I am explaining how things are. Price is not a linear function of performance:
■ IPC is not a linear function of number of transistors. Thus getting 10% higher IPC doesn't cost 10% more.
■ 512bit FMAC units and datapaths require much more transistors than 256bit or 128bit, and that extra space adds to the cost, but that extra cost is not counted when reviews only check performance serial x86 workloads or 128bit vector code, which don't use the 512bit.
■ Yields aren't linear. So dies with higher core counts cost much more than dies with lower core count. That is the reason why AMD uses a MCM approach instead a monolithic die. A pair of 8-core dies is cheaper than a single 16-core die.
■ I know that developing a process node that can hit 5GHz costs much more than developing a process node that can hit 4GHz.
■ I know that developing a process node with HD cell density of 0.0499μm² costs much more than developing a process node with 0.064μm² density.
Summing all those factors, we find that the CPU that targets higher performance will cost much more and will have a lower performance/price ratio that the CPU that targets lower performance. And all that without even considering production volumes. Mainstream products fabricated in larger volumes are cheaper than enthusiast products fabricated in low volume, as follows from a simple application of economic laws of scale and serial fabrication.
That is why Intel charges more for its chips than AMD. Some of the above reasons are also the reason why AMD charges $500 for the 1800X and $300 for the 1700, despite both are same microarchitecture, same core count, same die, same process node...
The nonlinear relation between price and performance also applies to opther industries. Developing a car can hit 400KM/h cost much much more than developing a car that only hits 200Km/h. So when comparing speed/price a Toyota Prius wins over a Ferrari F150. The Ferrari has worse performance/price ratio because the laws of physics aren't linear, not because Ferrari is an evil company and Toyota is "innovating".
Same applies to Intel vs AMD. The same applies to motherboard companies, same applies to phone companies, same applies to houses companies...
People would stop pretending that AMD leadership on performance/price is something special, or revolutionary or "innovative". It is not. It is just the result of a lower performance target technology.
I can sure you that if AMD ported RyZen to Glofo 14HP node, added two extra cores per die, and updated to 512bit, the resulting chips wouldn't cost much much more and ruin the performance/price ratio.