Moral dilemma over CPU QX9650 price

[Soubriquet]

Just thinking out loud, about the QX9650 CPU which is priced about £650 in the UK, that is about US $1260. Meanwhile the Q9450 due in 4 weeks weighs in about £220 or $430.

Its no good me coming here and asking you if I should get the 9650, that has to be a personal decision depending on how much money I have got and my need for the 9650, so I am not asking that, I would get a different answer from everyone anyway. So I have to put the question differently, in an common frame of reference that everyone can relate to.

So I am asking whether you folks think it is worth spending $800 on 0.4GHz higher clock when that money could be used for something else like feeding the refugees in Sudan or providing clean water around Africa or something like that. Or maybe even a couple of OLPC sponserships or medical research or something, anything but pay 300% of the price for 15% performance.

In other words a moral conundrum, isnt it obscene to spend that much on a CPU when these other things need doing? Wouldnt it be better to live with an overclocked CPU and give that money to a good cause? Or is it a reasonable investment for long term high performance computing? Why is the price like that? Should we do anything about it?

 

[zsdersw]

I'd say it's fairly obvious why the Extreme chips have prices so much higher than those down one notch on the speed ladder: supply and demand. When supply is low or preliminary, the price isn't under any particular downward pressure. The highest binned chips are rarer than the other speed bins, especially early in the life of a core stepping, revision, or litho process. Demand for the fastest stock-clocked CPU is undoubtedly limited to the rabid enthusiasts with more money than sense, so it makes sense for Intel to price these chips astronomically high. The buyer is ultimately responsible for his/her decision to plunk down that much coin, not Intel.

We, as consumers, cannot really "do" anything about Intel's prices. Intel owns the chips before they're sold and, so, can set the price. All we as consumers can do is pay that price or walk away.

When you have an item for sale on eBay, for example.. would you like it if someone said to you "you're forbidden from setting the price that high" and actually prevented you from doing so? No, I suspect you wouldn't like that at all.. and neither would I.

Suppliers determine the price, consumers determine whether or not it's sold at that price.

As for your moral conundrum, it's all just a tempest in a teapot. You don't have a conundrum at all, because you already think it's a waste to spend that much money on a CPU, so why are you bothering the rest of us about it? We, by and large, don't have a moral conundrum either, because the vast majority of us wouldn't spend that much on a CPU either.

 

[Soubriquet]

Thanks for your contribution zsdersw but I think firstly your argument in favor of not discussing it assumes other people think like you do. I doubt that is true and that is why I put the poll up, to see what different people thought. I think this conundrum exists because of the reality of the situation so presumably other people have thought about it too. I tried to make the poll as fair and balanced as possible, and that was not so difficult for me because I am honestly ambivalent about the whole question, so you were mistaken in presuming I had made my mind up, I havent. Also I wonder why you want to close down the discussion ? Does that reflect your attitude to the dilemma, "just dont think about it"?

What you say about Intel's total freedom seems to be contradicted by the example of Microsoft which can apparently be sued for anticompetitive practices with its software because it not allowed to abuse its monopoly as that could be harmful to the wider economy. So as with MS why not Intel ? There is always a bigger fish... And before you leap to conclusions that is not my dogmatic opinion, that is simply the opposing argument to yours (both of which were anticipated among the poll options).

I think a manufacturing process oriented explanation for the extreme chips does make some sense as the price deters buyers, [see poll option], so while Intel are binning their chips they can set the top performers up for sale without much risk of running out of supply while they build up stock for the lower bin release. So they have the kudos of the flagship without the embarassment of being accused of a paper launch. It is kind of a neat solution. But as a customer the moral conundrum does still exist about whether to BUY the thing.

Surely a majority of people have experienced the temptation of the Q9650 and turned away ? This is what I would guess. I just wonder what other people think about it.

 

[hclarkjr]

do you mean this chip or are you referring to the chip with the locked multiplier? your topic title refers to the locked chip

 

[Soubriquet]

OK I missed out an X, my error, thankyou so very much.

I didnt think there was a locked 9650 available ... is there ? I thought all 9650 were X by default.

 

[hclarkjr]

the locked version is not out yet.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: Soubriquet
Thanks for your contribution zsdersw but I think firstly your argument in favor of not discussing it assumes other people think like you do. I doubt that is true and that is why I put the poll up, to see what different people thought. I think this conundrum exists because of the reality of the situation so presumably other people have thought about it too. I tried to make the poll as fair and balanced as possible, and that was not so difficult for me because I am honestly ambivalent about the whole question, so you were mistaken in presuming I had made my mind up, I havent. Also I wonder why you want to close down the discussion ? Does that reflect your attitude to the dilemma, "just dont think about it"?

I don't care if the discussion continues in perpetuity or dies right here. You're not really ambivalent, though, when you ask questions like: "isnt it obscene to spend that much on a CPU when these other things need doing? Wouldnt it be better to live with an overclocked CPU and give that money to a good cause?" True ambivalence would've been indicated by using "Is it" instead of "isn't it" and "would it" instead of "wouldn't it".

What you say about Intel's total freedom seems to be contradicted by the example of Microsoft which can apparently be sued for anticompetitive practices with its software because it not allowed to abuse its monopoly as that could be harmful to the wider economy. So as with MS why not Intel ? There is always a bigger fish... And before you leap to conclusions that is not my dogmatic opinion, that is simply the opposing argument to yours (both of which were anticipated among the poll options).

Microsoft has no competition on the desktop, and Apple doesn't count.. truly an apples-oranges situation (pardon the pun). Intel, however, does have competition. Why else would Intel lower prices shortly after AMD does.. or price its newer and faster chips similarly to existing chips even though they currently have the technology advantage?

But as a customer the moral conundrum does still exist about whether to BUY the thing.

That's not really a moral conundrum, though. It's a conundrum, perhaps, but not necessarily a moral one.

 

[Soubriquet]

I find I can encompass an extra negative without ceasing to be ambivalent, I am sorry if you cannot do the same, I will bear that in mind in future, however I am not sure you represent the majority perception. I think actually you are indulging in egotic oneupmanship as a face saving exercise rather than considering the questions the OP and poll raise.

I think use of the word moral is appropriate.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: Soubriquet
I find I can encompass an extra negative without ceasing to be ambivalent,

How convenient.

It certainly didn't read as ambivalence from the start.. and of that, I'm very certain I'm in the majority (if that matters).

 

[Soubriquet]

It might matter to me, shouldnt worry you though.

By posting here I am trying to talk about something I want to talk about, its not just a game. Its not good if I misuse language and express myself badly is it? Then people cant understand me.

I am not sure you have the same sense of ambivalent that I have. Ambivalent means having two contradictory perspectives, you are using it as though it means equanimity, that is not the same thing at all.

Ambivalence /= Equanimity

 

[Tempered81]

I would never buy that chip, unless I was ridiculously loaded, or someone gave me an ES of it.

Would i like to have it over the other chips out there?: hell yes except for the qx9770

What did I do instead? bought a $189 e8400 and ran it at 4.2ghz

 

[M1A]

Well stated Soubriquet
I believe thats the end of this story.....................

 

[M1A]

Oh reading this post I forgot why I opened it for a minute. I agree with jaredpace, well for me unless I win the powerball I will not be spending the cash for these processors when you can get a E8400 and OC it. Real world computing and gaming you will not see the advantages. It would be nice to have one for the braggin rights though but for me those years are long past.........
Another happy E8400 owner and I can only imagine QX9650 processing.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Soubriquet
So I am asking whether you folks think it is worth spending $800 on 0.4GHz higher clock when that money could be used for something else like feeding the refugees in Sudan or providing clean water around Africa or something like that. Or maybe even a couple of OLPC sponserships or medical research or something, anything but pay 300% of the price for 15% performance.

In other words a moral conundrum, isnt it obscene to spend that much on a CPU when these other things need doing? Wouldnt it be better to live with an overclocked CPU and give that money to a good cause? Or is it a reasonable investment for long term high performance computing? Why is the price like that? Should we do anything about it?

You are making a priori assumptions regarding where that extra $800 ultimately ends up once it leaves your checking account.

Any idea on how many mouths Intel feeds by way of paying employees? Or how many mouths those employees feed by way of them donating portions of their paychecks to said charitable efforts?

The money just cycles around and around, from employee to employee or dividend holder or third-party supplier to Intel, and from there it filters into governments and service sectors. Around and around.

I fail to see a moral conundrum here no matter where you send your money, it will ultimately pass thru the hands of someone who needs it.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: Soubriquet
you are using it as though it means equanimity, that is not the same thing at all.

No, I'm using it as "uncertainty or indecisiveness".

 

[NinjaJedi]

While I agree that the chip is over priced I too think it is a supply and demand thing. I think it also might go back to the P4 extreme days when you could not get the cheaper CPUs to overclock to the X series speeds as easily it might have been worth the extra cash. Now it is just plain silly to pay $470 MSRP USD extra just for a unlocked multi and a very small increase in clock speed. Also $1260 USD is not right anymore in most cases. Newegg is listed at $1070 and it is $999 at frys. Still not worth it unless you are wealthy. I have not seen/heard of there being a Q9650 (none extreme version) frys has it listed as Q9650 but it is the extreme version so I tend to think it is a typo. Even the price jump from Q9450 to Q9550 of $214 MSRP is silly for the small clock increase. I can see the $50 MSRP difference from the Q9300 to the Q9450 being worth it since you doubling the cache along with the clock increase.

 

[TankGuys]

They sell well. That's all that really matters

 

[Soubriquet]

zsdersw you should know I play Sup Com on a single core and want a quad badly while I also used to work for OXFAM in corporate fundraising. When I say I am ambivalent it aint no lie fella.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

You are making a priori assumptions regarding where that extra $800 ultimately ends up once it leaves your checking account.

Any idea on how many mouths Intel feeds by way of paying employees? Or how many mouths those employees feed by way of them donating portions of their paychecks to said charitable efforts?

The money just cycles around and around, from employee to employee or dividend holder or third-party supplier to Intel, and from there it filters into governments and service sectors. Around and around.

I fail to see a moral conundrum here no matter where you send your money, it will ultimately pass thru the hands of someone who needs it.

Well thats an interesting argument and has some elements of truth to it except the bit about me making assumptions, of course . I tend to assume that when I pay Scan £650 it all goes to Scan & HMRC taxman. A proportion goes to Intel who may well be philanthropic (despite the chairmans harsh criticism of OLPC kekeke) and then to the employees and shareholders who I am sure include as many philanthropic folk as any gathering of humanity the world over. All of it feeds back into the economy and the economy grows. In growing it provides wealth and by wealth I mean manufacturing potential that allows us to help each other more and more. That is the beauty of cooperation after all. But the proportion of growth that is realised as direct aid is dependant on the decision at some point in the chain to divert funds in that direction. And that aid is also investment for growth btw with a longer term payback cycle. (Notice how I didn't assume you assumed the opposite of what I was saying there.)

Who else will do it if I dont? How can I expect others to do it if I wont? I know that if I choose to direct £400 to OXFAM for example (as I understand how their system works) then a very much higher percentage of that is going to be used directly to assist those in need than would otherwise get there. They will have £400 more than they would otherwise have and more people will get help as a result than if I spent the money on the chip.

It is not a question of absolutes I agree and the whole argument for following the personal "path of increase" for the benefit of everyone adds to the difficulty in deciding which is the right choice, if you see what I mean ? In other words I accept the other argument that you cant spend your life worrying about everyone else you have have a responsibility to look after yourself. This is also true and moral in its own way.

So I feel like I have two responsibilities, one for myself and for one for others and actually both are true, its just a question of degree and proportion.



NinjaJedi I completely agree with everything you say there. Only consider this, I have spare cash, in fact for one reason and another I actually have to spend some of it, a bit like that film Brewsters Millions with Richard Prior. So I could easily afford the chip, the question that is bugging me is how should I really spend it?

 

[taltamir]

its the fastest chip in the world... people with enough money to buy it exist... so why not?
I can not fault intel for it as I would have done the same.

Intel chooses to mark it up a lot, I choose to buy a mid range processor instead. its simple supply and demand.

It seems the options I voted for are "winning".. most people seem to hold the same opinion about this kind of thnig.

 

[zsdersw]

zsdersw you should know I play Sup Com on a single core and want a quad badly while I also used to work for OXFAM in corporate fundraising. When I say I am ambivalent it aint no lie fella.

That's fine, but it didn't sound like you were ambivalent in your first post in this thread.. because you asked questions in a manner that suggested you were advocating something.

 

[docmilo]

Soubriquet,
Buy what you want. What's obscene is when my 3 year old son was born it cost us $30K. I don't buy health insurance because as a self employed person it's cheaper in the long run to not have it. The $1000/month premium (another obscenity) over 36 months, I am ahead.

Have no issues with spending your money. I, on the other hand, always wait for the new highend stuff to drop in price and then usually buy second tier. But that's just me, always looking for the good value since I seem to upgrade my whole machine 1-2 times per year. I spend a lot on computers, just not all at once.

 

[Soubriquet]

I can see your point zsdersw, I can see in the posty part of the OP the "no" rhetoric had a higher word count for sure. I thought that side of the argument needed to be more explicit, as the "pro" side seems pretty obvious to me. But I can see how it might look biased.


m1a, thanks for your welcome contribution to a mature discussion... hehe... (been wanting a powerball ever since I got my BiL one for Xmas!) I am sure you are right about the 8400 it is plenty especially at those speeds, but is plenty ever enough ? ... my real logic here is that I usually upgrade once every two years and so was thinking on the quad side of things a top chip like that would make the second year a lot less trying. Also I am thinking its a safe bet multicore is going to be the way forwards so it could last even longer depending on software, as it does seem overpowered right now. And to be honest I am not sure how much bragging rights still influence me, I confess I feel a certain sense of pride in my hardware, what man wouldnt ?

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: docmilo
Soubriquet,
Buy what you want. What's obscene is when my 3 year old son was born it cost us $30K. I don't buy health insurance because as a self employed person it's cheaper in the long run to not have it. The $1000/month premium (another obscenity) over 36 months, I am ahead.

Have no issues with spending your money. I, on the other hand, always wait for the new highend stuff to drop in price and then usually buy second tier. But that's just me, always looking for the good value since I seem to upgrade my whole machine 1-2 times per year. I spend a lot on computers, just not all at once.

gotta agree on that one... health insurance for self employed people sucks.

 

[NinjaJedi]

Originally posted by: docmilo
Soubriquet,
Buy what you want. What's obscene is when my 3 year old son was born it cost us $30K. I don't buy health insurance because as a self employed person it's cheaper in the long run to not have it. The $1000/month premium (another obscenity) over 36 months, I am ahead.

That theory is out the window when you get into a car accident or get cancer and spend a few weeks or months in the hospital. I agree it is a rip off to pay for heath insurance but the key word is insurance. Its for just in case. Would really suck if you got into a car accident spent 3 months in a coma and then they finally decided to pull the plug and you leave your wife and kid/s with a 100k+ bill. Since I am self employed health care price is something I have to factor into what I charge for my product.

 

[taltamir]

Which is why I pay for insurance as a self employed person... however...
1. Car insurance pays for accident (but double insurance means one can pay for the deductible of the other!), mall insurance pays if you get shot in the mall, etc etc...
2. They will be raising your premium considerably as you are receiving expensive treatments (for something like cancer or diabetes etc) until you cannot pay the premium, default on it, and loose your insurance.
3. There is an overall limit on amounts payed.
4. If you are at risk they will put stipulations where they do not cover said thing... And if you are at risk and don't KNOW it they WILL investigate you when you start racking expensive bills and find out that your grandpa had it (which you didn't know and didn't report) and because you did not report it they could not exclude it and thus you default on it...

However, it CAN help in some cases... like if someone breaks into YOUR HOME and shoots you there, or if you get struck by lightening on your own property... or something... If you don't have insurance you would be shuffled to the nearest free hospital. If you do they will send you to the nearest BEST expert, and and if your insurance doesn't pay later stick you with the bill (which you could get rid of through bankrupcy... 7 years of bad credit and no money is better then dying due to sub-par medical treatment)..

God I hate the fucking state of medical care in the us... horrible.