It's fairly obvious that they are overpriced at the moment but the market will pay it because AMD have been nowhere for years, there is NO alternative. Do you seriously think people are going to buy a £1000 6900K over a £500-600 SR7 if performance is as close as AMD says it is? the only situation I can see that happening is if Zen is an absolute stinker when overclocking and struggles to hit 3.6ghz or more and even then I wouldn't be surprised if 6900K came down to £800 or less.
-
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" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
It's fairly obvious that they are overpriced at the moment but the market will pay it because AMD have been nowhere for years, there is NO alternative. Do you seriously think people are going to buy a £1000 6900K over a £500-600 SR7 if performance is as close as AMD says it is? the only situation I can see that happening is if Zen is an absolute stinker when overclocking and struggles to hit 3.6ghz or more and even then I wouldn't be surprised if 6900K came down to £800 or less.
AMD down clocked the Intel CPU for the comparison surely they could have shown a cpu running at what will be the 'stock' frequencies for their retail chips?
The strong inference is that given AMD could not compare their top chip against a an intel chip run if at its stock frequency is that the top ryzen CPU won't clock as well as the CPU it was being compared against... Again willing and happy to be proved wrong but its not an unreasonable inference to make now is it... AMD want to show their product in its best light... if they could have demoed Ryzen against an intel cpu at stock they would have... I doubt the chips have improved THAT much since the ES ryzen cpus used in the demos last year
Last edited:
Soldato
For sake of clarity, the 6900K wasn't down clocked, but it was purely running base. Which nobody would ever do frankly, but that ship has sailed now.
[EDIT] Irony considering I said clarity, it was actually running 3.4Ghz IIRC, that means it's not turbo, but 200Mhz above base clock lol. It was really random to be fair.
[EDIT] Irony considering I said clarity, it was actually running 3.4Ghz IIRC, that means it's not turbo, but 200Mhz above base clock lol. It was really random to be fair.
Last edited:
Permabanned
The problem is that once the prices have been artificially raised by the lack of competition they tend to stay fairly high, We'll see this with the gpu's now too, AMD will want to take advantage of Intel and Nvidia's price hiking themselves and at best undercut them by a small amount, I'm guessing the 8 core will be in the 7-8 hundred price range while the big Vega anywhere from 650 to 800. They're going to jump on the boat not swim behind it.
Last edited:
I was referring to the 3.0Ghz test 6900k vs ryzen last year....
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3109...its-zen-cpu-can-compete-with-intels-best.html
Stock base frequency for the 6900k is 3.2Ghz....
https://ark.intel.com/m/products/94...-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz#@product/specifications
Are you referring to some subsequent demo?
If Ryzen is a food clocker don't you think the could have reached 3.2Ghz then?
Edit: I see the subsequent posted video (from
December?) was at 3.4Ghz, guess will just have to wait and see how the oc clocks turn out
Last edited:
They clocked it down for the demo in August. They ran it at stock speeds in the December demo, so clearly they've been ramping up clock speeds in that time. Comparing against retail stock clocks is clearly the most sensible way to go about a demo like that.
Last edited:
I know its frowned on by some round these parts but when you take a look at some actual FACTS (intels financial reports) you can see that Intel's profit margins on their CPU line is likely to be in the region of 25% or less of their pre tax prices so I think some people are in la la land when they talk of intel's cpus costing 'double' what they should......
You have to remember that the r+ d costs for modern cpu's are a massive component of the total cost and that to keep up a high r+ d spend you need to have a healthy flow of money coming in...
Soldato
I thought the Blender scene was running 3.4Ghz on the 6900K. Actually, that's namely due to some of the tech sites trying to do comparisons at that speed.
This is why you shouldn't trust tech journalists lol
They'd probably make more profit if instead of spending billions on R&D for 3-5% IPC improvement, they spend $0 on R&D for 0% IPC improvement.
I can't find any information on how far the i7-6900K boosts when all cores are loaded. Could be anywhere between 3.2 and 3.7 GHz. We also don't know if it throttled during the test due to heat, but considering the chips were neck-and-neck the whole way, I don't think that's the case. Otherwise we'd have seen Intel start ahead and AMD pull back at the end.I thought the Blender scene was running 3.4Ghz on the 6900K. Actually, that's namely due to some of the tech sites trying to do comparisons at that speed.
This is why you shouldn't trust tech journalists lol
Last edited:
They'd probably make more profit if instead of spending billions on R&D for 3-5% IPC improvement, they spend $0 on R&D for 0% IPC improvement.
Good thing you don't run a tech company.... Don't think it would last long with no r+d spend or staff on hand!
Last edited:
Ha, true. In a real competitive market though, if you spent that much on R&D and came back with not much to show for it, you'd have a bad year financially. Intel doesn't because they can charge what they like to compensate. It wouldn't surprise me if they were getting a bit complacent in this regard but that's just speculation.
Everyone's complains with Intel all comes back to competition, or lack thereof.
Caporegime
I do, and as always some shills will find something to justify Intel stratosphere pricing.
The 6900K has DDR4 and will probably have more PCIe lanes, perhaps a couple of other things that don't really matter but will be very loudly cited by a few as if its critically important and why Intel are #1 with AMD third rate junk.
Just watch.
Caporegime
Right, so the 6900K was running at ~3.7Ghz.
Soldato
lol, why are PCIE lanes not important?
Caporegime
Soldato
A couple of 'other' things implies you did but I see what you meant now if that's not the case. They sure as hell are important!
From my figures based on factual intel financial figures a 6900k would drop from circa £1000 inc vat to £750 inc vat if intel sold with NO PROFIT COMPONENT hardly 'stratospheric' pricing
(if profit margin was equal across all lines which it isn't but it still gives you an idea.... We know that intel has actually sold some of its cheaper cpu's at a loss I.e some of their atom chips... Still its common practise in lots of industry to make bigger margins on your newer and/ or higher performance lines)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,800
Thanks
At least it'll be capable of doing it, and may even bring sopme benefits in the programs that use it.
Caporegime
Here we go again with a Silent_Scone special, implying someone said something between lines that don't exists.
How does "A couple of other things" imply "PCIe lanes are not important" of course they are important, you can't run a GPU without them, what i actually said was the "6900K may have more PCIe lanes, that is not critically important"
Stop trolling.