Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › A counter point to AMD not being good for mid-high end
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A counter point to AMD not being good for mid-high end - Page 13

post #121 of 355
Quote:
does someone here really think that if you already have 50-60 fps you really need more fps?? Are your eyes sensitive enough to perceive even a couple of milliseconds of activity?? Absolutely not. You have 50-60 fps then you don't need more. And to get that figure you can equally spend on either Intel (4670k) or AMD (FX-83x0)

The problem with that argument is that somebody like me could just come along and say:

"does someone here really think that if you already have 15-20 fps you really need more fps?? Are your eyes sensitive enough to perceive even a couple of milliseconds of activity?? Absolutely not. You have 15-20 fps then you don't need more. And to get that figure you can equally spend on either Intel (c2duo) or AMD (athlon II x4)"

There's a line that everybody draws in different places. Some people want to increase the performance of their systems in ways other than running more screens or turning up graphics settings closer to hyper-realism levels
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #122 of 355
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

I never said price was a measurement of performance. I said price is how low-end/midrange/high-end are determined. That doesn't mean that a "high end" CPU necessarily has to be faster performance-wise than a midrange one.

Example: Intel's P4 EE wasn't any faster than a $300 Athlon, but it was still priced at $1000.

AMD has done the same thing at times. The Phenom I 8300 cost $283 at launch, despite being slower than the cheaper Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600.

I do agree with part of your point, however. Companies price products according to what they believe people will pay, at least most of the time.

This is why AMD has no consumer CPUs priced over $400. They simply do not have the performance to justify the price. AMD is in business to make a profit. If they had a CPU that could compete with Intel's best (Ivy Bridge-E) performance-wise, they would price it accordingly.

I am sure if AMD wanted to play the vulture role and pick people up from Intel and give them a blank check with a 10 year time frame then they could probably compete on the super high end. But they do not do that because AMD makes enough money from making affordable CPUs that give people what they need. Like I said earlier, if you want ultra high end with no budget, then go Intel. But for the 99.9% of computer owners who consider themselves mid-high end, then AMD can get right in there with Intel. There is no basis for saying they are no longer acceptable for mid-high end.

Never in the history of computer gaming has someone been tearing ass with a super high end graphics card and had a problem because of their $200 AMD CPU (any generation, any line, $200).

Well ok maybe 1 person but they probably didn't put the thermal paste on correctly or something...
Edited by Thready - 3/23/14 at 9:18pm
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #123 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post


I am sure if AMD wanted to play the vulture role and pick people up from Intel and give them a blank check with a 10 year time frame then they could probably compete on the super high end. But they do not do that because AMD makes enough money from making affordable CPUs that give people what they need. Like I said earlier, if you want ultra high end with no budget, then go Intel. But for the 99.9% of computer owners who consider themselves mid-high end, then AMD can get right in there with Intel. There is no basis for saying they are no longer acceptable for mid-high end.

Of course there is. AMD's pricing already says exactly that (at least for the high end market).

I know you might like to think so, but AMD is no saint. They're a company just like any other, whose main goal is to make $$$. I'm not sure if you were into building computer 10 years ago, but if you were, you would know that AMD had absolutely zero problem with charging $1000 for a high end FX-53, FX-55, etc.

Heck, even when AMD could no longer compete on performance after the introduction of Intel's Core 2 line, they still sometimes charged exorbitant prices for underperforming CPUs. Remember Quad FX? $1000 for 2 processors, plus several hundred more for the specialized dual-socket motherboard, and it still was generally slower than Intel's much, much cheaper Core 2 Quad Q6600. But the extreme power draw and lack of performance didn't stop AMD from charging a huge price on it.

So, it's clear that AMD has never been shy about putting high price tags on their CPUs when they were able to compete on performance with Intel (or even when they weren't). The fact that AMD doesn't price any of their current CPUs above ~$350 is a very obvious sign that AMD is withdrawing from the high-end market. They simply have nothing that can compete with Intel performance-wise in the high-end market. They know that nobody (save for a few diehard AMD fanboys) will pay $1000 for any of their current consumer CPUs, because they get destroyed by Intel's Ivy Bridge-E in terms of performance. So AMD has no choice but to sell them as low-end and midrange parts.
Edited by 996gt2 - 3/23/14 at 9:32pm
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
post #124 of 355
Quote:
The fact that AMD doesn't price any of their current CPUs above ~$350 is a very obvious sign that AMD is withdrawing from the high-end market.

Their best silicon retails for £110 here in the UK (8320 - 8350, 9370 and 9590 are just down to binning etc) while i've never seen the 4670k drop below £160
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #125 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by damric View Post

Steam reads mine accurately even my overclock. So that must put me over the top 99% already with this Athlon thumb.gif
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Here's what Steam sees for me:



This PC would end up in the 15% category, not the 0.36% at 3.7+ GHz one.
Edited by deepor - 3/23/14 at 11:41pm
post #126 of 355
If you look at AMD's ICs and their road-map it's quite obvious that they can't compete on the high end segment. Dropping the price can also be no more from one point onwards.

AMD currently uses 32nm silicone on the middle to high end segment. Transistor count is near the 1.2 Billions mark and the die size is huge at 315mm^2. If you compare that even to Sandy Bridge (E) which has more integrated functionality (thus using a big part of the transistors and the die area for things other than the CPU) you can really see how behind AMD is technologically.

Taking the technological aspect into account, Intel could easily drop the price of the 4770k to around 200$ and even get a hexa-core haswell out for about 300$. All that while still making profit.

Of course they haven't. They have no reason to. On the contrary, since some of the technology used on Intel processors still belongs to AMD (like the x64 extensions) they may end up in trouble if they make AMD's life even more miserable than it currently is. Not to mention that there are laws preventing Intel from ending up having the monopoly on this segment.
So in the end, with AMD out of the game Intel has more to lose than to gain.


According to AMD's road-map, AMD sees no reason to keep up with the attempts of facing Intel on the high end. Taking the few very specific situations out, AMD processors can't keep up on the technological aspect. AMD has nothing to take the likes of 4770k head on (excluding the few limited cases again). That's not even the best Intel has to offer, with 4930k being on a whole different level.
Reducing the selling price and hoping for the best doesn't really cut it, AMD knows that so they step out and focus on the department they can compete. There's a reason why their short term feature plans have nothing related to the high end department.


At least the situation is currently fine for the end users. Prices are competitive, many older processors still perform adequately and there's a wide range of choices able to satisfy everyone's needs (but not everyone's "wants" assuming that everyone wants the best there is at ridiculously low price).
Of course Intel already started becoming greedy, by introducing the "new" Devil's Canyon processors for enthusiasts that use the same haswell micro-architecture... one year later than the initial launch.
post #127 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

If you look at AMD's ICs and their road-map it's quite obvious that they can't compete on the high end segment. Dropping the price can also be no more from one point onwards.

AMD currently uses 32nm silicone on the middle to high end segment. Transistor count is near the 1.2 Billions mark and the die size is huge at 315mm^2. If you compare that even to Sandy Bridge (E) which has more integrated functionality (thus using a big part of the transistors and the die area for things other than the CPU) you can really see how behind AMD is technologically.

Taking the technological aspect into account, Intel could easily drop the price of the 4770k to around 200$ and even get a hexa-core haswell out for about 300$. All that while still making profit.

Of course they haven't. They have no reason to. On the contrary, since some of the technology used on Intel processors still belongs to AMD (like the x64 extensions) they may end up in trouble if they make AMD's life even more miserable than it currently is. Not to mention that there are laws preventing Intel from ending up having the monopoly on this segment.
So in the end, with AMD out of the game Intel has more to lose than to gain.


According to AMD's road-map, AMD sees no reason to keep up with the attempts of facing Intel on the high end. Taking the few very specific situations out, AMD processors can't keep up on the technological aspect. AMD has nothing to take the likes of 4770k head on (excluding the few limited cases again). That's not even the best Intel has to offer, with 4930k being on a whole different level.
Reducing the selling price and hoping for the best doesn't really cut it, AMD knows that so they step out and focus on the department they can compete. There's a reason why their short term feature plans have nothing related to the high end department.


At least the situation is currently fine for the end users. Prices are competitive, many older processors still perform adequately and there's a wide range of choices able to satisfy everyone's needs (but not everyone's "wants" assuming that everyone wants the best there is at ridiculously low price).
Of course Intel already started becoming greedy, by introducing the "new" Devil's Canyon processors for enthusiasts that use the same haswell micro-architecture... one year later than the initial launch.
I would hold off on too many assumptions. Road maps change and in this case, depending on how quickly the 7850K and HSA adoption comes into play that road might change quite quickly. Also keep in mind the desktop market is a dead duck compared to mobile and that is where the money is. Monster cores and high core counts is counter productive to efficiency and thermal power that is required in the mobile segment. Now if HSA 7850K prove their worth, then it is very likely we will see 3M6C and maybe 4M8C APU variants. And then just to make 996GT2 they will likely have a much higher cost being that nothing Intel would have could compete whilst HSA enabled.
post #128 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

I would hold off on too many assumptions. Road maps change and in this case, depending on how quickly the 7850K and HSA adoption comes into play that road might change quite quickly. Also keep in mind the desktop market is a dead duck compared to mobile and that is where the money is. Monster cores and high core counts is counter productive to efficiency and thermal power that is required in the mobile segment. Now if HSA 7850K prove their worth, then it is very likely we will see 3M6C and maybe 4M8C APU variants. And then just to make 996GT2 they will likely have a much higher cost being that nothing Intel would have could compete whilst HSA enabled.

You're telling him not to make too many assumptions, but your entire argument has the same issues. Basically, what you are saying rests on HSA being 1) widely adopted by developers and 2) actually providing a tangible performance gain it actually provides in the production parts. Both of those things are huge assumptions.

In any case, it could be many years before HSA compatible software is widely available, and that's assuming it becomes widely supported by developers. Your argument reminds me of the arguments people were throwing around before Bulldozer came out; namely, that Bulldozer would kill anything Intel had at the time performance-wise. Obviously we saw how that turned out.
Edited by 996gt2 - 3/24/14 at 5:46am
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
post #129 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

I would hold off on too many assumptions. Road maps change and in this case, depending on how quickly the 7850K and HSA adoption comes into play that road might change quite quickly. Also keep in mind the desktop market is a dead duck compared to mobile and that is where the money is. Monster cores and high core counts is counter productive to efficiency and thermal power that is required in the mobile segment. Now if HSA 7850K prove their worth, then it is very likely we will see 3M6C and maybe 4M8C APU variants. And then just to make 996GT2 they will likely have a much higher cost being that nothing Intel would have could compete whilst HSA enabled.

Unless Intel adopts HSA its not going anywhere
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
post #130 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Puft View Post

Unless Intel adopts HSA its not going anywhere
keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › A counter point to AMD not being good for mid-high end