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

[dave_the_nerd]

You're paying a premium for those extra cores. But it's also $300 less than the most similar Xeon E5.

 

[Headfoot]

Please file my formal complaint. $1700 is ridiculously expensive.

 

[know of fence]

Regarding the hefty price tag for the first consumer "dual digit core" processor, I just came up with that...

Marketing theory, or let's call it common sense or evil psychology: teaches us that: of the three ideal product SKUs on offer, cheapest, golden middle, and top of the line. The most expensive one only serves to make the other prices appear tiny in comparison.
Top of the line products are never meant to sell in high volume, except to the "I always buy the best" type of crowd. So on first thought the price for top of line couldn't be high enough! Realistically it probably needs to be in the same ballpark to be associated with the other "lesser" products.

Maybe a ~70% premium is a kind of "bliss point" for top of the line pricing, that you might find throughout the various Ultra-book and NUC SKUs, If you divide the highest by second highest SKU (and multiply by 100 to get %, lol).

 

[bystander36]

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.

Do they expect us to be motivated by 5-10% improvements? I assumed they simply have run into a wall, and are doing the best they can to improve things. I doubt they expect anyone to upgrade every generation anymore.

 

[DrMrLordX]

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.

The 5775c is faster than the 6700k in a lot of games. I'd sooner get that and try to push it to 4.5 GHz if I absolutely had to have the fastest gaming CPU right now.

It might be a pita to spec out the system and get everything running just right, but if performance alone were all that mattered . . .

 

[lyssword]

absolutely everyone complained about it in the original thread

 

[LTC8K6]

The 5775c is faster than the 6700k in a lot of games. I'd sooner get that and try to push it to 4.5 GHz if I absolutely had to have the fastest gaming CPU right now.

It might be a pita to spec out the system and get everything running just right, but if performance alone were all that mattered . . .

I think the 6700K holds it's own with the 5775C, and pulls away with fast DDR4.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I'm sure they don't sell many of those chips. Those who buy them have super deep pockets and would buy it at $1,500.00 or $1,700.00 or even $2,000.00.

Intel has may market pricing strategists. I'm sure they've calculated that $1,700.00 will maximize profit while not hindering sales.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think the 6700K holds it's own with the 5775C, and pulls away with fast DDR4.

+1.

I think in a lot of early tests comparing BW-C, Skylake was gimped with slow ram. I would like to see a side by side comparison of the two with various speeds of ram. But overall, with fast ram and at max overclock, I think skylake would be as fast or faster. It is kind of strange though how BW iris pro is held in such high regard now by some, when it was pretty much panned initially.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

+1.

I think in a lot of early tests comparing BW-C, Skylake was gimped with slow ram. I would like to see a side by side comparison of the two with various speeds of ram. But overall, with fast ram and at max overclock, I think skylake would be as fast or faster. It is kind of strange though how BW iris pro is held in such high regard now by some, when it was pretty much panned initially.

It depends on the game. I think broadwell C was panned at first because pricing and availability were terrible when it launched. Pricing is a bit better than launch but still not great; $15 premium compared to 6700K.

I bought it because I didn't want to buy DDR4 RAM and I wanted that L4 cache. The better thermal performance and resale value (I think at least) were bonuses for me. If broadwell C could clock higher I think it would be a clear winner over skylake but as it stands now, 4.2-4.3GHz max, there isn't a clear 100% winner.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Where I would really like to see edram (iris pro) become more widespread is in mobile. Like make iris pro standard on all quad mobile i7s. Should make a decent light gaming laptop without a dgpu. I am just not sure adding edram on the desktop is a very efficient way to increase performance. I would rather see the die space used to increase core counts on the mainstream platform.

 

[Jovec]

If you need the cores it's not that expensive. If you just want the cores it is.

 

[dealcorn]

While the evidence is anecdotal, Ashraf reports that "Core i7 6950X might be outselling Core i7 6900X" (http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/...-corporations-10.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003). While Intel typically does not report sales by processor, we may hear confirmation during next quarter's Intel conference call. Rather than some sort of "halo" product designed to increases sale of Celerons, I think Intel is satisfying actual demand at the high end.

 

[frozentundra123456]

While the evidence is anecdotal, Ashraf reports that "Core i7 6950X might be outselling Core i7 6900X" (http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/...-corporations-10.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003). While Intel typically does not report sales by processor, we may hear confirmation during next quarter's Intel conference call. Rather than some sort of "halo" product designed to increases sale of Celerons, I think Intel is satisfying actual demand at the high end.

That makes sense in a way. Some people just want top of the line no matter what, and are willing to pay for it. The 8 core now is just kind of in limbo, still extremely expensive, but not top of the line.

 

[gdansk]

If you don't game just buy a Xeon E5-2660 v4. It is 14 core, 2-3.2GHz, 105W TDP for less than $1400. Scores similar in parallel workloads, which is the only reason to buy a i7-6950X anyway.

 

[strategyfreak]

I've done plenty of bitching about this processor on this forum.
$1700 is ridiculous for a consumer processor. As others have eloquently said, this thing is the processor equivalent of a gold plated HDMI cable - something for the epeen of people who have too much money and want something "exclusive." I wouldn't be surprised if 9 out of 10 processors sit idle while the owner uses the computer to browse Facebook, watch internet porn, or play League of Legends.


It's not as though I'm coming from a gaming perspective either. I understand the need for powerful multithreaded processors - some of the programs I run need as much clockspeed and cores as they can get. I currently use a dual Xeon X5660 system on a daily basis, and would like to upgrade, and if it's prudent, spend to get high performance. But this simply isn't a good buy. This processor is well within Xeon price range and although it's a bit cheaper than the 2687w v4, I'd much rather pay the extra money to for dual socket support and added memory capacity. Nobody looking to build a workstation is going to see the 6950x and think "That's a great deal! I can save a whole $300 by going with the X99 platform instead!"

While the evidence is anecdotal, Ashraf reports that "Core i7 6950X might be outselling Core i7 6900X" (http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/...-corporations-10.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003). While Intel typically does not report sales by processor, we may hear confirmation during next quarter's Intel conference call. Rather than some sort of "halo" product designed to increases sale of Celerons, I think Intel is satisfying actual demand at the high end.

It's price has been dropping, which implies that demand is weak, or not selling well enough enough for retailers to maintain MSRP. If it were in demand like the 6700k, there is no way it would be going down like this. Price ultimately is a better indicator than "number of reviews" like that article suggests. I wouldn't be surprised if this has been a hard sell for Intel.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/MJM323/intel-cpu-bx80671i76950x

Like I said, most people looking for multicore performance will get a Xeon system. Even Anandtech recommends as much:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus

Most gamers will be looking at the 6700k instead and know to stay away. The only ones buying this processor are either the ill-informed, or the ego driven with the cash to burn.

 

[senseamp]

Some people are OK spending $1700 on a CPU, and some are only OK spending $1000. Holy grail of marketers is to manage to sell same exact product to different customers for what each customer is willing to pay. But because that's hard to justify and considered "unfair," small product differences are there to justify the very big price differences. It's like that with pretty much all high end goods. The point is, you decide what you want to pay, and if the company is good at marketing, they will figure out a way to at least make you feel like you are getting something if you are the guy willing to spend more, even if it's very little compared to the guy who is only willing to spend half of that.

 

[Insomniator]

If its too expensive for you or just a horrible value in general (top parts almost always are) then just ignore it. Who cares that they charge $1700 for it?

There are always other options. Some people have the money for a $1700 consumer chip, hell some have the money for a $10k consumer chip if it existed. Doesn't matter when even a $300 6700k or 5830k is plenty for 99% of people.

Its not like your only options are Titan X's and 6950X's.

 

[guskline]

If its too expensive for you or just a horrible value in general (top parts almost always are) then just ignore it. Who cares that they charge $1700 for it?

There are always other options. Some people have the money for a $1700 consumer chip, hell some have the money for a $10k consumer chip if it existed. Doesn't matter when even a $300 6700k or 5830k is plenty for 99% of people.

Its not like your only options are Titan X's and 6950X's.

Excellent post Insomniator. Heck as I'm driving to work in my 10 year old Honda Civic, I'll pull up next to a guy in a brand new Corvette and "dream".

We both get where we are going, just he does it faster and in style but my AC still works great!

 

[Gunbuster]

I would love an inside look at the number of units shipped. Maybe a handful went to each of the boutique builders, twenty to fifty to newegg/amazon/... maybe hundred or so to the likes of Dell and HP for E-peen systems or biz workstations.

I'm guessing less then 2000 of these chips exist in the channel today.

 

[StrangerGuy]

If its too expensive for you or just a horrible value in general (top parts almost always are) then just ignore it. Who cares that they charge $1700 for it?

There are always other options. Some people have the money for a $1700 consumer chip, hell some have the money for a $10k consumer chip if it existed. Doesn't matter when even a $300 6700k or 5830k is plenty for 99% of people.

Its not like your only options are Titan X's and 6950X's.

It's the thinly-veiled "iPhones should be affordable for poors" entitlement crap again.

 

[Dave2150]

The 5775c is faster than the 6700k in a lot of games. I'd sooner get that and try to push it to 4.5 GHz if I absolutely had to have the fastest gaming CPU right now.

It might be a pita to spec out the system and get everything running just right, but if performance alone were all that mattered . . .

Only if you use cheap shitty DDR4.

Use an affordable 3000Mhz or 3200Mhz+ kit and Skylake will blow it away, whilst having the far superior Z170 chipset to provide much better connectivity/features.

 

[RussianSensation]

Excellent post Insomniator. Heck as I'm driving to work in my 10 year old Honda Civic, I'll pull up next to a guy in a brand new Corvette and "dream".

We both get where we are going, just he does it faster and in style but my AC still works great!

This comparison doesn't work at all. Even when the Corvette ages, in 20-30 years from now a Honda Civic will still lose to it in performance. In this case, the 6700K ("Honda Civic") beats 6950X in many tasks, from gaming to all 1-4 core tasks. I wouldn't even buy the 6950X if it cost $699. 6800K is a great CPU for those who value productivity over gaming. 6700K is a great CPU for those who value gaming over productivity. 5960X/6900K is great for those who really need consumer productivity. At $1700-1800 though, you can build a superior workstation/productivity system.

Think about it, someone doing video encoding/rendering probably has more than 1 working task. That means it's actually better to get 2 fast CPUs and do 2 jobs concurrently. Might as well do a dual build with a 6700K+6900K, or go dual 6900Ks in the same case; or go dual Xeons for not much more $.

All the top PC gaming YouTubers started their channels before we even had 5960X which means you don't need a $1000-1700 CPU to create YouTube videos and be successful. The main purpose of 6950X is just to show off and say you have the best consumer CPU. This same consumer will buy the 7950X and 8950X. I actually don't mind as long as the consumers are funding Intel's R&D. Same reason I wouldn't recommend a Titan series even though the same consumers buy those.

Also, I am not sure how price inelastic a person has to be to buy a 6950X + Titan P SLI. For me, I'd have to own a Ferrari or Lambo before I spend $$ like that. But it's the consumer's right to spend $$$ how they choose.

The part that's incongruent is that these same PC builders desire to have the 'best of the best' but then 6700K + 1080 SLI >>>>> 6950X + 1080 SLI. It's even more face palming when some of them have the 6950X only at 4.0-4.2Ghz. It's going to take them almost 2 years to get to 4.6-4.8Ghz 6700K speeds with SKL-E, and by that time 1080 will be succeeded by 1080Ti. That's why I don't believe in the notion that these consumers actually want the best gaming PC all the time. What it sounds like they want is the idea/emotional feeling that they have the best gaming PC.

Considering every 1080 SLI review so far shows 4.5Ghz 6700K or so bottlenecking those cards at 1440p, I am just going to say it outright: no true to himself PC gaming enthusiast would buy an even weaker 6950X + 1080 SLI. You'd actually want the fastest possible CPU to shift the bottleneck as far away as possible from the CPU. What CPU does this best? 6700K.

I think the reason many don't bother criticizing 6950X is because the target customer will still buy it, so why bother? Same reason some people will insist and spend $$ on the extra worthless PCIe lanes of the 5930K and 6850K.

 

[coercitiv]

Poor 6950X, everybody labels it as the spoiled, cold hearted chip, when all it really wants is a warm housing to call home and a bit of user input. Even typos would do. You can't put a price on love!

PS: adopt a 6950X now, save the rainforest!

 

[aigomorla]

The 6950X is intel's way of spitting at us, to test our intelligence.
So No.

As i have been saying, it has no point or purpose outside flinging around a ego saying you have a 1800 dollar chip.

1. cant overclock as high as the 5960X
2. @ the price point you can get a dual 6 core xeons for a total of 12 cores which is moar cores then a 5960X.
3. The cpu is just a sorry refresh of haswell-e, its not skylake counter part to the 6700k.

Its a stupid cpu in every practical sense you look at.
However human stupidity is infinite, especially when it comes in the aspect of hobby, so practicality rarely plays any influence when purchasing something for your hobby.

In seriousness i hope it flomps hard, that intel learns to never to pull this stunt again. As it seriously is a test of our intelligence.