Intel's response to RyZen.

[JDG1980]

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/835585680554196992

If that's really true, good move on Intel's part. It may not be far enough, but Intel can at least claim with a straight face that quad-channel RAM, wider AVX throughput, and/or better overclocking (...maybe?) are worth $200 more to some people. At over $1000 there was no plausible case for i7-6900K over R7 1800X unless you do x264/x265 encoding all day long for a living.

 

[french toast]

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/835585680554196992

Finally Intel excepts its HEDT products are a rip off, 6900k 699$ is palatable (just) 599$ is more realistic imo, 6950x should be no more than 799$,
5960x 479$

 

[formulav8]

Ha, if Bits is true, they are the typical Intel stooge from their responses. "OH but Intel does think of their customers see the price drop". Ha, like Intel would do anything for the consumers if they didn't Have to do so.

 

[Charlie22911]

Oh man, boy do I feel silly for building a 6900k rig. If I had a shaky moral compass I might try and offload the two x99 boards and CPUs I have.

Also, upon reflecting on the above sentiment I can't help but wonder if slashing prices won't also further damage intel in the enthusiasts eyes; I realize obsolescence is par for the course but I'm a bit bitter. It does little to curb my enthusiasm for the return of AMD though!

 

[dark zero]

They dropped the prices... but is not enough(!)

Seems that Intel is ready to lose some marketshare anyways against AMD.

 

[MajinCry]

Intel's done for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjCVaMYdjgo

Trolling is not allowed
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[DrMrLordX]

Kirbylake? Oh dear.

Somebody had way too much time on their hands.

 

[Timmah!]

If the 6900k pricedrop to 699 is true and 6950x will drop as well to 1000 and less, i would be tempted to rid of my 6850k and buy that. Hah, i actually hope they wont do it :-D

 

[ksec]

$699 for 6900K is still too much imo. If the 1800X is on parity to 6900K, I'm not seeing how it justifies $200 more just because Intel. Particularly because HEDT motherboards are expensive and you need to buy a 4 piece kit of RAM.

If this is even true, maybe they are just testing the waters for now, seeing if it will sell. HEDT is an enthusiast chip though, customers will be more likely to be informed. I think $599 makes more sense. I also think as far as enthusiasts are concerned, the 6900K has always been sort of disappointing because it's an 8 core that does not overclock nearly as well as the 5960X does. Making the latter chip superior.

I also don't see how this does not hurt 6950x. Even if it is 10 core, the price disparity from $699 to $1700 makes it look completely ridiculous. Although it is still the only 10 core around and I doubt they move that many of them to begin with. It would have been nice if AMD had dropped a 10 or even 12 core chip. Maybe they will under the R9 designation at some point. I'd like to see them come at every HEDT chip Intel has to force that entire market down in price.

Even in the case dropped the price to the same level as 1800X. You should keep in mind Intel has been Ripping you off over the years, and it is time to vote with your wallet.

 

[A///]

Isn't Bits and Chips citing wffctech which cited Microcenter? A store that's known for slashing huge amounts of dough off of their processors to move other components?

 

[Shivansps]

Even in the case dropped the price to the same level as 1800X. You should keep in mind Intel has been Ripping you off over the years, and it is time to vote with your wallet.

Because selling FX and AM1 for years was not a rip off. Come on, selective memory.

 

[.vodka]

Because selling FX and AM1 for years was not a rip off. Come on, selective memory.

Sure, but at least if you wanted one you wouldn't be forced to sell a kidney and a lung (Come on, we both know how prices are in Argentina, at least for us). Not that it'd be the best idea to buy an FX processor in this day and age, but you have the choice.

AMD's processors have been priced low by market forces and deservedly so being the inferior product, Intel's have been artificially high worldwide, absurdly so in some cases, ever since Ivy Bridge.

The criticism is well deserved, and Ryzen is very much needed to bring some sensible pricing back to the market.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Intel's 14nm+ actually gave no discernible ipc improvements, mobile or desktop.

Process improvements don't impact IPC -- they lead to lower power and/or higher performance for a given processor, all else being equal.

The sole reason the mobile chips do better on benches is their ability to stay within their TDP envelope while boosting to higher clocks for longer periods.

That's exactly the benefit of 14nm+.

It doesn't look like there is much more clock headroom for Intel desktop chips with the 14nm process.

7700K clocks pretty decently, I'm at 4.9GHz on one of mine.

KL-X is not expected to have much of a clock boost, and it's TDP at 112W would seem to be a further indication that it's at the limit.

True.

 

[Shivansps]

Sure, but at least if you wanted one you wouldn't be forced to sell a kidney and a lung (Come on, we both know how prices are in Argentina, at least for us). Not that it'd be the best idea to buy an FX processor in this day and age, but you have the choice.

AMD's processors have been priced low by market forces and deservedly so being the inferior product, Intel's have been artificially high worldwide, absurdly so in some cases, ever since Ivy Bridge.

The criticism is well deserved, and Ryzen is very much needed to bring some sensible pricing back to the market.

The point is they both had been doing it.

 

[french toast]

The point is they both had been doing it.

No they Haven't, at least not to the same degree, please explain why 6950x was/is priced 1700$? When all past flagships were 999$?, Why is the 6900k priced higher than the 5960x was on release 2 years previously whilst offering near the same performance? (worse overclocking)
Come to think of it why is 5960x still priced at the same level as when it launched? Why does the HEDT lineup run on an older uarch despite being so outrageously expensive? Why do intel create a whole more expensive SKU just to allow basic overclocking features? Why has Intel been shrinking down die sizes but refused to add cores to the mainstream?

Intel have been ripping off consumers at the high end for years, just like nvidia, lets not "muddy the water" and pretend everyone is just the same, they are not.
Obviously this is due to a lack of competion on AMDs part (helped by intels past practices ), but no one forced intel/nvidia to charge obscene prices to their fans.
Business is business, supply and demand yada yada yada, i get it how it works, but their greed has gone too far, lets not pretend AMD are just as bad, they have never been in a monopolistic position.

#Diatribe over.

 

[Jason Ives]

Not really sure I understand how a company with the resources of Intel can let a company that has faced seemingly limitless loss and always seemed on the virge of going under like AMD, get within even the same solar system in terms of cpu performance. Either AMD is magical, or Intel has just been milking consumers.

 

[french toast]

Not really sure I understand how a company with the resources of Intel can let a company that has faced seemingly limitless loss and always seemed on the virge of going under like AMD, get within even the same solar system in terms of cpu performance. Either AMD is magical, or Intel has just been milking consumers.

Both

 

[scannall]

Not really sure I understand how a company with the resources of Intel can let a company that has faced seemingly limitless loss and always seemed on the virge of going under like AMD, get within even the same solar system in terms of cpu performance. Either AMD is magical, or Intel has just been milking consumers.

They have been milking consumers. That's pretty obvious. Their Core architecture has had all the low hanging fruit picked for quite sometime, so it's been down to refining and tweaking. They could roll the dice and make something from scratch. But that's always a big expensive gamble. And usually doesn't work out. Larrabee, Itanium, Netburst and Bulldozer were all big flops. Since they had such a lead anyway, why risk it? AMD *had* to risk it all on Ryzen, and it looks like their gamble paid off. These things take years to develop, and a mountain of money. You don't design from scratch unless you have no other choice.

 

[A///]

Except AM4 is missing thunderbolt3 and there's no chance Intel would license it.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Except AM4 is missing thunderbolt3 and there's no chance Intel would license it.

Who cares about Thunderbolt3?

What does it do that would make me want to have it?

 

[jpiniero]

Who cares about Thunderbolt3?

Apple does. They're more likely headed to using their own processors eventually though.

 

[R0H1T]

Apple does. They're more likely headed to using their own processors eventually though.

TB as long as it's proprietary & Intel only, it'll fail regardless of who's pushing it, firewire 2.0 comes to mind when talking of TB.

 

[Shivansps]

No they Haven't, at least not to the same degree, please explain why 6950x was/is priced 1700$?

Explain why FX9590 was released at $900, Explain why AM1 happened at all, explain why they keep selling sub performing FX for so long. Yes, Intel has been ripping off customers, personally i whould have never considered 6900 or 6950X, because if i needed more threads, there where better options in the Xeons. But AMD has been doing the same thing, im just pointing that out, and you are trying to defend a company that are ripping people off, "At least not to the same extend"? WTF, since when that matters? they both have been doing it. /period

 

[Insomniator]

Even in the case dropped the price to the same level as 1800X. You should keep in mind Intel has been Ripping you off over the years, and it is time to vote with your wallet.

lol what? We have intel to thank for being the only decent CPU game in town for the last decade. So they overprice some 8 core flagship CPU's barely anyone cares about -- the mainstream i5's and i7's have been brilliant chips at their respective price points.

 

[IEC]

Explain why FX9590 was released at $900, Explain why AM1 happened at all, explain why they keep selling sub performing FX for so long. Yes, Intel has been ripping off customers, personally i whould have never considered 6900 or 6950X, because if i needed more threads, there where better options in the Xeons. But AMD has been doing the same thing, im just pointing that out, and you are trying to defend a company that are ripping people off, "At least not to the same extend"? WTF, since when that matters? /period

I don't know why you feel the need to defend Intel, which clearly has the stronger brand and marketing.

AMD processors in the past decade were clearly inferior products, and thus sold less and at a lower margin than their Intel counterparts. Considering AMD has been in the business of losing money for years and years, I don't think you can make the argument that they are "ripping people off" like Intel.