$400 12-core Threadripper: But Is It Worth It?

[trieste1s]

Poor Intel fanboys just can't see that their favourite Intel processors have become so cheap because of on par competition from AMD.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Poor Intel fanboys just can't see that their favourite Intel processors have become so cheap because of on par competition from AMD.

True but it’s also true that Intel’s dominance forced AMD to finally start making better silicon.

 

[trieste1s]

True but it’s also true that Intel’s dominance forced AMD to finally start making better silicon.

AMD made better silicon in spite of Intel's dominance.

In this tech sector, pure technological superiority is never the only way to success. It's a business. In business you have product bundling, contracts with blackmail clauses, marketing tactics and strategies, etc. Intel was being so anti-competitive that they were slapped with fines, though fines were too little, too late. Today we have fanboys who care only about speed in the short term and not about low prices and sustainable competition in the long term.

They (Intel's business strategy side) then realised (the hard way) the benefit of not completely strangling out AMD. That was why AMD survived long enough to begin to prosper now. If not for Intel being so consistently capable of milking us consumers, who knows how much more progress we would have gotten out of CPUs.

 

[Sausagemeat]

AMD made better silicon in spite of Intel's dominance.

In this tech sector, pure technological superiority is never the only way to success. It's a business. In business you have product bundling, contracts with blackmail clauses, marketing tactics and strategies, etc. Intel was being so anti-competitive that they were slapped with fines, though fines were too little, too late. Today we have fanboys who care only about speed in the short term and not about low prices and sustainable competition in the long term.

They (Intel's business strategy side) then realised (the hard way) the benefit of not completely strangling out AMD. That was why AMD survived long enough to begin to prosper now. If not for Intel being so consistently capable of milking us consumers, who knows how much more progress we would have gotten out of CPUs.

What amuses me is that people seem to think that AMD aren’t as bad as Intel. When just 12 months ago AMD launched a full scale desception on reviewers with the rebate shenanigans on Vega 64. Before that was frontier edition, the god awful $800 FX9590, I could go on. The company also has a terrible history of business ineptitude and losing money. At the end of the day both have bad and good points to be made about them but Intel & AMD are both as bad as each other. I genuinely pity anyone who is naive enough to think otherwise.

You are of course incorrect, Intels dominance definitely forced AMD to become more competitive. Had Intel not been dominant we would not have seen AMD investing in their silicon in the way they did, in fact AMD would have quite happily sat on its FX architecture and rebranded (like it did anyway) it if it was selling. It’s the nature of these beasts.

Furthermore you are incorrect about fanboys. Fanboys care about the long term survival of their company. Non fanboys buy what’s best for them today and don’t give a dam about the company. There is a backwards logic and it is remarkably stupid to buy a lesser product to benefit the multibillion dollar company selling it to you. I have always bought the chip that runs my games the fastest and fir the last 12 years or so that chip has been an Intel chip. It I would happily ditch Intel for AMD if AMD started selling better gaming chips and that is something that looks like it might be about to happen but I’m not holding my breath. AMD hype everything up and very rarely actually deliver.

 

[trieste1s]

What amuses me is that people seem to think that AMD aren’t as bad as Intel. When just 12 months ago AMD launched a full scale desception on reviewers with the rebate shenanigans on Vega 64. Before that was frontier edition, the god awful $800 FX9590, I could go on.

Rebate shenanigans? How about Intel's lack of driver support for older systems and lack of chipset support for newer CPUs? What about the Ultrabook strategy and locking AMD out of the thin and light notebook market? Anyone can say that this is not illegal marketing (but it is, as shown in the Wiki link), but they who say it don't want to pay lower prices for their CPUs.

The company also has a terrible history of business ineptitude and losing money.

As I've been trying to say, if AMD is gone, Intel has a monopoly, and you'll be buying your fast processors at prices double of what you're getting now, at minimum. Nobody else is able to enter the market any more. It's a trial by fire for AMD, but they've finally improved their marketing and accurately understood where the money is.

You are of course incorrect, Intels dominance definitely forced AMD to become more competitive. Had Intel not been dominant we would not have seen AMD investing in their silicon in the way they did, in fact AMD would have quite happily sat on its FX architecture and rebranded (like it did anyway) it if it was selling. It’s the nature of these beasts.

Like any company, AMD is in it to compete. AMD survived in spite of Intel's dominance, with many shrewd moves especially regarding new CPU extensions and standardisation. AMD is now thriving in spite of Intel's dominance and anti-competitive behaviour in the market.

Furthermore you are incorrect about fanboys. Fanboys care about the long term survival of their company. Non fanboys buy what’s best for them today and don’t give a dam about the company.

Fanboys care about the long term survival of their own company, that is correct. They don't care about the overall health of the market and the industry, they don't know how to make use of the power of their wallets to foster long-term competition and perpetual low prices in the market. Many fanboys _think_ they get economics, but the fact is, default economical behaviour benefits corporations, not consumers. The ones who have the economics and marketing degrees are inside the corporations helping to leverage against the consumers. This is not to say that corporations hate consumers, but like you said, this is the "nature of the beast".

I have always bought the chip that runs my games the fastest and fir the last 12 years or so that chip has been an Intel chip.

This makes you part of the problem. Sadly. You are your own reason why you paid such high prices for your processors for so many years. Intel made many (brilliant and illegal) moves to keep AMD down, and you voted with full approval using your wallet. Sure, you may have afforded the processors easily, and you got your productivity and entertainment benefits out of them, but you could've paid better prices for them. However, you didn't do so, because you didn't want to. The prevailing mindset you're displaying in this post is very telling.

I would happily ditch Intel for AMD if AMD started selling better gaming chips and that is something that looks like it might be about to happen but I’m not holding my breath. AMD hype everything up and very rarely actually deliver.

You have your own threshold of perceived value, as do I. I would have bought Athlon64, but didn't have the cash. I wouldn't have bought FX. Now I will buy Ryzen, but still don't have the cash. More than ever, with history and hindsight, this is the time to lower that threshold and make a good move for the continued benefit of consumers.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Rebate shenanigans? How about Intel's lack of driver support for older systems and lack of chipset support for newer CPUs? What about the Ultrabook strategy and locking AMD out of the thin and light notebook market? Anyone can say that this is not illegal marketing (but it is, as shown in the Wiki link), but they who say it don't want to pay lower prices for their CPUs.

As I've been trying to say, if AMD is gone, Intel has a monopoly, and you'll be buying your fast processors at prices double of what you're getting now, at minimum. Nobody else is able to enter the market any more. It's a trial by fire for AMD, but they've finally improved their marketing and accurately understood where the money is.


Like any company, AMD is in it to compete. AMD survived in spite of Intel's dominance, with many shrewd moves especially regarding new CPU extensions and standardisation. AMD is now thriving in spite of Intel's dominance and anti-competitive behaviour in the market.


Fanboys care about the long term survival of their own company, that is correct. They don't care about the overall health of the market and the industry, they don't know how to make use of the power of their wallets to foster long-term competition and perpetual low prices in the market. Many fanboys _think_ they get economics, but the fact is, default economical behaviour benefits corporations, not consumers. The ones who have the economics and marketing degrees are inside the corporations helping to leverage against the consumers. This is not to say that corporations hate consumers, but like you said, this is the "nature of the beast".


This makes you part of the problem. Sadly. You are your own reason why you paid such high prices for your processors for so many years. Intel made many (brilliant and illegal) moves to keep AMD down, and you voted with full approval using your wallet. Sure, you may have afforded the processors easily, and you got your productivity and entertainment benefits out of them, but you could've paid better prices for them. However, you didn't do so, because you didn't want to. The prevailing mindset you're displaying in this post is very telling.


You have your own threshold of perceived value, as do I. I would have bought Athlon64, but didn't have the cash. I wouldn't have bought FX. Now I will buy Ryzen, but still don't have the cash. More than ever, with history and hindsight, this is the time to lower that threshold and make a good move for the continued benefit of consumers.

The only bit of your statement that has caused me to respond is your accusation of me being art of the problem because I buy parts that perform best in gaming when building a gaming pc.

You are flat out wrong. If I had chosen worse parts to help AMD (who you are under false delusion behave better than Intel) then I would have suffered for market competition. Competition needs to benefit the consumer and not the company, even if you are endeared to the manufacturer in question.

People who buy lesser gaming parts for a gaming rig because they are are thick enough the genuinely believe AMD is a more moral money grabbing corporation than Intel are what’s wrong with the tech community in my opinion. People like that stop manufactures delivering performance and encourage them to spend money on PR.

Gamers should continue to buy the fastest chips for their needs. I’m fact everyone should. Vote with your wallet for the manufacturer who provides you with the best performing parts. And don’t be dumb enough to actually think that one of these corporations care about you more than they care about your money.

By the way, do you really think Intel would continue to monopolise if AMD died? There are loads of fabrications out there mate and a world that is swiftly turning to mobile. Never be foolish enough to believe AMD or Intel or anyone for that matter can’t be replaced.

 

[trieste1s]

There's no need to further reply to you because the points you're making have either been made by me, or have already been covered in the post you are replying to.

"Default" economic behaviour created the Great Recession of 2008. Contrary to the textbooks, or perhaps missing from the textbooks, consumers aren't always rational. Or what is rational in the short term (buying the fastest, even within a 10% margin) is irrational in the long term (everybody pays higher prices in the end because the competitors are wiped out).

I think people have brains to understand the concepts. But it is still a deeply personal choice (albeit an irrational one) to continue buying the fastest (within a 10% margin) instead of buying with the health of the industry in mind.

Ryzen has come within the 10% margin on the average performance/cost curve. The ball is in your court.

 

[OctaDroid]

Bro where u guys born.in.late 90s early 2000s "AMD has always taken a backseat to intel" look up AMD FX55 and then look up AmD X2, then they started falling behind with Bloomfield and sandybrige and the CEO of Intel was fired because Intel basicly didnt do much since and AMD has been catching up again. I game but mostly just to look for graphic errors or model issues, I am a 3D modeler by trade and also power user. And that exact thing happened I paid 1000 for my FX-55 and my brother got the 300 Athlon X2 znd he was SOOO disappointed how bad games ran on his UNTIL a several months later lole and behold his 300 doller chip vs AMDS highest end was killing me in.frsmerates and Maya, 3D Studio Max.AMD pioneered the multi core chips .