mmm, i5 3570K, if not, perhaps it could drive down the prices of the 2500K, its more than enough for me :)

www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3960X+%40+3.30GHz


mommeeeee :cry:

i guess its time to give up on AMD :D

de.das.dudewww.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3960X+%40+3.30GHz


mommeeeee :cry:

i guess its time to give up on AMD :D

No.....they're good at doing what they do..... its only when people try 2 make them do what intel does that they define the word fail

MikeMurphySo what you're saying is that Intel isn't interested in making the most amount of money?

And this locked multiplier thing didn't actually happen?
And the wildly profitable overpriced dual core CPUs didn't actually happen?
And the choice of putting the HD2000 gpus into desktop parts didn't actually happen?

Intel doesn't need to move to quadcores. WHY would you think so??? Is there some new entrant to the market offering a competing product??

What I'm saying is that they'll make as much money with those quads as they did with the dual SB cores, probably more, because:

1) At 22nm 4c IB is probably the same size as 2c SB at 32 nm.
2) They only have to create one flavor, which saves costs on design, manufacturing, QA... arguably making a second flavor of IB would cost them MORE than selling quads "cheap".
3) Being 4 cores, they can probably increase the street price a bit when compared to 2c SB's. i.e instead of a $120 dual core, they'd sell a $130 quad core, which looks like a lot better for customers, specially when that means chosing between a $500 dual core or $510 quad core Dell/HP/etc build. And because of 1) and 2) Intel just made $10 more per chip sold, because making them costs exactly the same. And considering the cost is probably in the $20-30 range...

They will still sell dual cores, but most certainly under the Pentium brand or something. Also remember that their goal in the not so distant future (2013-2014) is to use SoCs (Atom or nextgen), for those low end builds.

i5-3450S looks amazing.

BenetanegiaWhat I'm saying is that they'll make as much money with those quads as they did with the dual SB cores, probably more, because:

1) At 22nm 4c IB is probably the same size as 2c SB at 32 nm.
2) They only have to create one flavor, which saves costs on design, manufacturing, QA... arguably making a second flavor of IB would cost them MORE than selling quads "cheap".
3) Being 4 cores, they can probably increase the street price a bit when compared to 2c SB's. i.e instead of a $120 dual core, they'd sell a $130 quad core, which looks like a lot better for customers, specially when that means chosing between a $500 dual core or $510 quad core Dell/HP/etc build. And because of 1) and 2) Intel just made $10 more per chip sold, because making them costs exactly the same. And considering the cost is probably in the $20-30 range...

They will still sell dual cores, but most certainly under the Pentium brand or something. Also remember that their goal in the not so distant future (2013-2014) is to use SoCs (Atom or nextgen), for those low end builds.

Fair enough. But I'll im trying to say is that while selling quads might be as profitable as dual core SB CPUs, selling dual cores would be far MORE profitable especially at 22nm.

MikeMurphyFair enough. But I'll im trying to say is that while selling quads might be as profitable as dual core SB CPUs, selling dual cores would be far MORE profitable especially at 22nm.

Well, there's where we disagree. The gross margin would probably be higher with dualies, but IMO they can make the same or more profits with quads nowadays. Again IMO, with quads revenue would be higher, profits about the same or better and gross margin most definately lower (which is what you are refering to IMO), but in the end it would result in stronger and more stable financials for them.

I think that in 2012 and beyond they need to give people incentives to upgrade to a new PC. It's been long since people are using dual core boxes and there's no reason to upgrade for most of them. Changing a ~3.0 Ghz dual core for another 3.something Ghz one is something nobody would really do. On a per core/thread basis SB/IB are not much faster than a Core2 on everyday tasks and it definately isn't on average joe's opinion, for him a 3 Ghz dual core is a 3ghz dual core and that's it. A quad solves that problem by being a "notorious" upgrade in this people's eyes (on top of being a real upgrade).

Also Intel needs to set the bar high for desktops/laptops, so that when ARM enters the market, they find it much harder to do so. Many people believe that ARM cannot touch Intel, but they certainly can IMO, at least if dual cores is what they need to fight. Making the low end quad core solves this problem, at a very small price: they don't have real competition on this generation so they can take this "risk" (smaller gross margin, depending on higher revenues) and like I said they had to eventually make the jump, so why not now.

Of course it's only my opinion, and I don't even know if they will release dual core IB or not, but I'm just saying what I think that more sense to them right now. BTW I think it sucks that they can do whatever they want due to no competition*, but on the other hand don't you think that if AMD was more competitive, maybe quads would have become commonplace a lot sooner? I do think so.

* It's like Red Bull F1 racing team, they can afford to set up their car for very short gears, because they know no one will be able to get close enough in curves so as to overtake them in the strainght line, and in fact going with short gear ratios only makes them have an even bigger advantage.