AMD Zen SR7 to sell for $499

[TetraSky]

$499!?! That's like a bazillion Canadian rupees.

 

If it's truly competitive, here's hoping it will force Intel to lower their pricing... Though I'm not keeping my hopes up, it's AMD after all, wouldn't be the first time they hyped up a product only for it to be trash when it came out. (remember the hype behind Bulldozer?)

[Dash Lambda]

3 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

$499!?! That's like a bazillion Canadian rupees.

 

If it's truly competitive, here's hoping it will force Intel to lower their pricing... Though I'm not keeping my hopes up, it's AMD after all, wouldn't be the first time they hyped up a product only for it to be trash when it came out. (Remember the hype behind Bulldozer?)

I've said this before, but I'm too lazy to actually grab my own quote, so I'll paraphrase: "If Zen turns out to only be a marginal improvement on AMD's current offerings, then the only logical conclusion is that AMD has employed a team of finger-painting children to draw up schematics in place of engineers."

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

Anyone who likes Intel is a bit wrong in the head.

It's hard to be fanboys when a companies knows, and is taking full advantage of the fact, that it's basically the only option.

No it isn't. Intel is also one of the biggest contributors to open source software and programming libraries. Intel is a trailblazer with both hardware and software. The problem is the consumer software ecosystem.

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

No it isn't. Intel is also one of the biggest contributors to open source software and programming libraries. Intel is a trailblazer with both hardware and software. The problem is the consumer software ecosystem.

But then you look at their processors and realize they've pretty much become stagnant.

I realize that there's a point where you can't simply make the chip faster, but they're certainly happy with their pricing structure exactly the way it is.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

27 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Only if the quad core SR3 beats quad core i5s....

 

Otherwise the pricing is stupid.

 

Why? To trade rumors for rumors, intel is supposed to launch an i3 at almost $180... Beating the i5s is no requirement at $150.

[AlTech]

19 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Why? To trade rumors for rumors, intel is supposed to launch an i3 at almost $180... Beating the i5s is no requirement at $150.

Well then that's Intel's faults. I would sure as hell never buy a dual core for over $150. Heck, it's even hard to justify a quad core for $250........

[TetraSky]

54 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I've said this before, but I'm too lazy to actually grab my own quote, so I'll paraphrase: "If Zen turns out to only be a marginal improvement on AMD's current offerings, then the only logical conclusion is that AMD has employed a team of finger-painting children to draw up schematics in place of engineers."

Wait, isn't that the case already? I figured that's what happened considering the past couple generations of CPUs.

[Dash Lambda]

2 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Wait, isn't that the case already? I figured that's what happened considering the past couple generations of CPU's.

They're making quite a big deal out of Zen.

Their current run with CPU's can be blamed on them not focusing on that market, but if Zen is bad then it's pure incompetence.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, WereCat said:

Temperature was never problem with AMD CPUs but the heat output was.

You do know the only temp measurement probe for the CPU wasn't even on-die, right?

 

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

I don't see how they're pretty fucking merciless. No vaseline or nothing.

 

But point taken though: we're not sure how many intel would move with reasonable prices so they could come out swinging hard enough to get a T.K.O.

You people need to go back and learn microeconomics. Even monopolies in non-necessity markets CANNOT just arbitrarily set prices. Intel's prices are set to strike the balance between volume and per-unit profit to maximize total profit. Increasing prices decreases volume sold and vice versa, so the prices are NOT fleecing people. It's still a luxury item with a consensual transaction. Either you find it worthwhile or you don't. The amount of b*tching over Intel's prices is getting to be truly tiring. And Intel doesn't make HALF the profit margin on its chips that IBM does. Do the research AND the math and either vote with your wallet or find something else to whine about.

[patrickjp93]

28 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well then that's Intel's faults. I would sure as hell never buy a dual core for over $150. Heck, it's even hard to justify a quad core for $250........

Tell that to the market. Complaining about price is 100% pointless. Vote with your wallet and argue on the merits of the tech. Price is a non-factor in the argument of what is good/not good tech.

[patrickjp93]

56 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

But then you look at their processors and realize they've pretty much become stagnant.

I realize that there's a point where you can't simply make the chip faster, but they're certainly happy with their pricing structure exactly the way it is.

No they haven't, not even close. There's a 100% performance increase per clock for integer workloads from Sandy Bridge to Haswell thanks to AVX2, and there is a large throughput increase even for scalar code thanks to having an extra dedicated integer ALU. The problem is the software. Until you people start pointing your pitchforks the right way, the situation is not going to improve.

[Energycore]

5 hours ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Why?

 

Not trying to be patronising or anything, just asking why you think this.

You will eventually learn not to take him seriously

[goodtofufriday]

[Energycore]

3 hours ago, CommandMan7 said:

WCCFTech has been both right (480)

Well WCCF did say RX 480 would hit 390X to Fury levels of performance, and then it didn't and people were disappointed :v

[Energycore]

12 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

No they haven't, not even close. There's a 100% performance increase per clock for integer workloads from Sandy Bridge to Haswell thanks to AVX2, and there is a large throughput increase even for scalar code thanks to having an extra dedicated integer ALU. The problem is the software. Until you people start pointing your pitchforks the right way, the situation is not going to improve.

So who do I have to harass in order to get better looking games at higher fps?

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

So who do I have to harass in order to get better looking games at higher fps?

The publishers who put studios on time crunches impossible to make AND lead devs who refuse to invest in modern optimization techniques.

[Eroda]

the naming scheme is completly retarded it just hurts my eyes to see it.  SRT stands for summit ridge so if they move from Summit ridge to crystal ridge will they become CR7? just confusing and ugly it was simple  Z is for Zen use it 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/355x25/fx_series_cpus_where_can_they_go_from_here/

 

posted this ages ago still holds up

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

You do know the only temp measurement probe for the CPU wasn't even on-die, right?

 

You people need to go back and learn microeconomics. Even monopolies in non-necessity markets CANNOT just arbitrarily set prices. Intel's prices are set to strike the balance between volume and per-unit profit to maximize total profit. Increasing prices decreases volume sold and vice versa, so the prices are NOT fleecing people. It's still a luxury item with a consensual transaction. Either you find it worthwhile or you don't. The amount of b*tching over Intel's prices is getting to be truly tiring. And Intel doesn't make HALF the profit margin on its chips that IBM does. Do the research AND the math and either vote with your wallet or find something else to whine about.

Seemingly, but you can't confirm any of that without real competition. I guess we'll see if that's true, if AMD can actually offer real competition this time around.

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Seemingly, but you can't confirm any of that without real competition. I guess we'll see if that's true, if AMD can actually offer real competition this time around.

Yes you can. There are mathematical proofs AND research validating the conclusions showing this that go all the way back to the 1800s. Rockefeller Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and many others are the exceptions that prove the rules.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Yes you can. There are mathematical proofs AND research validating the conclusions showing this that go all the way back to the 1800s. Rockefeller Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and many others are the exceptions that prove the rules.

Nope. Those studies can't take into account a technological upset from a competitor or advances/regressions in productions costs, etc. If you assume those factors along with competition are constant then you could but we know they're far from constant.

 

Feel free to disagree though because I suspect you're far too pragmatically minded to entertain this notion.

[patrickjp93]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Nope. Those studies can't take into account a technological upset from a competitor or advances/regressions in productions costs, etc. If you assume those factors along with competition are constant then you could but we know they're far from constant.

 

Feel free to disagree though because I suspect you're far too pragmatically minded to entertain this notion.

YES THEY CAN! AND THEY DID! Why do you people so seriously doubt the most vigorous data science in the world?!

 

They don't have to be constant, but they are provably periodic.

 

Pragmatism would mean I do entertain the idea and wait for you to substantiate your arguments. I'll be awake another couple hours. You may begin.

[GDRRiley]

Amd has undercut intel before in the core 2 quad days. the core 2 quad was 1000$ but similar ones from AMD were 600$. intel then drooped the price by a few hundred $$

[Bouzoo]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

Amd has undercut intel before in the core 2 quad days. the core 2 quad was 100$ but similar ones from AMD were 600$. intel then drooped the price by a few hundred $$

I think you mixed something in there. 

[GDRRiley]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

I think you mixed something in there. 

yeah missed a 0 

[patrickjp93]

47 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

Amd has undercut intel before in the core 2 quad days. the core 2 quad was 1000$ but similar ones from AMD were 600$. intel then drooped the price by a few hundred $$

Only when C2Q was released. It had nothing to do with AMD.