6700K price going up??? Now $399.99 @ Newegg

[Fjodor2001]

You never documented this. And for obvious reasons because it doesn't cost it. You can buy them much cheaper than that. Also a 95W cooler is...4$.

I was talking about the list price. What you can get something for at an exceptional deal is irrelevant. And the $4 cooler you referred to is not the TS15A anyway.

 

[Fjodor2001]

1.6% in the US turns out to 5.6$ for a 350$ product for a single year. So you just proved that Intel lowered the price since the 350$ price have been static for 3 years

Except that they didn't, they increased the price as mentioned before, taking the lack of CPU cooler into account. And they did it much more than inflation.

Also, taking Moore's law into account, the price should instead be much lower since the die area has decreased significantly between CPU generations. That is assuming Moore's law still works, and the benefit of lower price/per transistor is actually being passed on to the consumer and not being harvested by Intel.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Also, taking Moore's law into account, the price should instead be much lower since the die area has decreased significantly between CPU generations. That is assuming Moore's law still works, and the benefit of lower price/per transistor is actually being passed on to the consumer and not being harvested by Intel.

This. Intel is price-gouging, like never before...

 

[Arachnotronic]

Except that they didn't, they increased the price as mentioned before, taking the lack of CPU cooler into account. And they did it much more than inflation.

Also, taking Moore's law into account, the price should instead be much lower since the die area has decreased significantly between CPU generations. That is assuming Moore's law still works, and the benefit of lower price/per transistor is actually being passed on to the consumer and not being harvested by Intel.

Smaller die area != lower mfg cost.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I was talking about the list price. What you can get something for at an exceptional deal is irrelevant. And the $4 cooler you referred to is not the TS15A anyway.

You haven't shown a list price. The only thing you did was to take the highest retail price and claim it as a fact.

Show me the list price or stop your blatant FUD and continual campaign.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Except that they didn't, they increased the price as mentioned before, taking the lack of CPU cooler into account. And they did it much more than inflation.

Also, taking Moore's law into account, the price should instead be much lower since the die area has decreased significantly between CPU generations. That is assuming Moore's law still works, and the benefit of lower price/per transistor is actually being passed on to the consumer and not being harvested by Intel.

4$ cooler is less than 5.6$ inflation. Nor math or business is your strong side when you cant see it objectively.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Smaller die area != lower mfg cost.

The most important part is volume, and that is shrinking. While R&D cost goes up.

But I doubt the tinfoil conspiracy people and those with an agenda is able or willing to understand how the business works.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Smaller die area != lower mfg cost.

Point is price/transistor should go down with Moore's law. But we're not seeing that being passed on to the consumer for Intel desktop CPUs.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Point is price/transistor should go down with Moore's law. But we're not seeing that being passed on to the consumer for Intel desktop CPUs.

It does.

But you forget R&D goes up and volume decrease. Design cost alone is 2x higher at 14nm than 22nm.

 

[Fjodor2001]

4$ cooler is less than 5.6$ inflation. Nor math or business is your strong side when you cant see it objectively.

Where can you buy the TS15A cooler for $4?

As usual your making up lies, which is your only strong point. On engineering, technology, business and all other relevant aspects you're an utter failure as usual.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Where can you buy the TS15A cooler for $4?

As usual your making up lies, which is your only strong point. On engineering, technology, business and all other relevant aspects you're an utter failure as usual.

TS15A isn't a 95W cooler and not the cooler with the 4790K.

 

[Fjodor2001]

It does.

But you forget R&D goes up and volume decrease. Design cost alone is 2x higher at 14nm than 22nm.

And how much is the design cost of the total R&D for a new node?

Also, you've yet to prove that the cost reduction benefit of Moore's law is being passed on to the consumer.

 

[Fjodor2001]

TS15A isn't a 95W cooler and not the cooler with the 4790K.

The TS15A is the CPU cooler Intel sells for the latest K-series desktop CPU. Can you show us where you can get it for $4 as you have claimed?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Design cost is a die layout.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The TS15A is the CPU cooler Intel sells for the latest K-series desktop CPU. Can you show us where you can get it for $4?

Intel also sold coolers previously. Its just you that want it to be that specific cooler.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Intel also sold coolers previously. Its just you that want it to be that specific cooler.

The difference is that it used to be included when you bought the CPU. It no longer is with the latest K series CPUs. Thus the consumer needs to add the cost of the CPU cooler to the total cost. The CPU then gets more expensive than the previous K generation.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The difference is that it used to be included when you bought the CPU. It no longer is with the latest K series CPUs. Thus the consumer needs to add the cost of the CPU cooler to the total cost. The CPU then gets more expensive than the previous K generation.

No, the TS15A wasn't included, nor was the TS13A or TS13X. It was the E97378-001.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Design cost is a die layout.

But how much is the design cost of the total R&D cost for developing CPU on a new node? The total cost being the R&D for process tech, CPU design, etc.

You claimed it is so much higher it will wreck the cost benefits of Moore's law?

And rising design design costs is nothing new either. We've been seeing it continuously. E.g. don't you think the 486 was more expensive to design than the 386?

 

[Fjodor2001]

No, the TS15A wasn't included, nor was the TS13A or TS13X. It was the E97378-001.

The Intel recommended CPU cooler for the K series at that time was included. It no longer is. Now you have to buy it separately, so it adds to the total cost.

 

[ShintaiDK]

But how much is the design cost of the total R&D cost for developing CPU on a new node? The total cost being the R&D for process tech, CPU design, etc.

You claimed it is so much higher it will wreck the cost benefits of Moore's law?

And rising design design costs is nothing new either. We've been seeing it continuously. E.g. don't you think the 486 was more expensive to design than the 386?

Nobody is going to tell you the exact cost. But IBS estimates around 500-1000M$ for a 14/16nm design as average. For R&D its quite obvious it only goes one way. Same for volume.

I dont think you understand Moore´s law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

You forgot how much the 486 sold compared to the 386.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The most important part is volume, and that is shrinking. While R&D cost goes up.

So, is Moore's Law going backwards now, with Intel 14nm? Because Moore's Law says that transistors should get cheaper (by a factor of 2), every two years.

Yet, we're seeing CPUs with less than 2x transistor budget, and increasing, rather than decreasing in price.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The Intel recommended CPU cooler for the K series at that time was included. It no longer is. Now you have to buy it separately, so it adds to the total cost.

Yes, 4$. With a 5.6$ inflation. That means the 6700K is 1.6$ less in real price than the 4790K was.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So, is Moore's Law going backwards now, with Intel 14nm? Because Moore's Law says that transistors should get cheaper (by a factor of 2), every two years.

Yet, we're seeing CPUs with less than 2x transistor budget, and increasing, rather than decreasing in price.

It doesn't say it should get cheaper.

"The number of transistors incorporated in a chip will approximately double every 24 months."

This still applies. Perhaps not for your product of choice tho. And that is a volume issue. Mainly due to anything but transistor cost.

 

[Ranulf]

Not in western countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation_rate

United States 1.6 (2014) 1.6 (2014)
United Kingdom 0.0 (2015) 0.0 (2015)
Germany 0.9 (2014) 0.8 (2014)
France 0.5 (2014) 0.6 (2014)

Nearly no inflation at all.

Oh come on, wikipedia? If you take the CPI numbers from the US Gov seriously, you're cracked in the head my friend. I go by the costs of everyday items I need to live. About the only upside this year has been gas prices have stayed between $2-$3/gal. Everything else fluctuates $2-4 on average, like foodstuffs.

Computer tech has been mostly stable. I'd say the skylake stuff is mostly supply/demand and holiday price increases before a "sale".

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea, I dont think Intel is price gouging (not that they wouldnt if they thought they could). It is basically just retailers taking advantage of new products to eke out as much profit as possible. Could be related to supply somewhat as well with the 14 nm yield issues, but the microcenter near me always has good stock.

I think prices are pretty reasonable. The only way I am dissatisfied with intel is not with the price per se, but I think they could make more value available for the same price, like a mainstream hex core, and wider availability of hyperthreading and edram. (Edit: and dream on, but maybe an overclockable i3???)

And Shintai, please dont start with the something for nothing, Intel is not a charity, blah, blah. Nothing wrong with the consumer wishing for a bit more value, just like a company tries to maximize profits.