Ivy Bridge vs Ryzen IPC?

That's because people move up in SKUs. You are not going to see more sales due to cheaper prices. Look at GPUs as well, anything under 200-250$ pretty much doesn't sell. AMD isn't selling more CPUs either. They are also in a constant case of the newer model sells less than the old.

You are not getting those back to PC that just need to check email and browse a few pages. Their smartphone is plenty for that.
So in effect you claim that cpu demand is inelastic. Just like the market for drugs or gasoline etc. First, I disagree with the premise that demand is inelastic. However let's assume it is. That is true only in the short run. In the long run that only drives people to look for alternatives, like alternative energy (wonder why they call it that?), or drug substitutes etc. Again their practices are myopic. Proof is in the numbers.
 
So in effect you claim that cpu demand is inelastic. Just like the market for drugs or gasoline etc. First, I disagree with the premise that demand is inelastic. However let's assume it is. That is true only in the short run. In the long run that only drives people to look for alternatives, like alternative energy (wonder why they call it that?), or drug substitutes etc. Again their practices are myopic. Proof is in the numbers.

When people in masses explicit move up in SKUs, lowering prices will have close to or no effect. Also due to smartphones, part of the market is no longer in need of a PC no matter how cheap it is.

The argument you made that Intel gained revenue by increasing prices was flawed to begin with. Revenue increased because people move up in SKUs. Excluding the DC group that got a volume increase as well.
 
When people in masses explicit move up in SKUs, lowering prices will have close to or no effect. Also due to smartphones, part of the market is no longer in need of a PC no matter how cheap it is.

The argument you made that Intel gained revenue by increasing prices was flawed to begin with. Revenue increased because people move up in SKUs. Excluding the DC group that got a volume increase as well.
No, man, they said that not I. In their 10k.
Basic economics argues against you.
 
When people in masses explicit move up in SKUs, lowering prices will have close to or no effect. Also due to smartphones, part of the market is no longer in need of a PC no matter how cheap it is.

The argument you made that Intel gained revenue by increasing prices was flawed to begin with. Revenue increased because people move up in SKUs. Excluding the DC group that got a volume increase as well.
Again you are wrong. Any class in economics will tell you that in general any household or individual will likely attribute a set amount they are willing to spend or differing expenditures. In the case of CPU/GPUs that is some set amount say $300. That person with the 970 likely bought the 1070 not 1080. Although realistically most don't upgrade that often so price is really the determining factor, so in the 970 to 1070 example it would be far more likely they didn't buy the 1070 at launch but rather later when better deals were to be had and that 1070 price was likely closer to the 970 when purchased by the user. Me for example don't really want to spend more than $300 on a GPU, so the 290 I purchased fit right in line with that as it was $269. Now had the money been available I would have gotten the FuryX when it dropped to $300, which is a step up in SKU but again the deciding factor was price budget not the desire for higher performing parts.
 
PROOF? Based on Amazon rankings the Ryzens occupy the top spot in the UK and 3 within the top 10 in both the UK and US. AMD over the past 3 or so years has traditionally released at one price then reduced said price shortly there after, not huge decreases as some of you like to infer with the intent in causing some consumer panic. Look at any site or walk into any tech store and you will see Ryzen front and center, not what you do with slow selling products, but it is what you do with hot items.

The same Amazon rankings that says that the FX-8350 is a top bestselling CPU? Everyone knows how 'well' that CPU worked for AMD.

AMD not only reduced pricing of RyZen immediately after launch due to lack of demand, but prepared a marketing campaign that was sent via email to several tech sites. You don't do that if your chip is a true bestselling.

Passmark shows RyZen has minimal impact on marketshare (low single digit percent).

Steam shows that gaming marketshare of AMD chips reduces systematically.

AMD guidance for this and next years predicts small sales for Zen and Zen+.
 
The same Amazon rankings that says that the FX-8350 is a top bestselling CPU? Everyone knows how 'well' that CPU worked for AMD.

AMD not only reduced pricing of RyZen immediately after launch due to lack of demand, but prepared a marketing campaign that was sent via email to several tech sites. You don't do that if your chip is a true bestselling.

Passmark shows RyZen has minimal impact on marketshare (low single digit percent).

Steam shows that gaming marketshare of AMD chips reduces systematically.

AMD guidance for this and next years predicts small sales for Zen and Zen+.
So NO proof then? Got it.

And you now use Passmark as proof when you claimed it isn't.

And as far as Steam, the chances it can accurately show any new architecture is slim seeing that the last few GPU architectures didn't even register or registered incorrectly.

And as far as price, well we don't yet have the full picture yet. Besides AMD needs Marketshare more than a meager few dollars. It is called economics and supply and demand.
 
The same Amazon rankings that says that the FX-8350 is a top bestselling CPU? Everyone knows how 'well' that CPU worked for AMD.

AMD not only reduced pricing of RyZen immediately after launch due to lack of demand, but prepared a marketing campaign that was sent via email to several tech sites. You don't do that if your chip is a true bestselling.

Passmark shows RyZen has minimal impact on marketshare (low single digit percent).

Steam shows that gaming marketshare of AMD chips reduces systematically.

AMD guidance for this and next years predicts small sales for Zen and Zen+.

10.4 is single digit now?

http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-...17-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/
 
Well this thread is going off topic, time to close it now before it gets any more stupid.
 
Where are you seeing guidance on Zen/Zen+?
I reviewed the Q1-17 CFO Commentary and didn't see any specifics on computing revenue.
 
And you now use Passmark as proof when you claimed it isn't.

Pardon? I said it was cheated the day 1th Jul. and that once the cheating was removed the marketshare would return to levels close to the day 30th June. It is the people and the media that quoted Passmark when it reported the fake 31% the day 1th July, which no longer refers to it now that it reports 23.50%.
 
I doubt it was cheating more just a one day sampling which noted an above average mix of AMD processors using the benchmark. Could have been conspiracy to benchmark Ryzen or FX on that date, but probably a one day anomaly.
 
I doubt it was cheating more just a one day sampling which noted an above average mix of AMD processors using the benchmark. Could have been conspiracy to benchmark Ryzen or FX on that date, but probably a one day anomaly.

1) The anomaly could be upwards or downwards. It was upwards

2) Media reported the 31% just the same day the anomaly did appear.

3) No one of those sites retracted in the next days after published the wrong headlines.

4) I am too old and experienced in this industry how to believe in random anomalies. Or do you believe that early leaks of RyZen being Passmark and CPU-Z (just two benches highly favoring Zen, one of them thanks to a bug was corrected latter) was fortuitous?
 
1) The anomaly could be upwards or downwards. It was upwards

2) Media reported the 31% just the same day the anomaly did appear.

3) No one of those sites retracted in the next days after published the wrong headlines.

4) I am too old and experienced in this industry how to believe in random anomalies. Or do you believe that early leaks of RyZen being Passmark and CPU-Z (just two benches highly favoring Zen, one of them thanks to a bug was corrected latter) was fortuitous?
I think the consensus amongst most of us is Passmark is a poor indicator of sales. If anything it shows they are out there and are getting used. And when was the last time any site redacted any post or commented later it was inaccurate. Most are in for the clicks.

Of course now I realize you managed to sway the discussion to some random crap when you found discussing the points I made were either too difficult to overcome or you just plainly don't have a counterpoint.

So just to remind you, most of us were discussing sales and how this theory on moving up in SKUs is inaccurate and not truly reflecting real economics and how the general consumer operates within an income and stick to set purchase limitations as far amounts. And the inelastic/elastic economic factor.
 
That's because people move up in SKUs. You are not going to see more sales due to cheaper prices. Look at GPUs as well, anything under 200-250$ pretty much doesn't sell. AMD isn't selling more CPUs either. They are also in a constant case of the newer model sells less than the old.

You are not getting those back to PC that just need to check email and browse a few pages. Their smartphone is plenty for that.
If Intel keeps going the way it has been, it will cede not just the tablet market but everything. I never saw Andy Grove preach higher prices and higher margins no matter what. It was not inevitable that Arm achieved dominance in tablets and phones.
 
If Intel keeps going the way it has been, it will cede not just the tablet market but everything. I never saw Andy Grove preach higher prices and higher margins no matter what. It was not inevitable that Arm achieved dominance in tablets and phones.

Tablets is a dead segment, killed by the 2in1 PCs and smartphones.

PC isn't dying if that's what you think, its actually more healthy than ever despite lower, but higher quality volume.
 
Tablets is a dead segment, killed by the 2in1 PCs and smartphones.

PC isn't dying if that's what you think, its actually more healthy than ever despite lower, but higher quality volume.
So, don't know about the tablets being dead. Talk to anyone who has kids, and they will tell you a different story. Never said the PC market is dead. But that Intel is losing markets that could have been theirs. In addition, ARM is looking to take a slice of the laptop market.
 
So, don't know about the tablets being dead. Talk to anyone who has kids, and they will tell you a different story. Never said the PC market is dead. But that Intel is losing markets that could have been theirs. In addition, ARM is looking to take a slice of the laptop market.

ARM isn't going anywhere in the laptop segment, neither are they in desktop or server. There is a clear split between ARM and x86 where none of the 2 can really cross because their designs and business models cant really do it for different reasons.

Tablet shipments peaked around 2013/2014, just a rapid downhill since with another 8.5% drop in Q1 2017 and had a 20% drop in Q4 2016. Also look at iPads, just down, down and down.
 
ARM isn't going anywhere in the laptop segment, neither are they in desktop or server. There is a clear split between ARM and x86 where none of the 2 can really cross because their designs and business models cant really do it for different reasons.

Tablet shipments peaked around 2013/2014, just a rapid downhill since with another 8.5% drop in Q1 2017 and had a 20% drop in Q4 2016. Also look at iPads, just down, down and down.
Business class and it will make sense. Tablet sales can not maintain the level of sales over a duration. Once the market becomes saturated then the only sales are replacements and upgrades. But then you also have to look at how phones have taken over some of that market... phablets. And then TVs having that ability now... smart TV. All of which are ARM. So ARM is not necessarily shrinking, just certain applications are migrating.
 
Thanks. I have two i5-2500K in my house one clocked at 5GHz, the other at 4.7 both on air. I am looking to upgrade to 6+ cores but not liking the price/performance of Intel's offerings. Have been watching how Ryzen is doing but can't stand how little it overclocks.

My Ryzen overclocks pretty well. I have the 1700X, and it is doing a nice and reliable 4GHz on air. On water, maybe 4.1 or 4.2 would be doable (both speeds will boot, but the vcore and temps are too high for air).

Given how other folks had better luck with their 2600k CPUs than I did with mine, I think I lost the chip lottery with my 2600k. It would never even boot higher than 4.5, and was never fully stable north of 4.2. But other folks, like yourself, did much better. Shitty chip, I think.
 
ARM isn't going anywhere in the laptop segment, neither are they in desktop or server. There is a clear split between ARM and x86 where none of the 2 can really cross because their designs and business models cant really do it for different reasons.

Tablet shipments peaked around 2013/2014, just a rapid downhill since with another 8.5% drop in Q1 2017 and had a 20% drop in Q4 2016. Also look at iPads, just down, down and down.
Follows births in the US with a 3 year or so lag. Might start picking up.
 
My Ryzen overclocks pretty well. I have the 1700X, and it is doing a nice and reliable 4GHz on air. On water, maybe 4.1 or 4.2 would be doable (both speeds will boot, but the vcore and temps are too high for air).

Given how other folks had better luck with their 2600k CPUs than I did with mine, I think I lost the chip lottery with my 2600k. It would never even boot higher than 4.5, and was never fully stable north of 4.2. But other folks, like yourself, did much better. Shitty chip, I think.

Intel Has people brainwashed into thinking a chip HAS to overclock or else its a shotty chip. When you buy a processor you should always buy so that the stock speeds will.meet or surpass your expectations and or software requirements. Any OC past stock is just bonus. Ryzen is damn fast at stock speeds. Remember a 1700x can nearly beat a 6900k and a 1800x can beat it in multi threaded work loads. At stock speeds.

Thus get the Intel brain washing out of your head that a chip sucks if it doesnt OC to a certain number.

Brainwashed

I have been running my 1700x at stock clocks recently on my ITX board and its actually so nice. Quiet cool smooth fast no problems at all. Water cooled etc.... I have no need to OC for a few years until the thing feels slow. The thing idles at room temp. Incredible. Full load no more than 55c.
 
Intel Has people brainwashed into thinking a chip HAS to overclock or else its a shotty chip. When you buy a processor you should always buy so that the stock speeds will.meet or surpass your expectations and or software requirements. Any OC past stock is just bonus. Ryzen is damn fast at stock speeds. Remember a 1700x can nearly beat a 6900k and a 1800x can beat it in multi threaded work loads. At stock speeds.

Thus get the Intel brain washing out of your head that a chip sucks if it doesnt OC to a certain number.

Brainwashed

I have been running my 1700x at stock clocks recently on my ITX board and its actually so nice. Quiet cool smooth fast no problems at all. Water cooled etc.... I have no need to OC for a few years until the thing feels slow. The thing idles at room temp. Incredible. Full load no more than 55c.
Where is the fun in that?
 
Clock for clock.... say 4.0 who has better ipc...? Thats what I want to know. Saying Intel has better ipc while running faster speeds while AMD has less at a lower clock isn't really accurate as far as clock for clock. Sure the Intel chip can have better ipc clocked higher as the AMD chip cant clock as fast. I only want to run around 4.0.
 
Clock for clock.... say 4.0 who has better ipc...? Thats what I want to know. Saying Intel has better ipc while running faster speeds while AMD has less at a lower clock isn't really accurate as far as clock for clock. Sure the Intel chip can have better ipc clocked higher as the AMD chip cant clock as fast. I only want to run around 4.0.
Intel still does, but by a small margin. The higher clock potential exacerbates it a bit more. At 4.0Ghz the edge would be Intel in IPC singlethread, however Multithread AMD would go past even with the IPC deficit as their SMT > HT that Intel uses.
 
Clock for clock.... say 4.0 who has better ipc...? Thats what I want to know. Saying Intel has better ipc while running faster speeds while AMD has less at a lower clock isn't really accurate as far as clock for clock. Sure the Intel chip can have better ipc clocked higher as the AMD chip cant clock as fast. I only want to run around 4.0.

Then compare performance at specific clock rates and single thread. AMD Ryzen 7 1700 scores 1,756 in Passmark Single Threaded benchmark, where an Intel Core i7-2500 (Sandy Bridge) scores 1,875. Both with 3.7GHz Turbo frequencies. Kaby Lake i5-7600T (3.7GHz turbo) manages to score 2,116 (13% over Sandy Bridge) in this benchmark, so you can make your conclusions regarding the IPC leader.
 
I have said it in another thread and I will say it here: I LOVE COMPETITION! Too bad my 1700 and 1700x will not overclock more than 3.8GHz stably but, they are still quite fast nonetheless.
 
I have said it in another thread and I will say it here: I LOVE COMPETITION! Too bad my 1700 and 1700x will not overclock more than 3.8GHz stably but, they are still quite fast nonetheless.
Yeah, 3.7 is disappointing. That's what's stopping me from getting on the AMD train. That, and the lower IPC than my i5-2500k. Lower clock, lower IPC, can't justify it. Barely using my home PCs on weekends. Work, kids, gym, sex. No time to sit down on my desktop.
 
Back
Top