If you think "AMD GOT greedy" why are you only complaining about that now?
The 3700X is £330, the 2700X was £330, the 1800X was £400, the 3800X is £400.
WTF is going on with you and that?
-
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 on the road to recovery.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
The 3700X is £330, the 2700X was £330, the 1800X was £400, the 3800X is £400.
WTF is going on with you and that?
Caporegime
In fairness, what you've posted price wise you'd complain for if it was Intel for 2 over 2 years difference.
However the prices you've posted are incorrect.
The 3900X is the same price as the 1800X was for example.
Since things are priced in dollars, not pounds.
Caporegime
£60 GT1030 does everything better than a Core i9 9900K. So a £500 12 core Ryzen 9 3900X,a £120 X470 board and a £60 GT1030.
Total is £680 for 12 cores. Plus your beloved Intel CPU has no PCI-E 4.0 even when you on purpose spec a cheaper Intel board,when you know very well the AMD system on X570 has PCI-E 4.0.
Drop that down to a Ryzen 7 3700X at £330,with a £120 board,that is £450.
So £150 more for the Core i9 9900K which can be spent on a better graphics card.
AMD has a 12 core CPU which cost nearly £600 which was launched in October 2018:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-tr4-processor-retail-cp-3ax-am.html
Maybe you should look how much the cheapest X399 motherboard is:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/motherboards/amd/tr4-x399-threadripper?spage=1&ssort=3
£280!
so now we have a faster amd 12 core in less than a year,with cheaper motherboards. yes,amd is being greedy.
also,12 cores for the price of intel 8 cores. so you are so desperate to buy a core i9 9900k you are trying your best to tell people intel is better value.
i love who you are on purpose speccing expensive amd boards,ignoring cpus like the ryzen 7 3700x to show how much better intel is.
you seem very angry that amd is launching pci-e 4.0 before intel,offering 12 cores for the same price as intel 8 cores,is offering 8 cores and 6 cores with smt cheaper than amd.
it seems you want to justify intel pricing its core i9 9900k £170 more than the ryzen 7 3700x,and its 12 core hedt cpus at £1100 to £1250:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga2066-processor-retail-cp-63l-in.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga2066-processor-retail-cp-65w-in.html
Why are you not argueing at "greedy" Intel?? So AMD 8 cores is £330 vs £480 to £500 for Intel,and AMD 12 cores is £500 vs £1100+ for Intel,and no PCI-E 4.0 if you want to use overpriced motherboards.
This is the same crap that happened when the Athlon 64 was released,and people were trying to make Intel look better with their space heater P4 CPUs.
Soldato
AMD got greedy, hope it does not bite them in the ass.
Does that motherboard have VRM actually capable to feeding 9900K's advertised boost clocks consuming 200W?My basket at Overclockers UK:
- 1 x Gigabyte Z390 UD Intel Z390 (Socket 1151) DDR4 ATX Motherboard= £109.99
- 1 x Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6GHz (Coffee Lake) Socket LGA1151 Processor - Retail= £499.99
Total: £620.48 (includes shipping: £10.50)
The 1600 was similar in performance to the i7 5820K which was selling for £380, the 1600 was £210 at its most expensive.
If we reasonably assume the Ryzen 3600 overclocks to 4.4Ghz all core (+13%), add the IPC to it (+15%) i'm gaining 28% performance for £40 more than i paid for the 1600. if it clocks higher than 4.4Ghz i'm looking at over a 30% jump.
At no point (at least in the past decade +) can we say that about per core performance with Intel skipping one generation.
He can argue AMD's CPU's are expensive, compared with the alternative they ain't and this is a far bigger performance jump than Intel's Coffeelake to Coffeelake+, AMD with a 0 or very minimal price change from that previous Zen+ generation, they are still the same price they have been on Zen back in 2016. if he thinks they are expensive why complain now?
I'll give 4K8KW10 this, at least he's attempted to add a little context to his proposition.
If you think AMD got greedy, there is an alternative
Caporegime
The same lot here are quite happy to not moan at Intel being greedy and launching £500 8 core CPUs and £1100 12 core CPUs right after AMD launched Ryzen 2000 and Threadripper 2000.
Why were you lot not buying the cheaper 12 core Threadrippers compared to the £1000+ Intel ones??
Intel is still selling 6C/6T CPUs upto £300.
Intel is selling at those prices since people are paying them.
No because all of you kept buying Intel CPUs at their overinflated prices and now are crying when AMD realises they can still undercut Intel with a cheaper CPU.
So £330 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700X and £400 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3800X vs £500 Core i9 9900K = AMD is greedy
So £500 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3900X vs £500 8C/16T Core i9 9900K = AMD is greedy
So £330 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700X vs £390 8C/8T Core i7 9700K = AMD is greedy.
So £500 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3900X vs £1100+ 12C/24T Core i9 7920K/Core i9 Core i9 9920K and £570 Threadripper 2 2920X= AMD is greedy
So £250 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600X vs £250 6C/6T Core i5 9600KF=AMD is greedy
So £200 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600 vs £250 6C/6T Core i5 9600KF and £190 locked 6C/6T Core i5 9500F=AMD is greedy
So high end X570 motherboards with PCI-E 4.0 having similar pricing to high end Z390 motherboards with no PCI-E 3.0=AMD is greedy
So AMD keeping backward compatability with previous generation motherboards unlike Intel= AMD is greedy
So the narrative is AMD is greedy,so buy Intel I suppose?? Oh,wait that is what happened.
I mean Intel didn't just make a Core i7 which was a sub £300 CPU a nearly £400 one with the Core i7 8700K and Core i7 9700K,right?? Oh,wait a second!! People still bought them.
Plus wasn't the Ryzen 7 1800X £500 too?? People bought them when the FX8350 launched at £150. If AMD was greedy then they have been greedy for years! What to do??
So why don't you go on the famous auction site and buy a secondhand Ryzen 1600 then?
Sorted.
Why were you lot not buying the cheaper 12 core Threadrippers compared to the £1000+ Intel ones??
Intel is still selling 6C/6T CPUs upto £300.
Intel is selling at those prices since people are paying them.
No because all of you kept buying Intel CPUs at their overinflated prices and now are crying when AMD realises they can still undercut Intel with a cheaper CPU.
So £330 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700X and £400 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3800X vs £500 Core i9 9900K = AMD is greedy
So £500 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3900X vs £500 8C/16T Core i9 9900K = AMD is greedy
So £330 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700X vs £390 8C/8T Core i7 9700K = AMD is greedy.
So £500 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3900X vs £1100+ 12C/24T Core i9 7920K/Core i9 Core i9 9920K and £570 Threadripper 2 2920X= AMD is greedy
So £250 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600X vs £250 6C/6T Core i5 9600KF=AMD is greedy
So £200 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600 vs £250 6C/6T Core i5 9600KF and £190 locked 6C/6T Core i5 9500F=AMD is greedy
So high end X570 motherboards with PCI-E 4.0 having similar pricing to high end Z390 motherboards with no PCI-E 3.0=AMD is greedy
So AMD keeping backward compatability with previous generation motherboards unlike Intel= AMD is greedy
So the narrative is AMD is greedy,so buy Intel I suppose?? Oh,wait that is what happened.
I mean Intel didn't just make a Core i7 which was a sub £300 CPU a nearly £400 one with the Core i7 8700K and Core i7 9700K,right?? Oh,wait a second!! People still bought them.
Plus wasn't the Ryzen 7 1800X £500 too?? People bought them when the FX8350 launched at £150. If AMD was greedy then they have been greedy for years! What to do??
So why don't you go on the famous auction site and buy a secondhand Ryzen 1600 then?
Sorted.
Last edited:
Lol some crazy logic going on. Either a bitter AMD fan or an Intel marketing intern. Either way my ignore list is growing, life is too short too argue with obtuseness. My tip Humbug is don't try, some people either have no grasp of maths and fair comparisons or just willfully misrepresent reality.
IMO with a small minority we have the same problem that we do with GPU's.
some people are just strangely chained to nVidia, in this case Intel and only want AMD to exists so they can keep their, for lack of a better word 'preferred' brand in check, so if AMD do anything other that practically give their CPU's away that's not going to make Intel budge on price and that's what makes them angry.
In any case, its like a religion, Its not that Intel are milking their consumer base, its always that AMD are not doing enough, Intel can do no wrong, AMD can't do right.
some people are just strangely chained to nVidia, in this case Intel and only want AMD to exists so they can keep their, for lack of a better word 'preferred' brand in check, so if AMD do anything other that practically give their CPU's away that's not going to make Intel budge on price and that's what makes them angry.
In any case, its like a religion, Its not that Intel are milking their consumer base, its always that AMD are not doing enough, Intel can do no wrong, AMD can't do right.
It was, but also there was the 7 1700 that was nearly half the price offering the same after overclock. Now, there is no second and third 12-core offers at the 7 1700 prices.
So with a generation skip 16 threads with +30% or more performance has got £100 cheaper.
Also think back to 2016, Intel's competing part was £800 and no better.
Caporegime
Some of the convoluted logic is hilarious - no one is asking why Intel hasn't dropped pricing themselves on their CPUs and motherboards,even with two generations of Ryzen and Threadripper CPUs. Instead we had Core i7 8700K CPUs above £300 and now Intel 8C starts at £390 and if you want SMT,that is another £100 extra!
It is because people are buying them at those prices. AMD offers more cores for less money,locks down overclocking less,does not force you to change your motherboards,etc and suddenly Intel are the ones being generous,and AMD is causing this.
Intel not dropping prices is the problem here - they are giving AMD free reign to price stuff relative to what Intel has.
That is why in January 2017 you had an 8C/16T Core i7 6900K for £1000 on HEDT motherboards with expensive quad channel DDR4,and now you can get a 12C/24T CPU on dual channel motherboards for half that in just over two years. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X was nearly £500 which was three times the launch cost of the FX8350,because Intel thought it was fine to charge £1000 for an 8 core CPU.
If Intel had dropped the Core i9 6900K to £600,AMD would have been forced to drop prices quickly. They never did.
Yet I saw less moaning about the Ryzen 7 1800X pricing here.
intel hasn't dropped pricing because their market share is still 80-90% and beyond, and there isn't a need to.
While the overall PC shipments in the last quarter continue to fall.
And while AMD and intel don't offer more threads, games and software become ever more demanding. Look at the game WoW, look at how the new titles demand at least 8 threads.
While the overall PC shipments in the last quarter continue to fall.
And while AMD and intel don't offer more threads, games and software become ever more demanding. Look at the game WoW, look at how the new titles demand at least 8 threads.
You are talking about retail here, how long do you think this will last? And whose the one with controlling influence on pricing, AMD or Intel?
Just answer that. without the mental gymnastics just use simple logic.
Mindfactory Report May 2019
Sales are basically the same as in April for AMD at Mindfactory but it will be very interesting too see what happens once AMD's new Ryzen 3000 series arrives.
Caporegime
You are talking about retail here, how long do you think this will last? And whose the one with controlling influence on pricing, AMD or Intel?
Just answer that. without the mental gymnastics just use simple logic.
See all the people buying loads of £500 Core i9 9900K CPUs,£400 8C/8T CPUs and £250 6C/6T Intel CPUs have told AMD charging £500 for 12C/24T,£300 to £400 for 8C/16T and £200 to £250 for 6C/12T is fine since in the latter case Intel is charging more money anyway for even 6C/12T CPUs.
In all cases AMD is undercutting Intel in per core and per thread cost and in the mainstream offers double the threads for less money but people still buy the more expensive option.
So people in this thread need to stop argueing with us and start arguing with people justifying these expensive £300 to £500 Intel CPUs.
If they didn't sell,AMD would have less room to charge those prices. The market has been created by people saying they would spend that kind of money.
Right, Intel have the controlling influence on Pricing, it really doesn't matter what AMD do because there is a large proportion of people who doggedly stick to Intel no mater what.
AMD can and are collecting up all if not most of the rest but if you want cheaper high end Intel CPU's you're wasting you're time and energy looking to AMD to be the great savior, AMD have very limited influence on Intel's fanboys.
Caporegime
The thing is AMD is undercutting Intel in several areas(look at post 672) and people still are moaning at them. How much more can they undercut Intel,when they are offering 50% to 100% more threads for a similar price?? Intel is still segmenting SMT FFS. Intel stops you using older 100 and 200 series boards for CFL,etc and AMD is at least trying to keep some degree of compatibility with the older motherboards.
Then the same lot will moan if AMD suddenly can't compete with the next Intel core or next Nvidia GPU,since AMD has had no R and D money to develop new stuff when they literally excuse make for Intel,etc charging more money and raking in the cash.
In the end all these people who just bought Intel and want AMD will look at these threads and think AMD is rubbish and overpriced and stick to what they know best.....Intel.
I would love a new Zen 2 8C/16T CPU for £200 but when Intel is still selling 6C/6T CPUs for £250 after three generations of Ryzen starting at £200 for 6C/12T CPUs,then anyone who wants value would be looking at AMD anyway. A 6C/12T Core i7 8700K is £350 and a 8C/8T Core i7 9700K is nearly £400. So if you want over 6 threads with an Intel CPU you have to spend £150 than a Ryzen 5 3600 at least,or even more compared to a cut price Ryzen 5 2600 which launched at the same price last year as the Ryzen 5 3600.
Moreover,with some of the EOL deals on Ryzen 2000,why don't they get a cut price Ryzen 7 or something?? No,because even those are "too expensive" for them I expect.
Yet how many were probably quite happily buy some Intel quad core for years for similar money??
Last edited:
I know, i have explained AMD are about to offer more for less than they did with Ryzen 1000, they can't win.
TBH i don't care about those who doggedly stick to Intel, i don't care how high there prices are, i'm happy to use either or, whatever offers me the best performance for my pounds.
I also want AMD to remain competitive, for that they need R&D to keep up the good work they started, their CPU's are priced high enough i think to make enough money to continue along this path while still being significantly cheaper than the competition, so i'll be paying a bit more for my next Ryzen, but i'll be getting a lot more too, the price difference is less than what i'm going to gain.
I just can't bring my self to complain about that, i would feel like an idiot.