I'm not surprised, intel is all about the profits and don't even really try to compete. Sure they make great processors, but at the price they charge, it's just not worthwhile for most people. Greedy. Rather than lower their prices or accept less profit margins, they'd cut jobs just to churn more pocket profit.     I really hate how companies treat the economy like every year they need to make more money than the last, because that's entirely unsustainable.     Paying as much as 200% more for a product that gives maybe a 40% boost over some AMD processors is really not a good price to performance ratio.    Right now, AMD's 8 core vischera is typically faster than Intels best i7, or on par.         Let's compare:    The AMD FX 9590 is a 4.7Ghz 8 core processor and is $299 on newegg, and $399 with a liquid cooling kit. But you can easily go with an 8350 @ 4ghz ($200) or an 8320 @ 3.5ghz too ($150), which includes the heatsinks. This puts some serious power within the reach of consumers budget.    Meanwhile, the i7 4770 is around $310, without liquid cooling, the 3930 i7 is around $570. And the newer i7 4960 is over $1000, which is only around 20-30% faster than the 9590 on average.    Really, unless you're something like a professional 3d rendering company where time = boat loads of money, to justify the cost, the i7 just isn't worth it. There's power saving with the i7 too, but that really only matters greatly if you're trying to build a giant supercomputer.    Intel is just over priced.    Not to mention, intels motherboards often costs more too, adding even more to the cost.    Even then, the power differences might only mean the difference of $100 per year in electricity usage per processor. That adds up, sure, but...          Let's say you build a network with 1000 i7-4960 processors that consume 130w that costs $1000. Then lets say you build an AMD network with 1000 9590's @ 220w @ $399 w/ liquid cooling in each unit.    At 12 cents per kilowatt hour, running 24/7 for a year, the AMD's will cost about $100,000 more in electricity costs. But the Intel processors themselves will cost over $600,000 more just to buy.      And with that on board liquid cooling, you'll be able to reduce costs of air conditioning server rooms, while reducing required space, which further reduces air conditioning costs.    So even despite all the factors, the AMD's still win out and make more sense even for professional purposes. You'd even be able to add more AMD processors to make up for the performance difference and still save money. Even for consumer purposes, you'd have to run the Intel processor for 6 years just to break even on the price difference in electrical costs, over AMD processors. So Intel users think they're saving money by running a lower wattage CPU, when in reality the extra cost actually negates any electrical savings.        Of course, Intel fanboys won't see this.    Intel? More like Jewtel.