Question What does it mean, when the *lowest* CPU in your (consumer/mainstream) lineup is $300+? Yes, looking at you AM5. But this is really a larger question.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
What if Intel, in pursuit of "the fastest consumer desktop CPU", stopped selling their designed-for-laptop "desktop" CPUs, and only started selling their HEDT line for consumer desktops, starting at $500 for an 8-core desktop CPU?

Where does this arm-race end?

I mean, I get it, R&D is expensive, and gamers dominate the DIY Desktop PC market, and surveys show that they often purchase towards the top-end chip, but is Intel 12th-Gen going to be "the last" generation of consumer CPUs available around the $100-110 price-point? (Speaking of the 12100F here.)

AMD's 4100 is no-where to be found.

Is this the beginning of the end for "cheap chips for all"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bononos

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,627
1,898
136
It seems that mendocino, if it makes it to desktop, will need to be AM5 due to its requirements for ddr5. Other than that, aside from rembrandt that may never reach good volume on mobile, there's not much in the pipeline for AM5 in the value segment.

Where does that leave the value segment? We know that tsmc is pushing n7 users to n6. We know that there's a hole in the lineup down there. It makes sense to fill it with n6 product. The easiest way is to just port over n7 products and sell them as refreshes. Cezanne on N6 is a reasonable choice for going up against the 12100 -12300 on ddr4. N6 zen3 CCDs on a refresh 5000 series line compete well against alder lake and lower end raptor lake. They should be cheaper to make than zen4 on N5. And the platform is cheap enough with sub 100 b550 boards and sub 150 x570 boards being in good supply.
 
Jul 27, 2020
15,750
9,816
106
We know that tsmc is pushing n7 users to n6. We know that there's a hole in the lineup down there. It makes sense to fill it with n6 product. The easiest way is to just port over n7 products and sell them as refreshes.
Excellent reasoning. That makes me even more hopeful that AM4 is gonna have a really long life. It might become the Windows XP of the silicon world :D

I'm thinking AMD somehow tricked the mobo makers in their agreements with them. They can't be happy about releasing BIOS updates over and over :D
 

SteinFG

Senior member
Dec 29, 2021
400
454
106
It seems that mendocino, if it makes it to desktop, will need to be AM5 due to its requirements for ddr5. Other than that, aside from rembrandt that may never reach good volume on mobile, there's not much in the pipeline for AM5 in the value segment.

Where does that leave the value segment? We know that tsmc is pushing n7 users to n6. We know that there's a hole in the lineup down there. It makes sense to fill it with n6 product. The easiest way is to just port over n7 products and sell them as refreshes. Cezanne on N6 is a reasonable choice for going up against the 12100 -12300 on ddr4. N6 zen3 CCDs on a refresh 5000 series line compete well against alder lake and lower end raptor lake. They should be cheaper to make than zen4 on N5. And the platform is cheap enough with sub 100 b550 boards and sub 150 x570 boards being in good supply.
1 - mendocino has 4 PCIe lanes, it has no way to provide all the IO that an AM4/AM5 chip provides. It's not going in any socket.

2 - no one is making new node refreshes of older products. when's the last time that happened?

3 - price decreases, undercutting intel, thus being a budget option: 5500 undercuts 10400 while performing better, 5600 undercuts 12400 while performing about the same. I think value segment is fine, it's just not on the bleedng edge node.

Edit: and there is more budget 6-core r5 4500
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and scineram

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,331
1,139
136
Wait until reviews. If it beats the 12900k in most games as said (with a discrete GPU), it will still be worth it just for games.

Seems to me either way its a winner.

Definately interested in the reviews, both pro and user based ones especially overclocking and ram info. As for comparisons to 12900k for games, yeah compared to a $500 cpu its a good deal, even with the lower core/threads. Compared to a 5600x (or non) that is almost 50% off, not so much.

Again, it is something the 5600X did not offer at the same MSRP 2yrs ago. Haters are gonna hate, but it's a better value than the 5600X was on release. Of course It still isn't enough to make it immune to criticism. I.E.. I agree with those saying 12 threads for $300 in 'late 22 is a bit pricey.

Sure its better than the 5600x on release but that is not hard to beat.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
I think we might be reading too much into the 7600x beating the 12900k at gaming thing. They only showed 5 games. Only 2 showed gains above margin of error. Rainbow Six and F1 games have been pretty favorable to Zen 3. At the risk of sounding like an Intel apologist I think these favorable showings might be a bit cherry picked.



Seems that people are indeed reading too much but mainly when it comes to the 12900K gaming perfs.
FTR at 1080p it s 10% faster in FPS and 16% for framerates than a 5600X.

7600X ST perf will be 30% better and MT perf uplift is of the same order, so it should have no problem matching or slightly overperforming the 12900K.

 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,971
1,691
136
Home automation? Or something for the kids? I can't imagine any nice things about an underpowered waste of silicon (come at me, RasPi lovers! :D)

Just mean price doesn't matter a whole lot when you can't actually get something.

I had a few Pi ideas, but with the current state of things they're on standby. Just hope my Pi-Hole keeps chugging along.
 

Just Benching

Banned
Sep 3, 2022
307
156
76
7600X vs. 12900K is unfair from power consumption point of view. 7600X is a 105W CPU. The closest Intel has to that is the i5-12600 non-K that consumes max 117W.
If you are talking about mt performance, sure its unfair to compare to the 12900k.although the 7600x loses even to the 12600k, and zen 4 isnt even competing with alderlake but raptor lake.
 

SteinFG

Senior member
Dec 29, 2021
400
454
106
The 7600x is a 142w chip.
Source? If you'll say that all prior chips had power consumption=1.35xTDP, then I would point you to 5600X/5600, which have 65W TDP and 76W PPT.
AMD calculates TDP very weirdly. Not by actual power consumption, but by "cooler rating" of sorts. Basically, what cooler was working for "105W" 5900X, it will work for "105W" 7700X, despite higher thermal density. So we may see new "105W" chips pull less power than 5900X. Maybe 120W?
 
Last edited:

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Source? If you'll say that all prior chips had power consumption=1.35xTDP, then I would point you to 5600X/5600, which have 65W TDP and 76W PPT.
AMD calculates TDP very weirdly. Not by actual power consumption, but by "cooler rating" of sorts. Basically, what cooler was working for "105W" 5900X, it will work for "105W" 7700X, despite higher thermal density. So we may see new "105W" chips pull less power than 5900X. Maybe 120W?
The 5600x has 65w tdp and 88w ppt, stock. It will consume more (115 - 120w) if you enable PBO.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,582
10,785
136
It was??? Sounds like someone made a huge mistake. What did you do, AMD???

Yeah, word was that Rembrandt was supposed to be to AM5 what Bristol Ridge was to AM4. Never happened though. Or rather, the entire idea was killed earlier this year when it was announced that Rembrandt for AM5 would appear once DDR5 supplies had "stabilized". Which means, you know . . . whenever, man.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: igor_kavinski

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,274
19,922
146
Well come on now. The 9700k was in no way ever a deal.
In hindsight sure. Let's not revise history though.

Tom's called it a great balance between price and performance. $420 was a meme price.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876.html

TPU called it the best gaming CPU, even better than the 9900K. It won Editor's Choice.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-9700k/20.html

AMD asking $100 less 4yrs later, for a CPU that destroys it in every way is now a cause for criticism. Would that the GPU market had seen that kind of performance increase for 25% less money in the last 4 yrs.
 

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,627
1,898
136
For gaming when the 9700K was released, it was more than enough to get you firmly GPU limited in pretty much every game at high details. When it was on fire sale after the 10th gens were released, I tried to buy one for ~$200 from MicroCenter. Unfortunately, my motherboard did NOT like it (failed on boot, auto recovered shipping bios every time I installed it). The release MSRP was crazy high for what it was, but, when it was later in life, it was still a good purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranulf