AMD Ryzen 9 7900X vs. Intel Core i9-12900K

Dr Roboto

Posts: 52   +119
IMO, the issue keeping the new generation of AMD CPUs from being more "competitive" is the cost of the motherboard and RAM. The cheapest AM5 mobo listed on pcpartpicker is $260, three around $310, and 7 others $500+. Ouch. I think the CPU pricing is not bad. I wish it was lower, but such are the times. I hope that we are just seeing the earlier adopter tax and that by black Friday / cyber Monday that we could see some good deals. Also, lets hope the Intel offerings can put serious downward pressure on the AMD prices.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,960
Thanks Steve, another awesome review.

Another TLDR:

7656e8bf0c9ba2e0177b0d38aff08488ba7654b311620f08fd2eb10430b140e2.gif


 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,960
I've got a feeling that these comparisons are kinda pointless/redundant - wait till the 13900K or whatever they decide to call it.
Funny how when its the other way around, very few would say the same thing.

Its like everyone already forgot how Intel acts when they are on top and how they kept us in 4 core hell for a whole decade and releasing mediocre CPUs year after year.

In my book, intel needs to lose a lot more money and a lot more market share before I feel sorry for them or defend or root for them in any way, shape or form.
 
Last edited:

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,960
IMO, the issue keeping the new generation of AMD CPUs from being more "competitive" is the cost of the motherboard and RAM. The cheapest AM5 mobo listed on pcpartpicker is $260, three around $310, and 7 others $500+.
I agree, the prices are simply too much.
But I dont know if we are getting raped because the mobo makers can or given the inflation and other factors, if they simply didnt had a choice.
Either way, I cant blame AMD for that, unless they are overcharging everyone for their chipsets.

Also, lets hope the Intel offerings can put serious downward pressure on the AMD prices.
I understand that, but given how we already know how Intel behaves when they are on top and they still havent lost neither a significant amount money neither market share, I cant forgive them for what they did when they were on top.

Not yet anyways... :)
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
Funny how when its the other way around, very few would say the same thing.

Its like everyone already forgot how Intel acts when they are on top and how they kept us in 4 core hell for a whole decade and releasing mediocre CPUs year after year.

In my book, intel needs to lose a lot more money and a lot more market share before I feel sorry for them or defend or root for them in any way, shape or form.
Hasn't amd kept us in the 6core hell for 6-7 years now? Why don't you hate on them as well? LOL
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,960
Hasn't amd kept us in the 6core hell for 6-7 years now? Why don't you hate on them as well? LOL
Because is not over a decade yet?
Or because unlike Intel, they offer 8 cores for a bit more money, instead of US1K like what Intel did back then?

And mind you, it was US1K over 10 years ago, so in todays money, is even more...

lol, some people just argue for the sake of arguing. lol
 
Last edited:

poshflamingos

Posts: 30   +81
Hasn't amd kept us in the 6core hell for 6-7 years now? Why don't you hate on them as well? LOL

WTF are you on about? The 1st gen Ryzen had 8 cores on day 1, and later gens gave you 12 and 16 core options on top of that.

Meanwhile, Intel spend 11 years (starting with the Q6600/Q6700 in late 2006, ending with the 8700K in late 2017) with nothing beyond 4 cores in their mainstream platform, and 6 of those 11 years (2600K in 2011 to 8700K in 2017) with only very minor IPC improvements between generations.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,455   +1,360
If only Intel wasn't coming out with Raptor Lake. 13700K is last years 12900K, but with faster clocks, more cache, improved P and E cores and only costs $409. Alas Zen 4 is on a hiding to nothing in most cases at current prices. I'll bet they didn't think Intel wouldn't increase prices other than $30 on 13600K. Zen 4 sales are woeful and overall system costs are much higher. Unless MB prices for Zen 4 plummet and they trim cpu prices and launch v-cache models at the current prices I'll need to rethink an AMD build next year.
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
Because is not over a decade yet?
Or because unlike Intel, they offer 8 cores for a bit more money, instead of US1K like what Intel did back then?

And mind you, it was US1K over 10 years ago, so in todays money, is even more...

lol, some people just argue for the sake or arguing. lol
That's just...wrong. Im pretty sure Intel offered 6core cpus back from 2014 for cheap. With quad channel support and a bunch of pcie lanes. I remember the 5820k was just 30€ more expensive than the mainstream i7, so what are you....

Whatever, the internet is full of amd fanatics, no point arguing the facts.
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
No. They kept you in 8-core hell for 2 years and 16-core hell for 4 more.
You don't think Intel had higher core parts? LOL.....

Im specifically talking about the 300€ bracket, since that's the one people complaiin about. That was roundup the price of the i7 mainstream like (300-350). In that same price bracket, amd has kept us in 6 cores since forever
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
WTF are you on about? The 1st gen Ryzen had 8 cores on day 1, and later gens gave you 12 and 16 core options on top of that.

Meanwhile, Intel spend 11 years (starting with the Q6600/Q6700 in late 2006, ending with the 8700K in late 2017) with nothing beyond 4 cores in their mainstream platform, and 6 of those 11 years (2600K in 2011 to 8700K in 2017) with only very minor IPC improvements between generations.
What difference does it make if it's in the mainstream platform, lol! The 8core 5800x was more expensive than Intel's hedt parts from 2014, so who gives a damn what platform it was? Seriously, I don't get you guys.

You wanted a 6core part back in 2014? Intel had one for 350 - 380 euros. That's cheaper than the actual price of a 5600x, the first 6 months it was hovering around and above 400€, lol..
 

poshflamingos

Posts: 30   +81
What difference does it make if it's in the mainstream platform, lol!

The difference is price, "lol!"

Mainstream platform CPUs work on ~$100 motherboards, while for HEDT you're looking at multiple hundreds of $ for a board.

It also impacts upgradeability. When you have high core counts on the mainstream platform, you can buy a budget or mid-range PC knowing you can upgrade to a bigger CPU later without changing anything else on your build. When you're an Intel customer stuck with quad-cores for a decade, you can't upgrade without also shelling out for a new motherboard.

The 8core 5800x was more expensive than Intel's hedt parts from 2014

No, it wasn't. Intel's 8-core option in 2014, the i7-5960X, had a MSRP of $1060. That on top of the much more expensive HEDT boards too.

Also, when the 5800X launched, the 3700X still existed for much cheaper. And it was also followed by the 5700X, again for much cheaper.

You wanted a 6core part back in 2014? Intel had one for 350 - 380 euros.

Except you also needed a $300 LGA 2011 board, and it also forced you into expensive DDR4 at a time when DDR3 was the standard.

That's cheaper than the actual price of a 5600x, the first 6 months it was hovering around and above 400€, lol..

No, it wasn't, "lol." PCPartPicker price history from the EU shows it was around €370 at launch, and steadly fell to around €310 six months later. Meanwhile in the US it was available for the $300 MSRP the whole time.

And again, unlike the 5820K, the Ryzen 5600X works perfectly well on a $80 B450 motherboard with cheap standard RAM.
 

DSirius

Posts: 368   +771
TechSpot Elite
I've got a feeling that these comparisons are kinda pointless/redundant - wait till the 13900K or whatever they decide to call it.
Well, if we wait after Intel we might end up waiting for a long time. Especially last years, Intel launch delays are famous, right on time only on paper.
And to this advice, why wait for 13900k? Better wait for Zen4-3D in January 2024 :)
This comparison is welcomed for some users because they are buying computers or components and many of them needs computers today (or everyday).
 
Last edited:

poshflamingos

Posts: 30   +81
Yeah, the 3950x and the 5950x (and of course the 7950x) are the most expensive CPUs on a mainstream platform. So what difference does it make?

First, you don't need to go for the 16-core option, you also have 12-core and 8-core options below that (3900X was around $450, 5900X is $400 now; 2700 was around $250, 3700X was around $300, 5700X is $250 now). Reminder that this discussion is because you said AMD is a "6-core hell."

Second, like I already said, the 3950X and 5950X can go into a $80 B450 board with $60 of DDR4 RAM. That's the difference from HEDT platforms. Even though those chips launched at around $700, a build with them is still cheaper than all but the most bottom of the barrel HEDT builds.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,020   +853
Yeah, the 3950x and the 5950x (and of course the 7950x) are the most expensive CPUs on a mainstream platform. So what difference does it make?

The difference is that those people who bought a 8700k 6 years ago, can't just drop in a 12900k into their system, like people who bought a Ryzen 7 1800x can drop in a 5800x3d...

Intel has had 4 sockets trying to keep up with AMD. And now that AMD has a new chip set & Socket design.. Intel is going with a new lga1800 Socket in 6 months to compete with AM5 Socket.

You'd be an absolute fool to buy/build a system that uses EOL LGA1700.. when that mobo has no upgrade path, while also knowing AM5 just came out and will offer some 40 future CPUs for that mobo over the next 6 years.

AM5 is superior to intel's LGA1700.
 

DSirius

Posts: 368   +771
TechSpot Elite
The difference is that those people who bought a 8700k 6 years ago, can't just drop in a 12900k into their system, like people who bought a Ryzen 7 1800x can drop in a 5800x3d...

Intel has had 4 sockets trying to keep up with AMD. And now that AMD has a new chip set & Socket design.. Intel is going with a new lga1800 Socket in 6 months to compete with AM5 Socket.

You'd be an absolute fool to buy/build a system that uses EOL LGA1700.. when that mobo has no upgrade path, while also knowing AM5 just came out and will offer some 40 future CPUs for that mobo over the next 6 years.

AM5 is superior to intel's LGA1700.
True, in fact AM5 is superior to Intel's actual and next year platform.
Thanks to AMD long term support platform consumers can realize now how outrageous and profit milking is Intel socket platform support.
Claiming that Intel processor, MB and memory combo is better than AMD Zen4, AM5 and memory combo is just an Intel PR to confuse buyers. Sooner or later they will realize that changing Intel platform every 2 years is too expensive.
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
First, you don't need to go for the 16-core option, you also have 12-core and 8-core options below that (3900X was around $450, 5900X is $400 now; 2700 was around $250, 3700X was around $300, 5700X is $250 now). Reminder that this discussion is because you said AMD is a "6-core hell."

Second, like I already said, the 3950X and 5950X can go into a $80 B450 board with $60 of DDR4 RAM. That's the difference from HEDT platforms. Even though those chips launched at around $700, a build with them is still cheaper than all but the most bottom of the barrel HEDT builds.
But that wasn't the point. You said the problem with hedt was the cost, when the costs on the mainstream have gone completely bonkers the last few gens. Have you checked mobo prices? Both x570 and x670 are through the roof.
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
The difference is that those people who bought a 8700k 6 years ago, can't just drop in a 12900k into their system, like people who bought a Ryzen 7 1800x can drop in a 5800x3d...

Intel has had 4 sockets trying to keep up with AMD. And now that AMD has a new chip set & Socket design.. Intel is going with a new lga1800 Socket in 6 months to compete with AM5 Socket.

You'd be an absolute fool to buy/build a system that uses EOL LGA1700.. when that mobo has no upgrade path, while also knowing AM5 just came out and will offer some 40 future CPUs for that mobo over the next 6 years.

AM5 is superior to intel's LGA1700.
And the difference is, people who bought an 8700k don't need to upgrade, unlike the ones that went for the 1800x :)

Mobo upgradability is GREAT, I get that. But not with amd's prices. Im sorry but - for example, numerous points in time - a 5800x or 5800x 3d on it's cost as much as an i7 + a motherboard. So sure, you can upgrade to an 8core zen 3 without swapping motherboards, but you are already paying for a freaking motherboard included in the price of these CPU's.