- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 3,427 (0.67/day)
System Name | My baby |
---|---|
Processor | Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable |
Motherboard | Asus M4A785TD-V EVO |
Cooling | Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear |
Memory | 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz |
Video Card(s) | ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850 |
Storage | Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD |
Display(s) | Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10) |
Case | Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case |
Audio Device(s) | Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c |
Power Supply | OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency. |
Software | Windows 10 Professional 64-bit |
Since intel has the performance crown they can sell a chip that only cost a few dollars to make for $1000 because it's the fastest. If AMD did the same no-one would buy it so they sell it for much less because more people would buy it.
This is true, but to a larger extent the performance crown plays a very little part in whether people will buy a $1,000 Intel CPU. The larger part is brand awareness, Intel has a bigger brand identity due to their larger marketing budget. Even if Intel’s performance crown was dethroned they'll still have the larger market share and marketing budget so they'll price their CPUs at $1,000 regardless and customers will still buy it.
To a large extent Intel’s guerrilla marketing is so effective that when Intel doesn’t have the performance crown their fan base will still be just as strong if not stronger because the general public will always assume AMD is inferior due to its smaller market presence, the general public do not read reviews or obsess about benchmarks like us enthusiasts do and will opt to a slower $1,000 Intel over a faster $500 almost every time.