So intel, how about lowering those prices? Like honestly what do they need $14+ billion for?

So intel, how about lowering those prices? Like honestly what do they need $14+ billion for?

I agree, they could lower the prices of their processors to be more in line with AMD's.

Blame AMD for being 2 years behind the curve 🙂

They won't they'll need at least a couple of magnificent years of catching up with intel who are already developing their post 14nm process, AMD aren't even close to 14 yet

Blame AMD for being 2 years behind the curve 🙂

Actually, I won't blame them for that. As long as people buy intel when an AMD chip can get the same job done just fine, those are people who are fueling the problem. If your workload constantly involves something time sensitive like rendering, compiling, or encoding/decoding, then sure, go for intel. But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine. It's like buying a F1 race car or a 16-wheeler truck and using it to commute to an office every day. Of course they're nice vehicles but what good are they when your most common workload doesn't take advantage of it?

So intel, how about lowering those prices? Like honestly what do they need $14+ billion for?

Sorry but the prices are substantially lower than a few years ago. When I bought my i5 2500k @3.7GHz Turbo I paid around the £200 mark. Now I can get an i7 4820k for £235 @ 3.9GHz Turbo. They absolutely used to take the piss with the pricing of the i7's and now they are priced quite well.

But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine.

There can be a huge difference in FPS with intel CPU, i wouldnt include gaming as a menial task.

Actually, I won't blame them for that. As long as people buy intel when an AMD chip can get the same job done just fine, those are people who are fueling the problem. If your workload constantly involves something time sensitive like rendering, compiling, or encoding/decoding, then sure, go for intel. But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine. It's like buying a F1 race car or a 16-wheeler truck and using it to commute to an office every day. Of course they're nice vehicles but what good are they when your most common workload doesn't take advantage of it?

You're partially wrong. Office work and very light tasks -> intel, because the dual core pentiums are unbeatable for the price. Mid-range cpus for gaming -> amd because they have freaking awesome deals on their fx-6300 and the likes. And that doesn't make any sense. You buy that which is the most suitable for your current needs, plus punching in your brand preference in order to make a decision. I would not buy a low-end i5, amd has better deals in that segment. I would buy a dual-core pentium because amd's offerings are bad in that segment. I would also buy an i7 (which i have) since my current needs involve anything from office related stuff to compiling and rendering (gaming included). You don't simply buy amd for office related stuff because 'it's enough'. You get more from intel with the same amount of money in that specific segment.

Actually, I won't blame them for that. As long as people buy intel when an AMD chip can get the same job done just fine, those are people who are fueling the problem. If your workload constantly involves something time sensitive like rendering, compiling, or encoding/decoding, then sure, go for intel. But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine. It's like buying a F1 race car or a 16-wheeler truck and using it to commute to an office every day. Of course they're nice vehicles but what good are they when your most common workload doesn't take advantage of it?

Wait what? it end users fault for wanting the faster cpu? rofl, total not AMD fault they way behind, I seem remember before they dropped the ball people bought AMD cause it was faster then INTEL. Then Intel said hello with there offering that ran over AMD and they been doing so since, Total not AMD fault they gave up.

^^ tbh They are having problems keeping up with sk1366. That abomination of a cpu at 220 watts is on par with a 980x at 3.3ghz. Though only a few tests. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=1289

Even intel can't win me over yet... HW-E is tempting, but the 4790K just isn't good enough over the 980X...

Wait what? it end users fault for wanting the faster cpu?

When you put it as simple as that and ignore all the other details, of course it sounds dumb. That's like raising taxes without explaining what they'll do and expect citizens to be agreeable to it. But like I said, it doesn't make sense to pay more for something with the same experience even if it is better. And again - depending on your workload, intel is obviously the better choice. @xIcarus Intel Pentiums are very good for offices, and I'd say their real selling point is their power efficiency. Though A4s or A6s are technically worse than a pentium for an office PC, I prefer to support them for the sake that AMD needs the money, intel doesn't, and the end result is pretty insignificant; the user experience is roughly the same. The end cost is roughly the same - sure the AMDs are more power hungry but considering the total load of an office PC, the average power consumption also wouldn't be very significant. I just wish AMD didn't use modules for A4 and A6 and used standalone cores. That would give those processors a little more of an edge. But yes, I entirely agree that you should only get what your workload needs. I have an AMD-AMD system, a intel-nvidia system, an intel-intel system, and I used to have an amd-nvidia system. All of them serve different purposes - if I'm going to have more than 1 computer, I want take advantage of the hardware for what it's good at.

But if you're doing office work, playing games, want a media center, home server, or run tasks that have an indefinite run time, AMD is just fine.

But Intel does those much faster as well... Even on laptops, can't beat the snappiness of a i7 compared to other ones.

When you put it as simple as that and ignore all the other details, of course it sounds dumb. That's like raising taxes without explaining what they'll do and expect citizens to be agreeable to it. But like I said, it doesn't make sense to pay more for something with the same experience even if it is better. And again - depending on your workload, intel is obviously the better choice. @xIcarus Intel Pentiums are very good for offices, and I'd say their real selling point is their power efficiency. Though A4s or A6s are technically worse than a pentium for an office PC, I prefer to support them for the sake that AMD needs the money, intel doesn't, and the end result is pretty insignificant; the user experience is roughly the same. The end cost is roughly the same - sure the AMDs are more power hungry but considering the total load of an office PC, the average power consumption also wouldn't be very significant. I just wish AMD didn't use modules for A4 and A6 and used standalone cores. That would give those processors a little more of an edge. But yes, I entirely agree that you should only get what your workload needs. I have an AMD-AMD system, a intel-nvidia system, an intel-intel system, and I used to have an amd-nvidia system. All of them serve different purposes - if I'm going to have more than 1 computer, I want take advantage of the hardware for what it's good at.

Hi, Have you met 90% of world that has always went after the better performance. even if it more expensive? hell there are people that pay 1k just for gpu. It not the end users fault amd cant make competitive cpu vs intel. even when AMD was better then intel intel was still more expensive now they got reason to be more expensive.

Hi, Have you ment 90% of world that has always went after the better performance. even if it more expensive? hell there are people that pay 1k just for gpu. It not the end users fualt amd cant make competitive cpu vs intel. even when AMD was better then intel intel was still more expensive now they good reason to be more expensive.

Yes, that's true - people always feel the need to buy the best regardless of how much they need it or how little anyone else actually cares. Anyway, intel won the CPU battle because intel was, on numerous accounts, anticompetitive and played dirty. AMD, for whatever reason, never bothered to reach out to home users the same way intel did. So they became an unknown brand and therefore ignored. Popularity goes a long way toward success - this is how the crummiest of politicians get elected.

Popularity has no affect on the ability to fabricate a CPU..

And Microsoft has a MONOPOLY on all things PC which just as bad if not worse. Bottom line Intel has the CPU people want cause it flat out out performance AMD regardless of price. AMD problem is AMD they have to many heads of office, and canned most there teams to pay there heads of office. I never liked AMD and this is going back to the late 80's early 90's there cpu where trash then and it still much of the same. I dont like MS either but have no choice but to use there OS if i want to game. seeing they like to force feed there ideas as the only thing there is. Companies are no more corrupt then governments, Money talks everything it overrides everything including doing the right thing

Popularity has no affect on the ability to fabricate a CPU..

It seems people around here are extremely short-sighted. Yes, obviously popularity alone has nothing to do with fabricating a CPU. But if you're not popular, you don't get customers. When you don't get customers, you don't get revenue. When you don't get revenue, you can't afford engineers. When you can't afford engineers, you don't get new/good designs. When you don't get new designs, you're stuck with something that has performance that was sub-par 2 years ago. And the cycle continues. I really don't understand why I should have to spell this out. The only point I was ever trying to make is IF you have the option to go for something weaker and not worsen your outcome, there isn't really much of a compelling reason to pay more for something that will not improve your experience, especially if you intend to make another upgrade within a few years. Therefore, people who could have had a decent experience with AMD but went with intel anyway were cutting back AMD's funds and therefore indirectly worsening their products. It's really basic economics... @tsunami231 I don't disagree, but when people whine that AMD isn't keeping up, very often (not always) it is indirectly their fault. If you actually need all the performance of an i5 or an i7, then it is money well spent that AMD is not in a position to offer. I'm not happy with AMD's products either, but I personally would like to see them get somewhere, so as long as their products do what I need, I'm going to support them and hope to see something competitive some day.

Amd uses what revune that do get from them GPU and what lil they get from the cpu/apu to pay there one to many heads of office there salary instead of use it to make some thing competitive Which unless i am wrong was headline news year ago. The ATI GPU are it atm that competitive. And that more to do with ATI knew how to made gpu before AMD bought them, AMD never really knew how to make competitive cpu and it shows. CPU wise APU is all that got going for them, give intel time and AMD will be back in same postion. As for AMD geting all the console markets it shows those lovely mobile chips that are used are terrible and reason why consoles have issue with 1080p still the gpu in those consoles way better then that actual cpu. Till AMD pulls there head out there asses and does something INTEL will continue winning and people will continue to pay for the intel chips. Which exactly why i buy intel. Would it be nice if AMD could compete yes. Would force lower prices from intel or force intel to stop resting. and doing rehashes

It seems people around here are extremely short-sighted. Yes, obviously popularity alone has nothing to do with fabricating a CPU. But if you're not popular, you don't get customers. When you don't get customers, you don't get revenue. When you don't get revenue, you can't afford engineers. When you can't afford engineers, you don't get new/good designs. When you don't get new designs, you're stuck with something that has performance that was sub-par 2 years ago. And the cycle continues. I really don't understand why I should have to spell this out. The only point I was ever trying to make is IF you have the option to go for something weaker and not worsen your outcome, there isn't really much of a compelling reason to pay more for something that will not improve your experience, especially if you intend to make another upgrade within a few years. Therefore, people who could have had a decent experience with AMD but went with intel anyway were cutting back AMD's funds and therefore indirectly worsening their products. It's really basic economics...

What makes you think they dont have enough revenue to make a CPU, that would be incorrect. Has nothing to do with not having enough 'customers'

No matter how you look at it, they were hammering Intel... and then the Core 2 Duo's came and it was done. A strong "reply" is long overdue.