Why do older generations of Ryzen get cheaper, but not Intel's?

[Okjoek]

Question's in the title.

 

Like Ryzen 1&2000 CPUs from 1-3 years ago went way down in price, but Intel CPUs of the past 5,6 generations are still nearly full price. Why is this?

[Jurrunio]

because there are a lot of stupid Intel buyers. They are also dominant in the CPU choice of Dell/HP/Lenovo prebuilts so people looking to upgrade/replace dead CPUs will have to buy them

[amdorintel]

i just buy whatever is the best value

amd is the best bang for the buck

intel is high $

[bmichaels556]

4 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Question's in the title.

 

Like Ryzen 1&2000 CPUs from 1-3 years ago went way down in price, but Intel CPUs of the past 5,6 generations are still nearly full price. Why is this?

I think it has a lot to do with "mindshare". Same situation with old macs. Excellent construction is nice, and they sure look great. But there's no reason a 2011 laptop should be going for $500+. And yet they are. It's insane.

[Flying Sausages]

This is why AMD is kicking Intel @$$ in all directions.

[amdorintel]

whats mindshare?

 

29 minutes ago, bmichaels556 said:

I think it has a lot to do with "mindshare". Same situation with old macs. Excellent construction is nice, and they sure look great. But there's no reason a 2011 laptop should be going for $500+. And yet they are. It's insane.

 

[bmichaels556]

6 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

whats mindshare?

 

 

It's tough to explain, and I'm sure someone could do it better. But it's this sort of idea that one brand or line of products is "better" because of the name / reputation, rather than for practical reasons.

 

For example, think about the RX 480 and GTX 1060. Both nice cards, and really neck and neck with each other in just about all situations, certainly in gaming. Yet, despite both products being extremely close, the 1060 vastly outsold the RX 480 because "it's Nvidia", rather than "It's the better product" if that makes sense.

 

People perceive Apple as, let's say, being higher quality than other manufacturers, but this is debatable. But because "It's Apple!", 9 year old laptops with half the performance still go for many hundreds of dollars, when a newer production laptop would of course perform much better, have better battery life, and the list goes on.

 

Point being, a product is perceived as "better", but not based on practicality, but maybe brand recognition and so on. 

[amdorintel]

branding is common

product loyalty is a thing

 

ok i get it @bmichaels556

 

i will edit this post - there is billions of dollars spent for branding, it is how companies make their money. no need to buy a ferrari when a subaru will do

[dizmo]

Intel knows their demand really well, and stop producing chips at the right time. So they have less stock in the market when it comes time to release their new product.
AMD, on the other hand, floods the market, and then steeply discounts the remaining chips...it helps that their new chips have much better performance than the old, so the old ones become less desirable faster. Plus the fact that Intel switches up the sockets more frequently, the older chips on AM4 lose their value a lot faster.

 

49 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

because there are a lot of stupid Intel buyers. They are also dominant in the CPU choice of Dell/HP/Lenovo prebuilts so people looking to upgrade/replace dead CPUs will have to buy them

That's a very childish way to look at things. Intel buyers are not "stupid."

I tried to go to AMD. Twice. You know what I was met with? Unstable, unreliable products. You know what works no matter what I plug in? Intel.

That may have changed, but am I going to spend money to find out when the difference in performance really isn't that high? Nope.

8 minutes ago, bmichaels556 said:

It's tough to explain, and I'm sure someone could do it better. But it's this sort of idea that one brand or line of products is "better" because of the name / reputation, rather than for practical reasons.

 

For example, think about the RX 480 and GTX 1060. Both nice cards, and really neck and neck with each other in just about all situations, certainly in gaming. Yet, despite both products being extremely close, the 1060 vastly outsold the RX 480 because "it's Nvidia", rather than "It's the better product" if that makes sense.

 

People perceive Apple as, let's say, being higher quality than other manufacturers, but this is debatable. But because "It's Apple!", 9 year old laptops with half the performance still go for many hundreds of dollars, when a newer production laptop would of course perform much better, have better battery life, and the list goes on.

 

Point being, a product is perceived as "better", but not based on practicality, but maybe brand recognition and so on. 

It's a little trickier when it comes to Apple, because they can make their OS run better when they restrict the hardware that it runs on...and that's something you simply don't have on PC. Much like how the iPhone can have much weaker spec on paper but outperform most Android phones. Also, people will buy Apple because they like the operating system, the programs that you can't get on PC, etc.

 

There are many things Apple makes that simply aren't matched in terms of aesthetics.

[bmichaels556]

12 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

branding is common

product loyalty is a thing

 

ok i get it @bmichaels556

Oh definitely, there are brands that I'm loyal to, but there are sure things they could do that would make me question that loyalty and ditch them outright.

 

It seems like with Apple especially, it's become this weird cult. Like, there are a LOT of people who could be presented with a superior Windows-based product. Let's say, same price, better specs, battery life, display, the list could go on. There are many Apple cult members that would still go with the Mac, but for impractical reasons.

 

"Well, I just think Mac OS is better."

 

"Okay sure, fair enough, but what about the fact that Mac OS is much more restricted with available programs, and that you're way more locked down into Apple's control, not to mention their nonsense repair situations."

 

"Well... Okay, but Macs are better for productivity! You know, things like Final Cut!"

 

"Okay, sure, it's great software. How often do you edit video?"

 

"Three times a year. Family vacation videos/photos and another nonsense thing once in a while."

 

And then their heads kind of explode. I think it's totally fine to like a product for a "second type of cool", where it's based on style and just a preference you maybe can't even describe or quantify. I think it's another to lie to yourself and join a religion based on that lie.

 

Wow, big rant, sorry for that lmao

 

 

[Mister Woof]

AMD's release schedule, business model, and advertising mechanism promotes frequent upgrades, and as a result, a glut of last-gen stock.

 

Generally, their products aren't cheaper overall than Intel because many of their customers will purchase upgrade after upgrade resulting in buying more of their products.

Intel, not so much. Their customers tend to buy one chip, and it lasts them for quite a while.

[bmichaels556]

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Intel knows their demand really well, and stop producing chips at the right time. So they have less stock in the market when it comes time to release their new product.
AMD, on the other hand, floods the market, and then steeply discounts the remaining chips...it helps that their new chips have much better performance than the old, so the old ones become less desirable faster. Plus the fact that Intel switches up the sockets more frequently, the older chips on AM4 lose their value a lot faster.

 

That's a very childish way to look at things. Intel buyers are not "stupid."

I tried to go to AMD. Twice. You know what I was met with? Unstable, unreliable products. You know what works no matter what I plug in? Intel.

That may have changed, but am I going to spend money to find out when the difference in performance really isn't that high? Nope.

It's a little trickier when it comes to Apple, because they can make their OS run better when they restrict the hardware that it runs on...and that's something you simply don't have on PC. Much like how the iPhone can have much weaker spec on paper but outperform most Android phones. Also, people will buy Apple because they like the operating system, the programs that you can't get on PC, etc.

 

There are many things Apple makes that simply aren't matched in terms of aesthetics.

That's fair.. I did have an opportunity to try out an older Macbook and... It felt nice and all. I could hardly figure out how to install a program, but there were SOME things I saw as appealing even if it wasn't for me.

 

I just don't like when people lie to themselves about what they actually use their $27,000 laptop for.

 

"Oh, it's great for productivity!!"

 

*Edits images and videos 3 times a year and spends the rest of their time on Facebook, Youtube and checking email.

 

Let's be real. Only a very small percentage of Mac buyers are actually doing that kind of work. And if they prefer what Mac has to offer (and it's understandable in the case of things like Final Cut X), more power to them! Whatever it is they need to get their task done most effectively, that's great! But other than that, the average user would never notice any of it..

 

 

[Harry Voyager]

2 hours ago, bmichaels556 said:

It's tough to explain, and I'm sure someone could do it better. But it's this sort of idea that one brand or line of products is "better" because of the name / reputation, rather than for practical reasons.

 

For example, think about the RX 480 and GTX 1060. Both nice cards, and really neck and neck with each other in just about all situations, certainly in gaming. Yet, despite both products being extremely close, the 1060 vastly outsold the RX 480 because "it's Nvidia", rather than "It's the better product" if that makes sense.

 

People perceive Apple as, let's say, being higher quality than other manufacturers, but this is debatable. But because "It's Apple!", 9 year old laptops with half the performance still go for many hundreds of dollars, when a newer production laptop would of course perform much better, have better battery life, and the list goes on.

 

Point being, a product is perceived as "better", but not based on practicality, but maybe brand recognition and so on. 

As an example, if you were looking for a sedan and you saw a 2017 Kia K900 and a Mercedes C-class going for about the same price, which would you think is the better car? 

 

Most of the people who read that are going to prefer the Mercedes. A very small fraction of the people who know what a K900 is are going to be wondering if that car was in a wreck or if someone just doesn't know what it is they've got. 

 

That's mindshare. 

[Jurrunio]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

That's a very childish way to look at things. Intel buyers are not "stupid."

I tried to go to AMD. Twice. You know what I was met with? Unstable, unreliable products. You know what works no matter what I plug in? Intel.

That may have changed, but am I going to spend money to find out when the difference in performance really isn't that high? Nope.

I didnt talk about all of them. I'm talking about those who can't even give a reason, those who haven't thought of it at all. I totally understand how "can't do something" is even worse than "cost a lot" or "not as fast".

[bmichaels556]

1 hour ago, Harry Voyager said:

As an example, if you were looking for a sedan and you saw a 2017 Kia K900 and a Mercedes C-class going for about the same price, which would you think is the better car? 

 

Most of the people who read that are going to prefer the Mercedes. A very small fraction of the people who know what a K900 is are going to be wondering if that car was in a wreck or if someone just doesn't know what it is they've got. 

 

That's mindshare. 

Agreed. That's actually a fantastic example, and it works on me because I'm not extremely familiar with cars. I heard the name "Mercedes" and assumed it was better just based on that. I'd like this 100x if I could ha

[1van]

+1 to "stupid buyers" opinion. How else can you explain people buying used 4th/6th/7th gen CPUs for the prices comparable to a new system?

 

Explanation for fanbois: it is not about picking an old Intel over a new AMD offering, it is about picking an old used 4C/8T "i7" over a new 6C/6T i5 from the store, etc. And these are the people who tend to have some rubbish H110 motherboard and a Pentium in it.

[porina]

The answer is likely a combination of supply/demand, and scarcity. Only some older Intel CPUs are holding value, but many are not.

 

If you have an older Intel system but without the top CPU, your easy upgrade path is to drop in a higher model CPU of that era. There's only so many of those floating around, so sellers can ask more than you like for them. There may be a point where you say, but you could get AMD CPU+mobo(+ram) for the price of an older Intel CPU, but that doesn't figure in the pain of swapping it all out. If you're going that far, it is practically a new system and not a quick upgrade.

 

As example, look at the 5820k, the entry level Haswell HEDT CPU. Pricing of these have dropped through the floor as those remaining on the platform upgrade to higher ones. However the 7700k is the top CPU in first socket 1151 era and they're still going for a good amount.

 

Now instead let's take AMD AM4 platform. One selling point is its back and forward compatibility. Zen 2 is great, and if you have an early generation Zen, you can drop in Zen 2 and have all that goodness. But now there's a ton of used Zen and Zen+ CPUs floating around. Used pricing crashes, any new ones remaining aren't likely to sell without substantial savings over Zen 2. This is the other side of the coin to the upgrade path.

 

BTW I'm still looking for a cheap 7700k or 7740X as I want to attempt some benchmark records for quad cores. Not expecting to find one any time soon.