I truly believe AMD is going to launch much cheaper products that are competitive with Broadwell IPC wise, and people will rip them because they are ~10% slower than Skylake. The Hype is getting out of control, and expectations always go with that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I truly believe AMD is going to launch much cheaper products that are competitive with Broadwell IPC wise, and people will rip them because they are ~10% slower than Skylake. The Hype is getting out of control, and expectations always go with that.
And after that, all of us will be paying 500 for a dual core Atom, since AMD will be gone for good.
Except we don't have a truly free CPU market. For OEMs, there are contracts to worry about, costs associated with switching vendors, etc. Not to mention the shady deals that have been cut in the past that have kept AMD out of Dell's business lines, etc. AMD could release a chip identical in every way to an Intel equivalent and charge 10-20% less, and still sell fewer by an order of magnitude. Hell, it already happened with the Athlon. AMD had a simply better product, and Intel still shifted lots of units. I'm sure some corporate buyers got some good perks, though.
Also, if Intel had that sort of margin on chips, everyone and their brother would be breaking into the market for a cut of those profits.
Clearly that is impossible given the IP hurdles/restrictions.
I see a lot of negativity surrounding these leaked prices. Lots of people upset from being ripped off the past 3-5 years. hah
Contracts are agreed to, freely. Switching vendors and the like is a free choice and has nothing to do with it not being a free market and those costs go both ways. Shady deals? Like what? I hear this talked about ALL the time, but no one seems to have done research on what really happened. Intel had a less powerful CPU than AMD, so Intel cut prices and offered rebates to vendors who sold a given amount, which is the case with most bulk sales, sell more than a given amount and you get bigger and bigger bulk discounts/rebates. That was not shady, that was good buisness, as it is what people are hoping AMD is doing here and PRAISING them for it! That is they might have a CPU that doesn't match Intel in performance, but will undercut them on price to make it a better value...OMG! How shady of AMD!
Plus, although the younger fanboys may not know this, long long ago AMD participated in the same type of pricing when Intel's Netburst couldn't complete (although to AMD's credit, Intel still was charging a lot for a shitty product).
Clearly that is impossible given the IP hurdles/restrictions.
Contracts are entered into freely, so it follows that so they can be broken freely when market conditions change? Nope. They can and do still affect the demand curve, and therefore the equilibrium price. As it happens, a completely free market is purely theoretical. Branding, contracts, existing relationships, regulations, laws, etc. all play a role in the real world -- the incredulity of armchair economists not withstanding.
Also, I am not being pulled into the AMD/Intel holy war. Good try, though.
Edit: I re-read my original post...my use of the word "shady" was ill-advised. I should have simply said that Intel can and will provide incentives beyond price in order to earn and protect exclusivity deals. My point, however, stands -- price and performance are NOT the only factors.
I'm not upset with AMD. An 8 core for $3xx, ok sign me up. The fact we are paying the same prices for a quad core that we were 10 years ago is stupid.
Such as? Assuming you mean x86 and the like, which people are free to make a logical interface for, which is why x86 clones existed, x86 is open. The hurdle comes in trying to make an efficient x86 based chip, or some given features which would require license from Intel or AMD. VIA, IBM, Cryix, NEC all messed with x86. Also, a new CPU does not have to be x86, something else can be made to take it's place, which is where things like ARM come in, while Intel dominates the compute intensive market, if they start charging $500 for Atoms, these other instruction sets would take off and you would see new ones come to the market. And I don't mean ARM as in RISC is better or something, only that new sets can be made.
What does breaking a contact have to do with a free market? Getting into a contract is done by choice, if other options come into play while that contract is in effect they will have to live with the poor choice, or in the case of a 70% price delta, take whatever legal and monetary hit that might not even add up to a potential savings of 70% for breaking the contract. At 70% discount and the same performance, AMD would not be able to supply enough chips, contracts or not, the shelves would be bare. That sort of price difference just does not exist in the electronics world.
Not trying to pull into any "holy war" (not even sure what that is), only stating that simple market functions explain everything.
You just answered your own question. A party to a contract can't change their purchasing decisions freely, and therefore cannot respond freely to changes in the competitive landscape. That effects demand, and therefore equilibrium price. In any event, I was responding to a comment up-thread that claimed if AMD released a processor with equivalent performance for a 10%-20% less, they would instantly outsell Intel. That is a demonstrably false oversimplification. Other than that, I don't think we're having the same discussion (though feel free to have the last word if that is all you're after).
Edit: I struggle to believe that someone with 4200+ posts is truly unfamiliar with the concept of AMD/Intel fanboy flame-wars. But sure, OK.
What if I told you that a Ryzen CPU might cost up to 70% cheaper than its Intel equivalent? Well, if these prices are true, you may have to believe it. Let’s be specific: the Ryzen 7 1700 is being listed with a cost of $317. Being that it has 8 cores and 16 threads, that would make it comparable to Intel's Core i7-6900K—which is $1,049. Wake me up! What do you think the foot traffic sounds like right now at Intel?
So what's the pricing for the AMD chip that will beat my 7700k at 5ghz in gaming ?
What if I told you that a Ryzen CPU might cost up to 70% cheaper than its Intel equivalent?
I hope the chips aren't turds. Competition is a good thing.
AMD already has a winner. Looking at early benchmarks and rumored price alone. Some parts of Europe CPUs are so expensive they are wishing they could pay US prices. Markets like china, brasil and india even if they have to pay 50% of most expensive 8 core part from intel. That is a win already. Its just a matter of a few weeks until we start seeing enthusiast oriented mobos from all major makers.
Can't wait for the prices to get jacked up 50% because of the "high demand". You won't get a ryzen cpu at those prices.
I will get them at release prices because I will be going to the Microcenter about 3 hours away on release day. Not going to do the F5 refresh on Newegg stuff, no thanks. Seriously looking forward to that road trip and I took the week off just for that. Trip, purchase and build, going to be a fun week.
No. When it comes to gaming, cores don't mean anything.Cores don't mean nothing if the performance isn't there.
I will get them at release prices because I will be going to the Microcenter about 3 hours away on release day. Not going to do the F5 refresh on Newegg stuff, no thanks. Seriously looking forward to that road trip and I took the week off just for that. Trip, purchase and build, going to be a fun week.
Already you're seeing leaks from all over, people that have the chip saying things like the 5820K 6 core / 12 thread CPU is about 15% faster than the top end Ryzen.
I'm not entirely convinced they are going to have much if anything really that beats a Kaby Lake @ 5Ghz. Their 8 core / 16 tread might beat you out in a few benchmarks but it's not going to be anything you use.
Word around the camp fire is putting the single core performance of the Ryzen at question. That's the big question. And clearly I personally don't know anything but there are a lot of people with this CPU and leaks are coming out everyday. Some of the numbers are looking sketchy.
Your car reminds me of BulldozerReminds me of bulldozer
No. When it comes to gaming, cores don't mean anything.
POS i3 is good enough for most. If you use your PC as something other then a console for baby games, then maybe the answer is different.