Intel's comeback: Raptor Lake sales look stronger than AMD's Zen 4

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,355   +4,362
Pricing is easily changed.
It is, but it still hasn't come to pass.
Either way... pricing includes all elements of a system. That includes the cost of the cooler, the power supply, and the electricity used over the life of the system... all things that impact Intel negatively at the moment.
Yes, they do, but not in any significant way. People rarely, if ever, look at the power consumption of their PCs. Like, just look at what video cards have turned into. Coolers are dirt cheap and most existing PSUs aren't going to have problems with 13th-gen Intel CPUs.

Yes, Intel has negatives but right now, the list of positives and negatives that matter most to most people are in favour of Intel.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,248
It's simple. AMD doesn't need to charge what they're charging but they still are. They're literally pulling an Intel and that's a serious error because the thing that has kept AMD afloat for so long was animosity towards Intel's practices.

If AMD starts acting anti-consumer like Intel did, people like me who swore off of Intel will just not care anymore and start to buy Intel again if it's the better deal. Intel is still many times the size of AMD and it's not out of the realm of possibility that AMD could find themselves in the same position that they were with FX.

If AMD destroys the good will that they've accumulated over the years, nobody will care about "Sticking it to Intel" or "Sticking it to nVidia" and AMD could become insolvent. AMD has definitely come back from the brink but they're still tiny compared to Intel and/or nVidia. It's an error for them to become as money-grubbing as Intel because it will mean that they've forgotten the biggest reason why they still exist.
I am sorry brother, but I still dont understand what the issue is.

The "problem" is that you want a R9 7950X for 300 bucks or something like that?
And the only reason why you are obsevirng Intel current prices is because is cheaper for them to produce their junk CPU's (hence proving that once again, when allowed, they will rape us) or worse, they are doing price dumping, which wouldn’t surprise me, since they are still the dirties player in the game.

The good will part, plus the other pro consumer moves they keep doing is why I keep buying and defending them, but I honestly dont understand what they are doing so wrong to have so much negativity thrown their way, like the hit piece that this article is, for example.
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,355   +4,362
That likely will not be the case once the 3D cache Ryzens are released in a few months.
It all depends on what the pricing will be. The cost of the CPUs and motherboards is what's most unpalatable about AM5 right now. The cost of DDR5 has come down enough that it's not a big deal but those motherboard prices are absolutely insane.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,248
those motherboard prices are absolutely insane.
Thats not AMD fault though.
And again, talking about their CPU prices, reposting:

About pricing, again, they released their CPUs at the same prices or cheaper than the previous:
  • Ryzen 9 7950X: $700 Ryzen 9 5950X: $800
  • Ryzen 9 7900X: $550 Ryzen 9 5900X: $550
  • Ryzen 7 7700X: $400 Ryzen 7 5800X: $450
  • Ryzen 5 7600X: $300 Ryzen 5 5600X: $300

    And those new CPU's are easily up to 30% faster. I honestly do not see their fault.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,419   +2,963
Staff member
About pricing, again, they released their CPUs at the same prices or cheaper than the previous:
  • Ryzen 9 7950X: $700 Ryzen 9 5950X: $800
  • Ryzen 9 7900X: $550 Ryzen 9 5900X: $550
  • Ryzen 7 7700X: $400 Ryzen 7 5800X: $450
  • Ryzen 5 7600X: $300 Ryzen 5 5600X: $300

    And those new CPU's are easily up to 30% faster. I honestly do not see their fault.
Intel's done the same with the 13th Gen prices, albeit to smaller sized reductions (if any):

13900K - $589, 12900K - $599
13700K - $409, 12799K - $409
13600K - $319, 12600K - $319

Now while LGA1700 is an end-of-line platform, motherboard manufacturing costs have risen, in part due to supply chain price increases, but also because CPUs are drawing ever more power - thus motherboards need to have more layers to supply that current.

Some of that platform cost to the end user can be mitigated by the use of DDR4. There's no such option with AM5 and AMD would have obviously been aware of this. So, in effect, they're asking the end user to absorb all of the costs: new CPU, new motherboard, new RAM.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that AMD should have significantly cut the prices of the 7000 series to account for all of this, but it does feel like they've priced everything 'normally' for a market that's anything but normal at this moment in time.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,355   +4,362
I am sorry brother, but I still dont understand what the issue is.

The "problem" is that you want a R9 7950X for 300 bucks or something like that?
Of course I do but that's not realistic. The problem is that the R9-7950X is CA$950 while the i9-13900K (which is faster) only costs CA$800. If AMD wants to price up where Intel normally does, they must at least take relative performance into account. As it stands right now, they haven't done that.
And the only reason why you are obsevirng Intel current prices is because is cheaper for them to produce their junk CPU's (hence proving that once again, allowed, they will rape us) or worse, they are doing price dumping, which would surprise me, since they are still the dirties player in the game.
Of course I'm aware that what you're saying is true but most people don't. Most people won't care (or understand) that the Intel CPU draws more juice and they won't know or care that it's older tech. They'll only care that it's faster and less expensive. We can't look at it through our own well-informed eyes because we're a very small slice of the population pie. We have to look at the market the way that most people (relative noobs) would and ask ourselves "If I didn't know what I know, what would I choose?" and right now, there's no question that I would choose Intel.

Let's remember that people bought inferior Intel Pentium-4 instead of the superior Athlon64 simply because the clock speed was higher. Most people have no clue about computers at the level that we do. This is why most AMD owners during the Phenom II and FX eras were enthusiasts. The general public didn't want to "risk" that kind of money on a product that they didn't know. Fortunately, AMD has made a big enough name for themselves that it doesn't hinder them to any significant degree but they're still not on the same level of name recognition as Intel.
The good will part, plus the other pro consumer moves they keep doing is why I keep buying and defending them, but I honestly dont understand what they are doing so wrong to have so much negativity their way, like the hit piece that this article is, for example.
This article is (as expected) full of crazy hyperbole but there is a kernel of truth at the base of it. There's no question that AM5 isn't selling but I'm not sure that AMD wants it to sell just yet.

It has been speculated that nVidia is pricing the RTX 4090 out of this world to encourage consumers to buy up the remaining RTX 3000 parts that would otherwise gather dust. In the same way, there's a huge abundance of AM4 parts still in the market channels and AM4 is still the market king, outselling ALL of Intel and AM5 combined. In that respect, there really isn't any "Intel Comeback" because Intel is still getting buried by AM4.

The only reason why AMD released AM5 is because they probably knew that Intel was going to cut their own arm off to get the "performance crown" back. As it turns out, Intel did exactly that with that power consumption and thermals. AMD was probably not willing to go to that extreme and so released AM5 first so that they wouldn't look so bad (since 13th-gen Intel is WAY faster than AM4 in most cases). Remember, AMD has to keep the legions of noobs interested and this is how they did it. Meanwhile, AM4 is still an amazing platform and I don't think that AMD really wanted to release AM5 yet, but Intel forced their hand. Remember, mindshare matters.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,410   +7,845
Intel's done the same with the 13th Gen prices, albeit to smaller sized reductions (if any):

13900K - $589, 12900K - $599
13700K - $409, 12799K - $409
13600K - $319, 12600K - $319

Now while LGA1700 is an end-of-line platform, motherboard manufacturing costs have risen, in part due to supply chain price increases, but also because CPUs are drawing ever more power - thus motherboards need to have more layers to supply that current.
One other way of handling more current is to increase the copper weight - which also adds to cost.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that AMD should have significantly cut the prices of the 7000 series to account for all of this, but it does feel like they've priced everything 'normally' for a market that's anything but normal at this moment in time.
They are definitely dealing with a tough market ATM. However, when this gen of Zen was on the drawing board, predicting that the market would be tough is not an easy call.

As I see it, things will work out. IMO, this is nowhere near a disaster for AMD. Maybe enthusiasts don't like the current conditions, but AMD has done a great job of increasing their market share in all aspects of computing. IMO, that is what is most important.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,248
I'm not suggesting for one moment that AMD should have significantly cut the prices of the 7000 series to account for all of this, but it does feel like they've priced everything 'normally' for a market that's anything but normal at this moment in time.
That makes more sense to me, thanks.

I guess that the issue is the new tech (DDR5 and mobo) prices, where the only place I could possibly blame AMD is in using that new tech, which in this industry, always comes with a premium.

In my eyes, they have a "clearer" path, buy old tech cheap or buy new expensive but more future proof tech.

As you said, Intel is in their hybrid weird mode, but bad anyways, since all is old and will be obsolete soon.
 

waclark

Posts: 788   +488
I think AMD, and some in tech and finance media, were banking WAY too hard on the "longevity" of AM5 being a selling point, forgetting that the majority of buyers do not upgrade CPUs ever year, or two, or he'll 3-4. Look at the number of people just now upgrading from haswell or Skylake.

Those that DO like to upgrade on the same board have am4, and the legend that is the 5800x3d. For those that don't lga 1700 being eol doesn't matter, it'll be kept for many years, and the raptor lake platform is genuinely cheaper.
This has been my point, CPU upgrades are not as attractive to gamers because the CPU is generally not the bottleneck. By the time that happens, there will be good reasons to go with a new mobo, RAM and CPU. So in 2025, when people are looking to upgrade, you'll have the same issue that AMD supporters are saying about Intel today. You could upgrade your CPU, but will you have the latest and greatest memory, PCie, SSD etc?

My advice, buy the most you can afford today, go mid-range CPU and spend the money saved on a good GPU which will do more for you in games. If you need an upgrade in a couple of years you can always go with i9-13900, but likely that won't be your performance issue.
 

waclark

Posts: 788   +488
That makes more sense to me, thanks.

I guess that the issue is the new tech (DDR5 and mobo) prices, where the only place I could possibly blame AMD is in using that new tech, which in this industry, always comes with a premium.

In my eyes, they have a "clearer" path, buy old tech cheap or buy new expensive but more future proof tech.

As you said, Intel is in their hybrid weird mode, but bad anyways, since all is old and will be obsolete soon.
It won't be "obsolete". It will perform very well for several years. Just because new mobos and new CPUs come out, doesn't mean anything is obsolete, much like the 5800x3D isn't "obsolete" just because there are new AMD CPUs.
 

Draconian

Posts: 149   +55
I'm trying to decide whether to go with Ryzen 7000 series or Intel Raptor Lake. Raptor Lake supports higher memory speeds while the AM5 platform will have a longer life.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,248
It won't be "obsolete". It will perform very well for several years. Just because new mobos and new CPUs come out, doesn't mean anything is obsolete, much like the 5800x3D isn't "obsolete" just because there are new AMD CPUs.
You undesrtand the concept clearly, so wont be chasing another moving goalpost.
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,330   +855
Funny to see how fanboys from both sides arguing whenever a topic like this appears.

Chill guys, AMD had their time with Zen3, now Intel is swinging back. They will go back and forth like this forever and we all are benefited as customers.

Imo, AMD is doing just fine. If they can clear off the zen3 stocks till their mid range Zen4 come out, it will be a big success for them. Remember that they are dealing with over supply, not over demand like last year.
Their offering isn't price competitive atm because the new mobos are insanely expensive and that is coupled with DDR5 expense. Personally that would be my market anyway because I skip a few gens and usually go for future proofing in a build like excess mem bandwidth.

So strategically it's ok but marketwise they will take a hit until they can fix those cost issues.

The fact Intel's new offering dropped with DDR4 support, existing mobo support and outperformed AMD's top offering in majority of tests I've seen says Intel aimed to win the short term crown and succeeded.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,109   +940
It all depends on what the pricing will be. The cost of the CPUs and motherboards is what's most unpalatable about AM5 right now. The cost of DDR5 has come down enough that it's not a big deal but those motherboard prices are absolutely insane.

If you are a bargain shopper, you can wait until LGA1851 comes in 8 months... then build an AM5 system because there will be hundreds of cheap $150 mobos for you.

Or you can just build on an outdated EOL AM4/LGA17 board now and know your stuck and it's throwaway...


I think everyone understands why iNTEL is trying to rush out LGA1851 socket & mobos to compete with AM5. You sound made that AMD got a 9 month head start.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 744   +612
If you are a bargain shopper, you can wait until LGA1851 comes in 8 months... then build an AM5 system because there will be hundreds of cheap $150 mobos for you.

Or you can just build on an outdated EOL AM4/LGA17 board now and know your stuck and it's throwaway...


I think everyone understands why iNTEL is trying to rush out LGA1851 socket & mobos to compete with AM5. You sound made that AMD got a 9 month head start.
Intel is already competing with AMD not to mention the less expensive B760 boards and locked cpu's are due for release in January.
 

MarcusNumb

Posts: 108   +179
Their offering isn't price competitive atm because the new mobos are insanely expensive and that is coupled with DDR5 expense. Personally that would be my market anyway because I skip a few gens and usually go for future proofing in a build like excess mem bandwidth.

So strategically it's ok but marketwise they will take a hit until they can fix those cost issues.

The fact Intel's new offering dropped with DDR4 support, existing mobo support and outperformed AMD's top offering in majority of tests I've seen says Intel aimed to win the short term crown and succeeded.
Indeed Intel is swinging back really good, they have resources to do so, and I'm glad that both of them did not increase the CPU prices this time.

DDR5 or Mobo prices are not at the hand of AMD unfortunately, but I think in about 6 months prices will be more reasonable. They already took a hit in the market by loosing about 2% on Steam, but I don't think it's too important for them when their cashcow is the EPYC series.

I don't expect much from the first gen of the new AM5. I'm eager to see whether AM5 can mature and age well. Hopefully AMD will not keep pushing the power limit.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,109   +940
Is that when AMD releases their less expensive locked cpu's?
No, that is when X650 chipsets board are coming. Just months ahead of the B760 boards...

Just like the Z790 chipsets boards are more expensive... the only difference is that on AM5 boards, the socket isn't dead, like the LGA17.

If you want a budget AM5 system, you have to wait until next month for cheaper X650 boards.
 

Bamda

Posts: 416   +222
I looked at the USA list this morning and it was the 13600k as the top selling CPU. My "guess" is the list is updated based on a short period of time (24-72 hours?).
Well, I guess in the 4 hrs plus between our posts the chart changed.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 537   +307
Indeed Intel is swinging back really good, they have resources to do so, and I'm glad that both of them did not increase the CPU prices this time.

DDR5 or Mobo prices are not at the hand of AMD unfortunately, but I think in about 6 months prices will be more reasonable. They already took a hit in the market by loosing about 2% on Steam, but I don't think it's too important for them when their cashcow is the EPYC series.

I don't expect much from the first gen of the new AM5. I'm eager to see whether AM5 can mature and age well. Hopefully AMD will not keep pushing the power limit.
AMD didn’t increase prices just because they already did with Zen 3, that was ridiculously priced at the beginning (but Intel alternative was very poor).