No one complains about the $1700 price of i7 6950X?

[PeteRoy]

I have been reading reviews and watching YouTube reviews of the new i7 Extreme 6950X Broadwell E.

And they are all the same, like a bunch of salesmen they pitch the same marketing white papers Intel has sent them.

I have not found a single reviewer that actually criticize Intel for the new price of $1700 instead of the $1000

Not a single reviewer criticize Intel for giving us so little performance increase for nearly double the price.

Giving us 10 cores for $1700 in 2016 is a disgrace in my opinion, the performance increases since the first Nehalem i7 in 2008 are disappointing.

 

[dealcorn]

Because the 6950X appears to cost more to produce than it's predecessor I am not surprised that it has a higher retail price (http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/03/the-economics-of-intel-corporations-broadwell-e.aspx). I think it is fantastic that Intel has a large production base so it can amortize the costs to develop class leading processors over a larger base. It is this ability to amortize development costs over a large base that permits Intel to offer class leading value on some of its mid price core products. Like almost every other business, Intel follows a yield management pricing strategy so those with hard to satisfy performance requirements pay more than less demanding folks. That advanced technology rolls down market over time is a big benefit to mainstream consumers. Fair market value is defined as the price at which a willing seller and a willing buyer agree on a price. If you do not consent to the FMV of these chips, do not buy one. There are multiple, quality alternatives from vendors such as IBM, a slew of ARM producers and the not to be forgotten Etch A Sketch depending upon your application requirements.

 

[SPBHM]

I would say that's because very few people are interested even when the Extremes were $1K, so it doesn't affect most if the lower models are around the same.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://ark.intel.com/compare/94196,94456

No one is forcing anyone to buy.

Hard to believe you'd really need to buy it over the 6900K anyway.

I can't see it being $700 better.

 

[guskline]

PeteRoy: I disagree with you. Here is an quote from Ian Cutress of Anandtech on his review of the 6950x
"Due to this, the performance of the new Broadwell-E parts is somewhat predictable. Adding more cores and adjusting for frequency is a good marker, as is adjusting for the new memory speed. That means a move from the i7-5960X to the i7-6950X gives two more cores at the same frequency, or about 25% more performance. The downside of this upgrade is the price: the i7-5960X was launched at $999/$1049, whereas the new i7-6950X is $1723. That’s a big price increase by any standard." emphasis added

I consider that to be criticism of the price. BTW it took me @ 5 minutes to find this quote.

As I remember from reading reviews, a number of the major reviewers commented on the much higher price of the 6950x. Perhaps you are upset that they didn't "take Intel to task" vigorously.

 

[frozentundra123456]

PeteRoy: I disagree with you. Here is an quote from Ian Cutress of Anandtech on his review of the 6950x
"Due to this, the performance of the new Broadwell-E parts is somewhat predictable. Adding more cores and adjusting for frequency is a good marker, as is adjusting for the new memory speed. That means a move from the i7-5960X to the i7-6950X gives two more cores at the same frequency, or about 25% more performance. The downside of this upgrade is the price: the i7-5960X was launched at $999/$1049, whereas the new i7-6950X is $1723. That’s a big price increase by any standard." emphasis added

I consider that to be criticism of the price. BTW it took me @ 5 minutes to find this quote.

As I remember from reading reviews, a number of the major reviewers commented on the much higher price of the 6950x. Perhaps you are upset that they didn't "take Intel to task" vigorously.

Yes, pretty much everyone, even intel supporters, is critical of the price. Even worse though, is that there was no price drop on the six and 8 core chips, since they have been effectively moved down the product stack with no decrease in price, or increase in performance due to low ipc gain and mediocre overclocking. But "it is what it is". Intel is certainly free to set the price as they want, and the consumer is certainly free to not buy the chip. I am surprised that they didnt make the pricing more aggressive (lower) with Zen on the horizon. But I guess they can cut prices when Zen comes out if it is competitive with 8 core HEDT.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Intel marketing strategist "hmmm. I GOT IT!!! Moar cores, more money! Boom! Mind Blown!"

lol

 

[master_shake_]

They see what nvidia can do with pricing and they followed suit.

Apparently the market can and will bear it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Would be interesting to know how many of these they expect to sell, and if sales are close to expectations.

What I was hoping for was: 10 core about 11 to 12 hundred
8 core drop to 7 to 8 hundred
6 core, eliminate the higher priced one and leave lower
one the same.
But I am not really in this market anyway, 4 cores is plenty for my light gaming.

 

[guskline]

PeteRoy: Here's the link to Steve Walton's review of the Broadwell-E where he says "hide your credit card. Hardly a glowing endorsement of the 6950x pricing!
http://www.techspot.com/review/1187-intel-core-i7-6950x-broadwell-e/

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I would say that's because very few people are interested even when the Extremes were $1K, so it doesn't affect most if the lower models are around the same.

Agreed these are showboat parts. Nobody really buys them. I'd bet most are sold to game developers to run their demo's at shows, websites & magazines for contests.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

as you can see only 1 in Anand forum

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2479043

 

[jhu]

Why isn't anyone complaining about Xeon prices? They're even more expensive. $4k-$7k for a 22 core chip? Come on! It's 2016, it should be <$500 by now!

 

[Arachnotronic]

What good would complaining do?

Anyway, if you want a pure gaming processor, then the 10 core 6950X isn't even the best thing on the market, the 6700K is.

 

[guskline]

What good would complaining do?

Anyway, if you want a pure gaming processor, then the 10 core 6950X isn't even the best thing on the market, the 6700K is.

Agree! :thumbsup:

I originally got into enthusiast class cpus by buying a 3930k. At some point after the release of the 5960x, I decided to go "whole hog" and buy my high end mb, 5960x and DDR4 ram. Did I need it? No. Want it sure.

Now that the Broadwell E has been released, I don't see any need and frankly don't have any want to "upgrade".

Complaining on this forum is unlikely to have any affect on Intel's pricing.

 

[Phynaz]

I could use one for my database box

top - 12:39:14 up 350 days, 9 min,  1 user,  load average: 12.62, 12.26, 12.06
Tasks: 335 total,  15 running, 320 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 86.0%us, 13.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  1.0%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   8058692k total,  7425688k used,   633004k free,   177000k buffers
Swap:  9306104k total,        0k used,  9306104k free,  5057060k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
 6060 oracle    20   0 1443m 741m 736m R 26.2  9.4  13:31.06 oracle
 6072 oracle    20   0 1443m 740m 734m R 25.9  9.4  12:59.90 oracle
 6131 oracle    20   0 1443m 738m 732m R 25.9  9.4  12:31.73 oracle
 6056 oracle    20   0 1443m 739m 733m R 24.6  9.4  13:12.49 oracle
 6082 oracle    20   0 1443m 737m 731m R 24.6  9.4  12:17.06 oracle
 5981 oracle    20   0 1443m 741m 736m R 23.9  9.4  13:15.09 oracle
 6038 oracle    20   0 1441m 739m 734m R 22.9  9.4  12:59.75 oracle
 6042 oracle    20   0 1441m 738m 734m S 22.6  9.4  13:28.38 oracle
 6078 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 736m S 21.9  9.4  13:27.42 oracle
 6052 oracle    20   0 1441m 738m 734m R 21.2  9.4  12:56.66 oracle
 6098 oracle    20   0 1441m 737m 732m S 20.9  9.4  13:04.33 oracle
 6094 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 735m R 20.3  9.4  13:10.40 oracle
 6110 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 735m R 16.9  9.4  13:00.89 oracle
 6102 oracle    20   0 1441m 737m 733m R 15.6  9.4  12:33.17 oracle
 5995 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 736m S 14.6  9.4  13:09.95 oracle
 6047 oracle    20   0 1441m 739m 734m S 14.3  9.4  12:35.48 oracle
 6068 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 735m R 12.9  9.4  13:14.45 oracle

 

[ZGR]

It is competing with Intel's current Xeon lineup.

 

[master_shake_]

It is competing with Intel's current Xeon lineup.

not it's not.

unless it can use ecc memory.

which it can't

 

[bystander36]

The main reason you don't see a big uproar about the high price is because they didn't increase the price of the previous standards, they simply added a new CPU class and charged more for it. That just left it as a dream product that no one really intends to buy, and since the CPU's they would be interested in are the same as ever, it's easy to just ignore it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The main "disgrace" and what there should be an uproar about, IMO, is that we have been stuck on 4 cores on the mainstream for 10 years now.

I know there is "HEDT", but with the problems with BW, a hex core Skylake would be much more attractive.

 

[jhu]

I could use one for my database box

top - 12:39:14 up 350 days, 9 min,  1 user,  load average: 12.62, 12.26, 12.06
Tasks: 335 total,  15 running, 320 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 86.0%us, 13.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  1.0%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   8058692k total,  7425688k used,   633004k free,   177000k buffers
Swap:  9306104k total,        0k used,  9306104k free,  5057060k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
 6060 oracle    20   0 1443m 741m 736m R 26.2  9.4  13:31.06 oracle
 6072 oracle    20   0 1443m 740m 734m R 25.9  9.4  12:59.90 oracle
 6131 oracle    20   0 1443m 738m 732m R 25.9  9.4  12:31.73 oracle
 6056 oracle    20   0 1443m 739m 733m R 24.6  9.4  13:12.49 oracle
 6082 oracle    20   0 1443m 737m 731m R 24.6  9.4  12:17.06 oracle
 5981 oracle    20   0 1443m 741m 736m R 23.9  9.4  13:15.09 oracle
 6038 oracle    20   0 1441m 739m 734m R 22.9  9.4  12:59.75 oracle
 6042 oracle    20   0 1441m 738m 734m S 22.6  9.4  13:28.38 oracle
 6078 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 736m S 21.9  9.4  13:27.42 oracle
 6052 oracle    20   0 1441m 738m 734m R 21.2  9.4  12:56.66 oracle
 6098 oracle    20   0 1441m 737m 732m S 20.9  9.4  13:04.33 oracle
 6094 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 735m R 20.3  9.4  13:10.40 oracle
 6110 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 735m R 16.9  9.4  13:00.89 oracle
 6102 oracle    20   0 1441m 737m 733m R 15.6  9.4  12:33.17 oracle
 5995 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 736m S 14.6  9.4  13:09.95 oracle
 6047 oracle    20   0 1441m 739m 734m S 14.3  9.4  12:35.48 oracle
 6068 oracle    20   0 1441m 740m 735m R 12.9  9.4  13:14.45 oracle

ew, Oracle…

 

[know of fence]

The main "disgrace" and what there should be an uproar about, IMO, is that we have been stuck on 4 cores on the mainstream for 10 years now.

I know there is "HEDT", but with the problems with BW, a hex core Skylake would be much more attractive.

After some contemplation, I'm sure there are reasons that involve limitations of TDP, clocks, memory and stuff like that that make a mainstream octa-core impossible. AMD's Zen will be an 8 core like at what, - 2.5 GHz base and 140 TDP? Maybe wide and aggressive turbo will make it possible so people don't have to trade Clocks for Cores, but this brings its own problems like inconsistency.

At the very least the 3/5/7 SKUs need to change, prices don't change yet requirements for CPUs go up. This effectively gives less value to the i5 customers.

Intel definitely tries to push gamers towards BDW-E or w/e.

Even if two or four additional cores don't fit the power budget, at least the i5's need HT, while the i7s could do with some L4 cache, or some other artificial differentiation.

 

[Doom2pro]

I have not found a single reviewer that actually criticize Intel for the new price of $1700 instead of the $1000

Not a single reviewer criticize Intel for giving us so little performance increase for nearly double the price.

Linus Tech Tips rips it pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfj-Rq9bX40

 

[frozentundra123456]

After some contemplation, I'm sure there are reasons that involve limitations of TDP, clocks, memory and stuff like that that make a mainstream octa-core impossible. AMD's Zen will be an 8 core like at what, - 2.5 GHz base and 140 TDP? Maybe wide and aggressive turbo will make it possible so people don't have to trade Clocks for Cores, but this brings its own problems like inconsistency.

At the very least the 3/5/7 SKUs need to change, prices don't change yet requirements for CPUs go up. This effectively gives less value to the i5 customers.

Intel definitely tries to push gamers towards BDW-E or w/e.

Even if two or four additional cores don't fit the power budget, at least the i5's need HT, while the i7s could do with some L4 cache, or some other artificial differentiation.

I was thinking more on the order of mainstream hex core with HT (becomes the new i7), and then 8 and 10 core for the HEDT platform. Then move the stack down accordingly: i5 becomes quad with HT, i3 quad no HT, and so on. But Intel continues to stubbornly try to maintain their prices, margins, and market segmentatiion in a declining, mature market, and expecting 5 or 10% gains to motivate people to make a purchase.

 

[jpiniero]

Intel wouldn't have done the 10 core if they didn't think they could get some people to pay. It would have otherwise been 6/6/8.

I was thinking more on the order of mainstream hex core with HT (becomes the new i7), and then 8 and 10 core for the HEDT platform.

Intel seems like they are going to really push enthusiasts on to the HEDT platform starting with Skylake/Kabylake-X. That would make sense if Cannonlake mainstream was BGA only.