• 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

LePhuronn said:
But that's simply not the case, is it. Unless you're in the rarefied position of money being no object so you can afford to buy the very best regardless of cost, price-performance ratio is an important metric, and one that Intel either seem to ignore or are relying on fevered fanboiism and consumer mindshare to swallow stupid prices.

Winning in most games? True, but hardly enough to justify £100+ premiums over Ryzen
Winning in production? Yeah OK, have you not heard of Threadripper? And, again, are Intel's minor gains at the very high 18-core end worth double the price of a 16-core TR? What happens when that monster 32-core Threadripper lands? Should be renamed Xeonripper. And to pre-empt "every second gained in render queues is worth money" argument because I've been in production for 2 decades and I have yet to work for a company who'd shell out twice the price of a 16-core TR just because 18-core i9/Xeon can do the job a couple minutes faster.
Click to expand...

The point is is that it doesn't matter if the cost is justifiable to you. If a company is leading in any field they will exploit that and people will pay the cost. For some consumers a £100+ premium for more FPS in games is justifiable and that is OK, not everyone lives by your or my budget or sensibilities about such things. I'd also be very surprised if companies didn't pay extra for a few minutes faster. Over a period of time those extra minutes will be significant.

I just don't get the continued bashing on about the cost of Intel CPU's and really at this point it's just people with an agenda. We are on an enthusiasts forum and we all know how it works.
 
B1gbeard said:
The point is is that it doesn't matter if the cost is justifiable to you. If a company is leading in any field they will exploit that and people will pay the cost. For some consumers a £100+ premium for more FPS in games is justifiable and that is OK, not everyone lives by your or my budget or sensibilities about such things. I'd also be very surprised if companies didn't pay extra for a few minutes faster. Over a period of time those extra minutes will be significant.

I just don't get the continued bashing on about the cost of Intel CPU's and really at this point it's just people with an agenda. We are on an enthusiasts forum and we all know how it works.
Click to expand...
I'm not price bashing, they can charge what they wan't.
Im just saying that they would sell a lot more / really hurt AMD if they just lowered their price a bit.
But trying telling that to shareholders... PLC's (IMO) destroy a company.
 
beany_bot said:
I'm not price bashing, they can charge what they wan't.
Im just saying that they would sell a lot more / really hurt AMD if they just lowered their price a bit.
But trying telling that to shareholders... PLC's (IMO) destroy a company.
Click to expand...

I don't think they really care about that at all and no one seems to be destroying Intel from what I can see. They'll go on doing what they do and be successful for all that it seems to pain some on the forums. I don't agree with it by the way but it is what it is and it is terribly boring hearing it in every thread from the same people over and over.
 
B1gbeard said:
...and it is terribly boring hearing it in every thread from the same people over and over.
Click to expand...

If you are bored by enthusiasts criticizing Intel for their current woeful business practices and ludicrously high cost of ownership, then perhaps you need to spend your forum time elsewhere. Joe Standard in the street may not know much about the latest Intel CPUs, but we enthusiasts do, and if anybody is "pained" by it then it's for a good reason. Our hobbies and our livelihoods are directly affected by this nonsensical price gouging, and even if it's just a mothers' meeting to sit on a forum and whine about it then so be it.
 
I love intel products. I just don't like toothpaste and high prices. That's all. Especially when said high prices and particularly cheeky when they actually have solid competition now. Intel desperate to avoid a "race to the bottom" when it comes to pricing. AMD will always undercut Intel prices. It's what they do and their shareholders expect and understand it. The question for intel is...by how much?
 
If this is right... and of course usual massive pinch of salt...
Q1 for the 8 cores? If thats true then yes that is a bit of a problem for inte - struggling may well be the word.


Intel-Roadmap4.png
 
4K8KW10 said:
What about the integrated graphics, which after a decade of presence, is still not being used to accelerate the performance?
Click to expand...
To be honest, as a DGPU user. I never give them a second thought. But it is a good idea that that could be used to handle some of the mundane GPU tasks while the DGPU takes care of shadows, lighting and tessellation. Is that what you mean?
 
beany_bot said:
To be honest, as a DGPU user. I never give them a second thought. But it is a good idea that that could be used to handle some of the mundane GPU tasks while the DGPU takes care of shadows, lighting and tessellation. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

Not only. I am talking about the original idea to use it for floating point compute accelerator.
Have you heard about AMD Fusion?

AMD Heterogeneous System Architecture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit
 
Rather than working out how to work a (redundant) iPGU on a DGPU system. I would rather Intel sell CPU only models for slightly less money. a 9900KC for example (for "C"PU) for $50 less.
Having said that, it's intel so I have just probably given them the idea to sell the CPU only version for the same price as now and tacking $50 on extra for the APU version.
 
LePhuronn said:
If you are bored by enthusiasts criticizing Intel for their current woeful business practices and ludicrously high cost of ownership, then perhaps you need to spend your forum time elsewhere. Joe Standard in the street may not know much about the latest Intel CPUs, but we enthusiasts do, and if anybody is "pained" by it then it's for a good reason. Our hobbies and our livelihoods are directly affected by this nonsensical price gouging, and even if it's just a mothers' meeting to sit on a forum and whine about it then so be it.
Click to expand...

As an enthusiast of some 30 years your attempt at patronisation is quite funny.

I would have thought that the difference between discussing the issue of Intel pricing (which is a problem) and it, along with other “issues”, being brought up over and over by the same people in every thread to their eventual detriment is obvious. But no apparently.
 
beany_bot said:
Rather than working out how to work a (redundant) iPGU on a DGPU system. I would rather Intel sell CPU only models for slightly less money. a 9900KC for example (for "C"PU) for $50 less.
Having said that, it's intel so I have just probably given them the idea to sell the CPU only version for the same price as now and tacking $50 on extra for the APU version.
Click to expand...

They used to in the past with the Xeon E3s. Until they put an end to that with skylake.

There was a 2550k with no igp as well which was a bit of an oddity.

I'd rather have one than not to make testing and troubleshooting easier.
 
humbug said:
@beany_bot
Intel know their brand carries a lot more weight than AMD, no matter how good or bad they are compared to each other so the price for what you are actually getting will always be a lot higher than AMD.
Click to expand...
This is very true, I’m afraid of buying into AMD at any point and I don’t mind admitting that. Righty or wrongly I perceive Intel as the best, and AMD as the cheap and cheerful option lol.
 
beany_bot said:
I mean it's hardly a secret. I bet if you stopped 100 people in the street and asked them Who Intel are. maybe 50% or more would know. AMD though? I bet 3% or 4%
Click to expand...

It's actual sad the fact I bet most all of them would either have or have kids that have an AMD powered console at home !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom