[Solved] NewEgg still wants $245 for the AMD 965.

The i5 does not walk all over the 965. And retailers dont adjust prices due to how well or bad the competing company's chips are. The chip makers do that.

Stop this Intel fanboy nonsense.

+2

the i5 doesn't walk all over the 965
and i still think that's great performance for $245 considering that all the other existing hardware needed is cheap

The I5 walks all over the 965. 22 out of 25 tests in a and a tech's comparo. Love all the amd fanboi's thinking the 965 isn't a piece of *** when in reality it is.

The 965 has a 700mhz advantage in clock speed over the 750 and it STILL gets beaten down by the 750. Cry for us Amd Fanboi's

How is it irrelevant when its the only thing keeping the x4 close to the 750

Easy. Clock speed means nothing between to different archs.. If one has a 700mhz clock speed advantage and it is competing in the same market segment as the lower clocked cpu that is what matters. The AMD has a higher base black. The Intel has turbo/HT.. well not in the case of the I5. Point is you compare cpus/systems that cost about the same to build and see whats better.

"The 965 has a 700mhz advantage in clock speed over the 750 and it STILL gets beaten down" Keep in mind that turbo will make up alot of the 700mhz anyways.

Doesn't the I5 "Turbo" up to 3.2Ghz for most of those tests that it is compared to a 3.4Ghz Phenom II? Not to much of a clock speed difference there.

Yeah I agree the I5 is better, but it doesn't really walk all over the Phenom II. However the Phenom II does need a price cut now that the I5 was released. It's a matter of when AMD does the cut, not the retailer.

Whaaa?

I quote from Tom's article...

"The engineering sample we're using runs at 2.66 GHz by default and supports a single bin of Turbo Boost acceleration, locking it in at 2.8 GHz."

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 379-2.html

For a cpu rated at 2.66 ghz and binned by the turbo at 2.8 ghz, yeah, that's called walking all over the amd offering especially since it's priced lower. Hmmm, the AMD is more expensive, less performance, clocked 700 mhz higher, meaning less room for overclocking and I ain't going to get into detail with overclocking... Overall, this has got to be the worst beatdown I've seen in the cpu market yet.

Not only did you people count you chickens before they hatched, you tried to count the eggs before they were layed... Not good at all...

@Someguy

I suppose your a novice and never heard of overclocking.

@psychosaysdie

They just don't get it do they?...

Glad someone could see the truth.

Yeah, I did, but obviously you didn't because I don't see no 965 Deneb in that article. I don't see what's so funny either.

I just have to laugh at the statements being made about the I5's beating down the Phenom II's. MY PII does everything I need it to do, runs very stable at 3.6 ghz, is a great processor for my gaming rig and who cares about some bench marks, I care about real world performance and the Phenom II's handle that just fine. To say that the Phenom II's are a $hit processor is just a pure fanboy statement.

Looking at the new release on the 1156 socket's for Intel also makes me laugh, because they are releasing this as a main stream product line, and yet looking at the price's for the I7 860 and 870 your looking at $300-580 dollars just to get into there main stream products plateform. Looks like just another socket release from Intel to get you money. Don't get me wrong, sure the bench's look good for the new I5's and I7's on the 1156 socket. However, we all know that Intel does well on alot of the benchs compared to AMD, to base a purchase based only on Benchs, is just a waste of money. I will stick with my Phenom II 940 b.e. at 3.6ghz and wait for the 5800's cards to come out and really upgrade my build when they do.

If all you fanboys want to give Evil Intel (the evil empire) your money, then please feel free to do so.

AMD for life!

Who cares about the price on the 965. Atleast AMD doesn't try to charge $580-$1000 dollars for there flagship processor, and release the same processors at lower clocks(2.66ghz) for $300 dollars, knowing that you can just OC it to the performance level of there flagship processor. If I wasn't happy with my rig, I would just buy a 955 B.E. and call it a day, at $185 dollars looks like a very good deal to me.

You do know that back in the day AMD used to charge $1000 for their flagship desktop parts, right?

They don't do it now because they simply can't, their processors aren't good enough.

Fist off all the I5 750 clocks up to 3.2Gghz.

The AMD 965 was overpriced even before the new Intel cpus. Yes it is clocked higher but they can still overclock. Yes please dont go into details about overclocking. Considering that you dont even know the specs of the one of the chips we are talking about...

Overall this by far NOT the worst beatdown in the the cpu market yet. When did you start to pay attention the cpu market? Last week maybe?

For all you rabid Intel fanboys here. I am not saying the AMD is a better chip. It always was overpriced. What is not is a piece of sh#T. It does not get walked all over by the i5 750.

The i5 is better and will force to AMD to drop prices. You Intel fanyboys are just as bad as the resident AMD trolls we got around here.

Here is a classic from physco "Here's what i learned from that article. Clock for clock the X4 gets destroyed by the I5. The X4 needs that 700mhz advantage to stay with the 750. Without it it just plain sucks" Again with the clock speed. Great logic there. Just as bad as the AMD trolls. Compare the cpus as is. None of this without that and that it sucks. IT HAS IT. i5 has turbo and it works great. Turn it off and match the clocks of the two cpus is if you really want a clock per clock comparison. Which you don't. You just simply want to wave your Intel pom poms.

For a processor at about 2.8 ghz to beat a 3.4 ghz cpu in almost all benchmarks and priced 50 dollars lower? That's beat downs man. I don't know where you've been but that's horrible. And, I did say "overall".

Perhaps, I don't know the specifications of the chips, and I ain't claiming to be an expert on it, but that's a quote from Tom's website and I linked to it, so unless your telling Tom's to wave their pom pom's, I suggest you take a back seat with the rest of the chumps.

To the rest of your comments, you got your facts twisted man. Read the article...

The only ugly trolls here are the people that are putting in opinions without getting their facts straight.

Not since they lost the performance crown some 3+ years ago. Of course, if you check K8 prices from some 5 years ago, you'll see that AMD is like any other company - they charged a really hefty premium for the best you could buy at the time.

Your only making yourself look worse by pointing out that the chip was crippled and is not like the retail version which would in turn really slaughter the 965 which happens to be AMD's TOP OFFERING. And it can't beat Intel's lower offering that's priced at a lower 200 dollars? What they were trying to say is that, the chip is actually better than the engineering sample they received. Did you even bother to read that quote before you posted it?

Let's weigh this out shall we? So fine, let's say 600 mhz disadvantage, 50 dollars cheaper for the Intel cpu, overall a decent platform would be about the same for both... And we all know the story with most AMD overclocks compared to Intel's.

Also, your talking about two different articles here...

Yeah, how's that back seat btw?

Trolling is basically when somebody is ranting just to rant or to start trouble. And since your contradicting yourself that's like looking yourself in the mirror and finding out that you really are a troll.

Btw, my comments were comical punchlines and sayings.

Here's the other link just for reference.

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2403.html

@technologycoordinator

Yeah, of course, but hey, they make good cpu chips, so whatever.

If your going to qoute me faz, please read the follow up before you do. I think I pointed out in my thoughts on All companys doing the same, however let me ask you this. When AMD was charging the hefty price for there top line back then, what was Intel charging for there top line?

When I said who cares what there charging for the 965 is because two points,

1. go with the 955 for only $185 same processor, 200mhz less clock speed, which mutes threedonsense point of Phenom II's getting spanked, walked on, whatever by the new I5's and the price point he brings up to even further his fanboy statements.

2. Amd is not charging at this point in the game, 3x the amount for there higher end processor. As I have said before, paying $600-1000 dollars to any company for a chip is a complete joke! I am sure that every company wants to make a profit, but $600-$1000 dollars for the same chip, just higher clocks is crazy.

As I have said many times, for people who really need to have the extra power a Intel I7 brings to the table, and are using that chip to make money as a living then it is not so crazy or a waste. However, my Phenom II 940 b.e. at 3.6ghz works just fine for me. It handles everything that I throw at it with out even stressing it. So no it is not a $hit processor as one has stated, and since it handles everything I can throw at it which is alot, at what point do you just say I don't need more power out of a CPU? Both Phenom II's and I7's are good CPU's and the I5's also appear to be good CPU's, but there is one big difference in pricing between the two companys, (how they price there chips) I choose not to support a company by buying there CPU's that mark up there so called flagship processors 3x of the amount of a there lowerend high performance chips that can OC to the same performance level of the $1000 dollar CPU's they sell. I am not saying they shouldn't mark up there higher clocked chips, IMO though, a $600-800 price premium for them, is just wrong. If the shoe was on the other foot right now or if Intel processors really did just walk all over Phenom II's right now in real world performance, I would be buying Intel processors right now instead of AMD. Truth is this, Intels processors in real world performance, gaming, do not show such a big difference to justify me buying there CPUs over AMD. I think there are alot of people out there that feel the same as I do.

@TC
And BTW the evil Intel remark was just

How about we run some benchmarks? And hey, I only got an e5200 overclocked to 4.0 ghz on air. Nothing for you to sweat about of course. Pffft. You ain't got nothing to worry about, my whole system cost less than only your cpu excluding my 100 dollar wireless keyboard and mouse.

I'm tired of these people ranting false comments, let's see what your system can do...

To each their own you know? Personally, I'm already trying to ditch my e5200 as of now. LOL!

Why aren't people comparing the i5 with the 955? I think it's wrong that people say i5 stomps over the 965, when in terms of real-life applications, they almost perform the same.

I just bought a 955 a few days ago knowing that I had no interest in Intel since they seem to launch a new socket every year or two. I mean it's great if people want to upgrade every year or two, but it's a nice thought that with AMD, you can upgrade just a CPU, not the motherboard and CPU altogether.

AMD is still great for the money. Intel will always perform better, but why pay more for the same thing? I'm a gamer and I don't need the extra performance Intel offers. I would prefer to put more of my hard-earned money into a graphics card than a CPU. (Hence getting a $250 4890 Toxic with a $190 955)

Because that way it wil not work fine for AMD. The enthusiast sector usually go with high-end dual-GPU solutions, a sector where i7 and 1366 is clearly winning since the PII bottleneck high-end GPUs on SLI or XFire. The enthusiast sector has never gone with PII since 1366. An enthusiast want the best experience without caring too much about money. i7 is the clear winner here and AMD really didn't care to compete there.

The problem of AMD right now is that before i5-i7 for 1156 they had the mainstream sector with their very good CPUs at low price points for single GPUs users. Now that i5 and 1156 has come they are in trouble since they don't have the advantage nor in price nor in speed in that same sector as before. Before the advent of the 1156 platform mainstream users usually chosed AMD for the low price considering that single GPU gaming comes down to the better GPU one can have (a thing that saving on the CPU cost will achieve fine). If one used the PC other than gaming things were a bit different but let's not consider it here.

Now that AMD has not the same price-win situation in the mainstream sector they will have to drop prices to compete. Intel had the enthusiast sector in his hand before, now it has also the manistream one if prices don't drop and even if they do they will have some difficult times indeed.

I agree with you there, not on the 965 being too expensive but that they should cut prices for the rest of the line to stay competitive. Since 965 is their flagship, the price has to be high to indicate that it's their flagship. What I meant in my earlier post was 965 isn't being too expensive because it is their flagship, but other chips (955 and below) are being too expensive because they can afford to cut price and they have to, in order to stay competitive. I'm for Intel being the more value for money but against the thread starter and some others calling 965 too expensive because it just simply has to.

For those of you who still do not understand the business sense, consider Mercedes AMG. It's not the fastest car neither is it value for money. But it is because that it's their flagship, it just has to be at the level.

You have misunderstood the point about being a flagship. The 965 is not competing against Intel's i5. Yes you're right about it getting beaten but AMD wants itself a slice of the pie in the enthusiast market too. Though it has been outperformed, it is still there to compete, not against the i5 but the 1366 i7. It is still a choice for consumers, either the cheaper 965, or the 1366 i7. Sure as consumers it may not make sense, but this is a business logic.

It should make sense once I draw a chart out for you but I just don't have the time right now. Just think about this, the market consists of segments. Right now, we're seeing low-end, mainstream and enthusiasts. AMD was doing very well in the low-end and mainstream and struggled slightly in the enthusiasts before i5 came out. Now that i5 is out, AMD struggles in 2 markets, mainstream and enthusiasts. In order to secure the mainstream, they will have to do price cuts. As for enthusiast, there's just so much that they can do, unless they can hurry R&D and production of Thuban which is unlikely to be out anytime soon. If 965 is dropped in price to lower than i5, which is a newly defined mainstream, then that means AMD is not getting a share of the pie in the enthusiast segment. Meaning, they will have no more enthusiast share. This is not wise to do unless they are really struggling hard financially, which of course they are not.

They should cut prices, but not the 965. Only 955 and below. However, down to the end, it'd be AMD's decision, not my call

Whats amd's roadmap look like? What's coming out next for them? I might trash amd a lot but i only do it because people love to bicker. Amd coming out with a 6 core processor? When? Price? Clock speed? The X4 has a shot but not at it's current price. How does the 955 compare against the I5? I imagine alittle less then the 965. The question you have to ask yourself is this. How many people are going to spend the same amount of money for a 955 when amd's flagship 965 can't even eclipse's intel's 199 dollar processor? I understand people hate intel so they buy amd but at what end? It's not a smart buy if your just picking amd because you can't stand what intel does. Intel makes great product's. They're in business to make money. Just like everyone else in the world.