Intel Playing Dirty to Undercut AMD

[phongle123]

4 minutes ago, COUPER MILLAR said:

Then why do most sites benchmark using 6950x?

They're saying that like a few unnoticeable frames coming from a 4 core is wayyyy better than the much extra performance that you get from an 8 core. So they're not even worth talking to. They also disregarded what I said and just stated the same old general statement that everyone knows.

But I hope it makes them happy when they completely disregard someone elses point and then try to argue by changing the subject.

[MageTank]

Just now, phongle123 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. But anyone who buys a current generation CPU is not stupid enough to bottleneck their system. And if you'd please read I said the frames lost from a 4 Core advantage isn't enough to justify losing almost double the non-gaming performance for the same price.

I did read, and that's not what you said.

 

6 minutes ago, phongle123 said:

As a person that went from 4 core to the 5930k the frames loss are so minimal. GPU matters more than anything.

This implies you only lost a little FPS from the switch. I disagree with that, mostly because I've used higher threaded setups, and noticed a drastic difference in minimum framerates (upwards of 20%). The part I disagreed with the most, was the "GPU matters more than anything" argument. This is only true if it's paired with a CPU/Memory configuration that can fully saturate the GPU, and a monitor that can actually leverage the GPU's additional frames. I'd rank the GPU far lower on the list once taking that into account.

 

Even looking at benches that don't really show the minimum framerates, a faster quad core tends to out-perform faster 6/8c CPU's with consistency in regards to average FPS.

 

In some titles, by up to 20FPS. That's going to matter a lot if you are gaming on say, a 165hz monitor. My point is, your original statement of:

21 minutes ago, phongle123 said:

No matter what. 8 cores 16 threads of the ryzen will always beat 4 core 8 threads of the i7, unless those 4 cores are clocked at like 6-7Ghz. Because that's what it's selling point is at.

Is simply incorrect, because there are scenario's in which the 4c/8t of an i7 will be superior. 

[Bouzoo]

7 minutes ago, COUPER MILLAR said:

Then why do most sites benchmark using 6950x?

Actually most are using 6800/6900, due to number of cores. Same how you'll see comparisons with 7700K when Ryzen 5 gets released. 

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, COUPER MILLAR said:

Then why do most sites benchmark using 6950x?

I don't know what sites you use, but the ones I use, use 6700k's/7700k's. 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2808-watch-dogs-2-cpu-benchmark-thread-intensive-game

 

Though, I understand why people use those CPU's in benching. They try to use hardware within the same "class" as each other. Chances are, if you are going to fork out the money for a Titan XP, you are gonna have it paired with an expensive platform. I am not saying these CPU's are bad at gaming, just that their quad-core counterparts tend to be better due to how games are programmed. Even in titles that are perfectly capable of leveraging the additional threads, higher clock speeds seem to take the crown in the end.

 

This might change once we see wider adoption of DX12/Vulkan, but for now, this is how it is. 

[XenosTech]

5 hours ago, Valentyn said:

Except under EU and UK Law Patreon is taxed, which means he cannot lie with his name and taxation information on Patreon.

There's no Jim Parker listed under WCCF staff, so the onus is on you to show sources that he's a writer there.

Also AMD Shilling? That must be why has lambasted Vega as not being fast enough here.

 

LMAO ! that dude seems to be rather triggered... "Adored is anti-intel" but uses intel products... He should go watch some more of the vids and realise that he may post a lot of AMD vids but he's by no means a fan boy, fan boys don't ever admit that their company has any short comings nor do they bash their oh so holy company.

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, Arc_Jester said:

They've done it before and got a hefty fine, I don't think they are stupid enough to do it again.

the fine is nothing compared to the profit and market share they gained 

[WkdPaul]

3 hours ago, DozerKitty said:

*snip*

Your thread was a repost and so it was merged with the original one.

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, MageTank said:

By your logic, AMD is just as bad. When AMD had the superior product, they charged a fortune for it relative to Intel. This information is readily available on Google.

 

The blind devotion people have for companies is sickening.

Those old Athlons.....on the plus side, back then I could only afford to go from a Celeron 433 to a Pentium III 667EB so the pricing didn't affect me.

[JoeCoke]

On 2/26/2017 at 3:38 PM, Clanscorpia said:

They dropped them by like $200

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56440/intel-rocked-core-over-ryzen-price-drops-begin/index.html

I doubt this

Damn. Okay, a question for Ryzen naysayers. If Ryzen isn't good, why is Intel already dropping their prices like mad before Ryzen has even hit the market?

 

Legitimate question.

[AnonymousGuy]

2 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Damn. Okay, a question for Ryzen naysayers. If Ryzen isn't good, why is Intel already dropping their prices like mad before Ryzen has even hit the market?

 

Legitimate question.

Microcenter is not a Tier 1 Intel distributor.  Call me when the Intel price sheet changes.

[tomotomov92]

1 minute ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Microcenter is not a Tier 1 Intel distributor.  Call me when the Intel price sheet changes.

Intel are waiting for actual detailed Ryzen benchmarks before changing their prices.

Something like Tom's Hardware and Guru 3D review with a lot of details about their benchmarks and a media that most people can trust with the results.

 

Changing the prices right now when only the media has the real scores and actually getting the right prices for each of the Intel's products will mean one of two things: unexplained luck or someone sharing benchmarks with Intel before the NDA is down.

 

Also note that right now price changes will only affect the top line of Intel CPUs from i5 to i7. Everything else doesn't have a real competition until R5 and R3 are publicly available.

[JoeCoke]

3 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Call me when the Intel price sheet changes.

I guess I'll be calling you soon then. It's only a matter of time before we see massive price drops, probably won't even be long after the Ryzen reviews and benchmarks go live. Intel simply can't afford to sell their CPUs at double, or even more than double the price of Ryzen, even if Ryzen turns out to be slower than Kaby/Skylake (which is most likely imo).

[AnonymousGuy]

8 minutes ago, tomotomov92 said:

Intel are waiting for actual detailed Ryzen benchmarks before changing their prices.

Something like Tom's Hardware and Guru 3D review with a lot of details about their benchmarks and a media that most people can trust with the results.

Intel does their own benchmarks on competitor's products. It's a whole group dedicated to it and competitive responses to various market threats, which enables the sales people to be able to do their jobs better.

 

5 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

I guess I'll be calling you soon then. It's only a matter of time before we see massive price drops, probably won't even be long after the Ryzen reviews and benchmarks go live. Intel simply can't afford to sell their CPUs at double, or even more than double the price of Ryzen, even if Ryzen turns out to be slower than Kaby/Skylake (which is most likely imo).

Unlikely.  They'll probably offer rebates and shit to OEM's but I don't really foresee seeing actual price drops. Kaby Lake still leads Ryzen in typical workloads, and Intel has much stronger branding than AMD does anyways.  Your average consumer will buy an Intel system over an AMD one, regardless of performance differences.  It was also in the Q4 2016 Earnings Call that they aren't planning on changes to the average selling price of products.

[tomotomov92]

5 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Intel does their own benchmarks on competitor's products. It's a whole group dedicated to it and competitive responses to various market threats, which enables the sales people to be able to do their jobs better.

Yeah, Intel can benchmark the CPUs themselves if they have them. The main problem right now is that only the media ppl have some CPUs and I don't think AMD has sent some products to Intel just to make them benchmark the crap out of them and position the prices of the Intel CPUs correctly.

[Misanthrope]

This is close to crossing the line between rumor and Libel. This is low even for wccf just fucking wait people: AMD probably won't do as well as you're expecting. 

[AnonymousGuy]

Just now, tomotomov92 said:

Yeah, Intel can benchmark the CPUs themselves if they have them. The main problem right now is that only the media ppl have some CPUs and I don't think AMD has sent some products to Intel just to make them benchmark the crap out of them and position the prices of the Intel CPUs correctly.

Intel can preorder them just like everyone else.   Plus, Intel doesn't need to or want to be hyper reactionary.  They can afford to wait AMD out a couple quarters to see how well Ryzen really ends up doing.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Intel can preorder them just like everyone else.   Plus, Intel doesn't need to or want to be hyper reactionary.  They can afford to wait AMD out a couple quarters to see how well Ryzen really ends up doing.

Pretty much this. In list form: 

 

1) They should wait for reviews

2) They should wait to see if consumer chips live up to said reviews

3) They should wait to see how stable is their AM4 platform

4) They should wait to see if AMD can even deliver substantial amounts of chips to meet demand

 

After 1 through 4 is said and done (specially 4) then they can think about lowering prices or doing other tricks to address things.

[tomotomov92]

6 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Intel can preorder them just like everyone else.   Plus, Intel doesn't need to or want to be hyper reactionary.  They can afford to wait AMD out a couple quarters to see how well Ryzen really ends up doing.

 

6 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Pretty much this. In list form: 

 

1) They should wait for reviews

2) They should wait to see if consumer chips live up to said reviews

3) They should wait to see how stable is their AM4 platform

4) They should wait to see if AMD can even deliver substantial amounts of chips to meet demand

 

After 1 through 4 is said and done (specially 4) then they can think about lowering prices or doing other tricks to address things.

 

The thing with waiting for the chips to come to Intel's labs is that it will be too late for the price changes.

By that time AMD would have sold too much CPUs because if Ryzen is superior to every level the reviews will definitely show it and people will look for the best chips for their money - after all a lot of people had known for months that Ryzen will be released in Q1 2017 and consumers are just waiting for the benchmarks to check what CPU will be best for them and their budget.

 

If Intel waits even 2 weeks too much - the main market share will go to AMD and after the consumers spend their money - there is no going back to get this thing back for some years. That way Intel will allow AMD to grow too much without taking the needed actions aka. to lower the prices just around the benchmarks for Ryzen show up around,

 

I know all of this is shitty and shady practice - but this is the business - everyone is trying to undercut everybody else to keep themselves in the business and grow as much as possible without giving any market share to competitors.

[straight_stewie]

Quote

Clearly Intel is afraid of something, or at least are taking pro-active action in trying to reduce the AMD threat as soon as possible. I personally think that them trying to meddle with 'independent' reviewers before they release Ryzen reviews is absolutely shameful, and should be actively discouraged. 

 

Therefore when the embargo is lifted on March 2, I believe the tech community should take a close objective look at each review, and make their own conclusions based on the benchmarks provided, as the reviewers own benchmarks may or may not be influenced. We will have to see.

 

On 2/26/2017 at 3:16 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah, no, they can kiss the reviewers' collective asses.

I'm surprised that no one has asked yet. What is LTT's official plans for Ryzen? We know that the companies primary source of income is ad revenue and that Intel is one of your largest advertisers (and a good source of floated products for review). Risking going against a gag order could mean huge losses for LTT, and I, and I'm sure many others, are wondering how Linus Tech Tips intends to handle this situation?

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

 

I'm surprised that no one has asked yet. What is LTT's official plans for Ryzen? We know that the companies primary source of income is ad revenue and that Intel is one of your largest advertisers (and a good source of floated products for review). Risking going against a gag order could mean huge losses for LTT, and I, and I'm sure many others, are wondering how Linus Tech Tips intends to handle this situation?

Well there's a few things to point out.  First, it has come to light that in fact the original post that this news was based on wasn't all it seemed to be.  While it seemed like Intel was gearing up to basically suggest to reviewers how they should describe RyZen, it now seems that what they were just doing is wanting to let reviewers know that they would be reducing prices shortly if RyZen turns out to be good.

 

In the event they attempt the former however, it should be rather obvious to see who complies and who doesn't.  Once RyZen releases, the facts (ie, benchmarks of all kinds) will be out there for anyone to see, and anyone to try.  It would be rather obvious of some reviews talk about RyZen being good, while others talk exclusively about the ways Intel is better.

[straight_stewie]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well there's a few things to point out.  First, it has come to light that in fact the original post that this news was based on wasn't all it seemed to be.  While it seemed like Intel was gearing up to basically suggest to revers how they should describe RyZen, it now seems that what they were just doing is wanting to let reviewers know that they would be reducing prices shortly if RyZen turns out to be good.

Ahhh. I didn't notice this. I scanned through the 7 pages to see if my question had already been asked, but I didn't read anywhere near all of the replies.

[SammoFS]

I'm waiting for vega to end up to be a big disappointment. 

Or It may actually be good. many "sources"/websites are saying in the first half of 2017/2nd quarter of 2017 is when vega will come out, they're also saying it may go up against the 1080. saying it's price may be like, $600-$800...

[Misanthrope]

35 minutes ago, tomotomov92 said:

The thing with waiting for the chips to come to Intel's labs is that it will be too late for the price changes.

By that time AMD would have sold too much CPUs because if Ryzen is superior to every level the reviews will definitely show it and people will look for the best chips for their money - after all a lot of people had known for months that Ryzen will be released in Q1 2017 and consumers are just waiting for the benchmarks to check what CPU will be best for them and their budget.

I disagree: 

 

 

You don't revert that trend by delaying 1 or 2 months, even if it's the critical launch time processors are big ticket items and those will really be aiming for the holiday season 2017 to really make a bang.

 

But we'll see.

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I disagree: 

 

 

You don't revert that trend by delaying 1 or 2 months, even if it's the critical launch time processors are big ticket items and those will really be aiming for the holiday season 2017 to really make a bang.

 

But we'll see.

That's total market share right?  I think it would be interesting to see yearly sales from each

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, LabRat said:

you know, if there was truly ONE honest reviewer anywhere on the net they would post the letter they received. even if it meant biting the hand that feeds them.

I expect a good review on Ryzen and then towards the end of the video or review there will be a "but hold on there" or a "but wait a minute" or "not so fast"...... or let me figure a way to throw something negative in there without getting caught doing it.... ( mumbles to self ). I think that would be a way to skirt the issue altogether. HONESTY......... is there any?

Or maybe nobody has posted the email because it doesn't exist? Or maybe they haven't posted it because it really isn't anything bad and standard practice for the industry (as in, AMD and Nvidia does it too)? 

 

14 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Yeah we need someone in the tech industry with a reputation to confirm it, and then get themselves sued into oblivion by Intel for breaking NDA.

Or we can have it the other way around, Intel stepping up to snuff out these claims... but they haven't.

It would be shame if they did that but then later confirmed otherwise... Intel itself would get pounded into the ground

There is no NDA. Intel can't enforce an NDA on an email they sent out before anyone signed an NDA. AMD is the one who has reviewers under an NDA right now. Not Intel.