Well that's a bit unfair. 11600K is often available for $100 less so it $ has it's own niche at least before 5600X is at 300 and 5600 is available. 10600KF and 10400F are particularily good deals now (and all available here in Estonia).
AMD pricing and availability is not helping these discussions either. For example in my country the only Zen3 CPUs available are 5600x and 5800x, 5900x was available for a week in the winter and no distributor/retailer has even seen 5950x yet.
While i would not care for power usage spike much if performance was there, sadly this is not the case, this thing is burning up to 50% watts for nothing to show.
I expected that Intel would have problems competing with itself on value.
Intel is banking on 5900X (and 5950X) CPUs simply not being available. People might buy a 11900k out of frustration.
Has AMD actually lowered their prices yet?
They'll be closer, as 5nm is more of a 0.65 node jump rather than a full one. Density is good, perf/watt not so much. Similar to 20nm and 10nm.
That's not really due to back porting. Tigerlake-H and Alderlake-S will have the same 32EU configuration.
Funny thing is every generation that further steals overclocking headroom, there's more fanfare over how much overclocking options it adds. You can't make this stuff up.
Literally nobody has ignored the 6 core i5s in the past 1-2 years. It's been the FIRST day of the review cycle, I don't really understand the drama the tweeting person's going through.
Why if the can sell all they can make (probably not many)?
Blanket statements on Rocket Lake prices are not accurate.
I suspect they will be able to sell a lot of these low end chips but it won't be an improvement to their ASP. The low end chips seem to have the same MSRP as the previous series. In an attempt to increase ASP they are pricing the top end chips, in my opinion, too high. But they'll probably sell enough anyway...
So as I read it, Gear is limited by the QCLK ratio of 29
I assume you are talking about MSRP. Thing is though, there are some good discounts on CL. The actual market price for CL most likely will be lower than for RL, at least initially.
I challenge you to describe a situation for me, where AVX-512 improvement is a factor that's worth mentioning as a bullet point, talking about an i5, seeing as you so generously managed to exclude gaming performance.
Yes, MSRP. Wait a couple weeks for the initial buyer penalty to go away and the retail prices will be similar.
My take is that the top chips are so limited in quantity that it hardly matters if the price is bad. Someone will buy them, so Intel may as well try to squeeze an extra $100 out of the sale.
I have been saying this for a long time.
I broke AVX-512 out for that very reason so that it does not contaminate the 13% gain of the non-AVX data. But, to really answer yourself, you'll have to wait. Now that AVX-512 is finally hitting mainstream in the last few months (laptops late last year and now desktops early this year) software will slowly be introduced that uses it. Think encryption/decryption. Think photo editing. Think compression. Etc. New hardware features are often a chicken and the egg problem. No mainstream software uses the new hardware features until there is new hardware available. New hardware thus has no software at the start to use the new features. This is true of any new feature set--they often look terrible at first, but when you go back and rebenchmark CPUs a year or two after launch the new CPUs look far better than they did at launch.
Facebook
Twitter