SKL-X moved forward to week 25. CFL coming in Q4.

The source is a digitimes prepublication in case anyone wonders.
 
You guys crack me up, thinking this chip will be cheap, likely priced between 600 to 700 bucks.
 
Gideon said:
You guys crack me up, thinking this chip will be cheap, likely priced between 600 to 700 bucks.
Click to expand...

If Intel wanted to bury AMD forever, all they'd need to do is sell the chip for $500 or less. Even if Intel lost money, it might be worth it to them to put AMD in the grave.
 
Shintai said:
350$ for a top bin CFL-S 6T/12T.
Click to expand...

I'd sell my Ryzen rig for that. That would be the end of AMD for sure. There will be an Intel fanboy party the next day...

...then a year later, Intel will charge $1000 for a 5% performance bump, because no competition.
 
Last edited:
Right now, don't by x99 but buy Z2xx LGA 1151 and Kaby Lake and wait for nice upgrade to 6/12 on same socket with the highest IPC, or wait and get x299 with new Sky Lake X. I would totally not consider Ryzen.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
I'd sell my Ryzen rig for that. That would be the end of AMD for sure. There will be an Intel fanboy party the next day...

...then a year later, Intel will charge $1000 for a 5% performance bump, because no competition.
Click to expand...

That's now how economics works. Same reason a 1080ti is 699.
 
Shintai said:
That's now how economics works. Same reason a 1080ti is 699.
Click to expand...

Oh whatever, man. If you want to posit that monopolies are a-okay, and just dandy, and aren't going to bend you over on price... well, that wouldn't be wise, but whatever floats your boat. How economics works, in this case, is that monopolies suck ass.

Nvidia has to behave on the off chance AMD might do something intelligent. Yeah, not very likely, I admit, but they still have to consider the possibility. AMD sucks as a competitor. Ye gods do I wish we had better competition man. But defective competition is better than none at all. Mark my words, when AMD dies -- and die it will, if you're right about Coffee Lake, and the naysayers are right about Vega being a steaming pile of sh*t -- innovation will slow, and prices will go up.

That, my friend, is exactly how economics works.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Oh whatever, man. If you want to posit that monopolies are a-okay, and just dandy, and aren't going to bend you over on price... well, that wouldn't be wise, but whatever floats your boat. How economics works, in this case, is that monopolies suck ass.

Nvidia has to behave on the off chance AMD might do something intelligent. Yeah, not very likely, I admit, but they still have to consider the possibility. AMD sucks as a competitor. Ye gods do I wish we had better competition man. But defective competition is better than none at all. Mark my words, when AMD dies -- and die it will, if you're right about Coffee Lake, and the naysayers are right about Vega being a steaming pile of sh*t -- innovation will slow, and prices will go up.

That, my friend, is exactly how economics works.
Click to expand...

You can portrait it as you want. But there is an optimal price/volume and innovation that the segment requires. And its not 1000$ for 5%.

And CPUs pretty much haven't been cheaper in history since 2006 and up till now.

Intel, Nvidia and AMD isn't selling tap water or something else with static demand. It requires a demand that's fueled by both price and innovation. Else people dont upgrade. And since its a high cashflow industry, the companies would go bankrupt fast.
 
Shintai said:
You can portrait it as you want. But there is an optimal price/volume and innovation that the segment requires. And its not 1000$ for 5%.
Click to expand...

Nvidia sells Titan Xp cards to some folks who already had Titan X Pascals (I hate the confusing Nvidia Titan nomenclature, but whatever). That's what, a difference of 8-10%? Tops? For like $1200? People spend money to get the best.

And CPUs pretty much haven't been cheaper in history since 2006 and up till now.
Click to expand...

What a coincidence, that's about when AMD started to suck.

Intel, Nvidia and AMD isn't selling tap water or something else with static demand. It requires a demand that's fueled by both price and innovation. Else people dont upgrade. And since its a high cashflow industry, the companies would go bankrupt fast.
Click to expand...

Nah, competition spurs innovation, and forces higher sensitivity to price. The monopolist can manipulate supply, because he has control over the sole supply. In turn, he can choose to sell low volume, at high margins, or high volume at low(er) margins, or pretty much whatever he feels like doing, because he's a monopolist. He doesn't have to worry about being undercut, or out-innovated by a competitor. AMD exerted pricing pressure on Intel even during the days AMD really sucked. Bulldozer was sh*t, but at a certain point, if the prices for the alternatives are high enough, people will buy the sh*t.

If Intel became a monopoly, they can play the market however they like. People will still pay. The demand isn't static, and they never have full control over that, but they will have full control over the supply, and can manipulate it as they see fit.

No, my friend... you and juanrga did indeed convince me that AMD stills sucks, and Ryzen ain't what it was cracked up to be. So take heart. I was wrong to defend it, and you were right to sh*t on it. But it will take much more to sell me on the idea that monopolies are somehow good or even neutral for the industry.
 
You make no sense DuronBurgerMan. You admit you cant afford a 6900k and yet your mad that AMD gave you a 8 core with almost the same performance for less then half the price and your upset about it cause it didnt beat the 6900k in all things. These guys that all want Skylake-x and coffee lake will take their motherboard ram rodding upgrade and pay extra for the pleasure of it. So either pony up and buy a freaking 6900k or stop going around crying in your beer cause you cant afford it. Only thing I can say is the next ZEN chip will plug into your motherboard for a easy upgrade a option you pretty much never get with Intel.
 
Gideon said:
You make no sense DuronBurgerMan. You admit you cant afford a 6900k and yet your mad that AMD gave you a 8 core with almost the same performance for less then half the price and your upset about it cause it didnt beat the 6900k in all things.
Click to expand...

Who said I was mad? We're all just bullsh*tting here, right? I ain't taking it that seriously.

These guys that all want Skylake-x and coffee lake will take their motherboard ram rodding upgrade and pay extra for the pleasure of it.
Click to expand...

Intel does love to do that, don't they? Here's a great new CPU. We could make it so it could plug into the same socket you already have, but we won't, because $$$.

So either pony up and buy a freaking 6900k or stop going around crying in your beer cause you cant afford it.
Click to expand...

I'm working today (well, mostly, anyway). No beers to cry in. But if you're buying, I'll take one.

Only thing I can say is the next ZEN chip will plug into your motherboard for a easy upgrade a option you pretty much never get with Intel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a point in its favor. TBH, if I could have just dropped a Kaby into my old 2600k machine, I'd have probably done that instead of a full new build. But Intel likes to change the sockets every generation or two, because $$. AMD has always been pretty good about offering upgrade paths for old machines.
 
drescherjm said:
Isn't that 3 generations these days?
Click to expand...

If Coffee Lake plugs into the same socket (which I doubt), that'll be three. If not, then two. My old Z68/1155 board accepted Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge only, so 2 for that one. X99/LGA 2011 is Haswell-E & Broadwell-E only, IIRC, so 2 for that one as well. Z97/1150 was basically just Haswell, so 1 generation there (technically the Broadwell 5775C could plug into that, but I haven't heard of anyone who actually did this), 2 if you count the ill-fated Broadwell.
 
Last edited:
DuronBurgerMan said:
Nvidia sells Titan Xp cards to some folks who already had Titan X Pascals (I hate the confusing Nvidia Titan nomenclature, but whatever). That's what, a difference of 8-10%? Tops? For like $1200? People spend money to get the best.



What a coincidence, that's about when AMD started to suck.



Nah, competition spurs innovation, and forces higher sensitivity to price. The monopolist can manipulate supply, because he has control over the sole supply. In turn, he can choose to sell low volume, at high margins, or high volume at low(er) margins, or pretty much whatever he feels like doing, because he's a monopolist. He doesn't have to worry about being undercut, or out-innovated by a competitor. AMD exerted pricing pressure on Intel even during the days AMD really sucked. Bulldozer was sh*t, but at a certain point, if the prices for the alternatives are high enough, people will buy the sh*t.

If Intel became a monopoly, they can play the market however they like. People will still pay. The demand isn't static, and they never have full control over that, but they will have full control over the supply, and can manipulate it as they see fit.

No, my friend... you and juanrga did indeed convince me that AMD stills sucks, and Ryzen ain't what it was cracked up to be. So take heart. I was wrong to defend it, and you were right to sh*t on it. But it will take much more to sell me on the idea that monopolies are somehow good or even neutral for the industry.
Click to expand...

And the Titan X sells how many cards?

Let me help you to visualize it.

March 2017

GTX 1080TI unlisted.
GTX 1080 1.61%
GTX 1070 3.26%
GTX 1060 4.45%
GTX 1050TI 1.33%
GTX 1050 0.78%

Now Titan X is 0.08%. And that includes both the Pascal and Maxwell Titan X, not just the Pascal edition.

So 0.08% at 1200$. You see it now? Maybe you dont, so lets visualize the revenue. The higher the index the better.
Titan X (Pascal+Maxwell) 1200$ = 96
GTX 1080 Lets just use 700$ = 1127
GTX 1070 400$ = 1304
GTX 1060 ~225$ = 1001.

So in short, the Titan X sales, including both generations have pathetic revenue compared.

And as I said its high cash flow companies. Without the revenue they go bankrupt. Plain simple. Your ideas of a monopoly in a dynamic market is wrong. Also there are other CPU makers than Intel and AMD. My 6700K could last the next 20 years without upgrade. So could my 1080 if the price turned to shit. Again, dead companies long ago. They wouldn't even last a year or 2.

So no matter if they are a monopoly or not they need to:
Price it for the best profit/volume ratio (This keeps prices down by itself).
Create incentives for upgrading (Innovation).
 
Shintai said:
And the Titan X sells how many cards?

So in short, the Titan X sales, including both generations have pathetic revenue compared.

And as I said its high cash flow companies. Without the revenue they go bankrupt. Plain simple. Your ideas of a monopoly in a dynamic market is wrong. Also there are other CPU makers than Intel and AMD. My 6700K could last the next 20 years without upgrade. So could my 1080 if the price turned to shit. Again, dead companies long ago. They wouldn't even last a year or 2.

So no matter if they are a monopoly or not they need to:
Price it for the best profit/volume ratio (This keeps prices down by itself).
Create incentives for upgrading (Innovation).
Click to expand...

For point 1: Halo products are higher margin, lower volume. Revenue is great, sure, but the end result a company desires is profit. Selling 100 cards that grant a margin of $100 is the same as selling 10,000 cards with a margin of $1. The point is, if Intel (and Nvidia for that matter) became a monopoly, they could play the supply market however they pleased. The x86 CPU makers other than Intel and AMD are out of the performance game. You think Via is going to step in? No way, man.

For point 2: Are you really arguing in favor of monopolies? Dude, that's not just wrong, it's crazy.

For point 3: What enthusiast would be OK not upgrading their CPU and GPU for 20 years?

The thing you're missing here is that Intel has more or less already been doing this. Every year or so, they offer a 5-10% bump. To get it, you usually need a new platform (every 2 gens). So new mobo, probably new RAM too. And Intel has somehow made out pretty well these last several years doing it. Now, you can argue the technical reasons why the CPU market has slowed down a lot (and I wouldn't disagree with them), but the point is, the market is still buying new CPUs, and Intel is still making money doing this. So they can do that.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
For point 1: Halo products are higher margin, lower volume. Revenue is great, sure, but the end result a company desires is profit. Selling 100 cards that grant a margin of $100 is the same as selling 10,000 cards with a margin of $1. The point is, if Intel (and Nvidia for that matter) became a monopoly, they could play the supply market however they pleased. The x86 CPU makers other than Intel and AMD are out of the performance game. You think Via is going to step in? No way, man.

For point 2: Are you really arguing in favor of monopolies? Dude, that's not just wrong, it's crazy.

For point 3: What enthusiast would be OK not upgrading their CPU and GPU for 20 years?

The thing you're missing here is that Intel has more or less already been doing this. Every year or so, they offer a 5-10% bump. To get it, you usually need a new platform (every 2 gens). So new mobo, probably new RAM too. And Intel has somehow made out pretty well these last several years doing it. Now, you can argue the technical reasons why the CPU market has slowed down a lot (and I wouldn't disagree with them), but the point is, the market is still buying new CPUs, and Intel is still making money doing this. So they can do that.
Click to expand...

1. But still not making the money. Not even close. You advocate for a business disaster as something companies would wish to pursue.
2. No, but I am telling you that your ideas are wrong from a business perspective and have no merit in reality. Also if you want to go that route, duopolies isn't better.
3. The enthusiast segment is tiny. And plenty of people wont. Just as they dont all buy 1000$ CPUs and 1200$ GPUs.

All these companies knows exactly what the optimal price ranges are. And here is a hint, they already price it there. Its only a matter of who got the product there.
main-qimg-90d17ed64536aff8295f95834d57fba2


And HEDT products couldn't even exist without servers. That's how tiny ultra niche they are.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
1. But still not making the money. Not even close. You advocate for a business disaster as something companies would wish to pursue.
Click to expand...

I didn't advocate for anything. You're reading things in my posts that just aren't there, and I've no idea how you do that. I didn't post any business plans, nor did I tell Intel what they should price their chips at. I expressed the notion that monopolies have the ability to manipulate supply, and to some extent, demand in the marketplace, and that's generally sh*tty for the consumer.

2. No, but I am telling you that your ideas are wrong from a business perspective and have no merit in reality.
Click to expand...

You can say monopolies are good until you're blue in the face (pun intended). I'm not buying it, sir.

3. The enthusiast segment is tiny. And plenty of people wont. Just as they dont all buy 1000$ CPUs and 1200$ GPUs.

All these companies knows exactly what the optimal price ranges are.
Click to expand...

Enthusiasts are indeed a small portion of the market. Again, did I ever say otherwise? You're arguing with yourself on that one. As for whether or not companies know exactly what optimal pricing looks like, well, sometimes they get it right, sometimes they f*ck it up. But optimal pricing changes when a company has a monopoly over the market. Because that company can exclusively manipulate one side of the supply and demand curve. Keep in mind, this can have effects on suppliers, board partners, etc..., too.

No, monopolies are no good.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
No, monopolies are no good.
Click to expand...

Duopolies isn't any better.

Your idea of competition vanished a long time ago for CPUs and GPUs. A real long time ago when the companies with a useable alternative product in the same category withdrew one way or the other.
 
Shintai said:
Duopolies isn't any better.

Your idea of competition vanished a long time ago for CPUs and GPUs. A real long time ago when the companies with a useable alternative product in the same category withdrew one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Duopolies aren't ideal by any stretch, but they are better than monopolies (at least, so long as they avoid becoming a cartel - see: record labels). That is like saying a solid log is better than diarrhea. It is a true statement, but missing the fact that much better options exist. I very much lament that we're down to Intel and AMD on the one hand, and Nvidia and AMD on the other. But I'll take AMD hanging around, even if they release crappy products a lot of the time, over no competition at all. AMD being around generally serves to keep Intel and Nvidia mostly honest. I say "mostly" because God only knows where we'd be today if more competition did exist. But that's all speculation, anyway.

The market has much to lose and nothing to gain if AMD goes under.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Duopolies aren't ideal by any stretch, but they are better than monopolies (at least, so long as they avoid becoming a cartel - see: record labels). That is like saying a solid log is better than diarrhea. It is a true statement, but missing the fact that much better options exist. I very much lament that we're down to Intel and AMD on the one hand, and Nvidia and AMD on the other. But I'll take AMD hanging around, even if they release crappy products a lot of the time, over no competition at all. AMD being around generally serves to keep Intel and Nvidia mostly honest. I say "mostly" because God only knows where we'd be today if more competition did exist. But that's all speculation, anyway.

The market has much to lose and nothing to gain if AMD goes under.
Click to expand...

A duopoly is pretty much the worst from both sides. And it hurts innovation due to the lack of risk willingness. But they still keep the socalled monopoly pricing. In short it doesn't matter if we move to a monopoly, it may actually be a big benefit from the consumer view because the risk factor for innovation will increase while we keep the same prices. 980TI and Fury X wasn't priced the same by accident for example. Nor is GP106 and Polaris 10/20.

What you should wish for is more companies to join the scene if you want anything else.
 
Shintai said:
A duopoly is pretty much the worst from both sides. And it hurts innovation due to the lack of risk willingness. But they still keep the socalled monopoly pricing. In short it doesn't matter if we move to a monopoly, it may actually be a big benefit from the consumer view because the risk factor for innovation will increase while we keep the same prices. 980TI and Fury X wasn't priced the same by accident for example. Nor is GP106 and Polaris 10/20.

What you should wish for is more companies to join the scene if you want anything else.
Click to expand...

Of course I wish that (again, where have I expressed otherwise?). In the meantime, it'd be nice to avoid worsening the situation by eliminating the last remaining real competitor. In your example, if two GPUs perform similarly, there will be pricing pressure. After a time, one may try to undercut the other a little bit to boost sales volume. Furthermore, if AMD releases a card that competes with a high level Nvidia card, it pushes Nvidia to hurry along with an even higher end card. So both innovation and pricing are pushed along a little. My thought is the 1080 Ti was pushed to a (relatively) lower price point at least partly because Nvidia wanted to ensure they were one step ahead of AMD's Vega lineup. Maybe Vega is crap anyway, but Nvidia can't take the risk. So we get a nice card for less than the old Titan X Pascal. Not a bad deal!

Not ideal, to only have two competitors. But better than just one.

But, my friend, if you want to startup a CPU or GPU company, I wish you all the luck in the world. God knows, we could use more of 'em.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Of course I wish that (again, where have I expressed otherwise?). In the meantime, it'd be nice to avoid worsening the situation by eliminating the last remaining real competitor. In your example, if two GPUs perform similarly, there will be pricing pressure. After a time, one may try to undercut the other a little bit to boost sales volume. Furthermore, if AMD releases a card that competes with a high level Nvidia card, it pushes Nvidia to hurry along with an even higher end card. So both innovation and pricing are pushed along a little. My thought is the 1080 Ti was pushed to a (relatively) lower price point at least partly because Nvidia wanted to ensure they were one step ahead of AMD's Vega lineup. Maybe Vega is crap anyway, but Nvidia can't take the risk. So we get a nice card for less than the old Titan X Pascal. Not a bad deal!

Not ideal, to only have two competitors. But better than just one.

But, my friend, if you want to startup a CPU or GPU company, I wish you all the luck in the world. God knows, we could use more of 'em.
Click to expand...

But what you write doesn't happen. Because duopolies are just as bad a monopolies in terms of pricing. The price segment is the same. Only new products changes price, and new products just overtake the old prices.

The 1080TI is priced where it makes most money just as the 1080 was. Vega isn't even a thought. Volta isn't coming soon due to AMD either. Its coming because Nvidia needs to sell new cards so people upgrade again. Same applies for CPUs.

So if you think there is competition in pricing in these 2 duopolies? You couldn't be more wrong.
 
Shintai said:
But what you write doesn't happen. Because duopolies are just as bad a monopolies in terms of pricing.
Click to expand...

They don't exert pricing pressure on one another? They don't push each other to innovate faster? Pull the other one.

The 1080TI is priced where it makes most money. Vega isn't even a thought. Volta isn't coming soon due to AMD either. Its coming because Nvidia needs to sell new cards so people upgrade again. Same applies for CPUs.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Nvidia has been checking in on what AMD is doing, and ensuring they are always a step ahead. If you don't figure your competition into your internal calculus, you're going to get blindsided. That's how 3dfx bit the big one, back in the day. They didn't think Nvidia was a threat until too late, and they started throwing their weight around with the STB buy. Screwed the AIB partners. You can bet Nvidia isn't likely to make the same mistake.

AMD kind of sucks as a competitor, though. It's like in a Parliamentary democracy, AMD is always the perpetual party of Opposition. Oh, sure, they made a play for the Prime Minister position back in the K7 and K8 days, and for a time it almost seemed like they could pull it off (I remember them having something like 41% of the CPU market at one point), but they failed, and they had some bad leadership for a time, and back to Opposition it was. But the Opposition has a way of at least keeping the party in power honest. So they aren't entirely useless.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
They don't exert pricing pressure on one another? They don't push each other to innovate faster? Pull the other one.
Click to expand...

ARM is a monopoly. You cant make an ARM CPU without shopping at ARM Holdings. Works fine for them and your smartphone, fridge, washer, dryer, TV etc doesn't it?

The price segment doesn't really change does it? Sure the one with worse metrics have to compensate. But you still pay the same if the other company is there or not.

What duopolies however do is killing innovation. Because with only 2 companies, any failed high risk innovation = other company takes all. And you can only lose/gain share to 1. This is why you want more companies if you want high risk innovation.

ARM never had more innovation than since it became a monopoly.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
ARM is a monopoly. You cant make an ARM CPU without shopping at ARM Holdings. Works fine for them and your smartphone, fridge, washer, dryer, TV etc doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No it isn't. ARM faces competition from Intel's Atom line, and a number of other products. ARM is dominant in its space, but by no means exclusive. If ARM Holdings charged too much for the license fee, folks would use something else. Also, given that ARM essentially just licenses out to other companies means that there's a lot of competition in the implementation side.

Also, I've a bone to pick with the phone industry right now, but that's another conversation topic.

The price segment doesn't really change does it? Sure the one with worse metrics have to compensate. But you still pay the same if the other company is there or not.

What duopolies however do is killing innovation. Because with only 2 companies, any failed high risk innovation = other company takes all. And you can only lose/gain share to 1. This is why you want more companies if you want high risk innovation.

ARM never had more innovation than since it became a monopoly.
Click to expand...

ARM has innovation because it's comparatively easy to get a license, and because other architectures are just waiting to snap up the market share should ARM fail. I mean take the Smart TVs and devices like the Fire Stick, Roku, etc... these platforms could just as easily use an Atom, just like the Intel Compute Stick line. In fact, I very nearly did that instead of the Fire Stick for my old "dumb" TV.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
No it isn't. ARM faces competition from Intel's Atom line, and a number of other products. ARM is dominant in its space, but by no means exclusive. If ARM Holdings charged too much for the license fee, folks would use something else. Also, given that ARM essentially just licenses out to other companies means that there's a lot of competition in the implementation side.

Also, I've a bone to pick with the phone industry right now, but that's another conversation topic.

ARM has innovation because it's comparatively easy to get a license, and because other architectures are just waiting to snap up the market share should ARM fail. I mean take the Smart TVs and devices like the Fire Stick, Roku, etc... these platforms could just as easily use an Atom, just like the Intel Compute Stick line. In fact, I very nearly did that instead of the Fire Stick for my old "dumb" TV.
Click to expand...

ARM is as locked as x86 is. Its pretty much the 2 last instruction sets left in the world and both are very tight locked to their software ecosystems with very little interaction. One you get from ARM Holdings, the other from AMD/Intel. And ARM is an example of a monopoly.

And its funny you mention that ARM is price sensitive, yet it doesn't apply for x86? Its the exact same reason why SKL-X, CFL-S etc got its natural price points. And for innovation, same thing.

So I think we are done on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
ARM is as locked as x86 is. Its pretty much the 2 last instruction sets left in the world and both are very tight locked to their software ecosystems with very little interaction. One you get from ARM Holdings, the other from AMD/Intel. And ARM is an example of a monopoly.
Click to expand...

Except that x86 could do what ARM does, whereas there's no real possibility of ARM to do what x86 does. So low power x86 can be a threat to ARM, whereas ARM is not likely to be a threat to high performance desktop x86. ARM does not have a monopoly in the lower power space.

And its funny you mention that ARM is price sensitive, yet it doesn't apply for x86? Its the exact same reason why SKL-X, CFL-S etc got its natural price points. And for innovation, same thing.

So I think we are done on the subject.
Click to expand...

ARM is price sensitive because it has competition. x86 still has *some* price sensitivity because AMD exists. Eliminate AMD, and Intel can get away with a lot more.

As far as being done on the subject, that's up to you. This is the Internet, my good sir. You can stop whenever you want to :).
 
I should note that, as an aside, I've been very impressed with Intel's low power, small form factor products. They are innovating in this space much more than they have in the desktop space of late. It's a great example of what Intel can do when it feels heavy competitive pressure!

Even though I wound up using the Fire Stick for the crappy upstairs TV, I do still want to play around with one of the Compute Sticks, just to see what I can do with one. So I'll probably buy one just for sh*ts and giggles sooner or later.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
I should note that, as an aside, I've been very impressed with Intel's low power, small form factor products. They are innovating in this space much more than they have in the desktop space of late. It's a great example of what Intel can do when it feels heavy competitive pressure!

Even though I wound up using the Fire Stick for the crappy upstairs TV, I do still want to play around with one of the Compute Sticks, just to see what I can do with one. So I'll probably buy one just for sh*ts and giggles sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Bah, the Compute Sticks are a fucking waste of money at $150 for the "good" cheap ones w/ Cherry Trail(2nd gen) if you want more than P4 performance, the high model ones are $500+. I looked at everything for my self and the in-laws for a cheap mini/pc/streamer. Used Chromcast, Chromebit, Compute Stick, ect., all with bad results with the in-laws.

Bought one of these, and they loved it, now don't expect barnstormer performance from it unless you buy one of the higher models, but it can make up for it with it's capabilities, wound up buying 2 more, 1 for me and one for my uncle, now everybody in the family wants one. Only thing it needs is a SSD, RAM and a OS.

Bought a couple cheap 64Gb PNY's and I have several Enterprise versions of Windows. Runs cool, quite, can stream 1080p movies, logged into FB with multiple tabs and listen to Youtube at the same time.

My in-laws don't even bother getting out of bed any more since I hooked them up with it. Made them pay for access to my Plex account and bam, now I'm on a first name basis with them instead of being known as the "sperm donor'. ;)
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
350$ for a top bin CFL-S 6T/12T.
Click to expand...

Haha a 4 core 8 threads will sell for that. Their 6 core 12 threads will sell for quite a bit more, Intel has no interest in giving you a deal unless Ryzen crimps their sales before they launch it. Long as Intel thinks they have the fastest product and sales remain good they wont lower prices a inch.
 
Gideon said:
Haha a 4 core 8 threads will sell for that. Their 6 core 12 threads will sell for quite a bit more, Intel has no interest in giving you a deal unless Ryzen crimps their sales before they launch it. Long as Intel thinks they have the fastest product and sales remain good they wont lower prices a inch.
Click to expand...
Existence of G4560 contradicts your argument.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
If Intel wanted to bury AMD forever, all they'd need to do is sell the chip for $500 or less. Even if Intel lost money, it might be worth it to them to put AMD in the grave.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, as that would force Intel to either split or allow another potentially richer company with fabs (like Samsung) to get an x86 license. Intel wants AMD to be marginally there to maintain its near monopoly duopoly.
 
Gideon said:
Haha a 4 core 8 threads will sell for that. Their 6 core 12 threads will sell for quite a bit more, Intel has no interest in giving you a deal unless Ryzen crimps their sales before they launch it. Long as Intel thinks they have the fastest product and sales remain good they wont lower prices a inch.
Click to expand...

They dont lower prices. That's the part you haven't understood. They replace SKUs and there is plenty of examples of this.

lolfail9001 said:
Existence of G4560 contradicts your argument.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Its SKU replacements, not price changes.

On the mainstream platform I expect.
i7 = 6C/12T
i5 = 4C/8T, possible 6C/6T.
i3 = 4C/4T
Pentium 2C/4T (Already there)
Celeron 2C/2T, possible 2C/4T.

On the mobile front its clear that a 4C/8T CFL-U model will be quite common with GT3e as well. CFL-H will be 6C/12T.
 
Shintai said:
On the mainstream platform I expect.
i7 = 6C/12T
i5 = 4C/8T, possible 6C/6T.
i3 = 4C/4T
Pentium 2C/4T (Already there)
Celeron 2C/2T, possible 2C/4T.
Click to expand...

Why not

i7 = 6C/12T
i5 = 6C/6T
i3 = 4C/8T
Pentium 4C/4T
Celeron 2C/4T ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top