New Intel CPUs

[aisle9]

30 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

True.  Cheating someone is not always a scam. It’s semantics though.  The effect is the same.  The question is similar to the difference between “stolen” and “stolen fair and square”

 

15 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Sounds like capitalism is a scam if you put it that way, considering you did basically no work to flip someone else's product.

 

But hey, technically what you did isn't illegal so I guess technically it doesn't meet the definition of a scam. Good job for meeting that extremely low bar I suppose.

 

The object being broken is irrelevant, you're still lying about the value. The value of what you sold was $70+$150 + minor assembly work = $250 at best.

 

So again, the possibility of using it in a few years to get someone to overpay for something else is not really a good reason for Intel to sell it.

This is one of the things I hated about flipping. No one understands the basic concept that making money is not a scam. Example:

 

Let's say I'm selling an RTX 2070 Super for $400. There is nothing wrong with it, I'm just selling it for $400. You're all over that shit, right? I can promise you that if I posted that deal here, that card would be gone in 3 hours. Like, out of my life, in the hands of someone else, and that'd be a really good deal, right? That's actually a little low for a 2070S, even used and on local boards.

 

Now, let's say I only paid $200 for it. Again, nothing wrong, not stolen, I was just able to buy it from someone else for $200. I turned around and sold the card for a very fair price, right? Or am I somehow obligated to sell the card for $205 because I bought it for $200, regardless of what the market for the card actually is?

 

Could someone else have done exactly what I did with the desktop? Sure. They could have driven around creation hitting up Walmarts trying to figure out what goes on clearance when, then making daily (if not more) trips to see if anything good was on sale. And they could have camped eBay for weeks waiting for the right deal on the right processor to come along. And they could have swapped out the CPU, and then yeah, they'd have had the exact same system for about the same $220 or so. Or they could buy the i5 version for $500-ish new. Or they could buy my used, upgraded one for $400, which was (and would still be) a very fair used price for a system one generation old with an i5 inside of it.

 

Back to that first example, let's say I go onto Letgo right now, find a $200 2070S, go buy it, clean it, test the hell out of it, then look at Letgo again and post it for $400. Does the buyer care that I only paid $200? No. They're getting a screaming deal on a 2070S, a very, very fair deal. Am I somehow a terrible human being because I didn't say in my ad that I paid $200 for the card? Or because I didn't refuse to sell it for a penny more than $205? No. A fair price is a fair price, regardless of what the seller paid to get it, and making honest money by listing items for what they're worth is not a scam.

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

This is one of the things I hated about flipping. No one understands the basic concept that making money is not a scam. Example:

I understand perfectly. You don't seem to understand the difference between legal and moral. Buying something you don't need or want to then sell it to someone who does at almost twice the price is legal but, in my opinion, not moral - especially when you did no meaningful work to justify your presence in that pipeline. Flipping is like a cancer in the consumer electronics market - it artificially inflates prices so people end up being unable to afford hardware they otherwise might have bought.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, aisle9 said:

 

This is one of the things I hated about flipping. No one understands the basic concept that making money is not a scam. Example:

 

Let's say I'm selling an RTX 2070 Super for $400. There is nothing wrong with it, I'm just selling it for $400. You're all over that shit, right? I can promise you that if I posted that deal here, that card would be gone in 3 hours. Like, out of my life, in the hands of someone else, and that'd be a really good deal, right? That's actually a little low for a 2070S, even used and on local boards.

 

Now, let's say I only paid $200 for it. Again, nothing wrong, not stolen, I was just able to buy it from someone else for $200. I turned around and sold the card for a very fair price, right? Or am I somehow obligated to sell the card for $205 because I bought it for $200, regardless of what the market for the card actually is?

 

Could someone else have done exactly what I did with the desktop? Sure. They could have driven around creation hitting up Walmarts trying to figure out what goes on clearance when, then making daily (if not more) trips to see if anything good was on sale. And they could have camped eBay for weeks waiting for the right deal on the right processor to come along. And they could have swapped out the CPU, and then yeah, they'd have had the exact same system for about the same $220 or so. Or they could buy the i5 version for $500-ish new. Or they could buy my used, upgraded one for $400, which was (and would still be) a very fair used price for a system one generation old with an i5 inside of it.

 

Back to that first example, let's say I go onto Letgo right now, find a $200 2070S, go buy it, clean it, test the hell out of it, then look at Letgo again and post it for $400. Does the buyer care that I only paid $200? No. They're getting a screaming deal on a 2070S, a very, very fair deal. Am I somehow a terrible human being because I didn't say in my ad that I paid $200 for the card? Or because I didn't refuse to sell it for a penny more than $205? No. A fair price is a fair price, regardless of what the seller paid to get it, and making honest money by listing items for what they're worth is not a scam.

It’s a degree thing.  When does capitalism become profiteering?  How about we use toilet paper as an example?  Hand sanitizer? See where I’m going?

[aisle9]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s a degree thing.  When does capitalism become profiteering?  How about we use toilet paper as an example?  Hand sanitizer? See where I’m going?

Yes, but I wasn't selling TP for $100 per roll. I was selling computers at market price. Are you expected to donate your savings to charity because you made $6,000 last month and only spent $4,279.50 to sustain yourself?

 

I'm running in circles with people who aren't going to agree with me no matter what. It's a moot point because I stopped flipping when I left Florida anyway. And God only knows how far off topic this thread has gone because I made an off-the-cuff joke about Celerons being great for flippers.

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Yes, but I wasn't selling TP for $100 per roll. I was selling computers at market price. Are you expected to donate your savings to charity because you made $6,000 last month and only spent $4,279.50 to sustain yourself?

 

I'm running in circles with people who aren't going to agree with me no matter what. It's a moot point because I stopped flipping when I left Florida anyway. And God only knows how far off topic this thread has gone because I made an off-the-cuff joke about Celerons being great for flippers.

In the instance mentioned where you took a machine with a very unpopular chip, put in one that wasn’t, and sold it, is value added.  That’s not an issue.  Unless what happened is that the problem was the assumption was made that the rest of the machine (the part bought cheaply) was also not problematic.  If the motherboard for example wouldn’t work or wouldn’t work safely with the added part, that would be profiteering.  One of the more famous examples of profiteering is what starte the trail of tears.  A Native American tribe under intense pressure sold their land and moved to a reservation after being offered a series of items and tools.  One of them was shovels.  A profiteer made shovels of cast iron because it was cheaper.  The problem is cast iron shovels don’t work.  They break.  The tribe didn’t need shovel shaped things they needed devices to dig dirt with.  In britian this is called “fit for purpose” I believe. The shovels were not fit for purpose. It was a last straw. The tribe revolted, the officer who OKed the sale was hung (it wasn’t the first thing like this he had done) and a war was on.

 

If you improved the usability of the thing that’s capitalism.  If you didn’t thats profiteering.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

@Kisai

Quad core becoming a standard last year (2019)? Excjuzme, what?! Quad core CPU's are not anything exotic since Q6600. 13 years ago. Sure those were the beginnings, but there were so many totally not enthusiast level quad core processors ages ago. I know tons of casuals who had AMD Athlon X4 CPU's. Those were nothing super exotic. A lot of people had Q8400 and Q9400 models. These were probably around same era. Hell, even Bulldozer AMD FX-8350 were no special exotic. Technically a quad core with dual execution units, but whatever. Those were like 100-120€ CPU's. 8 years ago! Hell, there were Core i5's that were quad cores several years ago, even before Skylake. Whatever their codename was. Bottom Sandy Bridge i5 models? Still 9 years ago. Yeah, quad core should be a bottom standard and dual cores with HT shouldn't exist. I mean for god sake even my tablet has a quad core. It's Atom, sure, but a frigging tablet has it...

The office was still buying Latitude 7480's last year which were dual core, skylake (eg i5/i7-6xxxU parts), this year they switched to the exact same configuration but 7490 which are quadcore i5/i7-8xxxU parts. This is what business users are getting, not celeron trash, so they only started getting quadcore's THIS/mid-LAST year.

 

You'll also note that some models are still DDR3L. 

https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/laptops/14-7400-2-in-1/spd/latitude-14-7400-2-in-1-laptop

This is the 2-in-1 model, the non-2-in-1 is DDR4

 

Dell still sells Celeron dual-core's on their chromebook and Latitude 3000 models.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/2-in-1-laptops-tablets/new-latitude-3310-laptop/spd/latitude-13-3310-laptop/cto01l331013us

 

I don't know why someone would spend this much money on a laptop with 5 year old parts that will be nothing but suffering. The dual-core i5/i7's were plenty of suffering already.

 

Like my theory here is that Intel decides what parts should be rubbish celeron and pentium brand by what cores and features don't work and bins similar ones together. eg ones that don't have 4 working cores, binned to 2 cores ,ones that don't have all GPU EU's working, binned to "Celeron" graphics. Like the difference between the Celeron in that laptop above (Which is Braswell, from 2015) and the Pentium J is 6 less EU's on the GPU, and 2 less cores on the CPU side. Intel then likely sells these parts until there are none left. Which is probably why they end up in the worst of the worst laptops and desktops.

 

Which is why people get mislead when they buy PC's. Dell is showing these as brand new machines when they are in fact based on 5 year old parts.

 

Even some of the machines we have at the office make me go "What were they thinking" when they have i7-6xxx and i7-7xxx parts in them in late 2018.

[thorhammerz]

2 hours ago, aisle9 said:

 No one understands the basic concept that making money is not a scam.

I would opine that it's not that they don't understand the concept per se, insofar as they "simply" disagree with the price-points set by the law of supply and demand, at that particular point in time, based on their position as a buyer or seller .

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Buying something you don't need or want to then sell it to someone who does at almost twice the price is legal but, in my opinion, not moral - especially when you did no meaningful work to justify your presence in that pipeline.

The world of opportunism is wonderful isn't it? We can say goodbye to it whenever humans cease to gather & store "energy" (money is a mere proxy / IOU for "a unit of resource") as a biological instinct .

Quote

Flipping is like a cancer in the consumer electronics market - it artificially inflates prices so people end up being unable to afford hardware they otherwise might have bought.

Look at it this way: the bloke who's buying it at +X% markup is only doing so because he was not in the right place or time to buy it at some other (presumably lower, but also potentially higher) price from a seller, at some other point in time and place (as markets for second-hand PC tech differ between regions). The flipper in question is "simply" selling for whatever price the buyer is willing to pay up for, after taking the risk of holding the asset (PC parts typically depreciate over time, as you've implied, but seem to believe as an intrinsic absolute given) over the time period.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I understand perfectly. You don't seem to understand the difference between legal and moral. Buying something you don't need or want to then sell it to someone who does at almost twice the price is legal but, in my opinion, not moral - especially when you did no meaningful work to justify your presence in that pipeline. Flipping is like a cancer in the consumer electronics market - it artificially inflates prices so people end up being unable to afford hardware they otherwise might have bought.

 

Flipping, no matter what, is arbitrage, and that's no different from flipping a house, or trading stocks. On one hand, it provides liquidity to the market, so there is always something to buy or sell, but on the other hand, people treat some things as investments and the three things people should not be permitted to do that with what-so-ever are food, water, and shelter. That doesn't mean everyone should have a 3-bedroom apartment, but it does mean there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be homeless. That is simply arbitrage not serving the bottom of the market in favor of the top, because the top is super-profitable and the bottom is potentially unlimited losses. Nobody wants to sit on devaluing property. Electronics and Vehicles are things that devalue rapidly.

 

Medical and Sanitary markets can have some degree of arbitrage in them on purpose, otherwise nobody would produce medicine or toilet paper, it's just not profitable to produce these by hand, and the products are necessary and have limited shelf life. Compounding pharmacies can in fact produce most prescription medication, but would never be able to do it in a quantity needed in an emergency. So take the current pandemic. If some drug treatment was found, some country would buy up the worlds supply just to sit on it. Follow the money. 

 

What global outsourcing has resulted in, is many eggs being in put in one basket, and single-sourcement of supplies that aren't needed by everyone. Such as what happened with N95 masks. There should always be a domestic manufacturer, and the global markets should never result in a situation where a domestic manufacturer doesn't exist for drugs, staple foods, or life-saving medical devices. If a disaster happens in one country, another country's manufacturer can step in and fill the void, but when a disaster happens to every country at once, that just will not not be the case.

[mr moose]

So glad Intel released these CPU's,  otherwise I would not have realized there were so many different opinions on flipping and market capitalization.

[Nathanpete]

13 hours ago, aisle9 said:

I know there's the whole, "How many cores do you need to read email?", argument, but if there's one thing I know about beginner PC users, it's that they don't just read email. They don't close things, they just open new windows. 14 Chrome tabs, six Outlook windows and three YouTube videos running simultaneously later, and you've long since left bottleneck territory and entered the realm of glue traps.

Not to mention bundleware and bloatware. 

[aisle9]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Like my theory here is that Intel decides what parts should be rubbish celeron and pentium brand by what cores and features don't work and bins similar ones together. eg ones that don't have 4 working cores, binned to 2 cores ,ones that don't have all GPU EU's working, binned to "Celeron" graphics. Like the difference between the Celeron in that laptop above (Which is Braswell, from 2015) and the Pentium J is 6 less EU's on the GPU, and 2 less cores on the CPU side. Intel then likely sells these parts until there are none left. Which is probably why they end up in the worst of the worst laptops and desktops.

Oh, that's exactly what they do. Everything starts life looking to be an i9-10900K when it grows up. What's that? There's a defective core? But everything else works? Hey, it's an i7 now. Only half of the cores are working? Hello, i3. It's a pile of crap, six cores are dead and one of the two left won't hyperthread? Celeron it is.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So glad Intel released these CPU's,  otherwise I would not have realized there were so many different opinions on flipping and market capitalization.

While I didn’t get what I was looking for, I got plenty I wasn’t looking for.

 

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, Kisai said:

Flipping, no matter what, is arbitrage, and that's no different from flipping a house, or trading stocks.

Indeed it is not. I dislike both of those things.

[porina]

11 hours ago, Kisai said:

I don't know why someone would spend this much money on a laptop with 5 year old parts that will be nothing but suffering. The dual-core i5/i7's were plenty of suffering already.

Corporate IT thinking is very different from enthusiast thinking. They don't want the latest and greatest, they want what they know works and will give them least new work to do. If they can standardise on a model for x years, they will. I asked my former workplace why they buy Dells, and the answer wasn't value or performance. They had the best business support, apparently.

 

My last work laptop was a dual core Broadwell i5. I got given it when Skylake was already out for some time, and was still my primary work laptop when I left earlier this year. It was technically due for replacement (they work on 4 year cycles) but it got delayed due to other financial wobbles so that never happened. I was an engineer. Didn't do compute heavy tasks, so my primary laptop was mostly office and related uses. Could it be faster? For sure, but was it good enough? I'd give it a reluctant yes. The hardware wasn't the problem. With a stripped down Windows install it could have been really snappy. But there's the usual corporate security and other bloat installed which bogged it down. If I cared about performance I had primary control over newer desktops in the lab I could use anyway.

[svmlegacy]

On 7/19/2020 at 6:49 PM, zeusthemoose said:

Celeron G5925, Celeron G5905, and the Celeron G5905T... two cores and two threads... clock frequencies that range from 3.60 GHz, 3.50 GHz, and 3.3 GHz... The two regular variants will feature a TDP of 58W while the 'T' variant will feature a 35W TDP.

How the heck can a dual core, 3.6GHz, non-hyperthreaded CPU/GPU have a TDP of 58 W, when my i7-640 M, a 10 year old 32nm Westmere chip, can do 3.2 GHz, dual-core hyperthreaded, without hitting it's TDP of 35 W (inc. mem and GPU.)? Are the trash-bins really that bad? And if they're not, why does the even lower performing T chip need to exist?