Intel’s Price Reduction on July 22

SiriusB · 16 May 2007 at 14:23

A quad-core will be mine! :eek:

easyrider · 16 May 2007 at 17:51

Big.Wayne said:
People have been saying they don't want to pay a premium for technology that doesn't benefit them in 90%+ of tasks they do

Is it that hard for you to understand easy? are you always gonna misunderstand what people are telling you?

It will still be more expensive than dual core.

So what your point?

Wayne with a quad core....

Can't wait for that day

SlightOC · 16 May 2007 at 19:56

I was just about to buy another core 2 system for VMware(quad should be better).I guess I'll wait, though I can't imagine it's helping anyones business, Intel announcing this?

SiriusB · 16 May 2007 at 20:17

easyrider said:
It will still be more expensive than dual core.

So what your point?

Wayne with a quad core....

Can't wait for that day

If a Quad core is going to be a similar price to what an E6600 is now then why wouldn't people buy one?

And if you are on a stricter budget you can always get a super cheap E6600

james.miller · 16 May 2007 at 20:26

yes, its going to be half the price of what it is now. quite obviously more people are going to want to buy it. its not that hard to understand?

easyrider · 16 May 2007 at 20:37

james.miller said:
yes, its going to be half the price of what it is now. quite obviously more people are going to want to buy it. its not that hard to understand?

Its just funny that all of a sudden quad is ok to get wether you use it or not.

It will still be more expensive than dual core.

So the arguement still stands.

Why buy something which is not needed?

I have said from the start that quad at 330 is worth it.

Everyone dissed it.saying stuff like

wont need it it games
who encodes anyway
we dont need dual cores even

Now everyone is changing their tune!

LOL

Just because something drops in price doesn't make it suddenly useful.

why spend the extra when a dirt cheap dual will suffice?

epeen?

Lmao!

Big.Wayne · 16 May 2007 at 20:37

I would like to think that INTEL are slashing the prices of Quads due to their slow take-up. Dual-Core was a lot easier sell than Quad-Core and most people just don't need that sort of tech in their desktop.

I would go as far as saying that Quad-Core is just another in the long list of marketing gimmicks but I am aware there are genuine punters out there who really do gain a lot from the extra cores.

There is also the angle that INTEL are slashing the price of the quads to really put the hurting on AMD's market share which has sadly taken a battering since Core2 Duo was unleashed!

james.miller · 16 May 2007 at 20:43

easyrider said:
Its just funny that all of a sudden quad is ok to get wether you use it or not.

It will still be more expensive than dual core.

So the arguement still stands.

Why buy something which is not needed?

because it will be at a price where that peopel would happily pay for a dual. if i can justify £160 for a dual core, than i certainly can justify that price for a quad

its really as easy as that.

Everyone dissed it.saying stuff like

wont need it it games
who encodes anyway
we dont need dual cores even

Now everyone is changing their tune!

Thats people, they do that. i never said that at the end of the day. i said it was all down to the price. you say £330 is worth it, i didnt agree. ~£160 definately is worth it

Big.Wayne · 16 May 2007 at 20:49

james.miller said:
because it will be at a price where that peopel would happily pay for a dual. if i can justify £160 for a dual core, than i certainly can justify that price for a quad its really as easy as that

And he will say "well why not take the price slashed Dual-Core for half that price"

If I see an effective E6600 type chip selling for £75 then I will go for that over a Q6600 at £150, thats just me though.

james.miller said:
Thats people, they do that. i never said that at the end of the day. i said it was all down to the price. you say £330 is worth it, i didnt agree. ~£160 definately is worth it

Well if some people have 'justified' spending £600-£700 on a Quad (like Easy did) then these people just can't resist buying the quads when they hit £300 ish, its all releative innut!

james.miller · 16 May 2007 at 20:54

Well thats it, its down to what you want and what you think is a good price. as i already have an e6600, i wouldnt buy another. i didnt think about trying a cheaper c2d but really, i dont see the point. the next logical step for me would be a dual core, so when the price drop happens, i will more than likely put this up for sale and pick one up. with the sale of my e6600, it should cost me much more than £60-70. which is is a fine price to pay for another two cores

Big.Wayne · 16 May 2007 at 20:57

james.miller said:
the next logical step for me would be a [Quad] core

Do you think we actually use 'logic' when buying computer hardware?

james.miller · 16 May 2007 at 20:59

sigh

lol

Big.Wayne said:
Do you think we actually use 'logic' when buying computer hardware?

meh not always. was my gtx logical? hell no, i bought it because it was the fastest and i had the cash, basically lol.

Cyber-Mav · 16 May 2007 at 21:03

quad core on the cheapo now thats what i like. but i will resist the temptation and wait for 8 core to kick off.

Big.Wayne · 16 May 2007 at 21:06

Cyber-Mav said:
but i will [save all my pocket money and do extra paper round shifts] and wait for [Quad] core to kick off.

*Chris · 16 May 2007 at 21:31

easyrider said:
I have said from the start that quad at 330 is worth it.

If it is worth it at this time then why are the prices halving within the next couple of months when quad-core might actually be used in more applications?

easyrider · 16 May 2007 at 21:46

Big.Wayne said:
And he will say "well why not take the price slashed Dual-Core for half that price"

If I see an effective E6600 type chip selling for £75 then I will go for that over a Q6600 at £150, thats just me though.
Well if some people have 'justified' spending £600-£700 on a Quad (like Easy did) then these people just can't resist buying the quads when they hit £300 ish, its all releative innut!

I didn't I swapped a 6600 and cash.

I then sold the quad for 670 about 3 weeks later.

Bought a 6400 and the rest is history.

I was all on getting a xeon for 260 but I'm waiting now.

easyrider · 16 May 2007 at 21:47

*Chris said:
If it is worth it at this time then why are the prices halving within the next couple of months when quad-core might actually be used in more applications?

Quad core is used in applications now.

And has been for years

easyrider · 16 May 2007 at 21:48

james.miller said:
i will more than likely put this up for sale and pick one up. with the sale of my e6600, it should cost me much more than £60-70. which is is a fine price to pay for another two cores

60 -70 is a lot for two more cores if you never use em

This could be put toward another area of performance...

Afaster GFX card more ram etc...

james.miller · 16 May 2007 at 21:49

easyrider said:
60 -70 is a lot for two more cores if you never use em

i would, which is why i KEEP saying in my opinion it is worth it. why do you feel the need to keep bring up this point?

Big.Wayne · 16 May 2007 at 21:55

james.miller said:
why do you feel the need to keep bring up this point?

because he likes to argue a point to absolute death!!

What do you guys think will really make Quad-Core a killer feature for most users?

It seems INTEL will get a Quad-Core into a lot of peoples machines by just pricing them in but I wonder what people will actually do to make use of that tech?