Computex 2017 - HELL YEAH!

[zMeul]

Just now, rn8686 said:

Consumer shouldn't be paying $250 for a quad core today, not after they have been a standard past several years. 

no one is forcing you to do anything

if you don't like the pricing, buy something else, buy 2nd hand - you have the possibility

[Daniel644]

3 minutes ago, rn8686 said:

No, but them blatantly ripping off consumers with their CPUs for the past few years is ridiculous. Doesn't it seem suspicious they added 8 cores to their top tier i9 instead of just 2 like they always do? 

No it doesn't seam suspicious, they probably got an early rumor on threadripper when it was early in the development phase and realized if the AMD IPC was anywhere close to the current Intel offerings that they needed to step there game up and put out chips with enough cores to compete, the only thing Intel may be guilty of is getting lazy and charging to much for the HIGH END stuff, remember these aren't your average consumer CPU's, these are the Lambo's of CPU's not the Civic's of CPU's, they aren't meant for every one and sure on a performance per dollar they are crazy expensive, but most people don't need Lambo's, so those people go get the civic's, it's the elite few that have the money and want the raw performance, price be damned that get the Lambo's.

[rn8686]

Just now, zMeul said:

no one is forcing you to do anything

if you don't like the pricing, buy something else, buy 2nd hand - you have the possibility

Thats why Ryzen is doing well, people dont like what Intel is doing. The problem is with AMD's former complacently in the CPU market, they had a virtual monopoly (Would you have bought an FX last year before Ryzen over Intel?). 

[rn8686]

1 minute ago, Daniel644 said:

No it doesn't seam suspicious, they probably got an early rumor on threadripper when it was early in the development phase and realized if the AMD IPC was anywhere close to the current Intel offerings that they needed to step there game up and put out chips with enough cores to compete, the only thing Intel may be guilty of is getting lazy and charging to much for the HIGH END stuff, remember these aren't your average consumer CPU's, these are the Lambo's of CPU's not the Civic's of CPU's, they aren't meant for every one and sure on a performance per dollar they are crazy expensive, but most people don't need Lambo's, so those people go get the civic's, it's the elite few that have the money and want the raw performance, price be damned that get the Lambo's.

Still proves my point, Intel felt threatened enough by AMD to step up and prepare something proper rather than just sitting back. And yet they still wait to see how thread ripper does against their current offerings so they can price it accordingly (Obviously they will charge more if it doesn't do well). 

[zMeul]

Just now, rn8686 said:

Thats why Ryzen is doing well, people dont like what Intel is doing. The problem is with AMD's former complacently in the CPU market, they had a virtual monopoly (Would you have bought an FX last year before Ryzen over Intel?). 

Ryzen doing well .. please stop, I can't laugh anymore

Intel's monopoly on the market is and will always be AMD's fault

and PS: I bought an i5 6500 1y ago - no regrets

[rn8686]

Just now, zMeul said:

Ryzen doing well .. please stop, I can't laugh anymore

Intel's monopoly on the market is and will always be AMD's fault

and PS: I bought an i5 6500 1y ago - no regrets

I agree it probably is AMDs fault, still doesn't make them anymore pro-consumer. Nothing wrong with Intel's older processors (Happy with my 6600k), but obviously I5s have no real purpose anymore if buying new. 

[Daniel644]

1 minute ago, rn8686 said:

Still proves my point, Intel felt threatened enough by AMD to step up and prepare something proper rather than just sitting back. And yet they still wait to see how thread ripper does against their current offerings so they can price it accordingly (Obviously they will charge more if it doesn't do well). 

Your argument is invalid, They've ANNOUNCED the pricing already, it's been known for a day or 2 now. the pricing was announced BEFORE the AMD ThreadRipper offical announcement by the better part of a day.

[XenosTech]

3 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

Your argument is invalid, They've ANNOUNCED the pricing already, it's been known for a day or 2 now. the pricing was announced BEFORE the AMD ThreadRipper offical announcement by the better part of a day.

We only know the pricing up to the 10 core and nothing else

[rn8686]

4 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

Your argument is invalid, They've ANNOUNCED the pricing already, it's been known for a day or 2 now. the pricing was announced BEFORE the AMD ThreadRipper offical announcement by the better part of a day.

So they have, thought that was only for their lower end models, MB. Still, I still believe the only reason they actually have pushed for 8 cores is simply because of the fear of Ryzen and thread ripper on its way. Realistically if AMD were to never to make thread ripper, do you really think they  would release an 18 core i9, or leave it at 12 cores? 

[Daniel644]

3 minutes ago, rn8686 said:

I agree it probably is AMDs fault, still doesn't make them anymore pro-consumer. Nothing wrong with Intel's older processors (Happy with my 6600k), but obviously I5s have no real purpose anymore if buying new. 

NO Company is "pro-consumer", every company balances there pricing based on the cost to produce, how much the market is willing to pay and then looks to see if they can undercut the competition and still make good enough profits, if you believe AMD's pricing is anything more then trying to pull market share from Intel then you are simply mistaken.

[Daniel644]

4 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

We only know the pricing up to the 10 core and nothing else

pricing TOP TO BOTTOM

 

 

[rn8686]

3 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

NO Company is "pro-consumer", every company balances there pricing based on the cost to produce, how much the market is willing to pay and then looks to see if they can undercut the competition and still make good enough profits, if you believe AMD's pricing is anything more then trying to pull market share from Intel then you are simply mistaken.

Did I say AMD is completely pro-consumer? No, simply that Intel is worse in this regard. Is there a need for them to lock CPUs and restrict OC' ability to certain (Much more expensive) chipsets? Is there a reason they had to crack down on people and motherboard manufactures trying to circumvent the system if it caused anything other than harm to them? 

[T SpooN]

19 minutes ago, zMeul said:

blatantly ripping them off? mate .. what the shit?!

 

1st you cry Intel has too many sockets, and now you cry it has too many CPUs on the same socket - please make up your mind

What was Linus ranting about sockets was the fact that Intel took the old Kaby Lake socket 1151 into Kaby Lake-X socket 2066 just for the extra TDP and frequencies, making it compatible with only the new respective motherboards. I'm not an engineer to argue about if the socket changing was reasonable or not from given that information.

 

I'm not sure about Linus complaining about "too many sockets" and "too many CPUs in the same socket". (probably I missed it on the video?) Could you elaborate?

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, Daniel644 said:

pricing TOP TO BOTTOM

 

 

Welp I skipped that vid when it showed up on my feed... they orginally didn't have all the pricing when they talked about x299

[Daniel644]

Just now, rn8686 said:

Did I say AMD is completely pro-consumer? No, simply that Intel is worse in this regard. Is there a need for them to lock CPUs and restrict OC' ability to certain (Much more expensive) chipsets? Is there a reason they had to crack down on people and motherboard manufactures trying to circumvent the system if it caused anything other than harm to them? 

lower end AMD AM4 chipsets only support 65 watt TDP chips, I doubt you'll get much overclocking from them. Yes Intels pricing is higher then it should be, but as long as there are people out there willing to pay what Intel is asking they will be charging that much because the MARKET is supporting the price.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, T SpooN said:

What was Linus ranting about sockets was the fact that Intel took the old Kaby Lake socket 1151 into Kaby Lake-X socket 2066 just for the extra TDP and frequencies, making it compatible with only the new respective motherboards. I'm not an engineer to argue about if the socket changing was reasonable or not from given that information.

Intel is giving "you" a choice that you can or you won't use - a choice

choice "oh no .. it's bad" - WTF!?

 

Quote

I'm not sure about Linus complaining about "too many sockets" and "too many CPUs in the same socket". (probably I missed it on the video?) Could you elaborate?

do you want me to go over every WAN Show and every other video Linus did and report back with the time stamp where Linus complains Intel has too many sockets?

I hope not

[rn8686]

Just now, Daniel644 said:

lower end AMD AM4 chipsets only support 65 watt TDP chips, I doubt you'll get much overclocking from them. Yes Intels pricing is higher then it should be, but as long as there are people out there willing to pay what Intel is asking they will be charging that much because the MARKET is supporting the price.

The market simply supports that price because it had no other option for several years. No one could advocate for buying FX or Athlon CPUs instead of I5s before Ryzen. 

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, T SpooN said:

What was Linus ranting about sockets was the fact that Intel took the old Kaby Lake socket 1151 into Kaby Lake-X socket 2066 just for the extra TDP and frequencies, making it compatible with only the new respective motherboards. I'm not an engineer to argue about if the socket changing was reasonable or not from given that information.

 

I'm not sure about Linus complaining about "too many sockets" and "too many CPUs in the same socket". (probably I missed it on the video?) Could you elaborate?

the i5 and i7 don't belong there... too little lanes for a platform that's built around the other cpu's that have a lot of lanes so some manufacturers are leaving off features off their boards because of it or parts of the board don't work based on the cpu you install on it.

[Daniel644]

2 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Welp I skipped that vid when it showed up on my feed... they orginally didn't have all the pricing when they talked about x299

it was in the Gamers Nexus video too and that was the first one of the ones I'm subscribed to to cover it, heck it came out like Friday morning

 

[Shahnewaz]

The last video was fucking glorious.

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

it was in the Gamers Nexus video too and that was the first one of the ones I'm subscribed to to cover it, heck it came out like Friday morning

 

skipped that video too... pretty sure there's a thread here where there's a slide without the pricing.

[Daniel644]

4 minutes ago, rn8686 said:

The market simply supports that price because it had no other option for several years. No one could advocate for buying FX or Athlon CPUs instead of I5s before Ryzen. 

Well apparently not to well, AMD has already had to drop the pricing on the Ryzen 7 lineup so they aren't pulling enough market share to effect Intels bottom line.

4 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

the i5 and i7 don't belong there... too little lanes for a platform that's built around the other cpu's that have a lot of lanes so some manufacturers are leaving off features off their boards because of it or parts of the board don't work based on the cpu you install on it.

I'll agree with you there, those 2 low end chips never should have changed sockets, they should have just been small refreshes on the same 1151 chip as the old ones, it makes no sense for them to be part of this socket.

 

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

skipped that video too... pretty sure there's a thread here where there's a slide without the pricing.

 

yeah, i've seen the slide you speak of in later videos from other youtubers, I don't understand why those folks didn't have the up to date information.

[T SpooN]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

Intel is giving "you" a choice that you can or you won't use - a choice

choice "oh no .. it's bad" - WTF!?

 

do you want me to go over every WAN Show and every other video Linus did and report back with the time stamp where Linus complains Intel has too many sockets?

I hope not

I don't know what Linus has said on his WAN Shows.

I also don't know if my opinion is the same as Linus but what I think is that it's just dirty if Intel is releasing a new sockets just for marketing purposes only.

 

And please, calm down.

[FishTea]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

@LinusTech

what is this shit!?

 

1st you complain that Intel has too many sockets and you complain that it has too many CPUs on the same socket? please make up your mind

2nd - what's with the thumb? did BatMan just died or something?

 

they should put celly on X299, just to piss you off

shilling again huh. seems normal

[rn8686]

Just now, Daniel644 said:

Well apparently not to well, AMD has already had to drop the pricing on the Ryzen 7 lineup so they aren't pulling enough market share to effect Intels bottom line.

I would argue that is simply because of thread ripper on its way (They weren't even dropped that much) so the low end models didnt cannibalise it in terms of value, but still doesn't really change my point. I think we can all agree that Ryzen R7 is better value than Intels 6900k or 7820x regardless of the market share it has (Even @zMeul I'm sure).