OMG it's you again. You keep saying this but it's not true.
-
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.
First look at Broadwell-E. Intels first step in performance regression.
- Thread starter jigger
- Start date
OMG it's you again. You keep saying this but it's not true.
My 22nm i7 cost me £250. When I was considering upgrading a 16nm 6700k would cost £320. 30% extra for chip that's cheaper to produce. I don't need to make up sums but maybe Intel was selling the 3770k at a loss so lets see.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/intc/financials
Nope, Intel was making a fortune back then too...
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/intc/financials
Nope, Intel was making a fortune back then too...
Last edited:
I've responded so many times along with many other people. He's just got a bee in his bonnet for some reason and is unable to agree to disagree
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2015
- Posts
- 288
Still no improvement to that TDP either.
I've responded so many times along with many other people. He's just got a bee in his bonnet for some reason and is unable to agree to disagree
I'm not going to 'agree to disagree' when your palpably wrong on your claim 'Prices are rising too. i7 and i5 have become silly'. Prices (when adjusted for inflation and the £/$ exchange rate) have not risen for years! I have clearly shown this!
Your tack then seems to be to bluster about the size of the die and the corresponding cost reduction associated.
Firstly this is irrelevant to your claim that the price of the cpu's have "become silly' because they have not Intel's pricing has remained flat for successive generations of consumer top end i7 and i5 processors for at least the past five years. I have also shown that AMD were charging similar money for their top end cpu's when they were more competitive at the top end
Secondly I have demonstrated that the cost to Intel of a cpu's die is a relatively small fraction of its end cost *circa 5%* so to expect big reductions in the end cost is naive especially considering the problem and delays Intel have had recently especially with 14nm cpu's that will have cost them $$$'s
UK pricing has fluctuated due to the exchange rate and prices in general have risen due to inflation.
Intel are not responsible for either of these and so cant be blamed for them!
Skylake cpu's were expensive due to a shortage in supply in retail channels due to the long wait from haswell (with broadwell pretty much being a no show for non mobile consumer cpu's) to skylake and yield issues with the 14nm process. Supply has now largely caught up and prices are back where they should be.
It has been the retailers and the middlemen suppliers that have profited most from skylake shortages
Last edited:
Sorry but prices have infact risen and production cost have fallen. Why or how I care not. Fact is 320 is more than 250 so prices have indeed risen and £320 for a quad chip thats barley any faster than chips that come before it is silly.
You can get an Intel hex core for £300, Intel mainstream is just a way for Intel to flog mobile processors whose focus is around the iGPU on the desktop, Intel mainstream is aimed at PC World shoppers but if people on Overclockers and other enthusiast sites want to pay increasing amounts for an ever more powerful integrated GPU that they won't ever use then more fool them. You can't just focus on the CPU side when saying that it's "barley any faster than chips that come before", with every generation iGPU performance has increased significantly. It's for a different market, it just so happens that its release cycle is ahead of the enthusiast line because portable low power applications are the biggest growth market now.
Last edited:
Wow how insightful £320 is indeed more than £250 what this has to do with your initial post isn't clear.
(and the 6700K is currently £299.99 on OCUK not £320)
Still factual accuracy doesn't matter does it!
You claimed i7 and i5 prices were 'silly' blaming it all on nasty old Intel. However it would be totally moronic not to account for inflation when comparing prices. I hope you never go into business yourself if you think that adding the cost of inflation into your costs is a bad thing.
The other main thing that affects the prices are the £/$ exchange rate which makes up a large amount of the increase that you appear so incensed about (as inflation has actually been quite low in the past few years)
This has nothing, zip, nada do with Intel... anything else sold in dollars will be subject to the same fluctuations in price due to the exchange rate
A 14nm chip may be cheaper than a 22nm chip based purely on the material costs but these represent a small fraction of the overall cost of the CPU. How many times does this need to be repeated. Most of the cost is to recoup R+D and fab costs!
Still you reveal your true position in the quoted post
You are self confessed in not apparently caring why prices have changed instead just decide it must be all Intel's fault!
Last edited:
It wasn't last month and I seem to remember the 6700k getting closer to £350 before that. Intel must be reading the forum.
I'm still not interested at £300 though...
You really seem to have no clue just how much money Intel make R&D will be well covered.
I'm still not interested at £300 though...
You really seem to have no clue just how much money Intel make R&D will be well covered.
I'm not ignoring inflation or arguing otherwise. Once you consider 14nm is much cheaper to produce than 22nm prices have been increased. But yeah no matter how he spins the numbers more is still more
Adopting new technology like 14nm tends to increase cost in the short term and the iGPU has become increasingly bigger and more complex with each generation, like I said you can't just focus on the CPU side and ignore the iGPU when comparing Intel mainstream.
I don't doubt that Intel are doing everything to maximise profit (ie. skimping by using TIM between heatspreader) but to say that 6700K is barely any better than a 2500K is wrong when you include the iGPU in the equation, inflation or not it's a significantly better product for the market it is intended (your average PC World customer). If enthusiasts want to buy them instead of the actual enthusiast product line then more fool them.
Last edited:
When did I say the 2500k is barley any faster? I might have said the move from a 2500k to a 6700K isn't worth it.
I'm not looking for an iGP upgrade though and I don't think any other enthusiasts are. Intel would have been better off removing the graphics portion of chips like this. No one buys an i7 for it's on board GPU and even less people would look to upgrade it.
Last edited:
Well Sandy Bridge to Skylake then, you're complaining that the price has increased since then but yet the CPU's are barely any faster.
The point I'm trying to make is that whereas 2600K systems built by OEM's such as Dell back in the day would have needed to include a £60-70 discrete GPU to be any good at gaming, the 6700K system of today doesn't.. so your average PC World customer isn't actually paying anything more. Not to mention these CPU's are in countless many other portable devices where a discrete GPU is not even possible.
If people on OCUK want to buy into Intel mainstream, competely ignore the iGPU and complain about price then it's their own fault for buying the wrong product.
Then stop buying the wrong product, LGA2011/-3 is called the 'enthusiast' line for a fairly obvious reason.
That's what the enthusiast line is for, enthusiasts incorrectly buying mainstream products and then complaining that it's not targetted at them is basically the issue. You can argue that Intel target 'K' SKU's at enthusiasts but like they say in business there's one born every minute.
The point I'm trying to make is that whereas 2600K systems built by OEM's such as Dell back in the day would have needed to include a £60-70 discrete GPU to be any good at gaming, the 6700K system of today doesn't.. so your average PC World customer isn't actually paying anything more. Not to mention these CPU's are in countless many other portable devices where a discrete GPU is not even possible.
If people on OCUK want to buy into Intel mainstream, competely ignore the iGPU and complain about price then it's their own fault for buying the wrong product.
Then stop buying the wrong product, LGA2011/-3 is called the 'enthusiast' line for a fairly obvious reason.
That's what the enthusiast line is for, enthusiasts incorrectly buying mainstream products and then complaining that it's not targetted at them is basically the issue. You can argue that Intel target 'K' SKU's at enthusiasts but like they say in business there's one born every minute.
Last edited:
Never mentioned Sandy bridge but it's still competitive with Devils Canyon/Skylake
I'm not sure about you but a £320 CPU, £150 motherboard and £100 on memory is pretty enthusiastic spending to me
I would move to X99 if Intel could bring out a chip worth buying, and the massive expense made any kind of sense. Thats kind of the issue
I'm not sure about you but a £320 CPU, £150 motherboard and £100 on memory is pretty enthusiastic spending to me
I would move to X99 if Intel could bring out a chip worth buying, and the massive expense made any kind of sense. Thats kind of the issue
Last edited:
I'm not sure about you but a £320 CPU, £150 motherboard and £100 on memory is pretty enthusiastic spending to me
If people continue to buy them then Intel will continue to deliver £320 unlocked mobile processor, likewise motherboard manufacturers will continue to release overly featured Z170 motherboards with model names like 'Killer' to go with them.
I would move to X99 if Intel could bring out a chip worth buying, and the massive expense made any kind of sense. Thats kind of the issue
You get 50% more overall performance from 5820K when overclocking is taken into account, it's not really Intel's fault that people today judge CPU performance with gaming benchmarks which are probably the worst metric there is for comparing processor performance (due to the fact that they under-utilise the CPU and are often GPU bottlenecked).
If all you want is maximum gaming performance then there's no real reason to buy more than a £200 i5 6600K and £90 Z170 motherboad to go with it, anything more and games will see little gain.
Last edited: