4 ms·

From what I've seen Intel has not been nice to consumers or smart with their chips so far. For many years they just pumped the prices with mediocre processors b

From what I've seen Intel has not been nice to consumers or smart with their chips so far. For many years they just pumped the prices with mediocre processors because of their dominance. However, now the tables have turned and AMD is crushing them almost everywhere! I feel like they get what they deserve for being lazy and not innovating and we shouldn't reward that.

BuckRogers 5y ago
That hasn't been my experience as a consumer. I've had 4 Ryzen systems over the last 4 years (owned nearly every generation), and also my Intel systems. My experience has been less "crushing Intel" and more "crushing me" and my time. From what I've experienced, the price increases in Intel platforms are just from added quality assurance in their engineering. Obviously I wanted my Zen, Zen+, and Zen3 systems to work well but they all had something ranging from weird idiosyncrasy to major flaw. I just sold off my last Zen3, as I greatly prefer my 11th gen board and chip. That's just my experience and my perspective at this point. Other people seem to love them so there's a market for everything.
- ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
  Yeah I'm really only talking about processing power! I don't own as many computer as you do so you might have a more accurate experiences with that.
paulmd 5y ago
> From what I've seen Intel has not been nice to consumers or smart with their chips so far. For many years they just pumped the prices with mediocre processors because of their dominance. Intel was pretty aggressively driving down price-per-core up until the 6000 series/ 14nm chips. For example here's the price series for a 6-core chip from each of their series: i7 970 (Nehalem-E, July 2010): $885 i7 3930K (Sandy Bridge-E, Nov 2011): $583 i7 5820K (Haswell-E, Aug 2014): $389 i7 6800K (Broadwell-E, May 2016): $434 So in basically 4 years (+1 month) they reduced the price of their entry-level 6-core processors by more than half (56% reduction), comparing 970 vs 5820K. It specifically is Broadwell (the first 14nm chip) where intel lost the plot and prices started increasing. People also dump on Intel for not increasing core count in the consumer platform chips, which I think is a deeper subject than people treat it as. Certainly by the 6000 series they should have pushed the consumer platform up to 6 cores, but fundamentally the consumer socket is driven by the economics of office machines and walmart PCs. Up through Haswell, 4 cores was the right amount for an average desktop for the average office worker (not talking about powerful workstations for developers here, those users always had the option of the HEDT platform with more cores/memory) or the average home user (again, not talking about power gamers, and if you wanted more HEDT was always a fairly reasonably-priced option too, especially during the Haswell generation). There was, at the time, no 6-core die, the next step upwards was the 8-core HEDT die with quad-channel RAM and all that other stuff, and I doubt that would have fit into a consumer socket even if you wanted it to, and having 6-core chips with dual-channel RAM probably would have impacted performance until DDR4 came along with the 6000 series. On the whole Intel didn't actually do too bad up until the 6000 series, when the combination of a complete shitshow of a 14nm node (in these latter years of 14++++ people forget what a mess early 14nm was), the lack of competition, and the beancounters gaining firm control of the company all combined. But that's really a specific, narrow range of time - 2016 and 2017 mostly. Then in 2017 Intel shit their pants after seeing Ryzen and released the 8700K, which was a wildly aggressive product for Intel at the time - same i7 pricing but 50% more cores, and such a solid product that it basically forced AMD into similar price reductions (abandoning the $500+ segment for a generation, and big price cuts on their existing products). I really see the "intel got greedy" thing as being specifically 2016-2017. 5820K was extremely good value for a 6-core (even if it did need a "more expensive motherboard", those are cheaper than a high-end X570 now and far far cheaper than sTRX40), the problem was the 6000 series and failing to push core count up on the consumer socket at that time, and I think that is largely attributable to early 14nm woes. Certainly by the 7000 series yields would have improved and Intel could have pushed core counts up, 7000 series is arguably one of the worst releases Intel has done in terms of how rapidly it aged out of the market. (although to be fair - up until like 2018/2019 you could easily sell a 7700K and get almost all your money back and do a straight upgrade to a 8700K, so it wasn't the end of the world from a user perspective.)
- ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
  Yeah that's just the feelings I had. I literally am basing my opinion off zero data and just how I felt! It's actually funny because the years I was really into building my own computer was 2016-2017! I'm still looking but not as invested now.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    It's OK I just feel like it's kind of a meme that "intel didn't try to do 4+ core before ryzens, they just sat back and milked it" when they literally pushed the price of their hexacores down by half in 4 years. yeah there were still ridiculously priced processors (funny how the "$1000 processor" memes got forgotten when 3950X came around) but there were also serious dealz on higher core count processors, if you made the effort to buy them. The consumer platform didn't hop right up to hexacore+, but they were there on the HEDT platform if you wanted them. but yea 6000 and 7000 series they were milking it.
    - BuckRogers 5y ago
      6th gen was a new architecture, Skylake. Wouldn’t it appear like they’re milking it if core counts simply weren’t planned to be increased. If the focus was merging mobile and desktop designs, and R&D budgets needed replenished? I can’t say either way for sure, I’m not an accountant at Intel. But I don’t think anyone else here is either.

BuckRogers 5y ago

That hasn't been my experience as a consumer. I've had 4 Ryzen systems over the last 4 years (owned nearly every generation), and also my Intel systems. My experience has been less "crushing Intel" and more "crushing me" and my time. From what I've experienced, the price increases in Intel platforms are just from added quality assurance in their engineering. Obviously I wanted my Zen, Zen+, and Zen3 systems to work well but they all had something ranging from weird idiosyncrasy to major flaw. I just sold off my last Zen3, as I greatly prefer my 11th gen board and chip. That's just my experience and my perspective at this point. Other people seem to love them so there's a market for everything.

ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
Yeah I'm really only talking about processing power! I don't own as many computer as you do so you might have a more accurate experiences with that.

paulmd 5y ago

> From what I've seen Intel has not been nice to consumers or smart with their chips so far. For many years they just pumped the prices with mediocre processors because of their dominance. Intel was pretty aggressively driving down price-per-core up until the 6000 series/ 14nm chips. For example here's the price series for a 6-core chip from each of their series: i7 970 (Nehalem-E, July 2010): $885 i7 3930K (Sandy Bridge-E, Nov 2011): $583 i7 5820K (Haswell-E, Aug 2014): $389 i7 6800K (Broadwell-E, May 2016): $434 So in basically 4 years (+1 month) they reduced the price of their entry-level 6-core processors by more than half (56% reduction), comparing 970 vs 5820K. It specifically is Broadwell (the first 14nm chip) where intel lost the plot and prices started increasing. People also dump on Intel for not increasing core count in the consumer platform chips, which I think is a deeper subject than people treat it as. Certainly by the 6000 series they should have pushed the consumer platform up to 6 cores, but fundamentally the consumer socket is driven by the economics of office machines and walmart PCs. Up through Haswell, 4 cores was the right amount for an average desktop for the average office worker (not talking about powerful workstations for developers here, those users always had the option of the HEDT platform with more cores/memory) or the average home user (again, not talking about power gamers, and if you wanted more HEDT was always a fairly reasonably-priced option too, especially during the Haswell generation). There was, at the time, no 6-core die, the next step upwards was the 8-core HEDT die with quad-channel RAM and all that other stuff, and I doubt that would have fit into a consumer socket even if you wanted it to, and having 6-core chips with dual-channel RAM probably would have impacted performance until DDR4 came along with the 6000 series. On the whole Intel didn't actually do too bad up until the 6000 series, when the combination of a complete shitshow of a 14nm node (in these latter years of 14++++ people forget what a mess early 14nm was), the lack of competition, and the beancounters gaining firm control of the company all combined. But that's really a specific, narrow range of time - 2016 and 2017 mostly. Then in 2017 Intel shit their pants after seeing Ryzen and released the 8700K, which was a wildly aggressive product for Intel at the time - same i7 pricing but 50% more cores, and such a solid product that it basically forced AMD into similar price reductions (abandoning the $500+ segment for a generation, and big price cuts on their existing products). I really see the "intel got greedy" thing as being specifically 2016-2017. 5820K was extremely good value for a 6-core (even if it did need a "more expensive motherboard", those are cheaper than a high-end X570 now and far far cheaper than sTRX40), the problem was the 6000 series and failing to push core count up on the consumer socket at that time, and I think that is largely attributable to early 14nm woes. Certainly by the 7000 series yields would have improved and Intel could have pushed core counts up, 7000 series is arguably one of the worst releases Intel has done in terms of how rapidly it aged out of the market. (although to be fair - up until like 2018/2019 you could easily sell a 7700K and get almost all your money back and do a straight upgrade to a 8700K, so it wasn't the end of the world from a user perspective.)

ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
Yeah that's just the feelings I had. I literally am basing my opinion off zero data and just how I felt! It's actually funny because the years I was really into building my own computer was 2016-2017! I'm still looking but not as invested now.
- paulmd 5y ago
  It's OK I just feel like it's kind of a meme that "intel didn't try to do 4+ core before ryzens, they just sat back and milked it" when they literally pushed the price of their hexacores down by half in 4 years. yeah there were still ridiculously priced processors (funny how the "$1000 processor" memes got forgotten when 3950X came around) but there were also serious dealz on higher core count processors, if you made the effort to buy them. The consumer platform didn't hop right up to hexacore+, but they were there on the HEDT platform if you wanted them. but yea 6000 and 7000 series they were milking it.
  - BuckRogers 5y ago
    6th gen was a new architecture, Skylake. Wouldn’t it appear like they’re milking it if core counts simply weren’t planned to be increased. If the focus was merging mobile and desktop designs, and R&D budgets needed replenished? I can’t say either way for sure, I’m not an accountant at Intel. But I don’t think anyone else here is either.