Why is Intel SO EXPENSIVE???

[karma charger]

Just recently, i was on tiger direct looking for mobo cpu combos. i had a quad core with a good mobo for about $130. Then i decided to see what Intel had. I went and set the price to $100-$150. i noticed that they only had dual cores and some only at 2.5Ghz. WTF!?!?!?!? why??? does anyone know why intel is so expensive, and why people actually buy them dual cores over quad cores?

 

[jamesd1981]

intel is so expensive because like microsoft they are arrogant pigs, they are by far the best company in their field and they know so they charge far more than their products are worth just like microsoft

 

[Shane]

Intel do tend to be more expensive,However i actually think their new Sandy Bridge Series are decently priced and well worth the asking price,Their 1136 line is is overpriced though imo.

 

[PohTayToez]

Right now I don't think Intel has a very good selection of lower end CPUs. Last I checked, the i5s and i7s are better than similarly priced AMD chips, but on the cheaper end you can't beat the Phenom IIs when it comes to price vs performance.

Also, number of cores and clock speed (GHz) does not directly correspond to performance, and is not really a good way to compare processors of difference series. For certain uses it would make sense to get a dual core that has better performance per core than a quad core that is technically capable of considerable overall better performance. I believe that most programs these days still do no utilize more than one core.

 

[fastdude]

Intel > AMD if your budget is ~>$700
AMD generally offers better bang for buck below the 500-600 dollar mark, but this isn't always the case (think core i3-5**) It depends on what you're using your PC for too, obviously. Better a cheap AMD quad core if you edit video or play RTS games.

The reason I'd go for Intel if AMD had a chip with double the cores at the same price can be found here: OC ability.

 

[spynoodle]

I don't see what you mean. The cheapest quad core CPU from AMD is $100<.

Long story short, for <$200, AMD does provide better bang for the buck when it comes to quad cores. Still, if you benefit from two faster cores rather than 4 slower ones, Intel is a lot better. Take, for example, the i3 540. It's a bit slower than the Athlon II 645 in applications designed to take advantage of 4 cores, but in programs that only use 2 cores or less (which is still a lot of programs), the i3 540 performs better. It all depends on what you need. Intel is in desperate need of some cheaper quads, but unless you know that you can use all 4 cores, you'll be better off with Intel.