• Last Updated:
  • Apr 18th, 2016 7:35 pm
Tags:
None
Newbie
Mar 8, 2011
32 posts
5 upvotes

cpu prices

Intel haven't decrease price of any desktop CPU they released in the last two years and changed how the release CPU refresh... this is truly called on massive monopoly in the computer industry; and thus the decline of the desktop computer. do you agree with me?
23 replies
Deal Expert
Jun 30, 2006
21133 posts
9788 upvotes
Toronto
I agree that your English is terrible. So what's the point of this thread? Intel vs AMD. Only two CPU competitors.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 6, 2003
10715 posts
1254 upvotes
Vancouver
They don't have a monopoly. AMD just has not been very competitive in the past few years. There's no incentive for Intel to lower prices. If they did, it could drive AMD out of business completely which would give them an actual monopoly, opening them up to regulatory action. Intel needs AMD to stick around.
<< Public Mobile, Zoomer Wireless, Uber Eats, DoorDash, Tangerine, Coast Capital user >>
FS: 6TB HDD, Pixel 2, Phanteks LP cooler, free stuff
MY HEATWARE
Deal Expert
Oct 7, 2010
15536 posts
5790 upvotes
No way Intel can lower prices to stay in business. They aren't going to give their CPUs away for free. AMD do pretty good at their lower prices. Just CPU snobs giving them a bad name. Who really need a i7 new generation when an AMD quad core or at most a i5 will do for even heaviest gaming.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
spike1128 wrote: No way Intel can lower prices to stay in business. They aren't going to give their CPUs away for free. AMD do pretty good at their lower prices. Just CPU snobs giving them a bad name. Who really need a i7 new generation when an AMD quad core or at most a i5 will do for even heaviest gaming.
Things wrong with this^...

1. Of course Intel could lower prices and still easily be profitable. It's just that with no competition they don't have to. Intel didn't exactly go out of business back in the Core2 days when they slashed prices a few times, to put the hurt on AMD. It worked and AMD hasn't been less and less competitive every year since C2.

2. AMD CPUs aren't that cheap either, and they don't perform so well in comparison. An FX-8xxx does battle with low-end and mid-range i5s, and can't even keep up with the top (K) i5 CPUs. Hence why FX-8xxx are in the $200 range and i5s are $250+. AMD can't even touch an i7, so we don't even need to talk about those ludicrous prices. With nothing to keep up why would Intel lower prices?

3. Not everyone needs an Skylake i7, no--that's certainly true. However not everyone is doing gaming either. Some people are fine with i3s, Pentiums, and Athlon 8xx and A10 processors. OTOH some people do benefit from having an i7. Either way that changes nothing about the fact that AMD is simply not competitive. They're not any cheaper for their performance level, consume much more electrical power (and therefore also need better cooling), and simply don't cut it v. Intel in today's landscape. There's no "bad name" to be given, just the facts.

And if you buy AMD you typically are buying the highest end CPUs on the socket in order to get anything worthwhile. For example on FM2+ if you're not buying an A10, you're basically buying something that's really low end and, well, not worth buying. On AM3+ you're looking at FX-8xxx. There's really nothing after that on those sockets. These are CPUs that compete with i3s and, again, low-end i5s. That's the end of your upgradability right there. With Intel you can buy a Pentium or an i3 and have an upgrade path all the way to an i7-K processor, which will run circles on anything AMD has at the moment. If you have an LGA1150 board and an i3-4170, you'll be keeping up with an A10 on the CPU side and if you ever need to get faster there's many CPUs you could put in there to get there. With FM2, you're going nowhere after an A10, are you?

Anyway back to pricing... When a basic i3 now sells for $170...something is wrong with this picture. And that something is spelled out simply as, "no competition".

Only hope to see Intel drop prices on anything is if Zen is successful/competitive. Not coming 'till closer to year end though, so remains to be seen if Zen is a comeback for AMD or merely a last hurrah before they sink into oblivion. Even people childish enough to "hate on" AMD should really be hoping Zen does something special...because if it doesn't we're all going to be doomed to increasing CPU prices. Without Zen shaking things up, i3s will probably be going for $200 in a couple years, so yeahhh, let's all keep our fingers crossed shall we?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
39339 posts
6342 upvotes
Winnipeg
ES_Revenge wrote: Things wrong with this^...

1. Of course Intel could lower prices and still easily be profitable. It's just that with no competition they don't have to. Intel didn't exactly go out of business back in the Core2 days when they slashed prices a few times, to put the hurt on AMD. It worked and AMD hasn't been less and less competitive every year since C2.

2. AMD CPUs aren't that cheap either, and they don't perform so well in comparison. An FX-8xxx does battle with low-end and mid-range i5s, and can't even keep up with the top (K) i5 CPUs. Hence why FX-8xxx are in the $200 range and i5s are $250+. AMD can't even touch an i7, so we don't even need to talk about those ludicrous prices. With nothing to keep up why would Intel lower prices?

3. Not everyone needs an Skylake i7, no--that's certainly true. However not everyone is doing gaming either. Some people are fine with i3s, Pentiums, and Athlon 8xx and A10 processors. OTOH some people do benefit from having an i7. Either way that changes nothing about the fact that AMD is simply not competitive. They're not any cheaper for their performance level, consume much more electrical power (and therefore also need better cooling), and simply don't cut it v. Intel in today's landscape. There's no "bad name" to be given, just the facts.

When a basic i3 now sells for $170...something is wrong with this picture. And that something is spelled out simply as, "no competition".

Only hope to see Intel drop prices on anything is if Zen is successful/competitive. Not coming 'till closer to year end though, so remains to be seen if Zen is a comeback for AMD or merely a last hurrah before they sink into oblivion. Even people childish enough to "hate on" AMD should really be hoping Zen does something special...because if it doesn't we're all going to be doomed to increasing CPU prices. Without Zen shaking things up, i3s will probably be going for $200 in a couple years, so yeahhh, let's all keep our fingers crossed shall we?
do you know if AMD just stopped caring about their desktop cpu? seems to me they stopped trying for raw processing power and instead going after gpu
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
divx wrote: do you know if AMD just stopped caring about their desktop cpu? seems to me they stopped trying for raw processing power and instead going after gpu
Not really true, otherwise they wouldn't be developing Zen and finally ridding themselves of the junk that was Bulldozer.

If by GPU we're talking about integrated graphics (APUs as AMD calls them), that's not really true either. Because an A10-78xx is as high as it gets and while that iGPU was among the fastest integrated for a while, the problem is it's gone nowhere. Look at the 7870K and crap like that AMD has been releasing--the GPU side is the exact same and no improvement at all over the 7850K. In the meantime Intel has been steadily increasing their iGPU offerings. While Iris and Iris Pro are already well beyond AMD APUs, the truth is CPUs with those are rare and expensive. However Intel has been catching up with "regular" HD Graphics as well. Skylake iGPUs are nearly as fast as the 7850K's and even perform on par in some games, killing any advantage AMD used to have there. And the problem with A10 APUs is the processor's constant battle for staying within TDP limits when both the CPU and GPU portions are stressed--one always cuts back/throttles to stay within limits. This is due to both their CPU and GPU tech being too power hungry--combine them and well the results speak for themselves.

If you're talking about the discrete GPU market, AMD has been rebranding stuff for 3 generations now while only their high-end has gone anywhere (and this is $600+ stuff most of us aren't buying). But Nvidia is similarly guilty of this too, though at least they have steadily increased power efficiency while AMD is sorely lagging there. The good news is Polaris is looking very promising at the moment, though it remains to be seen what will actually come out of that and at what price points.

Realistically I think AMD could have some winning products coming up. Because we already know Polaris is leaps and bounds more power efficient than AMD's rebranded-to-death GPUs, integrating that same tech into APUs will surely be a great idea. And if Zen can even catch up to Ivy Bridge or Haswell on the CPU side (they don't need to catch Skylake and aren't expected to either), and if they can price it right, they'll have a sure winner right there. But if they can't get their CPUs up to speed, it's probably not going to be too pretty.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 3, 2006
5351 posts
2459 upvotes
jamchatt wrote: Intel haven't decrease price of any desktop CPU they released in the last two years and changed how the release CPU refresh...
lol the last 2 years. More like since the Core 2 Duo when they really blew AMD out of the water, so like 2007?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 22, 2006
22438 posts
3065 upvotes
I think the biggest reason is because there is ZERO competition right now between Intel and AMD when it comes to mainstream and up. Low end AMD is better bang for buck due to APU CPUs. Other reasons could be Intel is worried about tablets / hybrids (ARM!!!), because people are upgrading less often & sucky CAD $
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
EdT586 wrote: Both Intel and AMD is headed down the drain !

A CPU that runs both x86 and ARM !
http://venturebeat.com/2015/09/03/china ... -arm-code/
Ah yes, surely "Loongson" will be the new name in CPUs then right?

Especially with lines like this:
It’s not clear how Loongson can legally do the x86 emulation, as Intel owns the x86 architecture and licenses very few chip makers.
Yeahh, they're not going to have any legal issues with this in the free world (i.e. outside of China), right? :lol:

And then there's this:
, “Every 64-bit CPU ever made can also execute x86 and ARM code via binary translation, so it is not remarkable that these chips can too. It would be remarkable if they can do this unusually well, but I don’t expect that’s the case. I’ve worked on two different CPU cores that were targets for dynamic binary translation and studied others. As far as I know, the only way to make this work out well is to pick exactly one source ISA and design the core and its native ISA accordingly. Loongson has not done this, so it seems highly unlikely it will be very good as an x86 or ARM product.
Emphases added.

Can't wait for the "Loongson Inside" case stickers--yeah right :lol:
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2008
2363 posts
175 upvotes
carmaster wrote: Intel vs AMD. Only two CPU competitors.
AMD CPUs haven't been competitive for years. The real competition is Intel vs ARM, since long battery life is more important than performance to most people these days.
Deal Addict
Dec 19, 2013
1274 posts
258 upvotes
North Vancouver
I like that Intel doesn't have sales. This makes upgrading year after year so much easier and affordable, although this time around, there's not much performance upgrade so most people stay with their current CPUs. People still selling their old i7 3770k for $340.
Member
Jun 25, 2011
336 posts
117 upvotes
Alberta
I have i7 running in my system which I had purchased with a gateway desktop in year 2012. It has been over 4 years and things are still running fast and smooth. I am not a heavy gamer so It does not affect much but I would still prefer to have high power CPU in my system. May be I am going to wait another 4 years before I decide to upgrade my system.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
11677 posts
3489 upvotes
Victoria
albertaguy wrote: I have i7 running in my system which I had purchased with a gateway desktop in year 2012. It has been over 4 years and things are still running fast and smooth. I am not a heavy gamer so It does not affect much but I would still prefer to have high power CPU in my system. May be I am going to wait another 4 years before I decide to upgrade my system.
I'm still rocking my i7 2600k I bought in 2011. I'm a medium gamer and still game at 1080p. All I did was upgraded the video card and doubled the ram. The CPU is still going strong. No need to upgrade it yet.
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2008
2363 posts
175 upvotes
ES_Revenge wrote: Anyway back to pricing... When a basic i3 now sells for $170...something is wrong with this picture. And that something is spelled out simply as, "no competition".
Yet my Pentium-4 cost more back when AMD were competitive, than my i7 did when AMD weren't.
Newbie
Mar 12, 2016
47 posts
23 upvotes
Toronto
Zen architecture should be available from AMD by the end of this year, based on expectations should be good(40% faster that current flagship)...but they said the same thing about Bulldozer and everyone knows how that turned/f**** up. I built my rig around Phenom X4 965BE few years back,overclocked it and still does the job,gaming and all.
Penalty Box
User avatar
Apr 25, 2013
7398 posts
1338 upvotes
8XX Series Pentium D $635 in 2005
9XX Series Pentium D $335 in 2006
9XX Series Pentium D $2.50 in 2013

...sumthing wrong with this picture !
Deal Fanatic
Mar 6, 2005
5785 posts
810 upvotes
movieman wrote: Yet my Pentium-4 cost more back when AMD were competitive, than my i7 did when AMD weren't.
Yeah and the worst part is the i3 easily outperforms AMD in most tasks (especially in single threaded) which is probably why Intel is charging a premium cause they can get away with it. :facepalm:
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
movieman wrote: Yet my Pentium-4 cost more back when AMD were competitive, than my i7 did when AMD weren't.
Yeah but this is more related to the times and possibly economies of scale.

For example a socket 423 (Willamette) P4 1.3 was $270 at release while a 1.4 was $650! Then once S478 was out, less than a year later, the same P4 1.4 (still Willamette core despite being on 478) was apparently $133 (these values in USD, according to Wikipedia).

A Northwood P4 2.8Ghz debuted around $500 I believe...a year and a half later a Northwood P4 w/HT was around $200.

If you go to Core2 processors you'll see there were similar price cuts. A C2D E6600 was $316 at release, then dropped to $225 (this is when I bought mine back then IIRC, it was $280 CDN), and then a few months later they released new CPUs replacing the E6600 with an E6750 at $180.

With i7s... All they do is release the new architecture, keep the price the same, the old/outgoing version keeps its same price until stock is depleted and that's that. No price drops, nothing more than 2-5% increases in performance per generation (other than the iGPU which has gotten stronger each time), and steady [high] prices.

A 2700K came out at $316 USD, the 3770K at $313, the 4770K at $339 and the 4790K at the exact same price. Then 6600K comes in at...you guessed it, $339. Not once has the price dropped on any of these CPUs. If you could still buy a 2700K in stores, it would still have the exact same price. Now that Skylake is out, is there any discount on any Haswell CPU? Nope. And it's not just i7s, it's everything else all the way down to Pentium and Celeron.

Intel has somehow managed to convince people there's oh-so-much more value in just buying a Skylake over a Haswell, 'cause hey it's the same price and performs better. While that's true, why don't they drop the price of Haswell as well? Well because there's no competition, that's why. When there was, Intel was dropping prices every so often. I guess we should just be thanking them they didn't increase the price for Skylake CPUs, right? :rolleyes:

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)