In other news, less than 2 hours before we get to see the ARM Mac in action. The forums will never be the same again.
Why was it OK for Intel to charge $300+ for 4C/8T CPU's for almost 10 years?
Is that what you think I'm arguing here? It's competitive, is what I'm saying, because there's more performance to be had from it. Please, pay attention.So having seen this, based on the proof you provided, what recommends the overclocked 10600K as a better alternative to 5600X. Better performance? Lower power? Lower system cost? More future proof?
So you can save around 35 quids and than spend around 150 more for high end ram, and 50 more for bigger PSU to have similar performanceIs that what you think I'm arguing here? It's competitive, is what I'm saying, because there's more performance to be had from it. Please, pay attention.
It wasn't and i have called out quite a few and skipped generations - voting with my wallet.
But i really hope now that AMD will release 6C 6600X for $450, cause what's the extra 50% between friends - they can and will have enough early adopters and fanboys to properly milk. Emotionally caring about company bottom lines is a dangerous road to tread on for customer.
I've been reading and refraining from commenting until now. Sadly couldn't resist.It's not about me ( as i own 3950 + 10900K and soon testing 5950 ), but about You guys. Look around this thread with all nonsense about 6C CPU for $300 as if it was pinnacle in gaming when paired with 50$ memory and so forth and back on again. It is not, it is overpriced six core positioned and priced cause AMD can do so just like they could in Athlon 64 era. Deal with it.
The way i see budget gamer - it's like Larry from these forums: looking for deals and value and not exactly low on money, but not willing to spend extra money cause AMD or Intel command him to do so.
It's not about me ( as i own 3950 + 10900K and soon testing 5950 ), but about You guys. Look around this thread with all nonsense about 6C CPU for $300 as if it was pinnacle in gaming when paired with 50$ memory and so forth and back on again. It is not, it is overpriced six core positioned and priced cause AMD can do so just like they could in Athlon 64 era. Deal with it.
The way i see budget gamer - it's like Larry from these forums: looking for deals and value and not exactly low on money, but not willing to spend extra money cause AMD or Intel command him to do so.
1) The 5600X represents a $50 price increase over the chip it replaces, the 3600X/XT. There is no 3600 replacement yet. If someone's in the market for a cheap 6 core from AMD, they have a lot of great choices - including the 3600, 1600AF, 2600, or they could buy the top tier performance 6 core part and pay $299, or wait, like we all did for Zen 3 to begin with, for a likely 5600.
2) The 5600X costs ~$35 more than the 10600K, and total system cost if you want the 10600K to compete with the 5600X means the Intel system will cost more just to break even.
3) Are you suggesting AMD should offer a chip that's FASTER than the 10600K for LESS money than the 10600K?
4) The 8700K was $380 at launch.
5) Your average gamer at 1080p will be fine with a 9400F. We are on a tech forum, not at Walmart, so we are talking already about above-average use cases.
6) Seeing as both the 5600X and 10600K have limited availability due to demand, it appears you are wrong, and the proper price for a 6-core chip right now is at least $265 for a 10600K and at least $299 for a 5600X.
7) If Intel is seeing issues with the 10400 it's not because it needs to be unlocked, it's because the 9400 is cheaper and within 5% at 1080p gaming.
8) $299 is a very reasonable price for a 6 core chip IF that chip has performance to back it up and IF the market buys it. Both cases are true, and I don't need to believe or defend that it's the right price - the fact that it's currently sold out everywhere means it's pure fact, no belief or faith required.
9) Agree with your last point, a 5600 will be nice. But why would AMD abandon an early-adopter cash run? They're a for-profit company. You expect them to abandon margins?
So, Intel had a performance lead for well over a decade (2005-2017) and never attempted to pull such a stunt, i.e. deliberately "forget" to announce lower tier CPUs and release only higher tier CPUs at quite a hefty price hike, while it's OK for AMD. Got it! Everything you've vehemently hated Intel and NVIDIA for has suddenly become OK for AMD, i.e. an early adopter tax, fat margins, price increase, high prices, etc. etc. etc.
What I find especially amusing is that people keep referring to ephemeral 5600 and 5700X CPUs despite zero leaks about their existence. And given AMD's spotty history it's easy to imagine they will not release these CPUs at all if Intel fails to deliver with Rocket Lake. That would be laughable when a year from now you'll keep defending their fantastic profits, margins and ASP (which is going to be huge) while customers will collectively moan. Ah, those sweet Athlon FX-63 days - how quickly the tables have turned.
And then when Zen 4 gets released an Ryzen 5 6600X becomes a $350 CPU it's gonna get really interesting if not horrible. An entry level six-core CPU. "A fantastic value! Only $150 more expensive than a comparable Intel CPU." // b.
Isn't the 5600X close to the best gaming CPU (within a couple %) and also the cheapest one? What in the world matters if it's a 6C.
It looks like birdie's 2nd accountlol which one of those two guys are you related to.
To come in here with that as your first post
So, Intel had a performance lead for well over a decade (2005-2017) and never attempted to pull such a stunt, i.e. deliberately "forget" to announce lower tier CPUs and release only higher tier CPUs at quite a hefty price hike, while it's OK for AMD. Got it! Everything you've vehemently hated Intel and NVIDIA for has suddenly become OK for AMD, i.e. an early adopter tax, fat margins, price increase, high prices, etc. etc. etc.
What I find especially amusing is that people keep referring to ephemeral 5600 and 5700X CPUs despite zero leaks about their existence. And given AMD's spotty history it's easy to imagine they will not release these CPUs at all if Intel fails to deliver with Rocket Lake. That would be laughable when a year from now you'll keep defending their fantastic profits, margins and ASP (which is going to be huge) while customers will collectively moan. Ah, those sweet Athlon FX-63 days - how quickly the tables have turned.
And then when Zen 4 gets released an Ryzen 5 6600X becomes a $350 CPU it's gonna get really interesting if not horrible. An entry level six-core CPU. "A fantastic value! Only $150 more expensive than a comparable Intel CPU." // b.
I guess you just entirely missed the Intel 9000 series release which started with announcing only the top 3 most expensive SKUs, an over $200 increase in top SKU price, and a ~30$ increase in the unlocked 6 core SKU, all while being on the same architecture.
It looks like birdie's 2nd account
Could you shed more light on this please? I was referring strictly to consumer dual/four-core CPUs. I've no idea what was the deal with HDET/enterprise CPUs.
And then when Zen 4 gets released an Ryzen 5 6600X becomes a $350 CPU it's gonna get really interesting if not horrible. An entry level six-core CPU. "A fantastic value! Only $150 more expensive than a comparable Intel CPU." // b.
10700 is a 8C 16T at 65W TDP , also comes with a heat-sink and gaming performance is almost identical between the two.
When the consumer 9900K was announced, it was announced along with the 9700K and 9600K, no cheaper SKUs were announced.
However, I will walk back the price increase statement a bit, the prices I originally found I guess were street prices at release which were inflated due to them selling out at retailers. The actual MSRP increase was $129 (36%) increase for top SKU (8 cores versus previous 6 cores) but only $4 for the 9600K versus the 8600K.
Ehm, personally I believe that Core i7 10700 (non K) @ 349$ is much better gaming CPU vs Ryzen 5600X @ 299$ today.
10700 is a 8C 16T at 65W TDP , also comes with a heat-sink and gaming performance is almost identical between the two.
For pure gaming today, I'd take the 5600x. It's cheaper and should be noticeably faster for high refresh rate gaming. If you don't care about high refresh rate gaming then I think anything over a 3600 or 10400 is probably overkill.
Looks like you're comparing different SKUs then, right? I guess everyone would be cool if AMD made their CPUs more expensive after adding two more cores.
An eight-core 5600X? Count me in! A ten-core 5800X? Give me two! That (!) would be progress. The amount of praise AMD could have received would have been colossal.
So, Intel had a performance lead for well over a decade (2005-2017) and never attempted to pull such a stunt, i.e. deliberately "forget" to announce lower tier CPUs and release only higher tier CPUs at quite a hefty price hike, while it's OK for AMD.
Im not giving 300$ for 6 cores in 2021, again I believe the Core i7 10700 at just $349 is the better CPU that will mature much better than 5600X.
Im not giving 300$ for 6 cores in 2021, again I believe the Core i7 10700 at just $349 is the better CPU that will mature much better than 5600X.