Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Feb 17, 2017.
I wish I am wrong, but it still seems like perf/$ is what AMD aims for, with almost reaching Intels performance.
And this is with Intel half-sleeping
Let all of us embrace AMD once again....and make AMD great again. We all know we need them healthy.
Remember Barcelona, new arch and had TLB bug. Phenom II perfect it.
Then Bulldozer, 8150...again, second gen improved a little (8350).
If all goes well, Ryzen will be more like Athlon 64 than the 2 mentioned. That alone would be epic.
Isn't performance per dollar the only metric in the end? Especially here, were it seems that the per core performance is identical. If Intel sold you the 6800k at $259 (nobody but their artificial market segregation stops them, btw), it would be the deal of the century. People don't understand that CPUs are seriously cheaper to make than GPUs, and that their prices have always been completely inflated. I bet that AMD still makes at least a good $80 of pure profit for every o e of those hexacores at $259, and that's fine for me.
If that was true, AMD would rule both CPU and GPU world.
Winning perf/$ means for the same amount of $ having to offer MORE than the competition.
Thats anything BUT comfortable position, as AMD knows well.
As for cpus being cheaper to produce than GPU, yeah proly if youre talking pure silicon.
But lets not insist on that idea that R&D and sallaries should be taken out of cost equation.
Who the hell should cover those spendings if not the product in companys portfolio.
CPU's are cheaper to manufacture but they are much more expensive to design.
Either way Intel is definitely overcharging and I hope AMD's competition can kick their prices down a bit. That being said, I think their chips will continue to be slightly more expensive as I think they will still be higher performing in the majority of workloads.
i am not an economist but what does overcharging mean?
Here is my uneducated definition of overcharging:
setting the price so high that it lowers your sales and your market presence.
Resulting in lower overall company value, than had you offered the product at lower cost.
If Intel has done that, then they are overcharging.
They are not overcharging but the better word would be gouging. Intel prices where the market "WILL" pay. If these CPU's give you basically the same performance for less $ Intel will be forced to lower prices. The beauty of competition. The consumer wins.
That is too good to be true, surely?
If what was true? Their designs have been slower for a least the CPU parts, now they have performance equity it seems. The salaries argument is repeated constantly, yet it makes no sense at all. With the exception of very few extra hires like Keller, designing new CPUs is part of the running costs of AMD and any other design house. Bulldozer and Radeons have paid for Zen and Vega's development, as Zen and Vega will pay for the next parts on the way. There aren't any serious extra costs involved.
Well this reddit made image is funny. The actual cinebench picture shows us that it's a 6 core part. The one who made this simply wrote it wrong. Not that the result is real but anyway. R5 Pro 1600 <--- could very well be this cpu tested considering it should be 65W part according to their naming scheme.
Q9650@4335MHz(8.5x510), 2x2GB DDR2 5-5-5-15T 1020MHz
that perf/$ is the metric. AMD has been wining this mostly forever.
And these "running costs" and R&D, are they not incurred by chip development and production?
I am asking you again, who should be covering those costs if not the product itself?
Of course that sallaries, R&D and all other kinds of operational expenses should be accounted for when calculating the total cost of the product.
This is so obvious, i am not wasting another line on this.
oh lookie its the Man from Ankara
hi MfA, are you upgrading in this century?
Single thread @ 4.6 GHz: 1320 (IIRC)
Those 6-core Ryzen parts looks to be interesting.
You missed my 6850 @4.5ghz 2187
No way man...thats^ faster than Ryzen...
I hope you mean surfaced because I don't know what surfeced means. Also this will be a HUGE upgrade for me as my current scores on CPU-Z are 724 in single-threaded performance and 2356 in multi-threaded.
Eight year old Nehalem at 3800MHz
Ryzen @ 4.5GHz would be 2296