Yes, now we will have some ultra powerful processors from both camps to run 32 bit single threaded console games!

de.das.dudei dont understand. AMD is making cheaper models, while intel is raising pricier models?

~:LOL:~

.
Yes....and strangely enough.... this tatic works. BECAUSE YOUR BUYING RAW UNNECESSARY POWER!!!!! Now with even more POWER:rockout:

i think it would make more sense if they drop the 2600k price to like $280 and then priced the 2700k at $320

nvidiaintelftwi think it would make more sense if they drop the 2600k price to like $280 and then priced the 2700k at $320

its intel, their prices never make sense.

for people like me, paying almost half to get upto 80% of their performance is a good deal.

de.das.dudeits intel, their prices never make sense.

for people like me, paying almost half to get upto 80% of their performance is a good deal.

The problem is that Intel's products do compete with AMDs price wise, you just like comparing models that you shouldn't be comparing.

If you look at the models that give you 80% of the 2600K performance on Intel's side they are priced pretty damn close to the AMD models that give 80% performance.

If AMD could compete with the 2600/2700K, then their prices would be lower. But right now, Intel has no reason to lower the price on the 2600K.

Your argument can almost be turned around and applied to AMD too. Compare the $45 cheaper i3-2100 to the 980BE and you get the i3 giving about 80% of the performance of the 980BE, and really in the most common tasks the i3 is just as fast or faster. I don't know where people get the idea that AMD is some saint that just loves giving us more for our money, the fact is they really don't give us more for our money, and the only reason they don't overcharge for their high end offerings is because they aren't beating Intel. When AMD was beating Intel, they were charging $1000 for processors just like Intel does when they are ahead.

newtekie1The problem is that Intel's products do compete with AMDs price wise, you just like comparing models that you shouldn't be comparing.

If you look at the models that give you 80% of the 2600K performance on Intel's side they are priced pretty damn close to the AMD models that give 80% performance.

If AMD could compete with the 2600/2700K, then their prices would be lower. But right now, Intel has no reason to lower the price on the 2600K.

Your argument can almost be turned around and applied to AMD too. Compare the $45 cheaper i3-2100 to the 980BE and you get the i3 giving about 80% of the performance of the 980BE, and really in the most common tasks the i3 is just as fast or faster. I don't know where people get the idea that AMD is some saint that just loves giving us more for our money, the fact is they really don't give us more for our money, and the only reason they don't overcharge for their high end offerings is because they aren't beating Intel. When AMD was beating Intel, they were charging $1000 for processors just like Intel does when they are ahead.

Well said, sir.

de.das.dudetrust me im an (almost) engineer.

DDD should put this in all his posts. ^^

Hope it means a price drop to say $290 or so for the 2600K.

btarunrCurrently there's only one Unlocked Core i7 LGA1155 processor model, the Core i7-2600K...

Erm, no, what about the 2500K?

AssimilatorErm, no, what about the 2500K?

That's an i5

de.das.dudei dont understand. AMD is making cheaper models, while intel is raising pricier models?

~:LOL:~

intel has always done that even when they were getting their asses kicked, aka K7-K8

newtekie1The problem is that Intel's products do compete with AMDs price wise, you just like comparing models that you shouldn't be comparing.

If you look at the models that give you 80% of the 2600K performance on Intel's side they are priced pretty damn close to the AMD models that give 80% performance.

If AMD could compete with the 2600/2700K, then their prices would be lower. But right now, Intel has no reason to lower the price on the 2600K.

Your argument can almost be turned around and applied to AMD too. Compare the $45 cheaper i3-2100 to the 980BE and you get the i3 giving about 80% of the performance of the 980BE, and really in the most common tasks the i3 is just as fast or faster. I don't know where people get the idea that AMD is some saint that just loves giving us more for our money, the fact is they really don't give us more for our money, and the only reason they don't overcharge for their high end offerings is because they aren't beating Intel. When AMD was beating Intel, they were charging $1000 for processors just like Intel does when they are ahead.

I think he meant more before Sandybridge came along, as most intel CPU's was well over $300-400 and heading up to that $1000 price tag, where your high end Phenom II was about $300-350 at most. So his point is correct just back then, not now Sandybridge is out, it just blows that out of the water.

Sandybridge is the first i have ever seen a top performing CPU (2600k) from intel that is priced so low. Try to find another CPU from intel that has such high performance (in its socket of course, and time) that was priced at such a low price? You wont find one.