I am sorry brother, but I still dont understand what the issue is.
The "problem" is that you want a R9 7950X for 300 bucks or something like that?
Of course I do but that's not realistic. The problem is that the R9-7950X is CA$950 while the i9-13900K (which is faster) only costs CA$800. If AMD wants to price up where Intel normally does, they must at least take relative performance into account. As it stands right now, they haven't done that.
And the only reason why you are obsevirng Intel current prices is because is cheaper for them to produce their junk CPU's (hence proving that once again, allowed, they will rape us) or worse, they are doing price dumping, which would surprise me, since they are still the dirties player in the game.
Of course I'm aware that what you're saying is true but most people don't. Most people won't care (or understand) that the Intel CPU draws more juice and they won't know or care that it's older tech. They'll only care that it's faster and less expensive. We can't look at it through our own well-informed eyes because we're a
very small slice of the population pie. We have to look at the market the way that most people (relative noobs) would and ask ourselves "If I didn't know what I know, what would I choose?" and right now, there's no question that I would choose Intel.
Let's remember that people bought inferior Intel Pentium-4 instead of the superior Athlon64 simply because the clock speed was higher. Most people have no clue about computers at the level that we do. This is why most AMD owners during the Phenom II and FX eras were enthusiasts. The general public didn't want to "risk" that kind of money on a product that they didn't know. Fortunately, AMD has made a big enough name for themselves that it doesn't hinder them to any significant degree but they're still not on the same level of name recognition as Intel.
The good will part, plus the other pro consumer moves they keep doing is why I keep buying and defending them, but I honestly dont understand what they are doing so wrong to have so much negativity their way, like the hit piece that this article is, for example.
This article is (as expected) full of crazy hyperbole but there is a kernel of truth at the base of it. There's no question that AM5 isn't selling but I'm not sure that AMD
wants it to sell just yet.
It has been speculated that nVidia is pricing the RTX 4090 out of this world to encourage consumers to buy up the remaining RTX 3000 parts that would otherwise gather dust. In the same way, there's a huge abundance of AM4 parts still in the market channels and AM4 is still the market king, outselling ALL of Intel and AM5
combined. In that respect, there really isn't any "Intel Comeback" because Intel is still getting buried by AM4.
The only reason why AMD released AM5 is because they probably knew that Intel was going to cut their own arm off to get the "performance crown" back. As it turns out, Intel did exactly that with that power consumption and thermals. AMD was probably not willing to go to that extreme and so released AM5 first so that they wouldn't look so bad (since 13th-gen Intel is WAY faster than AM4 in most cases). Remember, AMD has to keep the legions of noobs interested and this is how they did it. Meanwhile, AM4 is still an amazing platform and I don't think that AMD really wanted to release AM5 yet, but Intel forced their hand. Remember, mindshare matters.
"
