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

Wolverine2349

Member
Oct 9, 2022
149
54
61
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
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,380
14,345
136
I agree Intel is doing well with 8 P cores. But they stink beyond that. They are struggling server space because they cannot scale more good core counts than 8. AMD cores are only slightly worse clock normalized and can scale to lots more which matters for server space.

I wish Intel could make more than 8 P cores rather than those e-crap cores. I love the P cores and Intel is the best purchase for 8 cores or less.

But need more than 8 cores it is AMD all the way or you are going to deal with much weaker cores and the gimmick hybrid arch and AMD's good cores are not that much behind Intel's as you mentioned.

But I love Intel P cores. They are insanely fast and you can manually overclock them at a static frequency easily unlike AMD's which do not manually overclock well due to TSMC process node and instead need gimmicks like PBO which is not all core speed all the time.
I agree p-cores are strong, but as I said at what cost ? If you check my sig, I have well, over 1100 cores, and my 12700F takes as much power as a 64 core EPYC, now thats sad. I can't afford the power, and the wiring can not take it. If they were all p-cores, my wiring would melt.

Power is a big deal. Zen 4 blows Raptor lake out of the water. And at the same power level, wins everything. Oh, and then there is that pesky avx-512, which I DO use at times for my DC work.3 times the performance per core of Zen3 or more.
 

Wolverine2349

Member
Oct 9, 2022
149
54
61
Nonsense, gap was more like 30% if you don't normalize clock speeds. Not to mention that you couldn't buy even i5 for FX 8350s budget. Sounds like AMD had strong selling point. Not to mention that you could overclock them (and they clocked really well) to bridge the gap. Meanwhile Zen chips were neither cheap and neither they did clock well, not to mention a huge bug/glitch galore that buyers had to deal with. It was an awful release IMO. AMD became a really viable alternative with Zen 2 aka Ryzen 3000 series, but even then Intel was still often beating them in gaming and some other workloads. But at that point AMD's hexa cores or octa cores were nowhere near affordable and Intel successfully undercut them. AMD only managed a definitive win with Zen 3, basically when AM4 socket became EOL. But again, Intel managed to deliver 10100F and 10400F, to which AMD had nothing similarly cheap or performant, so that win was only for higher end chips only. Now, AMD failed to overtake Intel at high end and so far didn't promise any budget chips, meanwhile Intel has affordable 12400F or 12100F, which first of all exist and their value is adequate. [/quote\


Are you say8ing Zen 1 when manually turned compared to FX was not much better and it was 30% slower than Intel Skylake derivatives without clock normalizing?? And FX the fact it could overclock better than Zen 1 made it better if tuned right.

Though Zen 1 was an architecture step in right direction big time for AMD though even if clock speeds were not good.


[quoteNot really all that much. Comet lake is basically Skylake and we only got 2 gens (now 3) from Intel since then. Skylake by itself wasn't a big upgrade from Ivy Bridge or Haswell. Compared to how much faster GPUs, SSDs improved, CPUs are still in slow improvement stage. Despite competition, prices haven't really decreased much. I think that AMD in FX era was competitive, but today it's just riding on their good reputation (to layman) alone, because Zen 4 isn't any better than Raptor lake and prices are higher, so basically redundant CPU line with no moat in market. The only good thing is that they aren't going backwards, but that's just bare minimum that they must achieve.

True though we are at least getting some innovation and betetr archs and faster releases even if prices are n ot coming down.

I remember when we were stuck at 4 cores for $400. Now we can get 8 cores and much improved IPC for that with an additional e-cores for those that like them (I do not) and AMD has more good cores though they max out at 8 on a single CCD/ring and having more on another chiplet bad latency for gaming.
 
Aug 16, 2021
134
96
61
True though we are at least getting some innovation and betetr archs and faster releases even if prices are n ot coming down.

I remember when we were stuck at 4 cores for $400. Now we can get 8 cores and much improved IPC for that with an additional e-cores for those that like them (I do not) and AMD has more good cores though they max out at 8 on a single CCD/ring and having more on another chiplet bad latency for gaming.
I somehow don't care when octa core chip is 400 USD. I now seriously doubt if it could even beat (or have a ton of advantage) FX 8350 at perf/dollar, disregarding the fact that FX may not run stuff acceptably well. I went with Intel after FX, because AMD was way too expensive. Buying CPU today is even harder, because prices are even higher. The only CPUs today that are okay priced are Ryzen 5500 and i3 12100F.
BTW FX chips weren't even all that great at budgeting, the real panacea were those K10 chips. Remember those times when AMD made quad core Athlon for less than 100 USD or six core Phenom at less than 300 USD? If Moore's Law isn't dead yet (well it is), then stuff has to get faster and cheaper, but not more expensive and faster.
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
4,703
4,584
136
I somehow don't care when octa core chip is 400 USD. I now seriously doubt if it could even beat (or have a ton of advantage) FX 8350 at perf/dollar, disregarding the fact that FX may not run stuff acceptably well. I went with Intel after FX, because AMD was way too expensive. Buying CPU today is even harder, because prices are even higher. The only CPUs today that are okay priced are Ryzen 5500 and i3 12100F.
BTW FX chips weren't even all that great at budgeting, the real panacea were those K10 chips. Remember those times when AMD made quad core Athlon for less than 100 USD or six core Phenom at less than 300 USD? If Moore's Law isn't dead yet (well it is), then stuff has to get faster and cheaper, but not more expensive and faster.
You really are all over the place. Contradictions within, not even between posts.

Ryzen 5500 = $90 6C/12T
Phenom at less than 300 USD = 6C/6T
then stuff has to get faster and cheaper, but not more expensive and faster
 
Aug 16, 2021
134
96
61
You really are all over the place. Contradictions within, not even between posts.

Ryzen 5500 = $90 6C/12T
Phenom at less than 300 USD = 6C/6T
then stuff has to get faster and cheaper, but not more expensive and faster
Phenom X6 was Ryzen 9 tier chip and 5500 almost didn't happen, but AMD got annoyed by 11400F stealing marketshare from their overpriced 5600X and made 5500 happen. BTW 5600X was 300 USD (actually 310-360 EUR) and now 7600X is 300 USD. There's a tredn of hexa core chips growing in price with each gen. 3600 wasn't 300 USD. ANd now Intel only manages 200 USD for 12400F, compared to 140-165 USD for 10400F. Same stuff is definitely getting more expensive.
 

Kaluan

Senior member
Jan 4, 2022
500
1,071
96
I am 38 years old

Zen 1 easily beat Intel what??? Maybe in value for dollar but Zen 1 CPUs beating the Intel Broadwell-E. No not even close. Much better price per dollar yes, but overall performance Intel was still on top.

Now on non-HEDT platform, Intel still was at 4 cores while AMD had 8 so AMD did beat Intel in core count and stomped in multi threaded performance as those 8 cores were only 20% slower IPC and there were double core count and had Threadripper HEDT which went to 16 cores.

Bit at same core count and clocks Intel was still ahead of Zen 1 by quite a lot actually.

AMD caught uoo and was very close with Zen 2 and traded blows, though Intel could clock higher and had a slight edge at equal core counts. But now AMD was ahead of Intel on mainstream as they went up to 16 cores.


Then AMD absolutely spanked Intel in everything with Zen 3 with superior IPC to Skylake and much higher core counts Intel had no where to go. Intel cannot even get 8 cores on a good node. Though they get Tiger Lake which had near Zen 3 IPC but stuck at 4 cores.

Then Intel has to backport Rocket Lake to 14nm which cripples it when it otherwise would have had near Zen 3 IPC with better clocks.

Then Intel finally solves their 10nm woes and comes up with Golden Cove on Alder Lake which brought a 19% uplift over what Rocket Lake on desktop should have been and Intel was back on top at least in equal core count equal clock speed again by like 16 to 17%. Though they still were stuck at 8 good cores and used e-cores to get better multi threaded performance so they could compete with the AMD 12 and 16 core counterparts.

Then AMD comes out with Zen 4 which narrows IPC gap with Golden Cove though maybe 2-3% still behind and Intel has Raptor Cove which brings little IPC improvement. So Intel still has slight IPC lead overall, but not much. And they clock higher. But its close.

But AMD has more than 8 strong cores so if you wan that AMD is the way to go.

Which means competition and both have pros and cons with Zen 4 vs Raptor Cove. And competition means great things for the consumer.

So going by this person's trolling, Zen2 had 20-30% higher IPC than Zen.

🤣🤣

Oh for crying out loud, why isn't this thread closed already.
 

Wolverine2349

Member
Oct 9, 2022
149
54
61
I agree p-cores are strong, but as I said at what cost ? If you check my sig, I have well, over 1100 cores, and my 12700F takes as much power as a 64 core EPYC, now thats sad. I can't afford the power, and the wiring can not take it. If they were all p-cores, my wiring would melt.

Power is a big deal. Zen 4 blows Raptor lake out of the water. And at the same power level, wins everything. Oh, and then there is that pesky avx-512, which I DO use at times for my DC work.3 times the performance per core of Zen3 or more.


What speed are all cores of your 64 core EPYC running at. And your 12700F takes just as much power?? And that is non-K version which should take a lot less power.
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,632
3,676
136
But for real, I had Excavator chip and they had better performance at 65 watts than Piledriver at 95 watts. And that was just one iteration of "polishing the t**d". Gotta say it was actually good. BTW it was Athlon X4 845 vs X4 870K. 845 was better. Not to mention that Excavator seemingly had way too high voltage and I could set it at -0.3V and it worked just fine. Also Athlon 845 didn't have any L3 cache. So die shrink with L3 cache addition would have been interesting to see.

Excavator was pretty good. It was surprising how AMD got the power hungry uarch in check. The problem was it didn't see much use in desktops until Bristol Ridge. By that point it wasn't worth it since Zen came out not much later.

Either Steamroller or Excavator increased the L1. L2 varied it seems. Neither had L3. That wasn't as big of an issue as it sounds though since the L3 on those chips was terribly slow. To say it could have been close though is just wrong. The best Bristol Ridge got beat badly by the lowest end Zen 1200.

 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,380
14,345
136
What speed are all cores of your 64 core EPYC running at. And your 12700F takes just as much power?? And that is non-K version which should take a lot less power.
The 64 core 7742's take 225 watts. The 12700F takes about 200, and in the rare cases where it works on avx-512 (I have e-cores disabled, and have not updated my bios) it goes to 300. It runs about 4.5 ghz, and they run about 2.2 ghz. But still thats 8 times the power for twice the speed. a 16 core 5950x is twice the cores at the same speed, and less power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and KompuKare

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,172
9,952
126
How old were you in 2017 ? Zen 1 easily beat Intel. Why do you think they have been taking market share EVEN BY INTELs OWN ADMISSION since 2017.
No offense Mark, but Zen1 was introduced against the 7700K, and most all games on the market ran on four cores perfectly fine. Yes, the Zen1 cores had a (gaming) IPC deficit of nearly 10% against a quad-core Intel. Contemporary Intel quad-cores were faster (in terms of average FPS) than Zen1, in gaming only.

In productivity, and scientific, the extra cache and cores of the 6C and 8C (and especially TR) blew away Intel's quad-cores like they were a bad joke. Just not for gaming.

As you can see these days, Zen1 has "finewined", and the extra cores have outlived it's 10% IPC deficit, and now Intel quad-cores are now too limited.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,380
14,345
136
No offense Mark, but Zen1 was introduced against the 7700K, and most all games on the market ran on four cores perfectly fine. Yes, the Zen1 cores had a (gaming) IPC deficit of nearly 10% against a quad-core Intel. Contemporary Intel quad-cores were faster (in terms of average FPS) than Zen1, in gaming only.

In productivity, and scientific, the extra cache and cores of the 6C and 8C (and especially TR) blew away Intel's quad-cores like they were a bad joke. Just not for gaming.
I know at the time it had a deficit in gaming, I never claimed that. Gaming is only one facet of desktop usage. OVERALL Zen one was faster than Intel.. It was not until ZenX3d that AMD was the uncontested gaming champion. They were closer every update, but that was the first time that virtually every game was won by AMD in benchmarks.

This thread however has not mentioned gaming much, hence my position. And its really about Zen 4, which is not as fast as ZenX3D for the most part in GAMING. In everything else, Zen 4 wins. But this is close enough you can argue for your favorite benchmark that Raptor lake is faster, and at times it is. P-cores are fast, but not faster in all things, and they are limited to 8 fast cores. So in that respect, it is a discussion, not 100%.
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,632
3,676
136
No offense Mark, but Zen1 was introduced against the 7700K, and most all games on the market ran on four cores perfectly fine. Yes, the Zen1 cores had a (gaming) IPC deficit of nearly 10% against a quad-core Intel. Contemporary Intel quad-cores were faster (in terms of average FPS) than Zen1, in gaming only.

In productivity, and scientific, the extra cache and cores of the 6C and 8C (and especially TR) blew away Intel's quad-cores like they were a bad joke. Just not for gaming.

As you can see these days, Zen1 has "finewined", and the extra cores have outlived it's 10% IPC deficit, and now Intel quad-cores are now too limited.

Especially the 4C/4T models like that 7600K. They aged horribly. A 1600(X) would've been a much better choice. Also you'd likely be able to drop in a 5000 series CPU. AM4 has been damn great. I'm a little surprised Intel hasn't given in and have longer compatibility with sockets/chipsets.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,119
1,900
136
Though AMD has more than 8 strong cores where Intel stops at 8 and has those e-waste cores. AMD is the better choice for more than 8 cores so you do not have to deal with the hybrid gimmick arch. Intel is better choice for 6 or 8 cores as you disable e-waste cores and have a very strong 6 and 8 core CPU.

If the 13900K didn't have any E cores it could contain 13 P cores and no E cores. That part would not be as competitive with the 7950X as the 8+16 configuration. It would lose every MT benchmark and application and still lose on the ST ones it currently loses.

Now you may call the E's a "gimmick" if you wish but you also may want to consider the reality of Intel's situation. They simply can't compete process-wise with AMD/TMSC currently without the E's. 16 P's would have been cost prohibitive in terms of die size.

Like it or not Intel made a good decision with the hybrid approach based on their manufacturing resources. The fact that there is so much debate, and much of it legitimate regarding the 13900K vs. 7950X just shows how closely they are matched despite wildly different architectures. I find it fascinating actually that they both took different paths and ended up at the same location in terms of pricing and performance. Just shows what good old fashioned competition can do as far as getting the best out of products.

Or you could long for the good old days where Intel was 2 nodes ahead of AMD and today we'd still have 6 or 8 cores as the top end parts that cost $999.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and KompuKare
Aug 16, 2021
134
96
61
Excavator was pretty good. It was surprising how AMD got the power hungry uarch in check. The problem was it didn't see much use in desktops until Bristol Ridge. By that point it wasn't worth it since Zen came out not much later.

Either Steamroller or Excavator increased the L1. L2 varied it seems. Neither had L3. That wasn't as big of an issue as it sounds though since the L3 on those chips was terribly slow. To say it could have been close though is just wrong. The best Bristol Ridge got beat badly by the lowest end Zen 1200.

Lack of L3 cache hurt them a lot later. Basically ruined 1% lows in games to unbearable degree, meanwhile FX line kept chugging along slowly. Lack of L3 cache also made Athlon II X4 chips appear better than they were. L3 cache is very important.
The fun fact from Zen 1 launch was that most Zen gains weren't even from architecture improvements, but from die shrink. AMD was awfully behind Intel in terms of lithography and they still had to sell 28nm chips as late as 2017. That's why I mentioned that even shrunken Excavator might have been a lot better. They still clocked well and big shrink, high clocks and it might have actually been somewhat competitive with Skylake. Add some L3 cache and it starts to get really interesting.
But Zen had to happen anyway, because even if AMD managed to make competitive product in terms of performance, thermals would have been bad, really bad, so they they improved arch a lot, but it came with sacrifices. Main one being is that AMD failed to compete with Intel for maximum performance. Maybe you have more positive opinion about Zen, but to me it was even worse than FX in raw performance. It wasn't just behind Skylake, it was behind Broadwell, Haswell and sometimes even old Sandy Bridge.
Main selling points of Zen was that they managed to make it cheap with chiplets and reach incredible scaling, from 2 cores all way up to 32 (FX era chips only went to 16 per chip with two big 4 module dies conjoined). Another thing was vastly improved performance per watt.
The problem was that it was cheap, but not good. If you were gamer, you would have been served a lot better with Intel. If you wanted productivity monster, well Intel's HEDT platforms were still better. IMO this is basically the same poor situation as in FX era, except now performance per watt is actually decent and some higher end parts actually are profitable for AMD. For us, it was basically nothing new.
I'm convinced that AMD prevented yet another FX like disaster mostly by lots of PR. It got seriously large media coverage, sent samples like no tomorrow and media started to talk about some positive points of those chips, which is very different from FX era, when anyone with camera found a way to trash them online.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,380
14,345
136
If the 13900K didn't have any E cores it could contain 13 P cores and no E cores. That part would not be as competitive with the 7950X as the 8+16 configuration. It would lose every MT benchmark and application and still lose on the ST ones it currently loses.

Now you may call the E's a "gimmick" if you wish but you also may want to consider the reality of Intel's situation. They simply can't compete process-wise with AMD/TMSC currently without the E's. 16 P's would have been cost prohibitive in terms of die size.

Like it or not Intel made a good decision with the hybrid approach based on their manufacturing resources. The fact that there is so much debate, and much of it legitimate regarding the 13900K vs. 7950X just shows how closely they are matched despite wildly different architectures. I find it fascinating actually that they both took different paths and ended up at the same location in terms of pricing and performance. Just shows what good old fashioned competition can do as far as getting the best out of products.

Or you could long for the good old days where Intel was 2 nodes ahead of AMD and today we'd still have 6 or 8 cores as the top end parts that cost $999.
Except for Power and space reasons, there is no way they could have created a 13 P-core chip. But AMDs 16 real Zen 4 cores can demolish it in any real MT task. Please don't talk about what COULD have happened, how about stay with reality.

Bottom line, P-cores are good (except avx-512), but 8 of them can't compete with AMD and they can't do more. Its already a furnace (see a lot of RL threads on how to cool)

Please stay with reality here.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,119
1,900
136
Except for Power and space reasons, there is no way they could have created a 13 P-core chip. But AMDs 16 real Zen 4 cores can demolish it in any real MT task. Please don't talk about what COULD have happened, how about stay with reality.

Bottom line, P-cores are good (except avx-512), but 8 of them can't compete with AMD and they can't do more. Its already a furnace (see a lot of RL threads on how to cool)

Please stay with reality here.

I guess I didn't communicate effectively because you completely missed my point.
Please read it again and note that I was responding to the raison d'être for the E cores.
It was not a knock at AMD or Intel. It was a real as it gets. The "could" wasn't meant to say what Intel should have done but rather why they did what they did. Completely different than what you inferred.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,380
14,345
136
I guess I didn't communicate effectively because you completely missed my point.
Please read it again and note that I was responding to the raison d'être for the E cores.
It was not a knock at AMD or Intel. It was a real as it gets. The "could" wasn't meant to say what Intel should have done but rather why they did what they did. Completely different than what you inferred.
After re-reading, you are right. Sorry. But still, the P-cores can't compete with AMD because of the e-cores and heat.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Surprisingly, RL's wider core is not performing as its architecture suggests. In other words, there is seems to be no benifit from RL's wider architecture other than wasting die space. It also shows how well Zen3/4 architecture is optimized with its narrower design.

This isn't true. Under heavy compute loads, Raptor Lake starts to really take long strides. This is from the Computerbase.de review and shows how the 13900K is significantly ahead of the 7950x in AV1 encoding, finishing the 4K60 transcoding test in 16% less time. I find this mightily impressive because AV1 encoding is very compute heavy and RL only has 8 big cores which are shouldering the vast majority of the workload.

I think average workloads show less discrepancy because there is less ILP in the code. But when there's enough ILP RPL will pull ahead courtesy of its wider architecture and higher throughput.

kIiG4O.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: scineram

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
I see the 30% improvement of Zen 4 over Zen3. Specifically 5950x to 7950x. If the benchmarks you are seeing don't show that then thats your problem. Your continued trolling in this thread is proof.

I'm talking about IPC, not overall performance. The rumors before Zen 4 launched were that it would have brutal IPC increase of 25% and up.

Why is it that the majority here agree with me ? Maybe because I am right ? Go post in the Raptor lake thread and help those trying to keep their house from burning down.

Probably because nearly the entire forum is an AMD echo chamber. :D And no house is being burned down with RL, lets not get carried away here.

I just down-volted mine some more and it's running at 77c package power temp at 5.2ghz on air cooling.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
At least you're keeping the fun alive here in this thread, even long after OP got a concussion after running headfirst into a couple of walls with full speed. I really like your resolve!

I aim to please. And lets be honest, one sided views are typically boring and don't keep the forum alive. Conflict and dissent are the bread and butter of any forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Hans Gruber

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 2006
2,064
1,042
136
No offense Mark, but Zen1 was introduced against the 7700K, and most all games on the market ran on four cores perfectly fine. Yes, the Zen1 cores had a (gaming) IPC deficit of nearly 10% against a quad-core Intel. Contemporary Intel quad-cores were faster (in terms of average FPS) than Zen1, in gaming only.

In productivity, and scientific, the extra cache and cores of the 6C and 8C (and especially TR) blew away Intel's quad-cores like they were a bad joke. Just not for gaming.

As you can see these days, Zen1 has "finewined", and the extra cores have outlived it's 10% IPC deficit, and now Intel quad-cores are now too limited.
The jump in performance from Bulldozer to Zen 1 was between 50-60% IPC gain. That was how bad AMD stuff was before Ryzen. Big jumps were Zen 2 and Zen 3. I am not knocking Zen 4, but the jump from Zen 3 to Zen 4 is not as significant as people would have hoped it would be. When 3D v-cache arrives for Zen 4. People will be happy with Zen 4.
 

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,057
2,856
136
I aim to please. And lets be honest, one sided views are typically boring and don't keep the forum alive. Conflict and dissent are the bread and butter of any forum.
If you're not trying to be sarcastic or disingenuous here, then please reconsider calling 'nearly the entire forum' an AMD echo chamber. Might add at least a tiny bit of much needed actual value and sense to your posts in this thread, where you decided to wander waaaaaaaaay too deep into OP's and red herring's (ah sorry, it's red spirit) magical plain of fantasy fiction - God knows why.
 
Last edited:

Tigerick

Senior member
Apr 1, 2022
490
409
96
I am all for competition, without AMD, Intel would not release AlderLake i3 at such a low price. However, I missed those days when AMD cut the prices of CPU by half even before Intel released their latest CPU (was it Conroe?). AMD nowsday is slow to react the threat by Intel which is irony. :D

Intel going to announce 13th i5 desktop CPU at sub$200 market. And this time they are bundling 4 E cores into 6 P cores (Should be Alder Lake dies), I am now wondering how much AMD going to charge the upcoming 7600 with 6 cores only...:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carfax83