Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [ENGADGET] AMD X4 9850 v. Intel Q9300
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[ENGADGET] AMD X4 9850 v. Intel Q9300 - Page 4

post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poser View Post
Paul, I respect your opinion quite a bit... but I have to disagree. Intel submits to... and when it can, embraces market pressures. If AMD continues to sputter in producing viable competition to the architectural superiority of Core2 series chips and gets further drubbed by the (in literature at least) advances (like macrofusion) of nehalem; Intel will charge as much as the market will bare.

Perhaps current generation chips will not see their price tag rise, but you can bet that the price will jump when next generation is introduced, and not just proportionally to the introduction of new tech. Supply and demand, they govern the market... and should intel have exclusivity, you can bet they will price accordingly
I agree, and not from an I-hate-Intel point of view, it would be just smart business for them. If there is no quality competition then there is no reason to lower prices all businesses are in it for the money. I think that is the reason you will see for example the QX9650 stay very expensive for a long time, there is no reason to bring the price down. I am just afraid that if Nehalem comes out with no decent answer from AMD then those prices might be higher since current gen Intel chips beat AMDs current chips, if AMD doesn't come out with new chips than Intel's "last gen" chips will beat AMDs chips that are trying to compete against Nehalem, which will be even faster than Penryn.
Eowyn
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1055T x6 Biostar TA890FXE MSI 465(470)TFII GE 750/1900 G.Skill 2x2GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 640AAKS Ubuntu 10.10 2x24" Asus MS Arc 
PowerCaseMouse
610 PC P&C Silencer P182 Logitech Marathon 
  hide details  
Reply
Eowyn
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1055T x6 Biostar TA890FXE MSI 465(470)TFII GE 750/1900 G.Skill 2x2GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 640AAKS Ubuntu 10.10 2x24" Asus MS Arc 
PowerCaseMouse
610 PC P&C Silencer P182 Logitech Marathon 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poser View Post
Paul, I respect your opinion quite a bit... but I have to disagree. Intel submits to... and when it can, embraces market pressures. If AMD continues to sputter in producing viable competition to the architectural superiority of Core2 series chips and gets further drubbed by the (in literature at least) advances (like macrofusion) of nehalem; Intel will charge as much as the market will bare.

Perhaps current generation chips will not see their price tag rise, but you can bet that the price will jump when next generation is introduced, and not just proportionally to the introduction of new tech. Supply and demand, they govern the market... and should intel have exclusivity, you can bet they will price accordingly
I am sorry, I guess what I said was confusing. I agree with you that the pricing of the Core 3 (Nehalem) will likely rise according to market demand. However it is unlikely that the currently available processors will ever see a price increase. We both agree (I think), just misunderstood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alk View Post
As the lowest end Quad Core CPU in the Yorkfield series, in terms of Quad Core CPU's, yes, you are buying the Q9300 if you are looking for a budget Quad Core chip. Q6600 is of course an option, but it's not a Yorkfield, and doesn't have 1333 FSB.
If you are low end... why are you restricting yourself to Yorkfield? Yorkfield isn't a "low end" product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetos316 View Post
Wow... those are some pretty disappointing results for the fastest Phenom AMD can offer right now... They need to forget that who spiel about how great monolithic quad-core dies are and start throwing out something that is cheaper and easier to manufacture to generate some revenue. They are probably making way less per chip (die + packaging) than Intel is making for Yorkfields, especially since they have to charge less for the lower performance.
Considering that Intel's processors are made on the 45nm process on 300mm wafers and AMD's is on the 65nm process on 200mm wafers, Intel's profit margin is MUCH higher.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 36
Is it really that hard for AMD to look at the core 2 structure and say "Hey if we do this, it can put us ahead in terms of power." Thats all that really matters at this point if buying a prebuilt desktop. More power for less is the sweet spot. I dont mean copying but learning from what intel did.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 Intel DP45SG Visiontek HD 4870 2x2GB DDR3 1066 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
320 Western Digital + 1TB Black Caviar WD Samsung Sata vista ultimate x64/Windows 7 Ultimate 64x Samsung T220 22 inch 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Dynex(Temp until G15) BFG 800 Watt Antec 900 Logitech G5 Gaming mouse 
Mouse Pad
Commando(none) 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 Intel DP45SG Visiontek HD 4870 2x2GB DDR3 1066 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
320 Western Digital + 1TB Black Caviar WD Samsung Sata vista ultimate x64/Windows 7 Ultimate 64x Samsung T220 22 inch 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Dynex(Temp until G15) BFG 800 Watt Antec 900 Logitech G5 Gaming mouse 
Mouse Pad
Commando(none) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 36
Thread Starter 
@Pauldovi... ahhhh, I was indeed a little confused, and misconstrued your meaning

AMD's 65nm process is yielding midling profits at best... as paul mentioned, the waffers are 200mm and are not generating nearly as much profit per die.
Nerd_buckets
(13 items)
 
Stankonia
(15 items)
 
RUBIX n00b
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700k Asus Z170 Pro Asus gtx1070 OC Strix gskill Trident Z 3000mhz 2*16 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 evo 1tb Samsung 960 pro 512gb (waiting on for OS drive) WD RED 4tb Corsair h100i v2 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 10 pro (fast ring) Dell u3417w EVGA Super Nova 850 T2 Define R5 
Mouse
MX Master 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4100 Zambezi Asus M5A97 HIS HD6850 4 x 4GB Patriot DIV 2 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial M4 128GB WD 2 x 300GB caviar in RAID 0 WD 1.0 TB WD 1.5 TB 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SAMSUNG Writemaster  WIN 7 x64 PRO / SLAX 13.37 x64 2 x Samsung LED 24" s24b350hl Logitech Access 
PowerCaseMouse
PPC Silencer 750w Custom Logitech g9 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opty 175 ccbbe 0617 @ 1.46v DFI NF4 Expert 8800 gts 640 4*1gig Gskill HZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x WD cav 320 RAID 0 Samsung SH 183L Vista Ulti x64/ XP pro x 64 ViewSonic 22" 
PowerCaseMouse
PP&C 750w silence CM STACKER RBX edition Logitech g9 
  hide details  
Reply
Nerd_buckets
(13 items)
 
Stankonia
(15 items)
 
RUBIX n00b
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700k Asus Z170 Pro Asus gtx1070 OC Strix gskill Trident Z 3000mhz 2*16 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 evo 1tb Samsung 960 pro 512gb (waiting on for OS drive) WD RED 4tb Corsair h100i v2 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 10 pro (fast ring) Dell u3417w EVGA Super Nova 850 T2 Define R5 
Mouse
MX Master 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4100 Zambezi Asus M5A97 HIS HD6850 4 x 4GB Patriot DIV 2 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial M4 128GB WD 2 x 300GB caviar in RAID 0 WD 1.0 TB WD 1.5 TB 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SAMSUNG Writemaster  WIN 7 x64 PRO / SLAX 13.37 x64 2 x Samsung LED 24" s24b350hl Logitech Access 
PowerCaseMouse
PPC Silencer 750w Custom Logitech g9 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opty 175 ccbbe 0617 @ 1.46v DFI NF4 Expert 8800 gts 640 4*1gig Gskill HZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x WD cav 320 RAID 0 Samsung SH 183L Vista Ulti x64/ XP pro x 64 ViewSonic 22" 
PowerCaseMouse
PP&C 750w silence CM STACKER RBX edition Logitech g9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 36
Other reviews are showing that Q6600 outperforms 9850

And Q6600 cost about the same as 9850
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
If you are low end... why are you restricting yourself to Yorkfield? Yorkfield isn't a "low end" product.
As far as I can see, over here anyway, the Q9300 is only £20 dearer than the Q6600. Why not restrict yourself to Yorkfield if it's the more modern, future proof CPU between the 2?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Centrino T2300 @ 1.83 GHz Intel GM945 Express Chipset Intel GMA950 2x1GB PC2-5300 667MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250GB 7200rpm WD Scorpio Black USB External DVD/CDRW Windows XP Pro SP3 12.1" 1024x768 DVI 
PowerCaseMouse
4400mAh Li-ion (7+ hours on power saving profile) Carbon Fibre with Magnesium alloy roll cage IBM Trackpoint 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Centrino T2300 @ 1.83 GHz Intel GM945 Express Chipset Intel GMA950 2x1GB PC2-5300 667MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250GB 7200rpm WD Scorpio Black USB External DVD/CDRW Windows XP Pro SP3 12.1" 1024x768 DVI 
PowerCaseMouse
4400mAh Li-ion (7+ hours on power saving profile) Carbon Fibre with Magnesium alloy roll cage IBM Trackpoint 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [ENGADGET] AMD X4 9850 v. Intel Q9300