Question How in the world has AMD got the Ryzen 7600X and 7700X priced same when they are inferior even in P cores only compared to 13600K and 13700K

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Oct 9, 2022
I mean the Ryzen 7700X is an 8 core CPU and Ryzen 7600X is a 6 core CPU. And the 7700X is $399 and 7600X is $299.

Intel has the Core i7 13700K priced at $399 and Core i5 13600K priced at $399. And those CPUs have better P cores being 8 and 6 core counterparts with slightly better IPC than Zen 4 and can clock as high or higher with similar power usage. And for those who do not like e-cores (I am one of them, but I love Intel P cores) can disable them and you get better 6 and 8 core CPUs form Intel Raptor Lake than AMD Ryzen. And for those who want e-cores you get then as well for the same price and better P cores of equal core counts.

SO what is AMD thinking and they still have not budged on the prices of the 7600X and 7700X. They are pricing the like their 6 and 8 Zen 4 cores are better than Intel's Raptor Cove cores of equal count even though they are not any better and in fact not as good?? Or is that debatable??

The Ryzen 7900X and 7950X prices make more sense as then you get more than 8 strong cores and AMD has those by the balls who want more than 8 cores and do nit want to go hybrid route. SO yeah 7900X and 7950X prices make sense.

But 7600X and 7700X are almost a ripoff unless you just have not have AMD as they do nothing better than 13600K and 13700K for exact same price and have slightly weaker P cores and no additional e-cores for those that like the e-core options (And for those that do not it is easy peasy to disable and you get the better 6 and 8 core chips for the same price)

Its puzzling to me AMD is behaving as if they are still superior in all ways like they were with Ryzen 5000 from November 2020 to November 2021 when Intel was of no competition on core count nor per core IPC performance which was only for 1 year. I mean AMD is still much smaller and was underdog for years and hard to believe they think they can act they are premium brand in the 6 and 8 core CPU segment when the 7600X and 7700X are worse than Intel counterparts even with the e-cores off.

Your thoughts


Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
What is your workload that you benefit noticeably from a few extra bins of ring frequency, don't benefit from the extra MT of E-cores or HT, but do benefit from having 8 P-cores?
To be honest I can probably get by with my M1 Mac Mini. (Although thinking about it that thing came with its E cores, too!)


Apr 27, 2000
I meant to say that Intel would say their CPU node density is close to TSMC 3 or 4nm once they get to 7nm. I think it may be better than the 5nm TSMC silicon by a bit.

Intel 4 is a little late to the party.

With 3d V-cache standard. AMD would have been in a really good spot.

They're in a good spot now. Look at Genoa, which is what Zen4 is really all about. It has no contender in the x86 world, and ARM is really no threat to it yet, either.

My only other complaint. AMD really needed a 20,24, or 32core Zen 4 CPU. That way the 13900k would get smoked in a core war.

AMD would have been forced to use a larger package that would have broken AM4 cooler capacity to push that many cores in consumer desktop. There are also a limited number of non-workstation users that actually want that kind of thread-level parallelism. It should be obvious that AMD was going for more IPC/more clockspeed rather than more thread-level parallelism with their consumer product. More cores = better benchmarks, but outside of that there are limits to how many people can actually make use of the extra cores. Which is one of the reasons why slapping extra Gracemont cores onto Raptor Lake wasn't as near as big of a win for Intel as people made it out to be.
  • Like
Reactions: Racan and Thibsie