This all day, if you have a superior product to your rival surely you have a right to charge a premium? For reference though the 5950X was same price as the 3950X but granted there was some price hikes further down teh stack. Why is it such a crime for AMD to do this when Intel were doing teh exact same thing with less performance gain each generation?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Loses Value Crown - Best CPUs of 2021, December Edition
- Thread starter Purgatory
- Start date
Soldato
It was a flat 50 bucks on every SKU. That's negligible on the 5950X, but was hard to swallow on the 5600X, especially when there was no non-X variant this time. But this is part of my point; we'd all discussed, opined and lamented this price jump when the CPUs were announced 18 months ago. It's just not been relevant outside of the usual children whining incessantly about how AMD have screwed their loyal fanbase by doing an Intel and overcharging (somewhat hyperbolic on my part, but not much). But every time a discussion comes up about AMD's future products, rumours and all that, time and time again it's dragged up by the same old people.
The aforementioned perception that AMD had screwed their loyal customers by charging actual, proper money for their legitimately superior product. All the blowhards seem to forget the only reason AMD CPUs were "value kings" for so long was because they were fighting an uphill battle against Intel's mindshare. AMD could offer just enough performance for a chunk of change cheaper, and use that as the foundation of their competitiveness.
But it seems the feeble of comprehension just assumed that meant AMD were always going to be the stalwarts of value, even continue to undercut Intel, even when it was clear that Zen as a concept was going to batter Intel in a very short period of time.
It was $100 increase on a 6 core Zen 3 part or a 50% price increase over Zen 2, there was no 5600 non X because the 5600X was that part but just rebranded to the X and featured the same 65w TDP that the non X parts have always to fool consumers into thinking the price rise wasn't as steep.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,556
Though you do realise that AMD no longer needed to wear the 'price to performance' robe anymore. They were then king of the hill in both main metrics we tend to use; single and multithreaded, so therefore they charged accordingly and why wouldn't/shouldn't they? You gotta make hay while the sun shines - or rather maximise those profits while you're ahead!
AMD shouldn't be putting the largest % rise on the lowest end CPU in the stack though especially as that meant the price increased by a larger percentage than the actual performance over their previous generation.
Also people shouldn't be defending price hikes no matter which company's is doing it especially when the rise % outstrips the performance.
Last edited:
AMD can do whatever they want, if you don't like it then go to Intel savior. this discussion is pointless. Every company want maximum profit, i remember well Intel dominance era, no one talked about price cuz they were dominant, today competition is better so you can always go to other side and support it if you think previous company politics is unfair, LOL.
Soldato
Companies can do what they want with their pricing. We can do what we want with our money.
Exactly, currently AMD dominates in sales, we can talk about that all day and spit on customers, but it is their choice, and AMD doesn't have reason to do price cut and offer something better cuz of that. When they feel threatened they will release something to counter that, we could spit on Intel for waiting so long to offer something good, but as i said it is pointless.
Not only they have been doing GPU comparisons without even using resizeable bar, now they are doing comparisons for "value CPUS" without taking into account the price of the whole system (DDR4, motherboard etc), not that i think AMD is cheap mind you, they definitely need some price cuts on their CPUS but i just find this kinda videos literally made for the sole purpose of click baiting.
No one talked about price because Intel never bumped prices by 50% in one generation on an i5 SKU even though they were in a much stronger position back then against the competition than AMD are today, infact between the i5 2500k in 2011 and the i5 12600k in 2021 the price has only rose by a total of 34% or 22% for the KF version with a performance increase of 183% in ST and 545% in MT.
Last edited:
Soldato
AMD generally dont socket change as often, and from my rather slower memory these days I do recall intel always being dearer than AMD over the years (many years). As it was back then and is the case now, whoever is the mindshare brand of the moment seems to get a wider birth as its cool to own that brand.
Don't forget, especially on enthusiast forums like this - it tends to settle into us vs them mentality and strange pompous posts which are not really necessary.
Don't forget, especially on enthusiast forums like this - it tends to settle into us vs them mentality and strange pompous posts which are not really necessary.
Soldato
This is the thread closer really. An army of intel mindshare would be all over you years ago if anyone was championing the budget segment in such fashion! Oh how the worm has turned.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,556
You're focusing on the wrong thing.
AMD went from 2nd place to top spot, therefore it is pretty standard to charge a premium for that i.e. Apple.
I'm neither defending or criticising that, I'm just cognisant of how things work, economics 101 if you will. It is not as if AMD provide an essential service, i.e. public transport or gas/electricity. Which is why we have regulators for those.
They provide a niche product to which you either pay the price of admission or you don't, no one is forcing you and to moan about it is similar to Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
As far as I remember there was no expectation of price. They didn't say it was going to be x and then changed it to y, if they did then your point might be valid.
Last edited:
Soldato
They even stated a while ago that they were no longer a budget brand...
but they dont provide premium support and service like intel do. hence why most businesses use intel.
Soldato
We are not talking about business anyway, this is regular consumer home desktop... 
Soldato
Intel lost market share because they "waited until the felt threatened". People saying that overcharging "worked for intel so it should work for AMD" seem to have a different definition of what it means for something to work.
If your competition is offering better performance for less money, you should feel threatened....now.
-or you could wait until your sales fall and try to play catch up.
Soldato
What part of "stop whinging" did you miss?
And definitely stop with this "AMD fooled customers" conspiracy nonsense you've peddled for over a year, twisting numbers to suit your narrative.I disagree. AMD simply isn't competing at the low end. It has no competition to the 11400 and below. AMD is doing very well in competing at the high end - Ryzen 5600 and better - and has little competition in the HEDT (Threadripper Pro) space, but at the low end Intel wins by default.
So I'm not allowed to discuss AMDs value for money proposition in a thread about AMDs value because you can't bear to hear the truth and keep on peddling the same nonsense about the 5600X being not being a direct replacement for the 3600 despite it being the same spec part with an X on the end and yet a year ago you were arguing that a 5600 non X would come out for cheaper even though I said many times that wouldn't happen but you wouldn't have it and now your having to resort to mud slinging.What part of "stop whinging" did you miss?