I find it strange that AMD would cut the SMT out of any of its processor lines, though - at least, from all of its processors. My educated guess would be that AMD is planning to release a special-edition part (or a specific part number) just like Intel does in its i3, i5 and i7 product lines to differentiate between multiplier-locked (non-K processors) and multiplier-unlocked (K processors, such as the i5-7600K). Though, with all AMD Ryzen processors having an unlocked multiplier, like the company has often announced, this differentiation might be between SMT-disabled and SMT-enabled chips - perhaps with AMD bringing back their Black Edition line of processors for this particular use-case. It just seems strange for AMD to shed one of their vaunted technologies (which would allow them to improve their performance at little to no cost added) completely, considering the comeback the company is planning to accomplish.
IMO once AMD made the announcement that all their chips can be overclocked it meant they would segment SMT and it certainly makes sense on making prices on a per thread basis.
SMT isn't some "scumbag" tactic. If a decent 4c4t from AMD is even near current intel IPC at $150 it's a great deal compared to what we have now. Let alone if they are priced less. Especially with the fact that all chips are unlocked/oc'able.
yes all the same die. Unlock depends whether it is a bios lock again, or laser cut at the die level. Most of the time it is cut, only 3 times I can remember AMD has used a bios lock.
What? So because they're known for selling things at lower prices, they can't sell something competitively for once? How dare they EVER create something worthwhile for once AND sell it at the appropriate price.
You get a Quad core CPU, supposedly equal to Intel's offerings, and it runs $60 cheaper than Intel's cheapest i5... yeah... that's completely unreasonable. xD
SMT isn't some "scumbag" tactic. If a decent 4c4t from AMD is even near current intel IPC at $150 it's a great deal compared to what we have now. Let alone if they are priced less. Especially with the fact that all chips are unlocked/oc'able.
That's using the restaurant steak price argument, only if the higher priced steak increased even more in price (hence going by Intel's inflated prices).
If they really wanted to start a revolution, they should get rid of that nonsense instead of joining in on it too.
But sigh, apologists will be apologists. It's why the gaming industry is what it is, and why there are CPUs priced over $1000 now...
What? So because they're known for selling things at lower prices, they can't sell something competitively for once? How dare they EVER create something worthwhile for once AND sell it at the appropriate price.
You get a Quad core CPU, supposedly equal to Intel's offerings, and it runs $60 cheaper than Intel's cheapest i5... yeah... that's completely unreasonable. xD
That's using the restaurant steak price argument, only if the higher priced steak increased even more in price (hence going by Intel's inflated prices).
If they really wanted to start a revolution, they should get rid of that nonsense instead of joining in on it too.
But sigh, apologists will be apologists. It's why the gaming industry is what it is, and why there are CPUs priced over $1000 now...
Yes absolutely, let AMD price themselves out of existence! I mean, they obviously don't need to recoup any R&D costs at all or anything, or make any profits at all and just need to focus on selling cpu's for literally nothing to keep some of you happy. Or price their flagship 8c16t at current i5 pricing, that will stick to to Intel and turn AMD around financially!
How can you call the gaming industry what it is while you support Intel with a 6600k and supporting Nvidia with the clearly overpriced 1080?
They could crush Intel in every mainstream price segment by selling more cores instead of an iGPU that takes up half the die. We'll see what they do with pricing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo
Yes absolutely, let AMD price themselves out of existence! I mean, they obviously don't need to recoup any R&D costs at all or anything, or make any profits at all and just need to focus on selling cpu's for literally nothing to keep some of you happy. Or price their flagship 8c16t at current i5 pricing, that will stick to to Intel and turn AMD around financially!
Yes absolutely, let AMD price themselves out of existence! I mean, they obviously don't need to recoup any R&D costs at all or anything, or make any profits at all and just need to focus on selling cpu's for literally nothing to keep some of you happy. Or price their flagship 8c16t at current i5 pricing, that will stick to to Intel and turn AMD around financially!
Yeah because, pricing everything lower than Intel's inflated prices, will put them out of business
Are consumers really that naive?
Edit: in response to your last edit, I don't go around justifying its price and apologizing for it. I voluntarily paid the price because of people who justify price increases for the sake of companies making a few extra billion per year for "R&D".
They are selling "extra enabled threads", which costs them nothing, for more money. What should we be thankful for exactly? And how is that good practice for the consumer?
Edit #2: apologies if I came across as rude/offensive. Edited to be more civil
Yeah because, pricing everything lower than Intel's inflated prices, will put them out of business
Are consumers really that ******ed?
Edit: as to your last edit, I don't go around justifying its price and apologizing for it. I voluntarily paid the price because of people like you justifying price increases for the sake of companies making a few extra billion per year.
So as I stated above for this topic, an unlocked 4c4t at $150. I don't know what pricing you get but this is certainly a lot cheaper than a 6600k or 7600k.
I have a 290x I bought on launch. A 290x was $550 when the 780 was $650 and the Titan it was faster than mind you, was $1000. You bought a 1080. The pricing for gpu's atleast, is easily due to people like you actually who bought Nvidia's way overpriced mid range cards. I haven't bought a new gpu for this exact reason, they are far over priced right now.
So now AMD is in a position where it would just make a few billion extra per year? Have you been following their financial situation at all?
So as I stated above for this topic, an unlocked 4c4t at $150. I don't know what pricing you get but this is certainly a lot cheaper than a 6600k or 7600k.
I have a 290x I bought on launch. A 290x was $550 when the 780 was $650 and the Titan it was faster than mind you, was $1000. You bought a 1080. The pricing for gpu's atleast, is easily due to people like you actually who bought Nvidia's way overpriced mid range cards. I haven't bought a new gpu for this exact reason, they are far over priced right now.
So now AMD is in a position where it would just make a few billion extra per year? Have you been following their financial situation at all?
My point is, disabling cores and selling us that product for a "cheaper" price (it only appears like a deal because the chip with all enabled cores was raised in price in comparison), is a scumbag move that Intel started to do. AMD joining in on it to make up for their failing business, isn't a step in the right direction and it isn't a proper justification for it... even if they price it lower.
My point is, disabling cores and selling us that product for a "cheaper" price (it only appears like a deal because the chip with all enabled cores was raised in price in comparison), is a scumbag move that Intel started to do. AMD joining in on it to make up for their failing business, isn't a step in the right direction and it isn't a proper justification for it... even if they price it lower.
So....I'm not trying to be THAT guy but this is hardly new for either side. Do you thikn FX-4300 are their own line? They are cut down, just like the 6300 is cut down. Phenom's and Athlon's were also cut down...
You've got to keep in mind, not all of these chips are perfect out of the gate and many are disabled due to a bad core, etc. So they resell it as a lower end model instead of wasting product. Again... nothing new.
Even if it retailed at $150, how is an unlocked 4c/4t 'scumbag tactics'? It's cheaper than an i5... hell, it's cheaper than the KL unlocked i3! IMO, it makes sense to offer chips without SMT at bargain prices as a centre marker between this range and their APU range. If performance is right, it would really make locked i5's and the unlocked i3 far less appealing. Releasing such chips won't stop their SMT chips from being great price/performance propositions.
NOTHING IS LOST.
That said, if AMD does release a 4c/4t, I'd wager it'll be less than $150.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!