you can have a superior product all you want. if someone has a similar strong product at £500 you dont sell a better product at £200. anyone who believes that is in cuckoo land. thats why all cpus gpus are priced accordingly.
-
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 Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
you can have a superior product all you want. if someone has a similar strong product at £500 you dont sell a better product at £200. anyone who believes that is in cuckoo land. thats why all cpus gpus are priced accordingly.
The CPUs are not just aimed at gaming, the market is massive. They will undercut Intel because they can.
Depends on the product cost and the profit on the product. If AMD are making as much or more in profit off their 200 or 350 unit than Intel is off their 500 unit they can absolutely price it lower to gain market share at no loss to the company. If they price higher then they could screw themselves out of market share and currently that's more important than equal pricing with Intel units which are likely to be inferior very quickly (assuming perf is as stated in the leaks). The 10c Comet Lake CPU is as underwhelming as it sounds compared to a 16c Ryzen 3xxx.
they will undercut because the cpus wont be as fast and they sit in a value bracket. as said look at the market not the cpus.you price cpus according to the market and where they fit. do amd do or have ever done £100 cpu that beats 400 cpu ? no. they are balanced in level sectors in the market where they fit.
Citation needed as currently you're talking out of your arse.
In fact they did, the £300 R7 outperformed the 7700k which cost more in multithread workloads like video editing, hell, even the R5s did for £200.
Even better they £300 R7 was head to head with Intel’s £1k 8/16.
As said, AMD have shaken up the pricing before when they didn't need to, they will do it again and will make a lot of money doing so.
So what about the R7 at £300 head to head with the 6900k which was £1k? AMDs marketing was exactly this.
AMD will always undercut at equal or better performance where they can.
EDIT bring your mindset away from Intel small Inc uplifts for big £££. What AMD has done in 3 generation is what Intel should have been doing the last god knows how many years. And with the priced tiers to follow. But Intel have been milking it, times will now change.
save it for the launch. its this simple in sales. slower cpu = cheaper. faster cpu = dearer. amd like to do below or value because they havent competed for 15 years about. so they always offered the " value " option. so realisticaly these new cpus will either be. slower = cheaper . equal to similar intel at current time = slightly cheaper. faster = same or dearer. you arent going to get £200 cpu beating current intel £500 for launch. people are not thinking right.
if amd have the strong product people are guessing at the prices will be higher. they will still sell as they are faster or quicker if the " rumours " are true. nothing wrong with that. i hope they are it offers great value for us all. if true amd people celebrate and get great value and what they want. intel fanboys get cheaper intel cpus. people like me with no bias = win win. as we get best of both worlds with better pricing. its actually really good.we need the competition. its just logically amd are marketing morons. who just constantly fail and have done for 15 years. we mostly all want to have amd great products its just they dont provide what they talk about. they promise just dont deliver. where as much as we hate intel as a company they say we got a 8 core 5ghz chip and you just know its not bs. they have and its just released.
amd need to be like that stop the bs. do what they say. you have one cinebench score and everyone has swallowed the hook all the way down. no real speeds shown. no real pricing . delay on when they were actually meant to come out. yet one cinebench and suddenly they faster than anything intel will ever make again. lol.
You just said in the post above if its faster it will be more expensive in basic sales practice, but the 6900k was not a gaming CPU, it was aimed at the workstation so gaming performance shouldn't of been a factor in the price, the 7700k was the gaming CPU. The R7s was £700 cheaper for the same performance to the 6900K. So your wrong in what you are saying, history tells us that. Amd will always aim to undercut Intel, even if its slightly better because they need the market and mind share. They are a much smaller company.
the 6900k was before and more expensive and faster.apart from later in workstation. at gaming the 6900k is a lot faster. where will all these cheaper chips mainly be being used ? gaming systems and the like especially people on here. lets not try to shift the goal posts to suit. most here will be in £100-£400 bracket cpu purchases.
also while many quote value of already having a amd system to upgrade from that means you upgrading twice !
add that into your bargin cpu.
also while many quote value of already having a amd system to upgrade from that means you upgrading twice !
add that into your bargin cpu.
AMD is better than they had been before March 2017 but not that much better to allow too much freedom for the profit margins. It is a very fragile balance and if AMD asks too much, many sales will be lost because of the mindset that dictates intel inside.
As other users said in the previous weeks - if they always charge more for the faster, sooner or later a new part will cost equal to a cheap car, etc.
Process nodes are intended to lower the cost while improving the performance, you can't violate this.
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
Jesus christ its been hours and dg and easyrider are still here talking about their toasters LOL
AMD have been losing market share since the Intel Core2Duo and the i-architecture. Then AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture help cement Intel's market share. It was obvious that, with Zen architecture, if they could compete with Intels i-architecture, that they would sell for a lower price. Market share in the PC space is worth a lot more than a few $'s undercutting their nearest rival product.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
AMD will take reduced margins per unit because they'll be selling significantly more units, resulting in significantly more profits overall. The added benefit is that each additional sale is one fewer for Intel at their inflated prices.
Net effect = 1 reduced margin sale for AMD has a greater negative effect on Intel than it does on AMD.
IT MAKES PERFECT BUSINESS SENSE; you don't milk the customer base if you aren't the market leader by volume, instead you massively undercut the market leader whilst you're in the best position to do so. To be clear here, their goal is not short term increased profits, rather longer term sustained profits with a significantly increased market share.
Intel is in a tough spot; AMD have the superior product across the entire product range, and they have the capability of increasing their profits, increasing their market share, and all whilst reducing prices. Its a no-brainer; go straight for the jugular.
Net effect = 1 reduced margin sale for AMD has a greater negative effect on Intel than it does on AMD.
IT MAKES PERFECT BUSINESS SENSE; you don't milk the customer base if you aren't the market leader by volume, instead you massively undercut the market leader whilst you're in the best position to do so. To be clear here, their goal is not short term increased profits, rather longer term sustained profits with a significantly increased market share.
Intel is in a tough spot; AMD have the superior product across the entire product range, and they have the capability of increasing their profits, increasing their market share, and all whilst reducing prices. Its a no-brainer; go straight for the jugular.
No one is shifting goal posts, you said if its better it will cost more, but that clearly wasn't the case with the R7s which was marketed against the 6900k which wasn't a gaming CPU. Who's going to spend £1k on a gaming CPU, come on. You was wrong and you was making if reference to all price brackets.
Also remember one reason for the high Intel pricing is also due to lack of stock, they openly said this recently and prices are expected to fall.
If AMD have a 8/16 shifted down to the R5 range, which is looking likely, I doubt the pricing will follow. That would push the price of 16/32 too high for the AM4 platform.
In toe, it would force Intel to drop they prices too where they can. Its all good for us, the consumers. 9900k is only here because AMDs aggressive pricing and RnD.