When are the first consuimer 6+ core cpu's coming from Intel?

[humbug]

AMD does help keep down the prices of Intel cpu's, i remember the insane pricing for the original pentium cpus; dribbling out tiny increases with massive price variations.

We can't always depend on AMD to hold prices down.

At the end of the day, like Intel we are also responsible for the decisions we make. in that we vote for what we get.

 

[Martini1991]

We can't always depend on AMD to hold prices down.

At the end of the day, like Intel we are also responsible for the decisions we make. in that we vote for what we get.

Then you're losing either way.
You either buy inferior performance to prove a point, or you spend more on hardware buying into Intel.

Intel choose not to release an affordable hexcore, but that would change if AMD were competing, the blame is on Intel of course, but why is the blame not on AMD for competing ?

 

[mmj_uk]

The point is if AMD were competitive like during the K7 era Intel would already be selling their hex cores at mainstream prices with LGA1150 priced much lower than they are now, it's the lack of any real competition that is keeping Intel's pricing structure static/high.

Take Haswell-E for example, I wouldn't be surprised if the 8 core version is priced the same as current Extreme Editions (£800) and the 6 core version at £430 (same as 3930K/4930K), yet if AMD were competitive against them Intel would be forced to make theese cpu's more affordable or they would lose sales.

As it stands AMD struggle to match Intel's quad core mainstream parts so Intel can price 6-8 cores at whatever they like as they are unrivalled, their mainstream parts (LGA1150) which are cheaper to manufacture and more profitable are already selling (both to retail and OEM's) amazingly well at current prices so they have no reason to make 6-8 core parts more affordable and eat into that market with less profitable parts. It's better for them to sell relatively few 6-8 cores at high prices and make most of their profits selling the cheap to manufacture mainstream parts relatively high than make 6-8 core parts more affordable and sell loads of them at the detriment of mainstream parts.

 

[humbug]

Then you're losing either way.
You either buy inferior performance to prove a point, or you spend more on hardware buying into Intel.

Intel choose not to release an affordable hexcore, but that would change if AMD were competing, the blame is on Intel of course, but why is the blame not on AMD for competing ?

A competitive AMD does not guarantee reasonably priced Intel CPU's

Look at GPU's, look at the 295x2, regardless of what people think of the price of that, there isn't a more competitive product in its category.
And yet despite that it will not stop its competitor from being priced twice as high even though that is not a better product.

Ask yourself, why is that and you will know it doesn't actually matter how competitive a rival is, its all about what you believe a product to be and what your willing to pay for it.

In that you set your own prices.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Another thing to also consider is the fact that there are few people who require more than a 4c/8t CPUs. Very few people (even those on these forums) would find much if any performance advantage to having a hex core CPU in their computer. Thus if Intel was to make the hex cores upper-mainstream priced (say filling the slot of the 4770K) there would likely be more people who would opt to save some money and go with the cheaper 4c/8t variant (that might occupy the current 4670K place) simply because there is currently very little performance benefit of having a hex core besides rendering and benchmarks. For these last two things, people tend to be willing to pay the extra anyway as the past has demonstrated.

The fact that performance demands of software has not increased dramatically in line with hardware performance increase is also contributing to the smaller leaps in performance between generations.

 

[Dave2150]

Within a year, Intel will have 6core cpu's in the £300-350 range, guaranteed. May even see an 8 core under £500.

The PS4 and Xbox1 having 8 cores, means that mostly all games ported to PC will utilize those cores, hence drive up demand for 6>8 core cpu's and force intel to release them.

Intel will not want the PC platform to look inferior to the new consoles in power, even if our current 4 core cpu's are still faster than consoles anyway.

 

[Martini1991]

A competitive AMD does not guarantee reasonably priced Intel CPU's

Look at GPU's, look at the 295x2, regardless of what people think of the price of that, there isn't a more competitive product in its category.
And yet despite that it will not stop its competitor from being priced twice as high even though that is not a better product.

Ask yourself, why is that and you will know it doesn't actually matter how competitive a rival is, its all about what you believe a product to be and what your willing to pay for it.

In that you set your own prices.

Look at a 7970 at launch, look at how it changed shortly after the GTX680, I can give you an example too, however I feel yours is the exception rather than the rule. (The R9 295X and the Titan Z. The Titan Z would always be ridiculous due to the prices of what it consists of, and AMD are showing that since there's no competition, they can price how they want as there's nothing in the price range)

AMD's FX95 at its launch price = Exception, Intels "Extreme" 3960X = Exception.

I'll admit it doesn't "guarantee" better priced CPU's from Intel, but it'll improve the chances greatly.