Is Intel screwing us over

[Elapo]

so if you have been looking to buy a new cpu lately (or any time for that matter) you probably noticed there are not alot to choose from (unless you are looking for a server processor). i know what your probably thinking there are plenty of cpu to choose from which is true but have you ever thought about why you only find intel and amd processors when looking to buy a new processor. well a brief explination for those of you who dont know is that intel has total control over the x86 license which makes them the only company that can manufacture and sell processors for pc. and i know what your thinking amd makes processors for pc so how can intel be the only one with the license well this is because of a court ruling saying that intel couldnt be the sole producer of cpus which would mean they would dominate the market (causing there already high prices to skyrocket) if they had not made this ruling intel would have surely run amd out of buisness. so how is intel screwing us over? well by them having the only license to produce cpus for pc (other than amd) they eliminate a fair market for the consumer because they are forced to choose between intels expensive cpu or amds more budget cpu which causes us to spend more when if other companies such as asus, gigabyte, or msi for example where able to produce processors to sell for pc then we would have much more affordable options as well as the same quality. let me know what you guys think about this.

 

p.s. this is a non biased opinion because if have no prefrence between if amd or intel is better

 

While it is true that intel owns x86, we don't actually use x86 much anymore. These days most processors use x86_64 , which is also called AMD64, because AMD actually developed it from x86. They both allow each other to use the tech.

 

That being said, you're forgetting a part from the story: designing CPU's is VERY expensive, and both AMD and Intel have a massive lead at this point. Starting from 0 right now would be like committing corporate suicide.

[deviant88]

Intel has been screwing us over since sandy bridge, they locked cpu's and started realeasing a new chipset each year with a new arhitecture revision which was not required.

Also they lock they boards even further allowing only Z series to OC which are very expensive.Furtherly they stopped adding transitors and making more cores on i3/i5/i7 series for desktop platform (not x99 and such).

Also they force you to buy their graphics silicon which they keep adding tranistor to,but no one wants all we want is more cores/transistors per core.

Basically every cpu from sandy bridge until now that had iGPU, we payed 1/3rd of the cost for the gpu silicon that sits there for nothing.

i5's would be about 100$ cost with the current 22/14nm which also allows intel to save manufacture cost due to smaller size= more chips/wafer and such, if they would have iGPU.

 

If AMD cant deliver with Zen and i7 desktop competitor at cheaper prices since they dont have iGPUs on ZEN,fully unlocked ready to OC on all models i dont think the desktop market will never recover,we will be getting screwed over and over again.

Think about GPU's, year after year new gpu's come out with more transistors,more improvements and technology for the same cost or lower always innovating and delivering improvements of 20-30% or even more from one generation to another,yet CPU's keep increasing in price(intel) while they resell the same sandy bridge arhitecture +5% IPC.

CPU's would have been just like GPU's keep increasing IPC/core count but since there is no competition intel shapes the market as it pleases.

[Godlygamer23]

Intel has been screwing us over since sandy bridge, they locked cpu's and started realeasing a new chipset each year with a new arhitecture revision which was not required.

Also they lock they boards even further allowing only Z series to OC which are very expensive.Furtherly they stopped adding transitors and making more cores on i3/i5/i7 series for desktop platform (not x99 and such).

Also they force you to buy their graphics silicon which they keep adding tranistor to,but no one wants all we want is more cores/transistors per core.

Basically every cpu from sandy bridge until now that had iGPU, we payed 1/3rd of the cost for the gpu silicon that sits there for nothing.

i5's would be about 100$ cost with the current 22/14nm which also allows intel to save manufacture cost due to smaller size= more chips/wafer and such.

 

If AMD cant deliver with Zen and i7 desktop competitor at cheaper prices since they dont have iGPUs on ZEN,fully unlocked ready to OC on all models i dont think the desktop market will never recover,we will be getting screwed over and over again.

Think about GPU's, year after year new gpu's come out with more transistors,more improvements and technology for the same cost or lower always innovating and delivering improvements of 20-30% or even more from one generation to another,yet CPU's keep increasing in price(intel) while they resell the same sandy bridge arhitecture +5% IPC.

CPU's would have been just like GPU's keep increasing IPC/core count but since there is no competition intel shapes the market as it pleases.

Do you understand what would happen to AMD if Intel started making eight core consumer chips? AMD would die off - no one would buy their CPUs anymore. Their income would be even less and they would have less money allocated to their GPUs. Intel has added transistors to their CPUs - it's just allocated to the IGP and not the CPU. You may scoff at Intel releasing products that focus more on power efficiency instead of performance, but they have no choice - they would kill off AMD.

[skylane]

Intel spends the most on R&D and rightfully protects their intellectual property. There is more choice for CPU's on higher end enterprise servers and HPC systems. The barriers to entry in that market are extraordinarily high. It's not surprising there's not more choice.

[KyonCoraeL]

There could be a universal socket like other standards such as USB

Actually... Funny story back in the day. AMD started out by making 386 clones. Eventually the costs of AMD reverse engineering their technology became increasingly difficult and they had to start developing their own processors. Eventually leading to the different sockets that we have today based on their different choices in technology. 

 

EDIT: The story can be found on Tom's Hardware in the link below.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-cpu-history,2008.html

[Prysin]

Do you understand what would happen to AMD if Intel started making eight core consumer chips? AMD would die off - no one would buy their CPUs anymore. Their income would be even less and they would have less money allocated to their GPUs. Intel has added transistors to their CPUs - it's just allocated to the IGP and not the CPU. You may scoff at Intel releasing products that focus more on power efficiency instead of performance, but they have no choice - they would kill off AMD.

They already DO make 8 core consumer chips.

X99 Extreme edition, for rich consumers. But consumers non the less.

 

the i7 4790k can questionaly be called "8 core".... it can pretend to be one, but isnt one. It may fool programs to think it is one, but its just a 4 core with 8 hands to feed it.

 

The FX series is more like 6 cores split into a stupid setup that doesnt really work well (4 modules with 1.5 cores, so yeah, math baby)

 

 

@Faceman

Intel may have the power delivery CONTROLLERS on their die, but not the actual parts that DO the delivery. Reason i say this is that last time i checked, neither intel, nor AMD had capacitors sticking out of the die. There is a massive difference between controllers and actual delivery system. The delivery system quality is entirely up to the board manufacturer. And their soldering, their parts and their layout is what can cause issues. I am not saying it DOES cause issues, but it is more LIKELY to cause issues then something that costs 10 to 15 USD more.You pay for quality of parts, not just features on the board itself.

There is a reason why a Sabertooth 990FX is way more expensive then the MSI 990FXA-UD3. It comes down to features, and board quality. The Sabertooth has more rugged parts, it is of higher quality, and as thus is the only board aside from the Asus ROG Crosshair Formula that AMD reccomends for their FX 9xxx series. Mainly because a lower end 990FX doesnt have the quality of the parts, nor the actual delivery system to handle massive loads.

 

Do you in your wildest dream think that intel can force MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, EVGA or whoever else that make a board or two to use more gold connectors, thicker and higher quality PCB and high grade japanese capacitors in even their lowest grade chipsets? NO. It is up to the board manufacturer to produce a product of reasonable quality. And if they decide that the cheapo version shouldnt handle more voltages, temperatures or static discharges then X amount of deviation, then their parts will not be designed to handle that.

 

 

Buying cheap, i do not care what product it is, in 9.5/10 cases you pay for quality. The less you pay, the less you get. It does not matter what we talk about, be it computer parts, jewelry, cottage cheese or alien technology. Board manufacturers are businesses just like intel, and just like intel with a product range of i3s to Xeons (if you can use that as an analogy for quality), the board manufacturers have different types of products that give you different types of features, expansions and QUALITY.

 

And be honest, you wouldnt buy that cheap board yourself, you'd get a 50 or 70 USD board because it would either look nicer or generally just BE better or have more features.

[Faceman]

They already DO make 8 core consumer chips.

X99 Extreme edition, for rich consumers. But consumers non the less.

 

the i7 4790k can questionaly be called "8 core".... it can pretend to be one, but isnt one. It may fool programs to think it is one, but its just a 4 core with 8 hands to feed it.

 

The FX series is more like 6 cores split into a stupid setup that doesnt really work well (4 modules with 1.5 cores, so yeah, math baby)

 

 

@Faceman

Intel may have the power delivery CONTROLLERS on their die, but not the actual parts that DO the delivery. Reason i say this is that last time i checked, neither intel, nor AMD had capacitors sticking out of the die. There is a massive difference between controllers and actual delivery system. The delivery system quality is entirely up to the board manufacturer. And their soldering, their parts and their layout is what can cause issues. I am not saying it DOES cause issues, but it is more LIKELY to cause issues then something that costs 10 to 15 USD more.You pay for quality of parts, not just features on the board itself.

There is a reason why a Sabertooth 990FX is way more expensive then the MSI 990FXA-UD3. It comes down to features, and board quality. The Sabertooth has more rugged parts, it is of higher quality, and as thus is the only board aside from the Asus ROG Crosshair Formula that AMD reccomends for their FX 9xxx series. Mainly because a lower end 990FX doesnt have the quality of the parts, nor the actual delivery system to handle massive loads.

 

Do you in your wildest dream think that intel can force MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, EVGA or whoever else that make a board or two to use more gold connectors, thicker and higher quality PCB and high grade japanese capacitors in even their lowest grade chipsets? NO. It is up to the board manufacturer to produce a product of reasonable quality. And if they decide that the cheapo version shouldnt handle more voltages, temperatures or static discharges then X amount of deviation, then their parts will not be designed to handle that.

 

 

Buying cheap, i do not care what product it is, in 9.5/10 cases you pay for quality. The less you pay, the less you get. It does not matter what we talk about, be it computer parts, jewelry, cottage cheese or alien technology. Board manufacturers are businesses just like intel, and just like intel with a product range of i3s to Xeons (if you can use that as an analogy for quality), the board manufacturers have different types of products that give you different types of features, expansions and QUALITY.

 

And be honest, you wouldnt buy that cheap board yourself, you'd get a 50 or 70 USD board because it would either look nicer or generally just BE better or have more features.

Prysin, you need to do some more research on not just the part you are talking to me about.

 

I don't have the time right now to go seek out the specific capacitors used in the motherboards we are talking about and compare them, but you are sadly mistaken about the quality of capacitors used in these motherboards.  These are not cheap products, they are using the same quality circuitry and components as their bigger brothers, with a stripped down feature set.  That is the differential outside of the very high end Z series motherboards, and even then, its mostly marketing and using stuff like doublers which is not the same as the true count.

 

I would absolutely 100% buy those motherboards to use with an i3/i5/i7/Xeon.  So do many people because it works well, is inexpensive, and provides them an upgrade path.  They are good quality motherboards, with good circuitry and components, not the best, but damn good for the price, and often excess features that aren't going to be used.

 

Again, even if you as a consumer decide that you want to spend $10-$20 more on a motherboard with more features, it still doesn't end up costing a prohibitive amount of money that it makes going Intel a much more expensive option.  This is all without adding an aftermarket cooler which is mandatory for the FX processors, not for Intel.

 

Your arguments are very thin, and based too much on personal opinion and not on fact.  The fact is, these motherboards are very good, albeit with less features.  They are cheap price wise, but not cheap when it comes to their performance, unlike with the AMD counterparts where the components used make a much bigger difference because it is an outdated chipset with older and very power hungry, and power specific demands.

[Nena Trinity]

Intel makes a CPU then makes the socket... 

 

AMD makes a CPU and makes it forward and backwards compatible. (which is also why they struggle?)

 

[deviant88]

Do you understand what would happen to AMD if Intel started making eight core consumer chips? AMD would die off - no one would buy their CPUs anymore. Their income would be even less and they would have less money allocated to their GPUs. Intel has added transistors to their CPUs - it's just allocated to the IGP and not the CPU. You may scoff at Intel releasing products that focus more on power efficiency instead of performance, but they have no choice - they would kill off AMD.

Intel doesnt care about AMD, intel just does its thing in the CPU market, since AMD is not competing, intel saw this opportunity and locked all their chips/platform and stopped innovating selling same chips for more, taking advatange of AMD's weak products.I couldnt care less about power consumption on Desktop, what has an i5/7 unlocked K cpu have to do with power efficiency? nothing.There are low power model chips for that,and special chips for mobile and low power,theres no reason to not make CPU's stronger in favor of power consumption.

 

iGPU needs to disspear,sadly intel saw another opportunity here if they can shove an expensive iGPU in everyones chips purchase why wouldnt they?with the profit from that they throw it back at iGPU R&D and continue this retarded trend at the expense of the buyers that dont even need that piece of silicon.Hence intel growing its GPU business on users misfortune.

 

With the iGPU gone there are two options, one is cheaper chips like 1/3rd price cut or more/ second put more transistors into the cores or make 6 core i5/i7 on desktop platforms at the same price as current 4core chips.

 

Instead all we get is 5% better synthetic benchmarks every year.Look at skylake they reached 14nm and there's 0 improvement, why would someone who needs and i7 for work and heavy processing/gaming who already own's an sandy/ivy/haswell, be satisfied with a lousy 10% upgrade for a small fortune?

 

I pray Zen "kicks ass" and forces intel to compete again.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Seriously. Intel has no market incentive whatsoever to add more cores to mainstream cpus. Why would they? Why should they? Up until now there has been literally no performance improvements for most programs (including 99% of games) for adding additional cores? Furthermore adding additional cores decreases stability. As to the igpu question. The market has dictated that igpu is a big deal. Tablets/phones and low end/ultrabook laptops dont have discrete graphics and for numerous years the market was indicating a massive shift towards those products (and in many ways still is). So since they don't have discrete graphics, ofc the biggest bonus they can get is from improving igpus.

All you people seem to think that desktops are in their own little world. News flash. They aren't. Intel/amd/arm doesn't build features specifically for only desktops anymore. Desktops are instead the big brothers and feature testing grounds for all the other technologies that they move into mobile devices because RIGHT NOW THAT IS WHERE THE GROWTH IS.

This isn't even me being an Intel fanboy. I would live to see more than 5-10% increases in straight power year on year but what people don't seem to realize is that anyone can just flop more cores on, make shit bigger, but in the end the real gain is energy use. If you reduce energy consumption now, then you can always scale up later (or concurrently).

This is imho 99% of the reason amd has been so fucked recently in the cpu market. They kept making their cpus bigger and bigger and didn't focus on actually improving utilization efficiencies, so when they reached the limit of how big they could make it they had to go all they way back to square one.

[Hunter7263]

so if you have been looking to buy a new cpu lately (or any time for that matter) you probably noticed there are not alot to choose from (unless you are looking for a server processor). i know what your probably thinking there are plenty of cpu to choose from which is true but have you ever thought about why you only find intel and amd processors when looking to buy a new processor. well a brief explination for those of you who dont know is that intel has total control over the x86 license which makes them the only company that can manufacture and sell processors for pc. and i know what your thinking amd makes processors for pc so how can intel be the only one with the license well this is because of a court ruling saying that intel couldnt be the sole producer of cpus which would mean they would dominate the market (causing there already high prices to skyrocket) if they had not made this ruling intel would have surely run amd out of buisness. so how is intel screwing us over? well by them having the only license to produce cpus for pc (other than amd) they eliminate a fair market for the consumer because they are forced to choose between intels expensive cpu or amds more budget cpu which causes us to spend more when if other companies such as asus, gigabyte, or msi for example where able to produce processors to sell for pc then we would have much more affordable options as well as the same quality. let me know what you guys think about this.

 

p.s. this is a non biased opinion because if have no prefrence between if amd or intel is better

ARM processors. Just saying. Also I thought there legal teams came to that agreement that neither would sue each other over any patent infringement. Can you find me that link you have that show the court said it?

[beavo451]

This thread is lulz.

[jscho]

exactly intel is doing the best they can for themselves but from a consumer stand point it sucks that i have to pay 3x as much as if the market was more balanced with other companies besides if you want a good cpu for gaming you pretty much have to go with intel if you want performance

 

Well, on a budget, I'd argue that the 8350 is still a very capable CPU, even though the FX line is what, four years old now? Get a decent cooler and OC the shit out of it. Intel is if you want the here and now and the best that gaming can offer. I put the 8350 in many builds I do for people, as it's still an extremely good chip.

 

But yeah, I definitely agree with you on that.

[Sakkura]

These "low end" Intel motherboard are only lacking additional fan headers.  That is the only main feature that they are missing, and its as easy fix.  They arguably have more modern features than the 970 chipsets.  You are aware that 970 still uses PCI 2.0, right?  Not that it makes a difference right now, but its just an example of how old that chipset it.

-snip-

 

The only thing missing from the H81/B85 motherboards is additional fan headers, which is an easy fix with a $3 Y splitter.

 

H81 boards also only support PCIe 2.0. They also limit you to 2 DIMM slots, and offer only 2 native SATA3 ports, while AMDs 900 series chipsets offer 6 native SATA3 ports.

[Faceman]

H81 boards also only support PCIe 2.0. They also limit you to 2 DIMM slots, and offer only 2 native SATA3 ports, while AMDs 900 series chipsets offer 6 native SATA3 ports.

So buy B85, it costs the same as H81.  2 DIMM slots isn't bad.  Buy a single stick of 8GB, there is no loss in performance between a single stick and dual channel.  B85 also comes with 4 SATA3 ports, which is plenty.  Grand total of this motherboard that also supports an i7-4790k?  $40.

 

Again, even if you were to buy a more expensive Intel motherboard, which is not mandatory like it is with the FX for stable stock operation, the difference in price is nothing meaningful.  $10-$20.  That difference is quickly made up in the cost of an aftermarket cooler, and yearly energy consumption costs associated with FX processors.

 

The argument for FX processors is borderline delusional outside of a few scenarios.

[Sakkura]

So buy B85, it costs the same as H81.  2 DIMM slots isn't bad.  Buy a single stick of 8GB, there is no loss in performance between a single stick and dual channel.  B85 also comes with 4 SATA3 ports, which is plenty.  Grand total of this motherboard that also supports an i7-4790k?  $40.

 

Again, even if you were to buy a more expensive Intel motherboard, which is not mandatory like it is with the FX for stable stock operation, the difference in price is nothing meaningful.  $10-$20.  That difference is quickly made up in the cost of an aftermarket cooler, and yearly energy consumption costs associated with FX processors.

 

The argument for FX processors is borderline delusional outside of a few scenarios.

 

There's only a single, shitty B85 board available at $40 or less. And 2 DIMM slots is a real difference, unlike what you claimed.

[FireFox]

I thought AMD held the x86 license?

[Prysin]

So buy B85, it costs the same as H81.  2 DIMM slots isn't bad.  Buy a single stick of 8GB, there is no loss in performance between a single stick and dual channel.  B85 also comes with 4 SATA3 ports, which is plenty.  Grand total of this motherboard that also supports an i7-4790k?  $40.

 

Again, even if you were to buy a more expensive Intel motherboard, which is not mandatory like it is with the FX for stable stock operation, the difference in price is nothing meaningful.  $10-$20.  That difference is quickly made up in the cost of an aftermarket cooler, and yearly energy consumption costs associated with FX processors.

 

The argument for FX processors is borderline delusional outside of a few scenarios.

 

 

may we also jsut agree that the yearly cost differencial between a FX and a iX CPU is EXTREMELY regional. Here in norway, power costs close to nothing compared to average income. While in California or countries with no renewable energy, it is seriously expensive. To give you an idea how cheap power is in norway. Sit down by a highway and start counting Tesla's.... Even a power hungry monster of a car that costs a fortune is WORTH getting over petrol in a country that, atleast compared to average income, has relatively cheap petrol.

 

 

The argument for FX is just as sane as any other. Comparing non OC to non OC, you can get away with less powerful powerdelivery.

 

OC to OC, apples to apples, Intel seem to get better returns for OC then AMD anyway, so of course it is worth it, that is the whole reason why i went over to i7 4790k in the end. You can only play catch up for so long.

 

BUT

 

i know some think this argument is thin. But using a stock cooler, once again, i would never reccomend it. Simply due to ONE factor. Efficiency vs Noise.

 

Being as inexpensive as it is, even going by minimum wage in the US which is 7.5 USD now i think, it costs you 4 hours of work time if you take into consideration taxes and what not, more to get a more silent, cooler and more "happy" computer. Running the chip hotter on a stock cooler has no benefit what so ever, ever. Higher temps reduces the longevity of every component in your system and drastically increases chances of hardware failures. And if case airflow is not ideal, which it usually is not in most normal peoples computers, then the situation of ambient heat gets worse.

 

I do not disagree that intel can be gotten cheap, but i disagree that you should go out of your way and get a cheaper solution for mobo, which will have less features then even a 10$ more expensive board. 10$ is not much, but since you, faceman, constantly point out the upgrade path of an intel platform using the LGA 1150 socket. Why do you choose a board which has less features, for such a low price difference to a more feature rich one, that you, perhaps accidentally, sacrifices some of the OTHER upgrade parts in a system.

 

I know this is the CPU and Mobo section, but a PC is more then a CPU and a Mobo. And as thus, you should not ignore the other parts. This is why I, personally, look at the boards before suggesting anything on AMD side. I look for things that are neat to have (things that i forgot in the past and thus, regretted forgetting later) later on when you upgrade something.

 

And that would be it.

[Faceman]

There's only a single, shitty B85 board available at $40 or less. And 2 DIMM slots is a real difference, unlike what you claimed.

Lets see the evidence. Show me a noticeable difference in gaming performance between a single 8GB stick of RAM and two sticks of 4GB. I'll save you some time: it doesn't exist.

That B85 motherboard isn't shitty, you are delusional.

[Nena Trinity]

I thought AMD held the x86 license?

Nope 64bit or did they have both?

[Faceman]

may we also jsut agree that the yearly cost differencial between a FX and a iX CPU is EXTREMELY regional. Here in norway, power costs close to nothing compared to average income. While in California or countries with no renewable energy, it is seriously expensive. To give you an idea how cheap power is in norway. Sit down by a highway and start counting Tesla's.... Even a power hungry monster of a car that costs a fortune is WORTH getting over petrol in a country that, atleast compared to average income, has relatively cheap petrol.

The argument for FX is just as sane as any other. Comparing non OC to non OC, you can get away with less powerful powerdelivery.

OC to OC, apples to apples, Intel seem to get better returns for OC then AMD anyway, so of course it is worth it, that is the whole reason why i went over to i7 4790k in the end. You can only play catch up for so long.

BUT

i know some think this argument is thin. But using a stock cooler, once again, i would never reccomend it. Simply due to ONE factor. Efficiency vs Noise.

Being as inexpensive as it is, even going by minimum wage in the US which is 7.5 USD now i think, it costs you 4 hours of work time if you take into consideration taxes and what not, more to get a more silent, cooler and more "happy" computer. Running the chip hotter on a stock cooler has no benefit what so ever, ever. Higher temps reduces the longevity of every component in your system and drastically increases chances of hardware failures. And if case airflow is not ideal, which it usually is not in most normal peoples computers, then the situation of ambient heat gets worse.

I do not disagree that intel can be gotten cheap, but i disagree that you should go out of your way and get a cheaper solution for mobo, which will have less features then even a 10$ more expensive board. 10$ is not much, but since you, faceman, constantly point out the upgrade path of an intel platform using the LGA 1150 socket. Why do you choose a board which has less features, for such a low price difference to a more feature rich one, that you, perhaps accidentally, sacrifices some of the OTHER upgrade parts in a system.

I know this is the CPU and Mobo section, but a PC is more then a CPU and a Mobo. And as thus, you should not ignore the other parts. This is why I, personally, look at the boards before suggesting anything on AMD side. I look for things that are neat to have (things that i forgot in the past and thus, regretted forgetting later) later on when you upgrade something.

And that would be it.

I've calculated the cost in Scandinavia, it is 550Kr per year, comparing a stock FX8 to a stock i5. Overclock, and that amount increases exponentially.

We see plenty of people on this forum alone having problems with FX processors and 3 or 4 +1 VRM phase motherboards. If you want to risk it, be my guest, I would never recommend it to someone else, when they are the one spending the money, and they won't be able to overclock. For the FXs to even be competitive, they must be overclocked.

Stop taking personal opinion into this. You do not need to have an aftermarket cooler on the Intel SKUs except the i7-4790k. Everything else, stock is fine. You could make same argument for spending that additional $30 for a better Intel system, because the difference in price is less than $30 with your precious high end motherboard full of features you don't have to have. The B85 motherboard that I linked works perfectly well, with plenty of features. It is not a bad motherboard, it is capable of supporting the highest end consumer grade processor that is on the market today while costing just $40.

So then spend the extra $20 and buy a Z87-A! Its not necessary, but it can be done, if you are so adamant about having these extra features, which are good, but not mandatory. I'm pointing out that better performance from Intel can be had in the form of an i5 + B85 motherboard while costing less. What feature(s) do you need that this B85 motherboard doesn't have? The only thing I can come up with is fan headers, which is an easy fix with Y splitters.

This is the least expensive option for Intel, compared to the least expensive option for AMD, which is a PROPER motherboard and FX8 vs. Compatible motherboard and i5.

After all of this, the argument for FX is the most irrational argument outside of very specific uses.

[FireFox]

Nope 64bit or did they have both?

 

I have no idea, when I'm not busy I may have to research it

[Sakkura]

Lets see the evidence. Show me a noticeable difference in gaming performance between a single 8GB stick of RAM and two sticks of 4GB. I'll save you some time: it doesn't exist.

That B85 motherboard isn't shitty, you are delusional.

 

I'm delusional? You're the one making up your own facts in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

 

Here is a comparison showing even a performance benefit going from dual channel to quad channel:

 

 

And here's single vs. dual channel in non-gaming tasks, which matter just as much as gaming:

 

 

 

[Prysin]

I've calculated the cost in Scandinavia, it is 550Kr per year, comparing a stock FX8 to a stock i5.  Overclock, and that amount increases exponentially.

 

We see plenty of people on this forum alone having problems with FX processors and 3 or 4 +1 VRM phase motherboards.  If you want to risk it, be my guest, I would never recommend it to someone else, when they are the one spending the money, and they won't be able to overclock.  For the FXs to even be competitive, they must be overclocked.

 

Stop taking personal opinion into this.  The same argument can be made for you spending that additional $30 for a better Intel system, because the difference in price is less than $30.  The B85 motherboard that I linked works perfectly well, with plenty of features.  It is not a bad motherboard, it is capable of supporting the highest end consumer grade processor that is on the market today.

 

So then spend the extra $20 and buy a Z87-A!  Its not necessary, but it can be done, if you are so adamant about having these extra features, which are good, but not mandatory.  I'm pointing out that better performance from Intel can be had in the form of an i5 + B85 motherboard while costing less.  What feature do you need that this B85 motherboard doesn't have?

 

This is the least expensive option for Intel, compared to the least expensive option for AMD, which is a PROPER motherboard and FX8. 

 

After all of this, the argument for FX is the most irrational argument outside of very specific uses.

 

Your math for KW/H is wrong, i can tell that that number is WAY off.... With all the taxes and stuff, KW/H costs 0.864 KR pr unit KW/H..... You can already see that that is EPICALLY wrong just by that. My numbers from the national beurau of statistics (SSB). And these numbers are from Q1 2015 so as fresh as you get them.

 

the difference between a 88W i5 4690k (worst case i5) and 125W FX 8320 (anything not FX 9xxx)is 37W

 

So 37W is technically 37W pr second, however this is where things get icky. the formulae is not 37x3600xrate, it is closer to W*hours used*days in a year/1000*rate pr KWH.Using that basic difference, at 24H pr day, every day use, the difference is 37*8760 (24*365)/1000*0.864

 

Which equates to 280 NOK... pretty much HALF of what you suggest. Now if we correct this for a more reasonable running time of 8 hours PR day (to simulate a work enviroment) the number becomes 37*2920 (8*365)/1000*0.864 which is 93,34 NOK....

 

Now, i pulled these formulaes off google. So they may be wrong, and seeing as i deal with power companies on a daily basis, i can tell you they are a bit low, but that is because the power companies measure secondary and tertiary induced and capacitive loads within your home to squeeze out even more money out of you (perhaps not in the states, yet, but in norway we are getting more and more advanced measuring). So realistically lets call it 300 for all year and 105 for 8 hours a day....

 

Cost difference between an 88W i5 4690k in norway and an FX 8320 is 780NOK, which is 2.5 years in electricity if you run them 24 hours a day and over 7 YEARS if you use them 8 hours a day. Below 8 hours, well... if you run a i5 4690k, or a FX 8320 7+ years from now, then i strongly question the framerates of your games....

 

Cost difference between a i5 5675c 65w broadwell vs a AMD FX 8 is:

454 NOK for 24/7 year long operation

151.3 NOK for 8 hours a day operation

 

Cost difference between FX8 and i5 5675c is 1496 NOK.... again, this discussion of power usage is ridiculous and useless since it takes several years to make up the initial costs differences.

 

Conclusion. The power difference, is a ridiculous argument Processor vs Processor.

However TOTAL system load, can be another thing entirely depending on your setup, like multiple HDD vs SSD, pumps, graphics cards etc... But now we are entering a whole new ballgame of arguments, now it is no longer AMD vs Intel or if intel IS screwing us over. Its is "power efficient vs budget". And that is an entirely different thread, for an entirely different discussion.

 

Feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

[AnonymousGuy]

Seriously. Intel has no market incentive whatsoever to add more cores to mainstream cpus. Why would they? Why should they? Up until now there has been literally no performance improvements for most programs (including 99% of games) for adding additional cores? Furthermore adding additional cores decreases stability. As to the igpu question. The market has dictated that igpu is a big deal. Tablets/phones and low end/ultrabook laptops dont have discrete graphics and for numerous years the market was indicating a massive shift towards those products (and in many ways still is). So since they don't have discrete graphics, ofc the biggest bonus they can get is from improving igpus.

All you people seem to think that desktops are in their own little world. News flash. They aren't. Intel/amd/arm doesn't build features specifically for only desktops anymore. Desktops are instead the big brothers and feature testing grounds for all the other technologies that they move into mobile devices because RIGHT NOW THAT IS WHERE THE GROWTH IS.

This isn't even me being an Intel fanboy. I would live to see more than 5-10% increases in straight power year on year but what people don't seem to realize is that anyone can just flop more cores on, make shit bigger, but in the end the real gain is energy use. If you reduce energy consumption now, then you can always scale up later (or concurrently).

This is imho 99% of the reason amd has been so fucked recently in the cpu market. They kept making their cpus bigger and bigger and didn't focus on actually improving utilization efficiencies, so when they reached the limit of how big they could make it they had to go all they way back to square one.

 

Finally someone that gets the bigger picture.

 

Also, I facepalm when I see someone bitching about lack of improvements and then you see their sig and they're using a 6 year old 920 still.  Nothing makes a company want to spend R&D dollars like watching people sit on their wallets.... :rolleyes:

 

And @OP, you're being an idiot.  The cost of entry to develop a CPU is impossibly high nowadays.  Why you think everyone licenses an ARM core design and calls it a day?  Because it's hella fucking expensive to design a core on your own.