Future of CPU prices: AMD and Intel?

[VirtualLarry]

You don't need an AMD APU for "shop software". Light gaming, perhaps, but not line-of-business software.

Just buy an USFF machine, or a mini-STX / NUC. If Mini-STX (like the ASRock DeskMini), then use a Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 or a Skylake G4400. You could even use a G39xx Skylake / Kaby Lake Celeron, too.

 

[ao_ika_red]

You don't need an AMD APU for "shop software". Light gaming, perhaps, but not line-of-business software.

Just buy an USFF machine, or a mini-STX / NUC. If Mini-STX (like the ASRock DeskMini), then use a Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 or a Skylake G4400. You could even use a G39xx Skylake / Kaby Lake Celeron, too.

AM1 is pretty interesting from cost of ownership and power usage POV. Right now, the shop still uses C2D CPU. It's not slow, but because it runs almost 12 hrs everyday, I think, I have to look for more power-efficient CPU. Oh, it also needs to run in RAID 1 mode because there's quite large database to keep.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm sure they could find something to disable on a 4c4t i3 to "differentiate" it from an i5.

I wonder at what point Pentium chips (besides the Atom derivatives) will become 4C?

Would be neat if CFL-S would bring basic quads to the Pentium line-up. No AVX/AVX2, no Turbo, no HT, lower max clocks. If true, could be an effective weapon against Ryzen 3 4C/4T CPUs. The CFL-S 4C/4T Pentium (if they exist) would likely come in cheaper than Ryzen 3, and have an iGPU, which could prove advantageous in business desktops.

Some speculative discussion of CFL-S lower-end options here:
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ylake-x-reviews-out-page-501.2428363/page-420

 

[TheELF]

I wonder at what point Pentium chips (besides the Atom derivatives) will become 4C?

Would be neat if CFL-S would bring basic quads to the Pentium line-up. No AVX/AVX2, no Turbo, no HT, lower max clocks.

Why would they "ever" (now) do that?
I can see intel adding turbo 3 to the 2/4 pentiums (and H/T to the celerons) to get high(er) max clock bursts before they do what you propose.
Why should they cripple the pentium line and make them closer to the r3 line?That makes no sense.

 

[ao_ika_red]

Why would they "ever" (now) do that?
I can see intel adding turbo 3 to the 2/4 pentiums (and H/T to the celerons) to get high(er) max clock bursts before they do what you propose.
Why should they cripple the pentium line and make them closer to the r3 line?That makes no sense.

Nobody expect HT-enabled Pentium (Pentium 4 was an exception) and now, there are 3 SKUs of HT Pentium. As competition gets more fierce, we could dream 4C/4T Pentium and 4C/8T i3 in near future.

 

[AtenRa]

Half the size of the process doesn't mean it's half the price. It doesn't work like that, it never has. Mature processes are often much cheaper than newer processes.

Where did i say half the price ?? I said it could easily be priced at 300 USD (R7 1700) or even lower.

 

[whm1974]

Nobody expect HT-enabled Pentium (Pentium 4 was an exception) and now, there are 3 SKUs of HT Pentium. As competition gets more fierce, we could dream 4C/4T Pentium and 4C/8T i3 in near future.

Yeah but at the time the Pentium4 was a high end chip, while the current Pentiums are now low end CPUs.

 

[KompuKare]

In term of cost to fab, adding (or rather not removing) HT from Pentiums didn't cost Intel anything, whereas making quad core Pentiums would mean having to use the quad core dies not the far cheaper dual core ones.
For laptops, the dual core die is by far their biggest seller so they might even have some chips which actually would fail if binned any higher than Pentium or Celeron.
Of course, Coffee Lake also brings a six core mask but hard to see what cheap part they could get out of those assuming their yields are good.

 

[Topweasel]

It's not about price and price wars. Never has been really. It's been about value. On the low end when AMD is down, Intel has positioned it products to compete in price vs. performance to apply pressure for AMD. But realistically prices going back to when Intel started offering a second product line in the Celeron, Intel has basically always had certain price brackets and filled in their CPU's into the brackets. When AMD figured out that it didn't matter the price of their stuff vs. Intel they upped their margins by pricing their stuff with more value, but basically mirroring Intel's pricing.

The problem is that Intel has basically locked the general consumer into a lineup that stops at ~$300 for the last 6 years. So that is really only how we looked at it. The X lineup was always just this server line spin off for other people. They didn't price it with any value and overall the platform costs made it an even worse value. Specially with how little it was better. Back in the day even with a 1k extreme edition, it was the same platform, so it was just the slightly faster CPU for those had more money than brains. What is happening right now is that even with the horribly structure X299 platform and TR and AMD's pricing within it. Finally there is value outside the base platform. We are starting to really see options that really interest users even at the increased cost. So instead of a 1K 1GHz PIII being priced well over the $600 900MHz PIII and $450 800MHz PIII and so on. We are seeing CPU's rising above what felt like a $300 CPU price lock to getting as much if not more value on more expensive CPU's.

What competition does is make the other release products they might have held onto to compete. Sometimes this is bad like the 1.13 GHz PIII. But each time they release a new product it pushes the price of the previous one down. Instead of Intel releasing a 10c and maybe a 12c tops x299 with the 10c at maybe $1200 and the 12c at $1700. Intel felt pressured to off a 14c, 16c, and an 18c to keep the lead in consumer core counts. The 10c is now $200 cheaper, the 12c $500 cheaper. It lowers price not in the sense of a price war but a diversification of offerings allowing a better selection with more price brackets.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, Ryzen 3 has released. There's a 1200 model, for $110, and a 1300X model, with decent clocks. (TechDeals on YT claims that it hits 3.9Ghz XFR clocks on the stock heatsink, while GamersNexus advises ditching the stock heatsink, because it's "worthless".)

I'd like to see some GTA V benchmarks on the R3 1200 and R3 1300X, with a GTX1050ti and GTX1060. I wonder if it can hit consistent FPS over 60? If so, it will be a winner for budget gaming rigs.

Paul's Hardware YT vid on Ryzen 3 1200 OCed with a GTX1050ti:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5kB8OozaD0

 

[SpaceBeer]

If i7-7800X is priced at $390, we could expect i7-8700(X) at $300-350, and i5-8xxx at $200-250. So future 4c/4t (probably next i3) and 4c/8t (if there will be any) should be ~$150 or cheaper.
Will users go for six Intel cores for >$200 or 4 cores for <$150? The fact that current i5 and i7 CPUs are more than enough for most of people tells we will probably have the same situation as with 2c/4t Pentiums, which outsell i3 by 2-3 times. Which is good for customers, but not so good for Intel's revenues

 

[seitur]

Coffee Lake 6 core pricing will have tremendous impact on CPU pricing overall.

 

[moinmoin]

AMD in the Threadripper launch presentation:

 

[dullard]

AMD in the Threadripper launch presentation:

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): 980X, 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.

Edit: 990X was a typo in the year 2010, it is corrected to 980X. Thanks Ajay.

 

[moinmoin]

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.

No sure what you are on about. They compared the current Intel HEDT 999$ chip with their new AMD HEDT 999$ chip.

Edit: Oh, you mean the one slide I posted. If you think AMD didn't cause the relative drop in price that's fine, I see nothing ulterior in that one slide as it benefits the customer all the same.

 

[dullard]

No sure what you are on about. They compared the current Intel HEDT 999$ chip with their new AMD HEDT 999$ chip.

I'm going on about the slide that you posted beneath the link.

Intel always has an ~$999 HEDT chip. Where are prices going? Since HEDT has been around, Intel always has an ~$999 HEDT chip. Same goes with the other price levels, even consumer chips.

 

[crashtech]

So, if Celeron=2C/2T, Pentium=2C/4T, i3=2C/4T, i5=6C/6T, i7=6C/12T, where will 4T/8T fit in? Would it not be amazing if 2T/2C was dropped altogether, and we got 4 thread Celerons, quad core Pentiums and 4C/8T i3's?

 

[dullard]

So, if Celeron=2C/2T, Pentium=2C/4T, i3=2C/4T, i5=6C/6T, i7=6C/12T, where will 4T/8T fit in? Would it not be amazing if 2T/2C was dropped altogether, and we got 4 thread Celerons, quad core Pentiums and 4C/8T i3's?

We are all guessing now, but there are leaks almost every day. From what I can tell so far, is that Coffee Lake will launch in phases. There will be an i5/i7 launch soon (rumors are in about 3 weeks although availability dates and launch dates may be different) with 6C/6T i5 chips and 6C/12T i7 chips. Rumors about 4C/8T Coffee Lake are limited to mobile versions as far as I know for now: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/coffee_lake_u

Finally, rumors are that the i3 and Pentium versions will launch in 2018 when they were supposed to launch before Coffee Lake was moved up to August. Thus we know very little about these. My suspicions are that the i3 becomes 4C/8T and the Pentiums become 4C/4T. I could see Intel even simplifying the line and not releasing many Coffee Lake chips as they will also be launching Cannon Lake by the end of this year/early 2018. If Cannon Lake does well, maybe Intel would have no reason to have i3/Pentium/Celeron Coffee Lake chips at all?

 

[kwalkingcraze]

I am in the market for a lower-grade Pentium G4560 version without hyperthreading at much lower price.

 

[jpiniero]

I could see Intel even simplifying the line and not releasing many Coffee Lake chips as they will also be launching Cannon Lake by the end of this year/early 2018. If Cannon Lake does well, maybe Intel would have no reason to have i3/Pentium/Celeron Coffee Lake chips at all?

If anything it seems like Intel is burying Cannonlake because of how bad 10 nm yield is.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I might be down with some i3 4C/4T CPUs, for budget builds, but I would have to compare them against Ryzen 3. Currently favoring AMD in builds, because of Intel shenanigans over no CFL-S for Z170/Z270 boards. What a mistake!

 

[dullard]

I am in the market for a lower-grade Pentium G4560 version without hyperthreading at much lower price.

Used Celerons or used AMD chips are about all that fits your bill.

 

[dullard]

I might be down with some i3 4C/4T CPUs, for budget builds, but I would have to compare them against Ryzen 3. Currently favoring AMD in builds, because of Intel shenanigans over no CFL-S for Z170/Z270 boards. What a mistake!

While replaceable chips are a nice-to-have feature, over the decades that I've used computers I have never once upgraded a CPU in a motherboard (I've replaced just about everything else imaginable though). I always want the new motherboard features by the time CPU prices changed enough to make the upgrade worthy.

I think it too is a mistake. But, I can see why Intel is doing it. Coffee Lake has 2666 MHz memory (vs 2400 for Kaby Lake), slightly more power (95 W vs 91 W), and maybe other changes that we don't know yet. So, it is very possible that many Z170/Z270 boards just can't provide what is needed (although I bet any quality board will do just fine if allowed). As Intel is scrambling to get something out the door, they have given up backward compatibility. Better than nothing I guess.

 

[Ajay]

• 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

WTH?

• Intel's TOP HEDT in Westmere (2011): 990X, 6 cores, 3.46 GHz, $999
• Intel's TOP HEDT in Westmere (2010): 980X, 6 cores, 3.33 GHz, $999

Not sure where you got your facts, but I was keen to get either one of these and those were their prices and positions.

 

[dullard]

WTH?

• Intel's TOP HEDT in Westmere (2011): 990X, 6 cores, 3.46 GHz, $999
• Intel's TOP HEDT in Westmere (2010): 980X, 6 cores, 3.33 GHz, $999

Not sure where you got your facts, but I was keen to get either one of these and those were their prices and positions.

I'm trying to avoid the term "top" because the top keeps moving. A moving target does not make a useful argument. If you have a better term, then I'll gladly switch to that as what I wrote is awkward to read.

Consider the recent years where there were lots more chips to choose from:

• Haswell had 3 HEDT chips ($389, $583, and $999)
• Broadwell had 4 HEDT chips since they added a new tier ($434, $617, $1089, and $1723) and had a price bump with no competitor in sight.
• Skylake will have 7 HEDT chips ($389, $599, and $999, $1189, $1399, $1699, and $1999)

How do I best describe the 3rd from the bottom chip in green that has stayed at ~$999 except for in the Broadwell era? For many years, that 3rd chip was also the top chip, but it is no longer the top chip.