Which models were these? I know of the Abu Dhabi (16 core opteron) which hangs around at ~900-1000$ since release. And I know of the FX-57 which released at 1100$ and went down to 800$ after 6 months after release. While this was when Intel hadn't released the Core 2 Duo and their counterpart to the FX-55/57 was the P4 XE (prescott 2m) which was at the same price point (1000$)... But i am talking about 6950 @1700$ and single core GPUs that cost over 1000$ (Pascal). both price regions have never been touched by any earlier AMD product even when AMD had the upper hand. So I don't know... maybe you want to tell about your different memories of the past more specifically then?

AMD doesn't have a product comparable to the Titan X(P) (Pro Duo is like the closest thing). It's not just a single GPU, it's an extremely large GPU, on a brand new process (which means terrible yields) and it's not just marketed towards gamers. A friend of mine works for a company that implements deep learning networks for financial analysis companies. They buy like 200+ servers with 8x Titan X's in each one without blinking an eye. http://www.thinkmate.com/system/gpx-xt24-2460v4-8gpu And he says they most of them are upgrading them from Titan X (Maxwell) variants after only a year, because if they don't they essentially fall behind the other companies that do.

He knows that - he's saying that either way you go you have to buy a completely new setup, but with Ryzen it's way more affordable because the $500 you're not spending on the CPU can go to all those other components. While the 1700 doesn't directly go up against the 6900K - this screenshot really puts things into perspective: https://i.redd.it/rd570i21bihy.png

Yeah, definitely, good one!

While the 1700 doesn't directly go up against the 6900K - this screenshot really puts things into perspective: https://i.redd.it/rd570i21bihy.png

Oh man i lolled so hard at this!:roll:

Its good to see batches are good enough to reach the million mark. Hope vega has same luck. As far as prices go for gpu's nvidia can charge what they want for best of the best knowing people will buy it cause amd has no alternative right now. Hopefully vega will turn that around. But i dont see the titan price dropping under $950 anytime in near future though.

AMD doesn't have a product comparable to the Titan X(P) (Pro Duo is like the closest thing). It's not just a single GPU, it's an extremely large GPU, on a brand new process (which means terrible yields) and it's not just marketed towards gamers. A friend of mine works for a company that implements deep learning networks for financial analysis companies. They buy like 200+ servers with 8x Titan X's in each one without blinking an eye. http://www.thinkmate.com/system/gpx-xt24-2460v4-8gpu And he says they most of them are upgrading them from Titan X (Maxwell) variants after only a year, because if they don't they essentially fall behind the other companies that do.

Harsh industry. Anyway, can I have the managers name and the address of that company? I would like to apply for one or two of those Titan XP's next year, ahem. 🤓

But even when AMD had the performance crown for a certain amount of time (X850 XT, X1950 XTX, HD 4870, HD 5870) this didn't translate into exorbitantly high prices.

HD4870 and HD5870 never had the "performance crown"... HD4870 was outperformed by the GTX280....

This should be required studies in high school as an example for competition in the business arena. And why a monopoly is never a good thing for the consumer. The corporate heads at Intel should all be made to sit down and take a "bad boy" class in this for being complacent, whore money mongering, holier than thou attitude towards their customers. Intel just got their proverbial underwear pulled up over their heads, and sent screaming into the night. Well maybe not that dramatic but they did just get served. Imagine now you can upgrade to a level equal to or better than Intel's 6900k, Using a 1700x, new motherboard and memory for half the price of an Intel setup! What's not to like? In the spirit of being truthful I was a nay sayer, I said AMD would never pull this off. Well I'm eating my words and buying an upgrade with 1700x, ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VI HERO, and 2666mhz memory as soon as they are released to market. Including top of the line memory and u.s. state tax it will cost me $889. On Amazon a 6900k starts at $1027! Do the math and it is a no brainer. BTW I am seeing price gouging on the 1800x on Amazon, one for $650 and the other for $799 come on!! **Update seems my math was a little off when I added up my memory to the upgrade in the amount of $73. So my actual upgrade will cost me $876 not $889 lol.**

Did AMD ever engage in underhanded tactics in an attempt to purposely sabotage Intel the way Intel did to them? If the answer is no I don't think those discussions are that far off point, prices aside.

Did AMD ever engage in underhanded tactics in an attempt to purposely sabotage Intel the way Intel did to them? If the answer is no I don't think those discussions are that far off point, prices aside.

No, but then AMD was never really in a position to do that. Which is goes back to the pricing thing.. like it's great that AMD is selling their products for cheaper than their competition - but it's not like they have a choice. Look at the RX480.. in most modern titles it's faster than the 1060 and in most markets I can get it for the same price, or cheaper than the 1060. Yet look at it's marketshare on steam - .77% vs 3.37% on the 1060. I'd argue their GPU technology, the whole "open initiative" is basically the same thing. AMD lacks the clout to push proprietary technologies into the market. Had AMD followed up G-Sync with A-Sync and priced it similarly, it wouldn't have received anywhere near the traction that G-Sync or Freesync did. They tried doing proprietary AA methods and tessellation in the past - neither of which caught on aside from a few games. Their CPU's have been the same way for a while too. I know there are people here in Guru3D who will argue that they are great for the price. But the bottom line is the market doesn't care - Intel is the leader and that's not only what consumers want, but what OEM's want as well. Hell even when AMD has a better product (their APU's) they can't even get them into high end laptop designs because the OEM's view them as a "value" product. It takes years of having a decent product to change that too. People think Ryzen is going to magically shift the scales overnight - it's not. AMD had a significantly better product than Intel back with K8 and it took them 4 years to catch up in market share. And when they did, they also priced their stuff at 1000+ (FX-60 launched at an MSRP of ~$1035) And like yeah, AMD is obviously a different company now, led by different people and it's possible there is some thread of altruism that runs throughout the company or something. But as it stands, they have no other choice but to be that way and using it as a marketing tool. They don't have the product or markershare in any industry they are operating in to set pricing above their competitors - not without severely crippling themselves. If Zen's a success and 5-6 years later AMD is on top the CPU business and still severely under cutting the competition - then I'll believe they are different. But until then I think they just don't have a choice.

No, but then AMD was never really in a position to do that. Which is goes back to the pricing thing.. like it's great that AMD is selling their products for cheaper than their competition - but it's not like they have a choice. Look at the RX480.. in most modern titles it's faster than the 1060 and in most markets I can get it for the same price, or cheaper than the 1060. Yet look at it's marketshare on steam - .77% vs 3.37% on the 1060. I'd argue their GPU technology, the whole "open initiative" is basically the same thing. AMD lacks the clout to push proprietary technologies into the market. Had AMD followed up G-Sync with A-Sync and priced it similarly, it wouldn't have received anywhere near the traction that G-Sync or Freesync did. They tried doing proprietary AA methods and tessellation in the past - neither of which caught on aside from a few games. Their CPU's have been the same way for a while too. I know there are people here in Guru3D who will argue that they are great for the price. But the bottom line is the market doesn't care - Intel is the leader and that's not only what consumers want, but what OEM's want as well. Hell even when AMD has a better product (their APU's) they can't even get them into high end laptop designs because the OEM's view them as a "value" product. It takes years of having a decent product to change that too. People think Ryzen is going to magically shift the scales overnight - it's not. AMD had a significantly better product than Intel back with K8 and it took them 4 years to catch up in market share. And when they did, they also priced their stuff at 1000+ (FX-60 launched at an MSRP of ~$1035) And like yeah, AMD is obviously a different company now, led by different people and it's possible there is some thread of altruism that runs throughout the company or something. But as it stands, they have no other choice but to be that way and using it as a marketing tool. They don't have the product or markershare in any industry they are operating in to set pricing above their competitors - not without severely crippling themselves. If Zen's a success and 5-6 years later AMD is on top the CPU business and still severely under cutting the competition - then I'll believe they are different. But until then I think they just don't have a choice.

I don't disagree on most of that. I do think AMD compared to Intel is a different matter than AMD to nVidia though. Proprietary AA is something I wish both sides would leave alone since it always dies off eventually.

No, but then AMD was never really in a position to do that. Which is goes back to the pricing thing.. like it's great that AMD is selling their products for cheaper than their competition - but it's not like they have a choice. Look at the RX480.. in most modern titles it's faster than the 1060 and in most markets I can get it for the same price, or cheaper than the 1060. Yet look at it's marketshare on steam - .77% vs 3.37% on the 1060. I'd argue their GPU technology, the whole "open initiative" is basically the same thing. AMD lacks the clout to push proprietary technologies into the market. Had AMD followed up G-Sync with A-Sync and priced it similarly, it wouldn't have received anywhere near the traction that G-Sync or Freesync did. They tried doing proprietary AA methods and tessellation in the past - neither of which caught on aside from a few games. Their CPU's have been the same way for a while too. I know there are people here in Guru3D who will argue that they are great for the price. But the bottom line is the market doesn't care - Intel is the leader and that's not only what consumers want, but what OEM's want as well. Hell even when AMD has a better product (their APU's) they can't even get them into high end laptop designs because the OEM's view them as a "value" product. It takes years of having a decent product to change that too. People think Ryzen is going to magically shift the scales overnight - it's not. AMD had a significantly better product than Intel back with K8 and it took them 4 years to catch up in market share. And when they did, they also priced their stuff at 1000+ (FX-60 launched at an MSRP of ~$1035) And like yeah, AMD is obviously a different company now, led by different people and it's possible there is some thread of altruism that runs throughout the company or something. But as it stands, they have no other choice but to be that way and using it as a marketing tool. They don't have the product or markershare in any industry they are operating in to set pricing above their competitors - not without severely crippling themselves. If Zen's a success and 5-6 years later AMD is on top the CPU business and still severely under cutting the competition - then I'll believe they are different. But until then I think they just don't have a choice.

I agree 99% with what you say, except one point. People believe that companies are these faceless entities that are driven by solely rational decisions. This is far far far from truth. The personal preferences of board members or directors in a company, can and do change its whole course. I believe that because AMD has had to embrace a more open and collaborative culture to survive, it has actually turned into a company that actually prefers that culture. If you see a company as a small society, it's not hard to imagine that a bunch of underdog-loving "do-gooders" are more or less there at this point.

I agree 99% with what you say, except one point. People believe that companies are these faceless entities that are driven by solely rational decisions. This is far far far from truth. The personal preferences of board members or directors in a company, can and do change its whole course. I believe that because AMD has had to embrace a more open and collaborative culture to survive, it has actually turned into a company that actually prefers that culture. If you see a company as a small society, it's not hard to imagine that a bunch of underdog-loving "do-gooders" are more or less there at this point.

that face you attach to a company. totally arbitrary, and purely a matter of perception. for example, you see dogooders, i see whiners you see evildoers, I see professionals. AMD is the one who's been feeding this emotional good-vs-evil approach, and they have been riding the empathy train for quite some time. But hey I cant blame them, its a legit strategy, and its not the worst plan.

IDK - all I know is that I'm one of those one million processors. I hope everything comes by the end of this week and I can build it by the weekend. But with slow newegg shipping probably not until next week. Usually I can get willcall pickup, since they have a warehouse in New Jersey but it wasn't available with the pre-order =( I'm having tons of problems with this ASUS board - my NIC doesn't work, half the time it gets stuck on post and I have a bunch of weird stability issues that I assume is the board too, since I replaced the RAM/PSU/SSD/Video card in the last year and still have em. Can't wait for it to be gone. Even if the x1800 is worse in some situations, as long as I can get it to 4.4/4.5 and the platform is stable i'll be happy.

that face you attach to a company. totally arbitrary, and purely a matter of perception. for example, you see dogooders, i see whiners you see evildoers, I see professionals. AMD is the one who's been feeding this emotional good-vs-evil approach, and they have been riding the empathy train for quite some time. But hey I cant blame them, its a legit strategy, and its not the worst plan.

I haven't attached a face to them. They actually have a long history of openness and collaboration with practically everyone in the industry at this point. It happens to be a history of successful collaboration, not a series of court battles with practically everyone they had to work with (see NVIDIA). They do have one of the largest and long running technical commitments to the Linux kernel. Their GPU open program is one of the top destinations for anyone wanting to learn coding with GPUs. As I said, I am certain that they do those things because they have to. On the other hand, if an organization has to work in a specific way in order to survive, it's only natural that it gathers people with the mindset it requires to keep working this way. On the contrary, their marketing has really been off point the last decade (with recovery signs post-Polaris really). I don't believe at all we're being fed any kind of good vs evil thing, it's that their strategy seems to benefit the ecosystem more, which, I believe, is objectively true. As for "whiners", they are completely correct about GameWorks or any other similar product. I can't understand how a customer of any tech company could defend things like GameWorks, Gsync cards that don't support Freesync monitors, PhysX running exclusively through a specific type of GPU, and all the rest of the cr*p. I understand that NVIDIA does that because they can, I get the company-side business viewpoint. But there is also the customer-side business viewpoint, which says that they will lose clients that will see through what they do. AMD won't lose these clients, but won't get the clients that NVIDIA gets either. So, as a customer, I love the way that AMD has been forced to play, and I kind of hope that playing like that for so long has rubbed off in their organization in a good way.

I'm waiting for the Ryzen 5 1600X personally...

Kinda where I'm at. Yes, I spent a bit more but, I expect this to last as long as my X58 did. I waited until the mature versions of the x99 came out. I should be good to go for several years. Until the X399 or whatever.

People with setups like yours have no real reason to upgrade man. This release is really for finally bringing the multicore benefits to the masses. X99 owners shouldn't be really moved by this. Me, on the other hand... 😀

I'm following news of Ryzen closely. I had planned to wait for Ryzen before upgrading but last winter I had a chance to go with my current Intel system. I consider myself platform agnostic with currently two Intel and one AMD machines next to my desk. I am really hoping AMD will do well this time.

So don't you think you need a Ryzen rig to balance things out?

Any spare funds here are waiting for Vega so I can put my Nano back in the AMD machine.

What atrocious grammar and punctuation.

You needed to necro this thread for that?