Why are Intel so Expensive

RavenXXX2 · 24 Jul 2013 at 11:22

They have three generations of CPU's in the same price bracket, do they have it that easy?

Andrew_McP · 24 Jul 2013 at 11:28

No real competition. Welcome to capitalism, and pray for the AMD engineers to get inspired. :-)

Martini1991 · 24 Jul 2013 at 11:33

I don't see what's wrong with the 3 generations of CPU's in the price bracket, stock for stock it's been an improvement over the prior.

That's what should be happening (Albeit it I'd prefer more performance gain)

Marine-RX179 · 24 Jul 2013 at 11:39

RavenXXX2 said:
They have three generations of CPU's in the same price bracket, do they have it that easy?

Actually Haswell/1150's platform and the CPU has gone up EVER HIGHER in price than IvyBridge and SandyBridge. Lack of competition from AMD is the biggest cause I believe.

Martini1991 · 24 Jul 2013 at 12:05

There's about a 15 quid difference with the 4670K over fluctuating 3570K's tbh.

illuz · 24 Jul 2013 at 13:11

They're better and they know it, they have no competition from AMD. They know people will pay for the performance = high prices.

If you had a product which you know nobody could touch, would you not give it a premium price? Capitalism says yes.

linktoinsanity · 24 Jul 2013 at 13:17

As others have said, basically lack of competition from AMD. Really wish AMD would pull their finger out so they were a more viable alternative. That way Intel would have to compete on price a bit more as well as performance.

spoffle · 24 Jul 2013 at 13:20

illuz said:
They're better and they know it, they have no competition from AMD. They know people will pay for the performance = high prices.

If you had a product which you know nobody could touch, would you not give it a premium price? Capitalism says yes.

This is incorrect. Your comments only apply to the higher end of the CPU industry.

In the medium to low end AMD chips offer more performance per pound than Intel.

It's about marketing. When the Tek Syndicate did their benchmarks of piledriver and realised the performance they offered for their price made then better value, Intel fanboys had a meltdown over it.

xMarkie · 24 Jul 2013 at 13:24

RavenXXX2 said:
They have three generations of CPU's in the same price bracket, do they have it that easy?

Lack of real competition - what the CPU markets needs is a new company with new and more advanced products to liven the market up.

Unfortunately that's not something on the horizon or likely to be with the global decline in consumer PC sales

linktoinsanity · 25 Jul 2013 at 11:08

spoffle said:
Your comments only apply to the higher end of the CPU industry.

Ironically the original post states there are three generations in the same price bracket, which are the ones which are still not touched by AMD, even if they are the higher end CPUs and so no, he is not incorrect.

AMD have to compete price-wise lower down in the market as this is the only traction they can currently gain, and to be honest that's fair enough, but even then,Intel have the brand name over AMD.

ubersonic · 25 Jul 2013 at 11:23

/meh, CPU prices are rising slower than petrol, I'm happy

Cold_And_Miserable · 25 Jul 2013 at 14:27

Prices would be better if OCUK bought directly from Intel and motherboard makers. I don't understand why they don't.

Prices as they stand are at least 10% more than in the USA. Gigabyte boards are particularly badly overpriced, especially the Z87X-UD5H.

humbug · 25 Jul 2013 at 14:33

spoffle said:
This is incorrect. Your comments only apply to the higher end of the CPU industry.

In the medium to low end AMD chips offer more performance per pound than Intel.

It's about marketing. When the Tek Syndicate did their benchmarks of piledriver and realised the performance they offered for their price made then better value, Intel fanboys had a meltdown over it.

While AMD do have some work to do their CPU's are not that bad, in performance they are in a lot of ways competitive to the 4 core i7's, as soon as someone points that out fanboys go nuts.

So there is some truth in that, Intel know they have a fanboy army on their side like lemmings are all to willing to justify their prices for them

The i5's are over priced, and the i7's are just stupid.

spoffle · 25 Jul 2013 at 14:38

linktoinsanity said:
Ironically the original post states there are three generations in the same price bracket, which are the ones which are still not touched by AMD, even if they are the higher end CPUs and so no, he is not incorrect.

He is incorrect, because AMD can and do compete on performance at the medium to lower end.

Having multiple generations of chip in the same price brackets is largely irrelevant when you're talking about the performance an 8320 gives compared to more expensive Intel ones.

AMD have to compete price-wise lower down in the market as this is the only traction they can currently gain, and to be honest that's fair enough, but even then,Intel have the brand name over AMD.

Which they already are, however whenever anyone shows this to be the case, Intel fanboys go nuts and start foaming at the mouth.

That's the issue, coupled with Intel's brand name.

teppic · 25 Jul 2013 at 14:42

People are still dismissing the FX-6300 over a more expensive i3 because of the misconception that it cannot compete.

spoffle · 25 Jul 2013 at 14:44

Exactly. People rely far too much on unreliable sources of information.

Hence my point about Tek Syndicate and how people went nuts when they posted their findings.

Findings they admit they were also very surprised by, so redid the tests multiple times.

teppic · 25 Jul 2013 at 14:54

I'm trying to challenge views on threads like this, with real information instead of old benchmarks from the most poorly optimised games:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18529458

It's no anti-Intel perspective at all, but merely defending FX chips for what they can actually do seems to be taken that way a lot.

spoffle · 25 Jul 2013 at 15:03

teppic said:
I'm trying to challenge views on threads like this, with real information instead of old benchmarks from the most poorly optimised games:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18529458

It's no anti-Intel perspective at all, but merely defending FX chips for what they can actually do seems to be taken that way a lot.

Sure, I think exactly the same way, I also have a 3930K In my main PC.

humbug · 25 Jul 2013 at 15:10

teppic said:
I'm trying to challenge views on threads like this, with real information instead of old benchmarks from the most poorly optimised games:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18529458

It's no anti-Intel perspective at all, but merely defending FX chips for what they can actually do seems to be taken that way a lot.

Your wasting your time banging your head against a brick wall.

But its no matter, AMD's CPU's are selling much better than it seems, far more people are far more savvy than it appears, a lot of people can see thought the BS.

PS: also have an i7 rig, its an old one but its an Intel, and no. I don't see any reason to spend £270 on upgrading it to the latest. i'd sooner spend £150 on an FX-8350.

Martini1991 · 25 Jul 2013 at 15:18

You've had an i7 rig for about 2 month, your upgrade was something older than your original CPU, I think that speaks volumes..... So I wouldn't really use it of proof of your "unbiased" attitude, as it's anything but (Your attitude that is)

There's BS on both sides, as much as you try to make it seem like it's not.

There's enough options now for people to pick the best for their money, and budget depending it can easily be an FX6300/FX8320 rig or an i5 4670K rig+.

It's not "Intel all the way" or "AMD all the way"