Ryzen 1700 vs. Core i7 6900K lol @ Intel

D

Dannotech

n00b
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
42
Ryzen vs Core i7.png
 
Intel can not do that, it would be like laughing in the face of its consumers who have paid over $ 1000 for the same thing.
 
Manuel Jose said:
Intel can not do that, it would be like laughing in the face of its consumers who have paid over $ 1000 for the same thing.
Click to expand...
price wars are a thing, the 6900K's price is grossly inflated right now due to lack of competition (the multiplier-locked Xeon variants of the die cost less than half as much despite being 2P capable)
If you bought the 6900K, you are either in a position where money is a non-issue, or work in a sector like HFT where the extra performance is well worth the premium.
 
Manuel Jose said:
Intel can not do that, it would be like laughing in the face of its consumers who have paid over $ 1000 for the same thing.
Click to expand...

Intel can do it, and almost everyone who bought the chips last year would understand.

What they CAN'T do is release the next gen of HPDT chips at the same price-point as their current gen.
 
remember the time when the i7 950 went from 650 to 329?

intel can do it, they just probably won't
 
Intel has always had a flagship CPU around 1k for at least the last 10 years.

Plus people who planned to build around a 6900k likely have already purchased it.
 
Master_shake_ said:
remember the time when the i7 950 went from 650 to 329?

intel can do it, they just probably won't
Click to expand...

That's because they released the i7-960 which replaced the i7-950 at that price point and it pushed all the processors down a price bracket. The i7-975 EE was released at the same time to replace the i7-965 EE, this is nothing new. Even when AMD was winning the performance crown with the X2s, Intel still had their Extreme Editions priced in the 1k range.
 
That's why Ryzen. Intel makes great products that I'll continue to buy, just not for my personal rig this time around. We've seen what Intel does without competition. It's almost comical how easily Intel could gobble up AMD financially. Intel EBITDA $14.85 billion compared to -$263 million for AMD. Intel makes more profit in 1 year than AMD sees in 3 years of revenue. Without Ryzen one could imagine Intel somehow subsidizing AMD to keep it alive and independent in the near future.
 
Got my 5960X when it first came out for $800 on sale, so I don't feel so bad. Have it at 4.5GHz running stable.

Been playing with the thing for since 2014, I got three years of use and only down $300...Not bad. Only took AMD several years to catch up.
 
ochadd said:
That's why Ryzen. Intel makes great products that I'll continue to buy, just not for my personal rig this time around. We've seen what Intel does without competition. It's almost comical how easily Intel could gobble up AMD financially. Intel EBITDA $14.85 billion compared to -$263 million for AMD. Intel makes more profit in 1 year than AMD sees in 3 years of revenue. Without Ryzen one could imagine Intel somehow subsidizing AMD to keep it alive and independent in the near future.
Click to expand...

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

So according to you, Intel is now in the phase of laughter, right?
 
Manuel Jose said:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

So according to you, Intel is now in the phase of laughter, right?
Click to expand...

I kniow you are being a little sarcastic, but that is where I am now. Ryzen and AMD are not fading into the dust. Intel fan boys be warned.
 
Manuel Jose said:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

So according to you, Intel is now in the phase of laughter, right?
Click to expand...

I think AMD has between now Skylake-X to sell a metric ass load of high core count processors with some margin in them. You think Intel can't sell 14nm high core count CPUs cheaper than AMD? I just don't see how AMD succeeds if Intel decides it shouldn't. Intel produces how many extremely high core count xeons every day? Just pick a SKU with 8-24 cores, unlock it, and start dropping the price until they start selling. Then drop the price until AMD stops moving units. Then drop it a little bit more and leave it there for the next 2-3 years. If AMD has anything competitive just release a Skylake-X Skulltrail with dual sockets and unlocked SKUs.
 
ochadd said:
I think AMD has between now Skylake-X to sell a metric ass load of high core count processors with some margin in them. You think Intel can't sell 14nm high core count CPUs cheaper than AMD? I just don't see how AMD succeeds if Intel decides it shouldn't. Intel produces how many extremely high core count xeons every day? Just pick a SKU with 8-24 cores, unlock it, and start dropping the price until they start selling. Then drop the price until AMD stops moving units. Then drop it a little bit more and leave it there for the next 2-3 years. If AMD has anything competitive just release a Skylake-X Skulltrail with dual sockets and unlocked SKUs.
Click to expand...
Intel could do this but they won't.

Unlike AMD, their shareholders have got used to years of nice fat juicy margins and I don't think the stock price is going to go in a direction they like if those get slashed.
 
deton8 said:
Intel could do this but they won't.

Unlike AMD, their shareholders have got used to years of nice fat juicy margins and I don't think the stock price is going to go in a direction they like if those get slashed.
Click to expand...

If they did that by selling at loss to drive competition out of business, that is a violation of the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts. intel could be fined multi-billions of dollars and be broken up into little pieces.
 
pictures funny but the 6900k is a halo product and probably a really low yield one at that when it comes to cherry picking processors which will allow the price to stay where it is.. so i highly doubt they'll drop the price, they've never done it with any of their previous halo processors so i don't expect them to start now.
 
Been happy with my 5960x and 5930k for a while now, and most importantly actually had access to it for years already. I hope the ryzen chips do well, but price difference wise I'm not to shocked about it. Hell you can get a g4560 and it's better than some of the chips that were $300+ a few years ago. It's how technology works.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Source? If you talk about listed 4Ghz clocks, that's just Turbo Max for you.

Besides, "why" is irrelevant, result is.
Click to expand...

So its promoted as due to more cores but its not. Interesting view you got on it. Do you think Ryzen will show the same with dual channel memory and 8MB (2x8MB not shared) cache size?

5775C also matches 6700K in many of these cases. And you dont ask why? :)
 
Shintai said:
So its promoted as due to more cores but its not.
Click to expand...
7700k has higher stock clock, and you know that well. So your statement is still unproven.
Shintai said:
Do you think Ryzen will show the same with dual channel memory and 8MB (2x8MB not shared) cache size?
Click to expand...
I don't think, i wait 3-5 days for teh Internets to be flooded with it.
P. S. Who told you cache is unshared, by the way.
Shintai said:
5775C also matches 6700K in many of these cases. And you dont ask why?
Click to expand...
I do, but the answer to this question does nothing for me.

Anyways, i know, you are frustrated, so just relax and roll with it.
 
lolfail9001 said:
7700k has higher stock clock, and you know that well. So your statement is still unproven.
Click to expand...

Yet you got shown an example and rejected it. Whats next, memory speed doesn't matter either? :ROFLMAO:

lolfail9001 said:
I don't think, i wait 3-5 days for teh Internets to be flooded with it.
P. S. Who told you cache is unshared, by the way.
Click to expand...

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...e-clock-speeds-additional-performance-details

Feel free to prove it if you think its shared.

lolfail9001 said:
I do, but the answer to this question does nothing for me.

Anyways, i know, you are frustrated, so just relax and roll with it.
Click to expand...

Because the result is not what you hoped for? Dont worry, you still be fine playing on your Ryzen CPU despite the core utilization wont be what you hope for. No need to be upset about that is it? :)
 
Shintai said:
Yet you got shown an example and rejected it.
Click to expand...
Example of obscene cache compensating for lack in clocks? Yes, but both Broadwell-E and Ryzen have like 20% of that at most, so go ahead, bring up proper evidence.
Shintai said:
Feel free to prove it if you think its shared.
Click to expand...
Each L3 cache appears to be unique to its core complex; it’s not clear what the penalty hit is for retrieving data stored in a different CCX’s L3.
Click to expand...
Nope, burden of proof is still on you.
Shintai said:
Because the result is not what you hoped for?
Click to expand...
Nope, because result does not allow me to make conclusions since chips in question do not have 128MB eDRAM. Besides, even if you are right and it is all only because of cache, then it is even better, it means they can remain shit overclockers!
Shintai said:
Dont worry, you still be fine playing on your Ryzen CPU despite the core utilization wont be what you hope for. No need to be upset about that is it?
Click to expand...
I have more stuff to do than game on my PC. You don't, your issues :p
 
jmilcher said:
Intel has always had a flagship CPU around 1k for at least the last 10 years.

Plus people who planned to build around a 6900k likely have already purchased it.
Click to expand...


This. They won't touch the 6900k. They will be more strategic going forward with X109 and place the next top end CPU in a better price point.
 
Shintai said:
Is made by OCing the Broadwell-E to 4Ghz and then the benefit of a huge L3 cache and quad channel memory. No different than when 5775C can match 6700K.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu-scaling-directx-11,4768.html
Click to expand...


Good catch Shintai BUT they screwed up in the chart for the 6900K/6950K by putting 4ghz for the maximum turbo then just below that chart had the statement below. So they did run all processors at stock speeds which means more cores with lower clocks are pulling ahead of the quickest four cores processor for gaming (7700K). About damn time really. ;)

"Benchmarks with the official clock rates
All processors, mainboards and memory used in the test were tested at the frequency specified by the manufacturer. This is true for the CPU's basic and turbo clocks as well as the memory speeds. For example, Sandy Bridge supports a maximum DDR3-1.333 and only this speed was also used."



Edit: Also Shintai, didn't I already talked to you about being mean to others when you're trying to put AMD down? You should be rooting for them to demolish Intel's offerings at that price-point because when you buy another Intel chip you can get a 7950K for 599.99 next year. Cheers.
 
Manuel Jose said:
Intel can not do that, it would be like laughing in the face of its consumers who have paid over $ 1000 for the same thing.
Click to expand...

Some of you forget your history quickly. The Core 2 Quad Q6600 launched at a price point of $800. Over the life cycle of that product it had several major price reductions. It came down to around $500 or so in its first price drop! Subsequently, it was cut almost in half again dropping to around $266 or $280 dollars.

sirmonkey1985 said:
pictures funny but the 6900k is a halo product and probably a really low yield one at that when it comes to cherry picking processors which will allow the price to stay where it is.. so i highly doubt they'll drop the price, they've never done it with any of their previous halo processors so i don't expect them to start now.
Click to expand...

Yes they have. While the Extreme Editions usually don't see price reductions at any point, non-Extreme Edition CPUs definitely have seen massive price drops in their life time. The Core i7 6900K is not the halo CPU. The Core i7 6950X is and is priced at $1,600 or so.
 
Surely Intel will fight back, but I hope they give AMD some time for glory. It's much needed.
 
legcramp said:
Good catch Shintai BUT they screwed up in the chart for the 6900K/6950K by putting 4ghz for the maximum turbo then just below that chart had the statement below. So they did run all processors at stock speeds which means more cores with lower clocks are pulling ahead of the quickest four cores processor for gaming (7700K). About damn time really. ;)

"Benchmarks with the official clock rates
All processors, mainboards and memory used in the test were tested at the frequency specified by the manufacturer. This is true for the CPU's basic and turbo clocks as well as the memory speeds. For example, Sandy Bridge supports a maximum DDR3-1.333 and only this speed was also used."
Click to expand...

That only raises further questions then, why their numbers is so off compared to others.

If someone wanted to test more cores impact they would only need a 6900K or 6950X to do so.
 
legcramp said:
Good catch Shintai BUT they screwed up in the chart for the 6900K/6950K by putting 4ghz for the maximum turbo then just below that chart had the statement below. So they did run all processors at stock speeds which means more cores with lower clocks are pulling ahead of the quickest four cores processor for gaming (7700K). About damn time really. ;)

"Benchmarks with the official clock rates
All processors, mainboards and memory used in the test were tested at the frequency specified by the manufacturer. This is true for the CPU's basic and turbo clocks as well as the memory speeds. For example, Sandy Bridge supports a maximum DDR3-1.333 and only this speed was also used."



Edit: Also Shintai, didn't I already talked to you about being mean to others when you're trying to put AMD down? You should be rooting for them to demolish Intel's offerings at that price-point because when you buy another Intel chip you can get a 7950K for 599.99 next year. Cheers.
Click to expand...
Wow! Those benches show that cores do matter now in gaming more so then pure clock speeds. I5's are obsolete for a new gaming rig, I can only imagine next year when you have more refined and more DX 12 games as well as Vulkan games out. Even the 7700K unless you really OC it will not be the best for games. OC the 6 and 8 core processors should maintain their lead. Anyways this is at 1080p, at real gaming resolutions for higher end CPU's most of this is mute for gaming at this time.

Looks like if you are going to build a modern day PC gaming machine with some legs, you will need at least 6 cores/12 threads. Interesting is that the results for the most part was favorable to HT, wonder how AMD will fair with SMT?
 
cybereality said:
Surely Intel will fight back, but I hope they give AMD some time for glory. It's much needed.
Click to expand...

If Ryzen is a huge hit, Intel will fight back. It probably won't happen in the way you might imagine though. Intel will cut processors outside of the 6950X by some amount. Intel may even discontinue one or two of the higher end SKU's and pull a 2700K with those. They'll probably retain a similar price but I'd expect a higher stock frequency and potentially more overclocking headroom on refreshed chips. They won't do it across the whole line, but CPUs like the 7700K could very well end up on the chopping block in favor of a newer model. I suspect the 6900K would fall victim to this sort of tactic as well.

The 6900K was kind of a lame CPU to begin with. Essentially, it's worse than the 5960X it replaced. Sure it's slightly faster at stock speeds, but it overclocks worse (much worse in some cases) and costs the same. There is some chance they might do something about the $1700 Core i7 6950X but I doubt they will. Processors in that price point are almost unheard of in the consumer market. The closest one was the old Core 2 Quad QX9775 which was priced at $1,550. It never saw any price drops as long as Intel was making them. As I said, Extreme Editions or "X" SKUs never see price changes. They simply remain at their launch price until they are replaced by a newer CPU. If you see one of these CPUs for less, it's because the retailer discounted it and took a hit on their own margin to do it. I saw this at Microcenter when the Core i7 980X was priced at $749.99. The Core i7 990X was just released taking the $1000+ price point.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top