Intel Playing Dirty to Undercut AMD

[tomotomov92]

52 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.

 

This is the long term effect of AMD not releasing competitive products with Intel's lineup.

Now that they are back on the market with actually a competitive product - there is a real reason that Intel has to move quick and cut the competitor's head before it has grown out of their reach.

 

There are a lot of people still on FX series or second and third generations of i5 and i7 that are looking for an upgrade right now. Intel knows it and AMD knows it as well.

Those potential customers are looking right now for something that's not too expensive (let's face it - if they had enough money - they would have upgraded by now) and actually a good upgrade for them.

 

So from this point comes that there are several groups of customers that AMD and Intel want to win ASAP:

 

1. Those who have pre-ordered RyZen and will keep no matter what (it's already a lost market for Intel if it was theirs at all)

2. Those who have pre-ordered RyZen and are now waiting for the benchmarks and Intel's price cuts to see if they are going to keep the pre-order or cancel it and check for something that's cheaper. (one of the potential markets where Intel can win big if they play their part correctly)

3. Those who are waiting for benchmarks and Intel's price cuts to see what to buy (the second potential markets where Intel can win really big)

 

4. Those who will make purchases in a month or later - up until then all of the short term prices are going to be changed according to what is happening now and everything that's to be known about both AMD's and Intel's lineups will be publicly known. Also this group will be mostly looking at the previous 3 groups and go the way of least resistance.

 

It's a really messy thing right now so if Intel doesn't act fast enough with their prices and RyZen is the star in the sky that everyone has waited for - the first 3 groups will go with AMD and stay with it for at least 2 or 3 years.

 

It's the short fight that can and most possibly will keep or change what the market is right now.

 

Sorry for the long post - I think I won't have to clarify my point a lot more with this. It's just what the market is - undercutting (sometimes to the point of loss of income) in order to get as much market for yourself and don't allow the competition to have enough money to survive.

This is not just me saying it - it's the way of life. And on the scale of CPUs where there are only 2 competitors right now (I hope NVidia forces their way into CPUs some time soon) we'll be seeing the same battle again and again.

 

P.S. It's a good thing that NVidia was not sold to Intel a few years back. It would have killed the competition even more.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, tomotomov92 said:

 

This is the long term effect of AMD not releasing competitive products with Intel's lineup.

Sorry to cut your wall of text there chief but long term effects are almost never reverted in the very short term I was talking about which is about 1 to 2 months max.

[tomotomov92]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Sorry to cut your wall of text there chief but long term effects are almost never reverted in the very short term I was talking about which is about 1 to 2 months max.

In the case with the pre-orders - it may as well be an issue. Well we'll have to wait and see what actually happens.

 

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

You know the NDA itself would probably be included in the NDA. Not that they would need one anyway to make a serious threat. I'm not happy about AMD's NDA as well. If they allowed reviews to be published earlier, this whole debacle would never have happened. And if Ryzen was really a disappointment, the people would know not to preorder. 

One of the shitty things about pre-orders and NDA keeping the products' specs going out before the purchase is to keep some secrets.

 

For example you can check Bethesda's thing - Doom's reviews came out after the pre-orders and it was success - so after this point they would do the reviews after the game is publicly available. Next game to be affected by "no reviews before widely available" - Dishonored 2.

It was a disaster during it's launch.

 

Other example with bad pre-orders and no reviews prior to launch - Mafia 3.

 

 

The sad thing about not having reviews out before being able to purchase a product is like playing a lottery with two numbers:

If you pre-order - you choose the first digit.

 

If the product is ok - the first digit is the winning one so no one loses.

Well we'll know about everything in a few days from now so let's keep with the witch hunt until then

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Sorry to cut your wall of text there chief but long term effects are almost never reverted in the very short term I was talking about which is about 1 to 2 months max.

If AMD sold enough CPUs in the first 1-3 months there wouldn't have been enough storage locations to put them anywhere before sale, or get them shipped in time. That would have been over a billion processors, like damn that's over 11 million processors a day. Imagine the utter world wide chaos trying to get that much product to peoples doors.

[LabRat]

LAwlZ............ think about that. you'll catch on.

 

I already saw 4k benchmarks. it's amazing for the price we're paying. Intel's going to have to make a move. I'm no under an NDA/

 

 

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

If AMD sold enough CPUs in the first 1-3 months there wouldn't have been enough storage locations to put them anywhere before sale, or get them shipped in time. That would have been over a billion processors, like damn that's over 11 million processors a day. Imagine the utter world wide chaos trying to get that much product to peoples doors.

Precisely: the way a supply chain works means that there is no way they can revert years of market dominance by Intel with just a successful launch. It really does not hurt for intel to wait and see what they're dealing with for a brief period of time before they decide a very significant price reduction is in order.

[Scionyde]

So it's been a couple days and we still don't have any concrete proof on what Intel may or may not have said? Lovely. Damage has probably already been done, though - any reviewer who levels a criticism at Ryzen or highlights a possible inferiority compared to Intel is bound to be called a shill who succumbed to this phantom email.

 

2 hours ago, LabRat said:

LAwlZ............ think about that. you'll catch on.

 

I already saw 4k benchmarks. it's amazing for the price we're paying. Intel's going to have to make a move. I'm no under an NDA/

 

 

If you want a response from somebody, you either need to quote them or stick an @ at the beginning of their name. Like this: @LAwLz

[LabRat]

2 minutes ago, Scionyde said:

So it's been a couple days and we still don't have any concrete proof on what Intel may or may not have said? Lovely. Damage's has probably already been done, though - any reviewer who levels a criticism at Ryzen or highlights a possible inferiority compared to Intel is bound to be called a shill who succumbed to this phantom email.

 

If you want a response from somebody, you either need to quote them or stick an @ at the beginning of their name. Like this: @LAwLz

tried that double quote shit. never works for me. if somebody is following they will see it. if not, I don't care.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, LabRat said:

LAwlZ............ think about that. you'll catch on.

 

I already saw 4k benchmarks. it's amazing for the price we're paying. Intel's going to have to make a move. I'm no under an NDA/

 

 

Think about what? 

 

I am not worried about 4K gaming benchmarks. Those are mostly GPU bound so your processor matters less than at lower resolutions anyway, and I doubt it will be "amazing value" compared to for example the i5.

[tomotomov92]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Think about what? 

 

I am not worried about 4K gaming benchmarks. Those are mostly GPU bound so your processor matters less than at lower resolutions anyway, and I doubt it will be "amazing value" compared to for example the i5.

I don't know if anyone of you have read it but this article from Tom's Hardware shows that at higher resolutions even duo core (they had HT disabled for all tests so i3 was performing like a duo core CPU) performs better than higher core counts in most of the games (in DirectX 11).

 

The higher the resolution the higher need for more and faster GPU dedicated RAM and GPU speeds (please note that if the memory needed exceeds the GPU RAM then the GPU starts to use the system memory which is a lot slower and that way the performance is decreased).

 

Unfortunately there is still no data on DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance while increasing cores with the different resolutions as right now there are not enough games that are using them. I hope they someone can test the performance for these APIs in the near future.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, tomotomov92 said:

I don't know if anyone of you have read it but this article from Tom's Hardware shows that at higher resolutions even duo core (they had HT disabled for all tests so i3 was performing like a duo core CPU) performs better than higher core counts in most of the games (in DirectX 11).

 

The higher the resolution the higher need for more and faster GPU dedicated RAM and GPU speeds (please note that if the memory needed exceeds the GPU RAM then the GPU starts to use the system memory which is a lot slower and that way the performance is decreased).

 

Unfortunately there is still no data on DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance while increasing cores with the different resolutions as right now there are not enough games that are using them. I hope they someone can test the performance for these APIs in the near future.

I had not read that article until now, but yeah it seems to confirm what I already knew from other sources.

The higher your graphic settings, the less your processor matters.

 

4K benchmarks are, at least right now, useless for determining how good a processor is. 1080p benchmarks will show a much larger performance difference.

But if you ask me even 1080p gaming benchmarks are kind of useless. Any half-decent processor like an i5 will not bottleneck you as quickly as your graphics card will. Maybe if you have like a dual Titan XP setup then sure, you might want something more than an i5, but the 0.01% who actually owns that will already know that.