- Sep 17, 2014
- 15,357 (5.98/day)
- The Washing Machine
|Processor||i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V|
|Motherboard||AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370|
|Cooling||beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3|
|Memory||16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16|
|Video Card(s)||MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500|
|Storage||Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD|
|Display(s)||Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)|
|Case||Fractal Design Define C TG|
|Audio Device(s)||Situational :)|
|Power Supply||EVGA G2 750W|
|Mouse||Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum|
|Keyboard||Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II (Best K/B ever... <3)|
I can see where you're coming from, however if games & other applications, which can utilize more cores, are to be mainstream/better than they currently are ~ users need access to cheap(er) cores. There's also the fact that the 9900k isn't the flagship for desktops, at least I don't consider MSDT as flagship.
That's what I have serious a problem with, the market leader today can charge whatever they want & basically get away with it. The likes of Apple, Intel, Nvidia et al can charge obscene amounts of money, exploit slave labour, hazardous working conditions, economies of scale & even trade wars to basically suck out a disproportionate amount of money from the normal user that it's insane, thinking about the piles of cash they have. You're saying Intel is undercharging, how do you explain their ever increasing profits then?
Lastly I see this phrase often times repeated these days, what's "entitled to" supposed to mean in this case? Shouldn't corporations be held accountable to a particular standard, are they entitled to "free money" or no/less scrutiny in perpetuity?
Companies are not 'accountable' for the pricing of their product stack. That's just the choice they make, and the market determines whether they stick or they don't.
There are way too many people on this forum and elsewhere that suffer from this disease called 'entitlement'. What it means? 'I used to buy this sort of CPU for amount X a number of years ago, so I should be able to do the same today' is one example of it. Entitlement means ignoring every circumstance but your own desires to convince yourself of some twisted truth.
That is exactly what happens on GPU since Pascal and the mining craze and it also happens Intel CPUs because there are cheaper alternatives. Ignoring the fact that Intel still has a performance crown and charges premium for it, because 'I used to be able to buy an i7 in the Haswell days and that was the best Intel had, too'. For GPU: entitlement is why people end up ignoring obvious 'too good to be true' situations and buy cheap knock-offs that turn out to be fakes or half broken cards. And get mad at Nvidia for exploiting their current position. Realistically, though, if you want to get what you want at a lower price, you need to simply not buy something. Restraint is fast becoming a rare quality these days. And whenever you say such a thing, a bunch of people will respond with 'but others will buy it anyway so what's the point' - thát is entitlement (or 'fear of missing out'). Others buy it, so why should I miss out? Why can they have what I can't?
Accountability applies to responsibilities. Entitlement applies to desire. And none of us 'need' this hardware to live. Intel has no 'responsibility' to provide us with a product that is reasonably priced for anyone's (realistic or not) standards.
Ironically, you don't even 'need' an Intel 9900K to play games, not even remotely close. You can suffice with far cheaper alternatives and still have a rig that lasts 5 years+. Spoiler: its still not going to be a 2700X as the optimal choice - not even when perf/dollar is your concern. This whole topic title is wrong on so many levels.