medi01I buy from Intel.

There are people who state crazy stuff defending Intel, and make you worry about their mental health.
Working for Intel would be the better option.

no one's defending intel,they're just giving you perspective.
no wonder mindfactory is getting 2:1 sales,they're selling 9600K at +1.4x 2600x price.at that ratio I'm curious about whoever buys any intel product from them,you have to be crazy to buy intel at mindfactory's prices.

cucker tarlsonno one's defending intel,they're just giving you perspective.
no wonder mindfactory is getting 2:1 sales,they're selling 9600K at +1.4x 2600x price.at that ratio I'm curious about whoever buys any intel product from them,you have to be crazy to buy intel at mindfactory's prices.

Exactly. There seems to be some sort of blowing things out of proportions lately when it comes to product sales, and we may all just be stupid enough to gobble it without knowing whats happening behind the curtains, MindFactory might be getting some really good AMD prices for this data they are publishing. It would be silly to think otherwise tbh

dj-electricMindFactory might be getting some really good AMD prices for this data they are publishing. It would be silly to think otherwise tbh

In that particular market AMD wipes the floor with Intel.
Given how small an impact those numbers actually have, it would be insane to AMD to get to an idea to bribe a random single, low margin online shop.
Or even if they would go bananas and bribe, why wouldn't hat also cover GPU sales faking.

At the end of the day, it's just a reminder how small "DIY" market actually is. AMD could have gotten 100% of those sales, it would still be the underdog.

medi01In that particular market AMD wipes the floor with Intel.
Given how small an impact those numbers actually have, it would be insane to AMD to get to an idea to bribe a random single, low margin online shop.
Or even if they would go bananas and bribe, why wouldn't hat also cover GPU sales faking.

At the end of the day, it's just a reminder how small "DIY" market actually is. AMD could have gotten 100% of those sales, it would still be the underdog.

what?
why "bribe"?

notbIf you've looked at Amazon Best Sellers more often, you'd know how unstable it is.
Or maybe you know and it was done on purpose.

Still 5 out of top 10 from AMD, a similar proportion in top 50 for the past few months. You can check wayback machine or any other web crawler & tell me the last time you saw that, also "done on purpose" what does that mean? Are you saying Amazon would do that on purpose :wtf:

notbThis is the current top 10.
Leading: the most expensive, most power hungry and the most ridiculously packed consumer CPU we have today.

The i9 is Intel's best selling consumer CPU, so no surprises there.

R0H1TStill 5 out of top 10 from AMD, a similar proportion in top 50 for the past few months. You can check wayback machine or any other web crawler & tell me the last time you saw that,

We have 2 manufacturers of CPUs in this market. Why wouldn't they have 5 products each in top10? I'd say that's quite normal and expected. The situation we had in 2012-2017 was really just a result of total meltdown within this company. If you don't make products, you have nothing to sell.

also "done on purpose" what does that mean? Are you saying Amazon would do that on purpose :wtf:

I mean that if you want to make AMD look good, you can choose a situation where they look best for this kind of "sampling".
Amazon says they update the list hourly. I've been there 5-6 times since Friday and 9900K was leading every time. Yet, you were lucky enough to just go there and find 2 Ryzen on top and 9900K behind 2 other Intel's.
By all means: I'm not saying you forged the screenshot - it is probable. But you posted it as an argument (a proof?) while it could be an outlier (statistically speaking).

It would be great if we had these results downloaded every hour for a longer period of time.
To be honest, I don't care that much, but I can do that if you want and post here e.g. a week from now. Interested?

The i9 is Intel's best selling consumer CPU, so no surprises there.

Which just shows that AMD's strategy is all wrong if they're after large market share (something I've been writing on this forum since first Ryzen benchmarks). Non-enteprise desktop PCs (DIY or not) are all about top performance in games. Just a tiny part of consumers buy these PCs for other tasks (I'm in that group actually).
9900K being among best selling CPUs for DIY customers is a clear sign, but even if you look at the data from Mindfactory, they mostly sell high-end, OC-friendly CPUs. So putting Intel-AMD market share issue aside, it's obvious these sales aren't even close to actual structure market-wide.

cucker tarlsonwhat?
why "bribe"?

Intel and Nvidia have a long and dirty history of bribing in all possible fields, Seeing the overpriced 9900k suddenly reclaiming the top selling cpu state after 3rd (even being 3rd is too much imo) is probably the last instance

XaledIntel and Nvidia have a long and dirty history of bribing in all possible fields, Seeing the overpriced 9900k suddenly reclaiming the top selling cpu state after 3rd (even being 3rd is too much imo) is probably the last instance

Can you give an example of "bribing" that can make consumers buy a product?
I can't imagine what you're talking about, let alone decide if it's "dirty" or not.

notbCan you give an example of "bribing" that can make consumers buy a product?

Bribing PC OEMs to put your CPUs inside their machines instead of the competition. Then the consumer has to buy your product.

This does not apply to the DIY market however. The 9900k is the best gaming CPU currently (and also faster than any Ryzen at anything else) so I'm not surprised it's selling well.

notbWhich just shows that AMD's strategy is all wrong if they're after large market share (something I've been writing on this forum since first Ryzen benchmarks). Non-enteprise desktop PCs (DIY or not) are all about top performance in games. Just a tiny part of consumers buy these PCs for other tasks (I'm in that group actually).
9900K being among best selling CPUs for DIY customers is a clear sign, but even if you look at the data from Mindfactory, they mostly sell high-end, OC-friendly CPUs. So putting Intel-AMD market share issue aside, it's obvious these sales aren't even close to actual structure market-wide.

That's arguably untrue, Intel covers all of the market & then some. AMD with whatever they have atm aren't countering the entire spectrum of Intel's offerings, though tbf Intel has like 10,000 SKU & they intentionally gimp many of them so that buyers have to choose or buy multiple products. AMD doesn't do that, yet.

Mostly true however do note that Intel is more than just about top tier performance, they have the "mindshare" besides the marketshare & loads of $ to protect both. Intel spends vast amounts on promotions & marketing, as well as rebates. The PC & enterprise market as a whole are like oceans, a mild current like Ryzen will not change the temps overnight or even after a year. It will take multiple years before the entire ocean witnesses a "sea change" & that is coming.

AMD had 3.2% of servers last quarter & that's a huge change since Zen was unveiled. Enterprises are warming up to AMD & for good reason, also as you might be aware Intel is offering huge discounts to their clients to keep them on board, not to mention do things such as these which were literally impossible a few years back - www.servethehome.com/intel-xeon-follows-amd-epyc-lead-offering-discounted-1p-only-skus/

OEM is a similar case however AMD probably doesn't have the capacity to fulfill all their requirements, this is why despite being competitive with Intel especially in the notebook space, we're barely seeing them gaining traction there. That's the only explanation I can think of, besides possible collusion, for the limited number of SKU & products we're seeing from AMD in that space.

notbCan you give an example of "bribing" that can make consumers buy a product?
I can't imagine what you're talking about, let alone decide if it's "dirty" or not.

You can't bribe consumers, but you can bribe everybody else to help let the consumer buy your product. This is the last example of Intel's marketing strategy.
www.techpowerup.com/242328/13-major-vulnerabilities-discovered-in-amd-zen-architecture-including-backdoors
Making up stuff and then try to let everyone believe it. (another notorious example: AMDs CPUs explodes)

RuykiBribing PC OEMs to put your CPUs inside their machines instead of the competition. Then the consumer has to buy your product.

Intel doesn't have to "bribe" anyone. Big tray orders are always negotiated (prices and everything else).
Intel may simply offer CPUs at prices more attractive than AMD does. There's nothing dirty about that.

notbIntel doesn't have to "bribe" anyone. Big tray orders are always negotiated (prices and everything else).
Intel may simply offer CPUs at prices more attractive than AMD does. There's nothing dirty about that.

Offering better prices is one thing and not dirty. But Intel actually paid other parties to not offer AMD and got fined for this by the EU according to the following article:
Intel stuck with $1.45 billion fine in Europe for unfair and damaging practices against AMD

Quote from the article:

The EU found, in part:

• That Intel paid rebates to manufacturers on the condition that they would buy all (Dell) or nearly all of their CPUs from Intel.
• That it paid retail stores rebates to only stock x86 parts.
• That it paid computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of AMD hardware, including Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and NEC.
• That it restricted sales of AMD CPUs based on business segment and market. OEMs were given permission to sell higher percentages of AMD desktop chips, but were required to buy up to 95% of business processors from Intel. At least one manufacturer was forbidden to sell AMD notebook chips at all.

R0H1TOEM is a similar case however AMD probably doesn't have the capacity to fulfill all their requirements

Isn't this argument getting old at this point, with AMD using TSMC to produce chips?

Enterprise invests long term, 1-2 years flukes are not good enough to switch, AMD would need to show 5+ years of excellent performance for big fish to switch.

OEM market is quite different, however, with notably perhaps only HP not crippling AMD offerings with lower end screen et al.
MSI CEO's comments on openly stating how they don't want to piss off Intel, are quite revealing.

notbJust how was Intel ripping you off? They were selling a particular product at an acceptable price. It's like they lost revenue in that period or civilization stopped developing because we couldn't afford CPUs.

It's hard to get a good example of "ripping off". It would have to be due to some external conditions. I.e. you live in a closed economy and a particular product costs much more than it does on the other side of the border.

Why do you hope (as a consumer) that AMD passes Intel? I mean: how would you benefit *as a consumer*?

Any person with the basic economic market knowledge should know that when you have no competitor on the market (Like intel before Zen) you can charge watever price you want, thats bad for consumers. Only really dumb people don't understand that we should have atleast 3 Major brands competing in the CPU market so we (the costumers) could have competitive prices for CPU. Same thing with GPUs, AMD And Nvidia are both charging 600+ dollars for TOP performance on the GPU side, sure you can go cheaper options, but the lack of competition is what drives those prices up.

medi01Isn't this argument getting old at this point, with AMD using TSMC to produce chips?

Enterprise invests long term, 1-2 years flukes are not good enough to switch, AMD would need to show 5+ years of excellent performance for big fish to switch.

OEM market is quite different, however, with notably perhaps only HP not crippling AMD offerings with lower end screen et al.
MSI CEO's comments on openly stating how they don't want to piss off Intel, are quite revealing.

AMD's not producing any APU on 7nm atm, possibly with the exception of PS5 SoC. APU are the biggest sellers for desktop+notebook (combined) market, especially the latter. GF can't compete with TSMC on this front, let alone Intel. Also AMD's still producing FX on bigger nodes, which is tied to the WSA.

Yes, but Intel have wised up. They're not gonna be caught red handed like the last time, all speculation of course because we don't have access to whatever happens behind the scenes.

medi01Isn't this argument getting old at this point, with AMD using TSMC to produce chips?

IMO it's more significant than ever before. AMD can't guarantee any volume over or past the contracts they already have.

Assuming TSMC works for the party that pays most, AMD is 3rd in queue for 7nm (after Apple and Nvidia).
Earlier they had priority at GF.

Enterprise invests long term, 1-2 years flukes are not good enough to switch, AMD would need to show 5+ years of excellent performance for big fish to switch.

This, however, is hard to disagree.
It's very likely that they'll have to live on the Zen architecture long after it's potential for improvement is used up.
AMD was a year ahead in core count and Intel cough up.
Now they'll lead once again thanks to 7nm. But for how long? Few months? A year?

RuykiOffering better prices is one thing and not dirty. But Intel actually paid other parties to not offer AMD and got fined for this by the EU according to the following article:
Intel stuck with $1.45 billion fine in Europe for unfair and damaging practices against AMD

Well... the way you write this really looks awful. But actually, Intel simply paid for exclusivity.
It's against EU rules. That's it.

KarymidoNAny person with the basic economic market knowledge

With all due respect, I don't think you'll win an argument by trying to discredit me this way. But feel free to test my economical knowledge. :)

should know that when you have no competitor on the market (Like intel before Zen) you can charge watever price you want, thats bad for consumers.

Actually this is already not true. If Intel raised the prices high enough, a competitor would appear. So they couldn't. They were limited by the price level that would make this market attractive to other big parties - most importantly (but not limited to) Samsung.

Only really dumb people don't understand that we should have atleast 3 Major brands competing in the CPU market so we (the costumers) could have competitive prices for CPU.

I think it will be really hard to point a theory that says there have to be at least 3 competitors.
And there are many companies making CPUs. x86 is dominated by 2, but it's not the only kind we have.

Same thing with GPUs, AMD And Nvidia are both charging 600+ dollars for TOP performance on the GPU side, sure you can go cheaper options, but the lack of competition is what drives those prices up.

Why would they not charge $600+ for their top products? This argument makes no sense. You said yourself cheaper options are possible. Why would you need the top models?
Nvidia and AMD stretched their lineups because there is a market for such expensive products. Why are you against it?
And, ironically, in the rest of this comment you tried to appear as a supporter of free market and competition.

I mean: it's like if you wanted to limit the price of expensive cheese. Just eat the cheese you can afford.

notbWell... the way you write this really looks awful. But actually, Intel simply paid for exclusivity.
It's against EU rules. That's it.

I agree that it's just exclusivity but that can be considered a light anti-competitive practice. I would prefer if Intel avoided those. I like my free markets.

A monopoly can technically set the price to anything they want but they should not if they want to maximize profit. To maximize profit, they they have to set the price so that the total revenue minus total costs is the highest possible in that market situation. If the monopoly raises the price too high, their total profit will drop since that's how the market responds. Basically, they'll get the most money if they sell a reasonable volume and to do that, the price can't be too high.
Detailed explanation of this is here:
thismatter.com/economics/pure-monopoly-demand-revenue-costs-profits.htm

RuykiI agree that it's just exclusivity but that can be considered a light anti-competitive practice. I would prefer if Intel avoided those. I like my free markets.

So you follow a positive definition of "free market" (as in positive rights), i.e. a one where government forbids larger companies to make some decisions that could harm smaller competitors. Well... we could start a discussion whether forbidding something really cultivates freedom, but let's use our right not to do that. :-)

The proper and simplest definition of "free market" means any party can get access if they want. Directly it has nothing to do with competition.

A monopoly can technically set the price to anything they want but they should not if they want to maximize profit. To maximize profit, they they have to set the price so that the total revenue minus total costs is the highest possible in that market situation. If the monopoly raises the price too high, their total profit will drop since that's how the market responds. Basically, they'll get the most money if they sell a reasonable volume and to do that, the price can't be too high.

Processors are essential to our civilization, so the above argument is false in this case (but I'm sure you're proud of the theory...).

You see: definition of "monopoly" has 2 parts. Everyone knows the first one: that there is only a single entity that provides a product. Not many remember that "monopoly" also means other parties can't access the market. That's what lets the monopolist set whatever prices he wants.

For years Intel priced their lineup to balance profits and market saturation. In other words: other parties could get into this business, but they didn't see it as an attractive investment.
But this also means Intel, as the only real provider of CPUs, had to indirectly "compete" with the parties that could access the market. So there was a limit to the prices they could ask.

If Intel one day said: "hey, let's sell an 8-core Xeon for $100k - we don't have any competition" someone at Samsung or Apple could decide they can sell an identical CPU for $80k - and still make a ton of money.

In reality, Intel prices were fine also in the consumer market. I know it because you all paid them. Companies and datacenters didn't have a choice, but you had.
You could have gone for an ARM machine, like a smartphone (like millions have). You could have tried a different hobby: playing the piano, skiing, robotics, topology. But you didn't. You bought a 4790K - the most expensive consumer CPU of its generation. So the price was acceptable in the end, right?

notbSo you follow a positive definition of "free market" (as in positive rights), i.e. a one where government forbids larger companies to make some decisions that could harm smaller competitors. Well... we could start a discussion whether forbidding something really cultivates freedom, but let's use our right not to do that. :)

Actually, I don't have a strict opinion on whether the government should intervene in the market to encourage competition or not and I can understand and accept both definitions of "free market".
All I'm saying is that I would prefer if we market parties didn't engage in anti-competitive behavior. I'm not saying that the government should inervene. I hope you don't think I'm some kind of commie.

notbProcessors are essential to our civilization, so the above argument is false in this case (but I'm sure you're proud of the theory...).

Why would it be false if processors are essential? The demand still goes down if the price goes up even for essential goods (their demand is not completely fixed), right? It's not my theory by the way, it's the standard monopoly price theory. I just reworded it. My apologies if my wording wasn't clear.

notbYou see: definition of "monopoly" has 2 parts. Everyone knows the first one: that there is only a single entity that provides a product. Not many remember that "monopoly" also means other parties can't access the market. That's what lets the monopolist set whatever prices he wants.

For years Intel priced their lineup to balance profits and market saturation. In other words: other parties could get into this business, but they didn't see it as an attractive investment.
But this also means Intel, as the only real provider of CPUs, had to indirectly "compete" with the parties that could access the market. So there was a limit to the prices they could ask.

If Intel one day said: "hey, let's sell an 8-core Xeon for $100k - we don't have any competition" someone at Samsung or Apple could decide they can sell an identical CPU for $80k - and still make a ton of money.

In reality, Intel prices were fine also in the consumer market. I know it because you all paid them. Companies and datacenters didn't have a choice, but you had.
You could have gone for an ARM machine, like a smartphone (like millions have). You could have tried a different hobby: playing the piano, skiing, robotics, topology. But you didn't. You bought a 4790K - the most expensive consumer CPU of its generation. So the price was acceptable in the end, right?

I think you make a good point. Basically you're saying that intel didn't use unacceptable pricing to not encourage others to enter the market. I don't disagree with this.
In fact, I never said Intel prices were unacceptable. I'm fine with them.
My theory/argument is even stating that if intel reached monopoly status, the pricing would be still be acceptable.

notbIMO it's more significant than ever before. AMD can't guarantee any volume over or past the contracts they already have.

Yay. That tiny manufacturer producing about 80 million APUs a year for consoles alone surely means nothing to that Fab.

There is no "entry" into x86, AMD/Intel have cross-licensing and that's it.
Besides taking on decades of their expertise in that field being damn hard.

notbwere fine also in the consumer market. I know it because you all paid them.

Said Rockefeller. After all, if you couldn't buy fuel, you could walk, or use bike or something.

medi01Yay. That tiny manufacturer producing about 80 million APUs a year for consoles alone surely means nothing to that Fab.

They're just one of the clients. And they have relatively small margins compared to Apple and Nvidia, so they can pay less for a wafer.

What if Intel decides to use TSMC 7nm as well?

There is no "entry" into x86, AMD/Intel have cross-licensing and that's it.

Of course there is: buying AMD.
Not a big deal for Samsung, Apple or the big Chinese players.

Said Rockefeller. After all, if you couldn't buy fuel, you could walk, or use bike or something.

Well, precisely: I do. Owning a car (initial cost, fuel, insurance, parking) is a luxury I can live without. I prefer to spend that money on other things.
At least car is something one could argue to be important (to travel, to go to work etc).
Many of forum members who criticize Intel's prices decided to buy their CPU just for gaming, i.e. for fun. So they decided the price was OK. Agree?

It is precisely because that amount of capacity is tied up at TSMC that AMD can't rely/go to GF & get their supplies automagically sky high. Also look at the bright side, the tide is finally turning because Intel's prioritizing high margin parts especially servers ~ www.tomshardware.com/news/notebook-odm-shipments-improve-march,39075.html

notbWell, precisely

You literally claimed cartels are OK.
And then people would ask "why did you ask the user if he/she/zee is working at Intel".
Because, got damn it, I seek explanation on why people post batshit crazy stuff like that.

notbThey're just one of the clients.

How many of their clients order 80+ million chips of 300mm^2+ size.

notbWhat if Intel decides to use TSMC 7nm as well?

Yeah, what if?
Or you mean "to prevent AMD from buying stuff from TSMC".
Hell, why not.

medi01You literally claimed cartels are OK.

I haven't. And you've quoted my "Well, precisely" from a part where I admit for not owning a car. Nice touch.

And then people would ask "why did you ask the user if he/she/zee is working at Intel".

If I remember correctly, you've used this argument earlier (also replacing Intel with Nvidia).
I don't know the reason: maybe you're simply jealous? They've been ignoring your applications for a decade or what?

How many of their clients order 80+ million chips of 300mm^2+ size.

Why would it have to be that much? AMD could be bumped by a company that orders less volume but can pay more. It's even better for TSMC.
Apple is likely to start making their own CPUs and GPUs quite soon (20 million Macs sold yearly). I wonder who'll make them...

Nvidia will move to 7nm as well and they have pretty big chips (you love mentioning that, don't you? ;-))

Yeah, what if?
Or you mean "to prevent AMD from buying stuff from TSMC".
Hell, why not.

The reason is not important, isn't it?
AMD based their whole strategy on utilizing a limited 7nm. It might be that they have contracted enough volume for next 10 years of significant growth.
But it also could be risky. We'll see soon enough.