You don't need too I actually provided a couple of examples. The 6900K is the Q9650 or i7 980 of this generation, it's a £400-500 chip that retails at £1000 purely because Intel know people will pay that as there is no alternative and they have overpriced their entire lineup to maximise profits.
-
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.
AMD 8 core RYZEN price
- Thread starter cosmogenesis
- Start date
That makes no sense the production and r+d costs for a broadwell-e enthusiast cpu are not going to be the same as the two other cpu's you refer to.
You have also completely ignored that the £1000 price reflects the weak £/$ rate with the 5960x with the same dollar price point costing more like £800 when the exchange rate was better
If intel sold cpu's for half their current prices whilst maintaining their current r+d spend they would lose lots of money - a demonstratable fact
If intel cut out their r+ d spend they would similarly lose money in the long run with no new products developed to sell in years to come.
It doesn't matter what you or any other forum member **thinks** a cpu should sell for. It only matters what intel can sell whilst not losing money.
You proved **** all with your half baked argument based on what **you** think intel should be doing with their pricing
Last edited:
You don't have an argument. The 6900K costs twice as much as a 6850K and 2.5x a 6800K. For all intents an purposes all you're getting is 2 extra cores. This is why their prices are out of whack.
Pretty much no company prices its products in a linear fashion. Its extremely common practise to sell the higher performing / more exotic parts for a lot more money because 1) they sell in a smaller volumes then the more mass produced parts so cost more per unit
And 2) it's known that consumers' / businesses will pay a premium for the best performing parts and so companies can afford to make less money on other parts if the cutting edge parts (that cost the big $$$'s to bring to market before the tech filters down) can make good margins
It makes no more sense to expect CPU prices to linearly scale with cores/ Mhz et them it would to expect a super car to cost twice the cost of my family hatch back because it can **only** drive twice as fast!
Well certainly not by your arguments because you don't have any! Still waiting for you to submit something sensible...wont hold my breath
Problem is people posting some absolute nonsence about a top flight Ryzen cpu that equals or beats a £1000 intel cpu performance wise costing the same as intel's current mainstream 6700k offering despite all the evidence showing AMD charging a premium price when they had/thought they had a premium product previously!
You had no argument you still don't have an argument it would appear..
if all you have got is ad hominem and gif's then your debating style lacks somewhat I would suggest
Last edited:
AMD are in a tough spot because for a loyal AMD customer a near I7 price tag may be hard to swallow. Then again if it's performing as well as it looks like it is then why not?
AMD will undercut Intel because they HAVE to regardless of the tech, to sway the consumers.
The absolute best thing to come from this though will be the good kick up the arse for Intel, who seem to have been coasting along. Yeah sure they've leaped forward but you can tell that without the pressure of competition they haven't exactly been spending as much as they could have done on R&D
If this leads to some sort of CPU arms race, the future may be getting brighter for tech.
AMD will undercut Intel because they HAVE to regardless of the tech, to sway the consumers.
The absolute best thing to come from this though will be the good kick up the arse for Intel, who seem to have been coasting along. Yeah sure they've leaped forward but you can tell that without the pressure of competition they haven't exactly been spending as much as they could have done on R&D
If this leads to some sort of CPU arms race, the future may be getting brighter for tech.
All we have to go on regarding pricing is potential leaks and rumours - albeit some coming from previously reliable sources. Otherwise it's just speculation.
Those potential leaks have: Ryzen 8c16t @ $500, Ryzen 6c12t @ $300, and 4c8t @ $150
(e.g. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3149...h-will-amds-zen-cost-heres-what-we-think.html).
If (and it's a big if) AMD hit those prices - it will be the biggest shake up of the desktop CPU market since Sandy Bridge launched. If AMD just slighly undercuts equivalent performing Intel Chips - nothing much changes really.
Those potential leaks have: Ryzen 8c16t @ $500, Ryzen 6c12t @ $300, and 4c8t @ $150
(e.g. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3149...h-will-amds-zen-cost-heres-what-we-think.html).
If (and it's a big if) AMD hit those prices - it will be the biggest shake up of the desktop CPU market since Sandy Bridge launched. If AMD just slighly undercuts equivalent performing Intel Chips - nothing much changes really.
Intel spend much more money on r+d then most of the rest of the big tech companies combined... Totally eclipisng AMD's spend
http://techreport.com/news/28033/report-amd-r-d-spending-falls-to-near-10-year-low
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
These are fantasy wishlists more than anything ultimately.
Those sites and authors are the types that write up "Windows RT didn't die and here's why" articles.
My prediction (educated guess) is a 8c16t top end CPU thats a bit faster than a 6900k at the same clock speed but which doesn't quite clock as well for somewhere in the region of £600 -£800 inc vat in the uk
This is based on AMD historically tending to release CPU's with less OC headroom than intel and the previews showing quite low comparison speeds for intel and AMD CPU's
The price is based on AMD needing to offer a good price vs the competition without being silly
This is based on AMD historically tending to release CPU's with less OC headroom than intel and the previews showing quite low comparison speeds for intel and AMD CPU's
The price is based on AMD needing to offer a good price vs the competition without being silly
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,874
- Location
- Surrey
It may have an impact, but 6 to 8 months time Kaby-X and Sky-E will knock things right out of sync once more.
Why are you trying to compare it to cars? Luxury cars do more than just go faster or drive better. They use higher quality materials and are finished to a higher standard.
It's literally not at all comparable to CPUs. CPUs have a fairly narrow usage and build quality aren't a factor at all.
You don't have an argument and what you are saying isn't particularly relevant. Especially because Intel CPUs at the high end typically are priced relatively. With the latest range they've gone right off the track though.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,149
- Location
- United Kingdom
Well, a mobile i5 is a dual core tooAnd so are some of the mobile i7's.
Intel is a bit of a con artist when it comes to mobile chips. You have to look up the exact model to find what you're getting. A mobile i5 can be worse than a desktop i3 (and clocked lower too!)
Tell me about it I had a cheap Toshiba Touchpad, could play Civ which is all I cared about.
But after 2 years it died, loading took ages despite full formats it was a joke, I genuinely got so angry I put my fist through the monitor (If you're interested laptop monitors are not shatterproof just as a note!)
Last edited:
Its called an example... shouldn't be too difficult a concept to grasp...
High end cars cost much, much more then more common cars and cost more to make then more common cars but its often not in proportion to the cost of the raw materials because the sell in much smaller volume and therefore cost much more per unit to make.....
.....Much like high end CPU'S, which sell for much much more than more common CPU'S and the cost of making (i.e developing) new CPU's is higher because the majority of the costs (development r+d costs) are front loaded with CPU's with a far lower volume sold compared to more mainstream CPU's so they cost more than a linear progression based on their speed, core count etc would suggest.
As I stated this is common across a wide range of products not just cars and CPU's
If you ignore one outlier, the very exotic 6950X, the Enthusiast line costs pretty much the same, in dollars, that it has costed for years through different generations with the high end offerings being between $999 - 1100
990X $1059
3960X $999.00 - $1059.00
4960x $999.00 - $1059.00
5960x $999.00 - $1059.00
6900K $1089.00 - $1109.00
Last edited:
again its an example not limited to cars.... look at a wide range of goods - speakers, amplifiers/AV receivers, watches, TV's, cars etc etc its a principle that follows in a lot of markets. High end goods with a limited production run compared to more common variants cost a disproportionate amount more than the bill for their parts would suggest they should cost compared to more common variants ...... why don't you come back when Ryzen is released in the UK and we will see how accurate your predictions of the top end CPU being performance comparable to a 6900K whilst costing about the same as a 6700K does now are......
And if you want to look to a CPU company selling the same product over and over again that's a label better currently directed at AMD with their current geriatric CPU lineup.....