RIP Intel?

AMD is encouraging people to wait for benchmarks tells me how confident they are. 631 SC in R20? Also I believe the latency issue they had was why Intel was still winning. Allowing each core full access to the entire cache pool will probably put AMD ahead of Intel across the board now. Will Intel become the new Bulldozer?

2 Likes

19% IPC uplift and higher boost clocks. Looks like Intel in trouble.

5950X - USD 799
5900X - USD 549
5800X - USD 449
5600X - USD 299

Available on November 5th.

2 Likes

I’m not following this analogy. What of Intel’s will be the new bulldozer? rocket lake? Also Intel is a far larger company then AMD with far more cash, they can lose the entire desktop market to AMD and still be more profitable. In the end regardless of Intel or AMD, you want both to be strong to keep innovation coming and prices down.

1 Like

Intel will not be the new bullldozer because it is at least still competitive with AMD, and arrived first with better performance and held onto the performance lead.

~50% cost increase vs the 3600X at $210. There is simply no way the market is going to support those asking prices. Intel isn’t going anywhere, especially since AMD opted to give the cost/performance crown to Intel. I personally believe that the lineup will become far more competitive when the prices for these CPUs stabilize $75-100 lower that what the actually brain damaged AMD marketing guy decided these CPUs should retail for.

ima just copy/paste a reddit post of mine.

Just because AMD has offered cheaper prices in the past does not mean they should keep on doing so. If their performance matches or beats the competitor I dont see why they cant raise the price a tad to make up for RnD and any losses with making the actual silicon.
AMD was always on the cheaper end due to the performance they offered. If it means they can use the extra cash they get and throw it into more RnD then im 100% fine with that.

The notion that AMD always needs to be cheaper than intel is kinda silly. I also think people are jumping way to early and pointing to “price hikes” without actually seeing any performance numbers from third party benchers. For all we know it could preform better in games than we expected.

1 Like

I’ve said it before here (I think) but I do not believe the prices for the new AMD chips are bad at all (presuming performance is as advertised.)

10900k $600. 5950x $549 is faster and cheaper
10700k $400. 5800x $449 is faster and 12.5% more expensive.
10600k $279. 5600x $299 is faster and 10% more expensive.

AMD is just now no longer using price to justify their performance, and are confident enough in their product to use performance to justify their price.

It’s fine.

Maybe the 5600X is a unicorn CPU that gives us the moon, but lets be realistic here, its not. AMD with cherry picked samples is claiming 19% improvements.

For a 50% price increase. The pricing they have suggested isn’t sustainable.

Most people dont have unlimited funds to their at their PC, just go look at the Steam hardware survey to confirm that. When you are sitting there doing the math, and you have the option to get 80% of the performance for 66% the cost, thats a no brain, you go with the 3600X every time.

They don’t have to be less expensive than Intel, no one is suggesting that, but they have to be price competitive, and can’t price gouge just because they think they can get away with it.

19% performance improvement isn’t going to be worth 50% extra cost to the vast majority of consumers, end of story.

See above. Prices are competitive.

Even if performance falls short of their claims, it will still be a meaningful uplift over their previous parts. I believe those claims more than the ones against their competitions parts.

Absolute performance notwithstanding, they still have the benefit of having PCIE4 which is a good technology to have, especially with the upcoming Microsoft Direct Storage, increase in availability and accessibility of PCIE4 SSDs, and future GPUs.

People absolutely have begun to expect AMD to always be cheaper than Intel, regardless of performance. And that’s a really odd stance to have if you want performance.

We are simply going to have to agree to disagree here. The current pricing is not competitive in any sense of the word. A 19% performance uplift isn’t worth a 50% cost increase, especially when its using the EXACT same manufacturing node that Zen 2 uses.

After the post launch prices come down $50-100 across the various SKUs, then the story will change. But until then, purchasing at MSRP is getting price gouged by the current market leader simply because they now offer the best product.

I never once supported Intels’ blatant price gouging when they were the performance leader, and I certainly am not going to accept it now from AMD simply because its AMD doing it.

Well that’s up to you. I showed you the competitor’s price.

And we all know that price doesn’t always scale linearly with performance. There’s always diminishing returns.

To me, this price change signifies AMD’s confidence in their product and that they are now in the position to dictate prices.

Do these CPUs exist in a bubble where their only competitor is Intel? They are also competing with themselves.

3900X $430. 5900X is faster and 28% more expensive, $120 more.
3700X* $295. 5800X is faster and 52% more expensive, $155 more.
3600X $210. 5600X is faster and 43% more expensive, $90 more.

These CPUs are in no way competitive with Zen 2, and I will be shocked if any of these CPUs offer performance increases tier to tier in line with their massive cost increases. It simply isn’t going to happen. The increase isn’t based in any reality beyond, “Intel overcharged for their CPUs, so lets do the same.”

Once the street prices come down, like they always do for AMD (I bought my 1700 new for $160, and promptly overclocked it to beyond 1800X numbers with its $499 launch MSRP), this will change. But as of right now, out of the gate MSRP pricing? Unsustainable and squarely in wishful thinking territory. Its delusional to think these prices won’t quickly crash to more realistic numbers after initial launch demand is over.

*its universally agreed the 3800X is a dismal value, not worth the extra money and should be avoided.

Need I remind you of Nvidia’s shenanigans?

Also, Intel is not only guilty of this same stuff but does it as a feature. AMD also had similar problems with Zen+ and Zen 2.

Again, we’re at the mercy of the manufacturer’s claims and my comments on value are predicated on them being accurate, which I stated at the very beginning.

People pay more for diminishing returns and that’s not a new concept.

Regarding competing against themselves, that’s the same problem Nvidia had with the Pascal cards.

AMD will have to deal with that at some point, likely in the form of discontinuing the production of the older Zen 2 chips, or price cuts that are likely to materialize as a marketing strategy over Rocket Lake.

The big difference between Zen+ and Zen2 launches is that this time it would appear Zen 3 has the upper hand in performance not only against their competition, but also themselves.

Obviously we need to wait for benchmarks. But I would not be surprised if they pulled it off this time.

I’m less upset about AMD for charging a premium on their CPUs than the blatant LIES from Nvidia regarding the $699 3080…with the imminent release of the 20gb 3080 cards and Nvidia themselves halting the sale of 10gb $699 FE cards…it’s obvious the whole $699 price point was a fairy tale.

These cards were always meant to be $1000 GPUs and the first release was just smoke and mirrors.

It’s likely AMD knows their Zen 3 chips won’t compete with Rocketlake the same way they do with 10th gen, so they are going to hold on to the price cut for Q1.

But at least this time, Zen 3 appears to be ahead of 10th gen, which wasn’t the same dynamic with Zen 2 coming out of the gate. They had to use price to justify their performance.

Other people did it, so I can to, and that makes overcharging for products a-okay!

bzzzzzzzt Wrong.

Imagine having to discontinue a product line to be able to say your current products are competitive. It’s embarrassing, I’m not going to suggest its a betrayal, because AMD isn’t beholden to me, but I have trashed talked Nvidia and Intel for years on Reddit for price gouging and artificially marking up products, simply because they think they can.

I’m not about to give AMD a pass because they just now joined in the “lets screw consumers” party with the 5000 series.

Pricing doesn’t exist in a vacuum, you have to consider the costs and performance of the previous generation in addition to outside competitors. Intel overcharges for their products, everyone knows that. Nvidias RTX2000 line up was shunned from a sales perspective. AMD isn’t going to get a pass on this from reviewers, consumers, or the general market. People generally know whats a good deal, and that aint this, at these price points.

Maybe if they get rid of the 3000 series and we have no choice in the matter, then sure, it will be in the same ballpark as Intel, but I fully expect Intel to lower prices to compete. Except for the 10900k, which doesn’t seem to actually exist in any meaningful amount of stock anywhere. And will likely remain highly priced due to a lack of stock.

Also, if you compare the performance of the 10850k to the 10900k, its virtually identical. The price however, means the the $550 5900X will be in reality competing with the $480 10850K, and thats a solid decisive price/performance victory for Intel. Doubly so since the 10850K can actually be purchased near MSPR, unlike the 10900K.

AMD does not need to justify their pricing schemes to anyone but their shareholders.

I disagree with you fundamentally and have explained why I believe their pricing is

A: competitive
B: in a completely different position compared to prior Ryzen releases
C: dynamic in regards to competitor’s releases.

You are just being 1D chess and are hung up on two things, one which we don’t know (that is absolute performance) and two: the fact AMD can and will use their prices to affect market perception.

The “whataboutism” of nvidia was a snark on my part, but not my primary argument, yet you clung to it like the bible.

Ultimately, AMD no longer needs to hide behind prices because they are on top. When you’re on top, you decide.

Lets agree to meet back here in six to nine months to see what the pricing looks like at that point. If you’re right, the pricing will either be stable or even have increased to above Intels current pricing. If I’m right, it will be lower than launch MSRP.

Which do you think is going to happen?

But lets be real, everyone here knows exactly whats going to happen to the street prices of these CPUs.

They’ll drop the prices when Rocket Lake launches. I believe I’ve said this.

Numerous times.

Don’t be too sure on price drops. Rocket Lake leaks aren’t showing massive improvements, more like trading blows. I’m wondering if AMD is just going to release the non-X versions and just price it lower.

Maybe. Either way, I think AMD is rightfully in a position to dictate prices right now, despite people whining about it.

1 Like