Whether you think there is competition for Intel or not the only ones resposible for improving Intel CPU's is Intel themselves.
Get real.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
4770K successor, How much better ?
- Thread starter Dicehunter
- Start date
Whether you think there is competition for Intel or not the only ones resposible for improving Intel CPU's is Intel themselves.
Get real.
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,372
- Location
- Northampton
Get real ?, What does that even mean, Get over yourself.
It's obvious that you do not know how the competitive market works.
Intel could have given us 6 or even 8 core CPU's by now that could be affordable easily but they wont because they have no real competition that is on par with them.
I really don't understand what you don't get about this or why you have to make an argument over it, It's simple market strategy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Point he is making is that you make it sound as if it is AMD that is to blame for a lack of competition, rather than market dominance. AMD simply dont have the resources to compete in the same way intel does.
No one doubts that they are capable of producing faster chips with more cores but it is circumstance which has dictated the situation: the lack of competition in a market they financially dominate has led to little motivation to release better chips. The descicion to release these chips are solely up to Intel. What makes you think that AMD could have so easily caught up to Intel, considering their more limited resources, even if they didnt buy ATI?
No one doubts that they are capable of producing faster chips with more cores but it is circumstance which has dictated the situation: the lack of competition in a market they financially dominate has led to little motivation to release better chips. The descicion to release these chips are solely up to Intel. What makes you think that AMD could have so easily caught up to Intel, considering their more limited resources, even if they didnt buy ATI?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
Intel have no incentive to speed along their product development because they are comfortably ahead of AMD. Yes, that's selfish of them, but they're a business not a charity. Intel are doing just fine so why would they release their future products early?
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,372
- Location
- Northampton
I never said that, I said and I quote "I wonder, If AMD never bought ATI would they have caught up to Intels CPU's by now ?"
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,512
- Location
- Dormanstown.
AMD has needed ATI really, they'd probably be worth off without them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
Sorry to highjack thread but could anyone answer a quick question for me please?
I'm building my mate a PC, would I be O.K getting him a 3570K instead of a 3770K? it'll be for gaming but i've been after a 3770K for performance and how long it'll last before he needs an upgrade. With the current consoles all being 8 core/thread should I still be shopping for a 3770K instead of a 3570K?
I'm building my mate a PC, would I be O.K getting him a 3570K instead of a 3770K? it'll be for gaming but i've been after a 3770K for performance and how long it'll last before he needs an upgrade. With the current consoles all being 8 core/thread should I still be shopping for a 3770K instead of a 3570K?
Your not highjacking the thread.
Depends on what sort of GPU muscle you intend to run, with a GTX 780 / 290 the i5 is fine, if you plan on running two you might like to get the i7 to get the best out of them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
He'll only have a single GPU as that's all he can afford. I'm basically trying to think how many years it'll last him before upgrading again. He's currently using a 955 Phenom that I bought and built him about 4/5 years ago so anything would be a nice upgrade.
An i5 will be a very nice upgrade from a P-II 955, it will also serve him well for a few years. plenty of performance in them.
I'm running a first gen i7 and nothing has ever made me think i need to upgrade
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
Cheers. I've been looking for a 2700K/3570K/3770K for ages, if anyone has one going for sale I have a wanted thread up on the Members Market part of this forum.
No one seems to be selling the bloody things!
No one seems to be selling the bloody things!
Cheers. I've been looking for a 2700K/3570K/3770K for ages, if anyone has one going for sale I have a wanted thread up on the Members Market part of this forum.
No one seems to be selling the bloody things!
Mostly people seem to be hanging onto them, like me, don't see any reason to upgrade, £280 for a small performance upgrade is just not worth it.
They appear on the Bay from time to time, but typically that place is full of idiots with used ones ending at as near as makes no difference full new retail price. i look regular myself, i'm willing to pay £100 for a 2600/2700K, but not a penny more for what is now and old high mileage CPU. when they do appear they often get to the point where you can't help but think "why don't you just get a brand new one for a bit more"
Intel have been getting away with 10-15% increase per generation in some applications a lot lower in others, we could only imagine what they could do if pushed, we really need AMD now more than ever to put something into the ring that makes Intel to push the envelope.
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,372
- Location
- Northampton
Exactly what I've been saying since the start of this thread but a lot of people don't understand that when there is no real competition then the advancement of products begins to stagnate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,064
I think the case might have been that Intel were trying hard but then tried harder, ie, recruited more people, took a risk by increasing R&D etc? It's often the case in business to try other things if the competion is bigger or better, it doesn't mean they were not trying hard to begin with. R&D costs lots and increases risks the more you spend.
I find it hard to believe that Intel or any technology based company would slow down development because the competition seemed to be lagging. A competitor for example could take advantage of that by either talking down their forthcoming products or releasing intermediate inferior products to fool the competition before later releasing much better products.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 403
Still see no sensible reason to upgrade from my old Phenom II tbh!
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,372
- Location
- Northampton
+1
Meh, so basically I'll be keeping my overclocked 2600k for a while longer yet then :/
I've gone though 3 graphics cards with this same i7. CPU progress has slowed to a crawl. Oh well, at least I've got my moneys worth out of it
I'll be keeping my 4770K until 2015's Skylake release and both my 780 Ti's until the more mature 20NM process is out *Hopefully* in 2015 as well