why are amd bargin chips people pointing their pitchforks at people who buy intel higher end users ? because a chip costs more or because your not going to buy it. just keep buying the £150--200 cpu you happy with. let those who want top performance enjoy theirs. amd cater for a different audience. value sector. if you not buying a intel high end chip why even worry what it costs ? your not buying it anyway. your gunna wait 3 years pray that next amd chip is 150 pound then realize you could have had that now. on a intel platform. you pay for speed. its nothing new.
-
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
Right, AMD are also in it for the money, right now they are just trying to claw back market share. the problem is if Intel / nVidia are unwilling to compete with AMD on price and keep pushing theirs up AMD also use the room that provides to push their prices up.
Dg for once put away the Troll Grandes, yeah?
I don't see pitchforks. There appears to be a lot of projected anger from certain people here... it's quite odd. Most people, including myself, are just pointing out obvious facts. The one thing that isn't in dispute is the 9900K being the fastest CPU. If you want the fastest CPU, you buy it, but accept you're getting appalling value for money. No one is saying don't buy it, but facts are facts. You've already made it clear that you don't care about value. You can get within circa 10% of the 9900K for half the price. I think you'll find MOST people prefer that option. If you're happy to pay through the nose for that bit extra, go right ahead, but please don't delude yourself that you're sigificantly better off than someone who's paid half as much, because you're most certainly not.
Thanks for proving my point. Why should the price point of a product be set by some form of Communitarian pricing board? Should Intel be forced to adhere to a maximum price?
This is the top end consumer chip in what world do you live that this should be something affordable to the majority. The company offers a full product suite to hit the price points of every market niche.
You are not entitled to be able to easily afford the top end Intel consumer cpu. It's not a human right.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,301
- Location
- Planet Earth
I think its all E-PEEN BS TBH. If anyone were that wealthy they wouldn't be going on forums to justify their own purchases and would not be moaning about people "complaining" about price. They will most likely not even bother building their own PCs,just ordering some £5000 8-Pack PC instead.
So if you buy a house,do you look at the financial status of the previous owner and then say,eh your price is so cheap,how about I offer you 20% more on top??
It may be a top end consumer chip, but the competition (even Intel's forerunner) is only around 10% behind yet half the price (the 2700X is anyway, 8700K a bit more). These options are still top end yet far more affordable and offer significantly better value for money... or are those three words abhorrent to you? The 2700X is undoubtedly a top end product, no less capable for the most part than the 9900K. Yes the 9900K is faster, but by such a relatively short margin in relation to its extra cost. Why do you think that's OK, other than the obvious defense of a free market and Intel being allowed to charge whatever they like, which goes without saying.
I suspect some posters in here might be politicians. They are so out of touch with the average persons disposable income. Could also be London centric thinking. That said Warren Buffet understands value, he buys hail damaged cars and can definitely afford the high end!
I'd be more upset having been spoon fed ****** upgrades by Intel for years as there was no competition. Suddenly they can wheel out 8c16t on the mainstream and solder them. I think the pharse was "useful idiots" and it seems apt when arguing for worse tech (quad cores) for high prices which is exactly what Intel want to give us.
I'd be more upset having been spoon fed ****** upgrades by Intel for years as there was no competition. Suddenly they can wheel out 8c16t on the mainstream and solder them. I think the pharse was "useful idiots" and it seems apt when arguing for worse tech (quad cores) for high prices which is exactly what Intel want to give us.
Do you subscribe to the idea that if you're buying AMD instead of Intel you're a plebeian?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,301
- Location
- Planet Earth
The guy behind Ikea was even better - for many years he drove an old Volvo 240 and used his bus pass!!
You're being had...The guy rents and has a 50 inch TV...he was also looking at saving 100 quid here
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/30809246
Ok so the price we are paying is a quantum of various issues some of these are in the retail chain, Gibbo has given good reasons why we have to pay a price far above rrp because of having to blend different costs into what the customer pays.
Some of these are supply side - we do not know the cost if production of these chips and thus we don't know the margin. Given intel's well publicised woes I can't imagine they are sitting back and laughing at a huge margin given the broader costs they face in capital investment within the business.
Then there is the demand side - demand is clearly high globally, and within the UK.
These are the issues that set the price which will fluctuate going forwards but there is nothing 'ok' or 'not ok' with this process, it is what it is. There is no moral element.
Now things which are very rational statements are that it's a disappointing product, certainly. But that again should be taken in the context of the observer and the market. For enthusiasts close to the market then the lack of progress on price and speed is disappointing, but what is the actual market - are people upgrading annually? If they do, is it in the top end of the market?
What are the amoratized cost dynamics for this a
Market segment?
Some of these are supply side - we do not know the cost if production of these chips and thus we don't know the margin. Given intel's well publicised woes I can't imagine they are sitting back and laughing at a huge margin given the broader costs they face in capital investment within the business.
Then there is the demand side - demand is clearly high globally, and within the UK.
These are the issues that set the price which will fluctuate going forwards but there is nothing 'ok' or 'not ok' with this process, it is what it is. There is no moral element.
Now things which are very rational statements are that it's a disappointing product, certainly. But that again should be taken in the context of the observer and the market. For enthusiasts close to the market then the lack of progress on price and speed is disappointing, but what is the actual market - are people upgrading annually? If they do, is it in the top end of the market?
What are the amoratized cost dynamics for this a
Market segment?
Last edited:
You're being had...The guy rents and has a 50 inch TV...he was also looking at saving 100 quid here
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/30809246
lol
value isnt in the equation for many people who want top end gear. that is why i dont get why people who arent in the market for the cpus we dicussing are getting angry over intels pricing of it. its not even that dear. humbug lets be honest your amd pro sitting on ryzen bargin chip 99.9 percent of your replies are how great amd are. your never going to buy this chip or a high end intel chip period. so debating buying high end is pointless . your not in the market to buy never will be. so i get why people on low end amd chips think their is no value in the highend intel chips but what does that matter ? you are not buying them ! people are buying them who want them. will be happy with them. will get great performance. scream no value all day long makes no difference at all. in anyway to people who are buying them. those very same people wont buy a ryzen low end chip either. its not about value to them. its about performance.
You're being had...The guy rents and has a 50 inch TV...he was also looking at saving 100 quid here
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/30809246
I rent in The City if London if that helps. Not sure why my tv size matters?
And I was not looking to not waste money for three weeks on a cooler that may or may not have worked with my ram. there's a difference between amoratized cost and wasted investment
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,301
- Location
- Planet Earth
Who gives a flying fig about the problems of Intel?? Did anyone care AMD had to price Vega,such they were making a loss,for it to sell to gamers?? Nope. Is anyone going,but,but Ryzen needs to be priced higher,because AMD margins need to increase?? Nope.
This is Intel's issue,and last time I checked they threw billions of dollars at subsidising Atom CPUs in tablets and most of the public didn't give a damn either. So if they didn't go under then,then I am sure they can survive dropping their margins for their "loyal" CPU buyers.
Oh wait,they don't give a damn - the reason they have "issues" is since they decided to supply Apple with modems,and hence consider giving Apple modems more important than desktop gamers,especially since Apple likes driving a hard bargain.
So if they don't give a damn for their own customers and even their own retailers,then why should consumers care??
I nearly got a Core i5 8600K myself,until I went LOL at the price increase,and realised I had better things to do with £150 if I was going to spend it on frivalous things.
This is Intel's issue,and last time I checked they threw billions of dollars at subsidising Atom CPUs in tablets and most of the public didn't give a damn either. So if they didn't go under then,then I am sure they can survive dropping their margins for their "loyal" CPU buyers.
Oh wait,they don't give a damn - the reason they have "issues" is since they decided to supply Apple with modems,and hence consider giving Apple modems more important than desktop gamers,especially since Apple likes driving a hard bargain.
So if they don't give a damn for their own customers and even their own retailers,then why should consumers care??
I nearly got a Core i5 8600K myself,until I went LOL at the price increase,and realised I had better things to do with £150 if I was going to spend it on frivalous things.
Are Apple modems another reason for the apparent CPU shortages? The other being they shut down some of their 14nm production for 10nm in a bid to get it mature enough to use.
Cat, The problems set the price through a variety of factors ranging from supply to the need to fund costs/investment in the broader business.
This isn't about liking the company, it's about understanding how the quantum of price has come to the market.
I very much doubt Intel have gouged the price solely to pay execs bonuses.
This isn't about liking the company, it's about understanding how the quantum of price has come to the market.
I very much doubt Intel have gouged the price solely to pay execs bonuses.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,301
- Location
- Planet Earth
Its a major part of the problem and Intel trying to move chipsets from 22NM to 14NM.
This is entirely a self inflicted issue,and I don't see why in a competitive market I need to give a flying fig about their issues.
As a customer I am not here to fund their management mistakes,and the same goes with AMD or Nvidia,etc.
Using the absurd logic in this thread,you might as well look at the financial status of the person renting you a flat or house,and offering to pay them more since they are struggling with their own property portfolio.
Edit!!
I mean I might even understand if Intel was on the verge of collapse but they have ****** away billions on crap purchases.
They lost over a billion dollars on buying McAfee FFS.
A good way to put it.