Ryzen arrives this week, so Intel is cutting prices across the board

I dunno, I am anxious for reviews on these chips and the overclocking/single threaded performance of the 8 core chips. I just got my current motherboard/CPU not that long ago, however I was thinking about switching it up depending on how these do and selling that off just to change things up considering the price of the new Ryzen chips.

But again, nothing until there are actually reviews with their own results.
 
Rippleman said:
Standard rule of thumb - the more you have, the more you waste.

AMD is a fraction of the size of intel, a fraction of the revenue, a fraction of R&D, and now, have a similar product for a fraction of the price (half is still a fraction).

Waste is waste.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I wasn't saying Intel was RIGHT in their practices, just trying to point out that they are a huge juggernaut that has massive bills and long term research investments. That's why they charge a premium for any of their products that they can get away with, to maximize profits and keep their avalanche moving down the hill.

It's also why I've been an AMD fan for a long while now (but don't tell my friend that work at Intel heh). People like to knock AMD for not competing with Intel's high end products, but as you point out, they are working with a much more shallow resource pool (in personnel, funding, etc.) I'm a fan of streamlining, and I always tend to root for the underdog...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamuraiSamson and Rippleman
Evernessince said:
You're going to have to swap out your mobo regardless next upgrade. Might as well go AMD, where they won't force you to upgrade your mobo each gen if that really is your worry.



According to what I heard, only a few news outlets actually received the email. I'm guessing Intel stopped once word got out.



That's a naive point of view. Ryzen was produced at a fraction of the cost of Kabby Lake alone. Just because Intel flushes money down it's toilet of bureaucracy and flashy facilities doesn't justify their laziness. Intel has and does stifle market competition to continue it's couch potato lifestyle. In fact, even Intel employees reverberate this, a majority of them think the new CEO is incompetent.

"There is always a survival drive to be innovating and thinking years ahead in processor and electronics design."

Um, where is that for Intel? They totally missed mobile and haven't changed their CPU architecture since nehalem, which was made in 2007. Where have you been the last 10 years to even say intel has had to fight for survival.
Click to expand...

Nothing naive about it. As I said, Intel is in my back yard, and I have many friends who actually work for the company (or in a subsidiary role). Naive is assuming that processors is all they do, and that they would do anything BUT get the maximum amount of money they can for the product they make. There are quite a lot of divisions in Intel that have very little or nothing to do with CPUs, and there is a massive amount of research in those areas. There is also quite a massive amount of continued development in CPUs themselves, constantly working to make them a little more efficient, smaller, faster. Which has been obvious over the last 10 years, while not earth-shattering or anything. As a corporation, Intel needs to maximize their revenue to continue to "feed the beast" that they have become. And their shareholders demand financial performance. Getting as much as the market will bear for a processor when there is not any contentious competition is pure capitalism, as I said. Of course, the fact that Intel has probably gotten much too big for its britches factors into this as well - the more you make and spend to diversify, the more you need to make to keep your head above water.

That's why I admire AMD for what they do manage to accomplish with the much smaller footprint, at least where processors (and GPUs) are concerned. If Ryzen has the performance we're hoping it does, and threatens Intel's reign as king of the mountain for CPUs, I'll be a happy guy! My FX-8350 system is begging for an upgrade to match the RX 480 I just installed.
 
BadThad said:
I also suspect it's just Microcenter clearing out inventory....not an Intel price cut.

Go AMD! It's about time they apply pressure to Intel again. It's a WIN for consumers.
Click to expand...
Would've they cleared out AMDs inventory first. They need that shelf space for Ryzen
 
  • Like
Reactions: killmess
Onygen said:
Some tech sites said they have received an Email from Intel regarding guide to benchmark. Do you have any info about that
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly what I'd like to know. I want to know if Intel is participating in shady anti-competitive practices again. Well.. I'm pretty sure they are actually but I want proof. I also want those "tech" sites who participate to be held accountable as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raiderman
Vrmithrax said:
Nothing naive about it. As I said, Intel is in my back yard, and I have many friends who actually work for the company (or in a subsidiary role). Naive is assuming that processors is all they do, and that they would do anything BUT get the maximum amount of money they can for the product they make. There are quite a lot of divisions in Intel that have very little or nothing to do with CPUs, and there is a massive amount of research in those areas. There is also quite a massive amount of continued development in CPUs themselves, constantly working to make them a little more efficient, smaller, faster. Which has been obvious over the last 10 years, while not earth-shattering or anything. As a corporation, Intel needs to maximize their revenue to continue to "feed the beast" that they have become. And their shareholders demand financial performance. Getting as much as the market will bear for a processor when there is not any contentious competition is pure capitalism, as I said. Of course, the fact that Intel has probably gotten much too big for its britches factors into this as well - the more you make and spend to diversify, the more you need to make to keep your head above water.

That's why I admire AMD for what they do manage to accomplish with the much smaller footprint, at least where processors (and GPUs) are concerned. If Ryzen has the performance we're hoping it does, and threatens Intel's reign as king of the mountain for CPUs, I'll be a happy guy! My FX-8350 system is begging for an upgrade to match the RX 480 I just installed.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call 10 years of a bloating R&D budget all to have slight upgrades and the same architecture "obvious". In fact, they have been greatly outpaced by nearly every other silicon manufacturer. In the same time Intel was twiddling it's thumbs ARM was able to go from nothing to a mature architecture.

"As a corporation, Intel needs to maximize their revenue to continue to "feed the beast" that they have become. And their shareholders demand financial performance. "

Yes, maximize revenues illegally by blocking AMD from the market like they did with the original FX series. Without regulation capitalism is a self destructive system and can be far lazier than communism. Whatever happened to the American mannerism "Sell a good product for a good price"? Even Machiavelli knew over 500 years ago that any system that can be exploited will be and that rules should be in place to stop it.

"Getting as much as the market will bear for a processor when there is not any contentious competition is pure capitalism, as I said.""

Yeah, that's called a monopoly.

I don't get why you are trying to defend Intel here when even you yourself say they have little competition, little improvement "little more efficient, smaller, faster", and they are "getting as much as the market will bear". It's like you are saying "Oh Intel's pretty much a monopoly but it's justified because they are a bloated bear of a monopoly". Intel hasn't excelled in any business it's expanded to, it's SSDs are medicore at best.
 
I highly doubt this new amd chip is going to be as good as it the rumors. It's all hype till the benchmarks come out. I have never seen a same spec'd AMD equal a same spec'd Intel.

The Fury X was suppose to be a Titan killer only to be just barely on par with the GTX 970. I own this card.

I got a AMD 1100T 3.3Ghz 6-Core to beat my friends Intel QX9600. Only to be embarrassed.

I am not loyal to either brand. I have tested both and seen these for myself. The Tech Site benches for any given processor will usually be more than I can get on the processor I know the ratings for. That's another subject right there.
 
Darth Shiv said:
They'd be crazy not to properly respond.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Intel will respond, but it hasn't yet, not on this front. Intel publishes its recommended prices on ARK, and hasn't changed its prices yet.

Intel's first response would be a PR one, we've heard rumours of that. I think that price response will depend on the public's response to Ryzen (and I'm not talking AMD fans, but the general public), and it's just a bit too early to take steps based on that.
 
So what I am understanding is that since Intel has had little competition, it has been screwing us customers royally. But now since they are afraid that we 'loyal' customers will buy something that is cheaper and better (and how!) they are reducing their prices in order to compete (and still make a reasonable profit!).

I say crap on Intel, I will go AMD!
 
I once worked at Intel as a contractor and was amazed at the cut throat attitude they had towards those who work for them.
 
Sum Guy said:
I highly doubt this new amd chip is going to be as good as it the rumors. It's all hype till the benchmarks come out. I have never seen a same spec'd AMD equal a same spec'd Intel.

The Fury X was suppose to be a Titan killer only to be just barely on par with the GTX 970. I own this card.

I got a AMD 1100T 3.3Ghz 6-Core to beat my friends Intel QX9600. Only to be embarrassed.

I am not loyal to either brand. I have tested both and seen these for myself. The Tech Site benches for any given processor will usually be more than I can get on the processor I know the ratings for. That's another subject right there.
Click to expand...

Um, the Fury X smokes the 970 in every category. In fact it beats the GTX 1070 is some games pretty handily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GhostRyder
Sweet!Was looking to build a gaming PC soon and will buy 1700 or i7 7700k . If things stand the same way I am going to buy AMD to appreciate a job well done and to give Intel a kick up its ***. Also I saw an unofficial GTA 5 benchmark with an Nvidia 1060 on 1080p and the AMD was up by atleast 15%
 
Evernessince said:
I wouldn't call 10 years of a bloating R&D budget all to have slight upgrades and the same architecture "obvious". In fact, they have been greatly outpaced by nearly every other silicon manufacturer. In the same time Intel was twiddling it's thumbs ARM was able to go from nothing to a mature architecture.

"As a corporation, Intel needs to maximize their revenue to continue to "feed the beast" that they have become. And their shareholders demand financial performance. "

Yes, maximize revenues illegally by blocking AMD from the market like they did with the original FX series. Without regulation capitalism is a self destructive system and can be far lazier than communism. Whatever happened to the American mannerism "Sell a good product for a good price"? Even Machiavelli knew over 500 years ago that any system that can be exploited will be and that rules should be in place to stop it.

"Getting as much as the market will bear for a processor when there is not any contentious competition is pure capitalism, as I said.""

Yeah, that's called a monopoly.

I don't get why you are trying to defend Intel here when even you yourself say they have little competition, little improvement "little more efficient, smaller, faster", and they are "getting as much as the market will bear". It's like you are saying "Oh Intel's pretty much a monopoly but it's justified because they are a bloated bear of a monopoly". Intel hasn't excelled in any business it's expanded to, it's SSDs are medicore at best.
Click to expand...

You have mistaken my explaining Intel's capitalistic approach to maximizing pricing of their (generally unchallenged) products with somehow defending them. I merely made the statement "welcome to capitalism" to a comment about their higher selling price, and it started from there. I don't defend their marketing, I don't disagree that they have become bloated, I don't dispute they've had shady practices over the years... I merely am stating that they have huge overhead (their own fault, see previous comments), and they are a BUSINESS, so they are maximizing the amount of money they can get for their products. As EVERY business would do in the same situation. It's not a defense of their character, it's a comment on how marketing and business works in general. And, let's make no mistake here, if Intel did not exist or had crappy product performance, and AMD was king of the hill, you can damn sure bet you'd be seeing much higher MSRPs for AMD chips. It's part of doing business, basic supply & demand along with product quality and branding. Nothing more.
 
Vrmithrax said:
You have mistaken my explaining Intel's capitalistic approach to maximizing pricing of their (generally unchallenged) products with somehow defending them. I merely made the statement "welcome to capitalism" to a comment about their higher selling price, and it started from there. I don't defend their marketing, I don't disagree that they have become bloated, I don't dispute they've had shady practices over the years... I merely am stating that they have huge overhead (their own fault, see previous comments), and they are a BUSINESS, so they are maximizing the amount of money they can get for their products. As EVERY business would do in the same situation. It's not a defense of their character, it's a comment on how marketing and business works in general. And, let's make no mistake here, if Intel did not exist or had crappy product performance, and AMD was king of the hill, you can damn sure bet you'd be seeing much higher MSRPs for AMD chips. It's part of doing business, basic supply & demand along with product quality and branding. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

My bad then. Unfortunately text does not convey tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vrmithrax
@Julio Franco Julio, it isn't entirely accurate to blame, (or credit), Microcenter's Intel price reductions on "Ryzen".

First off, Microcenter's low ball prices are on "walk in sales" only, and while everybody with an internet connection can buy from Newegg or Amazon, there simply aren't enough stores within convenient travel, ("striking distance"), for everyone in the US to take advantage of these bargains.

Microcenter does business with a gambler's heart. They always advertise "combo offers" with additional discounts, for buying the CPU and a compatible board at the same time, banking on the fact that at least some of their customers will buy the rest of the system parts from them. (They hate it when they see me coming, or at least it's a conceit of mine to imagine that is so). CPU plus a board savings right now are running at 30 dollars off for the pair.

Anyway, Microcenter doesn't stock a full line of Intel chips anyway. They bring in a select few to their retail stores, those which they feel will be the best sellers. This at least partly explains the extreme discount on the i5 6600K, as technically, it's "last years model".

So, a couple of weeks ago I went to Mc and bought an i5-6600K for 190.00 (*), and this Gigabyte Z170 board: http://www.microcenter.com/product/452536/ga-z170m-d3h_lga_1151_intel_motherboard for a grand total of $255.00.
The GA-Z170M-D3H is a Matx version of an ATX board of the same number. (Without of course, the "M"). It was originally stickered at $125.00, marked down to $95.00, and went out the door with me for $65.00!

(*) Since I've had the CPU for less than 30 days, I might actually be able to get a price match against the current $180.00 sell. However, it would likely cost me about $6.00 in gas, plus wear and tear on the car to claim it.. :D

I honestly think the fact these parts are technically discontinued, along with Microcenter's sales tactics, had a lot more to do with the pricing, than Ryzen.

And since, in your review of the new i5-7400, the i5-6600 basically eats it for breakfast, along with the fact I should be able to install Windows 7 without too much difficulty or effort into a system based on those parts, I'm going to say, somewhat immodestly, "screw Kaby Lake and Ryzen, I win!"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince
captaincranky said:
@Julio Franco Julio, it isn't entirely accurate to blame, (or credit), Microcenter's Intel price reductions on "Ryzen".

First off, Microcenter's low ball prices are on "walk in sales" only, and while everybody with an internet connection can buy from Newegg or Amazon, there simply aren't enough stores within convenient travel, ("striking distance"), for everyone in the US to take advantage of these bargains.

Microcenter does business with a gambler's heart. They always advertise "combo offers" with additional discounts, for buying the CPU and a compatible board at the same time, banking on the fact that at least some of their customers will buy the rest of the system parts from them. (They hate it when they see me coming, or at least it's a conceit of mine to imagine that is so). CPU plus a board savings right now are running at 30 dollars off for the pair.

Anyway, Microcenter doesn't stock a full line of Intel chips anyway. They bring in a select few to their retail stores, those which they feel will be the best sellers. This at least partly explains the extreme discount on the i5 6600K, as technically, it's "last years model".

So, a couple of weeks ago I went to Mc and bought an i5-6600K for 190.00 (*), and this Gigabyte Z170 board: http://www.microcenter.com/product/452536/ga-z170m-d3h_lga_1151_intel_motherboard for a grand total of $255.00.
The GA-Z170M-D3H is a Matx version of an ATX board of the same number. (Without of course, the "M"). It was originally stickered at $125.00, marked down to $95.00, and went out the door with me for $65.00!

(*) Since I've had the CPU for less than 30 days, I might actually be able to get a price match against the current $180.00 sell. However, it would likely cost me about $6.00 in gas, plus wear and tear on the car to claim it.. :D

I honestly think the fact these parts are technically discontinued, along with Microcenter's sales tactics, had a lot more to do with the pricing, than Ryzen.

And since, in your review of the new i5-7400, the i5-6600 basically eats it for breakfast, along with the fact I should be able to install Windows 7 without too much difficulty or effort into a system based on those parts, I'm going to say, somewhat immodestly, "screw Kaby Lake and Ryzen, I win!"
Click to expand...

It really is a shame Micro Center doesn't have more locations. Even in NY unless you live in NYC you have to travel a good distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
AMD unveils new Ryzen Pro 8000 processors for AI PCs
Replies
9
Views
177
Willxx789
W
E
Intel appears to have pulled a fast one on benchmark tests for its Xeon processors
Replies
13
Views
295
Mr Majestyk
M
midian182
AMD sees surge in CPU revenue share, thanks to Epyc and Ryzen processor demand
Replies
1
Views
215
BobHome
B

Latest posts

Back