cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 21,912
Digitimes is reporting that Intel has notified its downstream PC and motherboard partners that price cuts of 10 - 15% are coming for its 8th and 9th generation desktop processors.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I can only see what you see.Can't read the whole article, since I'm not gonna register on that site.
What the reasoning? Clearing stock to make room for the next gen, or reactive marketing to the competition?
And this is the AMD effect...
A 3700x (or two) will find its way inside some of my rigs.
Oh but if you're da bestest gaming cpu surely wouldn't need to reduce pricing eh? This is pretty funny to see after that vp statement last week.
I went full Intel after Bulldozer but was full AMD before that. I'm just glad there is reasonable competition in the space again.
In b4 intel fan boys saying this isn’t related to competition.
This is why competition is a good thing.
This is why I want AMD's GPU division to do better.
So I can get muh intel and nvidia cheaper.
I realize that you might be being sarcastic there but, if the only reason you want AMD to do better is so that you could buy the Nvidia product cheaper, than you are doing it wrong. Besides, it has only been just over 2 years since AMD started becoming competitive in the cpu space, not going to happen overnight in the GPU space, regardless of what some were hoping for.
https://www.techpowerup.com/256700/...op-processors-by-15-in-response-to-ryzen-3000Can't read the whole article, since I'm not gonna register on that site.
What the reasoning? Clearing stock to make room for the next gen, or reactive marketing to the competition?
Can't read the whole article, since I'm not gonna register on that site.
What the reasoning? Clearing stock to make room for the next gen, or reactive marketing to the competition?
Not even being /s
Im rooting heavily for AMD so I can get better and/or cheaper intel and nvidia products.
He is not "doing it wrong." I am in the same boat as Verado. I have a GSync monitor that basically forces me to stay with the Nvidia cards (there is no Freesync monitor that is 1440P 165Hz IPS like my Gsync is that I am aware of and I don't want to drop more money down for a new monitor either). I want AMD and Intel to produce competitive GPUs to help drive down prices across the board so I can also benefit by the lower prices of the Nvidia GPUs. On the CPU side, I always just go with the top performer for my needs (in both cost and raw computing performance) when it is my time to upgrade and it just so happened that my last 2 CPUs were Intel (all of the others were AMD before that) and I am not upgrading my CPU for at least another year or 2 (running a 6700k).Then you are doing it wrong. Why would AMD support you just so you can buy from someone else? That is the very attitude that causes the GPU prices to remain higher than many want them to be. Oh well, Nvidia is not going to lower their prices because you are clearly willing to pay them. As for Intel, they will reduce their prices as little as they can get away with, as well.
Yet its not about Intel so much, as it is speed became good enough for longer. Im still using my A8 desktop.Let me think.. I had a Cyrix P120 (100Mhz, but supposed to perform like a 120Mhz. But the performance was overstated iirc... didn't really like it. Ran into the occasional incompatible software as well.)
Then an AMD K6 something
Then an AMD Athlon in a slot - this died thanks to CapacitorGate and an abit mobo that took a shit and fried it and the PSU.
Then an AMD duron I think? bare silicon chip on an nForce2 chipset mobo (loved that mobo, the onboard audio was great)
Then an Athlon XP
Then an Athlon 64 x2 4200. I think I eeked about 3 years out of this... but by early 2009 when I went Intel, it was slow. All the prior systems had lifespans of only 1 to 1.5 years.
Then an Intel i7-920 2.67Ghz oc'd to 3.6Ghz on air. Ran this for 6.5 years! (Feb 2009 to Nov 2016) Was such a big upgrade at the time, so much faster. I splurged and bought 12Gb ram, ran it like that for 5 years and no swap file. upgraded to 24Gb with cheapo ram.
Then my current build, i7-6850k oc'd to 4.0Ghz, 64Gb ram Shit luck on my oc with this one, can't even get the ddr-3467 corsair dominator ram (4 16Gb sticks) to run past 3000... need some tips. the timings defaulted to the rams' specs all except cas, which chooses 17 vs the spec'd 16, but still no boot. rampage V edition 10 hangs on post code bd, a ddr detection code.
But these Intels have had good lifespan, and made me a fan for sure. I hope the ryzen 3k's can achieve about 4.5Ghz and finally have a competitive IPC. Might be swayed but I don't think I will need to upgrade for a few years yet (hopefully). I'll upgrade the 1080Ti likely before anything else.
The price drops are good, need more of them.
He is not "doing it wrong." I am in the same boat as Verado. I have a GSync monitor that basically forces me to stay with the Nvidia cards (there is no Freesync monitor that is 1440P 165Hz IPS like my Gsync is that I am aware of and I don't want to drop more money down for a new monitor either). I want AMD and Intel to produce competitive GPUs to help drive down prices across the board so I can also benefit by the lower prices of the Nvidia GPUs. On the CPU side, I always just go with the top performer for my needs (in both cost and raw computing performance) when it is my time to upgrade and it just so happened that my last 2 CPUs were Intel (all of the others were AMD before that) and I am not upgrading my CPU for at least another year or 2 (running a 6700k).
Oh honey, you cant be that naive. Monolithic megacorps don't "support" anyone but their shareholders. Certainly not joe gamer wearing his red Make AMD Great Again hat.Then you are doing it wrong. Why would AMD support you just so you can buy from someone else?
Oh honey, you cant be that naive. Monolithic megacorps don't "support" anyone but their shareholders. Certainly not joe gamer wearing his red Make AMD Great Again hat.
If AMD were in Nvidia and Intel's marketshare positions, they'd be behaving exactly the same. And would be legally obligated to do so. We already see it in the high pricing for their upcoming low-mid-tier GPUs.
He is not "doing it wrong." I am in the same boat as Verado. I have a GSync monitor that basically forces me to stay with the Nvidia cards (there is no Freesync monitor that is 1440P 165Hz IPS like my Gsync is that I am aware of and I don't want to drop more money down for a new monitor either). I want AMD and Intel to produce competitive GPUs to help drive down prices across the board so I can also benefit by the lower prices of the Nvidia GPUs. On the CPU side, I always just go with the top performer for my needs (in both cost and raw computing performance) when it is my time to upgrade and it just so happened that my last 2 CPUs were Intel (all of the others were AMD before that) and I am not upgrading my CPU for at least another year or 2 (running a 6700k).
They wont drive that price segment down for GPU's they have learned how you have used them for this purpose. All 3 companies will be content with lower volume and high margins.
15% is not enough. The 9900k should be $350. $400 at most if they want compete with Ryzen 2.
Can't read the whole article, since I'm not gonna register on that site.
What the reasoning? Clearing stock to make room for the next gen, or reactive marketing to the competition?
Soon: Intel is the value brand and people are buying Intel because AMD has taken over the enthusiast market again. Also it's now the Year 2002 again.
Amen
I went full Intel after Bulldozer but was full AMD before that. I'm just glad there is reasonable competition in the space again.
Lol it's definitely the fault of AMD.