Intel fails at selling

556 Views 12 Replies 13 Participants Last post by DesertFox, Mar 12, 2009

Bartmasta

Discussion Starter · Mar 11, 2009

Intel may have some good processors, but they don't know how to sell.

I mean, first of all they give you a processor that costs a bit too much (920). Then they add 300 MHz and nearly double the price (940). Add 200 Mhz and double the price and you've got a processor that costs 1000 dollars (965) which is way overpriced and not worth it because the 920 can overclock just fine.

Not only that but Q9650 costs 40 dollars more then an i7 920. The 920 is faster clock for clock. Hell, it's faster even though the stock frequency is 300 MHz less. The 920 also overclocks better than the core 2 quad.

Oh but wait, it gets better. They have their QX9650 at ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS. It costs more than the fastest intel processor out at the moment.
Like the Q9650 it's slower than a 280 dollar processor which overclocks nicely.

Why Intel, why? Why can't you just lower prices? I'm an AMD fanboy for their prices and I'm sure Intel would get a lot of buyers if they lowered their prices. They should reduce the price of a 9650 to say, 225 dollars.

Agree y/n

Save

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

zomgiwin

· #2 · Mar 11, 2009

reason C2Qs cost so much:
people still buy them because the rest of an i7 platform is still too expensive, and good c2qs are usually just upgrades

Save

intelfan

· #3 · Mar 11, 2009

I agree that Intel's prices are high. Obviously their pricing works because most computer companies and some of us buy Intel. I mean look at those Sony Vaio laptops, all Intel CPUs.

Kinda BS actually.

Save

ipod4ever

· #4 · Mar 11, 2009

I got the 9650 cause i didnt wanna drop 300 on a i7 mobo.

Save

Derp

· #5 · Mar 11, 2009

They wouldnt be near that price if AMD had equivalent processors to compete at the high performance level. Instead intel only has competition for its core 2 quad from last year... But yes i do agree the Qx9650 at that price is a little stupid to say the least. If AMD was dominating Intel they would have massive prices like that as well, its just how it works, you have to pay extra for the best. Ideally it would be nice if Intel and AMD would stay competitive kind of like ATI and Nvidia are right now, competitive from low end all the way to the flagships.

Save

diligenthunter

· #6 · Mar 11, 2009

Don't forget that not everyone overclocks, its a shame but its true.

Save

Shane1244

· #7 · Mar 11, 2009

Because Intel knows that people will still pay top dollar for their chips.

Save

Extreme Newbie

· #8 · Mar 12, 2009

If an individual is willing to fork out $1000.00 on a processor then you can't claim that Intel does not know how to sell.
The large majority of computer purchasers do not know that a i7 920 could be overclocked to resemble the specifications of the more expensive i7 965. Heck I bet you could ask 1000 people what overclocking is and 995 of them would look at you like you had 2 heads.
You might argue that people don't know how to buy but lets remember that some people are willing pay whatever amount to say they have the best...even if its only the best to the best of their knowledge.
If everyone had the knowledge that the members of OCN have then maybe Intel sales of overpriced processors might suffer. Until that time I am sure that Intel will do fine.
It's called supply and demand.

Save

tbates1244

· #9 · Mar 12, 2009

One of the reasons the QX9650 is so much is because it has an unlocked multiplier. Intel doesn't want stores to take a, say 9x multi to a 10x multi. $1,000 is still too steep just for an unlocked multi. I think another reason Intel keeps their CPU prices high, is so people (with little or no CPU knowledge) who just go out and get the most expensive CPU

. I'm sure they still get a good deal of their business from folks like that.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extreme Newbie

If everyone had the knowledge that the members of OCN have then maybe Intel sales of overpriced processors might suffer. Until that time I am sure that Intel will do fine.
It's called supply and demand.

That's so true......it makes you kinda sad for what Intel *could* be....

See less See more

Save

ColdHardCash

· #10 · Mar 12, 2009

i agree with op

See less See more

Save

hout17

· #11 · Mar 12, 2009

I agree but remember how much the AMD FX processors cost when they were kicking some butt? A LOT OF MONEY.. Do not think for a second that if AMD possessed the superior technology that they wouldn't do the same thing. I'm not a fanboy I've run both companies chips.

Save

StarryNite

· #12 · Mar 12, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by diligenthunter

Don't forget that not everyone overclocks, its a shame but its true.

Most folks don't, and for a very good reason: they don't want to burn their hardware up.

In the bad old days overclocking actually made sense (you took the cheapest Intel proc you could afford to buy [usually a Celeron] and overclock it to match the faster Pentiums). Today overclocking is actually insane, as folks buy the top of the line hardware and overclock it solely for bragging rights (then repeat it everytime a new piece of hardware comes out). The whole original idea of overclocking turned upside down -- to save money.

BTW, Intel chips have always been expensive, and you can thank them for that, as that's the whole reason overclocking even exists.

See less See more

Save

DesertFox

· #13 · Mar 12, 2009

I think one of the reasons Intel is expensive (but that's only relative since now they have competition, a few years ago they didn't) is because they sell most of their chips OEM. I don't know what the numbers are but OC and home builders have to be a tiny percentage of the total sales. Most of it winds up in branded boxes built by big companies. They pass along the price to the end consumer and he has no idea how much he actually paid for his processor or his mobo or anything else in the box. So they can charge whatever their customer, the big OEMs will bear. They just pass along the costs to the consumer.

Save

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month