It'll take closer 25%-30% off to get me to reconsider the Ryzen2 or 3 build I'll be doing in the next 18 months.

the only planning your a build 18 months out is saving money. no one really knows what cpu will be best 18 months from now
 
Then you are doing it wrong. Why would AMD support you just so you can buy from someone else? That is the very attitude that causes the GPU prices to remain higher than many want them to be. Oh well, Nvidia is not going to lower their prices because you are clearly willing to pay them. As for Intel, they will reduce their prices as little as they can get away with, as well.

That's not "Doing it wrong" This is how a free market economy is supposed to work! Competition keeps prices lower, doesn't matter which product you buy, as long as the maker of a product is forced to keep his prices reasonable because if he doesn't, people will buy something else.
 
That's not "Doing it wrong" This is how a free market economy is supposed to work! Competition keeps prices lower, doesn't matter which product you buy, as long as the maker of a product is forced to keep his prices reasonable because if he doesn't, people will buy something else.
Think what he was trying to say is : If you hope that AMD having lower prices will push Intel prices lower when everyone buys Intel regardless, your going to have a bad time. If however AMD makes a product that people will buy instead of Intel's, for less, then your wish may come true. But you shouldn't expect miracles—Intel is also expecting some diehard consumers to buy their products even if they only get a 5-10% discount, and will price accordingly.
 
Too bad AMD can't do better in the GPU space to make Nvidia pull a similar move. Oh well.
Hopefully when they drop GCN properly and not just tweak it like Navi (which also helped).. then maybe. I still think Nvidia will be ahead for a long time until AMD get MCM scaling going. Intel also is taking that same approach will be keen to see what goes on there too.
 
I like it (Intel dropping prices).

Not planning on buying intel but it feels like intel is finally seeing AMD as competition. I don’t blame them for doing anything up till now but it seems like now they don’t have a choice. Many are moving to AND and it’s not because they are just a outlier but it’s a better value first and foremost and my second reasoning is intel has essentially been clobbering the consumer (because they could) for years.

Argue specs all day long but for the money 92 % aren’t going to see any noticeable difference. Except in their wallet.
 
I buy what I want to buy regardless of "fanboi's" from either side competing with each other. I am the one going to be using it so why should it bother anybody else what goes in to MY rigs? If price to performance was anything outside of CPU & GPU's in the real world, everyone would be driving around in Nissan GTR's, Lotus Carlton's & Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500's & not wanting Ferrari, Lamborghini or Bugatti.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gavv
like this
I buy what I want to buy regardless of "fanboi's" from either side competing with each other. I am the one going to be using it so why should it bother anybody else what goes in to MY rigs? If price to performance was anything outside of CPU & GPU's in the real world, everyone would be driving around in Nissan GTR's, Lotus Carlton's & Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500's & not wanting Ferrari, Lamborghini or Bugatti.
Love this analogy (sarcasm)
You are comparing car designs to a piece of computer hardware that sits inside of a box (case) and cannot be seen in most cases.
This reminds me of the "cool people" who put Apple stickers in back window of their car because they are proud of the brand.
I use an Iphone and love it, but I'm not putting a fucking sticker in my car window about it. Why is it we don't see Samsung, Android, or Microsoft Windows stickers in back windows?
Consumer sheeps and brand whores is something I just don't get. Got to hand it to marketing gods, they have earned their high compensation.
 
Love this analogy (sarcasm)
You are comparing car designs to a piece of computer hardware that sits inside of a box (case) and cannot be seen in most cases.
This reminds me of the "cool people" who put Apple stickers in back window of their car because they are proud of the brand.
I use an Iphone and love it, but I'm not putting a fucking sticker in my car window about it. Why is it we don't see Samsung, Android, or Microsoft Windows stickers in back windows?
Consumer sheeps and brand whores is something I just don't get. Got to hand it to marketing gods, they have earned their high compensation.

Why is it any different if someone can or can't see the actual product ? People can buy whatever they want and been "able" to show it like a car brand shouldn't change anything in the decision making process...
I think his comparison is somewhat spot on (based on my way to view his words)... Some people will prefer bang for bucks while others will go for the moon to brag about it while saying hey I can so why not... but in the end it's their decision and they shouldn't be judged on that (especially since the one buying the ferrari ot the shinning 1080ti AND bragging about it is actually doing it because they want to be judged for their luxury expenditure). But yeah, those are my way to analyze what he said and point of view... I agree with what you said btw.
 
That's not "Doing it wrong" This is how a free market economy is supposed to work! Competition keeps prices lower, doesn't matter which product you buy, as long as the maker of a product is forced to keep his prices reasonable because if he doesn't, people will buy something else.

The best response to this is to quote Gideon:
They wont drive that price segment down for GPU's they have learned how you have used them for this purpose. All 3 companies will be content with lower volume and high margins.
 
The best response to this is to quote Gideon:

You may think that but shareholders won't. Company has to move toward a goal and not "content" for XYZ.
If market isn't moving fast enough, people will upgrade less often which results in less sales (See Intel/AMD a few years ago, people said the desktop was dead...)

There has been already way too many threads explaining how it works and this price cuts is actually the results of it. They need to keep market share AND customer focus on future products, they won't content if they actual volume goes down, even if GM% is great.
 
:confused:o_O(n):D Oh honey, you can't be that uninforme...... Oh wait, never mind.
Remember when AMD was on top back in early 2006 and released their FX-60 dual-core CPU for $1200?
Then Intel released the Core 2 series CPUs, and suddenly that FX-60 fell to around $400 after two weeks of the Core 2 CPUs being on the market.

Business is business, and it doesn't matter who is on top or what era we are in. ;)
 
Remember when AMD was on top back in early 2006 and released their FX-60 dual-core CPU for $1200?
Then Intel released the Core 2 series CPUs, and suddenly that FX-60 fell to around $400 after two weeks of the Core 2 CPUs being on the market.

Business is business, and it doesn't matter who is on top or what era we are in. ;)

Not really dude, since that was the only processor that cost that much. Also, AMD did not nerf the lower end processors to make the FX 60 sell better. I also noticed that although the 3950X will cost $749 at release, it is actually going to be binned chips and therefore, perform quite well and a low TDP and therefore, actually have something of value to give to the customer. Lisa is a lot smarter than we clearly are giving her credit for around these parts, she is clearly not taking her marching orders from the board.
 
You may think that but shareholders won't. Company has to move toward a goal and not "content" for XYZ.
If market isn't moving fast enough, people will upgrade less often which results in less sales (See Intel/AMD a few years ago, people said the desktop was dead...)

There has been already way too many threads explaining how it works and this price cuts is actually the results of it. They need to keep market share AND customer focus on future products, they won't content if they actual volume goes down, even if GM% is great.

It is more than a thought, it is pretty much common sense. Also, Lisa Su is CEO of AMD, not Nvidia and they have learned that undercutting Nvidia has made ZERO difference so, why bother?
 
Not really dude, since that was the only processor that cost that much.
Yeah, the rest of their their CPUs were around $500-1000 back then as well, which were quite pricey at the time compared to Intel's (then lesser) offerings until the Core 2 series was released.

Also, AMD did not nerf the lower end processors to make the FX 60 sell better.
They didn't do this because the technology, and vast feature sets, to do so was not available, otherwise, they absolutely would have.
Vista was also being tested and released around that time, and AMD needed to be competitive against Intel on all fronts - it was a very different market for technology at the time.

Some business practices are timeless, and others require certain elements in the market, or technology, to be available in order to pull off.
It wasn't like AMD was a morally better company for not doing that back then, and they absolutely would have if the options to do so had been available during that time.
 
To those who say its not enough, maybe but when has intel dropped pricing due to AMD?
To those who say AMD won, maybe on CPU space, but have we forgotten they`re inbound 5700 that may drop in pricing due to Super?

2 steps forward 1 step back I guess. Not bad since at this point anything to increase working capital is progress
 
To those who say its not enough, maybe but when has intel dropped pricing due to AMD?

Pretty much never- and it hurt them with the Pentium IV.

To those who say AMD won, maybe on CPU space, but have we forgotten they`re inbound 5700 that may drop in pricing due to Super?

This is really off-topic. Both because we're not talking about GPUs, and because we're talking more or less about desktop CPUs- and because there's no 'winning'. AMD winning means Intel fails, and if you haven't seen what AMD charges without competition...

2 steps forward 1 step back I guess. Not bad since at this point anything to increase working capital is progress

AMD not shipping trash (Dozers) is certainly progress. I'd really like to see them ship parts that compete where Intel is less competitive, which they're doing with Ryzen, but the real challenge is making parts that are really desirable for mass market uses. For example, most of the mobile market is left to Intel still, and most of the desktop market doesn't even really need more than two cores. And in many cases, if anything is needed, it's higher single-core performance as most desktop and mobile users, and by most I am excluding nearly anyone that would post here, just don't really multitask or otherwise run heavy loads.
 
He is not "doing it wrong." I am in the same boat as Verado. I have a GSync monitor that basically forces me to stay with the Nvidia cards (there is no Freesync monitor that is 1440P 165Hz IPS like my Gsync is that I am aware of and I don't want to drop more money down for a new monitor either). I want AMD and Intel to produce competitive GPUs to help drive down prices across the board so I can also benefit by the lower prices of the Nvidia GPUs. On the CPU side, I always just go with the top performer for my needs (in both cost and raw computing performance) when it is my time to upgrade and it just so happened that my last 2 CPUs were Intel (all of the others were AMD before that) and I am not upgrading my CPU for at least another year or 2 (running a 6700k).

Same here with 3D Vision (makes me stay with nvidia) which I love and adore for single play titles. The other radeon and open source 3D stuff are not up to snuff. There has been some thought about having a dual rig setup where there is one dedicated to having nvidia + 3D vision.
 
Back
Top