topcaliber
n00b
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 50
Because intel likes to make $
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why must the i5 be so expensive?
- Thread starter ZodaEX
- Start date
Acer_Sheep
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
If you would had company, you wouldn't want to make money?
NEW Intel CPU for a bargain?Where's the trollface when u need it
Just in terms of price alone, the i5-3570K *is* a bargain.
Consider that it costs no more - in absolute dollars - than the G0 Q6600 did (after the price-slash-and-burn I called the Great Kentsfield Fire Sale).
The problem is that Intel has been cranking out value at low prices - starting with E/Q6600, in fact - and we aren't satisfied with that. We want greater performance, *and* we also want prices to go down in *absolute* - not merely *relative* - terms.
However, that requires that Intel actually have something in that sector it hasn't had - namely, competition. Where is AMD in the midrange (yes - I said *midrange*) CPU segment?
i5 (even in LGA1366) has been the midrange - not high-end - CPU line; each iteration of i5 has further cemented that midrange reputation. Basically the only competition that i5-3570K has in the midrange segment today is i5-2500K - with which it is directly compatible. At MicroCenter, the spread between the two is $20. Basically, it's Kentsfield vs. Lynnfield all over again.
Then there are Ultrabooks and other various sorts of portable PCs based on Ultrabooks (such as tablets, slates, and convertibles). However, note that they aren't based on dual-cores, but on quad-cores - and mostly i5. We've seen this before, and from Intel - "eat your children"; in this case, the target isn't just Llano and AMD's entire APU strategy, but even i3. Intel wants to do nothing less than make dual-core CPUs irrelevant.
maboblivion
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,586
Considering you can get a good gaming pc for under 800$ that can play everything at high settings , 200$ isn't alot. If your gaming ,the gpu will cost you alot more and if your not it'll cost you alot less.
Either way you can have a cheap performing pc or laptop for peanuts compared to a few years ago.
Either way you can have a cheap performing pc or laptop for peanuts compared to a few years ago.
Uh, no, a basic gaming computer for "high settings" is gonna cost about 1k ore more due to the current high video card prices and the PSU to go along with that.
During the Radeon HD4000 days (the few years ago you quoted), that was the time when you could get a high-end gaming computer for $800. And even then it's not "peanuts" compared to anything, it's a 20% decrease.
maboblivion
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,586
(I wasn't saying you could play high settings on a basic pc but under 800$ yeah)
If for you high-end is 3 monitors above 1080p , then sure.
I was being more conservative , leaving the sli ,crossfire, multimonitor out of it.
You got some quality psu on newegg, antec 750w 100$ and ram is cheap . Who needs 16gig of ram for gaming ? 8 gig 41$ cpu 180$ , 100$ mobo if your cheap. gpu 250$ to 400$.
You don't really need a top of the line gpu to be able to game at 1080p on 1 monitor unless you can't live without 60fps and want ultra settings on everything.
Of course if you don't have a case, windows license. Add taxes. Yeah over 1k
Do you need a better heatsink ocing a i5 or intel heatsink ok ?
At least every mobo has integrated audio now a days so thats money saved
If for you high-end is 3 monitors above 1080p , then sure.
I was being more conservative , leaving the sli ,crossfire, multimonitor out of it.
You got some quality psu on newegg, antec 750w 100$ and ram is cheap . Who needs 16gig of ram for gaming ? 8 gig 41$ cpu 180$ , 100$ mobo if your cheap. gpu 250$ to 400$.
You don't really need a top of the line gpu to be able to game at 1080p on 1 monitor unless you can't live without 60fps and want ultra settings on everything.
Of course if you don't have a case, windows license. Add taxes. Yeah over 1k
Do you need a better heatsink ocing a i5 or intel heatsink ok ?
At least every mobo has integrated audio now a days so thats money saved
And if a Llano quad was at all competitive you would not be here ranting, you have saved yourself $100 and bought it.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Expensive. LOL. If you can't afford a cpu for $200, then why don't you get something else...like that Llano.
Because It's not a big enough step up for me to upgrade to Llano, considering i'd have to replace my motherboard as well to do it. I'm also not in a big hurry to upgrade my CPU either. I'm just surprised Intel doesn't offer a low end $100 quad in order to have something to compete against AMD with in the $80-$170 Price range.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Because the dual core(i3 2100) performs better than the 8-core FX.
This just seems like a bad troll thread. You don't want to upgrade, but bitch about stuff being too expensive...wtf.
Who said anything about 8 Core AMD FX? It sounds like your the one who is trolling Iron Cross. My thread isn't about the Bulldozer
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Who said anything about 8 Core AMD FX? It sounds like your the one who is trolling Iron Cross. My thread isn't about the Bulldozer
His point is that there are much poorer performing components that cost much more.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Intel does not need to have a $100 quad. The big thing you miss is 1 AMD core is not equal to 1 Intel core. AMD typically needs 2 to 4 extra cores to match the CPU performance of an Intel processor.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Who said anything about 8 Core AMD FX? It sounds like your the one who is trolling Iron Cross. My thread isn't about the Bulldozer
If it performs better than the FX it will obviously perform better than the lower end cpus(including the cheap quads you are mentioning from AMD)
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,279
As much as I like to bash on Intel, they're prices aren't that out of line with what they've always been. I remember the lower end Core 2 Quads running $170+ and that was 3 generations ago. So considering that was 4-5 years ago and their lowest price quads are roughly the same price, that's actually not that bad a deal. Hell its video cards that are skyrocketing. The top of the line GTX295 dual video card was an astronomical $500 back in 09. Now the GTX690 is $1000.
And you know what the big thing is you missed? 2 AMD cores are faster than one Intel core while costing %50 less.
And I missed the part where you wanted a single core processor. In which case AMD has what you want. Looks like you're in luck!
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Maybe for discontinued AMD products. And only in certain workloads.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
i3 2100 costs $120...and if it beats an FX 8150 in most things..I don't think the lower end quads have any chance of beating it. So please, keep trying to bash intel and say AMD is better, but its just not true.
High-end GPUs are actually overkill for even most AAA titles - the few games that seem to demand a high-end GPU are often so poorly optimized that it takes a higher-end GPU architecture to even have them performing decently.
What's driving up the *high-end* costs are multi-GPU setups (both CrossFire and SLI) which (again, outside of poorly-coded AAA titles) are still mostly overkill - a single (as in just one) HD7850 (AMD) or GTX 560 (nVidia) is plenty for most games - and neither is $200USD. Crysis 2, in fact, got lambasted for *not* requiring ridiculous-end rigs (as the original Crysis did) - a fully-updated Crysis 2 (1.9, large textures, and DX11 patches) can be maxed by a combo of i5 and HD7750 - which doesn't even require anything power-wise beyond what comes over the PCIe bus. StarCraft II and Diablo III require even less GPU than that.
Another increased-cost driver are multi-display setups (three or more displays), which is *still* a niche market, albeit a larger niche than before.
And none of that has anything to do with the CPU; as I pointed out, the cost for i5 has been basically flat over its lifetime. Even when you factor in Q6xxx (Intel's original quad-core), new-CPU pricing since the Great Kentsfield Fire Sale has gone exactly nowhere. While pricing *has* changed, you can't exactly blame Intel for it.
For all intents and purposes. 2 Bulldozer cores = 1 Sandy Bridge core. There might be some little things that you can get nitpicky about ("but look, it performs better on my workload!") but even then, its only marginally faster.
The old Phenoms had roughly a 1.5:1 ratio, give or take a bit (on Linpack it was nearly 1:1).
A Llano performs like an i3, and is priced accordingly.
The old Phenoms had roughly a 1.5:1 ratio, give or take a bit (on Linpack it was nearly 1:1).
A Llano performs like an i3, and is priced accordingly.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Enjoying <30FPS? Crysis 2 maxed(without tesselation even) dips into the mid 30's on my setup(GTX 570 classified that replaced the gtx 460). Battlefield 3 doesn't run over 60FPS maxed. So please, stop spreading your BS.
There's something wrong with your rig then. I have an i7-860/560ti 448 and average around 70fps with everything maxed in Crysis 2. BF3 multiplayer I play with everything turned down, because I only care about frame rates.
my thread is not about bulldozer fx. Yea I get the message bulldozer sucks get over it and go troll someone elses thread please.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Do you choose to ignore everything but the bulldozer reference? You do know that none of the older ones are any better than bulldozer(except maybe Thuban but that depends). That means those cheap AMD quad cores you are talking about will be WORSE than the sandy bridge dual core.
Seriously, the FX was just to point out how much more powerful the i3 2100 is.
How can you even troll this horrible attempt at an intel bash.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Do you play with the high-res texture pack?
Maybe Precision was reporting the FPS wrong, but I didn't really enjoy the game anyways. It was even more blurry than BF3 and that was already blurry as fuck.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/23
Here you go, you must not be using the high-res/DX11 pack then, or not playing maxed.
Last edited by a moderator:
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,279
Crysis 2 can be pretty demanding. I play on max settings (DX9) and stay in the mid 40's to low 50's but the DX11 patch takes a big chunk out of the performance. Same with Batman AC.
I agree that a $200 is plenty for the majority of games out there but there are a good bunch of games where the big dawg cards would be welcome and useful.
I agree that a $200 is plenty for the majority of games out there but there are a good bunch of games where the big dawg cards would be welcome and useful.
Sorry i'm not trying to ignore your questions. I agree $120 dollars sounds fair for the i3 and i'm not bashing Intel the last rig I bought was an Intel rig........ There now that you had your attention please stop trolling my thread Iron Cross.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
What are you actually asking for/trying to accomplish with this thread? I really want to know so maybe I/others can post relevant things since everything we seem to post is irrelevant..
Don't tell me that haha tell the OP it's a bargain!! I already have an AMD. I *obviously* understand what a bargain is
4 cores for 79.99. Runs F@H and BF3 with the best Intel offers. Oh yeah that was almost 2 years ago, and I'm still wasting some pro's in BF3. I'm a complete n00b with *Real Bargain CPU [H]ardware*.A *Bargain* is a transaction that is *advantageous* to the buyer.
In my years of PC building a 200-300+ dollar CPU is never a *bargain*. My Pentium 3 wasn't a bargain. My 2500+ Barton was a bargain in 2003. My E6600 in 2006 was not. My X3 unlocked to X4 is a bargain. When you spend 2-3 hundred on a CPU and usually 100 more on a mobo and 40-50 on memory that adds up and you haven't even picked out the GPU, O.S., or a SSD yet
Yikes!Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't see the *bargain* in a 200/300$ IB CPU Quad. In fact he / OP dedicated a thread to it lmfao! Speak to him, and convince him.
My modus operandi is to spend more on my GPU than my CPU. That's what I've learned from gamer PC building in my time
Looking at your sig you might want to try that sometime. It will make you happier and less defensive in your 200/300+ CPU purchase. I think IB is awesome tech, but do I think it's 200-300+ dollars bargain awesome?? Nah.
Another point. My GF has a Intel SB laptop, it's not all that... in fact its best feature imho is heat output/battery consumption. Good thing she only plays Sims2/3 and bejeweled with it or else she might get unsatisfied with the HD3000 GPU. That and she got it free for College. Oh yeah that's a bargain as well
a free laptop that I'm posting you this on PileDriver
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28
Don't tell me that haha tell the OP it's a bargain!! I already have an AMD. I *obviously* understand what a bargain is
A *Bargain* is a transaction that is *advantageous* to the buyer.
In my years of PC building a 200-300+ dollar CPU is never a *bargain*. My Pentium 3 wasn't a bargain. My 2500+ Barton was a bargain in 2003. My E6600 in 2006 was not. My X3 unlocked to X4 is a bargain. When you spend 2-3 hundred on a CPU and usually 100 more on a mobo and 40-50 on memory that adds up and you haven't even picked out the GPU, O.S., or a SSD yet
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't see the *bargain* in a 200/300$ IB CPU Quad. In fact he / OP dedicated a thread to it lmfao! Speak to him, and convince him.
My modus operandi is to spend more on my GPU than my CPU. That's what I've learned from gamer PC building in my time
I think IB is awesome tech, but do I think it's 200-300+ dollars bargain awesome?? Nah.
Another point. My GF has a Intel SB laptop, it's not all that... in fact its best feature imho is heat output/battery consumption. Good thing she only plays Sims2/3 and bejeweled with it or else she might get unsatisfied with the HD3000 GPU. That and she got it free for College. Oh yeah that's a bargain as well
LoL
PileDriver
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28
I hope amd gets back on track.
When you get an intel cpu almost all the rest is more expensive. "board" and so on...
And also nvidia has the same tactics.
Who cares about intel.
When you get an intel cpu almost all the rest is more expensive. "board" and so on...
And also nvidia has the same tactics.
Who cares about intel.
Don't tell me that haha tell the OP it's a bargain!! I already have an AMD. I *obviously* understand what a bargain is
A *Bargain* is a transaction that is *advantageous* to the buyer.
In my years of PC building a 200-300+ dollar CPU is never a *bargain*. My Pentium 3 wasn't a bargain. My 2500+ Barton was a bargain in 2003. My E6600 in 2006 was not. My X3 unlocked to X4 is a bargain. When you spend 2-3 hundred on a CPU and usually 100 more on a mobo and 40-50 on memory that adds up and you haven't even picked out the GPU, O.S., or a SSD yet
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't see the *bargain* in a 200/300$ IB CPU Quad. In fact he / OP dedicated a thread to it lmfao! Speak to him, and convince him.
My modus operandi is to spend more on my GPU than my CPU. That's what I've learned from gamer PC building in my time
I think IB is awesome tech, but do I think it's 200-300+ dollars bargain awesome?? Nah.
Another point. My GF has a Intel SB laptop, it's not all that... in fact its best feature imho is heat output/battery consumption. Good thing she only plays Sims2/3 and bejeweled with it or else she might get unsatisfied with the HD3000 GPU. That and she got it free for College. Oh yeah that's a bargain as well
I too have an unlocked 455 @ 3.8GHz and it's not even close to an i5 much less i7. Heck, your CPU is juest bearly competing with overclocked Core 2 Quads. So please don't pretend your AMD has anything on a quad core intel. It makes you look retarded.
If AMD was even in the same ballpark in performance this thread would not exist.
Don't tell me that haha tell the OP it's a bargain!! I already have an AMD. I *obviously* understand what a bargain is
A *Bargain* is a transaction that is *advantageous* to the buyer.
In my years of PC building a 200-300+ dollar CPU is never a *bargain*. My Pentium 3 wasn't a bargain. My 2500+ Barton was a bargain in 2003. My E6600 in 2006 was not. My X3 unlocked to X4 is a bargain. When you spend 2-3 hundred on a CPU and usually 100 more on a mobo and 40-50 on memory that adds up and you haven't even picked out the GPU, O.S., or a SSD yet
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't see the *bargain* in a 200/300$ IB CPU Quad. In fact he / OP dedicated a thread to it lmfao! Speak to him, and convince him.
My modus operandi is to spend more on my GPU than my CPU. That's what I've learned from gamer PC building in my time
I think IB is awesome tech, but do I think it's 200-300+ dollars bargain awesome?? Nah.
Another point. My GF has a Intel SB laptop, it's not all that... in fact its best feature imho is heat output/battery consumption. Good thing she only plays Sims2/3 and bejeweled with it or else she might get unsatisfied with the HD3000 GPU. That and she got it free for College. Oh yeah that's a bargain as well
I feel sorry for AMD people who feel this need to try to defend their low end crap as somehow being equal to real performance parts. Enjoy what you have, but please don't preach it as performance. Your stuff is low end.Don't tell me that haha tell the OP it's a bargain!! I already have an AMD. I *obviously* understand what a bargain is
A *Bargain* is a transaction that is *advantageous* to the buyer.
In my years of PC building a 200-300+ dollar CPU is never a *bargain*. My Pentium 3 wasn't a bargain. My 2500+ Barton was a bargain in 2003. My E6600 in 2006 was not. My X3 unlocked to X4 is a bargain. When you spend 2-3 hundred on a CPU and usually 100 more on a mobo and 40-50 on memory that adds up and you haven't even picked out the GPU, O.S., or a SSD yet
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't see the *bargain* in a 200/300$ IB CPU Quad. In fact he / OP dedicated a thread to it lmfao! Speak to him, and convince him.
My modus operandi is to spend more on my GPU than my CPU. That's what I've learned from gamer PC building in my time
I think IB is awesome tech, but do I think it's 200-300+ dollars bargain awesome?? Nah.
Another point. My GF has a Intel SB laptop, it's not all that... in fact its best feature imho is heat output/battery consumption. Good thing she only plays Sims2/3 and bejeweled with it or else she might get unsatisfied with the HD3000 GPU. That and she got it free for College. Oh yeah that's a bargain as well
Lots of lulz in this post. I went over to AnandTech to see how that beefy X4 (just picked the fastest X4 they have, 3.1GHz) stacks up to a 3770K: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=551
Also the laptop you are talking about is not "free", it is priced into the tuition she paid for college. Doesn't give you much credibility making value statements without understanding that.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
Let's take it a step further and compare Intel's top of the heap mainstream part to some others:
3770K compared to the 1100T:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=203
3770K Vs. FX-8150:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=434
The way I see it is there is no better price/performance leader than the i5K and i7K no matter what it's compared to with what's out today.
Although, I am completely comfortable recommending AMD processors as alternatives for either light home use, HTPC use, or very heavy gaming where the GPU is going to matter quite a bit while driving max settings at a high resolution (1080+), then the differences aren't as noticeable when it comes to FPS. Of course, matching the appropriate processor to the intended task(s).
But on the other hand, I'm more inclined to recommend an enthusiast level motherboard (Z68, Z77) and start off with a Pentium or i3 since the motherboard will house and fully exploit any 1155 CPU for an easy and effective upgrade path (if the need should ever occur before intel and AMD both release their next gen products), much more so than upgrading a Phenom II to an FX, for example.
All in my opinion, of course...
I'm anxiously awaiting AMD's PD, but I have a feeling that it's going to be another underwhelming release. SR might be just the thing we need from AMD, but then it's going to have to trade blows with Haswell/Broadwell, and that will be interesting to see. Then the FX line refresh of Excavator Vs. Skylake in 2015. Start stocking up on popcorn now!
Exactly you have a 7950, DejaWiz has a 570.
Look at BF3 charts sometime
A 7970 limits it's performance! NOT THE CPU if we're talking Quads which I believe we are here!SO There is NO reason to blow 200-300 bucks on a CPU if you aren't willing to go SLI/CFX straight up, and simply purchase something above and beyond a 7970's performance for gaming initially. It's all wasted cash.
So you guys keep on preaching the go for a 200-300 dollar CPU, and get a GTX 480/560/570/580 or less in performance, and far weaker than even a 7970. It's simply useless when people drop that advice here, and I see it everyday from your crowd. Very annoying advice. Completely useless as well.
Or here's another one. Buy a 200-300 dollar CPU and don't get a SSD lawl.
I'll buy another CPU when it's *GASP* actually *useful and a bargain*. When I have a GPU that is beastlier than a 680GTX OC'd. Not to brag about a unrealistic benchmark score that has ZERO real world or NOTICEABLE performance because I slapped in a weak/cheap GPU, to a beast/expensive CPU combination that makes no noticeable difference in my games. You know it's a waste to do that, so why do it guys?
Last edited:
Exactly you have a 7950, DejaWiz has a 570.
Look at BF3 charts sometime
SO There is NO reason to blow 200-300 bucks on a CPU if you aren't willing to go SLI/CFX straight up, and simply purchase something above and beyond a 7970's performance for gaming initially. It's all wasted cash.
So you guys keep on preaching the go for a 200-300 dollar CPU, and get a GTX 480/560/570/580 or less in performance, and far weaker than even a 7970. It's simply useless when people drop that advice here, and I see it everyday from your crowd. Very annoying advice. Completely useless as well.
Or here's another one. Buy a 200-300 dollar CPU and don't get a SSD lawl.
I'll buy another CPU when it's *GASP* actually *useful and a bargain*. When I have a GPU that is beastlier than a 680GTX OC'd. Not to brag about a unrealistic benchmark score that has ZERO real world or NOTICEABLE performance because I slapped in a weak/cheap GPU, to a beast/expensive CPU combination that makes no noticeable difference in my games. You know it's a waste to do that, so why do it guys?
Your straw-man SSD argument, exaggerations of price differences and the pretty broad statement about real world differences make you seem way more defensive than you probably think you appear. Everyone can have their own opinion on a bargain, but your posts seem to be trying a little too hard. $170-200 for a 2500k or Ivy with a motherboard under $100 doesn't really seem like a deal breaker considering the differences in raw performance. Not everyone maxes out the eye candy just because they are above 50fps average. It's not too hard noticing the dips from a cpu bottleneck running at 1920x1080. Unless you absolutely can't spare the cash and don't care about the future, I couldn't recommend an AMD system. It's not a huge amount of difference in price considering one option is at the end of it's life and is already showing signs of being a bottleneck in more than a few games and another that will probably last a few more generations of video cards fairly easy.
Thing is, I was comparing i5 (all generations) to the immediate *Intel* predecessor processors - specifically, the LGA775 Lynnfield (dual-dual Wolfdale) and Kentsfield (dual-dual-Conroe); Kentsfield immediately came to mind because, first off, it was the original Intel quad-core (dual-dual config notwithstanding), and second, it's what I'm running today (and running Windows 8 Release Preview at that).
As old as Kentsfield is, depending on the rest of the supporting cast, it is still very relevant today. And even in its heyday, Q6600 wasn't high-end - not by a longshot, even for LGA775. Hence *midrange*.
i5 is the direct successor to Lynnfield (originally in LGA1366, than LGAs 1156 and 1155 - is there an LGA2011-based i5?). Like Lynnfield (and Q6xxx after its rejection by Apple in favor of its XEON socketmate), once the post-fire-sale pricing kicked in, it has not moved a jot since (for new quad-cores in the same place in the Intel lineup). Despite the seemingly-small difference in features compared to i7, there's a rather large difference in price between i5 and i7 (and between i5-K and i7-K - i5-K remains sub-$200, even for i5-3570K, the more expensive of the two).
The $USD200 price point (MicroCenter pricing) typically separates Intel's midrange from the high end (after the Q66xx price cuts) - that is where i5 (and even the i5 Ks) have continued to live. Celeron and Pentium are the budget/value lines in that order, i3 is the mainstream, i5 is the midrange, and i7 is the high end.
The *sweet spot* is seldom at the high-end of anything - in or out of computers; all Intel does is re-prove that every year since the launch of the original Conroe and Kentsfield.
Is there crossover between the mainstream and the midrange? Of course there is; there's always been that - and not just with CPUs, either. (Consider HD7770 and HD7850 - two AMD GPUs that cross over at the midrange price point; there's usually less than $30 separating the two. However, if you aren't going to use the exclusive-to-HD7850 features - and some won't - how do you justify the extra PCI-E power-feed requirement and extra cost to power it (outside of idle) compared to the HD7770?) The one feature i7 (and i7-K in particular) offers that i5-K lacks is HTT - it's a feature that is utterly of zero use to me - why pay for a feature I won't use? (If HD7850 isn't worth $30 more compared to HD7770, why would i7-K be worth a much taller premium compared to i5-K?)
Comparing the midrange to the high-end is apples to oranges - I won't do that, and I'm frankly surprised that anyone tries it. While comparing the mainstream to the midrange is easier (because they often DO cross over, depending on the features needed) even that can be quite bothersome - and Fusion APUs vs. i3 is a case in point. Each has their strengths and weaknesses - and I stated categorically in my original post in the thread that the APU's strength is the graphical side. (AMD has, in fact, agreed.) However, if you negate the GPU advantage by going discrete, Fusion suffers more for it than doing the same with i3, as the Fusion CPU side is underpowered compared to that of i3.