jigger said:

Intel make a killing either way.

Motherboard sales are in the toilet. The reason for that is Intel's strategy of charging a fortune for chips and offering nothing over 5 years.

Click to expand...

I'm going to keep posting this every time someone tries to claim Intel have ramped up prices for there consumer cpu's of late...

Its simply not true that Intel have ramped up the price of their I7 CPU's over previous gens in recent years.

The price we pay fluctuates due to the £/$ exchange rate and (especially with Skylake) shortages in the retail channels (in was candidly admitted on these forums last year by a member of ocuk staff that retailers in general were making much larger percentages than normal on Skylake chips as the demand was far outstripping the supply so retailers could charge a bigger premium.)

I have previously demonstrated that Intel have NOT ramped up their pricing in recent years... Its just not true!

Previously posted........

Check out the launch bulk prices (i.e. what Intel sell on to retailers OEM’s etc) for the previous ‘top end’ i7 consumer socket four core/ eight thread CPU’s over the past four years


http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/85...-14nm-skylake/

Launch 1ku prices

6700k $350 - August 2015
5775c $366
4790k $339
4770k $339
3770k $313
2700k $332 - October 2011


Allowing for inflation (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ ) from 2011 to 2015 plugging the 2700k value in gives an inflation adjusted price of…………………….


Drum roll


$351.20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 6700k is a 14nm CPU so where is the premium Intel charged for the CPU new over the previous gen Broadwell (which they asked more for! - probably due to the iGPU) and over the gen before that, Haswell, where they asked for a whole $11 dollars less.

Haswell to Skylake is 22nm to 14nm with a whole new CPU design to cost for

Haswell-E to Broadwell-E is the same design shrunk from 22nm to 14nm i.e. probably cheaper to deal with then a new CPU design

Oh and if you factor in inflation for the 4770k (march 2013) to 2015 the price goes from 339 to 346
so basically adjusted for Inflation Intel's 4c/8t top end cpu pricing has remained pretty much unchanged despite spending 'billions' in the mean time to develop new designs on smaller processes.......


Intel's first breakthrough quad the q6600 cost $851 on launch in January 2007 reduced to $266 in July 2007


$266 2007 dollars adjusted to 2015 money is well over $300 dollars for what would have by then not been a top end consumer part with the q6700 and qx6850 above it

Recent inter generational frequency and ipc improvements have been lacklustre but this clearly has more to do with physics then Intels retail strategy as evidences by the difficulties everyone else is having getting new mass market small fab designs to market....

Caracus2k said:

I'm going to keep posting this every time someone tries to claim Intel have ramped up prices for there consumer cpu's of late...

Its simply not true that Intel have ramped up the price of their I7 CPU's over previous gens in recent years.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to claim anything. Maybe instead of copy and pasting a reply you should focus on what you are replying to

You're not taking node size price reductions into consideration. Intel are making a fortune and will sell chips regardless.

mmj_uk said:

...and what of AMD's strategy? at least Intel are still releasing new products for them to make money off.

At the end of the day motherboard manufacturers aren't forced to make motherboards for Intel, if they are still releasing new motherboards then they obviously feel there is still money to be made. Attempting to increase their own sales by biting the only hand that is currently feeding them is simply asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

Retail motherboard sales are down 21% and expected to continue falling. The DIY user is not interested in paying a premium for next to no extra performance and for all the non OEM makers thats bread and butter.

http://www.customstoday.com.pk/tag/global-diy-motherboard-shipments-to-drop-21-7-in-2015/

P4Clock said:

why is everything down to amd all the time, overclocks had stock when the prices changed... its down to demand and shops

Click to expand...

Everything is AMD's fault to him the fact its raining today is probably their fault too.

P4Clock said:

why is everything down to amd all the time, overclocks had stock when the prices changed... its down to demand and shops

Click to expand...

Hardware cults, don't speak ill of my cult, its the other guys fault.

jigger said:

I'm not trying to claim anything. Maybe instead of copy and pasting a reply you should focus on what you are replying to

You're not taking node size price reductions into consideration. Intel are making a fortune and will sell chips regardless.

Click to expand...

I was pretty focused on what you were saying.

You claimed motherboard sales were low because of Intel charging a fortune and offering nothing for five years.

I suggested that the slow progress was more to do with physics and that Intel's pricing structure has been pretty much consistent since at least the 2600k era.

A smaller process may mean more chips from a wafer but you should appreciate that the material costs of a cpu make up a small part of the price with the largest component being the sunken research and development costs.....

There's just too many people on the internet blaming Intel for things that there not responsible for. Back in the p4 days Intel hoped to get netburst chips to 10ghz+. However the quickly realised that physics prevented this.

If Intel could make chips that ran over 5ghz consistently believe me they would.

If motherboard sales are down then by inference cpu sales are likey to be down as well. But without any competition and with an increasing difficult task ahead to produce new cpu's it doesn't make sense for Intel to slash their pricing just to boost sales by 20%. With the yield issues they have had with skylake it would be particularly stupid to do this as they have struggled to met retail channel demand in any case.

mmj_uk said:

Blame AMD for not offering any competition, they could have released Steamroller/Excavator based processors on AM3+ (or even developed a better architecture based on K10 by now) but didn't, so Intel effectively have a monopoly.

Click to expand...

Maybe they would have done if Intel hadn't paid people to use their chips over AMDs.

Caracus2k said:

I was pretty focused on what you were saying.

You claimed motherboard sales were low because of Intel charging a fortune and offering nothing for five years.

I suggested that the slow progress was more to do with physics and that Intel's pricing structure has been pretty much consistent since at least the 2600k era.

A smaller process may mean more chips from a wafer but you should appreciate that the material costs of a cpu make up a small part of the price with the largest component being the sunken research and development costs.....

There's just too many people on the internet blaming Intel for things that there not responsible for. Back in the p4 days Intel hoped to get netburst chips to 10ghz+. However the quickly realised that physics prevented this.

If Intel could make chips that ran over 5ghz consistently believe me they would.

If motherboard sales are down then by inference cpu sales are likey to be down as well. But without any competition and with an increasing difficult task ahead to produce new cpu's it doesn't make sense for Intel to slash their pricing just to boost sales by 20%. With the yield issues they have had with skylake it would be particularly stupid to do this as they have struggled to met retail channel demand in any case.

Click to expand...

Intel made 3.1 billion last quarter. All intel chips are sold at a very healthy profit. ASRock would boost the sale of CPU's and chipsets a little. Intel make a killing either way...

Poor old Intel

jigger said:

I'm not trying to claim anything. Maybe instead of copy and pasting a reply you should focus on what you are replying to

You're not taking node size price reductions into consideration. Intel are making a fortune and will sell chips regardless.

Click to expand...

Yep - he does not get that a Skylake Core i7 6700 is the smallest Intel quad core outside an Atom. IIRC,the die size of SB Core i3 was bigger.



Its around 122MM2. IIRC,desktop Haswell Core i3 CPUs were die salvaged 4C/8T parts so were around 177MM2.

IIRC,according to Intel bumpf 14NM was more orientated towards increased density and improved production costs.

Global motherboard shipments have fallen nearly 22% last year too:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18714356

jigger said:

Intel made 3.1 billion last quarter. All intel chips are sold at a very healthy profit. ASRock would boost the sale of CPU's and chipsets a little. Intel make a killing either way...

This poor old Intel

Click to expand...

Intel are not a charity they have shareholders who expect performance. In part Intel can only afford to sell some cpu's cheaper because they can charge a premium for others. If they sold all the dies on a wafer at the lowest price they would charge otherwise they would soon be bankrupt.you will notice that Intel sell far more than just cpu's and they seem to have rapidly diversified tgeee portfolio of late I suspect to offset the increasing difficulties they have and will continue to face selling cpu's whist still making a good return on their investments

Take for example the 6400k with a recommend box price nearly half the 6700k ($350) at $187

http://ark.intel.com/m/products/881...-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz#@product/specifications

It is essentially the same cpu as the 6700k if Intel sold all skylake cpu's at 6400 prices they would soon be in trouble

Caracus2k said:

Some other stuff thats got nothing to do with anything

Click to expand...

Intel have more money than they can make use of and have always run like this. You really have no clue just how massive a firm Intel is

jigger said:

Intel have more money than they can make use of and have always run like this. You really have no clue just how massive a firm Intel is

Click to expand...

Yep and he forgets they wasted billions of dollars on Itanium and they are using all the extra money they are making on desktop to help fund their foray into tablets and phones.

Want to know why we are seeing all those cheap tablets and laptops with Atom?? Intel has been throwing billions of dollars at it and selling Atom chips for next to nothing for a while now.

This is what they have been doing recently:

http://hexus.net/business/news/comp...one-get-one-free-cpu-deal-xiaomi-says-report/

All made on 14NM too.

So tiny desktop chips sold at massive margins,which are use to subsidise or give away free Atom chips.

Plus also the Broadwell Core i5/Core i7 desktop chips are MASSIVE.

With the L4 cache, the Broadwell quad core chips are around 300MM2 in size and are made on the same process node as Skylake.

So if they could sell those for around the same price as a Core i7 6700,it shows Skylake is more about increasingly margins on desktop and laptop.

If you don't like what Intel do you could always buy an AMD instead.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:

Yep - he does not get that a Skylake Core i7 6700 is the smallest Intel quad core outside an Atom. IIRC,the die size of SB Core i3 was bigger.



Its around 122MM2. IIRC,desktop Haswell Core i3 CPUs were die salvaged 4C/8T parts so were around 177MM2.

IIRC,according to Intel bumpf 14NM was more orientated towards increased density and improved production costs.

Global motherboard shipments have fallen nearly 22% last year too:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18714356

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the die size of skylake cpu's I'm also aware of the massive yield issues Intel have gleaning many top end cpu's from a wafer somewhat eliminating the potential gains from the smaller process....

Not to mention Intel have been keeping state of the art fabs open and running at 20% capacity for hell of it since time began.

What Intel's fab engineers do all day


But today instead of adding fun they take it away

Emmo's

jigger said:

Intel have more money than they can make use of and have always run like this. You really have no clue just how massive a firm Intel is

Click to expand...

As you cant even be bothered to quote my post ill consider my points made. I am also well aware how big a company Intel are. You seem to misunderstand how stock market listed companies run and seem to think that Intel are just sitting on a big pile of money overcharging us all for cpu's for ***** and giggles. If they had always run the way you suggest then they would have been out of business years ago. Id be interested to see a source showing that the fabs producing skylake cpu's at running at anything like 20% potential capacity given then massive costs of the machinery involved with the associated deprecation costs involved... I suspect it may be just another load of nonsense

Intel make a killing, always have and probably always will. This rubbish about how dangerous and costly ASRock are to them, and how expensive it is for Intel to produce chips is comical.

Caracus2k said:

I'm well aware of the die size of skylake cpu's I'm also aware of the massive yield issues Intel have gleaning many top end cpu's from a wafer somewhat eliminating the potential gains from the smaller process....

Click to expand...

They can't be having that bad issues if the Broadwell Core i7 chips are double the size and sell for the same price as the Core i7 6700 and are made on the same process node!!

Also,all the mobile ULV Skylake Core i3 chips which have an expanded Iris IGP like the 540 and 550 ,probably have a similar die size to the desktop Core i5 and Core i7 chips as mobile Core i3. It would not surprise me if all the mobile Skylake Core i3 chips share the same die.

It was the case with the Haswell Core i3 ULV chips with the HD5100 IGP which was around the same as the 4C/8T desktop parts with the HD4600.

Its more the case that Intel is using higher desktop margins to subsidise more of the 14NM Atom chips to OEMs:

http://hexus.net/business/news/comp...one-get-one-free-cpu-deal-xiaomi-says-report/

They have spent billions of dollars on the last few years giving away or subsidising Atom chips made on bleeding edge process nodes.

How do you think Intel is still showing decent profits and margins after loosing billions on Atom so far??

It comes from increasing margins in areas like the desktop and servers.

jigger said:

Intel make a killing, always have and probably always will. This rubbish about how dangerous and costly ASRock are to them, and how expensive it is for Intel to produce chips is comical.

Click to expand...

Do you seriously think Intel could sell all their Skylake desktop CPU's at 6400 prices (just over half the cost of the 6700K) and not run into trouble?

If so not I suggest you never go into business yourself!

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:

They can't be having that bad issues if the Broadwell Core i7 chips are double the size and sell for the same price as the Core i7 6700 and are made on the same process node!!

Also,all the mobile ULV Skylake Core i3 chips which have an expanded Iris IGP like the 540 and 550 ,probably have a similar die size to the desktop Core i5 and Core i7 chips as mobile Core i3. It would not surprise me if all the mobile Skylake Core i3 chips share the same die.

It was the case with the Haswell Core i3 ULV chips with the HD5100 IGP which was around the same as the 4C/8T desktop parts with the HD4600.

Its more the case that Intel is using higher desktop margins to subsidise more of the 14NM Atom chips to OEMs:

http://hexus.net/business/news/comp...one-get-one-free-cpu-deal-xiaomi-says-report/

They have spent billions of dollars on the last few years giving away or subsidising Atom chips made on bleeding edge process nodes.

How do you think Intel is still showing decent profits and margins after loosing billions on Atom so far??

It comes from increasing margins in areas like the desktop and servers.

Click to expand...

Intel are aware of the coming issues selling high power desktop CPU's given the limits of physics with current available tech and obviously need to diversify...