TR Forums

bfg-9000 wrote:

They look pretty stable to me, except the very highest-end 7980 extreme edition equivalents:

I don't like smoothed line charts. I recommend reading some of Edward Tufte's books for chart style improvements.

The original Kepler Titan was a cheap compute card, but later Maxwell and Pascal Titans have lacked DP strength. These newer Titans are definitely gaming graphics cards, and NVidia has pushed prices to new stratospheric heights with them. Even overlooking that omission, I don't see the 1080Ti on your chart. NVidia's evil marketing geniuses also brilliantly stuffed a big first-adopter premium into their own pockets instead of into e-tailer's pockets with their founder's edition.

On topic: A consumer CPU is whatever processor a consumer buys. Intel has certainly worked hard to create market segmentation to support higher average selling prices, but if they offered 16 or 24-thread CPUs at prices that consumers would pay, those would be consumer CPUs.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 6819117633
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 6819117645
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 6819113429

I think there is a flaw in the thinking of "whatever a consumer buys" theory. While in absolute terms that is true the reality is what they are buying. They do not buy high core counts because it's wasted money. They buy the cheapest thing that meets their needs. Heck, a Pentium is a good entry-level gaming CPU. Until a consumer has a need for a higher core count or can be conned by a sales person into believing they need more cores I feel a 16+ Core/Thread processor will be "consumer grade" in PC's. Phones, though, are a different story. They have many cores with a scheduler and software is designed to use them.

Stop using the term "consumer" on its own. I use TR as my guide:

Budget general purpose consumer
Sweet spot general purpose consumer
High-end general purpose consumer

Budget enthusiast consumer
Sweet spot enthusiast consumer
High-end enthusiast consumer

Budget professional consumer
Sweet spot professional consumer
High-end professional consumer

Budget enterprise consumer
Sweet spot enterprise consumer
High-end enterprise consumer

7 years ago I built a dual X5650 server for home use. I classify that as a high-end enthusiast consumer build.

whm1974 wrote:

OK after hearing all about AMD and Intel's new "Threadripper" and Core i9 CPUs along with their price tags, I'm beginning to wonder what exactly is a consumer CPU? Don't get wrong, I love having high end hardware but I would have to be making money with it to consider buying what are now considered to be consumer products even if I was filthy rich. The most I'll pay for a CPU is maybe ~400ish with s/h and a nice aftermarket HSF included.

At point do we start to get really silly?

Be it my opinion, with the state of code for Linux AND Windows after 4 cores you are on diminishing returns for *common* daily use with email, facebook, skype, media playback and even gaming. 4 highly clocked threads with 4 more virtual threads still seems ideal for both cost and use cases.

Losergamer04 wrote:

I think there is a flaw in the thinking of "whatever a consumer buys" theory. While in absolute terms that is true the reality is what they are buying. They do not buy high core counts because it's wasted money. They buy the cheapest thing that meets their needs. Heck, a Pentium is a good entry-level gaming CPU. Until a consumer has a need for a higher core count or can be conned by a sales person into believing they need more cores I feel a 16+ Core/Thread processor will be "consumer grade" in PC's. Phones, though, are a different story. They have many cores with a scheduler and software is designed to use them.

Using my current OC'ed quad core gaming build as an example I would not recommend a quad core CPU to anyone for a future triple A title gaming PC. Ghost Recon Wildlands maxes out all 4 cores of my current setup. I'm looking at a 6 core (or greater) intel CPU for my upcoming gaming PC build.

Quad core mobile CPUs exist because most mobile CPU manufactures have to compensate for their poor single core performance by adding more cores. Apple gets away with dual core mobile CPUs because their single core performance is so awesome possum.

Definitely a whm1974 topic. Thread title has no definitive answer.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

bfg-9000 wrote:

They look pretty stable to me, except the very highest-end 7980 extreme edition equivalents:

I don't like smoothed line charts. I recommend reading some of Edward Tufte's books for chart style improvements.....

I agree with JAE about the smoothed video card prices. I was going to quote bfg-9000's video card post myself. The video card figures would be better displayed if they were done like the CPU graphs, as a series of unadorned straight lines connecting price points over time. Then it would be obvious that its possible to get the previous generation (or two or three) for a lower price and still build a good system. I bought my X6 1000T for $200 and the 7870 for $200, well below their initial price offerings.

NTMBK wrote:

The i9 and Threadripper are both workstation CPUs with the badge filed off and a few features disabled. They aren't aimed at 99.9% of the consumer market.

So, its OK for Intel to do this but not AMD?

End User wrote:

Stop using the term "consumer" on its own. I use TR as my guide:...

The "Bleeding Edge" modifier goes in there somewhere...

I guess it depends on how you define "consumer" CPUs, but I would argue that a "consumer" CPU is "the one in the computer I bought at the store".

Most people don't know or care what kind of processor they have.

I think you're talking about "mainstream" CPUs, though, one that is "good enough" for everday use and gaming and such, and to me that's been the Core i3 for a long time. If you want to put a price on it I'd say it's about $150, well under what you're willing to pay. $400 for a processor is, IMO, well into "enthusiast" territory.

I don't think we can really draw a line. Adjusted for inflation, computers are cheaper every year *even if* you include the crazy top-end models.

I think the definition of "consumer" depends on who you ask.

To the CPU sales departments, consumers are the people not considered "enterprise customers". There's a different support system in place for them, different marketing, different distribution methods, different warranty, different rules to what the lifecycle and support duration is, etc....

If Intel want to take an enterprise product, slap a label on it and call it a consumer chip - they can do as long as they use the consumer sales/distribution/support/warranty. Some people won't be able to afford those products and others will moan that it's a thinly-veiled attempt to shift unsold enterprise stock, but who cares?!

If you want it - pay for it.
If you don't want it, stick with the mainstream platform like socket 115x or AM4 options; They target the performance/$ segment and that is ultimately the #1 criteria for most people.

Mr Bill wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

The i9 and Threadripper are both workstation CPUs with the badge filed off and a few features disabled. They aren't aimed at 99.9% of the consumer market.

So, its OK for Intel to do this but not AMD?

How did you get that from what I said? :/ I explicitly said that they're both doing the same thing!

End User wrote:

GeForce6200 wrote:

I agree with liquid_mage the cap for a consumer CPU today is around $300.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "consumer". Someone who buys a $1,999 CPU is a consumer as far as I am concerned.

Do you mean a low-end consumer? A cheap consumer?

End User, I think that your posts would be improved by replacing the word "cheap" with "median" and "low-end" with "average". See: Steam Hardware Survey if you have questions.

In a larger sense, CPUs like the i9 only exist as "consumer" options because silicon companies are whale-hunting. You can't sell it unless you offer it, after all (a fool and his money, you know how it goes).

NTMBK wrote:

Mr Bill wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

The i9 and Threadripper are both workstation CPUs with the badge filed off and a few features disabled. They aren't aimed at 99.9% of the consumer market.

So, its OK for Intel to do this but not AMD?

How did you get that from what I said? :/ I explicitly said that they're both doing the same thing!

Oh man! I'm sorry, you are totally right. I read to quickly and somehow misread i9 as an AMD part.

Mr Bill wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

Mr Bill wrote:

So, its OK for Intel to do this but not AMD?

How did you get that from what I said? :/ I explicitly said that they're both doing the same thing!

Oh man! I'm sorry, you are totally right. I read to quickly and somehow misread i9 as an AMD part.

No worries

Vhalidictes wrote:

End User wrote:

GeForce6200 wrote:

I agree with liquid_mage the cap for a consumer CPU today is around $300.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "consumer". Someone who buys a $1,999 CPU is a consumer as far as I am concerned.

Do you mean a low-end consumer? A cheap consumer?

End User, I think that your posts would be improved by replacing the word "cheap" with "median" and "low-end" with "average".

If you want friendlier wording (do people really need hugs around here?) read my later post.

Vhalidictes wrote:

In a larger sense, CPUs like the i9 only exist as "consumer" options because silicon companies are whale-hunting. You can't sell it unless you offer it, after all (a fool and his money, you know how it goes).

I'm not going to drop $2,000 on a CPU but I'm also not going to talk like a holier than thou ****** and berate someone from my high horse if they want to drop that kind of coin. Putting aside your outrage at the price the fact remains that the $2,000 i9 is a consumer CPU and it puts the $300 CPU decidedly on the cheap end of the pricing chart.

...and 20+ years ago, adjusted for inflation, some CPUs cost more.

End User wrote:

Quad core mobile CPUs exist because most mobile CPU manufactures have to compensate for their poor single core performance by adding more cores. Apple gets away with dual core mobile CPUs because their single core performance is so awesome possum.

Those A53 octacores SoCs are so popular is because *MARKETING* and its so cheap to add more of them because die size of the cores are next to non-existent.

Even with their lousy ST performance relative to Apple SoCs, budget SoC performance is still far from a bottleneck for most people, especially now that the industry is transitioning A53->A55, single channel LPDDR3 to dual channel LPDDR4, and 28nm->14nm. RAM capacity, NAND performance and Android bloatware/ads are far worse offenders in terms of affecting real world performance. I wouldn't consider any Android device with anything less than 2GB RAM, 3GB+ is preferred.

Chrispy_ wrote:

If you want it - pay for it.

"How dare you expect people to pay through the nose for obvious luxury goods? I'm gonna call the CPU/GPU social justice brigade!"

Yup, totally no entitlement syndrome exhibited here.

strangerguy wrote:

End User wrote:

Quad core mobile CPUs exist because most mobile CPU manufactures have to compensate for their poor single core performance by adding more cores. Apple gets away with dual core mobile CPUs because their single core performance is so awesome possum.

Those A53 octacores SoCs are so popular is because *MARKETING* and its so cheap to add more of them because die size of the cores are next to non-existent.

Even with their lousy ST performance relative to Apple SoCs, budget SoC performance is still far from a bottleneck for most people, especially now that the industry is transitioning A53->A55, single channel LPDDR3 to dual channel LPDDR4, and 28nm->14nm. RAM capacity, NAND performance and Android bloatware/ads are far worse offenders in terms of affecting real world performance. I wouldn't consider any Android device with anything less than 2GB RAM, 3GB+ is preferred.

You really know how to sell a platform.

Almost everything you can buy as a person (not a corporation) is "consumer" grade stuff.

It is up to the consumer to know what he actually needs and buy the according product.
If I only play games and browse the net, a i9 CPU would be quite idiotic, b/c it would twiddle it's thumbs (or cores) most of the time and do diddly squat.
If I do a lot of home movie encoding, compiling etc I could see the need for "moar coarz".
Encoding my cats 20 minute wedding video (Sony Vegas, 1080p @ 60FPS) still took 3 hours on my poor old 3570K.

Ifalna wrote:

Encoding my cats 20 minute wedding video

I'm pretty sure that's autocorrect at work, but I hope (for the sake of entertainment value) that I'm wrong.

The real question is, "What is a consumable CPU?"

Hand me a CPU and a large metal file and I'll find out if Lotito will eat it...

You guys realize this is all just a matter of opinion? It's a pointless thread with no answer. If you can legally buy it without any extra qualifications, it's a "consumer" product. Whether or not it's a mainstream or "REAL consumer CPU" is a bs question, because the answer can be nothing other than opinion.

The Egg wrote:

You guys realize this is all just a matter of opinion? It's a pointless thread with no answer.

You realize who the OP is?

Flying Fox wrote:

The Egg wrote:

You guys realize this is all just a matter of opinion? It's a pointless thread with no answer.

You realize who the OP is?

Yes, he already made that observation several posts back.

Maybe the thread should be renamed "What is the REAL point of this THREAD?"

just brew it! wrote:

Maybe the thread should be renamed "What is the REAL point of this THREAD?"

Well, I kinda let it go for the lolz. And I suppose these kinds of open-ended, click-bait ish threads are what bring in the clicks and eyeballs.

Let's give whm his own thread in the back porch. DYMT: whm's Legacy

"Consumer CPU" means nothing. It's just a balance between what you need and what you can afford.

Ifalna wrote:

Almost everything you can buy as a person (not a corporation) is "consumer" grade stuff.

It is up to the consumer to know what he actually needs and buy the according product.
If I only play games and browse the net, a i9 CPU would be quite idiotic, b/c it would twiddle it's thumbs (or cores) most of the time and do diddly squat.
If I do a lot of home movie encoding, compiling etc I could see the need for "moar coarz".
Encoding my cats 20 minute wedding video (Sony Vegas, 1080p @ 60FPS) still took 3 hours on my poor old 3570K.

I can see people who do a lot of HD movie encoding, heavy code compiling, and etc buying some really heavy lifting hardware.

Anything above embedded but without ECC is a consumer cpu, because it is not an enterprise one.

Intel is ready to cripple enterprise silicon just to move their consumer cpus up to the $2000 mark

Bauxite wrote:

Anything above embedded but without ECC is a consumer cpu, because it is not an enterprise one.

Intel is ready to cripple enterprise silicon just to move their consumer cpus up to the $2000 mark

Just wondering, but how many people will actually buy these things? We can build a rather nice system for this kind of money including the display and decent KBM.

whm1974 wrote:

Just wondering, but how many people will actually buy these things?

If even End User thinks that's too much for a CPU, I'd hazard a guess that the answer is "almost nobody".

It's a "halo" product, created for bragging rights. Both Intel's, and those of anyone silly enough to drop that kind of coin on a "consumer" CPU.