Pre orders for skylake

[BiggerBluer]

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2015/2015063001_Pre-order_prices_of_Skylake_desktop_CPUs.html

So as the article says, the next gen i7 4790k will be the i7 6700k and it is expected to be almost $400! Do you guys think this is the making of a monopoly or do you guys predict that the price will be justified?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I wish I was around for those days of computing, back when competition was fierce with heavy developmental breakthroughs.

I wish their were more graphics card developers like in the 90s.

 

[Gam3r01]

I guess it seems more interesting looking back on compressed versions of the history.
I knew there were more manufactures, but ive only been around for Nvidia and AMD (ATI).

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

So you think maybe inflation is causing gradually rising rates? I can remember back in the day when an i7-920 was priced at $294. With those rising prices due to inflation, I think Intel needs to raise the core count and make six cores a MINIMUM for unlocked i7s. Even six-core unlocked i5s with no hyperthreading seems like a logical option. Heck, maybe even introduce unlocked i3s at $200 price tags.

I think that Intel is monopolizing the desktop CPU market because AMD is primarily focused on APUs and graphics cards. But in the mobile market, ARM and NVIDIA are going strong with Cortex and Tegra CPUs. It seems like we are shifting to the mobile era.

 

[Gam3r01]

Imagine what would happen once (I dont think its an IF) ARM and mobile architectures can handle x86 workloads in their respective low power, low heat environments, and give x86 a run for its money in performance too.

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

If the extra costs are going to be worthwhile, only one could imagine what 10 nm Cannonlake CPUs would look like.

i3-7150 @ 3.2 GHz, 3.8 GHz boost => 2C, 4T => $160
i3-7370K @ 3.6 GHz, 4.0 GHz boost => 2C, 4T => $205
i5-7600 @ 3.4 GHz, 3.8 GHz boost => 4C, 4T => $250
i5-7600K @ 3.1 GHz, 3.6 GHz boost => 6C, 6T => $295
i7-7700 @ 3.5 GHz, 3.9 GHz boost => 4C, 8T => $360
i7-7700K @ 3.3 GHz, 3.8 GHz boost => 6C, 12T => $450

 

[IamTimTech]

I think that everyone who says no competition is allowing them to raise prices has it wrong. No competition is forcing them to raise prices. Intel has just recently had a lot of lay offs. I think the market is uncertain and the company is not investing as heavily in the desktop market as it was. Lower sales equals higher prices.

 

[ingtar33]

I think that everyone who says no competition is allowing them to raise prices has it wrong. No competition is forcing them to raise prices. Intel has just recently had a lot of lay offs. I think the market is uncertain and the company is not investing as heavily in the desktop market as it was. Lower sales equals higher prices.

that's not how any market works anywhere, i suggest you take a few business classes or simply read the rest of my post to see why. BTW: if what you just wrote were true, then AMD's gpus and cpus would be more expensive then nvidia and intels.

in a free market, lower sales (or demand) = lower prices. or it should.

low sales = more product on shelves = lower prices

now if they were selling every chip they made and they couldn't keep their chips on the shelves in stores then yes, their prices would naturally go up, but if their sales numbers are soft the market would demand they lower prices. However they are not. precisely because there is ZERO market pressure from amd to force them to lower prices. they exist outside the typical healthy market place of demand dictating price. because they have a virtual monopoly they're in a position to charge whatever they want for their chips REGARDLESS of market dynamics.

this is why monopolies are BAD for consumers. because once a company achieves monopoly status their no longer bound by free market forces or competition. they can in essence NAME their price, and if it's a vital service or product the consumer will have to pay it.

 

[Mezotar]

Guys, i don't know what are you talking about. The Skylake i5 is actually cheaper there than 4690K ($273.48 vs. $274.07) and i7 as well ( $393.53 vs $394.82).

 

[BiggerBluer]

The i7 4790k is $339 not $394.82 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=i7+4790k

 

[Mezotar]

The i7 4790k is $339 not $394.82 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=i7+4790k

You maybe missed the "there" word. My point is that you can't compare prices from different shops just like that. Obviously they got i5 and i7 chips rather expensive there, but you can still see that Skylake is cheaper.

 

[IamTimTech]

I think that everyone who says no competition is allowing them to raise prices has it wrong. No competition is forcing them to raise prices. Intel has just recently had a lot of lay offs. I think the market is uncertain and the company is not investing as heavily in the desktop market as it was. Lower sales equals higher prices.

that's not how any market works anywhere, i suggest you take a few business classes or simply read the rest of my post to see why. BTW: if what you just wrote were true, then AMD's gpus and cpus would be more expensive then nvidia and intels.

in a free market, lower sales (or demand) = lower prices. or it should.

low sales = more product on shelves = lower prices

now if they were selling every chip they made and they couldn't keep their chips on the shelves in stores then yes, their prices would naturally go up, but if their sales numbers are soft the market would demand they lower prices. However they are not. precisely because there is ZERO market pressure from amd to force them to lower prices. they exist outside the typical healthy market place of demand dictating price. because they have a virtual monopoly they're in a position to charge whatever they want for their chips REGARDLESS of market dynamics.

this is why monopolies are BAD for consumers. because once a company achieves monopoly status their no longer bound by free market forces or competition. they can in essence NAME their price, and if it's a vital service or product the consumer will have to pay it.

Funny that's what I was gonna tell you guys.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

@IamTimTech: I'm sorry but he's right. Low sales = low demand = low prices. Have you seen a demand curve? As the total quantity of a product increases the demand lowers, so the price on the y axis lowers also. If a smaller quantity of product are made the demand and price rise. If a smaller quantity of product are made there is a mich higher chance they all will sell than if you develop a surplus.

 

[elite09g8]

I don't think those are official prices, and no Intel is not a monopoly, AMD is still around, and even it wasn't, Intel may be the biggest name in the industry but there are a slew of other manufactures even if they aren't for PCs such as IBM and Qualcomm.

now that I think about it, I wonder if Samsung, IBM, Qualcomm, etc... would venture out into the PC/ CPU competition...

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I don't think those are official prices, and no Intel is not a monopoly, AMD is still around, and even it wasn't, Intel may be the biggest name in the industry but there are a slew of other manufactures even if they aren't for PCs such as IBM and Qualcomm.

now that I think about it, I wonder if Samsung, IBM, Qualcomm, etc... would venture out into the PC/ CPU competition...

And get an X86 license how?