• 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 "Zen 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***

AMD better pray that the 3D chip is really far ahead of the competition.
Or you know they could just price their CPUs to reflect their performance against the competition

They could but when some people are trying to defend the Ryzen 5 7600X and expensive AM5 platform,why would they care? Then on purpose trying to ignore the E-cores help performance too.

It was the same with Zen3,they defended AMD jacking up prices(bad when Intel did it,but not when it was on the other foot). Then also ignored that Intel has had some very decent value options under £300 in the last two years or so.

In 2022 how can people defend a £300+ six core CPU,when Intel has given us a 14 core hybrid CPU for similar money?!
 
Last edited:
They could but when some people are trying to defend the Ryzen 5 7600X and expensive AM5 platform,why would they care? Then on purpose trying to ignore the E-cores help performance too.

It was the same with Zen3,they defended AMD jacking up prices(bad when Intel did it,but not when it was on the other foot). Then also ignored that Intel has had some very decent value options under £300 in the last two years or so.

In 2022 how can people defend a £300+ six core CPU,when Intel has given us a 14 core hybrid CPU for similar money?!

Don't disagree with any of that. And yet muggins here is still wanting to go with AM5 purely because I know I can get at least another CPU gen out of it. That could backfire though if they are still behind, everything I have would be riding on the 3D chip being good.
I nearly pulled the trigger last night on the 13600kf. Ultimately no matter what I get, I'll always wish I probably got the other thing such is life.
 
Last edited:
They could but when some people are trying to defend the Ryzen 5 7600X and expensive AM5 platform,why would they care? Then on purpose trying to ignore the E-cores help performance too.

It was the same with Zen3,they defended AMD jacking up prices(bad when Intel did it,but not when it was on the other foot). Then also ignored that Intel has had some very decent value options under £300 in the last two years or so.

In 2022 how can people defend a £300+ six core CPU,when Intel has given us a 14 core hybrid CPU for similar money?!

That holds true if you happen to game with a top card. People that are interested in a 7600x are unlikely to have such a high end card. The 13600k is essentially a 6 core CPU for gaming. Both systems are hugely expensive and not worth the money. I'm interested in how these CPUs do with mid range cards and upgrade paths. Intel are on a dead platform so if you are buying a 13 series CPU you are on it for a good few years. Neither company is offering anything worth while. Intel are using far too much power to achieve their MT scores.
 
That holds true if you happen to game with a top card. People that are interested in a 7600x are unlikely to have such a high end card. The 13600k is essentially a 6 core CPU for gaming. Both systems are hugely expensive and not worth the money. I'm interested in how these CPUs do with mid range cards and upgrade paths. Intel are on a dead platform so if you are buying a 13 series CPU you are on it for a good few years. Neither company is offering anything worth while. Intel are using far too much power to achieve their MT scores.

Agree with this too. Don't really like either options but I just don't want to buy old stuff
 
Don't disagree with any of that. And yet muggins here is still wanting to go with AM5 purely because I know I can get at least another CPU gen out of it. That could backfire though if they are still behind, everything I have would be riding on the 3D chip being good.
I nearly pulled the trigger last night on the 13600kf. Ultimately no matter what I get, I'll always wish I probably got the other thing such is life.

depending how desperate you are or need system now, I would wait see what the 3d offers if primary is gaming hope they give different tiers in it still wont be cheap but with Intel competing can only hope I know board and ram prices will drop
at the moment im leaning towards 3d+b650e board
 
depending how desperate you are or need system now, I would wait see what the 3d offers if primary is gaming hope they give different tiers in it still wont be cheap but with Intel competing can only hope I know board and ram prices will drop
at the moment im leaning towards 3d+b650e board

Don't judge me but I kind of wanted to play the new WOW expansion and some other stuff.

I have seen a fairly decent X670E board for 290 today which I'm tempted to buy because although expensive that is not in the price range where I'm going to cry if it drops by 100 quid in a month.

I do not own a pc currently.
 
Last edited:
Don't judge me but I kind of wanted to play the new WOW expansion and some other stuff.

I have seen a fairly decent X670E board for 290 today which I'm tempted to buy because although expensive that is not in the price range where I'm going to cry if it drops by 100 quid in a month.

my limit would be around £300 for a board if went with x670e but I dont need that when prices settle can see b650e being good amount lower, but no rush here so just gonna wait for the dust to settle more and look with interest what 3d offers
 
Last edited:
AMD CPU/motherboards are in a real mess in my opinion. The crazy 2mm thick IHS to get partial AM4 cooler support and needing to have tape to protect the gaps. The £300 to £900+ motherboards. Intel is now the value option and performance is very close, so it becomes a no brainer to go Intel, more so at the low to mid-range. AMD needs to act before they lose the market share they gained.
 
AMD CPU/motherboards are in a real mess in my opinion. The crazy 2mm thick IHS to get partial AM4 cooler support and needing to have tape to protect the gaps. The £300 to £900+ motherboards. Intel is now the value option and performance is very close, so it becomes a no brainer to go Intel, more so at the low to mid-range. AMD needs to act before they lose the market share they gained.

you dont need tape , spread method and you will hardly see anything drop if it does its not a issue using none conductive paste easily cleaned with IPA, but yes I agree I would have preferred needing new bracket instead not like they cost a lot some even give them out for free , the boards will drop in price over time as will DDR5
 
I have a 1700 and a 5600x. Changing to a 5800 or 5900 will improve my system no ends for a lot less than AM5 or 13 series.

Yeah that's all really good still. I know this but I have some stupid mental block that just means I cannot bring myself to do it. Closest I got was a 58003D but then I thought £360 is still a lot of a processor I wont be able to upgrade from without changing everything again.
 
That holds true if you happen to game with a top card. People that are interested in a 7600x are unlikely to have such a high end card. The 13600k is essentially a 6 core CPU for gaming. Both systems are hugely expensive and not worth the money. I'm interested in how these CPUs do with mid range cards and upgrade paths. Intel are on a dead platform so if you are buying a 13 series CPU you are on it for a good few years. Neither company is offering anything worth while. Intel are using far too much power to achieve their MT scores.

Sure,but we are just comparing the new releases from both companies. Going with Zen3 or even Alderlake makes the best sense in terms of value for money. A Ryzen 7 5700X is under £240.

The Core i5 13600KF is as fast/faster in many image editing,video encoding and rendering benchmarks as a Ryzen 7 7700X or Ryzen 9 5900X/5950X:

That includes stuff I use and know plenty of people use. So if you are building new its competing in productivity benchmarks with CPUs over £420.

The extra 8 Skylake level meme cores would help with streaming and video capture performance. In some of the more CPU limited games,I could see Zen4 or Rocket Lake improving performance a decent amount over my Ryzen 7 5700X.

So for the non-gaming stuff the Core i5 13600KF looks impressive,especially since the performance drop with decent DDR4 is probably at worst about 10% looking at some comparisons. Even capping the TDP and undervolting the Core i5 13600KF wouldn't drop performance too much. Also,the dead platform argument doesn't hold because the Ryzen 5 7600X is a weaker CPU, so you will have to replace it quicker.It also costs only slightly less than the Core i5 13600KF. In the US they cost more or less the same.

If the Ryzen 7 7700X was closer in price to the Core i5 13600K/Core i5 13600KF it would be more of a point IMHO.With AM4,the AMD CPUs were much cheaper than the Intel options for similar core counts or offered far more for the same money. This time they are not cheap.

So for someone going for a new "high end" build,a Core i5 13600KF,with a decent DDR4 B660 and some tuned DDR4 makes the most sense. Also not everyone upgrades on the same platform - plenty of people on here just say that and changed the CPU and motherboard. An example is when AMD blocked PCI-E 4.0 on B450/X470(it did work) and people ditched decent motherboards to get a 500 series motherboard. Also remember AMD tried to block Zen3 on B450/X470 until the backlash happened:

There is no guarantee on B650/X670 with Zen5 there won't be feature blocked or have some issue happening.

Now do I think both are overpriced,especially with our poor exchange rates. But if we are comparing overpriced products,Intel is offering something better for less money.

Personally for me,I hope this release makes AMD price its lower end Zen4 products better. Because if does not happen,we will be having £400 six core CPUs from AMD with Zen5.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's all really good still. I know this but I have some stupid mental block that just means I cannot bring myself to do it. Closest I got was a 58003D but then I thought £360 is still a lot of a processor I wont be able to upgrade from without changing everything again.

That was a decent price - I almost thought of getting one myself but since I had a Ryzen 7 5700X already so didn't.
 
That was a decent price - I almost thought of getting one myself but since I had a Ryzen 7 5700X already so didn't.

Yeah especially as I can get a nice Strix B550 board for around £150 (or cheaper options). I know FOMO would kick in later when new 3D is released but I kinda feel it's best to perhaps give the cheaper stuff a chance because you might be happy with it, rather than go expensive and regret not trying the cheaper option. Inevitably I'll end up taking so long to decide that I'll lose enthusiasm either way and not bother, that's normally what I do.
 
Sure,but we are just comparing the new releases from both companies. Going with Zen3 or even Alderlake makes the best sense in terms of value for money. A Ryzen 7 5700X is under £240.

The Core i5 13600KF is as fast/faster in many image editing,video encoding and rendering benchmarks as a Ryzen 7 7700X or Ryzen 9 5900X/5950X:

That includes stuff I use and know plenty of people use. So if you are building new its competing in productivity benchmarks with CPUs over £420.

The extra 8 Skylake level meme cores would help with streaming and video capture performance. In some of the more CPU limited games,I could see Zen4 or Rocket Lake improving performance a decent amount over my Ryzen 7 5700X.

So for the non-gaming stuff the Core i5 13600KF looks impressive,especially since the performance drop with decent DDR4 is probably at worst about 10% looking at some comparisons. Even capping the TDP and undervolting the Core i5 13600KF wouldn't drop performance too much. Also,the dead platform argument doesn't hold because the Ryzen 5 7600X is a weaker CPU, so you will have to replace it quicker.It also costs only slightly less than the Core i5 13600KF. In the US they cost more or less the same.

If the Ryzen 7 7700X was closer in price to the Core i5 13600K/Core i5 13600KF it would be more of a point IMHO.With AM4,the AMD CPUs were much cheaper than the Intel options for similar core counts or offered far more for the same money. This time they are not cheap.

So for someone going for a new "high end" build,a Core i5 13600KF,with a decent DDR4 B660 and some tuned DDR4 makes the most sense. Also not everyone upgrades on the same platform - plenty of people on here just say that and changed the CPU and motherboard. An example is when AMD blocked PCI-E 4.0 on B450/X470(it did work) and people ditched decent motherboards to get a 500 series motherboard. Also remember AMD tried to block Zen3 on B450/X470 until the backlash happened:

There is no guarantee on B650/X670 with Zen5 there won't be feature blocked or have some issue happening.

Now do I think both are overpriced,especially with our poor exchange rates. But if we are comparing overpriced products,Intel is offering something better for less money.

Personally for me,I hope this release makes AMD price its lower end Zen4 products better. Because if does not happen,we will be having £400 six core CPUs from AMD with Zen5.
click bait title again. 7600x has better average than the 13600K while being a cheaper CPU. productivity is irrelevant for these chips TBH.

Totally relevant because these are over £300,and the Core i5 13600KF destroys the Ryzen 5 7600X in productivity as I told you above. It is a 14 core CPU with 8 of those cores being Skylake level performance.

Steve recommended lots of AMD CPUs when they were slower in gaming but faster in productivity over the Intel counterparts. Ryzen 5 3600X against the Core i5 9600K comes to mind.

Seems productivity was a big deal for people when the Ryzen 5 3600/Ryzen 7 3700X beat the Intel competition,but now the tables are turned apparently £300+ CPUs are only for gaming.

In many cases its as fast or faster as the "entry level" Zen4 productivity CPU,the Ryzen 7 7700X. The Core i5 13600K with its IGP has Quick Sync which can be used by Adobe software.Also lots of gamers now stream or video capture because of Twitch,etc. The 8 extra Skylake level meme cores,means its a better choice than a Ryzen 5 7600X and maybe even a Ryzen 7 7700X in this case too.

The Hardware Unboxed review is one of the most favourable for the Ryzen 5 7600X and Steve said the Ryzen 5 7600X needed a massive discount. Most reviewers feel the same - the only people defending the overpriced Ryzen 5 7600X are people on here,who are on AMD now. I am on AM4 too,and will probably get Zen5,but I don't need to defend an overpriced CPU just because I generally prefer AMD. All you are doing is making future purchases of AMD CPUs more expensive.

Intel made my AMD purchases cheaper,so credit has to be given to Intel for making a decent performing Core i5. I agree with all the reviewers - the Ryzen 5 7600X needs a big price cut,and that will lead to a Ryzen 7 7700X being cheaper too.

Here,I compiled a lot of gaming reviews from other websites:

They are less favourable to the Ryzen 5 7600X with the Core i5 13600KF moving ahead of it.

A whole lot of you defended AMD jacking up the prices of Zen3 - the first £300 6 core CPU since the overpriced Core i7 8700K,was the Ryzen 5 5600X. It took Intel to release the Core i5 12600K and Core i5 12400 for us to get a sub £200 Ryzen 5 5600 non-X and a sub £300 Ryzen 7 5700X.

It will take Raptor Lake for AMD to drop pricing on its Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 7 7700X. If not Zen5 will arrive before Meteor Lake,and we will have a £400 Ryzen 5 8600X with six cores.

Competition is what drives prices down,not batting for the side you put your money into.
 
Last edited:
Credit has to be given to Intel for making a decent performing Core i5.

I think the naming is irrelevant really, as we all know Intel use to segment based on HT, e.g. 2500k/2600k or 8600k/8700k. The main thing to be noted from the current competitive market is that they have been forced to use what would have been a higher SKU in the line up, at a more entry level position to even be considered as competitive, which is great for the consumer, but not so much for Intel.

After all this market place is tiny, there are so few enthusiast parts sold vs generic desktop parts how does that reflect on the greater margin and downward price creep of these better specified SKU's, how many generations can it be sustained for and when will it reverse? The fact AMD are even able to list a SKU like the 7600X at such a high price speaks volumes about the struggle they have put the competition in, and this is a market that is purely about optics and marketing, not volume and profit.

Someone asked me yesterday, should they get a 7700X, or a 13600K based system, I said neither, get a 5600 with a B550 and 32GB of DDR4 for the same price as the 13600K on its own, and put the money into your savings account, wait for the prices drops, speak with your wallet and get the same performance you were going to anyhow. He couldn't understand that neither of the new platforms offered value, and both have major caveats right now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom