Businesses are scum of the earth. They lie, cheat, manipulate and stomp out the competition ALL THE TIME. Relentless greed drives them to treat their employees like dirt. This bad behavior isn't really earth-shattering news. AMD has lied to us so many times, I've lost track. Intel is a huge company. I'll bet they have a lot of scumbags near the top who would sell their own mother for a buck. Well, maybe sell your mother. Just shows Intel is concerned.

I think evidence for our current time frame should suffice. Pre-crime after all, was a failure. You guys are slipping on the leaks... https://www.cowcotland.com/images/news/2017/02/amd-ryzen-1700x-intel-core-6800k-trois-tonnes-resultats-in-game-in-benchs-3.jpg That W CC F place...

Impresive results, better then expected. Now all it needs is a good oc 4.5ghz+ and its a win for sure.

No they don't. Supply and demand 101. AMD, even assuming that Ryzen is 500‰ faster, cannot supply the volumes that Intel is able to, and has near zero market presence with consumers and OEMs. Again, Intel ships over 100 million CPUs a quarter (!), based on the initial projections claimed by AMD articles they are hopeful to ship a mere million (and that's after building up stock).

Though I don't agree with vase either, keep in mind AMD isn't manufacturing anything, but rather companies like Global Foundries, which is large enough to keep up with the workload. You're comparing the 1 million units of just AMD's flagship 8-core parts to the 100 million total CPUs Intel produces. When you consider Quark, Atom, Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5, i7, and each of their Xeon equivalents, 100 million suddenly doesn't sound like so much anymore, especially when you consider that most of those CPUs perform worse than their flagships. That being said, the 1 million AMD is releasing at first ought to be sufficient for S&D, and their more mainstream products will likely have higher quantities. I suspect once benchmarks are released, people will realize how little they need an 8c/16t CPU, so even if Ryzen manages to be better than Skylake in every conceivable way, the first 1 million batch may not appeal to everyone.

Again, the numbers Intel has is tremendous. It's not known a "chipzilla" for no reason. Just look at the server market alone, estimates show that they still ship nearly 6.75 million chips a quarter, with the average selling price $550 give or take $75. And that's just server line of chips, this is not the consumer versions.

That doesn't change my point. Servers always sell in large quantities, and their parts are always more expensive regardless of whether they're faster than their desktop counterparts or not. AMD is selling 1 million consumer flagship products. Considering their tiny market share and how niche of a market these products are, I assure you that S&D is not an issue.

But there is no compelling reason for Intel to do anything in reaction to Zen, all these "Intel panicking" clickbait articles are absurd factually. That's what I'm saying. The numbers don't lie.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see how the quantity of CPUs being shipped is relevant to your point. That's kind of like saying "Lego feels threatened by Megabloks because of a highly desirable new kit they released where only 1000 will be sold". That just doesn't make sense. Lego is gigantic compared to Megabloks. They will always sell more kits, even if they're limited edition. Lego will always cost more than Megabloks, and they can get away with that. But Lego can still feel threatened by them, if they happen to release a product that makes them look bad. Why for any reason would quantity be a primary factor to consider? It's all about image. Only enthusiasts look at graphs. Only enthusiasts even know what AMD actually is (the vast majority of people never heard of the company). Enthusiasts have a strong influence on what others will buy. AMD's marketing has been notoriously lacking or dishonest. Intel does not want AMD gaining enough attention where people are aware of them or willing to switch. Intel especially doesn't want the press saying things like "look how much better this is than !". The only thing Intel is scared of is being associated with words like "dethroned", "poor value", or "inefficient". So for the time being, they've lowered their prices to either soften blows they receive, or, make themselves look even better than they already look (assuming Ryzen isn't so great).

I think that's good. Remember how intel was happy and then AMD threw in Thunderbird? And then Athlon XP? and Athlon64. That sort of made them into release Core. Keeps everyone from stagnating.

Intel has to respond in some way or form. Depending on how well received the new AMD products are going forward has the ability to start to erode market share away from Intel. As proof, look at IBM. Where in the consumer market are they? They had the same attitude towards PCs. How on earth could PCs harm their market share? Business markets are constantly in motion, always evolving. Google complained that Microsoft was bulling them with unfair tactics. Microsoft backed off and now look. Bing is still not considered to be as good by the masses. Google has become a part of common vernacular like Coke when asking for a cola. Being underhanded in reacting to situation is uncalled for. Then again, how is business looked at...generally speaking, business is war and all is fair in love and war. No? Consumers are supposed to be able to dictate how companies act in the marketplace. A lot of people have become so weak to this concept that courts have tried to intervene. If Intel is so horribly awful then do not buy their products till they reform, plain and simple.

I hear what you're saying, and you're right that image is important, but so is the ability to deliver. Again, both of these companies are looking out for their shareholders, that's it. None of them really gives a **** about the average consumer as long as they buy, and if some positive marketing spin will do that, what do they care.

The ability to deliver is irrelevant. Unless AMD manages to sell out of their entire 8-core lineup (which I highly doubt will happen) then you have a point. But, that's a rash assumption. As has been stated by both us collectively, AMD is tiny with little market recognition, a recently poor track record, and these 8c/16t chips are a niche market. Considering AMD's books are in the red, I don't think their shareholders would appreciate it if they made 10 million 8-core chips where the vast majority of those won't sell in a timely manner. So again, S&D is not an issue for AMD; it just won't be probable. Consider the following scenarios within the next few months: A. Ryzen 7 does so poorly that AMD doesn't even return a profit from manufacturing. B. AMD manages to sell every single CPU. C. AMD returns a decent profit but doesn't sell all 1 million units within the first year. Let's look at the results of those scenarios in a financial perspective: A. Intel is happy because they know their name still holds power/prestige, and therefore will continue to rake in billions of dollars per year. B. Intel is happy because that means AMD can't keep up with the S&D, so Intel makes those sales instead. Since Intel lowered their prices, the PC market as a whole sees an increase in sales. AMD running out of stock also buys Intel time to come up with a good response. C. Intel is satisfied because that means those potential sales went to them instead. Now, let's consider those same scenarios but in a non-financial perspective: A. Intel is worried, because AMD still can't make anything decent and might go under, leading to Intel as a monopoly. B. Intel is worried, because AMD now is now threatening Intel's image. C. Intel is satisfied because AMD still isn't a threat, but, they're not doing so bad that Intel will monopolize. There's more to a business than appeasing shareholders. Intel doesn't want AMD to fail, but, they sure as hell don't want want them to take too much glory either. Think of AMD's sales as a "business expense" for Intel - it's a lot of money but in the long term it keeps the money flowing.

No idea why people get emotional about this sh.t, we are talking about freaking CPUs here, not sport teams....

You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing too many people getting emotional over routing for AMD. I see a lot of people getting emotionally negative toward Intel, I see a lot of people making rash assumptions, and I see a lot of people getting annoyed about people's misjudgment, but that's about it. Regardless, sports teams are, in my opinion, worse to get emotional about. A sports team has very little to do with your personal life whether they win or lose. Being computer enthusiasts, if AMD screws this up, we all lose.

Intel can lower prices greater than 17% in the mass consumer market. They just cannot go below fixed costs. So that assessment of not being able to afford to lower prices less than 17% is incorrect. The other business segments would keep that particular issue afloat. One never cuts the cord on a losing segment as long as fixed costs associated with that segment are exceeded. EDIT: Not everything above the line is fixed. Variable cost components are included as well.

We did not write the same thing. Gross Margin only accounts for costs directly traceable to the services and products being offered. It does not include SG&A (selling, general and administrative costs). Having a gross margin of 0% means the whole operation is in the red so they would be burning their cash reserves. That is why one can only state how this one segment of the market may be affected in the short or long term. It would take a long time before AMD could be in a position to make significant inroads in all the segments Intel is in. Regarding that aspect, yes that one million in production volume is not significant today. Throw a rock in a calm pool of water. It creates ripples. If left unchecked those ripples can turn into waves as bigger rocks are tossed in. That is also why how that one million in production volume is received is significant to their operations. Rome was not built in a day. I am not saying that AMD is taking aim to blow Intel out of the water once and for all. That would be silly. Like I asked earlier, what happened to IBM's market share in the mass consumer market? EDIT: Gross Profit does not include general and administrative expenses. Within gross margin and gross profit, there are variable costs. As long as those variable costs are in some portion contributed towards by the profits of that segment, that segment will be allowed to continue unless that portion of the market is exited. Fixed costs are deducted first.

Would you believe we are carb loading before an important race?

err, Intel only had a little small poo then...

It is weird how an unconfirmed rumor made it to the news page. Although it's a rumor that can hardly surprise me if true it's still a rumor. Why did you post that on front page? Do you know something more and you don't wanna tell? If Ryzen proves to be that good and competitive then it will be the time to upgrade from my 2500K at last.

I guess tech news is taking a page from the playbook used by the anti-Trump Media. Print unconfirmed rumors from anonamous sources as news, and tell your supporters to repeat it ad nausium even after the record has been corrected.

I am awfully curious now, had you been working for Goldman Sachs or Lehman Brothers banks before the financial crisis started?

Rofl... they were only doing what was mandated upon them by the Democrats in congress through the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, that law originally passed by Jimmy Carter and upgraded by Bill Clinton that part of it forces banks to give home loans to people with little to no downpayment or without the income to pay back those loans unless they are extremely frugal financially? Funny how you did exactly what i mentioned in the previous reply. Repeat a lie to push an agenda. https://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

Guess my 5960X has more than enough life in it for quite some time. Next upgrade will be a 16-core when PCI-X 4.0 is out sometimes around 2020.

PCI-X 4.0 for what? There isn't even a difference between 2.0 and 3.0.

PCI-X 4.0 for what? There isn't even a difference between 2.0 and 3.0.

There is, especially if you want multiple devices.

I guess tech news is taking a page from the playbook used by the anti-Trump Media. Print unconfirmed rumors from anonamous sources as news, and tell your supporters to repeat it ad nausium even after the record has been corrected. Rofl... they were only doing what was mandated upon them by the Democrats in congress through the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, that law originally passed by Jimmy Carter and upgraded by Bill Clinton that part of it forces banks to give home loans to people with little to no downpayment or without the income to pay back those loans unless they are extremely frugal financially? Funny how you did exactly what i mentioned in the previous reply. Repeat a lie to push an agenda. https://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

And yet your partisan rant is both wrong and serves no purpose here.