Total profit is what counts.
If I have fixed operating costs of $100, and I have the choice of selling 20 widgets for $20 each at 40% gross margin or 40 widgets at $15 each at 35% gross margin, then which scenario is better?
Yes he did. In fact, he included the exact doubling you suggested.You havent included the volume in the equation, what if you can sell double the widget volume at $15 than what you can sell at $20 ??
You havent included the volume in the equation, what if you can sell double the widget volume at $15 than what you can sell at $20 ??
Why? It's just a bunch of random numbers that doesn't prove anything...Read my post again
Why? It's just a bunch of random numbers that doesn't prove anything...
Also, you haven't taken in any of the other numerous variables into consideration. Like AMD's contractual obligations with GF for instance.
Read my post again
where i live DDR4 is about the same as DDR3. i can get 2x 8gb DDR3 2400 (11-13-13-31) for 165 AUD or i can get 1x 16gb DDR 3200 ( 15-17-17-35) for 165. So that is around the same latency (9.x NS) same total size, but single stick and much higher thoughput. So $660 AUD to hit 64gb isn't bad in my book.Been looking for 8c/16t for a budget multiple-VM host/research workbench, but can't decide yet which of the 8 cores to choose until benchmark comes out. The only thing that bothers me is the currently stupidly high DDR4 price which I need quite a lot of it.
I dont drink Coffee /insert folded arms emoji here/Happens to the best of us.
LOL!
I just remember taking a #2 pencil and drawing a bridge between points on the CPU to change the multiplier, inexpensive fun times, and no "K" tax!
Air cooling is better than an AIO?
Mmmmkay
Does anyone know why the 1700 base clock is so much lower than its turbo clock (with a difference of 700 MHz), where every other SKU has a difference of either 300 MHz or 400 MHz?
Assuming it's not a typo, do people see it as AMD crippling the 1700 a little to justify the price jump from the 1700 to the 1700X (which also is larger than the price jump between most of the other SKU's)?
Thx..
1700 is only 65W TDP, that is why it has lower base clocks than the 95W TDP 1700X and 1800X.
Thanks... But the other 65W TDP parts don't have this issue - if you look up and down the chart, they all are base clocks 300 MHz - 400 MHz less (rather than 700 MHz less) than their turbo clocks regardless?
(I'm talking about difference between base and turbo clocks, not difference between 1700 and 1700X)
Thanks... But the other 65W TDP parts don't have this issue - if you look up and down the chart, they all are base clocks 300 MHz - 400 MHz less (rather than 700 MHz less) than their turbo clocks regardless?
(I'm talking about difference between base and turbo clocks, not difference between 1700 and 1700X)
The 1700 is a 8c16c part. The others have less cores...
bjt2 are you even reading what you are quoting and replying too?
I understood his post.
He is saying, the reason the 1700 has lower clocks compared to 65W 4C/8T is due to the fact it has more cores. Because it has more cores, you cannot run them all at clockspeeds as high as the 4C/8T parts and still stay within the 65W limit.
My god i give up he is asking why does 1700 have 700mhz diffrence between base and boost while others have only 300-400mhz diffrence do you get what is he asking now?
My god i give up he is asking why does 1700 have 700mhz diffrence between base and boost while others have only 300-400mhz diffrence do you get what is he asking now?
My god i give up he is asking why does 1700 have 700mhz diffrence between base and boost while others have only 300-400mhz diffrence do you get what is he asking now?
Yes, and my answer is still the same. The 1700 can only turbo up to its turbo clock if a sufficiently small number of cores is in use. If you use all 8, it can only sustain that lower clockspeed.
It really isn't all that difficult to understand what he is asking.
The TDP is for 8 core. If you use 1 core, all the TDP of 8 core is given to 1. For the 4 core all the TDP of 4 core si given to 1. This is the reason on the inferior difference between base and turbo. Moreover 4c are low quality chips, so probabily leaky, so they draw more power...
We can at least expect, that while getting closer to Intel's price/performance levels, demand for Ryzen will drop more quickly. But as I said, it's difficult to get the picture of all this happening, as there are tons of layered curves influencing each other for each chipmaker's product stacks and the overall market.good example.
earning=> $20*20 = $400 and $40*15=$600.
fixed cost = $100 (cost of capital i.e. setting up the plant; cost of R&D; etc).
raw material/labor cost = $5 per unit (technically, labor cost reduces as we increase production and you not need extra labor to added units upto a certain point due to automation)
profit with $20 = 400 - 5*20 -100 = $200
profit with $15 = 600 - 5*40 -100 = $300
I have not done economics in 15 years, but the idea is to hit the "Optimal price range" that Dresdonboy illustrated. We of course don't know where this curve lies for GF, but I am sure AMD did the required math to maximize its profits.
This can be linked to why AMD might have asked Samsung to produce some chips for them as well, adding more production plants will shift the "Product earning" curve to the left enabling even lower prices, therefore higher demand and earnings.