First reviews of Intel's Core i5-11400 are in, and it's a worthy competitor to the Ryzen...

CrisisDog

Posts: 239   +132
I thought about getting one, but after looking at benchmarks against the previous generation i5, I don't see a point. I also hear Intel pushed these chips to their limit, so not a lot of overclock headroom. 10th generation FTW, apparently....
 

grvalderrama

Posts: 280   +120
no, it is not.
Not even the MSRP (which is much higher in the rest of the world if you included taxes).
It is a 6C/12T CPU in 2021.
$250 would be the right price, but AMD now think they are too good to have good prices (as it was with Zen 2).
I believe AMD doesn't care too much about 5600x pricing because they still have the 3600 around to fill in the budget gap and I also think that the price is actually fair since it is a great cpu, not to mention that they do have a serious chip shortage that impacts on pricing.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 779   +605
no, it is not.
Not even the MSRP (which is much higher in the rest of the world if you included taxes).
It is a 6C/12T CPU in 2021.
$250 would be the right price, but AMD now think they are too good to have good prices (as it was with Zen 2).

Wow I bought my R5 3600 when it basically just came out and paid like $174 - $184 at BESTBUY
 
I dont think its fine, we'v ehad 6 core CPUs for under $200 for several years now, AMD's own 8 cores were going for under $300 just a generation. Generally hardware gets CHEAPER over time. $300 for a 6 core in 2021 is a rip off, Especially when AMD's own 3600 was under $200, and the 5600x is nowhere near 50% faster.

I agree, I bought my Ryzen 2600 almost 2 years ago for around 130 €, and it came with Division 2 and World War Z.

Now for the same price I can buy an I5-10400f and nothing noteworthy on AMD's side. Zen2s are still pricey, even after almost 2 years of its release, not to mention the overpriced Zen3s.

AMD started to increase their prices on GPU front too around that time, so as I see it AMD is no better than the other companies, they are just as greedy.
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 191   +294
It's good to see that intel can at least compete in the mid and low end... Come on intel we need you to pressure AMD into lowering the prices of the most sold CPU tiers!

I'll probably never buy a 12 or 16 core CPU for gaming (unless they become the low tier someday), so we need more competition for 6 and 8 core CPUs. I'm rooting for intel now to keep close to AMD and not drop off the cliff completely, rofl :laughing:

Like xbots dreaming of their 1st great AAA game after so many years of nothing, Intel fanboys now dream of Alder Lake as their savior... Sweet dreams!
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,107   +688
I agree, I bought my Ryzen 2600 almost 2 years ago for around 130 €, and it came with Division 2 and World War Z.

Now for the same price I can buy an I5-10400f and nothing noteworthy on AMD's side. Zen2s are still pricey, even after almost 2 years of its release, not to mention the overpriced Zen3s.

AMD started to increase their prices on GPU front too around that time, so as I see it AMD is no better than the other companies, they are just as greedy.
Zen3 overpriced? Not at all. Check how much you must pay for 4 year old i7-7700K. Before you even think about saying there are newer ones available, I remind that i7-7700K is best CPU for LGA1151 v1. Also remember power consumption too, not just speed.

For i5-10400F you'll need new motherboard, Zen2 CPU's fit many 2017 motherboards. Not valid comparison.

AMD raised GPU prices because RDNA2 ones were much bigger and faster than RDNA GPU's.

Your points are simply absurd.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,044   +2,839
Intel needs to start doing what AMD does and stop changing sockets every CPU release.

It feels weird knowing I can buy a new AMD CPU without having to buy a new motherboard. Intel doesn't offer that.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 103   +184
Oh My God!!!
This is like early 2010s, but with Intel and AMD switching sides.
AMD had garbage top-end, while attracting budget concious clients (mostly fanboys), while being a node or two behind Intel.
Genuinely, I never anticipated This! I believed AMD recent reign is Intel's temporary slip, that They will soon make up with 10nm product, fixing power consumption and spectre/meltdown vulnerabilities, and so on, but It's like 4 years now. Why is Intel still on top in revenue? Who's buying into Their cr*p? How much money do They have to burn before investors notice?

One would do well to look at this a little less like who happens to have the better IPC and efficiency, and more in the sense of who can be a reliable partner for the major OEMs and enterprise customers. Scale, long term commitments, mature platforms, and track record matter just as much.

You shouldn't assume Intel's customers are stupid. Nor that investors don't know what's happening. Intel investors are pricing the company at 13 times price/earnings at the moment, which seems a lot more reasonable than AMD's stock 39 times. Expected growth is priced in - but by no means a certainty given AMD's checkered history when it comes to execution. AMD is and will remain severely supply constrained for the foreseeable future and until that changes they are nowhere near even a shot at beating Intel in revenue.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,107   +688
One would do well to look at this a little less like who happens to have the better IPC and efficiency, and more in the sense of who can be a reliable partner for the major OEMs and enterprise customers. Scale, long term commitments, mature platforms, and track record matter just as much.

You shouldn't assume Intel's customers are stupid. Nor that investors don't know what's happening. Intel investors are pricing the company at 13 times price/earnings at the moment, which seems a lot more reasonable than AMD's stock 39 times. Expected growth is priced in - but by no means a certainty given AMD's checkered history when it comes to execution. AMD is and will remain severely supply constrained for the foreseeable future and until that changes they are nowhere near even a shot at beating Intel in revenue.
AMD is far away from being "severely supply constrained". Just looking at Intel on past few years, Intel was very severely supply constrained. Couldn't deliver basic parts because they had no capacity at all. AMD could deliver everything they want except GPU's that cannot deliver Nvidia either.

Also when we check last few years, Intel had NOT been reliable partner to OEM's and their server offerings basically are much much worse than AMD's.

It's just some people are stupid and buy Intel despite AMD is better everywhere. And then those same *****s complain about Intel's high prices 🤦‍♂️
 

Gimp65

Posts: 21   +30
Intel is no longer the king since a while, to be honest.
But competition is what we want, as customers. Look at what AMD did when they though they were "the best" : Zen 3 at ridiculous prices and every mid-low end tiers cut off (no 5700X, no 5600...).

What do you mean by "thought they where the best", Zen 3 is the most powerfull x86 CPU out there.

How is it AMD's fault that prices are extremely high right now ? Their MSRP is competitive with the competition. The demand suddenly skyrocketed 4-5X, no one was prepared for this.

What happens with the CPU / GPU prices ones they go to retailers is not in AMD's hands.

The reason for not having any non x parts is first and foremost the capacity constraint. Now with the constraints, it is natural for AMD to prioritize the demand for EPYC, since this segment is absolutely critical for AMD's future.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 797   +1,061
I think the $300 msrp is fine.

if you are referring to the retail pricing that the sellers are posting that isn't AMD. That is newegg, amazon etc marking up pricing for their own profit margins.

I don't think MSRP of $300 is fine for a 6 core cpu in 2021 especially since Ryzen 7 3700X was an 8 Core and came with a half decent cooler and had MSRP of $320 -$329?. 6 Cores should cost no more than $250
 

Irata

Posts: 1,434   +2,315
I agree, I bought my Ryzen 2600 almost 2 years ago for around 130 €, and it came with Division 2 and World War Z.

Now for the same price I can buy an I5-10400f and nothing noteworthy on AMD's side. Zen2s are still pricey, even after almost 2 years of its release, not to mention the overpriced Zen3s.
I bought my Ryzen 2700X for EUR 150 boxed for €150 including VAT, shipping and Borderlands 3 in the beginning of last year. Am still very happy about this. And to this day, I can‘t get a similar good deal - there is no last gen eight core available anywhere near this price, neither from Intel nor AMD.

I am, however, aware that this was a one-off as I bought at EOL „everything must go“ prices and the CPU was made on a different process and foundry as the one that followed.

Both Intel‘s and AMD‘s current gen CPU are made on the same process as their last gen.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 103   +184
AMD is far away from being "severely supply constrained". Just looking at Intel on past few years, Intel was very severely supply constrained. Couldn't deliver basic parts because they had no capacity at all. AMD could deliver everything they want except GPU's that cannot deliver Nvidia either.

Also when we check last few years, Intel had NOT been reliable partner to OEM's and their server offerings basically are much much worse than AMD's.

It's just some people are stupid and buy Intel despite AMD is better everywhere. And then those same *****s complain about Intel's high prices 🤦‍♂️

Hmm, if you say so. Meanwhile, in the real world, demand for TSMC 7nm capacity is currently outstripping supply by about 30%.

Even with Apple moving some product lines to 5nm and thereby freeing up capacity, AMD is not able to scale up production anywhere near as much as they would like. That has hurt its ability to secure large OEM contracts, and continues to do so.
 

Lounds

Posts: 806   +717
One would do well to look at this a little less like who happens to have the better IPC and efficiency, and more in the sense of who can be a reliable partner for the major OEMs and enterprise customers. Scale, long term commitments, mature platforms, and track record matter just as much.

You shouldn't assume Intel's customers are stupid. Nor that investors don't know what's happening. Intel investors are pricing the company at 13 times price/earnings at the moment, which seems a lot more reasonable than AMD's stock 39 times. Expected growth is priced in - but by no means a certainty given AMD's checkered history when it comes to execution. AMD is and will remain severely supply constrained for the foreseeable future and until that changes they are nowhere near even a shot at beating Intel in revenue.
AMD will absolutely steal the data center market from under intel. Intel doesn't have a product that can compete with Epyc's line up. So that 39x you estimate is definitely valid. AMD has room to grow, intel does not.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,107   +688
Hmm, if you say so. Meanwhile, in the real world, demand for TSMC 7nm capacity is currently outstripping supply by about 30%.

Even with Apple moving some product lines to 5nm and thereby freeing up capacity, AMD is not able to scale up production anywhere near as much as they would like. That has hurt its ability to secure large OEM contracts, and continues to do so.
TSMC's total capacity is overbooked. AMD has basically what they want. AMD capacity now is double they had last year. 30K wafers/month is pretty huge amount.

AMD would want to scale production more right now? Remember that it takes around 4 months to get anything done on 7nm tech. It seems that Ryzen 5000 series retail shortage is somewhat easing at least on some countries. Shortage began around 6 months ago and now we are seeing effects of production increase. When something is available on retail, there surely isn't OEM shortage. AMD also told they had enough they wanted for retail launch.

There also doesn't seem to be real shortage of 5000-series APU's on laptops. Desktop versions are just coming.

For GPU's, AMD know very well what will happen when crypto bubble says boom. Market will be full of used video cards, so AMD would not want to increase GPU production too much.

And when it comes to fact AMD "lost" market share Q4/2020 is not at all indication about supply issues. Intel clearly said they shipped much more low end CPU's than before. Cheap crap makes huge difference in units shipped. And as we saw, not any semiconductor company was able to predict huge rise on demand. Not even those who were supposed to have "excess capacity".

AMD will absolutely steal the data center market from under intel. Intel doesn't have a product that can compete with Epyc's line up. So that 39x you estimate is definitely valid. AMD has room to grow, intel does not.

That mostly depends on buyers intelligence. Server buyers are usually stupidest, challenged by laptop buyers. Desktop buyers are most intelligent for sure.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
Zen3 overpriced? Not at all. Check how much you must pay for 4 year old i7-7700K. Before you even think about saying there are newer ones available, I remind that i7-7700K is best CPU for LGA1151 v1. Also remember power consumption too, not just speed.

For i5-10400F you'll need new motherboard, Zen2 CPU's fit many 2017 motherboards. Not valid comparison.

AMD raised GPU prices because RDNA2 ones were much bigger and faster than RDNA GPU's.

Your points are simply absurd.
Right back atchya pall. What point are you trying to make here, other then "here are my whataboutisms?"

Nobody was talking about the 7700k. Nobody cares about the 7700k. Were discussing the price increase for ryzen 5000 vs the chips it was made to replace.

Were not talking about upgrading older boards. Were talking about the ryzen 5600x being 50%+ more expensive for not even half as much more performance. You want to bring motherboards into the discussion, you can get a 11400f, b560 motherboard, AND RAM for the price of just a msrp 5600x.

Nvidia rtx 3000 is much bigger and faster then rtx 2000, yet price per $ has dramatically improved and pricing tiers are sensible. Not sure what you're trying to say here either.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,107   +688
Right back atchya pall. What point are you trying to make here, other then "here are my whataboutisms?"

Nobody was talking about the 7700k. Nobody cares about the 7700k. Were discussing the price increase for ryzen 5000 vs the chips it was made to replace.
Ryzen 5000 is much faster than chip is "replaced". Why much faster chip should have same price? 7700K was taken as example of 4 year old CPU because 2 year old Zen2's are "pricey". Compared to 7700K, Zen2 chips are very cheap.
Were not talking about upgrading older boards. Were talking about the ryzen 5600x being 50%+ more expensive for not even half as much more performance. You want to bring motherboards into the discussion, you can get a 11400f, b560 motherboard, AND RAM for the price of just a msrp 5600x.

Nvidia rtx 3000 is much bigger and faster then rtx 2000, yet price per $ has dramatically improved and pricing tiers are sensible. Not sure what you're trying to say here either.
From when speed increase on % should be same as price increase in %? Considering speed increase, 50% more price is justified. Even more because most of speed increase is single core speed. (this was 3600X vs 5600X).

For 10400, it was just released by Intel, not AMD. What is point here? It's pretty certain AMD will lower 5600X price some time. For budget buyers regarding motherboards, there are plenty of used AM4 boards available. For LGA1200, not so much for very obvious reason.

AMD pricing for 5000 series was OK and 6000 series is much better, AMD price increase is not problem at all. On Nvidia's side, 3000 series heavy price drop just proves what I said when 2000 series was launched: it was very heavily overpriced. Nvidia's 3000 series just took pricing into reasonable level.

For sizes: GA102 is 628 mm² whereas TU102 is 754 mm². Nvidia chips got smaller, not bigger. Different manufacturing tech but still, AMD chips got much larger (251 vs 520 mm²).
 
I think AMD might have been just sitting on the non-x 5600 as I am positive they've got at least some chips that might not quite clock at 5600x numbers but slightly lower = no problem. So to me it is possible they just realized intel's 10400 just wouldn't compete at all so they had a chance at selling the higher priced 5600x variant, something that's been notoriously easy to avoid on previous gens as most people know you get a better deal with a 1600, 2600 and 3600 all capable of hitting the "X" variant clocks with minor overclocking even on the AMD cooler.

Then again they might truly have not enough chips and they might not respond to the 11400 at all, but I think in less than a month they'll rollout a non-x 5600.
That means new cpus for Am4 are on the way???
 

Ludak021

Posts: 438   +299
I can show it to you in a few months when stocks normalise and AMD releases the lower end products. Until then you can enjoy the insane scalability of Zen 3 in the high end mainstream CPUs and server CPUs.
So, AMD has no zen3 for the masses, yet.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,578   +3,405
TechSpot Elite
So, AMD has no zen3 for the masses, yet.
Is that a problem?

Also seriously... what is your problem? You are creating arguments that make zero sense. Staggered releases are normal and the delay is clearly because of supply issues. Do you want paper launches again? AMD made the smart choice to focus on the high-end with what supply they can get right now and wait for Intel to show their hand. Let's not forget that they had the Zen3 server launch just recently with 19 SKUs (from 8 to 64 cores).

Who knows, maybe AMD will skip the low end now and release them with the rumoured Zen3+ CPUs later this year.
 
Last edited:

Puiu

Posts: 4,578   +3,405
TechSpot Elite
My point was to prove my point from earlier. I did that, you keep deflecting.
what point? that there are no sub 200 CPUs Zen3 yet so that means that the architecture's scalability is bad? this makes zero sense. The delay in releasing such CPUs has nothing to do with scalability.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 438   +299
No. My point was that AMD can, but they don't want to becase they dont care about average Joe, they are in it for money, just like Intel is. Where is their "care for gamers" now? That is a rhetorical question. 5700 was just spotted, funny, not 5300, 5200...