News AMD Fires Back With 7 New Chips, Flagship $449 Ryzen 7 5800X3D Lands April 20

[King_V]

And to me, that's a weak argument because the new boards also come with new, nice stuff, and I like new, nice stuff, as do most people.

But that's not the argument that was being made. The argument that was being made was the ability to upgrade to the next generation chip. Nothing more.

Plus, many 1st gen Ryzen boards don't even support newer chips anymore, so it's not a certainty that your new chip even works.

That's not true. It seems only the 300 series chipsets were questionable, and even now, those will get the support.

Not bad, 5th year in, and they'd originally promised 4 years of support. So, your complaint falls short.

Also, I usually buy highend CPUs and then keep the system until it either breaks or gets too weak instead of buying a CPU every generation.

So, the original "want to be able to upgrade to next gen chip" argument doesn't even apply to you.

My last chip was a 7th gen Intel. Similar Ryzen chips to my current i7 would cost more than CPU and MB did combined, with some room for good DDR4 RAM to boot. For the Ryzen CPU only. That's simply stupid.

I'm not sure you're making any point here, as you didn't say what your current chip is, only that your last chip was 7th gen Intel... the last of the "minimal changes" chips that started with Sandy Bridge.

 

[Soaptrail]

Don't forget the -E dies or X platform. If you wanted more than 4 cores, the jump was stupid. Intel did not care about this market until AMD came back to slap them on the face with both Ryzen and ThreadRipper. Granted, AMD is doing the exact same thing as Intel did, but with with ThreadRipper. And that is the whole damn argument: AMD doesn't care, well neither does Intel or nVidia. Remember when Intel "upsold" a regular i7 from the Z platform to the X platform?

As for "peak prices" of your next post. You easily forgot that both Intel and AMD have had outrageous prices before. AMD with the original FX line and Intel with the Pentium EE garbage.

Regards.

Please elaborate on what AMD is doing with Threadripper? I see no issues with that platform. Is it pricey, yes, but it is still more value than any Intel HEDT platform.

AMD made the need for threadripper unneeded for many people with all the cores in Ryzen.

 

[KyaraM]

But that's not the argument that was being made. The argument that was being made was the ability to upgrade to the next generation chip. Nothing more.


That's not true. It seems only the 300 series chipsets were questionable, and even now, those will get the support.

Not bad, 5th year in, and they'd originally promised 4 years of support. So, your complaint falls short.



So, the original "want to be able to upgrade to next gen chip" argument doesn't even apply to you.



I'm not sure you're making any point here, as you didn't say what your current chip is, only that your last chip was 7th gen Intel... the last of the "minimal changes" chips that started with Sandy Bridge.

I stated a couple times on this forum that I got the 12700k now. I switched this year. 5 years of use, pretty good by your own words. However, I also got all the goodies like PCIe 4.0 and stuff, instead of being stuck on lower. And yes, I feel the difference between my old and new SSD in loading screens. One of my favorite games, FFXIV, got quite a few of them. Also, I never denied that you CAN do it. I said it makes no sense for me to do, which is a valid opinion, and I stand by it.

1st gen Ryzen to 5th gen isn't "upgrading to the next gen". That's several generations in between, even of you don't count the laptop-only ones. I also literally said 1st gen Ryzen boards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for me that are the 300 series boards so I have no idea why you are trying to correct me. I brought them up because that's the situation a friend is in right now. They also don't all get it as far as I have seen, and even if, those who wanted to upgrade likely just bit the bullet and did it already, and don't benefit from it.

Btw, wanting to upgrade to the next gen IS possible with Intel, too. Just saying.

 

[hotaru.hino]

And yes, I feel the difference between my old and new SSD in loading screens. One of my favorite games, FFXIV, got quite a few of them.

Kind of nitpicking here; the CPU accounts for a lot of loading as the application isn't usable simply because the data's loaded to RAM. Considering the performance delta between a 7th gen and a 12th gen, along with my own experiences loading from a SATA SSD, PCIe 3.0 SSD, and PCIe 4.0 SSD on the same system showing no real practical difference, that's what you're really seeing over a storage speed boost.

I did some testing where I got a faster processor to load a VM from an HDD in the same time as a slower processor was loading the same VM from an SSD.

 

[jp7189]

Maybe. Well, actually, part of me suspects you're right. But, we computer enthusiasts who build their own are a subset of computer buyers. What subset of us has, as a hard requirement, a need to upgrade every CPU generation?

Therefore, the other part of me kind of suspects that those making the argument that Intel's 12th gen platform will allow them to upgrade when 13th gen comes out weren't interested in Ryzen platforms when the Ryzen 1000 series CPUs were first released in 2017, and AMD promised that AM4 would be supported for four more years.

Although, and not to argue with myself, knowing AMD's track record I can see how getting into AM5 early on is appealing for the unknown future potential of it.

 

[KyaraM]

Kind of nitpicking here; the CPU accounts for a lot of loading as the application isn't usable simply because the data's loaded to RAM. Considering the performance delta between a 7th gen and a 12th gen, along with my own experiences loading from a SATA SSD, PCIe 3.0 SSD, and PCIe 4.0 SSD on the same system showing no real practical difference, that's what you're really seeing over a storage speed boost.

I did some testing where I got a faster processor to load a VM from an HDD in the same time as a slower processor was loading the same VM from an SSD.

Partially, yes, I'm aware. There are still measurable differences between different gens on the same system, though. Also, on my laptop I definitely do notice the difference between the M.2 vs. SATA SSDs... And even my old system had loading screens that were near instant in XIV from time to time, just by far not as often. Right now, it's practically always. You also have to keep in mind that we are talking about an M.2 from 2017 or earlier here.

Also, as a bonus, my current M.2 runs at, like, half the temperature than the old one, so no more worrying in that regard for me. Old one was over 70°C constantly ever since I got it and I'm frankly somewhat amazed it didn't end up frying itself. That in itself is something I would count as a bonus, honestly.

 

[spongiemaster]

Don't forget the -E dies or X platform. If you wanted more than 4 cores, the jump was stupid. Intel did not care about this market until AMD came back to slap them on the face with both Ryzen and ThreadRipper. Granted, AMD is doing the exact same thing as Intel did, but with with ThreadRipper. And that is the whole damn argument: AMD doesn't care, well neither does Intel or nVidia. Remember when Intel "upsold" a regular i7 from the Z platform to the X platform?

As for "peak prices" of your next post. You easily forgot that both Intel and AMD have had outrageous prices before. AMD with the original FX line and Intel with the Pentium EE garbage.

Regards.

My focus was on the mainstream platform, not HEDT which is something altogether different. Not sure what your angle is here. Intel completely bailed on HEDT. Their last release was Cascade Lake-X which was released in 2019. It was Skylake-X ever so slightly tweaked. Skylake was released in 2015. That's two years before Threadripper was released. How did Intel start caring about HEDT because of Threadripper when Intel's last HEDT architecture is over six years old? Intel's "current" HEDT platform, X299, is five years old.

 

[spongiemaster]

Fair enough but they didn't exactly do anything until Ryzen came about. Between 2011 and 2017 there was only a 25% bump in ipc while keeping the exact same 4 core and eight thread configuration, a configuration that had a die size of only 122mm sq by 2017 vs 214mm in 2011. Sure they weren't charging more, but it doesn't mean they weren't stagnant as hell and raking in the profits.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1404...core-i7-2600k-testing-sandy-bridge-in-2019/21"

From the Anandtech link in your post.

Stock vs stock, the 7700k was 64% faster than a 2600K, 54% faster in encoding. The smallest gain in the chart above is 17%. Those are some pretty significant performance gains. The IPC gains may not have been huge each generation, but combined with the clock speed increases we're looking at yearly 10%+ per core performance increase over a 5 year stretch. I wish we had that now. The reason enthusiasts have such a different view of this era is because the 2600K was such a legendary overclocker. Intel was a victim of their own success here. Subsequent releases from Intel didn't overclock as well, so we went years without a reason to replace an overclocked 2600K. For people running the CPU's at stock clocks which is almost everyone, and every business, there were real tangible performance gains made by Intel over this stretch.

It took until Ryzen and some actual competition from AMD for Intel to fire their philandering CEO and actually start putting out better products. Granted the move to a six core i7 had been planned on the standard desktop with coffee lake, but I guarantee you they wanted to raise prices as well. We would probably still be slow rolling on six cores had Ryzen not made eight cores and sixteen threads standard, and 16 cores and 32 threads a possibility on non workstations.

This is parroted ad nauseum on forums, but it is simply false. Intel had planned to release a 10nm 8 core Cannon Lake desktop CPU in the 2016 time frame. We all know what happened with 10nm, so that never happened. Engineering samples of the 8 core mobile versions that never got released either are floating around in the wild. Intel wasn't stagnating, because they were waiting for AMD to catch up. They got stuck because they couldn't get 10nm right.

 

[jacob249358]

$199 to $299 is a $100 increase, not $50. Not only that, it's a 50% increase from the previous generation with no core count increase. When has Intel ever done that? You just listed six Intel generations, covering 5 years, going from 4c/8t to 8P+4E/20t that saw a total price increase of $70 or 20% and that, to you, is comparable to what AMD did? That's a pretty difficult position to defend by any objective person.

Yep I was lost when i saw $50. Not to mention that his list didn't consider inflation or consider how quickly prices dropped from AMD vs intel. And people saying intel was stagnant by not increasing cores doesn't really make sense cause you didn't need moe than 4c/8t from 2012 to 2017

 

[-Fran-]

Please elaborate on what AMD is doing with Threadripper? I see no issues with that platform. Is it pricey, yes, but it is still more value than any Intel HEDT platform.

AMD made the need for threadripper unneeded for many people with all the cores in Ryzen.

AMD dropped consumer ThreadRipper altogether. It makes sense as a business decision, but they dropped the ball for all people that were waiting to upgrade their TR 3K. That was is not cool.

My focus was on the mainstream platform, not HEDT which is something altogether different. Not sure what your angle is here. Intel completely bailed on HEDT. Their last release was Cascade Lake-X which was released in 2019. It was Skylake-X ever so slightly tweaked. Skylake was released in 2015. That's two years before Threadripper was released. How did Intel start caring about HEDT because of Threadripper when Intel's last HEDT architecture is over six years old? Intel's "current" HEDT platform, X299, is five years old.

That's the thing. Intel had the capability of delivering higher core counts for years into the more "normal" consumer market, but decided not to because the HEDT platform was better for milking purposes; artificial segmentation galore. They haven't updated it, because they have no CPU or architecture for it in which they can justify the ludicrous prices they were charging for the whole platform. They got slapped on the face by AMD and had to drop their "HEDT" segmentation altogether. Now AMD has done kind of the same with ThreadRipper, but because they have the 5950X and Intel has now the 12900, there's little point to have that segmentation in place it seems. Finally, the thin line between HEDT (artificial segmentation) has been removed due to stupidity. I am still salty about AMD not updating ThreadRipper for consumer HEDT, though. That's scummy. I'm still waiting for ECC and more lanes to become standard on consumer and hope for both AMD and Intel to stop being scummy on how they segment the market.

Alas, apologists and stans will never budge and allow both Intel and AMD do whatever they want.

Regards.

 

[eye4bear]

AMD announced its flagship Ryzen 7 5800X3D and six other new chips that lower the price of entry to the Zen 3 Ryzen 5000 ecosystem.

AMD Fires Back With 7 New Chips, Flagship $449 Ryzen 7 5800X3D Lands April 20 : Read more

How is this the new flagship when AMD has confirmed it is not over-clockable?

 

[hotaru251]

$199 to $299 is a $100 increase, not $50. Not only that, it's a 50% increase from the previous generation with no core count increase.

incorrect.
MSRP of 3600x was 249.
MSRP of 5600x was 299.
thus as said a $50 increase.

You just listed six Intel generations, covering 5 years, going from 4c/8t to 8P+4E/20t that saw a total price increase of $70 or 20% and that, to you, is comparable to what AMD did?

things you seem to ignore:
To upgrade an Intel CPU you generally HAVE to buy a new Motherboard...and if you plan to OC they arent on cheap end.
Even if the socket doesnt change Intel changes pin layout the disable just socketing in a new 1.

Intel's improvements most generation are small. (10 to 11 was a loss of performance. 12th gen was only recent exception as it was the only actual performance boost since....8th to 9th?) The performance jump from zen 1 > Zen2 >zen 3 were much more substantial by comparison.

Also don't ignore the HEDT/Server side. AMD basically slaughtered Intel's cost (and im not talking a small amount it was/is substantial) while untouchable in performance. AMD's EPYC forced Intel to cut back on Xeon pricing same way Ryzen did to non server side. (which again if you can't tell...is good for us the consumer)


Again AMD isnt "better" than Intel overall in how they act. I keep saying it but both are companies. Both have shareholders. Both are in the business to make $. When 1 is on "top" they WILL raise prices. Business 101.

We would probably still be slow rolling on six cores

Intel when they stagnatedo n quad core: "yo we can't do mroe cores"
[AMD makes 6/8 core cpu]
intel months later: "yo we got them too!"

Intel's Polaroid (having betetr tech but holding off on releasing it) like sh*t will never be forgotten. There was no way they didn't have the design for em given how fast they release em v-v

AMD made the need for threadripper unneeded for many people with all the cores in Ryzen.

pretty much.

Reason you get the TR is for the pcie lanes & RAM. (and only reason you'd go to epyc from TR is similar)

 

[shady28]

Not real impressed with these. The 5600 slots in well, but is a year late. The 5700X is the second most interesting but appears useless as it is just a slower version of the 5800X, and given current pricing is only $50 cheaper at MSRP.

Bottom line, this gives some of the lower end Zen 2 / 400 series chipset owners more upgrade options for cheap, but for any new build none of this is competitive. 5600X is already mostly beaten by a 12400, which slots in at the same or lower price as the 5600 and provides an upgrade path to Raptor Lake + better features, so that's a non starter for a new build.

Except, maybe, 5800X3D. For gamers at least, that one may be interesting. Still, it's going to be stuck on AM 4. Outside of that, this just looks like a bunch of SKUs AMD should have released in Q1/Q2 2021. Seems too little too late.

 

[hotaru251]

The 5700X is the second most interesting but appears useless as it is just a slower version of the 5800X,

All depends on how it runs temp wise.

5800x's down side has always been its unusual temps (as it runs hotter than its lwoer and higher brothers) if the 5700x can do 5800x range performance at lower temps..thats a compelling reason to exist..but again thats only IF it can. If it can't then ya 5800x costing less makes it worse than the launch MSRP of 5800x (was only cpu not scalped as it was in weird spot)

 

[King_V]

I think it probably can. I doubt AMD would state the 5700X to be 65W if it couldn't keep the temperatures under control. They most certainly do not want to get the kind of flak that Intel was getting when Intel started, without explanation, listing the base-clock TDP as the CPU's official TDP.

 

[Soaptrail]

All depends on how it runs temp wise.

5800x's down side has always been its unusual temps (as it runs hotter than its lwoer and higher brothers) if the 5700x can do 5800x range performance at lower temps..thats a compelling reason to exist..but again thats only IF it can. If it can't then ya 5800x costing less makes it worse than the launch MSRP of 5800x (was only cpu not scalped as it was in weird spot)

I wonder if they have revised the silicon on the 5800X to reduce temps. Of course the others CPU's would be revised as well...

 

[spongiemaster]

incorrect.
MSRP of 3600x was 249.
MSRP of 5600x was 299.
thus as said a $50 increase.

Sorry, 3600 had an MSRP of $199.

Ryzen 5 3600 vs. 3600X: Which should you buy?

We were among the first to review the Ryzen 5 3600 and at $200 we found the 6-core, 12-thread processor a crankin' good deal. In short, it...

www.techspot.com

Is the Ryzen 5 3600X worth purchasing over the 3600? Not at all. Other than to improve AMD's margins there's no reason for the 3600X to exist. Yes, you get a better cooler out of the box, but usually the asking price premium is not worth it. $10 sure, but not more than that.

things you seem to ignore:
To upgrade an Intel CPU you generally HAVE to buy a new Motherboard...and if you plan to OC they arent on cheap end.
Even if the socket doesnt change Intel changes pin layout the disable just socketing in a new 1.

Not ignoring anything. The last time I upgraded to a new CPU without changing motherboards was probably in the Socket 7 days. I couldn't care less if Intel changed sockets every generation, so long as the coolers stayed compatible. I buy desktops for the company I work for. Not once has it ever been considered to upgrade the CPU's in hundreds of systems. When the systems hit 4 or 5 years old, we send them to a recycling center and buy completely new systems. This is the same strategy most home users go by. The enthusiast upgrading his system every 2 or 3 years is the overwhelming exception, not the rule in the industry. Any 4 or 5 year old system should not be upgraded. Too much has changed to just upgrade the CPU and keep that system going another 4 or 5 years. Who wants to be running a 2017 motherboard in 2026?

Also don't ignore the HEDT/Server side. AMD basically slaughtered Intel's cost (and im not talking a small amount it was/is substantial) while untouchable in performance. AMD's EPYC forced Intel to cut back on Xeon pricing same way Ryzen did to non server side. (which again if you can't tell...is good for us the consumer)

Yup, AMD's HEDT CPU's are a bargain. Intel's most expensive HEDT CPU was the $2000 7980XE released in 2017. Less than 3 years later, the 3995WX was released at $4000. The just announced 5995WX is estimated to cost between $5000-6000. First gen Threadripper topped out at $1000. 3000 series Threadripper started at $1400. 5000 is likely to be even worse. AMD has removed the "desktop" from high end desktop. Threadripper is no longer a realistic option for home enthusiasts, AMD has completely priced them out of the market. Without competition, AMD has done a fantastic job of maintaining the pricing status quo for HEDT.

 

[KyaraM]

Sorry, 3600 had an MSRP of $199.

Ryzen 5 3600 vs. 3600X: Which should you buy?

We were among the first to review the Ryzen 5 3600 and at $200 we found the 6-core, 12-thread processor a crankin' good deal. In short, it...

www.techspot.com

Not ignoring anything. The last time I upgraded to a new CPU without changing motherboards was probably in the Socket 7 days. I couldn't care less if Intel changed sockets every generation, so long as the coolers stayed compatible. I buy desktops for the company I work for. Not once has it ever been considered to upgrade the CPU's in hundreds of systems. When the systems hit 4 or 5 years old, we send them to a recycling center and buy completely new systems. This is the same strategy most home users go by. The enthusiast upgrading his system every 2 or 3 years is the overwhelming exception, not the rule in the industry. Any 4 or 5 year old system should not be upgraded. Too much has changed to just upgrade the CPU and keep that system going another 4 or 5 years. Who wants to be running a 2017 motherboard in 2026?


Yup, AMD's HEDT CPU's are a bargain. Intel's most expensive HEDT CPU was the $2000 7980XE released in 2017. Less than 3 years later, the 3995WX was released at $4000. The just announced 5995WX is estimated to cost between $5000-6000. First gen Threadripper topped out at $1000. 3000 series Threadripper started at $1400. 5000 is likely to be even worse. AMD has removed the "desktop" from high end desktop. Threadripper is no longer a realistic option for home enthusiasts, AMD has completely priced them out of the market. Without competition, AMD has done a fantastic job of maintaining the pricing status quo for HEDT.

THANK YOU for this great post! You are 100% correct. It makes 0 sense to run a new CPU in a 5 year old mainboard. You have to be quite tight on money to even consider it, which I know many people are, but then you are also even more likely to just use the computer unril dies, put some money aside, and get a new one with hardware somewhere on the lower end. Then rinse and repeat. I only know one person who needs a new system while being on Ryzen 1000 and too right on money to get a completely new system, and even he considers grabbing an 12400(F) because those chips are just too damn appealing and for a similar AMD syatwm, even without new MB, he wouldn't be much cheaper. Everyone else is just taking the new features and are done with it. As I said, my previous main, now secondary system, is also over 5 years at this time with a Kaby Lake CPU. I don't expect to keep my current GPU as long as the 1070 running in that machine, but the CPU will last me a long time, likely longer than the old one wven if no bs happens to it. Think AMD will grant AM5 support for over 5 years? I doubt it. And then it won't matter once again what board I need to get because I will need to get a board...

 

[sizzling]

Partially, yes, I'm aware. There are still measurable differences between different gens on the same system, though. Also, on my laptop I definitely do notice the difference between the M.2 vs. SATA SSDs... And even my old system had loading screens that were near instant in XIV from time to time, just by far not as often. Right now, it's practically always. You also have to keep in mind that we are talking about an M.2 from 2017 or earlier here.

Also, as a bonus, my current M.2 runs at, like, half the temperature than the old one, so no more worrying in that regard for me. Old one was over 70°C constantly ever since I got it and I'm frankly somewhat amazed it didn't end up frying itself. That in itself is something I would count as a bonus, honestly.

For my usage which includes gaming I don’t see any difference between my NVMe drives in both laptop and desktop and my SATA drives.

View: https://youtu.be/4YoRKQy-UO4

 

[hotaru251]

Sorry, 3600 had an MSRP of $199.

please read properly.

3600 isnt the 3600x. (even if it was OC to same but thats not point)

3600x would be rival for 5600x. (ya know...the X gives it away)

Not ignoring anything.

you are as your view isnt the end all.
Many people DO actually care about it.
Not everyone can afford to buy new systems entirely. (teens, single parents with kids living barely ahead of paycheck to paycheck, etc) so saving 100-200$ is big to those that fallinto the group.
If there wasnt many wanting it AMD wouldnt of caved like they did when mentioned not supporting old am4 mb's

This is the same strategy most home users go by.

i'd argue "most" buy prebuilts (as most ppl dont care to build systems themselves).

AMD has done a fantastic job of maintaining the pricing status quo for HEDT

ppl in that market still see it as fair. again those arent targeting most users.
its a niche.

Same goes for EPYC. for those who actually need them its still "cheap" for what you get.

It makes 0 sense to run a new CPU in a 5 year old mainboard. You have to be quite tight on money to even consider it, which I know many people are, but then you are also even more likely to just use the computer unril dies, put some money aside, and get a new one with hardware somewhere on the lower end.

0sense yet say you know many ppl can't afford to buy new stuff? thats not 0 sense then.

Think AMD will grant AM5 support for over 5 years?

AMD already stated expect same support duration for AM5 as AM4.

They kept their word on am4 so no reason to doubt their word on am5.

 

[King_V]

I only know one person who needs a new system while being on Ryzen 1000 and too right on money to get a completely new system,

People you personally know. Anecdotal.

My son's got a 1600AF on a B450 motherboard. The idea of an upgrade to a 5600G or 5600X has come up, and is still in the cards. Of course, my son's also an anecdotal case, just like your friend. But that we each only know one person doesn't at all discount the fact that people may like the idea of boosting performance without having to get a whole new system.

and even he considers grabbing an 12400(F) because those chips are just too damn appealing and for a similar AMD syatwm, even without new MB, he wouldn't be much cheaper.

Are you speaking outside of the US? Because in the US, this claim that an AMD CPU-only upgrade "wouldn't be much cheaper" than a 12400F + motherboard seems very implausible.

Think AMD will grant AM5 support for over 5 years? I doubt it.

Why? AMD promised four years for AM4, and we instead got five. So, now you're simultaneously setting the bar at 5 years, and assuming that AMD won't hold to it? You create a criticism based on your own speculation, for a standard that you are not holding Intel to.

And, we weren't even talking about AM5... this thread is about the 5000 series chips going into AM4 motherboards.

This sounds very much like you're moving goalposts around and holding double standards, in an effort to find reasons to bash AMD, rather than any sort of logical, rational debate.

 

[KyaraM]

People you personally know. Anecdotal.

My son's got a 1600AF on a B450 motherboard. The idea of an upgrade to a 5600G or 5600X has come up, and is still in the cards. Of course, my son's also an anecdotal case, just like your friend. But that we each only know one person doesn't at all discount the fact that people may like the idea of boosting performance without having to get a whole new system.


Are you speaking outside of the US? Because in the US, this claim that an AMD CPU-only upgrade "wouldn't be much cheaper" than a 12400F + motherboard seems very implausible.


Why? AMD promised four years for AM4, and we instead got five. So, now you're simultaneously setting the bar at 5 years, and assuming that AMD won't hold to it? You create a criticism based on your own speculation, for a standard that you are not holding Intel to.

And, we weren't even talking about AM5... this thread is about the 5000 series chips going into AM4 motherboards.

This sounds very much like you're moving goalposts around and holding double standards, in an effort to find reasons to bash AMD, rather than any sort of logical, rational debate.

No, I'm "bashing" the idea of it making sense to upgrade to a new chip on a 5+ years old MB while limiting the CPU from its full potential. Since the very beginning, btw. It would make no sense on an Intel platform, either, but they don't even try, so there's nothing to "bash" there.

Also, AMD fanboys and their gleeful Intel bashing are getting on my nerves. Just accept already that neither company is awesome and both did consumer-unfriendly things, and will continue to do so in the future, but they both make great products that will serve you well. At this point in time, Intel got the better chips. That might change later this year, yes. But it will change again and that's okay. Just what some people here and elsewhere write is rather infuriating and, frankly, stupid.

And yes, I'm speaking outside the US. In my case, when I bought my 12700k, it together with the MB cost me as much as a 5900X by itself, and for the price of the 5950X alone, I even got some RAM. It would have made no sense at all to pick either chip over the 12700k, would it? Of course, that was a momentary shot in time. Right now, they are closer together because AMD finally got their ass up and lowered prices. However, I would have still paid more for an, for my purposes, inferior chip plus MB had I gone the AMD route. It was the rational decision to go Intel, especially at this point in the AM4 lifecycle. Yet, people manage to mock me for even that.

However, I also chose an AMD notebook for when I'm on work travel so I can play a bit while not at home. It was the better system for the set budget so again, it made sense. I don't care about made the CPU, I just get the best for the money I want to spend on it.

 

[msroadkill612]

Were I AMD, I would be as sad to lose an AM4 platform adherent, as a cpu sale to Alder Lake.

AM4 has so many appealing cpu upgrades for folks starting on a hard budget to grow with over time (concievably starting w/ a 1200x & currently 5900x as one's career progressed from student to professional eg.).

Each am4 sale is ongoing cpu custom for amd, as we have seen - many 2017 customers have cycled up over3 generations of cpu (a very nice surprise benefit vs Intel's predatory platform incompatibilities ), and each old cpu onseller, has been a salesman for the buyer to come onboard with a new am4 mobo purchase.

 

[msroadkill612]

My biggest complaint about AMD has to be the BIOS updates, unending BIOS updates. While I generally don’t touch the BIOS, but there are times where there is no choice due to bugs. And while fixing bugs, they introduced more bugs. I do hope that AMD can deliver some solid BIOS at launch and stop these barrage of BIOS updates. Till then, I’ve switched back to Intel after sticking with them from my first 1600X to my last 5800X.

IMO, bios updates reflect the impossibility of fully validating new platforms/cpuS in the lab.

Intel had stability cos little changed in a decade

that is not so for radically new AL & its platform - lottsa bios upgrades incoming IMO.

 

[jon18]

Where can they be bought before they go out of stock? Newegg is not an option for me since afaik they refuse to sell to people not from the usa.