AMD Ryzen 5000 launch: "Fastest gaming CPU," higher clocks, higher prices

Endymio

Posts: 958   +818
What are you on about? The invention of the transistor??? I'm talking about recent history! ...""In just over a year, AMD’s IPC gains beat out Intel’s 2015-2020 IPC advances. "

A statement which neatly refutes your original statement that Intel was "holding back the entire industry". Didn't seem to hold AMD back, now did it? In any case, do you think Intel was advancing slowly on purpose?

Try the New York Times, among a zillion other references on many years of [Inte] misdeeds ... Nuff said - though you can go on about verdicts being challenged; conviction doesn't mean guilt etc.
I think there's a far better rebuttal to the EU's action. In the minds of most people, a "level playing field" means just that -- all companies are held to the same set of rules. But the exclusivity rebates (which Intel offered OEMs) were, according to the EU decision, perfectly legal for AMD (or any other company) but not for Intel. When a company becomes the market leader, it now must abide by a different set of rules. Handicapping the winner is fine for horse races. But in the real world of economics, it's a different matter. I'd also like to point out that the EU action didn't amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Even once Intel was prevented from offering those rebates, most OEMs still shunned AMD -- that is, until they had a substantially better product at a lower product. In other words, the free market in action.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 974   +574
Go ahead and post where the list price of the 3600X is half the list price of the 5600X. Like Jimbo said, it's up $50, which seems an OK price increase. I'd rather not pay that difference but that's business.
There have been 3600 (non X) selling for $150 quite a lot over the last few months. And you and I both know that the difference between the X and non X variants are minimal, barely even measurable. Certainly not worth paying the $100 premium for. Besides I saw them going for as low as $200, which is still a 50% price hike.

So yeah, if you’re dumb and can’t grasp that 3600X is just a name and a price tag then yes these CPUs have only gone up by $50. But if you aren’t dumb and are aware that the 3600 is basically a 3600X then yes they have doubled in price.

Also, just throwing it out there, that would make the Ryzen 3600X more expensive and worse value per dollar than a 10600K. So who’s buying it for $250?

If there is a 5600 (non X) in existence for less than the X version I’d buy your argument. But there isn’t. The fact is you could buy a 6 core Zen 2 chip for $150 and now a 6 core Zen 3 chip is selling for $300 one year later. The branding on the box doesn’t change that fact unless you believe the difference between the X and non X versions is worth paying for.

Oh it’s going to be funny watching the fanboys who for years have been slamming Intel for its high prices justify these enormous price hikes. And the no future socket Compatibility, the lack of cooler etc.

Oh and pending independent reviews I imagine it’s about time to switch to AMD. I am happy to pay the higher prices if they dominate the gaming tests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosu

Shadowboxer

Posts: 974   +574
3600X release price was $249, 5600X is $ 299 - yup, that's double.

Not saying that I'm happy about the price was increase as a consumer, but if Ryzen is now truly better in all regards, why should AMD continue to charge budget prices ?
Did you know that the entire time the 3600X was out on sale there was a 3600 which performed nearly identically but cost considerably less? For months it went on sale at $150. So whilst yes the 3600X is only $50 cheaper the more savvy amongst us would have bought the 3600, which still has 6 cores and a bundled cooler.

The more you know eh!
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 974   +574
Bewildered that so many people on here didn’t realise that the 3600 (non x) existed and seemingly thought the 6 core Zen 2 parts actually cost $250. I find that odd because the reviews all pointed out that you should buy the non X versions for $150 or so as they perform basically the same.

You’re an ***** if you bought a 3600X for $250 and you’re an even bigger ***** if you see the 5600X as only a $50 price increase as we all know the much cheaper 3600 performs basically the same as a 3600X.
 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 289   +465
Well it's a rather large and comfortable one, and quite dry underneath -- but your response didn't answer the question. The leader in every market is invariably accused of anticompetitive behavior, and in a political-dominated process, sometimes even found guilty of it. That doesn't make it true. I assume you're referring about Intel's OEM exclusivity rebates, but without a hard referent, it's difficult to meaningfully discuss.
You are seriously saying you know nothing of the Intel benchmark scandal's, their compiler scandals, the mass deletion of emails under investigation during their anti-compete trials, the more recent Principled Technologies "paid for" benchmark scandal? Etc.

Mass deleting email records during an investigation is illegal, and also telling.

They've paid a benchmark company to change the result scores based on identity of the CPU brand. This has been proven. A researcher changed the ID on a VIA chip to an intel one and it suddenly benchmarked way higher - this is how they were outed - this, and many other similar practices were outed during the initial anti-trust lawsuit vs AMD.

I have in fact read a copy of an email sent to the Dell CEO indicating clearly that the huge lump of money given to him, "should be enough to not engage with the competitor" - the amount referred to was IIRC $1,000,000,000

If you are suggesting just because Intel appealed EUs FTC case and settled, that that means that Intel doesn't have a long history of operating with shady, unethical, illegal behaviour, you are either delusional, or just grossly inadequately informed; and probably another term I won't mention here.

A rapist that didn't get convicted isn't suddenly not a rapist anymore.


Your rock might be comfortable and dry, but you are still under it, obviously.





 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 289   +465
Bewildered that so many people on here didn’t realise that the 3600 (non x) existed and seemingly thought the 6 core Zen 2 parts actually cost $250. I find that odd because the reviews all pointed out that you should buy the non X versions for $150 or so as they perform basically the same.

You’re an ***** if you bought a 3600X for $250 and you’re an even bigger ***** if you see the 5600X as only a $50 price increase as we all know the much cheaper 3600 performs basically the same as a 3600X.
Just stop. You're not making yourself look any better - in fact its getting cringeworthy that you are just repeating yourself over and over hoping that will vindicate you. By your logic anyone who bought anything higher than an Intel 9600k or 10600k for gaming is also a complete *****.
 

mrvco

Posts: 97   +85
I'm a bit perplexed by the (seemingly genuine) pearl-clutching that's going on over the +$49 launch pricing when existing Zen2 XT CPUs are still readily available and continue to top the sales charts at or close to their own launch pricing.

I'm also a bit befuddled by the continued obsession with 1080P gaming benchmarks. On one hand I get it, it's a benchmark that focuses on CPU performance rather than the GPU. On the other hand, 1080P benchmarks on high-end CPU+GPU configurations reek of synthetic benchmarks and their lack of practicality in real-world use cases (gaming or otherwise).

We really need proper, real-world benchmarks that incorporate not only gaming at real-world resolutions and refresh rates (=popular gaming monitors), but active screen recording or streaming and other apps running in the background (e.g. Chrome w/ 216 tabs open, Discord, etc).
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,623   +1,684
TechSpot Elite
There have been 3600 (non X) selling for $150 quite a lot over the last few months. And you and I both know that the difference between the X and non X variants are minimal, barely even measurable. Certainly not worth paying the $100 premium for. Besides I saw them going for as low as $200, which is still a 50% price hike.
Seems like cherrypicking. You compare the very lowest, not even recent, sale prices of year old parts to list prices of unreleased parts because they fit your chosen narrative. The R5 3600 is $200 right now. Some people here call changing the argument from "literally doubled in price" to "50% price hike," moving the goalposts. In any case AMD increased the price of entry, which they have done each year since the Zen launch, so anyone who was expecting anything different is ignorant of how the market works.

So yeah, if you’re dumb and can’t grasp that 3600X is just a name and a price tag then yes these CPUs have only gone up by $50. But if you aren’t dumb and are aware that the 3600 is basically a 3600X then yes they have doubled in price.
Probably shouldn't call people "dumb." Mods here don't like that so much.

Also, just throwing it out there, that would make the Ryzen 3600X more expensive and worse value per dollar than a 10600K. So who’s buying it for $250?

If there is a 5600 (non X) in existence for less than the X version I’d buy your argument. But there isn’t. The fact is you could buy a 6 core Zen 2 chip for $150 and now a 6 core Zen 3 chip is selling for $300 one year later. The branding on the box doesn’t change that fact unless you believe the difference between the X and non X versions is worth paying for.
We'll have to see. If Intel cannot provide some decent competition, I'll bet there will not be any cheaper 6-core Zen 3 part from AMD, or maybe we'll see it when Zen 4 arrives, making Zen 3 then entry-level.

Oh it’s going to be funny watching the fanboys who for years have been slamming Intel for its high prices justify these enormous price hikes. And the no future socket Compatibility, the lack of cooler etc.
The 5600x has an included cooler. But that's more value eroding from AMD's 8+ core parts though there are likely few people who actually stick with the box cooler there.

Oh and pending independent reviews I imagine it’s about time to switch to AMD. I am happy to pay the higher prices if they dominate the gaming tests.
I'm still using my Intel rig but there is a B450 in the house and there may be some jiggery-pokery with me ending up with a 5xxx CPU after January. We'll see what the Blue Bars say about all this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irata

JimboJoneson

Posts: 289   +465
...

I'm also a bit befuddled by the continued obsession with 1080P gaming benchmarks. On one hand I get it, it's a benchmark that focuses on CPU performance rather than the GPU. On the other hand, 1080P benchmarks on high-end CPU+GPU configurations reek of synthetic benchmarks and their lack of practicality in real-world use cases (gaming or otherwise).

We really need proper, real-world benchmarks that incorporate not only gaming at real-world resolutions and refresh rates (=popular gaming monitors), but active screen recording or streaming and other apps running in the background (e.g. Chrome w/ 216 tabs open, Discord, etc).
Exactly what I have been saying for years, and now that AMD seems to have taken the gaming crown, it changes nothing. Yes there's a place for bottlenecking the CPU in benchmarks, but that shouldn't mean that real world typical settings shouldn't be disclaimed on every CPU gaming review, if even just a couple runs with a mid range video card, some 1440p and 4k results, some multitasking gaming (great suggestion), or even just a worded disclaimer.

I have actually seen more than one person seeking help on tech forums where a guy had say a GTX 1060, and put all his saved money into a 9900k, because the benchmarks led him to believe he would get 20% more FPS in his games, and the poor soul wondered why there was no difference. The blame for such sad situations falls on tech reviewers and fanbois alike. This could be alleviated by throwing in some real world tests or a worded disclaimer.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,623   +1,684
TechSpot Elite
I'm a bit perplexed by the (seemingly genuine) pearl-clutching that's going on over the +$49 launch pricing when existing Zen2 XT CPUs are still readily available and continue to top the sales charts at or close to their own launch pricing.
The minimum price of entry went up from $200 to $300 so that's a legitimate gripe. However you will always pay more for new tech, so it shouldn't be an unexpected one.

I'm also a bit befuddled by the continued obsession with 1080P gaming benchmarks. On one hand I get it, it's a benchmark that focuses on CPU performance rather than the GPU. On the other hand, 1080P benchmarks on high-end CPU+GPU configurations reek of synthetic benchmarks and their lack of practicality in real-world use cases (gaming or otherwise).

We really need proper, real-world benchmarks that incorporate not only gaming at real-world resolutions and refresh rates (=popular gaming monitors), but active screen recording or streaming and other apps running in the background (e.g. Chrome w/ 216 tabs open, Discord, etc).
There are many people who need decent FPS to play games smoothly where the PC simply gets out of your way. Interestingly I've been binging a YTer who for a time was the best in his particular game and is still very highly ranked. When asked by a teammate during a game why he capped fps at 200, he replied because he couldn't tell the difference above that. If you look at his later videos he lowers the cap to 150fps, which is where he plays now.

This is an anecdote, but tells me that 150-200 fps is more than good enough to let you play a competitive FPS game and not have your PC get in your way. BTW he plays at 720p but his game does not require any high resolution to play, other games give a distinct advantage at 1080p, and maybe even 1440p for some?
 

Endymio

Posts: 958   +818
You are seriously saying you know nothing of the Intel benchmark scandal's, their compiler scandals, the mass deletion of emails under investigation during their anti-compete trials, the more recent Principled Technologies "paid for" benchmark scandal? Etc.
Actually, I was saying exactly what I was saying, which was a simple question as to what Intel action in particular the OP was disputing. But from the tone of your post, it seems I've touched a nerve. Responding to your points:

Benchmarking. Intel hiring a company to run benchmarks in a way that favors Intel CPUs is hardly earth-shattering anti-competitive behavior. When I pay to throw a party, the band plays the music I want. The benchmarking company (Principled Technologies) did not engage in fraud, and even documented publicly exactly how the benchmark was run. Big deal. As for the earlier incident of Intel writing a compiler that optimizes specifically for Intel chips ... so what? Why else in the world would Intel write a compiler if not to help Intel? If AMD or anyone else doesn't like it, they're free to write their own.

Mass deletion of emails. If done intentionally, that is indeed illegal. Of course, that's not at all what happened. Intel's document retention system from 20 years ago failed to keep years-old emails. You think they're the only company that's ever done that? Paper records are far harder to lose than electronic ones, and yet NASA still managed to lose the plans to the original Saturn-V rocket... along with a bag of the original Apollo moon rocks. Accusations made without evidence carry no weight.

As for the Intel-Dell customer loyalty agreement, such arrangements are common in business -- even in Europe. The EU found this agreement objectionable only because Intel was the market leader. One set of rules for winners, another set for everyone else. That doesn't sound equitable to me. I also point out that if you don't like the arrangement, there are many other OEMs besides Dell ... and that Dell's (and many other OEMs) reluctance to use AMD in that period had far more to do with supply reliability issues, rather than exclusivity contracts.
 
Last edited:

JimboJoneson

Posts: 289   +465
Actually, I was saying exactly what I was saying, which was a simple question as to what Intel action in particular the OP was disputing. But from the tone of your post, it seems I've touched a nerve. Responding to your points:

Benchmarking. Intel hiring a company to run benchmarks in a way that favors Intel CPUs is hardly earth-shattering anti-competitive behavior. When I pay to throw a party, the band plays what music I want. The benchmarking company (Principled Technologies) did not engage in fraud, and even documented publicly exactly how the benchmark was run. Big deal. As for the earlier incident of Intel writing a compiler that optimizes specifically for Intel chips ... so what? Why else in the world would Intel write a compiler if not to help Intel? If AMD or anyone else doesn't like it, they're free to write their own.

Mass deletion of emails. If done intentionally, that is indeed illegal. Of course, that's not at all what happened. Intel's document retention system from 20 years ago failed to keep years-old emails. You think they're the only company that's ever done that? Paper records are far harder to lose than electronic ones, and yet NASA still managed to lose the plans to the original Saturn-V rocket... along with a bag of the original Apollo moon rocks. Accusations made without evidence carry no weight.

As for the Intel-Dell customer loyalty agreement, such arrangements are common in business -- even in Europe. The EU found this agreement objectionable only because Intel was the market leader. One set of rules for winners, another set for everyone else. That doesn't sound equitable to me.
Benchmarking: You seem gullible ... it was pretty obvious what Intel was paying for there -- yes it was a paid for promotion. Maybe check the sources I provided on benchmarking, particularly the all text forum discussions.

Mass deletion of emails: This was brought up in court and Intel was reprimanded. Of course it was just an "accident" You seem gullible as Intel expects others to be.

Dell customer loyalty agreement: Was not what I was referring to - Intel CEO paid Dell CEO directly in an effort to create a monopoly. This is exactly what "Anti-trust" is ...

Again, just because a rapist gets away with their rape, does not mean they are innocent.

Nothing more to say.
 

Arbie

Posts: 136   +229
A statement which neatly refutes your original statement that Intel was "holding back the entire industry". Didn't seem to hold AMD back, now did it?
I realize that to blindly support Intel requires considerable sophistry. But here you're just being obtuse. AMD did barely survive and by gambling the company eventually turned the tables. But not only did Intel do everything legal and illegal to prevent that, which kept AMD hobbled and their mainstream products weak, Intel's stagnation did hold the rest of the industry back. And made them billions from a trapped market that seemed to require less further attention.

That BTW is why we have regulations against monopolies, which you so regret. You'd rather have a "free market" where a company like Intel can buy up or suppress all competition and then settle back. Of course the result isn't a free market, as we learned in the 19th century. But it still sounds good as a screed... somehow, to some people.
 

HardReset

Posts: 839   +375
As for the earlier incident of Intel writing a compiler that optimizes specifically for Intel chips ... so what? Why else in the world would Intel write a compiler if not to help Intel? If AMD or anyone else doesn't like it, they're free to write their own.
Because it was not optimizations for Intel but de-optimizations for everything else than Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irata

Endymio

Posts: 958   +818
Benchmarking: ... it was pretty obvious what Intel was paying for there -- yes it was a paid for promotion.
If you'd read my post, you'd see I'm not disputing that. Intel paid for a benchmark report, and wanted it ran in a way that would cast them in the best light. So?

Mass deletion of emails: Of course it was just an "accident" You seem gullible as Intel expects others to be.
No, I'm simply reluctant to believe wild allegations without evidence. Why not try it sometime?

Because it was not optimizations for Intel but de-optimizations for everything else than Intel.
Actually, it was a simple bit of code that said, "If chip = Intel SSE capable, then use SSE. Otherwise, assume no SSE exists." Sure, Intel could have written into their own compiler a list of which AMD chips at the time supported SSE. But why would they? More importantly, why would anything think they should be legally compelled to do so?
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 958   +818
I realize that to blindly support Intel requires considerable sophistry.
I support the free market, actually. When people start to believe fairy tales about how the government will "help them" more than the free enterprise system, bad things happen.

AMD did barely survive and by gambling the company eventually turned the tables.
And being forced to gamble, to work harder and smarter made AMD far more competitive. That helped us the consumer far more than a court telling AMD they had a god-given right to a minimum market share. Antitrust law exists not to protect competitors, but to protect the competition. And the processor marketplace is one of the most competitive -- and fastest advancing -- markets in the world today.

You'd rather have a "free market" where a company like Intel can buy up or suppress all competition and then settle back.
Because in a free market the moment a company "settles back", they instantly lose their dominant position.

Of course the result isn't a free market, as we learned in the 19th century.
Actuallly, that's what you learned in a late 20th century schoolroom about the 19th century. The reality was considerably different. Take Standard Oil, for instance. It certainly stifled its competitors. But it didn't stifle competition .. and its breakup not only didn't benefit consumers, it raised the price they paid for oil dramatically for some twenty years.
 

HardReset

Posts: 839   +375
Actually, it was a simple bit of code that said, "If chip = Intel SSE capable, then use SSE. Otherwise, assume no SSE exists." Sure, Intel could have written into their own compiler a list of which AMD chips at the time supported SSE. But why would they? More importantly, why would anything think they should be legally compelled to do so?
Almost everything wrong there.

It was:

- If chip's vendor ID was GenuineIntel, then use SSE(2).
- If chip's vendor ID was something else, then do not use SSE(2).

There is no need to list CPU's that support SSE. First, it can be easily checked and since compiler creates additional non-SSE codepath when SSE is used, there is no harm creating SSE codepath for CPU that even doesn't support it.

For that illegal part, I don't even bother to answer. Just use search engines and there are lots of reasons https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?I=112#49
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irata

nodfor

Posts: 23   +22
Now, some might say that you were simply mistaken but this is such an elementary and well-known fact that I refuse to believe that someone who is a member of TechSpot would be so ignorant because we're all enthusiasts here. Enthusiasts aren't ignorant of things that everyone knows, like nVidia uses PhysX while ATi uses OpenCL and AMD bundles coolers with its CPUs while Intel doesn't.

The AMD CPUs that don't come with coolers are speical, non-mainstream CPUs like the 3950X, ThreadRippers, EPYCs and XT models (that aren't the 3600XT). Look at this list and note that the 12-core, 8-core, 6-core and 4-core CPUs ALL say "w/Cooler". Not on this list is the Athlon 3000G which is a 2-core that ALSO has a cooler. So your claim that AMD only bundles coolers with their 6-core CPUs isn't just a lie, it's a WHOPPER.

Do you really love Intel, a CORPORATION, that much to you that you would lie to actual people to defend it after it has abused us all for over a decade?
In a thread where we are talking about next gen AMD cpus you are posting charts from the previous gen. Well hello, that is exactly what I was saying, that they didn't only raise prices, but removed coolers as well from most of their next gen product stack. So both a price increase and a cost reduction.

I don't know what Intel did to you the last decade - personally I bought an i5 750 at 2009 and kept using that as my main PC for nearly a decade. I wouldn't call getting a product good enough to last 10 years, abuse.

Finally, AMD is a corp too. And right now they are increasing prices. And instead of getting some criticism on that in the comments section, they are - strangely - receiving praise.


 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 289   +465
If you'd read my post, you'd see I'm not disputing that. Intel paid for a benchmark report, and wanted it ran in a way that would cast them in the best light. So?
...
Lol ... If you're saying that "casting in the best light" means to pay someone to fudge test results for you, then yeah. Its not like the initial results were "just a little bit" off.

If that's acceptable practice to you, which you seem to be indicating, it says quite a lot about you as a person.

Do read the all text source I linked to understand the depth of Intel's long history of fudging benchmarks in their favour. If the Principled scandal had been a one off, then maybe I'd be inclined to see it as an "accident". Lol, but that's not reality. As I said you seem as gullible as Intel expects you to be.
 

Irata

Posts: 964   +1,413
TechSpot Elite
Did you know that the entire time the 3600X was out on sale there was a 3600 which performed nearly identically but cost considerably less? For months it went on sale at $150. So whilst yes the 3600X is only $50 cheaper the more savvy amongst us would have bought the 3600, which still has 6 cores and a bundled cooler.

The more you know eh!
I bought a 2700X on sale for €150 including tax, shipping and Borderlands 3, so I can‘t really complain (need the extra cores).

The 3600 never made it that low but can be had for €169 right now. Budget, wise, the 3300x is a nice alternative for gaming only (actually available for € 129).

The best thing is I‘m free to upgrade to Ryzen 2 and 3 on my board.

One more thing: The 3600 and 3600X do not come with the same HSF. There is a difference in quality. Not something a decent aftermarket HSF cannot solve but it reduces the price difference a bit. The 5600X will still come with a boxed cooler.
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 964   +1,413
TechSpot Elite
We really need proper, real-world benchmarks that incorporate not only gaming at real-world resolutions and refresh rates (=popular gaming monitors), but active screen recording or streaming and other apps running in the background (e.g. Chrome w/ 216 tabs open, Discord, etc).
That + 1000

I think I‘d actually pay to join a site that did this kind of benchmarking. The Threadripper review on AdoredTV actually included a very heavy multitasking scenario while pretty much all other sites stupidly reviewed this high thread CPU using the same single task benchmarking like for all other CPU.

Me, I want to see multi tasking plus a more realistic IO load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosu

Avro Arrow

Posts: 346   +364
While I won't dispute that the 3900 is slower IN GAMING than Intel's products... I'd like to point out that the person "moving the goal posts" is clearly you. Your argument started with the 3900 vs 9900 and has now moved to the 8700... You also had some nonsense about Borderlands and bottlenecking which, despite me having re-read it 3 times, still can't see what your point is...

Yes, there are plenty of AMD fanboys that think that everything the company makes is made of gold.... but this time it looks like they may be right!

Anyways, no one will actually know whether the AMD claims are lies or not until the CPU is released next month. Maybe wait until then before spouting off?

As to the lack of coolers... most gamers usually chucked the included coolers and bought their own anyways. And while stock users will miss the included cooler, they're pretty cheap and easy to install...

The only "gripe" I can empathize with is the added price. While one fool said that the price has doubled (apparently math wasn't his strong point), a $50 increase (for me closer to $75 as I'm a Canadian) seems like a "we can, so we will" kind of mentality. The thing is, there really isn't any competition for these chips - so AMD could have charged $100 more and they'd probably still sell.
I feel you because I'm a Canadian too (if the name Avro Arrow didn't tip you off already...lol). Here's the thing though, I'm going to reserve judgement on the price increase because it might just be to make the 3000 series even more attractive than the price drops on them alone could do. When the 3000 series CPUs are no longer on the market, I expect AMD to drop the price of the 5000 series by $50USD. If they don't, I'll be the first one to bash them for it. AMD shouldn't be using how badly Intel and/or nVidia treats consumers as an excuse to do the same but not as badly. AMD is popular because they DON'T pull this crap and they should realise this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GameZenChill

Avro Arrow

Posts: 346   +364
Disappointing to see the 5600x cost so much. A MSRP 10600kf with a quick OC will probably still beat a 5600x. Gaming
Another sad Intel fanboy. A quick OC on the Ryzen CPU will put the Intel back in its place. You do realise that overclocking doesnt just happen on Intel, right?

Oh wait, in your world, there is only Intel. NVM
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosu