Maybe at the high but in the mainstream intel are comfortably ahead. AMD should really be going for 8 cores on the ryzen 5 by now.
You said Intel, comfortable and ahead in the same sentence.
-
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 5 rumours
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
You said Intel, comfortable and ahead in the same sentence.
Caporegime
1600X: 100%
2600X: 110%
3800X: 161%
5800X: 216%
7700X: 264%
7000 series was a 13'th gen competitor, as soon as 14'th gen appeared the 7000 series got a price drop.
2600X: 110%
3800X: 161%
5800X: 216%
7700X: 264%
Maybe at the high but in the mainstream intel are comfortably ahead. AMD should really be going for 8 cores on the ryzen 5 by now.
7000 series was a 13'th gen competitor, as soon as 14'th gen appeared the 7000 series got a price drop.
Last edited:
all I hope is that 9000X will not attempt to bring prices back up. 7000X release price was stupid, although could be justified
But 2 years later 6 and 8 core non-3D cpus are basically low end
Caporegime
Also @Joxeon The Ryzen 7600 is £183, the 14600KF is £290, you're not seriously suggesting they are in the same class bracket?
The 7700 is £10 more.
The 7700 is £10 more.
Last edited:
But with solid performance on offer for many tasks.
Caporegime
15'th gen will be expensive, its large, on the most advanced node with very expensive packaging.
I think its Intel's hope to be able to go back to high pricing for CPU's with these, they may get a surprise.
Caporegime
I think what going to happen is Ryzen 9000 series might not be quite as good as 15'th gen, but to do it Intel will be producing very expensive CPU's while AMD's are very cheap, they are at extreme ends.
Intel will want to say "ha... see we can beat them" If AMD are smart they will say "yeah but its so expensive compared to ours we can still make a profit selling ours at a price where you make a loss"
Anyone can make a fast CPU, if you make it big enough on the most advanced node, look at Apples M chips, they are huge, and frankly still not that good... making tiny little CPU's on older cheaper nodes that are still fast, that's a skill Intel don't have.
If i was AMD i would be punishing Intel at every turn, i would be beating them down relentlessly. Never let them get back on their feet.
Intel will want to say "ha... see we can beat them" If AMD are smart they will say "yeah but its so expensive compared to ours we can still make a profit selling ours at a price where you make a loss"
Anyone can make a fast CPU, if you make it big enough on the most advanced node, look at Apples M chips, they are huge, and frankly still not that good... making tiny little CPU's on older cheaper nodes that are still fast, that's a skill Intel don't have.
If i was AMD i would be punishing Intel at every turn, i would be beating them down relentlessly. Never let them get back on their feet.
Last edited:
Really your being alittle selective by only picking 1 product from the entire range and that's not evening going into the whole E and P core business
Last edited:
AMD only needs to undercut them by 10-20% on price while delivering similar or slightly less performance and it would be a winner, especially for those who are already on the AM5 platform.
Intel will really need to pull something out of the bag to score a big win, but intel being intel will probably end up charging too much for it.
13600k 14600k are pretty much the same CPU though anyway the MT gap was the same.
AMD need to win on gaming performance with the X3D, if Intel ends up faster in gaming and can get power consumption under control then AMD will have a problem as they are already trailing in single core and MT performance albeit not by much at the high end but more so in the mainstream.
Soldato
I agree. I game but don't use an X3D chip, the non-X3D CPUs work just fine in gaming as well as everything else. Maybes people should think of it as a seperate fork in production and release. I don't get the GPU analagy either. GPUs are GPUs. They don't do a special gaming GPU, unlike CPUs.
The first and second fastest gaming chips are both AMD two generations of Intel later.
Absolutely, X3D Ryzen chip is first and only gaming specific CPU’s.
Which is why having the best gaming chip helps to sell other sku’s kind of like with Nvidia on the GPU side.
In your opinion, but reading your last few posts your opinions are a horrible reflection of reality.
Caporegime
Ryzen 3000 series was about 10% behind Intel in gaming, that didn't really bother anyone because the price for 3000 series was decent, for example the Ryzen 3600 was £200 vs £250 for the 9600K, the 3600 was about 90% the gaming performance of the 9600K.
And here is the thing about the X3D chips, AMD don't really price them as premium, the 7800X3D is 12% more expensive than the 7700X, or 20% more expensive than the 7700, its £360, that's not a premium priced product.
And here is the thing about the X3D chips, AMD don't really price them as premium, the 7800X3D is 12% more expensive than the 7700X, or 20% more expensive than the 7700, its £360, that's not a premium priced product.
Last edited:
The reality is that Intel still leads the way with OEM sales, AMD does well in the enthusiast segment where people build their own PCs and this is mainly for gaming.
Last edited:
Caporegime
So where people choose what CPU they put in their self built PC they are choosing AMD, where people are buying a box because the nice man in the shop said it does the thing and it has RGB its got an Intel CPU in it.
I think a lot of these SI's have Intel because it the only way they can shift Intel's stock.
AMD sells its self, Intel needs to be pushed on people who don't know what they are buying.
Last edited:
The reality is, you’re all over the place.