• 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) ***

humbug said:
They ain't going to be anything like £900, why? because they will not sell any with prices like that.
Click to expand...

Yet they tried it on with the 9590 when they didn't have a competitive chip?

I hope you're right though

h4rm0ny said:
I'd like to see the number begin with a 3, actually.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice.

jakspyder said:
I hope this pushes a nice drive from both companies on the next 5 years to compete with their chips!
Click to expand...

That'll be the good news.
 
Seanspeed said:
I still dont quite get this.

A CPU will last you 5+ years nowadays. A brand new 6600k runs £215. Is that really a lot of money?

People complaining that Intel CPU's are so expensive and overpriced, especially on a board where people regularly upgrade to £300-500+ GPU's every 1-2 years, just seems a bit silly to me.

An 8GB RX480 will cost more than the CPU does and wont last you nearly as long in terms of remaining competitive, performance-wise. This makes the 480 the bad value part in this situation.

I feel like so long as you're not going for one of the 6+ core enthusiast CPU's, which come with their own drawbacks for gaming(lower clock speeds), the value level of a good CPU is very high.

Obviously if AMD can come in and offer a slightly inferior product at £30-50 less or whatever, that's cool. I'm all for it. Options are good and budget builders will benefit a bit. That doesn't make the more expensive option some outrageous value prospect, though.
Click to expand...

The problem is Games are becoming increasingly thread demanding, i5's are rapidly becoming i3's, rapidly becoming budget level CPU's for performance money.
In fact 4 and 8 thread Intel CPU's are steadily increasing in price.

The great hope is that AMD will offer 6700K like CPU's for 6600K money, if they do that they will do well, if they don't they probably wont sell many.

@ nashathedog, if AMD sell at Intel prices just buy Intel, simple... its daft going over the same argument over and over again, you have Intel to fall back on, whats the big woff?
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Intel are screwed if AMD have comparable ipc and we can still overclock the budget chips, hate how Intel locked down overclocking.
Click to expand...

Even if AMD sell every chip they can produce (Inc GPU's, chipset, SOC's, everything they can make. Include everything Nvidia can make too) for twenty times the cost of Intel, Intel will still dwarf all of that.

Intel are a massive company. Intel spent enough on property to buy AMD and Nvidia over the last year or two. Property that remains unused and unneeded.

No matter what AMD do Intel will still make a fortune.
 
Martini1991 said:
Assuming that an i5 2500K and i5 6600K reach the exact same clocks, that's only a ~20% gain in most areas (I know there's some newer instruction sets) but it's costing more money and it's 5 years on.

At 220 back in 2011 it was possible to buy a 2600K, and that'll trade blows with a 6600K application depending, assuming the same clocks.

The problem is, there's absolutely nothing better to buy at 215 pound than an i5 6600K brand new, and so on throughout Intels lineup really.
Click to expand...
This isn't an issue with lack of competition, though. This is just the reality of the CPU game nowadays. Intel aren't going to introduce newer, better CPU's that cost them increasingly higher amounts of money to research, develop and manufacture - at a *lower* cost simply because the gains they can find are smaller. AMD certainly would not do anything like that, either. That'd be idiotic from a business perspective.

And why is it a 'problem' that a 6600k, a fantastic gaming CPU that will last pretty much anybody a good 5 years of good performance or more, costs a mere £215? Less than an 8GB RX 480 or a GTX 1060 that wont retain *nearly* as competitive a state in such a time?

I'm no fan of any one company having a sort of monopoly on performance technology, but in this situation, I do not at all feel like customers are 'losing out' due to lack of competition. A 6600k or 6700k are both fantastic value given how long they will last. Even the 6700k, probably the best gaming CPU available, doesn't even cost as much as a GTX1070.

Just saying - I appreciate competition from AMD in this area, I just dont get the people arguing that this was somehow 'desperately needed' or something.
 
Unless they are amazing and notably better than Intel, they won't be able to command massive premiums, intel just have a more proven platform, even if it is heading towards EOL.

I'm hoping they will be pretty cheap with the 8/16 in comparison to Intel but they really have to nail gaming performance and power efficiency for me.

Also hoping 3ghz isn't the best they can do, bit concerned about that with intel knocking out 4ghz boosts.
 
I was in a hardware store yesterday looking for pc bits and was having a chat with the manager. He said that the gtx1080 was the best selling card ever when it came out but since the 480 came out more people are currently buying it than anything else. It is selling well. I win I'd say.
 
nashathedog said:
Looking at this I just know that AMD are going to be asking Broadwell-e prices which will mean at or around £900 for the 8c/16t. :(

That's me out.

A 6 core Broadwell-e can be had for £400-£550 so I'll have to think hard on what to do once we also see what 6 core units AMD offer as Vega is also due at some point.

The way Lisa Su said "We are back" translated to "no more cheap components, if Intel ask that so do we".
Click to expand...

I think her point is that it's the end of people buying AMD CPUs because they're a cheaper option, in the context of compromising on performance just because of cost.

They simply cannot try and charge Intel prices. If they deliver on the promises they've made with regards to Zen, then that will give people good reason to buy AMD CPUs at all performance points. It's not a comment on performance per £/$ but offering more than just the bottom or lower mid range where people are looking at their products on the basis of prices.
 
There is no justification for Intel pricing, so IF AMD don't stick to see sensible pricing then they don't deserve sales.

They need to claw back market share by offering hardware that competes with Intel high end CPUs at sensible pricing which will drive sales in droves.
 
Seanspeed said:
This isn't an issue with lack of competition, though. This is just the reality of the CPU game nowadays. Intel aren't going to introduce newer, better CPU's that cost them increasingly higher amounts of money to research, develop and manufacture - at a *lower* cost simply because the gains they can find are smaller. AMD certainly would not do anything like that, either. That'd be idiotic from a business perspective.

And why is it a 'problem' that a 6600k, a fantastic gaming CPU that will last pretty much anybody a good 5 years of good performance or more, costs a mere £215? Less than an 8GB RX 480 or a GTX 1060 that wont retain *nearly* as competitive a state in such a time?

I'm no fan of any one company having a sort of monopoly on performance technology, but in this situation, I do not at all feel like customers are 'losing out' due to lack of competition. A 6600k or 6700k are both fantastic value given how long they will last. Even the 6700k, probably the best gaming CPU available, doesn't even cost as much as a GTX1070.

Just saying - I appreciate competition from AMD in this area, I just dont get the people arguing that this was somehow 'desperately needed' or something.
Click to expand...

If you're happy to pay more and more for things, then great (Even though I think it's more like bending over), but if we're starting to pay more and more for the same tier, then surely it's going to get to the point where it's getting too expensive, when does enough become enough? I've got a 4770K, but that's about the absolute limit I want to spend on a CPU, that is frankly only a midrange chip.

In my opinion, Intels pricing of the retail i5 6600K makes the FX83 somewhat relevant again, and that puts a consumer in a spot of compromising to buy an FX83 and get inconsistent performance, or stump up to Intels prices. In that situation I'd have to go second hand.

The 5820K launched at 300-320 pound. THAT was progress, an Intel hexcore was introduced at a lower tier price (Which is meant to happen, that's progress), and now it's like ~400 for the tier again.

How much of this is down to idiots voting leave is up in the air though.
 
Last edited:
With this pricing speculation, I assume AMD will match Intel's prices but one product lower. i.e:

4c/8t Zen for i5-6600k money

6c/12t Zen for i7-6700k money

8c/16t Zen for i7-6850k money

They must know if they match Intel £ for £ for extremely similar performance no one will buy it. So they have to offer something slightly better value for the money.

Also unless board partners can add in support, remember Zen/AM4 won't be compatible with the new 3D Xpoint memory, so AMD need to consider that in their pricing, otherwise Intel could be seen as better value than AMD. Which would be nuts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom