OcUK Staff
.... Who cares about stock. Turbo is where the grunt comes... This is not stock-clockers forums.
-
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
You're right the facts are boring let's just talk about stuff we have no idea about.
Zen will turbo to 6.3 GHz.
Mine can do 6.8, but only on 3-and-a-half cores.
That sounds about right. Intel produces at cost X and sells wholesale at price 1.25*X. Then the wholesaler adds on another 10% so it's 1.1*1.25*X. Then the retailer adds another 30% and it goes to 1.1*1.25*1.3*X which is about 1.8X and then there's VAT/Sales tax.
So when you get a 6900K for £1000, that's actually retailing at £840 pounds (the rest is VAT) and was bought at £650 from some wholesaler who got a large batch at around £590 from Intel who build the chip at a cost of around £470.
EDIT: My point is, people hear it costs £500 to build and see it selling for £1000, then make the wrong assumption that Intel pockets a profit of £500 per chip. That's just wrong.
However, think of the same path for Zen: if it is indeed that cheap to produce (some say it's half the cost of the 6900K) it'd make a huge difference because the margins are applied on top of each other (compounding). Using the same percentages a £250 chip should retail at about £450 plus VAT (i.e. around £550 total price).
Last edited:
Soldato
I think someone at ces pulled up hardware manager and saw the CPU code as an F3 stepping with 3.6/4.0 spec.
Can you give us a smiley for every 100mhz over stock it boosts to
How does Broadwell e like overclocks sound. 4.2-4.5ghz under water. 5.2-5.5ish on Ln2.
No no, don't be putting the brakes on the hype train now. 6Ghz water, 8Ghz LN2, easy.
Well that's about the only thing you have said recently that makes any sense.
Man also has no control over the sun. Didn't stop people enquiring as to why the sun rose every morning on one horizon and set every evening on another. If you want to be ignorant that's your choice just don't whine when people point out that your uniformed opinions may not be based in reality
You've been shown your wrong time and time again. Calling my explanations 'spam' isn't going to cut it if you have an argument make it but have something to back up your claims. Yes Intel make huge profits but nothing like the amounts you think as a % of the cost of their products.
Intel's top end consumer CPU pricing remains stable in $$$'s since at least Sandybridge. Costs for Intel have gone up massively due to R+D spend in that time..
Last edited:
When you repeat the same fanboy tripe and it gets refuted by someone pretty much every time then it is pretty much == spam.
It's a fact that Intel have been deliberately holding back progression due to having no competition while at the same time price gouging their own customers for years.
Soldato
And the circle continues. Care to put any facts behind this claim? Particularly the former part. Just for arguments sake...lol.
Interesting to see somebody side with him lol, the facts are already in the thread (he's had his rant a few times) but which specific bit were you referring too?
Soldato
I'm not siding with anyone. I'm talking about the former part where you said Intel are deliberately holding back progress.
Ahh right, well the facts kinda speak for themselves but to sum up, since the launch of Sandy Bridge in 2011 Intel have been averaging a 5% performance increase per generation (or in other words **** all), the general consensus for why this is happening is that because they are/were ahead of AMD by such a margin they saw no need to bother with proper upgrades, they could save on or redirect R&D and without any alternative customers would be forced to pay through the nose for their incremental upgrades. As a result progress has slowed to a crawl and profiteering has seen extortionate pricing.
To put it in perspective the i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) and i7-7700K (Kaby Lake) were launched 6 years apart, the performance increase is lower than between the i7-2600K and the previous generation's i7-920 (Nehalem) launched 2 years earlier.
Soldato
A very blinkered outlook. Stock is the product you buy and is the base measure that your money is stacked against.
Over clocking is another ball park for I imagine a small subset of customers relative to the entire customer base of CPUs and comes with no guarantees.
I would argue it's ALL about the stock out of the box experience as that's what your buying and what comes certified as a guarantee.
Anything else is silicone lottery and icing on a cake.
Last edited:
Soldato
That's purely circumstance. The only people that could confirm what you are implying are likely on 6 figure salaries.
Not that I want to entertain this, but Intel stuck with Netburst for some years when Athlon was still competitive. If there's any real evidence to the contrary that shows Intel are deliberately under achieving then that would be quite a media storm.
OcUK Staff
Yes yes yes 8Pack is blinkered I know....... Turbo is out of the box... Lol....... It a stock cpu feature..
Soldato
But your not talking about stock turbo, I assumed you where referring to OC potential.
I kinda wish we knew more about the actual turbo performance. Other than AMD telling us its a thing we've seen nothing, and it seems like it could be the make or break of this chip.
Doubly frustrating to have someone who does actually know, at least a little more than the rest, trolling
Doubly frustrating to have someone who does actually know, at least a little more than the rest, trolling