Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,962
if it costs $69 to make that doesn't include any overheads or profit. If something costs you $69 to make you are not going to sell it for $69.
-
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 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter 4K8KW10
- Start date
if it costs $69 to make that doesn't include any overheads or profit. If something costs you $69 to make you are not going to sell it for $69.
The analysis is extremely simple and doesn't reflect profitability of the company as a whole yet wants to use company wide expenses.
What's also misleading is the assumption that costs are variables. As if you can build a next Gen CPU $69, when in fact by the time you start building the CPU you're down several billion just in RnD and there is a limit on volume that can be sold.
It's true that CPUs and GPUs have relatives low variable costs, it easy to look at a PCB and say oh these capacitors are cheap and the die only cost tsmc $60 and then completely forget that the majority of costs are actually fixed at the production stage - human labour, capital, RnD, general business expenses.
That's not to say these companies don't make good profit, they do but it's not astronomical numbers like this analysis attempts to suggest - the products they sell cost billions of dollars to develop, most costs are fixed and you only have 12-24 months to sell the product before it's value becomes unprofitable to manufacture.
If you want to look at an industry that makes too much money, look at drug manufacturers like Pfizer - who are able to create a new drug, patent it for a long time and then sell that drug exclusively for profit margins 10 to 20 times higher than Nvidia/AMD/Intel
What's also misleading is the assumption that costs are variables. As if you can build a next Gen CPU $69, when in fact by the time you start building the CPU you're down several billion just in RnD and there is a limit on volume that can be sold.
It's true that CPUs and GPUs have relatives low variable costs, it easy to look at a PCB and say oh these capacitors are cheap and the die only cost tsmc $60 and then completely forget that the majority of costs are actually fixed at the production stage - human labour, capital, RnD, general business expenses.
That's not to say these companies don't make good profit, they do but it's not astronomical numbers like this analysis attempts to suggest - the products they sell cost billions of dollars to develop, most costs are fixed and you only have 12-24 months to sell the product before it's value becomes unprofitable to manufacture.
If you want to look at an industry that makes too much money, look at drug manufacturers like Pfizer - who are able to create a new drug, patent it for a long time and then sell that drug exclusively for profit margins 10 to 20 times higher than Nvidia/AMD/Intel
Last edited:
7700X and Intel's 13700K are neck and neck in gaming performance:
And this is with 6400 MT/s RAM used on the 13700K.
DDR5 motherboards cost about the same now for both AMD and Intel, around £180 (ASRock Riptide boards generally the cheapest).
I suppose we will see cheaper DDR5 boards from AMD over the next year.
And this is with 6400 MT/s RAM used on the 13700K.
DDR5 motherboards cost about the same now for both AMD and Intel, around £180 (ASRock Riptide boards generally the cheapest).
I suppose we will see cheaper DDR5 boards from AMD over the next year.
Last edited:
7700X and Intel's 13700K are neck and neck in gaming performance:
And this is with 6400 MT/s RAM used on the 13700K.
DDR5 motherboards cost about the same now for both AMD and Intel, around £180 (ASRock Riptide boards generally the cheapest).
Its amazing really how close they all are even at 1080P with a 4090.
From the 5800X3D to the 13900K there is only 10% in it, at the top the 13900K is 4% faster than the 7700X. Even the 7600X is at 93% the performance of the 13900K
And these are all CPU bottlenecks.
Its quite a wierd situation where neither one of them wants to be seen losing on the gaming charts right across the range so they have ended up making all CPU's basically the same, right across the range, so if all you do is game you just pick whatever is cheapest, no one can really claim to have a better gaming CPU, they don't.
Progress! Motherboard ordered, the overthinking etc was making me miserable which is a ridiculous position to be in for an item that is for entertainment. I do not care if the prices drop by 50% over night, this is par for the course with tech.
Last edited:
I'll have mine built within the next week, I'll let you all know how I get along.
Total cost has been £800 (just needed to buy 3 components), maybe about £50 more on both the RAM and motherboard than I thought I'd 'need' to spent
Last edited:
Probably more memory/latency bottlenecks at this point, not CPU grunt.
Shown by 5800X3D being that good while being hampered by slower clocks. And 13th gen got a minor increase in cache size which resulted in quite a jump in perf over 12th gen.
Expect Zen 4 3D cache to be even better for gaming relative to current gen
Good work, first time ever I have gone for an .... upper mid range? choice, went with the Strix X670E-E for reasons. I legit only found out the CPU has an onboard gpu the other day! This is great as I don't have to panic buy an interim card and I can use it until I see what is coming up.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
But four RAM sticks also puts much more pressure on the memory controller. If you read the official RAM support guides,the rating drops as you add more sticks. The other issue is also if the two kits have different types of memory modules in them,it makes tweaking much harder. Certainly with AM4,the AMD DDR4 memory controller was more finicky about this!
Last edited:
It's pretty crazy to think that minimum framerates of ~200 FPS at 1080p, maybe even a bit more will typically be doable on a Zen 4 CPU with V-cache, based on Techspot's 7700X minimum FPS results.
Assuming around a 10% improvement in performance over the 7700X.
Last edited:
Tbh, think it's probably fine. Igor managed to run 4 DDR5 modules @ 6400 MT/s:
The big Ryzen 7000 Memory and OC Tuning Guide - Infinity Fabric, EXPO, Dual-Rank, Samsung and Hynix DDR5 in Practice test with Benchmarks and Recommendations | Page 6 | igor´sLAB
AMD’s new Ryzen 7000 desktop CPUs, based on the Zen4 micro-architecture, still use the same chiplet design as their predecessors, with a few small but not negligible changes. Igor already gave details…
www.igorslab.de
cheaper 8gb sticks are being sold now 2nd hand, so sometimes it makes sense.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
Tbh, think it's probably fine. Igor managed to run 4 DDR5 modules @ 6400 MT/s:
The big Ryzen 7000 Memory and OC Tuning Guide - Infinity Fabric, EXPO, Dual-Rank, Samsung and Hynix DDR5 in Practice test with Benchmarks and Recommendations | Page 6 | igor´sLAB
AMD’s new Ryzen 7000 desktop CPUs, based on the Zen4 micro-architecture, still use the same chiplet design as their predecessors, with a few small but not negligible changes. Igor already gave details…
cheaper 8gb sticks are being sold now 2nd hand, so sometimes it makes sense.
But the issue with AM4,was the upper level models were binned better and lower end models had more issues WRT to overclocking the memory controller. This is what you do when you run faster than official supported memory speeds. Also he is running 4 of the same RAM modules. If you buy two now and buy another two in the future,it means the actual memory ICs will be different and certainly Zen1/Zen2/Zen3 CPUs didn't really like that. You can see even in his guide he is talking about tweaks to modules with different memory ICs. When it came to DDR4,certainly Intel was less finicky with this unlike AM4 was,but it isn't ideal.
This is why with 32GB of 6000MHZ DDR5 being as "low" as £160 brand new on special offers,it makes sense to wait for an offer now. I even got a clearance kit of 32GB 5600MHZ DDR5 for £100 but sold it,when I saw the high prices of DDR5 mini-ITX motherboards this generation. Maybe in hindsite,I should have kept it but no point if I am waiting for Zen5.
Last edited:
Is DirectStorage the thing my PS5 uses but PC games dont yet?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
That is the XBox one.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
And like many you are also ignoring the billions of USD they lose,when a drug fails the final hurdle of tests. You only hear all the successful ones not all the failures.
Some of the most profitable companies in the world are tech companies like Apple.
Look at Intel income and net profits:
Intel Net Income 2010-2024 | INTC
Intel annual/quarterly net income history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Net income can be defined as company's net profit or loss after all revenues, income items, and expenses have been accounted for. <ul style='margin-top:10px;'> <li>Intel net income for the quarter...
www.macrotrends.net
Intel Profit Margin 2010-2024 | INTC
Current and historical gross margin, operating margin and net profit margin for Intel (INTC) over the last 10 years. Profit margin can be defined as the percentage of revenue that a company retains as income after the deduction of expenses. Intel net profit margin as of September 30, 2024 is...
www.macrotrends.net
Look at Pfizer:
Pfizer Net Income 2010-2024 | PFE
Pfizer annual/quarterly net income history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Net income can be defined as company's net profit or loss after all revenues, income items, and expenses have been accounted for. <ul style='margin-top:10px;'> <li>Pfizer net income for the quarter...
www.macrotrends.net
Look at Intel margins - they are stable. There are brief periods where Pfizer's margins spiked but there are long periods where their net margins are significantly lower than Intel. Those are the periods where drugs have failed final testing and they have lost billions of USD.
Plus look at current net margins - Intel makes as much as Pfizer does despite a massive increase in sales due to the Covid vaccine.
Also reference,here are Nvidia net margins:
NVIDIA Profit Margin 2010-2024 | NVDA
Current and historical gross margin, operating margin and net profit margin for NVIDIA (NVDA) over the last 10 years. Profit margin can be defined as the percentage of revenue that a company retains as income after the deduction of expenses. NVIDIA net profit margin as of October 31, 2024 is...
www.macrotrends.net
Apple net margins:
Apple Profit Margin 2010-2024 | AAPL
Current and historical gross margin, operating margin and net profit margin for Apple (AAPL) over the last 10 years. Profit margin can be defined as the percentage of revenue that a company retains as income after the deduction of expenses. Apple net profit margin as of June 30, 2024 is...
www.macrotrends.net
The net margins of Pfizer are in the same ballpark as Intel,Nvidia and Apple. But the difference is tech companies margins are far more stable - companies like Pfizer see-saw between very good years and years where margins crater.
Pfizer revenue is a fraction of Apple.
Last edited:
Yes but i don't agree with this way of looking at it, its slow because of the memory, IE "Bottleneck"
Memory performance isn't the be all and end all of everything related to a CPU's gaming performance, if you put a faster core in there it isn't going to be bottlenecked by the system ram.
Memory performance is a part of what makes up a CPU's performance, its not its limiting factor. in the same way a CPU running 5Ghz and not 6Ghz does not make it the problem, if you can get it to run a 6Ghz your not fixing it, you're enhancing it.
The 13 Gen CPU's here running with 6400MT/s are (More enhanced) than the Ryzen chips running at 6000MT/s, one is more overclocked than the other, they are not apples to apples and wierdly everyone did that, if they have the Intel CPU running at 5600MT/s they had the AMD one running at 5200MT/s.
Its a worrying trend that IMO should be called out more. This was clearly a "Request?" from Intel, and they agreed to it...
Last edited:
If one CPU support 14000 mhz ram and the other 6000mhz, I don't care about putting them in equal terms. I care about the actual performance ill get as an end user.
every reviewer has their own stance on it
for example anandtech and puget will always use the max officially supported clocks (way too low to be interesting)
TPU and guru3d went for common denominator at DDR5-6000
HWU used to do a common speed for DDR4-3600, which you could argue is not best case for Intel.
I'm not much bothered about different speeds here, best setup for each CPU, at approx same latency, without going deep into memory overclocking.
Fact is, both AMD and Intel are in the same boat with DDR5 latency. Bandwidth increased, nice for multicore productivity loads. But latency stuck above 60ns means that CPU can only do so much in games. GHz is not helping as much.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
Someone also on Reddit also look at the cost if R and D,etc was included - came to $120:
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
The reality is any cost increases have been outpaced by the price increases and PCMR needs to stop making reasons why,because just look at net margins:
*** AMD "Zen 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***
He mentions R&D in the comments and says it is amorotised across the generation and stands by his $69 manufacturing cost price if it costs $69 to make that doesn't include any overheads or profit. If something costs you $69 to make you are not going to sell it for $69.
forums.overclockers.co.uk
Nvidia net margins have doubled or even tripled compare to a decade ago,and they make a lot of money still from consumer sales. The same goes with Intel.
Also again,what I am pointing out is they are selling these parts for much lower to big OEMs. Both Intel and Nvidia funded contra-revenue for Atom and Tegra which was worth billions,ie,almost giving away free chips. Those were being paid for the price increases in products we buy. They don't "need" extra money because they are making record amounts now.
Have you asked why they are targetting gaming and servers as growth areas? Very high margin areas. I told people nearly a decade they were doing this and it is because of FOMO gamers,are a very weak willed group,so are willing to throw money at it. But OTH,you have plenty of things like farming where costs are going up much higher,and farmers worldwide are getting screwed. It's weird people(not targetted at you specifically) keep defending tech companies making them poorer on the interwebs,but would moan the moment their bottle of milk goes up 20p(because the farmers are struggling).
Last edited: