• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 543 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DrMrLordX said:
Are you quite serious? Is AMD paying OEMs not to carry Skylake-X? I'd be fascinated to know more about that.
Click to expand...

That is not a "legal" anti-consumer tactic. Of the legal ones they did petty much everything Intel did and more. Socket shenanigans, AM1 cash grab out of a failed product, FX9590 at $900, sub-par performing notebooks products. AM2 over time temperature problems because of bad TIM... They even copied the "locked, unlocked" thing for FM2 APUs.
On the GPU division they are petty much getting punish for what they did to VLIW owners.

And this off the top of my head, there is probably more i dont remember now.

They did what they did with Ryzen because they where far behind and had no other choice, is not because they are consumer friendly or good.
 
Last edited:
Intel Core i9-7960X 16 Core / 32 Threads (EN Sample) Geekbench 4.0 Score

Intel-Core-i9-7960X-Geekbench-4.0-Benchmark-410x380.jpg


http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-7960x-skylake-x-processor-geekbench-4-0-score-leaked/
 
Shivansps said:
That is not a "legal" anti-consumer tactic. Of the legal ones they did petty much everything Intel did and more.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "anti-consumer" (and we were talking anti-competitive, not anti-consumer) is, "they made stuff I didn't like and I'm mad about it". The point is if you don't like someone's products, you don't have to buy them. Intel had a position where it was exceedingly difficult to get a PC without buying their stuff. AMD didn't do much to improve the situation until 4 months ago.
 
Shivansps said:
That is not a "legal" anti-consumer tactic. Of the legal ones they did petty much everything Intel did and more. Socket shenanigans, AM1 cash grab out of a failed product, FX9590 at $900, sub-par performing notebooks products. AM2 over time temperature problems because of bad TIM... They even copied the "locked, unlocked" thing for FM2 APUs.
On the GPU division they are petty much getting punish for what they did to VLIW owners.

And this off the top of my head, there is probably more i dont remember now.

They did what they did with Ryzen because they where far behind and had no other choice, is not because they are consumer friendly or good.
Click to expand...
Weaksauce and incorrect FUD rant. 0/10. Also, fanboy detected.

Edit: None of what you described, are in fact, "anti-competitive practices".

Sounds like you just don't care for AMD's product lineups. So, don't buy them.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Yea, despite all the FUD being propogated about how terrible Skylake-X is for gaming, still beats AMD's best. Hopefully Coffee Lake will do even better, although again, despite all the moar core hype, there is little benefit from more than 4.
Click to expand...

It wins some and loses some. On balance, SKL-X is about on par with Ryzen. See Techspot's 30-game average @ 1080p:
Average.png


At my resolution of 4K60 I lose nothing in gaming.
 
Intel MUST price CF lineup super competitively or else they are screwed in mainstream space. They can win some OEM deals based on old fame but that won't last long if one can buy R5 1600 based system less $$$ and get 12T SKL-X performance out of it. It is amazing how tables have turned.

I wish intel snaps out of it and starts a mini price war so we can all profit out of it. I suspect they won't do that due to their precious margins. It is a shame since I think CF will be a very nice chip, just overpriced for what it offers.
 
VirtualLarry said:
Weaksauce and incorrect FUD rant. 0/10. Also, fanboy detected.

Edit: None of what you described, are in fact, "anti-competitive practices".

Sounds like you just don't care for AMD's product lineups. So, don't buy them.
Click to expand...

We where never talking about anti-competitive practices, it was about "anti-consumer" tactics, you you go in, call another user a fanboy and you dont have an idea of what he is even talking, well done.

And this post from you, what i did quoute originally, talks about Intel doing anti-consumer things, not anti-competitive. Dont try to move the goalposts just because im saying something you dont like.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...s-out-page-501.2428363/page-539#post-38992095
 
Last edited:
DrMrLordX said:
Your definition of "anti-consumer" (and we were talking anti-competitive, not anti-consumer) is, "they made stuff I didn't like and I'm mad about it". The point is if you don't like someone's products, you don't have to buy them. Intel had a position where it was exceedingly difficult to get a PC without buying their stuff. AMD didn't do much to improve the situation until 4 months ago.
Click to expand...

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...s-out-page-501.2428363/page-539#post-38993092

I was quoting this user when i posted the old reply that you quoted, if you gonna quote me at least have an idea of what or to who im talking to.

Also it is called memory, i remember what Intel and AMD did in the past, nothing wrong to mention it just to remember they are both companies and no one is good and can screw you at any moment, if you dont like it thats your problem, dont try to damage control it.
 
Last edited:
moonbogg said:
That shows the 7900X 10 core beating the Ryzen 16 core. This test is insanely Intel biased I think. No way the 10 core is faster than the 16 core Ryzen. What gives? Cinebench results told a different story.
Click to expand...

AMD says that it uses GB4 (Intel is not on this list), so I doubt that it's "insanely Intel biased."

5Kud6lG.png
 
inf64 said:
I wish intel snaps out of it and starts a mini price war so we can all profit out of it. I suspect they won't do that due to their precious margins. It is a shame since I think CF will be a very nice chip, just overpriced for what it offers.
Click to expand...

I really wish the people who keep saying "Intel needs to price competitively or they won't because they like their margins" would realize that this line of thinking makes no business sense.

There is ZERO point in selling products for "high margins" if you don't price them at levels that people will actually buy them at.
 
Arachnotronic said:
I really wish the people who keep saying "Intel needs to price competitively or they won't because they like their margins" would realize that this line of thinking makes no business sense.

There is ZERO point in selling products for "high margins" if you don't price them at levels that people will actually buy them at.
Click to expand...

Example of the former: Abandoning the little core lineup for mobile.
Example of the latter: Watching more OEM's pass on the Y series Core M chips and move to U series Core i chips in 2017 models.
 
Markfw said:
I can't find the link. So who wins ?
Click to expand...

It shows the intel 10 core slaughtering the Ryzen 16 core in multi thread. Maybe I didn't read it right, but we know Intel isn't that far ahead where 10 cores will beat 16 like that. Seems pretty odd to me. What's even stranger is that no one seems to be even a little confused by it.
 
moonbogg said:
It shows the intel 10 core slaughtering the Ryzen 16 core in multi thread. Maybe I didn't read it right, but we know Intel isn't that far ahead where 10 cores will beat 16 like that. Seems pretty odd to me. What's even stranger is that no one seems to be even a little confused by it.
Click to expand...

Moonbogg,

I'm pretty sure its a simple case of being an early engineering sample. Always wait for final product before deciding.
 
moonbogg said:
It shows the intel 10 core slaughtering the Ryzen 16 core in multi thread. Maybe I didn't read it right, but we know Intel isn't that far ahead where 10 cores will beat 16 like that. Seems pretty odd to me. What's even stranger is that no one seems to be even a little confused by it.
Click to expand...

The scores for Threadripper on GB have been floating around for a while. Either they are not real or GB is only reading half the cores. An 1800X scores around that amount by itself on the multi-core part. http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?q=1800x
 
Last edited:
Arachnotronic said:
There is ZERO point in selling products for "high margins" if you don't price them at levels that people will actually buy them at.
Click to expand...
Sure there is, just like there's a point to selling cheap in order to capture a market. In the case of Intel maintaining prices makes sense as long as they expect to regain their comfortable performance lead with the next gen products. The premature launch of Skylake-X was also part of that plan, although that brought about a cost of it's own.

Lowering prices in the mainstream market at this moment would also raise another problem: once the bigger CFL chips arrive, they would require current i7 prices, hence from the market point of view Intel would be jacking up prices again. (see how HEDT $2000 price point was perceived) They could manage that too by some "creative" tinkering with i9 branding in the mainstream, but that would also mean diluting their valuable branding.

From my point of view Intel has many reasons to not lower prices at this point, in the sense that it might cost them more to do so. The only scenario where I can see them regret this course of action would be a botched CFL launch or an early competition product refresh with 10%+ improved clocks. They better show flawless execution with CFL.
 
Shivansps said:
We where never talking about anti-competitive practices, it was about "anti-consumer" tactics, you you go in, call another user a fanboy and you dont have an idea of what he is even talking, well done.

And this post from you, what i did quoute originally, talks about Intel doing anti-consumer things, not anti-competitive. Dont try to move the goalposts just because im saying something you dont like.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...s-out-page-501.2428363/page-539#post-38992095
Click to expand...
Non-competitive, poorly-priced products, which you have the choice not to buy, doesn't exactly constitute "anti-consumer".

Things like excluding Optane support from Kaby Lake Pentiums, and leaving mainstream Skylake out for no apparent reason despite no additional hardware requirements, on the other hand, can be termed as "anti-consumer".
 
coercitiv said:
From my point of view Intel has many reasons to not lower prices at this point,
Click to expand...

Agree. The i7 CFL will be priced at least like the 7700k, if not higher. I mean Intel has a real problem now which explains why they waited so long for 6-core mainstream part. The i7 CFL will almost certainly be faster and use less power than a 7800x especially pronounced in gaming. It makes the 7800x a very bad deal. Not to mention Kaby Lake-x. Therefore unless Intel surprises me an for a first time ever lowers prices of existing products, the i7 CFL part will be priced like the 7800x, around $390.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top