Ryzen 7 3000 series leak + new line of GPU's

  • 99 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for ronvalencia
#101 Posted by ronvalencia (27754 posts) -


Loading Video...

Avatar image for HalcyonScarlet
#102 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (8379 posts) -

@apacheguns515 said:
@HalcyonScarlet said:
@apacheguns515 said:

@HalcyonScarlet: Intel kept a stranglehold on the market pricing because they could. It's not really the fault of a business for making the absolute most money they can from consumers, it's the consumers fault. How much something is worth is purely based on how much people are willing to pay for it and if people think something costs too much but buy it anyway then no company on Earth is going to deliberately drop their prices out of the goodness of their hearts.

Same with Nvidia. These leak prices and specs are amazing and if they prove true then this is exactly what the market needs to regulate the pricing of Intel and Nvidia products. AMD needs to be an actual viable alternative as they've become with Ryzen instead of being the "cheap" knockoff brand that you only buy because you can't afford Intel or Nvidia.

I've been an Intel/Nvidia guy for over 20 years and a few weeks ago for the first time in my life I swapped out my Intel CPU for a Ryzen build. Not because I couldn't afford the new Intel chips, but because I believe as a consumer that Ryzen pricing is what chips "should" cost and Intel is simply overpriced. I'll stick with Nvidia GPU's for now though unless AMD does to their GPU's what they did with their CPU's in regards to Ryzen, which is sounds like they may be doing with Navi.

TLDR: Intel and Nvidia cost so much because people buy them at those prices. Consumers regulate the pricing of products, not the businesses.

The pricing is one thing, but they kept CPUs with more than 4 cores well out of reach and it would really have benefited certain people to have more than 4 cores. For a really long time they kept the i3 2/4 i5 4/4 and the i7 4/8. I believe they'd been doing 6 cores for a while, but it cost a grand.

It also was not about what people were willing to pay imo. When you have pretty much the monopoly, people don't have a choice about what to pay to get the performance they need. Not just the people who are gaming and have the choice about how they want to game, but people for example in music or film that could do with with more cores or threads.

I agree with what you said. AMD need to change they way they market their products. Make me want it, because of quality, not because it's cheaper than the competition. I've always said, Nvidia make people excited to buy their products as a whole. AMD most of the time it's because it's the cheaper alternative. I wouldn't mind using AMD parts at all, but it would just be because it's the cheaper alternative rather than because I'd be excited to use them and that needs to change. It feels like Skoda vs BMW. I remember an advert where Skoda said you could get one for a £1 (obviously subsequent payments). That's what it feels like to me with AMD vs Intel/Nvidia.

And the people who would have benefited with more than 4 cores could either pay a premium for it or just accept not having more than 4 cores. Companies don't care what benefits "you" they care about what makes them money. When more than 4 cores became beneficial Intel simply said well if you really NEED it then it's available, and we are going to charge you an arm and a leg for it because some people HAD to have it. Messed up yes, but a good business decision, supply and demand.

People all over the internet are complaining about the RTX prices and Intels 9th gen prices vs performance. As of right now, we the consumers, have the ability to tell both Intel and Nvidia that their prices need to come down, we now have an actual viable competitor in the CPU market that is priced more fairly. Intel and Nvidia have long since passed the price point of diminishing return. Is a 8700k or 9700k or 9900k a better CPU than the Ryzen 2700x? Yes it is. Is the 8700k/9700k a $100 better CPU than the Ryzen? No. Is the 9900k a $200 better CPU than the Ryzen? No. For the actual real world performance difference the 8700k/9700k should cost around 20 or 30 dollars more than the Ryzen 2700x. Anything more than that is diminishing return. And for the prices Intel charges every single one of their processors should come with a quality stock cooler. The Ryzen 2700x is actually only about $230 USD, they also just include the $70 Wraith Prism with the bundle. Intel charges $350+ for the 8700k or $400+ for the 9700k for the CPU alone.

The performance difference between a 2700x and a 9700k is simply not $170 USD worth of difference, however, Intel is simply not going to ever stop charging those types of prices until it no longer becomes profitable for them to do so. What consumers need to do if they want to see prices decrease is to make it clear what we are going to deem "acceptable" pricing going forward.

In layman's terms, if people want Intel and Nvidia to drop their prices then they need to quit buying overpriced Intel and Nvidia stuff. As a business neither Intel nor Nvidia gives one ounce of a damn that consumers think their products are overpriced as long as they are selling enough of them. It's the same reason why Apple is able to get away with charging hilarious amounts of money for their products. Are Apple products good? Yes they actually are quality products. Are they worth the prices that Apple charges for them? Hell no, not even close.

Okay, but I was never approaching this from a business point of view. I understand what your saying, but I meant it from the position of a technological company moving the industry forwards with new technology. When interesting new technology meets mainstream price points, it moves industry hardware and software development forwards. I meant to imply that, with Intels pricing, they had me believing that we were way off from 4+ cores, but a little competition has proved otherwise.

I'm sure there's an argument to be made either way. Industry vs business.

I don't disagree with much of what you said, people should vote with their wallets. No doubt.