Airmantharp wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would want to support AMD- they're not going to support you .
Bensam123 wrote:Some interesting things I discovered while shopping for a 8350. There aren't nearly as many motherboard choices for AMD compared to Intel. AMD chipset offerings are sorta dated. Although that means there is information readily available on motherboards that have been on the market for quite some time.
Bensam123 wrote:Pildriver seems to have issues with the stock heatsinks. Specifically that the processor works close to 60c and when turbo boost engages, it takes it over 61c that a lot of motherboards have selected as the place to start thermal throttling, which causes the processor to throttle itself at the same time as turbo boost is kicking in. So you get weird oscillating frequency spikes and consequently performance.
just brew it! wrote:Airmantharp wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would want to support AMD- they're not going to support you .
True. But we'll all regret it when they're gone, and Intel's prices rise 300%. And yeah, I know... a few enthusiasts buying their CPUs isn't going to change that, unfortunately.
flip-mode wrote:I don't know if Intel sees any benefit from doing that at this point. Doing so does two bad things: slows down purchases, first, and second, may drive migration to the cloud and ARM-based devices.
just brew it! wrote:Don't get me started on Intel's product segmentation strategies. I understand that it makes a certain amount of business sense, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Bauxite wrote:Also the lack of ECC going mainstream rests squarely on their shoulders, not dram fabs that run on razor margins on a good day. With the amount of data flying around these days even on a regular desktop, who knows how much undocumented bit rot is really out there.
Chrispy_ wrote:It's a shame socket G34 Opterons are so expensive.
I could see instances outside of servers where I'd want a 16-core Interrlagos or Abu-Dhabi instead of an i7. In fact I think I'd even want those over a Xeon, when messing around with lots of virtual machines (which is normal behaviour for testing environments).
This doesn't make sense. Intel's low end stuff is priced at low end prices. You can get an i3 for around $100. You can get Pentiums for less.A_Pickle wrote:The trouble is, Intel's low-end stuff is still priced like a goddamn golden faucet, or restricts all the good stuff to OEM's.
Why stop at asking for a $500 i5 build? Why not ask for a $500 i7 or Xeon build? You're arbitrarily asking for Intel to override it's own product segmentation, and since you are making arbitrary requests you may as well go big or go home. If you're an OEM buying tens of thousands of CPUs at once, I bet Intel might give you better than retail pricing so you can build 10,000 i5 computers for $500 a pop.I can't build a $500 PC with a quad-core Core i5,
I totally agree with that, but that certainly is besides the point I was making. My only point was to say that it seems to me that even if AMD dies it will be difficult for Intel to stop offering CPUs at the budget/mainstream price points.AES-NI instructions, nice features
clone wrote:that's Intel charging more to enthusiasts because they are enthusiasts because they can.
The CPU deals are restricted to those who buy large numbers of CPUs. That's quite justifiable. Buy in bulk and get a better deal. If I were an OEM, I'd be pretty pissed if I couldn't score a better price for CPUs than any single schmo buying a single CPU from Newegg.clone wrote:well hang on for half a second, HP offers up an i5 tower for $500 but "we" can't build it... that was his point, it's proven to be a tenable goal that is restricted to OEM's only, it's Intel that is restricting cpu access to OEM's through special deals that aren't available to enthusiasts in the open market.
None of that speaks to the point I was making so I won't bother with it.ARM isn't for desktop.... literally and Intel is the Cloud through it's server business making a faster transition to Cloud notably more desirable for Intel.... especially if gaming becomes cloud popular because those demands are also beyond ARM's abilities.
clone wrote:I agree 100% but then how good of a deal is it and to be clear Intel doesn't care about joe schmo, they don't deal with joe schmo, Intel deals with Newegg who buys cpu's in bulk ...... that said regardless it's likely decent given it allows Dell to make a profit on top of covering all of the logistical costs associated with their business model.Buy in bulk and get a better deal. If I were an OEM, I'd be pretty pissed if I couldn't score a better price for CPUs than any single schmo buying a single CPU from Newegg.
historically the overall costs favored DIY's despite the bulk purchase benefits that Dell and HP were getting which left the OEM's to gain their advantage off the strength of the bundled software, support and brand... so what's changed in the past 2 years to cause the shift.
obviously the answer is 2 things, the collapse of AMD and rapid decline of the desktop market which is causing Intel and vendors to slowly adjust pricing to maintain revenues.... which means they are charging more per part to enthusiasts because they know they can.either all of it does or your point is so off base that it's worthless.ARM isn't for desktop.... literally and Intel is the Cloud through it's server business making a faster transition to Cloud notably more desirable for Intel.... especially if gaming becomes cloud popular because those demands are also beyond ARM's abilities.None of that speaks to the point I was making so I won't bother with it.
I'll leave it for you to decide with the hopes that you try to explain how ARM cpu's will be able to overcome desktop CPU performance advantages when currently ARM is comparable to half an Intel atom...... especially when it's been you in particular that have claimed repeatedly in a very great many threads about how important single threaded performance is and also how important it is that desktop computers at the minimum have at least a Core i5's processor lest buyers be making a mistake.
clone wrote:Intel has already announced that Haswell will be the last upgradeable cpu with their planned move to BGA packaging....
Yep.Mentawl wrote:Remember they'll get cheaper *everything* because they're buying in bulk - right down to cases, PSUs, keyboards and mice. The CPU is only one tiny part of the whole equation.
Yep, even while they get bulk purchase discounts. That's because of the race-to-the-bottom mentality of most PC makers and most PC buyers. Then you've got people like Boxx, and the Dell and HP workstation lines.the desktop PC market hasn't been staggering profitable for quite a while now (unless you're Apple).
clone wrote:flashbacks to the old Asrock days using SIS chipsets with exploding capacitors.....
Users browsing this forum: cwj717, Google [Bot] and 2 guests