Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[maddie]

It doesn't imply that it's bolted on -- it straight up says so

So I guess one can say AMD prefers glue to Intel's bolts.

 

[nvgpu]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...view-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-i7-7800x-i7-7740x

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Digital Foundry is one of my favourite review sites, thanks!

 

[Shivansps]

Are you quite serious? Is AMD paying OEMs not to carry Skylake-X? I'd be fascinated to know more about that.

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.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Intel Core i9-7960X 16 Core / 32 Threads (EN Sample) Geekbench 4.0 Score

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-7960x-skylake-x-processor-geekbench-4-0-score-leaked/

 

[Markfw]

So what does threadripper do on this benchmark ? apples to apples.

 

[richierich1212]

So what does threadripper do on this benchmark ? apples to apples.

If you click that link it shows a 1950X TR comparison too.

 

[DrMrLordX]

That is not a "legal" anti-consumer tactic. Of the legal ones they did petty much everything Intel did and more.

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.

 

[frozentundra123456]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...view-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-i7-7800x-i7-7740x

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.

 

[VirtualLarry]

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.

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.

 

[IEC]

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.

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

At my resolution of 4K60 I lose nothing in gaming.

 

[inf64]

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.

 

[Shivansps]

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.

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.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...s-out-page-501.2428363/page-539#post-38992095

 

[Shivansps]

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.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=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.

 

[moonbogg]

Intel Core i9-7960X 16 Core / 32 Threads (EN Sample) Geekbench 4.0 Score

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-7960x-skylake-x-processor-geekbench-4-0-score-leaked/

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.

 

[Arachnotronic]

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.

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

 

[Markfw]

If you click that link it shows a 1950X TR comparison too.

I can't find the link. So who wins ?

 

[Arachnotronic]

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.

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.

 

[John Carmack]

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.

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.

 

[moonbogg]

I can't find the link. So who wins ?

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.

 

[IntelUser2000]

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,

I'm pretty sure its a simple case of being an early engineering sample. Always wait for final product before deciding.

 

[kellym]

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.

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

 

[coercitiv]

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.

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.

 

[tamz_msc]

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.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...s-out-page-501.2428363/page-539#post-38992095

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".

 

[beginner99]

From my point of view Intel has many reasons to not lower prices at this point,

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.