-
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.
OcUK Intel Raptor Lake review thread
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Just thinking to myself.... given how well the 13600KF performs, reckon we will see any price drops from amd on the 5800x3d now? Suspect it is more likely they'll drop price on the 7xx chips to get people to upgrade to new platform though.....
The per core pricing of the Ryzen 5 CPUs is higher than a Ryzen 7 7900X or Ryzen 9 7950X. A Ryzen 7 7600X should be £290 and a Ryzen 7 7700X should be £385 if the per core pricing was the same. If anything being lower level SKUs with probably worse quality chiplets they should be closer to £250 and £350. But by setting it so high,Intel get's an easy "win" by charging a bit more than a Ryzen 5 7600X.
It also worries me as AM4 motherboards are slowing starting to disappear and go up in price too. Just look at what you could get for £100 six months ago. This is the dGPU market all over again.
At this point I might eventually get a laptop,and use a console. The tech companies just are getting way too greedy now. Nvidia does not even care anymore.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I'm talking about a gaming CPU, you don't need those cores for gaming, in fact if anything they are a hindrance to 12 and 13 gen, you would do better in turning them E cores off.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Think about what you're saying, they are worth more because they have E cores, its the same as that argument that Nvidia GPU's are worth more because of DLSS.
Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? We really do deserve this don't we?
Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? We really do deserve this don't we?
Last edited:
Caporegime
We used to think the i5 2500K was a better value CPU than the 2600K because we didn't need Hyper Threading for gaming.
Last edited:
Soldato
5600x is still a good chip and I wouldn't be going to a dead socket. Wait for the Zen 4 3d and see how they perform, prices should come down by then.
Caporegime
Now everyone with a forum account is trying to up sell more expensive parts for features that shouldn't even exist.
Last edited:
Caporegime
By his own argument LGA 1700 is a dead socket.
But in my case I don't just game - I do other things too and I can see that in the benchmarks. Now AMD decided a pure six core is over £300 and their pure eight core is over £400,Intel feels it can make its Core i5 cost slightly more and gets an easy win. Not surprising when AMD is pricing their six and eight cores at a higher premium over their 12 and 16 core CPUs.
So now essentially we are back to six core CPUs costing £300+ just like with the old Core i7 8700K. It appears if we want to get generational performance improvements,we pay more for it just like dGPUs.
Like with dGPUs,none of them want to compete with each other,just raise their prices by putting products in between each other. What Intel,Nvidia and AMD need is too lose billions more in revenue(they already are),and then realise the pandemic was a one off situation.
Caporegime
And now we have a £400 6 core CPU are you're happy with that.
I was never happy with a £300 Six Core, my arguments are completely consistent.
Who are these CPU's for? they are not for creative types, previously someone who isn't looking to buy the best GPU's would be looking for a CPU around £200, we used to get pretty good CPU's for around £200, the 2500K and many generations after that from both sides, for example, that then became £300, as you said not good, now its £350, the ones tech journalists are gearing up to call the-best-CPU-in-that-category-ever is near £400.
Have we collectivity lost our minds?
"Oh but E cores"..... and the first thing you should do when you get your £400 gaming CPU is turn those things off!
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,923
cost to start with. if you are comparing CPU's you use the same RAM. It is pretty obvious otherwise your results are skewed. you only change one variable in a test or the results are not valid.
Caporegime
£400 for these things isn't going to make AMD budge on the price of the 7600X, because £320 is better than £380 if you don't want to pay £400+ for something just to drive your midrange GPU.
Just as it is with GPU's either we are all happy with that or stop excusing these prices for features that shouldn't exist, because this is why they exist, these are not the people who are stupid.
Just as it is with GPU's either we are all happy with that or stop excusing these prices for features that shouldn't exist, because this is why they exist, these are not the people who are stupid.
Last edited:
Deleted member 258511
D
Deleted member 258511
I can’t see prices going down. It’s the same with most things now, less for more £.
Associate
I'm thrilled with these reviews, specifically the LTT review (they were the only ones to test 4k gaming) i know that at that resolution the differences are minimal but to see it was very reassuring.
As someone who needs a new GPU (on a 1080ti) to see that my little 5600x that i bought this year to replace my 1700x it's great to see that I don't need to upgrade to run 4k. This means I can go all out on a new GPU when i see the results of Nov 3rd and not worry about performance. Looking at this perhaps it will be several years still until i need to upgrade my 5600x
Very happy today!!!
As someone who needs a new GPU (on a 1080ti) to see that my little 5600x that i bought this year to replace my 1700x it's great to see that I don't need to upgrade to run 4k. This means I can go all out on a new GPU when i see the results of Nov 3rd and not worry about performance. Looking at this perhaps it will be several years still until i need to upgrade my 5600x
Very happy today!!!
Associate
From what i have taken away from most of the reviews i have seen, the 13900k is the faster CPU overall, but it trades blows with AMD in different games and benchmarks, but ultimately Intel has regained the crown for the fastest gaming CPU, but the lead isn't always significant, i still tip my hat to you Intel. However if you game in 4K, its all about the GPU and the difference between the CPUs is minimal.
One thing that seems to be strange from some of the reviews is the testing methodologies some of the reviews have used that doesn't really provide an even playing field in the tests such as different class of boards used across the platforms, different speeds of DDR5 where applicable. Some of the reviews talked about value proposition with the 13900K chips coming out cheaper and the ability to use DDR4, but none of the reviews i saw included testing the 13900k with DDR4
One thing that seems to be strange from some of the reviews is the testing methodologies some of the reviews have used that doesn't really provide an even playing field in the tests such as different class of boards used across the platforms, different speeds of DDR5 where applicable. Some of the reviews talked about value proposition with the 13900K chips coming out cheaper and the ability to use DDR4, but none of the reviews i saw included testing the 13900k with DDR4
Associate
The 13900K is fast but the power requirements are insane. The pricing is so damned high though, a trend that goes back some way and both manufacturers are guilty. The 7600X is too expensive, especially when coupled with the motherboard pricing, and the 13600K ends up with a similar platform price due to the extra £60 it costs despite the cheaper mobos (assuming DDR5), although it does offer more performance. Definitely happy to sit tight, would go for an X3D if I needed a little more oomph.