AMD Ryzen 5 3600 benchmarked early, shows performance barely slower than Intel i9-9900K

[Morris Minor]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

Ryzen 5 3600 MSRP $200
Intel i9-9900K Street Price of ~$500

Which one would you buy?

neither, I was lead to believe 7nm was the next big thing. I'm feeling pretty disappointed with it all so far.

 

[Morris Minor]

Man, I just got a Ryzen 1600 + motherboard for 235 dollars. In my country that was fairly priced, as there's already a lot of tax on it. then I got an case, 8gb DDR4, an NVMe drive and a PSU, that all set me back 500 US dollars (I'm brazillian, taxes are high here). Before that I was rocking an i7 4790k. For gaming I got 90% the performance, while all the rest is better (NVMe file writes/reads speed, memory, power consuption), and when Zen 3 (Ryzen 4000?) comes out, I will be able to get a Ryzen 2000 for an excellent price or just wait till Ryzen 3000 fall in price. With Intel, I would have to spend at least more 200 dollars to get the same performance level.

If you want the best of the best, sure, Intel is the way. But if you are budget conscious (at any budget level), AMD is the go for CPU.

the 4790k is far better than the R1600, why would you downgrade?

 

[HardReset]

neither, I was lead to believe 7nm was the next big thing. I'm feeling pretty disappointed with it all so far.

No worries, 16C/32T AM4 CPU coming. Intel will have at most 10C/20T this year, or probably 8C/16T for LGA1151.

the 4790k is far better than the R1600, why would you downgrade?

6C/12T+DDR4 vs 4C/8T+DDR3 is quite far from downgrade.

 

[Morris Minor]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/2384vs3919

"For gaming"
want me to post some benchmarks?

 

[HardReset]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/2384vs3919

"For gaming"
want me to post some benchmarks?

For gaming I got 90% the performance, while all the rest is better

No need for benchmarks on Intel optimized, low core usage games.

 

[wiyosaya]

The i9 9900K.

I paid $2000 for a Core i9 Extreme. I'm not hurting.

I have a friend that seems to think that a high price tag somehow equates to the best.

 

[dogofwars]

Are we going to play the game of "let's pretend there aren't any serious Intel-only security vulnerabilities and therefore ignore the performance regressions required to fully deal with them?"

Apple isn't the only company to say that hyperthreading has to be DISABLED for full security on Intel processors. I just read an article yesterday lamenting the way Intel rolled out a lot of CPUs, with not very many having hyperthreading. Hmm... I wonder why. The writer said "Intel is using it as a premium feature". Or, maybe Intel was doing some damage control.

The tech press seems to be falling down in its responsibility to hold companies like Intel adequately accountable for their bad design decisions. Everyone is expected to pretend that security doesn't matter and that if it does everyone has free money to replace their chips with defective design. Does Intel even have a CPU out right now that fixes its hyperthreading breach? I don't think so.

And yet, here we are, again and again, with articles talking about performance that don't even mention "security", "hyperthreading", or anything of the sort — as if none of any of it exists. Get real please.

And, before anyone chimes in to try to downplay the problem... it, at the very least, deserves to be mentioned in EVERY performance head-to-head with AMD, so the uniformed can, at least, know that there are potentially serious performance deficits should they choose to care about security. Hyperthreading is just one of the most egregious.

The ongoing problems of security with Intel was one of the reasons that I went with AMD and on top of that the 2700X is a great processor with 8 cores that give me plenty of power even though it is not the best in single core.

 

[amghwk]

Waiting to see Round 2 of the comments flare AFTER the 3rd Ryzens are actually released for real reviews by multiple reviewers.....

How do these leaked-benchmarks posters get hold of these unreleased chips anyway?

 

[Toju Mikie]

They didn't break any embargos. They don't sign NDA's/get review parts from AMD, which is how they're able to consistently gets parts to test early (from actually sampled reviewers). No laws or anything of that nature were broken here.

You don't and can't know that. Don't explain for them.

What Cooe14 is saying regarding El Chapuzas Informatico, I've seen before. Go look at some of HardOCP's reviews. HardOCP had a review of the MSI RTX 2070, released before the embargo date. Since HardOCP was not tied to a non-disclosure agreement, all MSI could do was politely ask HardOCP to take down the review. HardOCP didn't take it down, of course. NVIDIA was also upset about the incident but there was nothing NVIDIA could do.

 

[Jroc187]

Almost for sure next year with Zen 3. Intel has nothing new for the next years in desktop and, take this with a grain of salt, Zen 3 would supposedly introduce 4 threads per core. Also, TSMC's 7nm+ would be a 30% higher density than 7nm, so see it as a 6nm.

Yeah, I agree completely. It's hilarious to me, all these Intel fanboys jumping on these forums and spouting off about how the 9900k still inks out an advantage by four fps over a much lower freq and priced chip, and how they have to stay with those chips because they need every single fps... Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!!! You can't even tell the difference in any game between a few frames higher/lower. Yet, they are willing to sacrifice the MOST important thing, SECURITY, to get three more frames in a game... Wow! To be that hard up about "gaming" and so clueless of real-world problems is a shameful way to go.

LOL I like this guy plus he speaks the truth

 

[Shadowboxer]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/2384vs3919

"For gaming"
want me to post some benchmarks?

A 4790k overclocked to 4.8ghz will match or best pretty much any current Ryzen CPU in almost any game. It’s very very close to the 6700k & 7700k in performance. I bought mine for £240 5 years ago almost exactly. This is when flagship consumer grade chips were cheap, before Skylake & Ryzen came along. It had a good TIM and was paired with cheap DDR3. It was an absolutely fantastic buy and such a massive increase over my previous FX8350. By contrast the entry level price for Zen 2 is £200, in fact some X570 boards alone cost more than that 4790k, ROG Z97 mobo & 16GB of RAM cost in 2014! Prices have surged since back when Intel were dominating without a competitor to give them any reason at all to deliver expensive higher core count parts.

Funnily though, if you buy the AMD fanboy narrative, it that tells us that Intel were price gouging at this point, after the part where they played the evil bully who’s twisted and evil ways were the sole reason AMD - who payed the part of the innocent good guy victim, didn’t dominate the industry. I’m sure I read somewhere that back then the Intel execs used to slaughter a baby seal at every board meeting for fun and the execs like to fart on people’s kids.

Gotta love the tech community. Feels like a farmyard there’s so much bullshit about. It’s all drama and entertainment. I’ve never seen so much character applied to a pair of competing American multinational, billion dollar corporations.

Oh just to try and prevent some inevitable accusations, I think Zen 2 looks like it’s going to dominate. From what we know now, the only people who should be buying Intel are people who only care about gaming performance and nothing else and who arent bothered if it’s not the best value. This all being said, if you have a half decent CPU and you are primarily using you ur system for gaming it may well be worth waiting 1-2 years for Ice lake. If rumours of a 40% IPC increase are true it would smash the industry to pieces in the same way that Sandy bridge did. Also PCIe 5 & DDR 5 should be a thing by then. That’s what I plan to do as my 4790k is no bottleneck at 4K with any GPU out there currently.

 

[Morris Minor]

I have the 4790k also, I was going to upgrade at the end of the year but there really is no point. looking at benchmarks for my gpu with the i9 9900k most of the games I am losing 20-30 fps and in a few as much as 40 fps. I'm still hitting over 100fps at 2k on new games ultra, so I think I'll wait a few more years before dropping a couple grand on a upgrade.

Also I'm no fanboy, gaming is my hobby and I will get the best pc I can for gaming. if that's amd, I will go amd.

 

[HardReset]

Oh just to try and prevent some inevitable accusations, I think Zen 2 looks like it’s going to dominate. From what we know now, the only people who should be buying Intel are people who only care about gaming performance and nothing else and who arent bothered if it’s not the best value. This all being said, if you have a half decent CPU and you are primarily using you ur system for gaming it may well be worth waiting 1-2 years for Ice lake. If rumours of a 40% IPC increase are true it would smash the industry to pieces in the same way that Sandy bridge did. Also PCIe 5 & DDR 5 should be a thing by then. That’s what I plan to do as my 4790k is no bottleneck at 4K with any GPU out there currently.

Ice Lake will have low clock speeds because Intel's 10nm tech was broken from beginning. Also Intel says IPC improvement will be around 18% average, 40% only on some very rare cases like synthetic benchmark that heavily uses AVX-512.

 

[Lew Zealand]

A 4790k overclocked to 4.8ghz will match or best pretty much any current Ryzen CPU in almost any game. It’s very very close to the 6700k & 7700k in performance. I bought mine for £240 5 years ago almost exactly. This is when flagship consumer grade chips were cheap, before Skylake & Ryzen came along. It had a good TIM and was paired with cheap DDR3. It was an absolutely fantastic buy and such a massive increase over my previous FX8350. By contrast the entry level price for Zen 2 is £200, in fact some X570 boards alone cost more than that 4790k, ROG Z97 mobo & 16GB of RAM cost in 2014! Prices have surged since back when Intel were dominating without a competitor to give them any reason at all to deliver expensive higher core count parts.

Mentioning a $200 Zen 2 CPU with an X570 is rather disingenuous. That's quite a cherry-picked example. Nobody will be spending more for their mobo than their CPU as that rather defeats the point of buying the value CPU.

Instead try comparing your $340 4790K to the $330 Ryzen 3700X. Twice as many cores, if you need that. Lower clocks on the Ryzen but supposedly higher IPC (benchmarks in a week to see if that's actually true). Run it on any $100 B450 or even B350 board, not the overkill X570 you mentioned. 3200MHz DDR4 is cheap.

That's the more realistic comparison. And also shows the value of both of these options.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Mentioning a $200 Zen 2 CPU with an X570 is rather disingenuous. That's quite a cherry-picked example. Nobody will be spending more for their mobo than their CPU as that rather defeats the point of buying the value CPU.

Instead try comparing your $340 4790K to the $330 Ryzen 3700X. Twice as many cores, if you need that. Lower clocks on the Ryzen but supposedly higher IPC (benchmarks in a week to see if that's actually true). Run it on any $100 B450 or even B350 board, not the overkill X570 you mentioned. 3200MHz DDR4 is cheap.

That's the more realistic comparison. And also shows the value of both of these options.

I’m not directly comparing Intel Haswell refresh to the 5 years newer Ryzen 3xxx. Of course you’ll get more from Zen 2 (although looking at leaked benchmarks from the 3500G which will sell for around $200 show lower CPU scores than the 4790K, meaning that really you only get the extra GPU performance, a performance reduction and a small amount of money off, 5 whole years later if buying a 3500G). I’m just pointing out that the cost of the consumer grade platform has gone up considerably since Skylake and Ryzen came along. Before that top end consumer grade chips and motherboards were considerably cheaper than they are now.

To me it tells me that AMD are already winning. Their new consumer grade CPU lineup is going to cost between $200-$750. Whilst on the other hand Intel’s current lineup costs between $90-$450. And the same goes for mobo manufacturers, who will also be taking a slice of this new premium pricing. And they get are going to get away with it because their new CPUs will perform considerably better than the competition in almost all areas outside of gaming, which even then I imagine will still be better in terms of a value comparison if you were comparing a 3600 to a 9600 for example.

Kinda does make you wonder who’s price gouging. I don’t think either company have or are currently but 5 years ago the top end consumer grade chip - the 4790K cost me £240 on release (see link below for that, I’m aware it was launched at $339 but it actually never sold that high). And the Ryzen 3950X is being launched at $750 (also may not sell that high but in the U.K. that’s £590 + VAT = £708). So that’s nearly a threefold increase in price for the top end of the consumer grade CPU market. AMD are about to cash in big time on Ryzen. But we haven’t got cheaper CPUs, they cost more now, more so than Intel’s HEDT parts used to cost even. I was happy to buy top end in 2014. But now, if I needed a new CPU I’d probably be buying entry level and it wouldn’t be that much cheaper at all.

https://pricespy.co.uk/computers-ac...k-4.0ghz-socket-1150-box--p2671514/statistics

 

[jbc029]

I’m not directly comparing Intel Haswell refresh to the 5 years newer Ryzen 3xxx. Of course you’ll get more from Zen 2 (although looking at leaked benchmarks from the 3500G which will sell for around $200 show lower CPU scores than the 4790K, meaning that really you only get the extra GPU performance, a performance reduction and a small amount of money off, 5 whole years later if buying a 3500G). I’m just pointing out that the cost of the consumer grade platform has gone up considerably since Skylake and Ryzen came along. Before that top end consumer grade chips and motherboards were considerably cheaper than they are now.

To me it tells me that AMD are already winning. Their new consumer grade CPU lineup is going to cost between $200-$750. Whilst on the other hand Intel’s current lineup costs between $90-$450. And the same goes for mobo manufacturers, who will also be taking a slice of this new premium pricing. And they get are going to get away with it because their new CPUs will perform considerably better than the competition in almost all areas outside of gaming, which even then I imagine will still be better in terms of a value comparison if you were comparing a 3600 to a 9600 for example.

Kinda does make you wonder who’s price gouging. I don’t think either company have or are currently but 5 years ago the top end consumer grade chip - the 4790K cost me £240 on release (see link below for that, I’m aware it was launched at $339 but it actually never sold that high). And the Ryzen 3950X is being launched at $750 (also may not sell that high but in the U.K. that’s £590 + VAT = £708). So that’s nearly a threefold increase in price for the top end of the consumer grade CPU market. AMD are about to cash in big time on Ryzen. But we haven’t got cheaper CPUs, they cost more now, more so than Intel’s HEDT parts used to cost even. I was happy to buy top end in 2014. But now, if I needed a new CPU I’d probably be buying entry level and it wouldn’t be that much cheaper at all.

https://pricespy.co.uk/computers-ac...k-4.0ghz-socket-1150-box--p2671514/statistics

That comparison is a bit disingenuous, as well. In every case where your 4790 is close to a 6700, but gets smashed by a 9900k, it's also losing its advantage to the ryzen. Because you're threadbound. There's been almost no progression in ipc or frequency from intel in years.

Intel's current offering didnt top out below $500 until about 2 weeks ago. It was the standard $530 in mid June for a 9900k. Even today, as of this posting, it's $480 on newegg.

You want to compare a 5.0 GHz boost 8 core from Intel to a 4.7 GHz boost 16 core from AMD as if they were the same thing. They'll be similar in gaming and the 3950 will meet, or more likely, substantially beat a 9900k in anything productivity related.

Mobo prices seems to about the same. X570 and z390 boards are both available at less than $200, if you want to skimp on your flagship, and both go considerably higher. It's just, for the first time in a long time, the AMD platform will be worth spending that kind of money.

There hasnt been a low end refresh for intel in over a year, worth talking about anyway, because the 2200G still exists and will continue to exist. It's not like it is going away next week.

Just for the first time in over a decade, there may not be a compelling reason to buy Intel for *any* segment. And that has a lot of people nervous for some reason. It's not like your 8700k cpus will suddenly stop working. They'll be just fine. The i5s might be questionable, but eh...they aren't really part of the discussion any more.

 

[Shadowboxer]

That comparison is a bit disingenuous, as well. In every case where your 4790 is close to a 6700, but gets smashed by a 9900k, it's also losing its advantage to the ryzen. Because you're threadbound. There's been almost no progression in ipc or frequency from intel in years.

Intel's current offering didnt top out below $500 until about 2 weeks ago. It was the standard $530 in mid June for a 9900k. Even today, as of this posting, it's $480 on newegg.

You want to compare a 5.0 GHz boost 8 core from Intel to a 4.7 GHz boost 16 core from AMD as if they were the same thing. They'll be similar in gaming and the 3950 will meet, or more likely, substantially beat a 9900k in anything productivity related.

Mobo prices seems to about the same. X570 and z390 boards are both available at less than $200, if you want to skimp on your flagship, and both go considerably higher. It's just, for the first time in a long time, the AMD platform will be worth spending that kind of money.

There hasnt been a low end refresh for intel in over a year, worth talking about anyway, because the 2200G still exists and will continue to exist. It's not like it is going away next week.

Just for the first time in over a decade, there may not be a compelling reason to buy Intel for *any* segment. And that has a lot of people nervous for some reason. It's not like your 8700k cpus will suddenly stop working. They'll be just fine. The i5s might be questionable, but eh...they aren't really part of the discussion any more.

With all due respect, the point I have made has clearly flown straight over your head. I am NOT comparing the chips directly. Obviously that would be ridiculous, AMD has Intel beaten for the time being. I am comparing the price ranges of these chips. AMDs new Zen 2 chips are set to launch at greater entry and and top end prices than Intel have charged in a long long time for consumer grade hardware. You justify this by saying that AMD offer more performance. I agree they do and I think it does justify the prices. But it doesn’t change the fact that users buying new systems today face considerably higher prices for consumer grade components than they did 5 years ago, well well beyond inflation. It’s actually at the point where AMDs low end offering costs not much less than the top end offering sold by Intel at that time.

So let me repeat once more. I am not comparing the chips or the performance of the chips. I am comparing the price ranges. Intel last year: $90-$560. AMD now: $200 - $750. Intel 2014: $80-$240

I think it’s interesting because Nvidia did near enough the exact same thing with Turing and they got lambasted for it. But now AMD are doing it, people seem ok with it? Nvidia 2014: $120 - $550. Nvidia 2019: $150 - $1200. Personally I don’t mind, the premium sector of the market has long been untapped. But we aren’t really getting cheaper products and these companies are increasing their profit margins (as they should). We get more performance but then these are computer components and we have seen prices go down with performance going up in the past. AMD and Intel sold consumer grade chips north of $1000 in the mid 2000’s.

It’s like a lot of people complain that a 2070 costs nearly double that of a 970 for example. The same thing is going on with CPUs from either manufacturer. (There are some exceptions to this rule, AMD did initially try to charge $800 for the FX9590. But I don’t think that CPU should count as “consumer grade” even if it fits into an AM3 socket. In fact I think that CPU should just be forgotten about entirely)

 

[jbc029]

With all due respect, the point I have made has clearly flown straight over your head. I am NOT comparing the chips directly. Obviously that would be ridiculous, AMD has Intel beaten for the time being. I am comparing the price ranges of these chips. AMDs new Zen 2 chips are set to launch at greater entry and and top end prices than Intel have charged in a long long time for consumer grade hardware. You justify this by saying that AMD offer more performance. I agree they do and I think it does justify the prices. But it doesn’t change the fact that users buying new systems today face considerably higher prices for consumer grade components than they did 5 years ago, well well beyond inflation. It’s actually at the point where AMDs low end offering costs not much less than the top end offering sold by Intel at that time.

So let me repeat once more. I am not comparing the chips or the performance of the chips. I am comparing the price ranges. Intel last year - $90-$560 ($450 at time of AMDs Zen2 release). AMD now - $200 - $750. Intel 2014 - $80-$240

It’s interesting because Nvidia did near enough the exact same thing with Turing and they got lambasted for it. But now AMD are doing the exact same thing, people seem ok with it? Nvidia 2014: $120 - $550. Nvidia 2019 $150 - $1200. Personally I don’t mind, the premium sector of the market has long been untapped. But we aren’t really getting cheaper products and these companies are increasing their profit margins (as they should). We get more performance but then these are computer components and we have seen prices go down with performance going up in the past. AMD and Intel sold consumer grade chips north of $1000 in the mid 2000’s.

And you missed mine. There was *no* consumer grade 6, 8, 12, or 16 core chip 5 years ago. You are *literally* complaining that a consumer has more options now. The AMD stack, still available on July 7th, ranges from $90 - $750. Again, the 2200g doesnt stop existing because it's inconvenient for your narrative. Will there eventually be a zen2 R3? Probably, but they dont need one right now, and frankly there may not be enough bad silicon to fill the sku.

 

[Shadowboxer]

And you missed mine. There was *no* consumer grade 6, 8, 12, or 16 core chip 5 years ago. You are *literally* complaining that a consumer has more options now. The AMD stack, still available on July 7th, ranges from $90 - $750. Again, the 2200g doesnt stop existing because it's inconvenient for your narrative. Will there eventually be a zen2 R3? Probably, but they dont need one right now, and frankly there may not be enough bad silicon to fill the sku.

I’m sorry but you aren’t simply are failing to grasp what I’m trying to get across. The price range has gone up. Yes so has the core count but that is to be expected, the chips these companies manufacturer will improve in performance (core count, IPC, freq, cache etc as time goes by funnily enough.

By your logic are you suggesting that when we have 32 core chips that it will be ok for AMD or Intel to charge say $1500 for top end? Then $3000 for a 64 core chip?

The 2200G is last year’s chip as was released in 2018, the price range of which from AMD was $90 - $329 and Intel’s was $100 - $560. I will concede that the 3200G should be contained within this year’s price bracket however so the entry price will go down when that is released. However it is a sheep in wolfs clothing as is based on last years Zen+ Architecture. But I still count it as a 2019 chip as that is when it is released.

You need to stop looking at cores or MHz and start looking at the prices of the chips released in any given year by these companies and you will (hopefully) begin to understand what I am trying to say. Both manufacturers are increasing prices here. And that seems to have been occurring since 2015 with the launch of Skylake, although interestingly AMD actually reduced its prices in 2018. Their launch of Ryzen in 2017 was $120 - $500 and in 2018 that moved to $129 - $329. Despite having better performance (and the same core count) than the previous gen.

Oh and I’m not complaining. I’m making an observation. I still think the same money buys you more now than it did 5 years ago. But you go in much lower in the product stack. Same thing with graphics cards.

P.S. you say there won’t be an R3 but so? Last year we had R3, R5 & R7. So far this year we have R5, R7 & R9. It’s still three classes. I think we might still get R3 but it’s irrelevant as it’s just a name. It’s the price and performance that matter. R5 is entry level now so isn’t that then just an R3? I don’t think it bears much to think about tbh, as it’s just a name...

 

[jbc029]

I’m sorry but you aren’t simply are failing to grasp what I’m trying to get across. The price range has gone up. Yes so has the core count but that is to be expected, the chips these companies manufacturer will improve in performance (core count, IPC, freq, cache etc as time goes by funnily enough.

By your logic are you suggesting that when we have 32 core chips that it will be ok for AMD or Intel to charge say $1500 for top end? Then $3000 for a 64 core chip?

The 2200G is last year’s chip as was released in 2018, the price range of which from AMD was $90 - $329 and Intel’s was $100 - $560. I will concede that the 3200G should be contained within this year’s price bracket however so the entry price will go down when that is released. However it is a sheep in wolfs clothing as is based on last years Zen+ Architecture. But I still count it as a 2019 chip as that is when it is released.

You need to stop looking at cores or MHz and start looking at the prices of the chips released in any given year by these companies and you will (hopefully) begin to understand what I am trying to say. Both manufacturers are increasing prices here. And that seems to have been occurring since 2015 with the launch of Skylake, although interestingly AMD actually reduced its prices in 2018. Their launch of Ryzen in 2017 was $120 - $500 and in 2018 that moved to $129 - $329. Despite having better performance (and the same core count) than the previous gen.

Oh and I’m not complaining. I’m making an observation. I still think the same money buys you more now than it did 5 years ago. But you go in much lower in the product stack. Same thing with graphics cards.

P.S. you say there won’t be an R3 but so? Last year we had R3, R5 & R7. So far this year we have R5, R7 & R9. It’s still three classes. I think we might still get R3 but it’s irrelevant as it’s just a name. It’s the price and performance that matter. R5 is entry level now so isn’t that then just an R3? I don’t think it bears much to think about tbh, as it’s just a name...

Are you trying to be dense? YES, if AMD or Intel brings more chips to the consumer market that were datacenter exclusive items years ago, YES they should charge that much for them. It's an entirely new performance tier opened to an audience that didnt have it before. You're complaining because at some point we might have a consumer chip that costs $1500, reflecting what sells in the datacenter now for $8000-$10000?

They *absolutely* should be charging more for that. The performance these cpus bring *far* outstrips anything from 5 years ago. Rejoice in the fact you dont need a flagship CPU to game anymore, because that's the only thing your 4790 can match a midrange coffee lake at these days, let alone an i7. The flagships out there today are not for someone who just games.

As for 2200g being last years chip...when did coffee lake hit the market again? You know, the current complete intel lineup? 2017, wasnt it? But yeah, go ahead and include those in your price points.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Are you trying to be dense? YES, if AMD or Intel brings more chips to the consumer market that were datacenter exclusive items years ago, YES they should charge that much for them. It's an entirely new performance tier opened to an audience that didnt have it before. You're complaining because at some point we might have a consumer chip that costs $1500, reflecting what sells in the datacenter now for $8000-$10000?

They *absolutely* should be charging more for that. The performance these cpus bring *far* outstrips anything from 5 years ago. Rejoice in the fact you dont need a flagship CPU to game anymore, because that's the only thing your 4790 can match a midrange coffee lake at these days, let alone an i7. The flagships out there today are not for someone who just games.

As for 2200g being last years chip...when did coffee lake hit the market again? You know, the current complete intel lineup? 2017, wasnt it? But yeah, go ahead and include those in your price points.

I’m quite certain you haven’t read my comments properly. You certainly haven’t taken them in. You can’t see past cores and performance comparisons between individual chips despite me repeatedly stating that I am comparing price ranges of chips released in any given year. Coffee lake was released across 2 years 8xxx in 2017 and 9xxx in 2018. I don’t disagree with any of your statements regarding performance comparisons between any given chips. I’m not trying to make a point on those comparisons.

My point is that the price of consumer grade chips has gone up since Skylake launched in 2015. And this seems to be aggressively continuing this year with AMDs top end consumer grade chip going from $329 - $750. Which I have also repeatedly said is justified by the performance. You keep saying I’m complaining. Why? I’m not and have stated that numerous times.

But go on you can call me dumb. I don’t care what you think pal. All I’m going to say is that I’m very glad that I don’t share your level of intelligence.

So go on, reply with more ad hominem and a completely irrelevant point about how X chips performance compares to a Y’s chips performance. Demonstrating that you have fundamentally failed to grasp what I am trying to say. This isn’t a point about performance it’s a point about pricing and market positioning.

Just out of curiosity, I can assume you feel that Nvidia is completely justified in raising the prices of its consumer grade GPU lineup? Just as you feel that Intel and AMD are completely justified in raising the top prices of their CPUs correct?

 

[urbanman2004]

What do you mean? Ryzen 3000 launches July 7 less than 2 week away. This is one of the lower/mid models with only 6 cores showing insane value/performance vs the 9900k@ only $200. The $330 3700x has 8c16t, the $500 3950x(same price bracket as 9900k) has an insane 12c24t.

Hardly 'woefully behind' Intel are the ones falling behind at the moment.

I think you meant the 3900X has 12c24t. The 3950X has an insane 16c32t count.