News Retailer Reveals Rocket Lake-S, Comet Lake Refresh Pricing

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
1,004
470
1,560
0
Is Intel counting on the fact AMD can't make enough chips? That pricing is just stupid from a competitive standpoint otherwise.
Has there ever been a leak of this nature, international e-tailer accidently posts place holder pricing for unannounced product and someone tries to do currency conversion with tax/market adjustments, that has ever turned out accurate?
 
Reactions: Why_Me
Is Intel counting on the fact AMD can't make enough chips? That pricing is just stupid from a competitive standpoint otherwise.
Retailers that are first to supply a product always charge way more for it.
I'm pretty sure MSRP will be the same as 10th gen.
Guess they gave up trying to compete with AMD on the productivity front, huh?
The productivity front heavily uses hardware acceleration, you will be hard pressed to find any productivity software that can't use the intel iGPU.
 

javiindo

Prominent
Jun 12, 2019
65
7
535
0
If there is stock, they will have already win. And if they match AMD in gaming performance, the prices are better. 6 cores for 176$ (almost half price) and 8 cores for 350$.
 
Jan 17, 2021
1
0
10
0
Your point is..?
His point is, Intel will keep competing just fine regardless of the silly ‘moar cores’ narrative AMD has successfully implanted into the minds of a few layers from the community. Quick Sync — with its great performance, documentation, and ISV support — is more relevant than 8 extra cores for many productivity workloads, and the same goes for a good dGPU with a proper compute/general acceleration SW ecosystem (that is, NVIDIA and soon Intel with DG* + oneAPI). Meanwhile, AMD is “competing” with flaky and broken-in-every-other-release OpenCL 2.x (Blender was unusable in the last few months), poorly documented/performing/supported VCE/AMF, and dropped Polaris support in the latest ROCm — with Navi* support still being an incomplete mess.

Guess AMD gave up on competing against Intel and NVIDIA in the productivity front (outside of Cinebench and those compilation benchmarks we devs don’t really run like that because build caches and partial compilation), huh?
 
His point is, Intel will keep competing just fine regardless of the silly ‘moar cores’ narrative AMD has successfully implanted into the minds of a few layers from the community. Quick Sync — with its great performance, documentation, and ISV support — is more relevant than 8 extra cores for many productivity workloads, and the same goes for a good dGPU with a proper compute/general acceleration SW ecosystem (that is, NVIDIA and soon Intel with DG* + oneAPI). Meanwhile, AMD is “competing” with flaky and broken-in-every-other-release OpenCL 2.x (Blender was unusable in the last few months), poorly documented/performing/supported VCE/AMF, and dropped Polaris support in the latest ROCm — with Navi* support still being an incomplete mess.

Guess AMD gave up on competing against Intel and NVIDIA in the productivity front (outside of Cinebench and those compilation benchmarks we devs don’t really run like that because build caches and partial compilation), huh?
Quick Sync is extremely powerful. I'm not going to argue that. But it's relevant for specific video decode/encode task only. However it wasn't that long ago that Intel was losing on most video encoding benchmarks up against Threadripper. Even Linus switched over.

When you are doing hard productivity work, like scientific simulations, or compiling, async computer, web servers, more cores do win.
 
Last edited:

Conahl

Proper
Apr 24, 2020
189
57
160
0
His point is, Intel will keep competing just fine regardless of the silly ‘moar cores’ narrative AMD has successfully implanted into the minds of a few layers from the community. Quick Sync — with its great performance, documentation, and ISV support — is more relevant than 8 extra cores for many productivity workloads, and the same goes for a good dGPU with a proper compute/general acceleration SW ecosystem (that is, NVIDIA and soon Intel with DG* + oneAPI). Meanwhile, AMD is “competing” with flaky and broken-in-every-other-release OpenCL 2.x (Blender was unusable in the last few months), poorly documented/performing/supported VCE/AMF, and dropped Polaris support in the latest ROCm — with Navi* support still being an incomplete mess.

Guess AMD gave up on competing against Intel and NVIDIA in the productivity front (outside of Cinebench and those compilation benchmarks we devs don’t really run like that because build caches and partial compilation), huh?
this sounds more like and anti amd rant, then anything. how many that buy intels top 2-3 cpu's, actually use the igp for anything ?

um, wasnt it a few years ago ( pre zen ) that intel was pushing cinebench in its own performance comparisons ?
 
Mar 11, 2021
1
0
10
0
If this pricing is correct, why is there an i9-11900 (base, non-K) model, when it seems to have the same specs as the i7-11700 but costs $123 more?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY