• 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.

ZEN SR7 Rumoured January 17th Release

Caracus2k said:
Intel's consumer cpu pricing has been very consistent since at least sandy bridge...



Hardly representative of your statement...
Click to expand...

Really? where you pull those numbers from, same place Intel pull their pricing structure?

The 2600K launched at $317
The 6700K launched at $397
 
humbug said:
Really? where you pull those numbers from, same place Intel pull their pricing structure?

The 2600K launched at $317
The 6700K launched at $397
Click to expand...

Where'd you pull your prices from?

He said the 2700K, not the 2600K, Intel changed their structure after the 2600K.
Even then, $317 to $350. Massive increase there. Not.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation
That's sources for actual prices for the 6700K, unlike your made up price.

And he's right, 350.

Also ; https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Unlock...&ie=UTF8&qid=1480924039&sr=1-1&keywords=6700k

$335 for a 6700K.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Really? where you pull those numbers from, same place Intel pull their pricing structure?

The 2600K launched at $317
The 6700K launched at $397
Click to expand...

Launch price of 2600k (launched January 2011) to 6700k launch (2015) gives and inflation adjusted price of just over $334. The 6700k wasn't $397 at launch from intel. Shortages of chips in the retail chain may have lead to pricing qgoing up but this was due to the retailers' and suppliers marking up the CPU's not intel.

Intel recommended price for 6700k $350 but retailers increasing prices due to short supply

Recommended 6700k price $350 but prices being marked up in supply chain due to shortages

So 2600k to 6700k was a $16 real term increase in pricing.

Even if you go back before sandy bridge to lynnfield (the comparable 'consumer' cpu line with the 920 and upwards 'nehalem' cpu's being on the enthusiast x58 platform) the choice at the top end was between the massively overpriced 870 at $562 or the 860 which offered pretty much the same performance at $284. So you can either view the 2600k as a good discount from its predecessor if your comparing it to the 870 or if more sensibly using the 860 as the comparison its inflation adjusted price would be $313 in 2015 dollars from 2009 to compare it against the 6700k so not a massive increase of $37 after inflation considered

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832
 
Last edited:
Caracus2k said:
My post shows exactly the opposite! Are you really going to claim otherwise?
Click to expand...

Ah I remember you now. We've had this conversation twice already. It's like you start with your agenda loose the argument than wait a couple of months and start again hoping people have forgot?

Prices have gone up it's as simple as that.
 
Stop talking ******** admiral huddy

I'm here for zen news not moanin about prices of 5 year old processors.
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
Ah I remember you now. We've had this conversation twice already. It's like you start with your agenda loose the argument than wait a couple of months and start again hoping people have forgot?

Prices have gone up it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

You have a rather interesting definition of 'winning' I consistently post referenced argued posts showing my methodology to support my position... your posts lack a commensurate volume of references and demonstration of methodology... prices have gone up almost entirely due to inflation as I have repeatedly demonstrated.... Your claims of Intel ramping up prices of late for profit are just not true.

I get it.... your an AMD fan boy as your posting history attests to... it its always a popular choice to support the underdog. Personally I don't have a horse in the CPU race other than aiming for the better performing chips available on the market at any one time which is why I had a series of AMD chips back in the days when they often offered better performance and often better pricing than Intel back in the P3/P4 days. Sadly AMD lost there way and never caught up again with Intel in the post 'Intel Core' era.

I am passionate however about rebutting some of the nonsense that gets posted about pricing and performance for CPU'S and GPU's

I do hope AMD's Zen architecture does live up to its promise as it would be great to have some competition in the market, might even force Intel to drop their process somewhat if they can release an eight core Haswell-E comparable CPU for circa 500-600 pounds.

But its simply not true that recent years have seen a mass increase in Intels CPU pricing. Their top end consumer CPU's have remained very consistently priced (inflation adjusted) since at least Sandybridge and their 'Enthusiast' CPU pricing has also remained fairly steady with the only exception being the deca cored 6950X which represented a new 'tier' being added to the traditional three CPU lineup and is a very niche unique product.

Its also apparent that Intel's per core performance at same frequencies across both its 'consumer' and 'enthusiast' lineups is pretty much the same for CPU's on the same process and design (i.e a Haswell-E 5960X with four cores disabled at 4Ghz would perform in a similar fashion to a Haswell 4770K at 4Ghz with most differences observed accounted for by the higher per core cache of the 5960X and the different memory arrangement (dual vs quad channel). The relevance of this is to say that Intel are likely already running close to there limit tech wise on what they can practicably offer in per core performance at the moment. As such I don't accept the criticism that Intel are necessarily sitting on their laurels and could easily pull a big IPC increase out of the bag if AMD get their act together. Simply put the lack of great increases in CPU speed from Intel in recent years is due to the previous large increase in per core clock frequencies stalling at around the 4Ghz mark many years ago and the limits of physics meaning that reductions in the process size are getting harder and harder and yield ever reducing benefits with electron leakage become an ever trickier problem to deal with. So were stuck with small per generation IPC increases.

Zen's current projected massive increase in IPC over AMD's previous generation is only a reflection of the poor design of AMD's current lineup (for consumer usage) and the geriatric nature of their CPU's. Its just AMD 'catching up' with where Intel were per core a couple of years ago if the reports are to be believed.

Looking forward with much anticipation to the 17th and I do hope AMD can finally match up to their marketing and deliver the goods...
 
Last edited:
caracus, not sure your arguments stand up.

AMD have a clear window here until Intel moves away from the current silicon based process both teams will be capped under 5ghz using ambient cooling.

intels gains have been mild and iterative since haswell.

zen may need a stepping or two after initial launch but i can't see the gap widening again for a number of years.

fully looking forward to getting it into my rig even if it's mildly slower than a like for like intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom