Why would Intel "let" AMD "have" anything? If they did that, shareholders would demand BK's head.
Yeah, because Intel will just sit back and watch AMD taking back market share. They'll probably let them have the U.S. since lately they haven't been very interested in delivering them high end parts anyway.
That was exactly my point: Intel won't let AMD have anything. It's easy to imagine AMD pricing their (competitive) products sky high in a vacuum, but fact is Intel will make several adjustments in their product line in order to make sure AMD does not get to stretch their legs.Why would Intel "let" AMD "have" anything? If they did that, shareholders would demand BK's head.
Lack of competition and the fact that we are stuck at quad cores in the $200-350 segment for the last 6-8 years is enough to make people not upgrade like they used to.
For Gamers, even today almost 8 years after its release, having a 3.6-4GHz Nehalem will be better to upgrade your GPU (even if you have a R9 390/GTX980) than go for a new 6700K Skylake. Especially with DX-12 games.
Moar cores wouldn't do anything. If you think lack of competition is doing anything and Intel is just sitting on its hands while the PC segment declines?
Maybe for you but not necessarily for the vast majority of the 99 percent, that number is egregiously wrong btw, as going for quad (or hexa) core would be an option if the price is right. Intel could very well sell a quad core (plus HT) with a modest GPU for 200$ but oh no they love their margins so much that they'd rather not sell to the crowd looking for a relatively cheap upgrade (200~250$) than to sell them a $350 chip, or 250$ for an i5, for cheaps!Moar cores wouldn't do anything. If you think lack of competition is doing anything and Intel is just sitting on its hands while the PC segment declines?
You need a reality check.
Yes because the crowd that buys them is insatiable & change hardware just like the folks who buy new iphones each year, maybe out of (bad?) habit.6700K etc sells like hotcakes. Because people prioritizing it buys it. The chips not selling are in much lower segments. And its not because people dont want to upgrade, its because they cant. Same applies for the completely disasterous GPU segment.
Moar cores wouldn't do anything. If you think lack of competition is doing anything and Intel is just sitting on its hands while the PC segment declines?
You need a reality check.
6700K etc sells like hotcakes. Because people prioritizing it buys it. The chips not selling are in much lower segments. And its not because people dont want to upgrade, its because they cant. Same applies for the completely disasterous GPU segment.
Core i7 920 MSRP = $284 - 263mm2 - 45nm - Quad Core
Core i7 2600K MSRP = $317 - 217mm2 - 32nm - Quad Core
Core i7 3770K MSRP = $313 - 160mm2 - 22nm - Quad Core
Core i7 4770K MSRP = $339 - 177mm2 - 22nm - Quad Core
Core i7 6700K MSRP = $350 - 120mm2 - 14nm - QuadCore
Hell we have stack at Quad Core since 2008 Nehalem because of the f...g iGPU and Laptops.
I sure hope AMD will not screw up ZEN because the vast majority of people will not spend $350 for a iGPU that also has 4 CPU cores.
If I was in your position and wasn't happy with current prices of GPUs, I would strongly consider a 6-core Xeon. A lot of these can be purchased for $100 USD and with a solid cooler can overclock to 4.4-4.6Ghz.
Intel Xeon Processor X5670 Six Cores 2.93 GHz/12M/6.40GT LGA1366 SLBV7 CPU = $89 USD
At the very least, you will get 2 more cores (and I am going to assume you want that) and higher IPC and clock speed than your i7 920 (again I am assuming since I don't know if your 920 is clocked at 4.2ghz+).
Maybe on this forum. But that's an ultra niche. I sure dont hope AMD tries to cater for those. Because then they can just as well close up shop.
If Intel had released a 6 core (which they could easily do) im sure it would sell very well. Intel doesn't want to do is because they want to milk the consumer for as long as possible.
Without question, AMD is going to try at least selling the initial 8 core Zen FX for quite a bit, well above $400 for sure and the 6-core for at least $300. Especially since supplies will be low.
What do you mean they don't sell a 6-core? Of course they do.
You always say that. But I know people who don't even need extra cores yet would buy it so they can have the best. Those same people buy the most expensive k part and it never even crosses their minds to OC.
If Intel had released a 6 core (which they could easily do) im sure it would sell very well. Intel doesn't want to do is because they want to milk the consumer for as long as possible.
Utter nonsense. :thumbsdown:
The products cant sustain themselves. Without the server lines, both AMD and Intel would only sell you 4 cores.
That's what happens when wealth is generated by finance capitalism and not production. People cant afford it and companies dont invest.
I am not saying it would survive without the 'server'. I am saying Intel could afford to sell 6 cores mainstream. It's not like people are going to opt for the mainstream 6 cores to run their servers...
Look at it this way, last year Intel managed to fit 18 cores in 22nm Haswell (and 22 cores Broadwell Xeon this year). In the history of CPU's, has there ever been such a large gap between server and mainstream CPU?
And with or without servers, I think AMD would still sell you 6/8 cores
Why does it need to be on the mainstream platform? What's wrong with 6+ cores on HEDT? After all, HEDT is a platform more geared towards enthusiasts...!
Perhaps some users just want the best, and dont want to have to sacrifice the ipc (as minimal as they have become) gains from the latest architecture to get more cores???? (rhetorical question, btw)
Not to mention it requires a different and expensive motherboard, so there is no upgrade path to more than 4 cores on the mainstream.
Overall, i consider myself an intel supporter, and dont buy into all the "we need competition so bad, intel is holding back on purpose, etc., etc." mantra. But this is one case where I strongly believe they are holding back on giving the best product and are milking the consumer because of lack of competition.
There are a lot less expensive overclocking skylake motherboards, and far cheaper ones if you just wanted the extra cores and didnt want to overclock. Even then, that "75.00 extra" could get you "2 extra cores" on the fastest and most efficient architecture, not a 2 generation old one like X99.
It is just so inconceivable to me that it makes my head want to explode that after nearly 10 years and 4 die shrinks, enthusiasts are still excusing Intel for not bringing out a mainstream hex core.
Lack of competition and the fact that we are stuck at quad cores in the $200-350 segment for the last 6-8 years is enough to make people not upgrade like they used to.
For Gamers, even today almost 8 years after its release, having a 3.6-4GHz Nehalem will be better to upgrade your GPU (even if you have a R9 390/GTX980) than go for a new 6700K Skylake. Especially with DX-12 games.
Else no one would bother buying the new revision when they could get the previous one at a much lower price with virtually the same performance.