Costs have been skyrocketing while volumes are sliding. If AMD were to actually massively undercut Intel it would extremely hurt both of them. AMD needs prices to stay high just as much as Intel does.
Now tell me, is there any reason that we need to pay 1700$ for a 10C outside of market segmentation and lack of competition?
Ryzen can break the core stagnation HARD. Intel has been pushing 4C's for so long that it left AMD massive room for undercutting while still having massive margins.
Given how many people went 6700->7700, well, why not?But the 7700K is under $350.00, so are you really winning with the more expensive chips? Would you pay north of $500 to beat the 7700K by 5-10% in games?
Clearly some gamers would, but they are probably not the majority.
Is the lower clocked dualcore really worth it over single fast core? Does a quadcore make sense against a high clocking dualcore? it's basically the same argument that pops up all over again. In the short term the better option have been the processors with fewer fast cores, but in the long run higher core count wins.But the 7700K is under $350.00, so are you really winning with the more expensive chips? Would you pay north of $500 to beat the 7700K by 5-10% in games?
Clearly some gamers would, but they are probably not the majority.
Total volumes are sliding, but the market is shifting towards higher margin products. A similar trend is seen in the GPU market, where the volume is sliding upwards from the 200$ segment to the 350$ segment.Costs have been skyrocketing while volumes are sliding. If AMD were to actually massively undercut Intel it would extremely hurt both of them. AMD needs prices to stay high just as much as Intel does.
Well, there is 4K video in there as well as the clear promise of higher clocks.Given how many people went 6700->7700, well, why not?
Dual core?Is the lower clocked dualcore really worth it over single fast core? Does a quadcore make sense against a high clocking dualcore? it's basically the same argument that pops up all over again. In the short term the better option have been the processors with fewer fast cores, but in the long run higher core count wins.
I'd say if you plan to use your CPU mainly for gaming or other lightly threaded apps in the period of 1-2 years then a fast quadcore is the way to go. If the plan is to build a computer with longer timeperiod in mind then a 6 or 8 core CPU is a worth investment even if it costs a bit more. Plus there are people who can but higher core counts to good use as well (not everybody uses his/her PC only for gaming).
I see you have me at a disadvantage with that official price list and benchmark sheet AMD sent to you.Would you buy a 7700K for $350 when a 6C Ryzen is available for $350 and performs within 10% worst case?
If AMD goes aggressive on pricing, 350$ for 6C is the maximum pretty much lolI see you have me at a disadvantage with that official price list and benchmark sheet AMD sent to you.
I've never kept a CPU for 8 years, except maybe the one that's slaving away at NAS duty in its obsolescence.
Am I living in the twilight zone? Why are there people only focusing on today's performance in games? We all should pretty much know by now that any high end CPU you buy today should last you about 7 or 8 years. People are incredibly fine with i7 2600K's 6 years later even today! And CPU improvements are slowing down faster than ever before. Intel even straight up rebranded Skylake for crying out loud! WOW 4k native encoding! Please take my hard earned money.
How can ANYONE argue that its wise to save $100-$200 when we have no real idea about CPU core count utilization that many years away from now? Only indication we have is that games will eventually use more just like they always have. PS4 Pro and Scorpio have locked in 8-core development for years to come. Yet some people are actually saying that when you're building a system that will probably cost north of $1000 or more to save 10% and get half the cores on the most vital part of the machine! I guess if you are on a very tight budget it may make sense to go with a 4C CPU but for most of us it just seems ridiculous that I'm seeing this advice.
Is it just pure coincidence that some posters are claiming higher core counts will bring no real value when Intel has artificially segmented processors with more than 6 cores to something they invented called the "HEDT" market? No its not. Pretty confident that if there was a 7800K with 6c/12t for $399 this would be a common recommendation.
And finally can you guys please stop posting comparisons of 6700K to 6900K? Comparing different core counts with different architectures is NOT relevant to higher core count Ryzens! Luckily AMD isn't going to stratify core counts by architecture. With Intel's legendary R&D budget is there a single person that is claiming Intel hasn't had the time or resources to ready an LGA 1151(1150) 6 or 8 core SKU? It was pure, unabated profit taking obfuscated by some here as "giving gamers what makes sense for them".
Intel in damage control mode. Or simply panicking. Check this out:
From SA forum.
There was a 5820K for $389 and there is a 6800K for $425. How popular were those compared to the 4770K/4790K/6700K? Not very.
I have never planned to keep tech items very long. Something new is always coming up, whether it's a feature or more performance. I generally upgrade in about 2 years.Am I living in the twilight zone? Why are there people only focusing on today's performance in games? We all should pretty much know by now that any high end CPU you buy today should last you about 7 or 8 years. People are incredibly fine with i7 2600K's 6 years later even today! And CPU improvements are slowing down faster than ever before. Intel even straight up rebranded Skylake for crying out loud! WOW 4k native encoding! Please take my hard earned money.
How can ANYONE argue that its wise to save $100-$200 when we have no real idea about CPU core count utilization that many years away from now? Only indication we have is that games will eventually use more just like they always have. PS4 Pro and Scorpio have locked in 8-core development for years to come. Yet some people are actually saying that when you're building a system that will probably cost north of $1000 or more to save 10% and get half the cores on the most vital part of the machine! I guess if you are on a very tight budget it may make sense to go with a 4C CPU but for most of us it just seems ridiculous that I'm seeing this advice.
Is it just pure coincidence that some posters are claiming higher core counts will bring no real value when Intel has artificially segmented processors with more than 6 cores to something they invented called the "HEDT" market? No its not. Pretty confident that if there was a 7800K with 6c/12t for $399 this would be a common recommendation.
And finally can you guys please stop posting comparisons of 6700K to 6900K? Comparing different core counts with different architectures is NOT relevant to higher core count Ryzens! Luckily AMD isn't going to stratify core counts by architecture. With Intel's legendary R&D budget is there a single person that is claiming Intel hasn't had the time or resources to ready an LGA 1151(1150) 6 or 8 core SKU? It was pure, unabated profit taking obfuscated by some here as "giving gamers what makes sense for them".
They didn't rebrand Skylake. They improved the manufacturing process and redid the physical design/implementation to allow for higher frequencies. If you really think it is a rebrand, please explain why 5GHz on high end air on a 6700K is out of the question, but it's pretty common for the 7700K?
There was a 5820K for $389 and there is a 6800K for $425. How popular were those compared to the 4770K/4790K/6700K? Not very.
Hm? There are many people who say Intel doesn't make significant architectural improvements generation over generation, so why would such a small difference offset the value proposition of 6-8 cores on HEDT?
I have never planned to keep tech items very long. Something new is always coming up, whether it's a feature or more performance. I generally upgrade in about 2 years.
According to Siliconlottery.com 7700K's require higher voltage to reach 5.0 then 4790K's take to reach 4.9. So 100Mhz improvement for slightly higher power draw.. How is this any different than any other product using a much more mature manufacturing process?
Any different than vanilla 7970's to 280X 1ghz? Those were commonly called rebrands yet 280x improved frequency curves with some small decoding/encoding improvements like Trueaudio.
This is the exact same! Intel released Kaby Lake purely as a preemptive marketing move against Ryzen. I'd be floored if anyone claims that Intel released Kaby Lake purely on their own accord when they have NEVER done a full naming update without a true process or architecture upgrade.
Intel merely stopped cheaping out on the thermal "solder" for their "high performance" CPUs and took advantage of the ever present fact that manufacturing improves over time and called this a new generation.
Why are you ignoring the fact that motherboards cost nearly twice as much on average for these higher core count processors? That factors in hugely to platform costs. And again you're using this historical consumer "data" to prove something that won't be relevant to shoppers looking at Zen core counts.
Haven't you yourself said upgrading from Haswell to Skylake is a sensible upgrade? What kind of argument is based on "what people are saying"? The fact remains there is often a 5-10% performance gap between Intel's latest generations. Not apples to apples.
Enthusiasts are not only gamers.But the 7700K is under $350.00, so are you really winning with the more expensive chips? Would you pay north of $500 to beat the 7700K by 5-10% in games?
Clearly some gamers would, but they are probably not the majority.
Intel in damage control mode. Or simply panicking. Check this out:
From SA forum.
Yes, but more cores for gamers was the subject...Enthusiasts are not only gamers.
I'm sure, most gamers will be able to find out, what suits them best. There is no requirement to buy more cores. With newer games and drivers, there might be some shift over time. BTW with Hyperthreading/SMT a main thread easily gets slowed down by another thread on the same core.Yes, but more cores for gamers was the subject...