Soldato
Apparently AMD are launching the 5700X at $399, and the 5800X is now priced at $539 to compete with the 11900K on price, as that is the new price for a top of the line 8c/16t part! 
-
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.
Rocket lake leaks
- Thread starter pc-guy
- Start date
Caporegime
Apparently AMD are launching the 5700X at $399, and the 5800X is now priced at $539 to compete with the 11900K on price, as that is the new price for a top of the line 8c/16t part!
Haha... funny
Soldato
Caporegime
Why is the 11900K, which is the same CPU as the 11700K + 100Mhz $200 more? Intel are desperate to hold on to that "Premium Brand" mind share they haven't had for about 2 years.
They price themselves as high as they are allowed to.
Ask AMD and the customers.
AMD for pricing its CPUs so high, and the customers - why those still buy them.
Caporegime
Never be surprised by Dave. When it comes to Intel all reason and logic goes out the window.
The 11900K is a lemon. Hot, expensive, slow. It's actually impressive Intel have managed to achieve something this lacklustre. To have to hack two cores off their flagship to get a viable product is pretty embarrassing.
Caporegime
The 5600X and 5800X are pricey, but they are the best in class and Intel don't do 12 and 16 core CPU's.
Seen the 5600x for ~£240, which is still more than I was aiming for, but screw it. Waited long enough and wasted enough time looking around.
If I can get it for that price it's about the best value that's currently available, with an eye towards single-thread perf. (The £330 price atm tho is a total joke)
The heat issues of the 5800x have put me right off it, as well as the £420 price tag..
Just means I won't keep it as long as I'd maybe have kept the 5800x, which gives me an excuse in a couple years time to go through all the misery again
Associate
The 11900k price takes the ****, on par or slower than the 5800x or even the 9900k, power hungry and hot as the sun. It's worth barley more than half that and they have the balls to charge $200 more for a microscopic frequency bump over the 11700k!. Intels lost it.
I'd love to know where all these M.2 drives are magically getting all their PCI-E lanes from without sacrificing them from the 16x GPU slot. You gotta laugh 4x M.2 drives need 16x lanes in total, but you've only got 24 over all. Perhaps some nice PCI-E switches will save the day, or failing that MAGIC!
The same magical place as Ryzen's X570:
Z590: 20 gen 4 lanes from CPU (16 for GPU, 4 for M.2), DMI 3.0 x8 link from CPU to chipset
X570: 20 gen 4 lanes from CPU (16 for GPU, 4 for M.2), 4 gen 4 lanes from CPU to chipset
DMI x8 link = same bandwidth as X570's x4 gen 4 lanes from CPU to chipset.
Obviously chipsets provide more lanes, but these all use the two interfaces above (which are the same speed for z590, x570) to actually transfer the data.
Personally, I prefer the 4 M.2 slots on the Z590 solution, but each to their own, choice is awesome
The same magical place as Ryzen's X570:
Z590: 20 gen 4 lanes from CPU (16 for GPU, 4 for M.2), DMI 3.0 x8 link from CPU to chipset
X570: 20 gen 4 lanes from CPU (16 for GPU, 4 for M.2), 4 gen 4 lanes from CPU to chipset
DMI x8 link = same bandwidth as X570's x4 gen 4 lanes from CPU to chipset.
Obviously chipsets provide more lanes, but these all use the two interfaces above (which are the same speed for z590, x570) to actually transfer the data.
Personally, I prefer the 4 M.2 slots on the Z590 solution, but each to their own, choice is awesome
And once you populate 4 nvme drives into your z590 your rtx3080 is gonna run in x8 mode lol, enjoy your 8 gpu lanes
Soldato
No they provide connectivity to the bus, not more lanes. A 4x link at 4.0 or an 8x link at 3.0 has the same amount of bandwidth going back to the CPU, not forgetting all of the other devices connected to those lanes back to the CPU.
Personally, I prefer the 4 M.2 slots on the Z590 solution, but each to their own, choice is awesome
I prefer more slots, but only when it is done properly e.g. with actual lanes to support them not artificial lanes with no bandwidth allocated to them.
Soldato
Loving the BBC news headline
"Intel buys time with 'retrofit' Rocket Lake desktop PC chips"
"Intel buys time with 'retrofit' Rocket Lake desktop PC chips"
Associate
You've misread my post - that's exactly what I described:
"but these all use the two interfaces above (which are the same speed for z590, x570) to actually transfer the data."
Perhaps an easier way for you to understand would be to think of the Z590's DMI x8 3.0 link, and X570's x4 gen4 link from CPU > Chipset as a straw. You could have a chipset offering 100 lanes, but all data would still have to be transferred through the straw, limiting the total amount of bandwidth when multiple devices are in use at the same time. Both platforms have the same bandwidth from CPU > Chipset, leaving the only real difference being that Z590 gives you an option of having 4 M.2 slots.
Interesting article, especially this image from the article:
Just confirms what many of us have been saying; one small retailer's statistics (Mind Factory) being used by those financially/emotionally invested in AMD to represent their fantasy world market share data, has no bearing on the real life market conditions.
I'd have expected AMD to have claimed much more market share, considering how competitive Zen 3 is.
Interesting article, especially this image from the article:
Just confirms what many of us have been saying; one small retailer's statistics (Mind Factory) being used by those financially/emotionally invested in AMD to represent their fantasy world market share data, has no bearing on the real life market conditions.
I'd have expected AMD to have claimed much more market share, considering how competitive Zen 3 is.
Now look at the sales, all AMD.
Having existing market share doesn't mean anything, you don't make money from them. Has intel made money off you for hogging your 6700k for years and years? No. They make money when you buy a new CPU and right now AMD has all the sales
And people don't just buy a new CPU every years, most business don't either - they hold onto what they have until it fails or just gets too slow. It takes years for market share to change due to this behaviour, in time to come when old Xeon and 3000-8000 core I series owners upgrade AMD's market share will snowball