Intel disabled overclocking on all but their top-bin SKUs, you have to pay for every Ghz of performance that you get. No more "free" performance, which I feel makes current Intel processors overpriced, compared to their prior lines that allowed overclocking.

 

[Ketchup]

Considering inflation and the rate at which Intel CPUs have risen above AMD, I think their prices are fair.

Now motherboards? That's a whole different story.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Really, OP? Just because you can't look past your fetish for OCing 45nm Pentiums means Intel is too expensive?

MSRP for E5200: $72 (source: http://ark.intel.com/products/37212/Intel-Pentium-Processor-E5200-2M-Cache-2_50-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)
MSRP for G1610: $42 (source: http://ark.intel.com/products/71072/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1610-2M-Cache-2_60-GHz)

$72 is 171% of $42.

Not to mention the Celly would probably beat a 4GHz E5200 at vastly lower power draw with a far better iGPU without any overclocking. But it's still too expensive!

 

[The Alias]

it's ridiculous you have to pay $200+ dollars for the ability to overclock on the intel side when it's been lower than that for years .

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

or to put it another way, since intel disabled overclocking on all but their top-bin skus, you have to pay for every ghz of performance that you get. no more "free" performance, which i feel makes current intel processors overpriced, compared to their prior lines that allowed overclocking.

lol wut.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Or to put it another way, since Intel disabled overclocking on all but their top-bin SKUs, you have to pay for every Ghz of performance that you get. No more "free" performance, which I feel makes current Intel processors overpriced, compared to their prior lines that allowed overclocking.

Yeah. Do you have a problem with a company trying to make money?

Speaking of which, I can't wait until IVB-E is out, so that I can buy another overpriced Intel processor. 8 cores, anybody?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah. Do you have a problem with a company trying to make money?

Do you have a problem with companies providing value for money?

Speaking of which, I can't wait until IVB-E is out, so that I can buy another overpriced Intel processor. 8 cores, anybody?

If Intel cared about providing value for money, they would release a fairly-priced Octocore on Socket 1155, or possible 1150. But they want to charge a "Socket tax" on enthusiasts, above and beyond their actual production, R&D, mfg costs and a fair but decent profit.

Monopolies are not a free market. If it were a free market, then there would be octocore 1155. You can count on it.

 

[Tsavo]

So....Intel has a monopoly?

:hmm:

 

[Ketchup]

So....Intel has a monopoly?

:hmm:

Not yet, but the way things are going, it may end up that way, at least in the desktop/laptop/server market.

 

[Vectronic]

Or to put it another way, since Intel disabled overclocking on all but their top-bin SKUs...

Well, the i3 is limited, but the i5, and i7 aren't limited as much.

a non-K i5 can be overclocked by 400MHz, and 500MHz-ish if you up the BCLK.

Sure you might be paying $60 more for an i5, but you are also getting 2 more cores, more MHz, more cache, and it can overclock a little (13% ish).

Don't buy from the bottom of the barrel?... same goes for AMD, bottom end sucks.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think so. I wonder what you think.

The only thing I think is overpriced is the hex core chips. Overall though I think they are a great value. Of course, the first computer I bought was a 233 mhz pentium for 2000.00.

 

[Idontcare]

I voted no. I think their prices are just right.

Their gross margins point to that as well, its not like Intel is making vastly higher margins on today's CPUs versus those they were selling 5 yrs ago.

I'll tell you what I do think are vastly over-priced - PWM fans and top-end air coolers

 

[dave_the_nerd]

No. They are superior, more elegant technology, and add greatly to our perfection.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'll tell you what I do think are vastly over-priced - PWM fans and top-end air coolers

...which you don't need if you get a nice, power-efficient Intel CPU and don't OC the hell out of it like some kind of crazy person.

 

[SiliconWars]

I voted no. I think their prices are just right.

Their gross margins point to that as well, its not like Intel is making vastly higher margins on today's CPUs versus those they were selling 5 yrs ago.

I'll tell you what I do think are vastly over-priced - PWM fans and top-end air coolers

Do you mean the years old gross margins or the (very) recently cratered gross margins?

Intel cpu's are overpriced and have been for years. Die sizes get smaller, intel gets richer on the same prices. Their market segmentation is beyond a joke now and I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually end up segmenting to a single dollar.

 

[fuzzymath10]

Intel isn't obligated to provide "free" performance via overclocking. That is offered out of good will or to match a competitor. That they offer it for $200 is quite fair as can be seen by all of the positive reviews and user response, and very few people complain about the product line. Their processors perform well and are energy efficient. We also have the option to choose AMD if we want cheap overclocking, although there are drawbacks such as efficiency and IPC.

 

[Idontcare]

The only thing I think is overpriced is the hex core chips. Overall though I think they are a great value. Of course, the first computer I bought was a 233 mhz pentium for 2000.00.

Exactly, its all relative. In Nov 2006 I paid $1500 for the only quad-core x86 chip money could buy at the time.

Compared to that, today's hex-core chips are a bargain, even the top-end mobo's are less expensive.