• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

why intel so much more expensive then amd?

unwashed potato!

unwashed potato!

unwashed potato!

Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
17,417
Location
Surrey
is the quality that much better for intel cpus or is it just simply because they are intel that they are so much more expensive?

afaik top cpu from intel is Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme Edition QX9650 costing pretty much £700, where as top cpu from amd is AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ Black Edition costing £120.

is the intel one really 6 times better then the amd or what? i really don't understand the price difference.

also while here, which manufacturer is usually better for graphics applications? afaik intel tends to be the better one and amd is better for gaming but i could be wrong?

thanks
 
AMD are way behind Intel in terms of performance at the moment.

The old "AMD run slower but do more work per clock whereas Intel just run faster" way of working isn't true anymore.

Core 2 Duo's do a lot more work per clock cycle than any AMD processor, and can be overclocked to much higher clock frequencies. A C2D running at 2Ghz bought for around £120 will outperform a AMD chip running at 3.2Ghz the same price. Baring the Intel chip can be clocked up to frequencies far surpassing that of the equivalent AMD, it's easy to see how they're so much better. Basically you can buy a £120 C2D and clock it up to 3.5Ghz, performance being around double that of a 3.2ghz AMD X2.

Big generalisations being made there, but it gets the idea across.

Go for Core 2 Duo and clock the nuts off of it.

:Edit: It sounds like you've been out of the CPU loop a while, get googling and do some reading.
 
The Extreme processor is an anomally in pricing as it is aimed at enthusiasts who are will to pay anything for that unlocked multiplier. There is also the law of diminishing returns. Basically, Intel will charge as much as people are willing to pay without migrating to the competition or holding on to their old computers instead of upgrading.
 
Last edited:
Typhoon said:
The Extreme processor is an anomally in pricing as it is aimed at enthusiasts who are will to pay anything for that unlocked multiplier. There is also the law of dimishing returns. Basically, Intel will charge as much as people are willing to pay without migrating to competition or holding on to their old computers instead of upgrading.
Click to expand...

so which would you reccomend for programs like maya? this is for homework btw so don't help too much just sort of push me in the right direction.

I was basically looking at the top cpu from amd and intel, comparing them, going with the top one, taking bang for buck into account, is this wrong then?

Zefan said:
:Edit: It sounds like you've been out of the CPU loop a while, get googling and do some reading.
Click to expand...

i sure have been, trouble is although i like to get top makrs for homework, this area of comuting does not interest me all that much compared to programming so i don't stay in the loop for any of this stuff, which sucks when i have to go back to it as technology is changing so fast.
 
The 'Extreme Edition' processors are synonymous with AMD's FX line - in that they're pretty much the same processor but with the multiplier unlocked, often they're 'cherry picked' which some people seem to think makes it worth it.

The QX9650, however, is just extremely expensive because it's new tech (45nm manufacturing process), there will be cheaper Q9XXX processors coming out in the first quarter of next year, along with a much more expensive model (QX9770 which makes the Pentium Extreme Editions look like they run cold).

By the way: The Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 out performs the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ and is about the same price/cheaper than it, not to mention it runs cooler and overclocks better.

Also, the 6400+ is no longer the 'top dog' from AMD, the Phenom 9600 is, which you'll find priced on this site at a hefty £180, however, once again, the £160 Q6600 beats that...
 
Last edited:
Lightnix said:
The 'Extreme Edition' processors are synonymous with AMD's FX line - in that they're pretty much the same processor but with the multiplier unlocked, often they're 'cherry picked' which some people seem to think makes it worth it.

The QX9650, however, is just extremely expensive because it's new tech (45nm manufacturing process), there will be cheaper Q9XXX processors coming out in the first quarter of next year, along with a much more expensive model (QX9770 which makes the Pentium Extreme Editions look like they run cold).

By the way: The Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 out performs the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ and is about the same price/cheaper than it, not to mention it runs cooler and overclocks better.

Also, the 6400+ is no longer the 'top dog' from AMD, the Phenom 9600 is, which you'll find priced on this site at a hefty £180, however, once again, the £160 Q6600 beats that...
Click to expand...

ah thanks for that, btw just say im typing in pitch black so typing may be bad,

anyway just a quick one then, is getting a amd cpu and ati gpu better then say intel and whatever is best gpu as amd and ati are owned by same company so possibly work better together? this is just a guess btw

thanks again
 
no performance advantage of pairing amd/ati stuff together at the moment

for now the intel/nvidia is the best
 
Mammalian said:
afaik top cpu from intel is Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme Edition QX9650 costing pretty much £700, where as top cpu from amd is AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ Black Edition costing £120.
Click to expand...

Why does top end NV 8800 Ultra cost £400 whereas top end ATI HD3870 only costs £150? Because the 8800Ultra is the best out there so it comes with a premium, and the sad truth is some people are willing pay that knowing they have the very best hardware at the moment.

You're comparing a top end quad core with a mainstream dual core there. People have already forgotten in the not so distance past AMD was charging similar price for their FXs and even the most basic X2 3800+ cost nearly £200. AMD/ATI obviously can't compete with performance at the moment so they compete on price instead and so far that has worked very well. If you take overclocking into consideration then Intel offers much better performance for the price.

If you look at the mainstream products both Intel/AMD offer similar performance for the price. And no there is no point using AMD/ATI just for sake of being the same company, always go for the best bang for buck combinations doesn't matter if it's Intel with ATi or AMD with Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
I think you still pay for a name as well with Intel. Back in the day, AMD used to be the real underdog, which people prefered as it was a cheaper option to Intel. Even though they were slower they overclocked well for the price. Now though, it's not as clear cut as that. AMD pricing is not what it used to be imo... :(
 
alright well im not sure what to do then, either i go for bang for buck or, as this is only homework for a fake company should i go for top top parts you can get as surely a company will want that little bit extra to just that much faster and time is money? i doubt this company would worry about overcloking btw so that wouldn't be a factor, unless of course do graphic companies think about ocing?

it's hard to say really which is best and could best be talked about as tbh i don't think it matters what i go for as long as i understand what i'm doing and can back up what
i have said so i really should go for best to talk about which is where im stuck. i have arguements for both stronger but more money, or weaker but more bang for buck.

see for stronger i was also thinking it means its longer until you need to upgrade again
which would save the company any cost to get someone to do this sort of thing again and also means that they have a pc which they know works, where as upgrading could be a load more problems when first starting it, getting it configured right etc, but then cheaper you could save the money and upgrade in a few years with the money saved gettting a better pc in the future which willl last longer but cost the same in total.

what do you guys think?
 
Uh? The E6750 is stronger and cheaper than the 6400+ (yes, even at stock), same with the Q6600 to the Phenom 9500. Confused here. >>

Edit: Also, P35 motherboards are compatible with the Penryn processors coming next year so no real upgrade issues there.
 
Firegod said:
I think you still pay for a name as well with Intel. Back in the day, AMD used to be the real underdog, which people prefered as it was a cheaper option to Intel. Even though they were slower they overclocked well for the price. Now though, it's not as clear cut as that. AMD pricing is not what it used to be imo... :(
Click to expand...

When AMD released the Athlon64, they had a strong performance lead over intels Pentium IV, and they were quite happy to start raking in the money. They were considerably more expensive than Intel's offerings, and both AMD and Intel offered an overpriced 'Enthusiasts' version.

Then Intel released Core 2 Duo, and it was very aggressively priced. With the Intel £200 part considerably outperforming AMD's £700 enthusiasts part. To remain in the market AMD slashed it's prices repeatedly, and so did intel. Currently if you ignore the QX "Extreme" intel parts, the price v performance ratio of the midrange - highend parts are fairly comparible. AMD score some points in the bargain basement, but the new "Pentium 21xx" range has started competing quite well there too.

The new Phenoms are slower than Intels quads, but are also priced at a level which gives an acceptable price v performance balance (although that only apply's if you can get the Phenom at Recommended retail. They seem to have a premium price at the moment, probably due to low supply)

I dont really think intel charge a huge premium for their brand name anymore, except on the extreme chips. All the dual and quad 'mainstream' parts are very good value for money, and offer far more computing power for far less money than the industry has ever seen. The pricewars between Intel and AMD have brought insanely fast processors to the masses.
 
do take into account if you run windows xp then with amd you have to install dual core patches and fixes where as with intel its just install the os and your on your way.
as of todays date intel is the only option to go for when building a brand new rig.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
do take into account if you run windows xp then with amd you have to install dual core patches and fixes where as with intel its just install the os and your on your way.
as of todays date intel is the only option to go for when building a brand new rig.
Click to expand...

I never had to install any dual core patches when running XP on either of the X2 3800+ chips I had?!
 
Dual core patches/Optimizer.... The only reason this was required is amd made a 'tiny' error. Well saying its an error is an 'over reaction' its just a design decision. There are various clocks and timers on PC's. Some on the motherboard, some in the CPU. In multiprocessor computers (IE many single core CPU's in SMP mode) the clocks are all syncronised by the motherboard, but in AMD's dualcore chips, sometimes these clocks could drift out of sync, causing errors if a program switched from one core to another.

Luckily a very simply update to windows forces the processor to resyncronise itself properly. Its no big deal. And to be honest its probably been slipped in somewhere in one of windows service packs, or auto updates. Most people now find little need for it. But its one of those things, if you have an AMD dualcore, and your application/game crashes, it's worth trying. If your system is perfect no need to bother.

Interestingly enough, Intel's first dualcores relyed on FSB for communication, and I guess they implemented a hardware solution to keep the timers in perfect sync. By the time they developed Core Duo, they had most likely seen the issues AMD had, and made sure their 'new' chip was designed to be right 'for windows'. Its certainly possible that someone at intel could see this problem when the first dual core cpu's were made and they made it right first time.

Either way its such a non issue its hardly worth mentioning. The 'dual core' patches have no degradation of performance anyway.
 
He'd have been one of those guys screaming about VIA 'patches' a few years ago :D sometimes software needs updating to support newer hardware :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom