A joke, its like they have forgotten about ryzen.....
-
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.
Core 9000 series
- Thread starter orbitalwalsh
- Start date
A joke, its like they have forgotten about ryzen.....
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,597
At least £100 too expensive
I'm not that interested in the latest AAA games anymore, i don't feel a need to upgrade to the latest GPU's, in fact i'm probably going to stick with the 1070 for a couple more years.
I think if you want the very best you have to get the best Intel CPU's, i think that warrants a premium over Ryzen, but TBH and i'm not trying to stir the pot, the 2700X while not as fast as the 9900K no doubt will be, its a fast CPU for gaming in its own right and not all that far behind Coffeelake, which is what the 9900K is.
Like Gavin above Intel's relentless ever increasing price for their products is strange because with Ryzen AMD are enjoying a resurgence at Intel's expense, perhaps they figure increasing profit margins to balance market share losses is more important that acknowledging AMD and competing.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
Fixed
9900K order of 1000 units is $488. So over $500 in smaller numbers. Sale price in UK is £600
2700X goes for $280-290 these days. in UK £285-290 (OCUK)
2700 goes for $260 these days. In UK can be found £250-260
Assuming lets say we pay for the higher Ghz, add an extra 20%? (4.3-5 is less than 20%) That means the 9900K should have gone for £384-390.
So actually is £210 more expensive, not £100 more expensive than it should have been.
And more than twice as expensive than it's direct competitors, without being twice as fast. It would barely be 11% if that. Given that on average the difference between 5Ghz 8700K and 2700X @ 4.2Ghz is 9% in games with GTX1080Ti at 1080p. (8700K burning 10% more power also).
And already we saw from Intel's own numbers, that is 1% faster than the 8700K at "stock" 4.7Ghz boost!!!!!!!!
I don’t think Intel are bothered. AMDs desktop market share is now at 12.3% which is a rise of just 2.4% since Ryzen was released. Whilst they are popular with enthusiasts they are just not making a dent in the business market.
If you include the UK price gouging/profiteering. There is something clearly wrong if an individual can buy a single unit, pay all the taxes and international shipping and still save over £100. Initial UK sale price was £50 lower before price fixing kicked in.
Without this, I say it is £100 too expensive and you say £110. So we are not that far apart.
lol.......
This is what I am waiting for. Zen+ is awesome but I figured I may wait until Zen2 now I'm this far in.
They are growing, have a look at this
Rain forest current best sellers
UK
US
Yes AMD are starting from a low base but i think they are pulling it away from Intel and at a pace.
Why drop prices when you can't even supply the market with CPUs. AMD are on the up you would have to be blind to not see it. Intel are on the decline.
That’s a very tiny subset of the market (the one we are in). Businesses do not buy from Amazon. This is where Intel make their money and have market dominance. AMD will not gain 30% share selling to enthusiasts and hobbyists who buy self-build components. AMD are increasing their share but only by a small amount. They have a long way to go before they will have Intel worried, who have demand outstripping supply.
No they will do that selling to Businesses, they are predicted to do exactly that.
We still matter, all market segments matter. why do you think Intel commissioned a clearly flawed game performance review, so flawed the 2700X was running with half its cores disabled, because it matters to them.
There is wealthy people and those people will buy these chips, but that to me is the sort of pricing level that turns my head away.
If I was upgrading now I would probably go AMD as even second hand intel parts have skyrocketed now as well.
Also the % htt tax is reduced with this pricing, making htt better value compared to older pricing before the crazyness. Like I got my 8600k new for £220 when a 8700k was £340, to me a £100 saving on a £300 part is very significant. But when the part is £600, a £100 saving doesnt seem as impressive, so the htt tax is reduced for sure with these new prices.
I think combat squirrel has it backwards on his analysis of htt as well, its the other way round where extra cores will help any multi threaded workload, whilst htt is situational. I agree with it troll that cinebench is as good as the perfect marketing tool for htt, its a not realistic workload and shows htt in its absolute best light possible.
Its obviously a wait and see for benchmarks showing 9900k vs 9700k on games (as well as 8700k and 7700k, if reviewers arent lazy to cut off older gen chips on data graphs like they do so often now), but I expect we wont see thread bottlenecks on a 9900k (they dont even happen on a 8600k), because consoles are optimised for 6 threads (not 8).
I don't think this is correct at all, the business I have been working for roll out hp 745 g5 laptops which have ryzen in them and we are also transitioning our server estate to epyc. I am also hearing more and more industry guys looking towards epyc. Don't get me wrong there are still a number of people who are intel die hards but these days people don't actually care what is in the machine so far as it does what it says it should.