Future of CPU prices: AMD and Intel?

[raghu78]

That slide is utter crap. It isn't comparing processors of the same line. Comparing the price of the x9x0 series to the x8x0 series is just intellectual dishonesty on the left side of the slide. Same goes with comparing a chip that is the 4th HEDT chip (6950X) to the 3rd HEDT chip (7900X).

To know what is really going on, compare the same price tier chip. For example, the chip at about the $1000 price level should be compared:

• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Skylake (2017): 7900X, 10 cores, 3.3 GHz, $999
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Broadwell (2016): 6900X, 8 cores, 3.2 GHz, $1089
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Haswell (2014): 5960X, 8 cores, 3.0 GHz, $999
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Ivy Bridge (2013): 4960X, 6 cores, 3.6 GHz, $999
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Sandy Bridge (2012): 3970X, 6 cores, 3.5 GHz, $999
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Westmere (2011): 990X, 6 cores, 3.46 GHz, $999
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Westmere (2010): 990X, 6 cores, 3.33 GHz, $999
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Nehalem (2009): 975, 4 cores, 3.33 GHz, $999
• Intel's 3rd from bottom HEDT in Nehalem (2008): 965, 4 cores, 3.2 GHz, $999

If you notice, with the exception of 2016, there was always the 3rd from the bottom HEDT chip at exactly $999. The number of cores steadily increased. So, going by the number of cores is just silly. If Ryzen caused cores to go up, then Ryzen had a tremendous impact in the year 2010 and 2014 as well! Instead, Ryzen prevented the $1089 price from sticking.

Intel almost always prices chips into the same slots (except when there are major core changes, then there may be new slots). What you get with Intel is more features for the same price.

Other than Broadwell core i7 6950x (10 core) priced at USD 1723 and core i7 6900x (8 core) priced at USD 1089 every Intel HEDT flagship CPU from Nehalem 965 till Haswell 5960x has been priced at USD 999. More importantly due to AMD Ryzen Threadripper this is the first time Intel has been forced to use their Xeon MCC (Medium core count) die for HEDT. Broadwell Xeon had a MCC die with 14 cores and Haswell Xeon had a MCC die with 12 cores but Intel never had to use it as AMD was not competing.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/broadwell
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Xeon_(Haswell)

 

[crashtech]

@dullard , what about the 7640X?

 

[Ratman6161]

Here is a counter point: CPU's are essentially the same price they have always been. With some rare but notable exceptions, Intel's top of the line desktop CPU has almost always been around $1,000.00

Check out this article from 1996:
Intel releases new prices on Pentiums
Intel is announcing price cuts on Pentium and Pentium Pro processors that could trigger a new PC price war.

https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-releases-new-prices-on-pentiums/

Where they talk about "the 166-MHz Pentium is dropping from its $630 price level in January--the last major adjustment--to just under $500."

Wow! a Pentium 166 for only $500.00! The top of the line Pentium Pro 200 Was over $1,200.00. I personally had a Pentium 90 and thought I really had something.

Compare that to what you can get today with the i9-7900 at, wait for it....$999 list.

My favorite store has the i7-7700K for $300 http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby_Lake_42_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

 

[dullard]

@dullard , what about the 7640X?

I'm not sure what you want to say about it. Intel had 3 HEDT chips for years. Now they will soon have 7 Skylake and 2 Kaby Lake HEDT chips put out at about the same time. Yes, that makes defining the top and the bottom useless. But that doesn't change the fact that Intel has had a ~$389 HEDT chip for many years, a ~$599 HEDT chip and a ~$999 HEDT chip in their lineup. I expect that lineup price levels to be about the same. Intel will likely just adjust the features that go along with those price levels as needed.

If Intel keeps adding more chips to the lineup, then there will be more price levels. But I don't think Intel feels that $389 chip buyers are the same category as $999 chip buyers. Thus, it makes more sense with Intel to look at the features that you get for a certain price than to look at a certain feature (like base clock speed) that is all over the place over years (going up / down with each generation).

 

[kwalkingcraze]

Wow! a Pentium 166 for only $500.00! The top of the line Pentium Pro 200 Was over $1,200.00. I personally had a Pentium 90 and thought I really had something.

Assuming it's from 1995, adjust for inflation today, it's actually $815 for the slowest Pentium 166MHz processor. Everything was expensive back then.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Assuming it's from 1995, adjust for inflation today, it's actually $815 for the slowest Pentium 166MHz processor. Everything was expensive back then.

You have to also take into account the volume of CPUs being sold back then, and the size of the market. While it's true that PC sales have been on a downward trend lately, the market today is still MUCH bigger, in terms of unit volume, than back then.

So it goes to figure, that Intel could charge less for their chips, today, and sell more of them, and make similar / greater margins.

 

[Topweasel]

You have to also take into account the volume of CPUs being sold back then, and the size of the market. While it's true that PC sales have been on a downward trend lately, the market today is still MUCH bigger, in terms of unit volume, than back then.

So it goes to figure, that Intel could charge less for their chips, today, and sell more of them, and make similar / greater margins.

Yeah, it's not just volume. Intel had less fabs. Yields were poorer. Wafers were smaller. Even it's hold on the market was smaller. Sure they probably were gouging a bit in terms of cost. But it was still an emerging market at the time and all computer electronics were more expensive for today's current comparative products.