Intel encourages you to compromise on older i7s with the "Game Without Compromise" bundle

[Misanthrope]

34 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The lack of forward compatibility is the thing that has confused me most. You're still paying $315USD (Amazon) for a 6700k. A CPU that launched just above that over 2 years ago. Intel doesn't discount their older CPUs to keep people buying the most recent ones, but that means that buying a 7700k (which is a great CPU, don't forget that) is not a wise purchase for anyone in the market. You're going to be paying the same regardless, so why not just wait for the 8700k supply in 1-2 months?

 

This was the one generation they really shouldn't have rushed out the launch. The 8700k will be something like 50% of the sales volume in Retail channels, so everyone is just going to be waiting. If they'd launched in January, they'd have stock and all of the Christmas sales would have gone to the 7700k to clear out stock.

Yep: if this was a year ago it would have gone exactly like that. But as I mentioned intel cannot afford to have such degree of control over launching products anymore cause AMD now has something realistic to offer.

[Taf the Ghost]

21 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

You put a lot of logical thought into that and I appreciate it! Is any of that known to be confirmed though? My only issue stems back to, nothing is known for sure and there are a lot of assumptions that we don't know. Maybe I'm off, but I'm one that likes definitives. 

We only have the Roadmaps that have leaked and Logic to work from, but CPUs are the sort of product you can't "turn on a dime" about. 18-24 months is about as fast as you can change anything. So the 8700k got 6c back in 2015 because Cannonlake wasn't going to work. (10nm process) And they were going to need something that wasn't just another minor clock bump. By then, they also knew about what Zen was likely to do and the it was on 8c on the mainstream. 

 

Now, for AMD, this is a little easier. What new Tech is coming down the line? PCIe 4.0 just got finalized, so any products won't start showing up until late next year. PCIe 4.0 is going to take some interface updates, so that means a uArch update. Earliest those happen are late 2018 (Intel with Icelake) or 2019 with Zen2. So we can reasonably expect Zen2 will have PCIe 4.0 lanes, right along with Icelake.

 

DDR5 is coming for 2019/2020. What this gives us is that neither Icelake nor Zen2 will use DDR5, which also means their chipsets won't be wildly different, as there's only some small USB3 updates. But what we can expect in 2020 is Zen3 (AMD roadmap) and Sapphire Rapids (Intel Roadmap) to use DDR5. As we get to the end of 2018, Intel may be able to launch Tigerlake on DDR5, but we won't know about either until we get closer.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Yep: if this was a year ago it would have gone exactly like that. But as I mentioned intel cannot afford to have such degree of control over launching products anymore cause AMD now has something realistic to offer.

Agreed. They wouldn't have done this without something else driving it.

 

What it suggests to me is that Pinnacle Ridge is going to be a larger than expected uplift. Intel made the decision to move Coffeelake forward before Ryzen really started cutting into sales, but they would know what Zen+ would be able to do. A Ryzen 5 sitting at 4.2 Ghz would obliterate the Intel Mid-range again and the Gaming difference would be only in games with wonky Engine problems.

 

A 6c/12t Ryzen 1650X at 3.9 Base/4.4 Boost will saturate a 1080Ti in pretty much every scenario, minus some of the Intel specific optimizations that exist in a bunch of engines. Pushing back to the scenario where unless you're paying over $1500USD just for the CPU + MB + RAM + GPU there's no reason to go Intel over AMD. AMD would pretty much own the Retail Market's Price/Performance for everything except 240 Hz gaming (which is still going to require a massive OC on a k SKU because of how tight the timings have to be). 

[Dylanc1500]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

We only have the Roadmaps that have leaked and Logic to work from, but CPUs are the sort of product you can't "turn on a dime" about. 18-24 months is about as fast as you can change anything. So the 8700k got 6c back in 2015 because Cannonlake wasn't going to work. (10nm process) And they were going to need something that wasn't just another minor clock bump. By then, they also knew about what Zen was likely to do and the it was on 8c on the mainstream. 

 

Now, for AMD, this is a little easier. What new Tech is coming down the line? PCIe 4.0 just got finalized, so any products won't start showing up until late next year. PCIe 4.0 is going to take some interface updates, so that means a uArch update. Earliest those happen are late 2018 (Intel with Icelake) or 2019 with Zen2. So we can reasonably expect Zen2 will have PCIe 4.0 lanes, right along with Icelake.

 

DDR5 is coming for 2019/2020. What this gives us is that neither Icelake nor Zen2 will use DDR5, which also means their chipsets won't be wildly different, as there's only some small USB3 updates. But what we can expect in 2020 is Zen3 (AMD roadmap) and Sapphire Rapids (Intel Roadmap) to use DDR5. As we get to the end of 2018, Intel may be able to launch Tigerlake on DDR5, but we won't know about either until we get closer.

I can't say yay or nay on a lot of that as stuff that is to come isn't for me speculate. Especially with Intel.

[TacoSenpai]

7 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Instead of trying to sell more 7700Ks and 6700Ks, they should improve Coffeelake availability.

Increase supply to meet demand?  How dare you make economic sense!

[mr moose]

Wow, did Intel still the first born of some well respected media personality?  no they just bundled  some games with old stock. 

 

Come on, banking on a 2019 CPU to perform flawlessly like a 2019 system on a 2017 mobo is as silly as banking on CL being compatible on 200 series.   No one knows what is going to happen in 3 months let alone 3 years.  It's just a bundle peeps, no need to lose your minds like it's an anti trust law violation.

 

 

[plsno]

What a stupid thing to care about. You're getting $120 worth of games to buy a cpu that performs nearly identical as an 8700k in the vast majority of games.

[chilicheeseburger]

2 minutes ago, noobadin said:

What a stupid thing to care about. You're getting $120 worth of games to buy a cpu that performs nearly identical as an 8700k in the vast majority of games.

I don't get what the fuzz is about either.

Basically, they want to get rid of their old stock and they can either do it this way to boost sales or drop the price. I guess bundling them with some games is cheaper for Intel so they went with that.

[Rune]

For those looking for an 8700k/CF processor: Try looking for a local physical store. We took them off our website altogether to stop resellers from purchasing them all. As of yesterday there were still a few left at my location, but we won't be seeing any more for about a week and a half.

[Jito463]

On 10/12/2017 at 11:14 AM, mynameisjuan said:

And then we'd have people complaining that they just bought a 7700k and thats not fair! Since ryzen there is nothing intel can ever do right to a majority amount of people even though releasing it now is not a bad thing. Like ok you have to wait....but if it was released next year youd be waiting anyway.

To be fair, there was very little Intel did right even before the Ryzen launch, in my opinion.

 

If Intel had released CL next year (mid-late 2018), I think the backlash would have been far less.  Even early 2018 might have alleviated it somewhat.  As it stands, 7th Gen Core series and the 200 series chipsets have only been available for 9 months, and they're already effectively obsolete.  Even if you combine 6th & 7th gen life cycles together, that's only 2 years total for the 1151v1 socket.  2 generations in 2 years, with the second of the two getting less than a year.  Contrast that with the 4th gen, which ran for 2 1/2 years on a single generation (yes, they made a 5th gen, but that was mobile only).

 

Now, 2nd and 3rd gen launches do more closely resemble this situation - with 2nd gen launching in late 2011 and 3rd gen in mid 2012 - but even then the 3rd gen got a year or more before being replaced.

 

Intel accelerated the launch too fast, and now they're reaping the results of that decision.

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

If Intel had released CL next year (mid-late 2018), I think the backlash would have been far less.

But people are already complaining that it wasnt out and they need to hurry. At least now people are getting processors in their hands. Yeah its a low supply but its released and people are enjoying them.

 

Again my point being that intel is in the damned if you do, damned if you dont. 

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Again my point being that intel is in the ****** if you do, ****** if you dont. 

And they put themselves in that situation, by making lackluster improvements in their product line.  I'm not complaining, mind you.  It allowed AMD a chance to play catchup to Intel.  However, Intel is in the situation they're in because they rested on their laurels.  It's the classic 'Rabbit and the Hare' tale.  Intel thought they had it in the bag, slacked off and gave AMD a chance to catch up to them.

 

Long story short, Intel alone is to blame for their situation.

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

And they put themselves in that situation, by making lackluster improvements in their product line.  I'm not complaining, mind you.  It allowed AMD a chance to play catchup to Intel.  However, Intel is in the situation they're in because they rested on their laurels.  It's the classic 'Rabbit and the Hare' tale.  Intel thought they had it in the bag, slacked off and gave AMD a chance to catch up to them.

 

Long story short, Intel alone is to blame for their situation.

So what if they continued to have huge leaps each gen? If they had performance gains like 7th to 8th every gen then they would be so far ahead of AMD that people would now start calling intel a monopoly since AMD would have nothing worth buying. 

 

I want to know what you would have done differently. Yeah this is a rabbit and the hare situation but the rabbit is back in lead. So what if intel had no motivation to dump billions into R&D when the competition could barely tie their shoes. 

 

Bottom line is intel is a business, not your friend. People complaining about intel's decisions would of done the same. 

[Dylanc1500]

30 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

So what if they continued to have huge leaps each gen? If they had performance gains like 7th to 8th every gen then they would be so far ahead of AMD that people would now start calling intel a monopoly since AMD would have nothing worth buying. 

 

I want to know what you would have done differently. Yeah this is a rabbit and the hare situation but the rabbit is back in lead. So what if intel had no motivation to dump billions into R&D when the competition could barely tie their shoes. 

 

Bottom line is intel is a business, not your friend. People complaining about intel's decisions would of done the same. 

Tell them to look at the Core/Penryn releases if they want to complain about releases.

[ravenshrike]

On 10/12/2017 at 12:54 PM, Taf the Ghost said:

Now, for AMD, this is a little easier. What new Tech is coming down the line? PCIe 4.0 just got finalized, so any products won't start showing up until late next year. PCIe 4.0 is going to take some interface updates, so that means a uArch update. Earliest those happen are late 2018 (Intel with Icelake) or 2019 with Zen2. So we can reasonably expect Zen2 will have PCIe 4.0 lanes, right along with Icelake.

Given that performance hit in games is nonexistent going from x16 to x8 with current cards in PCIe3.0, barring a 50+% performance increase in graphics cards will gaming boards be able to get away with x4 in PCIe 4.0 with no significant performance difference?

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

And they put themselves in that situation, by making lackluster improvements in their product line.  I'm not complaining, mind you.  It allowed AMD a chance to play catchup to Intel.  However, Intel is in the situation they're in because they rested on their laurels.  It's the classic 'Rabbit and the Hare' tale.  Intel thought they had it in the bag, slacked off and gave AMD a chance to catch up to them.

 

Long story short, Intel alone is to blame for their situation.

 

Your whole premise rests on Intel intentionally choosing to advance tech at a slower rate.  There is the possibility that despite the billions they pumped into R+D, that was the best they or any company could do.  Which as business models go, is a more likely case.  No one intentionally drags their feet when developing new products.  It costs too much and leaves you open to being overtaken by the competition.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Your whole premise rests on Intel intentionally choosing to advance tech at a slower rate.  There is the possibility that despite the billions they pumped into R+D, that was the best they or any company could do.  Which as business models go, is a more likely case.  No one intentionally drags their feet when developing new products.  It costs too much and leaves you open to being overtaken by the competition.

Issue isn't really that they were dragging their feet or not developing and advancing it's that they weren't bringing it down to the consumer platform and to a limited but expensive extent to the HEDT platform, sure it might have needed to be that expensive on HEDT though but we can't really know.

 

The biggest reason we see people complaining about Intel about this sort of thing is due to everyone being able to see the Xeon lineup with 18 to 24 cores being available for multiple generations over a rather long span of years, they can also look at HEDT which has had 6-10 cores for that same length of time.

 

I think it is a perfectly legitimate question or complaint to be having when you have a consumer platform on 4 cores, HEDT on 10 cores and Xeon on 24 cores. This alone is enough justification to go "Hey what the hell", it's Intel's responsibility to explain why and they haven't exactly ever given a reason.

[YoungPCG]

Especially since these are older models, I don't think that this deal is very enticing, since most people who buy these CPU's already own the first game and are extremely wary of the latest assassins creed being another hot dumpster fire.

[pas008]

Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer 

I think would be better saying for intel

 

Intel needs competition so the can charge more for the better product which they have had for long while

Given it was just enough at times like now

If they created 6 or even 8 core mainstream products 5 yrs ago

They most likely would have have their backs against the wall from monopoly laws from many countries and companies or being forced to charge lower prices

If they keep amd close they can charge their premium prices which we have seen since forever

Everyone should be having a love hate relationship with amd and intel because both are at fault/blame

Now lets hope amd keeps up or surpasses so we don't go through another half decade of stagnation

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Issue isn't really that they were dragging their feet or not developing and advancing it's that they weren't bringing it down to the consumer platform and to a limited but expensive extent to the HEDT platform, sure it might have needed to be that expensive on HEDT though but we can't really know.

 

The biggest reason we see people complaining about Intel about this sort of thing is due to everyone being able to see the Xeon lineup with 18 to 24 cores being available for multiple generations over a rather long span of years, they can also look at HEDT which has had 6-10 cores for that same length of time.

 

I think it is a perfectly legitimate question or complaint to be having when you have a consumer platform on 4 cores, HEDT on 10 cores and Xeon on 24 cores. This alone is enough justification to go "Hey what the hell", it's Intel's responsibility to explain why and they haven't exactly ever given a reason.

There will be delayed releases to a degree, that's just business.

 

Xeons may have more cores but they also generally have a lower clock, essentially designed to be a freight train not a Ferrari.  If people want to complain that their Ferrari doesn't have the pulling power of freight engine then they don't understand the core difference between the two.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Issue isn't really that they were dragging their feet or not developing and advancing it's that they weren't bringing it down to the consumer platform and to a limited but expensive extent to the HEDT platform, sure it might have needed to be that expensive on HEDT though but we can't really know.

 

The biggest reason we see people complaining about Intel about this sort of thing is due to everyone being able to see the Xeon lineup with 18 to 24 cores being available for multiple generations over a rather long span of years, they can also look at HEDT which has had 6-10 cores for that same length of time.

 

I think it is a perfectly legitimate question or complaint to be having when you have a consumer platform on 4 cores, HEDT on 10 cores and Xeon on 24 cores. This alone is enough justification to go "Hey what the hell", it's Intel's responsibility to explain why and they haven't exactly ever given a reason.

Here's a fun question I haven't thought to ask in years but I also can't find an answer to: Why hasn't Intel been selling 3c models?  The 2c desktop models are core-disabled and not unique designs, but there doesn't seem to be any technical reason why they have to disable 2c and not just 1c that is bad.

 

Unless the intentional point was to keep the mid-range at a roughly rough Price-to-Performance ratio.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Xeons may have more cores but they also generally have a lower clock, essentially designed to be a freight train not a Ferrari.  If people want to complain that their Ferrari doesn't have the pulling power of freight engine then they don't understand the core difference between the two.

True but you don't have to create a chip with 24 cores either, just like you don't have to create one with 4 

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Here's a fun question I haven't thought to ask in years but I also can't find an answer to: Why hasn't Intel been selling 3c models?  The 2c desktop models are core-disabled and not unique designs, but there doesn't seem to be any technical reason why they have to disable 2c and not just 1c that is bad.

 

Unless the intentional point was to keep the mid-range at a roughly rough Price-to-Performance ratio.

Not sure why, probably architecture related.

 

Also most of the 2c SKUs use dedicated 2 core dies now, Intel has reduced the number of products they sell with disabled cores. They can do that because they sell enough to get a return on it.

[Taf the Ghost]

37 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not sure why, probably architecture related.

 

Also most of the 2c SKUs use dedicated 2 core dies now, Intel has reduced the number of products they sell with disabled cores. They can do that because they sell enough to get a return on it.

With AMD only slightly in the market, it was also in Intel's best interest to leave a space in the Retail market where AMD could at least hang around. This did result in Intel's retail space mostly being their top-tier CPUs, but that increased their profit margin. As any of the thread disabled CPUs were the same fab run at the top k SKU. 

[brownninja97]

On 10/12/2017 at 8:08 PM, LordTaco42 said:

Increase supply to meet demand?  How dare you make economic sense!

certainly does remind me of something that nintendo would do