from what i can see, the cpu sales are just fine, we as the enthusiast is a very small percentage of the conusmer population. most consumers could care less as to wether or not their cpu is a bottleneck for their GPUs, and even fewer know what we're talking about when we say "GPUs". i agree that their GPUs are price/performance kings right now, and that they also tend to scale much better than nvidia, but really they dont bring anything extra to the table, eyefinity(one GPU) vs nvidia surround(two GPUs) which you have the option of physx. in the end BD fails to outperform the 2500k/2600k in price/performance, but to the average consumer it means nothing. 8 cores @ 3.6ghz for $280 vs 4 cores @ 3.4ghz for $315 isnt a contest on paper. unfortunately AMD has dumbed down their setup to allow a 15% performance increase over the next few years to be reasonable, and we (on the enthusiast side of things) lose, bottom line.
i dont plan on being a fanboy of intel or AMD, my loyalty lies with the king of performance at the time of purchase. AMD's current plan is to sell "the world record holder" and "first 8 core" CPU until "our" percentage of sales increase. Which means there is no winning for us. we will continue to pay the price/performance king regardless, and thats what really sucks here. if you want the best, you have to turn to intel. if you want an eight core CPU, go to AMD. four cores with eight threads is still four cores, and AMD is the only one offering eight cores, so they win in the long run. regardless of the price/performance king, amd is currently stealing sales from intel, we can only hope that the prices become as competative as the marketing.
i dont see intels cpus out of stock anywhere, but then again, i dont see them lowering their prices... at least not until their Ivy Bridge CPUs are released.
Edited by microfister - 10/18/11 at 6:02am