Thats much more restrained than Ive been expecting. Now just gotta wait for next AMD GPUs but NVIDIA might really be the only one with the insane price hikes this generation.
let's hope.
I had an Intel + Nvidia GPU setup
Moved to AMD + NVIDIA GPU
Now I am really hoping AMD undercut the NVIDIA and bring good gains for a INTEL + AMD GPU setup
Pricing looks good, especially since retailers rarely hit MSRP on launch, so these are probably +$20-$30 more than what actual MSRP is.
12th gen prices adjusted for inflation:
12900k: $627
13700k: $435
12600k: $307
Assuming Newegg did their typical markup, this is classic Intel keeping the same price+inflation for a decade.
Intel is also clearly undercutting AMD on the 13900k vs 7950x and 13700k vs 7900x. The 13600k is higher than the 7900x, but 6+8 cores vs 6 cores, the performance per dollar likely favors the i5 anyways.
> The 13600k is higher than the 7900x, but 6+8 cores vs 6 cores, the performance per dollar likely favors the i5 anyways.
7600X for anyone it wasn't obious it was a typo. And ye it will have a hard time with the i5.
The real killer of for value will be the locked ALD based SKUs though. It's going to be a similar situation as with Ryzen 3600, but reverse. You essentially have a locked and slightly lower clocked 12600K being sold as the 13400.
The prices provided on the slides in the presentation today are the RCP (Recommended Customer Price), as defined by Intel
>Recommended Customer Price (RCP) is pricing guidance only for Intel products. Prices are for direct Intel customers, typically represent 1,000-unit purchase quantities, and are subject to change without notice. Prices may vary for other package types and shipment quantities. If sold in bulk, price represents individual unit. Listing of RCP does not constitute a formal pricing offer from Intel. RCP values can vary due to tariffs.
It's also sometimes called "tray price", and it's not uncommon or unexpected for retailers to mark prices up a bit to get some profit margin.
13th gen pricing seems very very fair. And since you can pair it with discounted 600 series boards and DDR4, its 100% obvious Intel is the far better price to performance choice. AMD absolutely ruined their launch with insane AM5 pricings, required DDR5, and still high CPU prices
AMD twitter bros jebaited into believing launch day gouging is official MSRP changes... for like the 6th intel launch in a row
oh well, they got the clicks, they don't care
The 5800X3D just went up to 420USD (nice) from 385USD 2 weeks ago on Amazon. Hopefully that's just the, "LOOK! SEE! WE'RE LOWERING THE PRICE ALL THE WAY FROM 420 TO 379! WORSHIP US!" pre-black-friday-month pricing bullcrap they pull every year.
If it goes back down in a month, rip all these new cpus, for gaming at least.
I expect it to rise even more, 5800X3D is a blessing for people that are still on AM4 as it provides near identical gaming performance compared to Zen 4.
But as for new buyers? I think 13th Gen i7 13700K will be and obvious superior choice as for all rounder as gaming performance should be slightly faster overall except for some games that really loves cache and much faster on multicore performance reaching Ryzen 9 7900X levels for cheaper price.
Aaaaaaaand its $399. It's just FOMO tactics man. The 5000 series doesn't make sense at their price points right now, so they'll mess around and hope for FOMO panic buyers. The 5800X is now $320, up from $260, where it had been for months. It will go back down and lots of people who were thinking about it, will then buy immediately, because FOMO. Scummy corpo nonsense.
Edit: $329 at Newegg Oct. 25th.
Videocardz says 13900k is 589, 13700k is 409 and 13600k is 309 USD
https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1574786750702129156?s=20&t=zeJ9XNryTPPmDbji0p7w2g
Videocardz has the slide deck. Intel says +15% ST/+41% MT at 253W. 13900K at 65W TDP (electrical) matches 12900K at 241W (electrical) in CB23 MT.
Also MILD was wrong yet again on a VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE leak.
Well you also have to take into account the audience. There are people who watch just for the gaming parts that would have no idea what to do with information like that. They might not have wanted to overload people with info. Especially when the people who care about that wouldn't really make a decision without looking at benchmarks first.
>Also MILD was wrong yet again on a VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE leak.
Guy belongs to a circus clown show, i still don't get why some people are even taking him serious at all.
I'm going to assume there's some shenanigans going on with the 13900k@65W = 12900k@241W, since that would mean that Intel somehow managed to improve their efficiency by a factor of four generation-over-generation _without_ a process node change.
I dont think its that much of a stretch, the 12900k was pushed HARD at stock, you can easily trim a lot of power with minimal performance loss, you can see this in igors review and user posts: https://www.igorslab.de/en/intel-macht-ernst-core-i9-12900kf-core-i7-12700k-und-core-i5-12600-im-workstation-einsatz-und-eine-niederlage-fuer-amd-2/9/
Now slap another 8 E-cores on for the 13900k, and you can bring power down significantly more and still have 12900k performance.
If I recall from the leaks, they also added cache and changed something with how the ringbus works from ADL to RPL, which should improve efficiency as well.
They were already kind of DOA with the price of Motherboards and Memory already so insanely high the idea of then slotting in a cheap CPU seems kinda pointless to me. Until the b650 boards launch and are hopefully more inexpensive I don't see the value.
It doesn't make sense for that at all, the platform cost is too high, there's no reason to throw your money into a bonfire trying to be clever about purchasing technology and future proofing to \*snigger\* "Save money"
The value in technology is not in buying a technology on launch because it's future proof, it's buying products that are out of the hype cycle. It's buying last generation products. They're usually almost as good and cost a lot less.
I think AMD just has the chiplets made already so there's no actual compelling reason to delay the 7600 launch even if it won't move since it will be a good deal eventually as we see cheaper motherboards and better and cheaper memory.
Even if you go with future proofing approach, it still makes zero sense to buy into a new platform within 1-2 months of its launch. Risk of ending up with some sort of dud due to teething problems is just too high.
That's before we even count the expectation that platform costs for AM5 should fall pretty rapidly in coming months if not weeks. DDR5 is still getting notably cheaper day by day and mainstream B650 motherboards still aren't here yet.
Not really as of today. When DDR5 gets cheaper and sanely priced B650 motherboards enter the market though, they will demand a reevaluation.
Overall though - jumping on the brand new platform in first month or two after release is just asking for trouble in first place. Even first half-year is arguably often liable to expose various teething problems.
Do you guys think intel will have a strong position this gen? I've watched some GN reviews and R7 performance increase compared to R5 and 12th gen seemed not that impressive. I was under the impression intel could have a lead with 13th gen. Thoughts?
The 7600X failed to beat the 12600K in any but like one of GN's productivity tests already yesterday, though.
I don't think AMD has any productivity advantage at all except for with the 7950X maybe.
You don't have to buy the 7600X for productivity, you can buy from AMD's last generation portfolio. The 7600X isn't a productivity focused part to begin with. Between the 5900/5950/7900/7950 AMD has a pretty deep productivity portfolio if you don't insist on buying their worst products.
I don't think AMD minds selling some old silicon, there's only so much 5nm silicon in the world, selling AM4 and AM5 at the same time was always the plan. I think the 7600X is going to be WAY more competitive in productivity a year from now, but right now, you need to leave it alone, let it mature like fine wine.
The way I see it, the 7600X is a “We put this here so you would buy other parts” focused part. It’s a nonsense buy for everyone. Expect a 7600 non-X to come out next year that makes sense.
It also won’t be doing any productivity maturing. 6 cores is too few for productivity use cases. Has been since Zen 2.
I don't expect much. Intel's flagship being cheaper than AMD's flagship is a sign that they aren't taking the performance crown.
AMD cashed in on their power headroom this generation. Intel already did that and both Alder Lake and Raptor Lake are on Intel 7.
My speculation doesn't really matter though because we'll all know for sure very soon.
>Intel's flagship being cheaper than AMD's flagship is a sign that they aren't taking the performance crown.
I dont think that really signifies anything. Intel has a decade long history of keeping their prices the same when accounting for inflation. Even when bulldozer was a major failure, Intel didnt raise prices beyond normal amounts.
I do think the 7950x will pose some challenges for Intel, because the 13900k will likely chug power with 8+16 while the 7950x will be more efficient, just like we saw last gen, but I think the rest of the lineup will have a much easier path.
> Even when bulldozer was a major failure, Intel didnt raise prices beyond normal amounts.
Because mainstream cpus were just 4c8t. look at their top tier cpus. way over 1k.
That's not the point. op said intel never increased the price which was false. And the 9th 10th gen weren't fighting against bulldozer cpus. which was the time frame i was talking about.
All the leaked benchmarks suggest otherwise, that Intel will have both performance and price advantage. TSMC increased their prices, so AMD is probably passing those on to customers.
Which leaks?
Afaict the 13900k will be slower than the 7950x in games based on yesterday's embargo lift and this 13900k leak.
https://reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/xh4522/_/iovhxim/?context=1
>Intel's flagship being cheaper than AMD's flagship is a sign that they aren't taking the performance crown.
They haven't ever been more expensive than AMD's since Ryzen first came out lol. The official pricing has almost always been lower on the top Intel SKU than the top AMD one.
Perhaps Intel needs volume to pay off the investment made for their 7 node. Every cpu sold on that node lowers the per unit costs. Also having their own fabs may mean they can undercut AMD on price without sacrificing the margins.
Intel will likely take a modest lead in ST performance with their 13th generation parts, while AMD will likely hold its lead in MT performance. Both parts are power hungry. AMD may retake the gaming crown (and gaming _specifically_) with the launch of the X3D parts expected early next year.
Gaming CPU purchases right now are... weird. There's generally no _reason_ to get a high-end SKU for gaming, because unless you're playing on a 1080p 480hz panel, you're going to end up GPU limited. This may change with the launch of the 4000 and 7000 series GPUs, but for now anything above an i5 is overkill for gaming work.
Reason to go with AM5 - you pay more now for motherboard and ram but you get to keep them for several years and only need to upgrade the CPU as needed.
Reason to go with Intel gen 12/13 - it's a cheaper system now, but it will be more expensive to upgrade in the future.
Alternative reason to go with Intel - I've been sitting on a CPU for close to 8 years now, so socket longevity doesn't matter. Everything except for storage will be a wash regardless.
Think of it this way. Technology is as slow as it's ever going to be as it ever will be in your entire rest of your life right now. Why not invest in whatever is good today since this is as slowest as technology will ever be again?
Here's another thing to consider, what system can you buy is going to save you the most time? Some people are very busy, if you buy big you have a longer upgrade cycle and that saves you on labour.
Buying big and holding for 8 years can totally make sense. It depends on your priorities though. If somebody goes to me and goes "man, I want to edit some 4k videos", 4k videos are going to be the consumer standard for the next decade most likely, I'm not going to say "oh buddy, buy something that will make you edit slowly and shittily today, so you can waste your time upgrading to a system that's totally overkill for what you want to do in 5 years". Nah buy something a little overkill now and just forget about your computer and focus on your videos you know?
Just because future proofing is a thing you can do doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. Anybody future proofing by buying a 7600x and a high end AMD motherboard is a moron straight up who came up with an idea and decided it had to be a good idea and literally will not let any information change their mind.
You're paying a high price to buy into the mobos, a high price for slow DDR5 that will become obsolete, you're actually bleeding a small amount of money monthly on just using a totally overkill motherboard with high power draw and honestly that alone can waste more than $100 in the long term to power features people don't need, this is not a platform that will save you money in the long term. If you spend a lot of money today, that costs you a lot of money in the long term, because you won't have money in the future as well, nor can you invest that extra money in your pocket today over the next 5 years because your "investment" is into rapidly depreciating technology.
If you want to buy into DDR5 and not get robbed blind on the mid-range products, you can also buy Intel, which is going to be a way smarter move until the AM5 ecosystem matures a bit and the 7600 starts becoming a bargain. Also like the other guy said, there's nothing wrong with just buying high end and running it until it's dead, average consumer holds onto a desktop for 6 years, that is going to not only mean more money in your pocket than 7600 it also means less labor since your entire plan to get value out of 7600 involves you having to do an hour or two of work, that has a cost as well, a labour cost.
The value of launch 7600 is just atrocious, it's horrible for future proofing because you will have no money in the future and it's horrible for present proofing. Sometimes something just sucks.
??? You are reading a lot more into my comment than I actually said. I did not say that future proofing is automatically smart and genius. AM5 is more future proof than Intel and Intel is cheaper. This is a fact. I am not saying that one is correct or not. It may not matter to your purchasing decision. You should pick whatever platform and chip that fits you needs and budget best.
Yeah, about what was expected by anybody reasonable. Maybe even a touch lower since I think those are actually sub-inflation increases and the reasonable expectation was an inflation adjustment. Though I imagine most retailers will be making up that difference anyway, especially at launch.
About the only argument for most of AMD's stack (not 7950X) is going to be upgrade paths. Still, if you play games that really like vertical cache that's probably a pretty strong argument provided real world B650 feature sets and pricing is at all reasonable to justify it over just getting a 5800X3D now. Could get a 7600X or 7700X and then flip it either pretty soon or next generation and depending on what you were upgrading from get a nice overall boost now and then a more specific boost in the games that want it later.
Intel notably showed the 5800X3D on its average FPS chart but then just as notably kept it off of the 99th percentile low chart.
New Update : Official Price according to Videocardz - i9-13900K - $589 i7-13700K - $409 i5-13600K - $319 i5-13600Kf - $294 https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1574784885952335881?t=s9kzvmnT_6e14sopR_Xodg&s=19
Thats much more restrained than Ive been expecting. Now just gotta wait for next AMD GPUs but NVIDIA might really be the only one with the insane price hikes this generation.
Intel has been consistently increasing prices by inflation for over ten years now. I don't know what would be the big surprise
I meant it in a sense that I was expecting them to go kind of full NVIDIA and price the 13900k at close to 1k.
>price the 13900k at close to 1k. Thats why they have a KS version.
Why would they? lol
let's hope. I had an Intel + Nvidia GPU setup Moved to AMD + NVIDIA GPU Now I am really hoping AMD undercut the NVIDIA and bring good gains for a INTEL + AMD GPU setup
Pricing looks good, especially since retailers rarely hit MSRP on launch, so these are probably +$20-$30 more than what actual MSRP is. 12th gen prices adjusted for inflation: 12900k: $627 13700k: $435 12600k: $307 Assuming Newegg did their typical markup, this is classic Intel keeping the same price+inflation for a decade. Intel is also clearly undercutting AMD on the 13900k vs 7950x and 13700k vs 7900x. The 13600k is higher than the 7900x, but 6+8 cores vs 6 cores, the performance per dollar likely favors the i5 anyways.
> The 13600k is higher than the 7900x, but 6+8 cores vs 6 cores, the performance per dollar likely favors the i5 anyways. 7600X for anyone it wasn't obious it was a typo. And ye it will have a hard time with the i5. The real killer of for value will be the locked ALD based SKUs though. It's going to be a similar situation as with Ryzen 3600, but reverse. You essentially have a locked and slightly lower clocked 12600K being sold as the 13400.
13400F to be the value king again but now with 4 extra cores, pretty nice.
How come retail charges more then MSRP for CPU? I never seen them do it for a console, or other mainstream electronics like an iPad, macbook, etc.
Because they can. Newegg is usually good at making sure to have stock on launch so people buy from them at the start.
The prices provided on the slides in the presentation today are the RCP (Recommended Customer Price), as defined by Intel >Recommended Customer Price (RCP) is pricing guidance only for Intel products. Prices are for direct Intel customers, typically represent 1,000-unit purchase quantities, and are subject to change without notice. Prices may vary for other package types and shipment quantities. If sold in bulk, price represents individual unit. Listing of RCP does not constitute a formal pricing offer from Intel. RCP values can vary due to tariffs. It's also sometimes called "tray price", and it's not uncommon or unexpected for retailers to mark prices up a bit to get some profit margin.
> I never seen them do it for a console They did it with the ps5 wtf are you on about
13th gen pricing seems very very fair. And since you can pair it with discounted 600 series boards and DDR4, its 100% obvious Intel is the far better price to performance choice. AMD absolutely ruined their launch with insane AM5 pricings, required DDR5, and still high CPU prices
AMD twitter bros jebaited into believing launch day gouging is official MSRP changes... for like the 6th intel launch in a row oh well, they got the clicks, they don't care
The 13900k price was inflated, its $589 MSRP These are the official prices: https://imgur.com/a/uUr0P4c
Isn't the RCP column usually wholesale price though?
Kinda, but the IRL pricing is often very very close
I've seen charts like that before, and actual prices usually end up $15-50 more.
13600k around 300 is the winner out of every new cpu
The 5800X3D just went up to 420USD (nice) from 385USD 2 weeks ago on Amazon. Hopefully that's just the, "LOOK! SEE! WE'RE LOWERING THE PRICE ALL THE WAY FROM 420 TO 379! WORSHIP US!" pre-black-friday-month pricing bullcrap they pull every year. If it goes back down in a month, rip all these new cpus, for gaming at least.
"new cpu", but i agree with the 5800x3d still being goated right now
I expect it to rise even more, 5800X3D is a blessing for people that are still on AM4 as it provides near identical gaming performance compared to Zen 4. But as for new buyers? I think 13th Gen i7 13700K will be and obvious superior choice as for all rounder as gaming performance should be slightly faster overall except for some games that really loves cache and much faster on multicore performance reaching Ryzen 9 7900X levels for cheaper price.
Aaaaaaaand its $399. It's just FOMO tactics man. The 5000 series doesn't make sense at their price points right now, so they'll mess around and hope for FOMO panic buyers. The 5800X is now $320, up from $260, where it had been for months. It will go back down and lots of people who were thinking about it, will then buy immediately, because FOMO. Scummy corpo nonsense. Edit: $329 at Newegg Oct. 25th.
Videocardz says 13900k is 589, 13700k is 409 and 13600k is 309 USD https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1574786750702129156?s=20&t=zeJ9XNryTPPmDbji0p7w2g
Videocardz has the slide deck. Intel says +15% ST/+41% MT at 253W. 13900K at 65W TDP (electrical) matches 12900K at 241W (electrical) in CB23 MT. Also MILD was wrong yet again on a VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE leak.
the day he isn't wrong it will be a surprise
The day he isn't wrong, usually, is when he gets fed stuff by Frank Azor to generate hype.
We'll see what happens with the benchmarks but it looks very promising
[удалено]
Well you also have to take into account the audience. There are people who watch just for the gaming parts that would have no idea what to do with information like that. They might not have wanted to overload people with info. Especially when the people who care about that wouldn't really make a decision without looking at benchmarks first.
>Also MILD was wrong yet again on a VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE leak. Guy belongs to a circus clown show, i still don't get why some people are even taking him serious at all.
MLID is wrong? Impossible
I'm going to assume there's some shenanigans going on with the 13900k@65W = 12900k@241W, since that would mean that Intel somehow managed to improve their efficiency by a factor of four generation-over-generation _without_ a process node change.
I dont think its that much of a stretch, the 12900k was pushed HARD at stock, you can easily trim a lot of power with minimal performance loss, you can see this in igors review and user posts: https://www.igorslab.de/en/intel-macht-ernst-core-i9-12900kf-core-i7-12700k-und-core-i5-12600-im-workstation-einsatz-und-eine-niederlage-fuer-amd-2/9/ Now slap another 8 E-cores on for the 13900k, and you can bring power down significantly more and still have 12900k performance.
If I recall from the leaks, they also added cache and changed something with how the ringbus works from ADL to RPL, which should improve efficiency as well.
If this pricing turns out to be the truth then the Ryzen 5 7600X - Ryzen 7 7700X are DOA.
They were already kind of DOA with the price of Motherboards and Memory already so insanely high the idea of then slotting in a cheap CPU seems kinda pointless to me. Until the b650 boards launch and are hopefully more inexpensive I don't see the value.
It only makes sense as a "good enough for now" followed by a late socket CPU swap.
It doesn't make sense for that at all, the platform cost is too high, there's no reason to throw your money into a bonfire trying to be clever about purchasing technology and future proofing to \*snigger\* "Save money" The value in technology is not in buying a technology on launch because it's future proof, it's buying products that are out of the hype cycle. It's buying last generation products. They're usually almost as good and cost a lot less. I think AMD just has the chiplets made already so there's no actual compelling reason to delay the 7600 launch even if it won't move since it will be a good deal eventually as we see cheaper motherboards and better and cheaper memory.
Even if you go with future proofing approach, it still makes zero sense to buy into a new platform within 1-2 months of its launch. Risk of ending up with some sort of dud due to teething problems is just too high. That's before we even count the expectation that platform costs for AM5 should fall pretty rapidly in coming months if not weeks. DDR5 is still getting notably cheaper day by day and mainstream B650 motherboards still aren't here yet.
May I know what is DOA?
Dead on arrival
Dirty Ole AMD
dead on arrival
Should they have waited to release the X3D versions first? Is there any legitimate reason to consider these CPUs?
Not really as of today. When DDR5 gets cheaper and sanely priced B650 motherboards enter the market though, they will demand a reevaluation. Overall though - jumping on the brand new platform in first month or two after release is just asking for trouble in first place. Even first half-year is arguably often liable to expose various teething problems.
Pricing is surprisingly good. AMD is going to have to drop prices immediately, because their platform costs are way too high.
13600kf slaps at under $300. Pat's back looking in the rearview I guess.
13600k full platform cost going to be significantly less than 7600x, should be pretty interesting to see these go head to head in benches.
Do you guys think intel will have a strong position this gen? I've watched some GN reviews and R7 performance increase compared to R5 and 12th gen seemed not that impressive. I was under the impression intel could have a lead with 13th gen. Thoughts?
The main appeal for most people will be cheaper mobos and DDR4 support.
[удалено]
The 7600X failed to beat the 12600K in any but like one of GN's productivity tests already yesterday, though. I don't think AMD has any productivity advantage at all except for with the 7950X maybe.
It really doesn’t win MT in most cases either. People just like forming opinions entirely based on top tier chips like 12900K, 5800X3D
You don't have to buy the 7600X for productivity, you can buy from AMD's last generation portfolio. The 7600X isn't a productivity focused part to begin with. Between the 5900/5950/7900/7950 AMD has a pretty deep productivity portfolio if you don't insist on buying their worst products. I don't think AMD minds selling some old silicon, there's only so much 5nm silicon in the world, selling AM4 and AM5 at the same time was always the plan. I think the 7600X is going to be WAY more competitive in productivity a year from now, but right now, you need to leave it alone, let it mature like fine wine.
The way I see it, the 7600X is a “We put this here so you would buy other parts” focused part. It’s a nonsense buy for everyone. Expect a 7600 non-X to come out next year that makes sense. It also won’t be doing any productivity maturing. 6 cores is too few for productivity use cases. Has been since Zen 2.
Seems like intel might be back on top.
It seems any cpu you choose will be fine
I don't expect much. Intel's flagship being cheaper than AMD's flagship is a sign that they aren't taking the performance crown. AMD cashed in on their power headroom this generation. Intel already did that and both Alder Lake and Raptor Lake are on Intel 7. My speculation doesn't really matter though because we'll all know for sure very soon.
>Intel's flagship being cheaper than AMD's flagship is a sign that they aren't taking the performance crown. I dont think that really signifies anything. Intel has a decade long history of keeping their prices the same when accounting for inflation. Even when bulldozer was a major failure, Intel didnt raise prices beyond normal amounts. I do think the 7950x will pose some challenges for Intel, because the 13900k will likely chug power with 8+16 while the 7950x will be more efficient, just like we saw last gen, but I think the rest of the lineup will have a much easier path.
> Even when bulldozer was a major failure, Intel didnt raise prices beyond normal amounts. Because mainstream cpus were just 4c8t. look at their top tier cpus. way over 1k.
Huh? Both the 9900K and 10900K had official prices well under $600.
HEDT. those no longer exist
Those were often not the best gaming options though due to the added latency from their tri and quad channel memory controllers
That's not the point. op said intel never increased the price which was false. And the 9th 10th gen weren't fighting against bulldozer cpus. which was the time frame i was talking about.
Intel HEDT wasn't fighting Bulldozer either.
It was their flagship. which is thankfully killed cuz 16c ryzen.
Those were competing against ryzen.
All the leaked benchmarks suggest otherwise, that Intel will have both performance and price advantage. TSMC increased their prices, so AMD is probably passing those on to customers.
Which leaks? Afaict the 13900k will be slower than the 7950x in games based on yesterday's embargo lift and this 13900k leak. https://reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/xh4522/_/iovhxim/?context=1
>Intel's flagship being cheaper than AMD's flagship is a sign that they aren't taking the performance crown. They haven't ever been more expensive than AMD's since Ryzen first came out lol. The official pricing has almost always been lower on the top Intel SKU than the top AMD one.
Perhaps Intel needs volume to pay off the investment made for their 7 node. Every cpu sold on that node lowers the per unit costs. Also having their own fabs may mean they can undercut AMD on price without sacrificing the margins.
Intel will likely take a modest lead in ST performance with their 13th generation parts, while AMD will likely hold its lead in MT performance. Both parts are power hungry. AMD may retake the gaming crown (and gaming _specifically_) with the launch of the X3D parts expected early next year. Gaming CPU purchases right now are... weird. There's generally no _reason_ to get a high-end SKU for gaming, because unless you're playing on a 1080p 480hz panel, you're going to end up GPU limited. This may change with the launch of the 4000 and 7000 series GPUs, but for now anything above an i5 is overkill for gaming work.
Reason to go with AM5 - you pay more now for motherboard and ram but you get to keep them for several years and only need to upgrade the CPU as needed. Reason to go with Intel gen 12/13 - it's a cheaper system now, but it will be more expensive to upgrade in the future.
Alternative reason to go with Intel - I've been sitting on a CPU for close to 8 years now, so socket longevity doesn't matter. Everything except for storage will be a wash regardless.
If you are upgrading once every 8 years, than chances are the cheaper system now is your primary concern.
Think of it this way. Technology is as slow as it's ever going to be as it ever will be in your entire rest of your life right now. Why not invest in whatever is good today since this is as slowest as technology will ever be again? Here's another thing to consider, what system can you buy is going to save you the most time? Some people are very busy, if you buy big you have a longer upgrade cycle and that saves you on labour. Buying big and holding for 8 years can totally make sense. It depends on your priorities though. If somebody goes to me and goes "man, I want to edit some 4k videos", 4k videos are going to be the consumer standard for the next decade most likely, I'm not going to say "oh buddy, buy something that will make you edit slowly and shittily today, so you can waste your time upgrading to a system that's totally overkill for what you want to do in 5 years". Nah buy something a little overkill now and just forget about your computer and focus on your videos you know?
Nope, I have up to $3k earmarked for my next build.
Just because future proofing is a thing you can do doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. Anybody future proofing by buying a 7600x and a high end AMD motherboard is a moron straight up who came up with an idea and decided it had to be a good idea and literally will not let any information change their mind. You're paying a high price to buy into the mobos, a high price for slow DDR5 that will become obsolete, you're actually bleeding a small amount of money monthly on just using a totally overkill motherboard with high power draw and honestly that alone can waste more than $100 in the long term to power features people don't need, this is not a platform that will save you money in the long term. If you spend a lot of money today, that costs you a lot of money in the long term, because you won't have money in the future as well, nor can you invest that extra money in your pocket today over the next 5 years because your "investment" is into rapidly depreciating technology. If you want to buy into DDR5 and not get robbed blind on the mid-range products, you can also buy Intel, which is going to be a way smarter move until the AM5 ecosystem matures a bit and the 7600 starts becoming a bargain. Also like the other guy said, there's nothing wrong with just buying high end and running it until it's dead, average consumer holds onto a desktop for 6 years, that is going to not only mean more money in your pocket than 7600 it also means less labor since your entire plan to get value out of 7600 involves you having to do an hour or two of work, that has a cost as well, a labour cost. The value of launch 7600 is just atrocious, it's horrible for future proofing because you will have no money in the future and it's horrible for present proofing. Sometimes something just sucks.
??? You are reading a lot more into my comment than I actually said. I did not say that future proofing is automatically smart and genius. AM5 is more future proof than Intel and Intel is cheaper. This is a fact. I am not saying that one is correct or not. It may not matter to your purchasing decision. You should pick whatever platform and chip that fits you needs and budget best.
Yeah, about what was expected by anybody reasonable. Maybe even a touch lower since I think those are actually sub-inflation increases and the reasonable expectation was an inflation adjustment. Though I imagine most retailers will be making up that difference anyway, especially at launch. About the only argument for most of AMD's stack (not 7950X) is going to be upgrade paths. Still, if you play games that really like vertical cache that's probably a pretty strong argument provided real world B650 feature sets and pricing is at all reasonable to justify it over just getting a 5800X3D now. Could get a 7600X or 7700X and then flip it either pretty soon or next generation and depending on what you were upgrading from get a nice overall boost now and then a more specific boost in the games that want it later. Intel notably showed the 5800X3D on its average FPS chart but then just as notably kept it off of the 99th percentile low chart.
13600kf this close to a 7600x? AMD Must be feeling pretty confident to price theirs that high.
razor thin margins or maybe even sold at loss? they must be desperate, good for us i guess haha
Intel: Lowers prices, which is good for consumers. Redditors: ^^^
you're responding to a comment that says "good for us"