Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
According to AMD, Ryzen 7 1800X was the top part in the Performance tier: $500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_1000
Ryzen 7 2700X was the top part in the Performance tier: $329.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_2000
Ryzen 7 3800X/XT was the top part in the Performance tier: $399.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_3000
Ryzen 7 5800X is the top part in the Performance tier: $449.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_5000
According to AMD, even today everything that has more than 8 cores is Enthusiast tier.
Ryzen 1000 had no Enthusiast tier MSDT - only HEDT Threadrippers.
Its kind of funny how AMD fans were saying buy a Ryzen 7 3700X over a Core i5 10600K,even though ST performance and gaming performance was less,because it had more cores and more MT performance.
Intel fans were saying MT performance and more cores was not important,but ST performance and gaming performance. Now,the tables are turned,it seems AMD fans are saying ST and gaming performance is more important than more cores. Now Intel Cometlake and Zen2 have more cores for the same price when compared to Zen3,but lower per core performance. So it looks like the arguments will now invert until Intel beats AMD again in ST and gaming performance.
Edit!!
Also another thing.
AMD is basically stating a Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more performance than a Core i5 10600K(they state both cost the same and the Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more gaming performance).
The problem with this is that they ignored the cheaper KF models or the fact Intel Cometlake S street pricing is much lower now. Also the Core i5 10600K/10600KF lacks thermal velocity boost,so gains more from manual overclocking than higher end Cometlake S models. We also know AMD CPUs don't gain as much from overclocking. I can see the Core i5 still being quite competitive in absolute gaming performance.
The Core i5 10600KF is currently around £230,which makes it £60~£70 cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X with its crappy Wraith Stealth cooler. The difference is more than enough to cover a decent CPU cooler(and still be cheaper overall).
I really hope we see the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X soon!
There comes a point where its just easier to put you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore but damn you're hard-work.
Excuse me. I’ve generally agreed with you on most things apart from this launch. If that makes you want to put me on ignore then go right ahead.There comes a point where its just easier to put you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore but damn you're hard-work.
Why has a baby got it
He's got a point tho. You said that the 5000 series was not more expensive.There comes a point where its just easier to put you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore but damn you're hard-work.
Me too- the 5600 and 5700X (apart from 4 cores).I think AMD is holding back some models for the next Intel CPU release.
Excuse me. I’ve generally agreed with you on most things apart from this launch. If that makes you want to put me on ignore then go right ahead.
140 aio in nzxt h1
single core.. 3cores disabled and ht..
I can do 5.4 on all cores though
I’m baffled I don’t think I’ve ever had a disagreement with him and I’ve watched him bash Intel and Nvidia on a daily basis and rightfully so. That was a weird response.He's got a point tho. You said that the 5000 series was not more expensive.
Just about all 3000 series SKUs were $50 cheaper at launch.
So gen-on-gen, the 5000 series is more expensive?
Ok my mistake I thought you were responding to me my apologies.Not you, i didn't quote you.
Ok my mistake I thought you were responding to me my apologies.
I’m baffled I don’t think I’ve ever had a disagreement with him and I’ve watched him bash Intel and Nvidia on a daily basis and rightfully so. That was a weird response.
Anyway like I said this is a strange release from Amd and the decision to release limited sku’s at inflated prices has over shadowed what should have been Amd’s crowning triumph. We now have those who were criticising Intel for taking advantage of a leadership position now defending Amd for doing the same. Strange times.
Seriously ? Intel held 4-core chips as the top mainstream offering for 8 years, with gradually ascending prices & a 5% performance increase gen-to-gen.Anyway like I said this is a strange release from Amd and the decision to release limited sku’s at inflated prices has over shadowed what should have been Amd’s crowning triumph. We now have those who were criticising Intel for taking advantage of a leadership position now defending Amd for doing the same. Strange times.
Seriously ? Intel held 4-core chips as the top mainstream offering for 8 years, with gradually ascending prices & a 5% performance increase gen-to-gen.
AMD might have started charging something close to what their products are worth, but they blew the absolute doors off the mainstream core-count & are delivering 10-20% performance increase gen-on-gen.
Look, I had a 3930k, maybe Intel's last really great value chip & year after year there was nothing worth upgrading to. I got a 16-core AMD in January & looking at their new 16-core going 'hmm..it could be worth it...?' (The answer is no, this time, but props to them that it's even a consideration).
There's years to go before the 2 positions would be comparable.
Yes you are right I was making an exaggerated point.Seriously ? Intel held 4-core chips as the top mainstream offering for 8 years, with gradually ascending prices & a 5% performance increase gen-to-gen.
AMD might have started charging something close to what their products are worth, but they blew the absolute doors off the mainstream core-count & are delivering 10-20% performance increase gen-on-gen.
Look, I had a 3930k, maybe Intel's last really great value chip & year after year there was nothing worth upgrading to. I got a 16-core AMD in January & looking at their new 16-core going 'hmm..it could be worth it...?' (The answer is no, this time, but props to them that it's even a consideration).
There's years to go before the 2 positions would be comparable.
Yes you are right I was making an exaggerated point.
But upon just pulling slightly ahead they have raised prices and people are excepting it just like they did for Intel back in the day. What happen if Amds next release pulls further ahead of Intel. Does that mean people will be happy to pay even more? And what if the release after that and so on. We could in the near distant future see Amd completely dominating just like Intel were and the passive acceptance of price increases could well end up costing a lot of money.
I hope I’m wrong, I hope this is a one off and Amd deserve all the plaudits it’s getting imo but I’m not willing to pay over the odds for any pc component. So rather than just passively accepting I will take issue with it even if it’s only £50 now. It may not be in the future.
Different times, though.
Intel held quad core design for a decade but only next month we will move up from the terrible Bulldozer derivative consoles APU.
When the new consoles launch, you will very quickly start to look for the 12-core and 16-core CPUs.
Not to mention that the PC storage subsystem is also slow compared to the PlayStation 5 state-of-the-art SSD that loads games very fast.
Different times, though.
Intel held quad core design for a decade but only next month we will move up from the terrible Bulldozer derivative consoles APU.
When the new consoles launch, you will very quickly start to look for the 12-core and 16-core CPUs.
Not to mention that the PC storage subsystem is also slow compared to the PlayStation 5 state-of-the-art SSD that loads games very fast.