Intel Announces Record First-Quarter Revenue of $14.8 Billion

You do realize those AMD CPU's are 8c/16t while Intel are 4c/8t and 4c/4t?

Give us some Intel 8c/16t CPU prices.

 

I'm sorry, I'm about performance here and edited my post while you were writing your comment. BTW Hyperthreading is BS.

 

Soap boxes

Did Amazon have a buy one get one free deal on soap boxes last night? Everyone seems to have one today. To sum up some thoughts in this thread, Intel is evil because it makes money and AMD is more expensive because its HEDT line costs more than Intel's non-HEDT lineup. :coffee:

 

I honestly loled at this.

*thumbs up*

 

I´m sorry but this makes no sense! The Ryzen R7 compete directly against the 6 and 8 cores cpus from Intel, that are much more expensive!!! Against the 7700K/7600K they have the R5 range that is also cheaper than Intel.
Those who need MT performance can buy a Ryzen R7 that offers great performance at very good prices. Those who value ST performance more can go with Intel.

 

Its going to take alot more then ryzen to put these guys outta buissness but its step in the right direction to give them some type of challange or at very least adjust prices accordigly.

 

It was free one day prime shipping. Why do you ask? Did you miss out?

 

Intel fanboys are still butthurt about gaming performance?

 

Nope.

Wouldn't even make a dent to either intel or nvidia.

AMD on the other hand yes as their cash on hand is minuscule compared to NV/intel.

 

$14.8 Billion in one Quarter...Wow thats a lot of duck bones$$...

 

And you bought the best CPU you could buy today.
Was it the better investment? I can't be sure (seeing how 7700k chokes on battlefield1, I'd say: not).
You're right on the skipping new platform with bugs though, I'd do the same.

My thoughts exactly, Intel isn't dead plus they have the opportunity to respond with something until Zen2 comes.

Remember that the first quarter has 3 months, Ryzen came out on the last month: not really enough to tell anything. Many are being sold probably but Intel has other businesses.

Maybe its just a possibility that in games like Battlefield 1 their beloved 7700k chokes...so ya: maybe the future is going more cores but we'll have to wait this one out.

Spoiler

I can't see anything wrong, The R7 1700 is very close to the 1800x in performance and costs less than the 7700k that chokes on some heavy threaded games.

10 years? ahahahah, ya right! Keep hugging your E8600.

Intel isn't going out of business, we just need healthy competition to drive progress forward (and prices down). It's a win win!

 

Why should we "keep in mind that multithreading is still and will be are stuff"

One, how does that sentence make logical sense?

If it was rare, then why do intel and CPU not make any single-threaded CPUs? If anything, single-thread is rare, and will continue to be, as they don't make them anymore (afaik)

Now if you're saying that PROGRAMS that support over 4-threads is rare, sure, i'll give you that to a degree, but they are not as rare as you think they are, and will only, and quickly, become less rare in the next 2 years, not 10.

So, in terms of your question:

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x cost per core: 69.62€
AMD Ryzen 7 1700x cost per core: 51€
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 cost per core: 43.62€

Intel Core i7-7700K cost per core: 94.34€
Intel Core i7-7700 cost per core: 84.24€
Intel Core i5-7600K cost per core: 65.54€

Yes, i realize these don't include individual CPU core performance, i'm not doing the math on that, if you wish to, fine do it yourself, have fun.

I will state though, your prices you listed there, don't reflect the retail prices, and only your individual areas prices, which is neither intel or AMDs fault, and you can not even remotely try to state one company is cheaper or more expensive on 3rd parties jacking up the price.

If you're about "performance" then you have to take the WHOLE performance of a CPU into consideration, not just decide:

"Oh, well i'm going to gimp one CPU so that it can't be used to its fullest, and say that this other CPU, that is being used to its fullest, is faster then the purposefully gimped CPU"

As an example, and i'll only give one, pure performance?

CPU-Z benchmark
1800x - Around 20,000
7700k - Around 9,500

Oh hey, you're judging on performance? well there you go, the 1800x is about twice as fast as the 7700k

In reality, based on multiple benchmarks, the 1800x is about 30%-100% faster then the 7700k when BOTH CPUs are NOT GIMPED.

So if your only reasoning to claiming "i only care about performance" is in reality "i only care about when one CPU is gimped", then you have absolutely no point in your posts.

Oh, and hyperthreading and etc. is not BS. To claim it is BS is to claim that WHEN there is performance improvements by it, that those performance improvements are fake? wtf does that even mean? the performance improvements are there, so what is it that is BS? Do you not like extra performance? I don't understand this, why would you not like extra performance? Again, it's not fake performance, it's actually there, it actually does something for you, so wtf?

 

That list could include 1600 and 1600x that are roughly as fast as the 8 cores in games especially while being way cheaper.

 

Omg, you all seem to take so personally, it was a simple question...BTW I hate both Intel and AMD more or less equally so no fanboism here.

 

It's the system I work with. I'm hugging right now 2700k. And I'm software dev, so believe me I know how hard and frustrating multithreading is. And to make it efficient and time predicting is even more harder. So more threads = more hassle. Prove me wrong If you think software today is properly or even multithreaded enough, keep on dreaming

 

Ok, first thing first amount of cores makes sense for server application, not for simple consumer or me. Here it's just marketing. How Hyperthreading is not fake performance. Split two physical cores into two virtual cores 50/50. But I'm glad You've proven I'm wrong in raw performance of AMD cpus. For server apps it does matter.

Yes these prices are local prices. I mean they are cheapest genuine processors I can buy in the country I currently live in. I don't count 5euros difference here. So all it matters to me as a consumer.

 

Thank You.

 

LOL, really? You actually believe that any existing tech company has basically put itself out of competition? That's such a naïve thought. If Kaby, Skylake or Pascal were just a 10% slower, Intel and NVIDIA would lose billions of dollars. When this happens to AMD it's "normal", but when it happens to Intel or NVIDIA it's "impossible"? Tech has never been like this. That's such a naïve thought.

 

No he is saying one failed product would not sink Intel or Nvidia.

 

Nobody is sinking anybody else. A failed product can get you into a downward spiral. Look at AMD and Bulldozer. IBM and pretty much everything after the PC, Apple past the Apple II, Xerox, Lotus, Blackberry etc. You just need the spiral to start.

Intel and NVIDIA will most likely survive a product like that due to the sheer talent they employ, same as AMD survived it. But it's not a given, same as it wasn't for AMD.