When you are a publicly traded company you have shareholders to answer to also not just your consumers. When you have a product that looks to be superior to your competition you are going to under charge for it?
Nobody aside scalpers are doing that for budget reasons at launches.
The original statement was somewhat deceptive. Explaining it afterwards could be construed as being caught in a lie....Just saying.
Both 10700 (non K) and 5600X are 65W TDP
I wonder why can't I remember you complaining about the 10600K being such a horrible choice for a budget gamer when it was released.
The 3700X MSRP is $329 (10% more than the 5600X), and in MT workloads loses in some tests to the 5600X, on average is ~ around 10% faster in MT workloads, and is worse at gaming and lightly-threaded workloads than the 5600X. I'd pick a different lodestar. The 5600X is cheaper and a better purchase for most users than the 3700X.
Time is money. And many of those examples involved a great deal of cash put forward for unknown/unproven items. With respect to the Zen3 chips you already know what you're getting. And $50 is not "lots of cash" especially in the case of the 5950X which offers 19% performance uplifts for 6.6% price increase.And speaking of an early adopter tax - it's OK with me as long as we are not talking about cash, especially lots of of cashRemember how people resented RTX 2000 NVIDIA cards and NVIDIA offered something not seen before - hardware raytracing acceleration. The Ryzen 5000 series on the other hand offers nothing new aside from a 19% performance uplift.
Why would i complain when they released obviously better choices in 10400F @155 eur and 10700F @320 eur ? Takes true AMD fan to slot in 5600X @ 340 eur and also call it a value when 3600 also exists in budget choices.
This looks deceptive and construed as being caught in a lie ???
Only of you are fine with a rave party in your case.
Just buy 10700 then muhaha.
1. barely, the difference is just +- 5% (for gaming) at 1080p
Nope. A 3600 about 3-6 months ago was ~$170 and the 3600X was ~$200. You could literally buy a 3600, motherboard, and 16GB of RAM for about what the 5600X costs. Or, get a 3600X for about $30 more.
Then go buy an intel system and good luck.
I'm lost. At the same performance (slightly less, but let's call this a tie) and same everything else (let's also ignore PCIe4, let's say we don't care today, like with the performance difference) why should one pay more?1. barely, the difference is just +- 5% (for gaming) at 1080p
2. No need for Z490 boards, H410/B460 should do just fine (Im talking about 10700 non K)
3. The only price difference is the CPU at +50$
for +50$ you get +2 more cores (4 threads total) , a little less gaming performance at 1080p or same performance at 1440p/4k , same power consumption , same motherboard prices etc etc.
Its not that the 10700 is that good, its the 5600X price that make the 10700 better
Remember when Zen2 was +-5% Intel in gaming? No Intel owner worth his salt would deign to lower themselves and say they were roughly equal. Ahh, this is a beautiful thing to behold.
You don't think that will require a new mobo? That would be very un-Intel-like if so.....
And less performance. Remember Bulldozer?
I dont see any relevance between Bulldozer and 10700 in gaming performance.
To be fair, even 6 months ago 3600 wasn't a brand new product like 5600x - it was on the market for about 10 months.
No chance for this from theoretical and practical point of view.
I wonder why people were buying the 3700X at 329$ when the cheaper Core i5 10600K was faster
The relevance is number of cores is irrelevant. What matters is performance and 10700 has less at 50 bucks more.
Facebook
Twitter