The first 12th-gen Intel "Alder Lake" CPUs to hit the market will target enthusiasts

Irata

Posts: 1,675   +2,807
The heck are you talking about? Most of the b560 boards can run the 11400f with power limits off, and even a 100€ mobo can run the 11600k with plimits off. Considering the 11600k is actually ~50-60€ cheaper than the 5600x AND has an iGPU, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to raise exactly. Ryzen's have bad value, even with cheaper motherboards.
I was referring to those reviews by Techspot, and they seem to disagree with your assessment:



Speaking of prices, in my market a 5600X costs € 259, 11600K € 235 (KF costs the same), so I‘d gladly pay the extra €24 for the noticeably higher performance and lower power consumption. If you put this on an MSI B550 Bazooka for €97 you’ll end up paying the same as for an 11600K + B560 set-up.

Note: All prices quoted are @ Mindfactory de

Of course, as always that depends on your requirement and prices where you live.
 
Last edited:

defaultluser

Posts: 229   +207
PCIe 5 (why do we say .0?) already? How long has 4.0 lasted in servers?

Because a Long Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far Away, we have had several .1 revisions to the spec, THE MOST FAMOUS OF WHICH WAS THE 1.1 compatibility update!

But there have been similar X.1 updates for all the major revs, Except 4.0 FINAL SPEC, (most likely because it was released almost simultaneously with 5.0 ,thus would have been redundant to mid-life-revise)

https://www.minitool.com/lib/pcie-021.html

I imagine now that they've finally unlocked the big problem child with 4.0., they will keep pumping out new major specs way too quickly to nee a midpoint rev!
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,393   +4,725
You do realize that the 11th gen, when it comes to the architecture, is pretty much tied with the 5xxx Ryzen's in performance? The power consumption has to do with the fabrication nodes, and AMD doesn't have any. It is Intel vs TSMC.

Also, funnily enough, from the moment AMD joined the CPU market, the prices of mainstream CPU's have tripled. 300-350€ was the top mainstream CPU from 2009 with the first i7 up to 2018. Now we have CPU's selling for up to 1k on retail.

Thanks AMD, holy be thy name.
IMO, Intel pushed CPU prices to the max especially "Enthusiast" CPU prices, thus paving the way for AMD's Threadripper pricing.
Ryzen's have bad value, even with cheaper motherboards.
Considering that most new Intel CPUs require new motherboards and that AMD has, so far, managed to maintain compatibility on their MBs with newer CPUs, IMO, it is Intel's CPUs that have bad value even with the cheapest Intel MBs.
 

Axle Grease

Posts: 217   +151
No those are today's prices anyway.
They must have 3 billion TVs spare on the planet cause they didn't shoot up in price.
Toilet roll didn't shoot up in price.
But PC builders are mugs who love to boast about their builds and the cost. So the more they charge the more dumb them Instagram influencers look an the bigger Intel and the likes bank rolls get.

More evidence that the interwebs is full of interdweebs. The internet is just like real life. Better in the 90s with a smaller population, and less control. Now where's my AoL CD.

Yes, prior to AoL unleashing legions of morons upon UseNet which was previously used by Western universities as a forum for discussions, debates, and data sharing on all manner of topics. It was the core sciences that interested me, namely biology or genetics in particular, geology, and physics. One could have a discussion with persons doing the science back then. That furtive environment got decimated by AoL users who were far less interested in learning than cross-posting their opinionated ignorance into any newgroup where they thought an audience could be found.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 358   +212
I was referring to those reviews by Techspot, and they seem to disagree with your assessment:



Speaking of prices, in my market a 5600X costs € 259, 11600K € 235 (KF costs the same), so I‘d gladly pay the extra €24 for the noticeably higher performance and lower power consumption. If you put this on an MSI B550 Bazooka for €97 you’ll end up paying the same as for an 11600K + B560 set-up.

Note: All prices quoted are @ Mindfactory de

Of course, as always that depends on your requirement and prices where you live.
I quoted the prices from caseking. Also it was just the last 2 weeks that the 5600x dropped in price. It was sitting at 300 not a month ago.

In those videos you can see that the msi b560 pro handles the 11600k just fine. That mobo is 91 euros. Sure the temps are high at 80 degrees but they are far far away from being anywhere near any kind of danger. Also, we are talking about a stress test, for your normal everyday scenario its going to be just fine
 

Strawman

Posts: 358   +212
IMO, Intel pushed CPU prices to the max especially "Enthusiast" CPU prices, thus paving the way for AMD's Threadripper pricing.

Considering that most new Intel CPUs require new motherboards and that AMD has, so far, managed to maintain compatibility on their MBs with newer CPUs, IMO, it is Intel's CPUs that have bad value even with the cheapest Intel MBs.
What are you talking about, intel kept the price static for 9 years in the mainstream platform. The most expensive mainstream CPU from intel was at 330-350 euros. Then amd came along and with the 1800x costing 500 and then with the 3950x and the 5950x costing up to 900 euros.

What motherboard compatibility are you even talking about, they only support 1 more gen than the intel ones. Also, you do realize that amd actually announced that the x470/b450 would not support 5th gen cpus right? There was a massive outcry and they took it back.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 85   +75
What are you talking about, intel kept the price static for 9 years in the mainstream platform. The most expensive mainstream CPU from intel was at 330-350 euros. Then amd came along and with the 1800x costing 500 and then with the 3950x and the 5950x costing up to 900 euros.

What motherboard compatibility are you even talking about, they only support 1 more gen than the intel ones. Also, you do realize that amd actually announced that the x470/b450 would not support 5th gen cpus right? There was a massive outcry and they took it back.
The 1800x was marketed as an i7 6900k competitor, and it was much cheaper than the i7 6900k as well, half the price if I remember correctly.

And Intels best mainstream CPU at Ryzen 1st gen launch was the 7700k, so half the cores, 8700K only came after Ryzen 1st gen launch.

And AMDs 1000$ mainstream CPUs are also 16 cores, which Intel has no competitor for, so you are getting more than Intel can provide for the money in that mainstream segment, you are not making an like for like comparison here, appropriate comparisons are further down the product stack.

And Intels prices were stagnant because Intels product line was stagnant, still selling 4 cores in the mainstream segment for almost a decade, and also using Skylake architecture for many years as well. We only saw 6 cores and up from Intel CPUs on the mainstream desktop after AMD came back into competition.
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 1,675   +2,807
What are you talking about, intel kept the price static for 9 years in the mainstream platform. The most expensive mainstream CPU from intel was at 330-350 euros. Then amd came along and with the 1800x costing 500 and then with the 3950x and the 5950x costing up to 900 euros.

What motherboard compatibility are you even talking about, they only support 1 more gen than the intel ones. Also, you do realize that amd actually announced that the x470/b450 would not support 5th gen cpus right? There was a massive outcry and they took it back.
Really, only one gen more ? Techspot does their testing (including Zen 1) on X570, so that board at least supports four gen - Zen 1, Zen+, Zen 2 and Zen 3. That‘s four and when the 3D Cache refresh is released that will be five.

Take B450 - you have Bristol Ridge all the way up to Zen 3, so again five generations on four different nodes - GloFo 28nm to TSMC 7nm. Yes, many boards lost Bristol Ridge support with the latest Bios update but you could still potentially use five gen on the same board.

As already mentioned in the post above, the $499 Ryzen 1800X was positioned against the $1,089 i7-6700K, both 8C CPU. It cost less than half.

It‘s OK to support one company over the other, but once you resort to getting liberal with the truth, there‘s a problem.
 

Strawman

Posts: 358   +212
The 1800x was marketed as an i7 6900k competitor, and it was much cheaper than the i7 6900k as well, half the price if I remember correctly.

And Intels best mainstream CPU at Ryzen 1st gen launch was the 7700k, so half the cores, 8700K only came after Ryzen 1st gen launch.

And AMDs 1000$ mainstream CPUs are also 16 cores, which Intel has no competitor for, so you are getting more than Intel can provide for the money in that mainstream segment, you are not making an like for like comparison here, appropriate comparisons are further down the product stack.

And Intels prices were stagnant because Intels product line was stagnant, still selling 4 cores in the mainstream segment for almost a decade, and also using Skylake architecture for many years as well. We only saw 6 cores and up from Intel CPUs on the mainstream desktop after AMD came back into competition.
The 6900k is not a mainstream CPU. It had more lanes, ecc and quad channel memory. It's not a like for like comparison at all.

So if next year AMD releases 32 cores the cost will be 2k? So how is that not being stagnant? Intel was not increasing the amount of cores per dollar for 10 years, but AMD doesn't either. If we are going to get a price increase for every added core per generation then what's the point?

At least the 8700k had 50% more cores than its predecessor at the exact same price.
 

Strawman

Posts: 358   +212
Really, only one gen more ? Techspot does their testing (including Zen 1) on X570, so that board at least supports four gen - Zen 1, Zen+, Zen 2 and Zen 3. That‘s four and when the 3D Cache refresh is released that will be five.

Take B450 - you have Bristol Ridge all the way up to Zen 3, so again five generations on four different nodes - GloFo 28nm to TSMC 7nm. Yes, many boards lost Bristol Ridge support with the latest Bios update but you could still potentially use five gen on the same board.

As already mentioned in the post above, the $499 Ryzen 1800X was positioned against the $1,089 i7-6700K, both 8C CPU. It cost less than half.

It‘s OK to support one company over the other, but once you resort to getting liberal with the truth, there‘s a problem.
I agree, you are being liberal with the truth. 1st gen Ryzen does not work on x570. But even if it did, it's irrelevant. The point of upgradability is for OLD motherboards to support new CPU's, not the other way around. What's the point of a brand new expensive x570 to support , let's say, the R5 1600?

What you want is your old motherboard to support new CPU's, so you can upgrade hassle free. So right now the x470 supports 3xxx and 5xxx alongside the 2xxx it was launched with. 3 generations in total, and that happened AFTER the outcry on social media. If you don't remember, AMD announced that 5xxx CPU's will not work on x470. They had to take it back after huge lashback from the community. So they basically tried to pull an Intel as well.

The 6700k cost 350 and was a 4c cpu. I assume you are talking about the 6900k, but that is not a mainstream CPU. That one support more PCIe lanes, quad channel memory and ECC. I am talking about mainstream platforms, AMD has tripled the cost of mainstream CPU's. It's a fact. Your opinion does not matter. Up until 2018 the most expensive mainstream CPU from Intel was 350€, and it had been teh same for the last, like what, 10 years? Then AMD started "competing", and now we have mainstream CPU's going for almost 1k. LOL
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 85   +75
The 6900k is not a mainstream CPU. It had more lanes, ecc and quad channel memory. It's not a like for like comparison at all.

So if next year AMD releases 32 cores the cost will be 2k? So how is that not being stagnant? Intel was not increasing the amount of cores per dollar for 10 years, but AMD doesn't either. If we are going to get a price increase for every added core per generation then what's the point?

At least the 8700k had 50% more cores than its predecessor at the exact same price.
I know the i7 6900k is not a mainstream CPU, and so did AMD, that is why the 1800X was such a terrific move by AMD, very much the same CPU performance as the 6900k, but at mainstream price, the extra PCIE lanes were not required by many professionals, including myself, but the performance at a lower price was. And the 7700k was not even in the same league in professional workloads compared to the 1800x, thanks to only 4 cores. AMD moved what used to require Intel HEDT CPUs into the mainstream segment. The 1800x was a great CPU for the market place at the time, and fierce competition for the 6900k. The 1700x was better value if you overclocked (which I don't).

I have no idea what AMD will charge for 32 cores on the desktop, you will have to ask them. And you can ask Intel what they will charge for their 32 core competitor as well, might as well ask them for the price of their 16 core 5950X competitor as well, but they don't have one. We can get prices for CPUs that AMD and Intel have competitors for in the segments they actually have products in, that's how this works.

But from a business point of view, what do expect? You want AMD to charge 400$ for their brand new 16 core CPUs? And then what, Intel will charge 200$ for their brand new 10 core CPUs? I find that highly unlikely, especially with no competition from Intel, and not even Intel will charge such low prices for their brand new top tier chips, which is why Intel don't. So the chances of AMD charging 400$ for their brand new 5950X is as low as Intel charging 200$ for their brand new 10 core. And technology wise, prices do not move like that historically, at least not so quickly, and competition will be required.

Intel has to be willing to charge the prices you want in the segments you want to get AMD to do the same, you keep taking Intel out of the picture, so you do not have a complete picture. The market is the way it is because of Intels stagnation, and we need Intel to bring some competition (in core count, performance, and price) to actually get the competitive prices from AMD that you would like.

The 8700k had to launch with a compelling price and more cores, thanks to AMD forcing Intels hand. And the 8700k was up against the 2700X, which was also cheaper than the 1800X that preceded it at 329$, the 8700k launched at 305$, so two less cores for a little lower price. So still in AMDs favor in terms of price per core. But that's what competition brings, thanks for proving my point.

And price per core may be the same (or higher), but performance per core has gone up, at least on AMDs side, gen on gen AMD has brought more performance per core, and has got us up to 16 cores on the mainstream desktop, and for people such as myself, that is a godsend, and exactly why I payed 1000$ (I live in South Africa so when converted that is what I payed), for my 5950X. I have no need for Threadrippers extra cores and features, but I do need the cores and a lower price. Intel's competing products are non-existent, and Intels HEDT line is poorer value over all for me.

But Intels prices were the same, because Intel has stagnated, the only thing Intel improved was core count (thanks to AMD), but they are still well behind AMD in core count and performance, and we only saw Intels first new architecture on the mainstream desktop in years with Rocket Lake, which is underwhelming at best. AMD is firmly in competition mode, Intel is playing catch-up after almost a decade of stagnation. We have to wait and see if Intel returns to form, and if Intel is willing to compete with AMD in all segments, and what price they will charge for their products in those segments.
 
Last edited:

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 85   +75
I agree, you are being liberal with the truth. 1st gen Ryzen does not work on x570. But even if it did, it's irrelevant. The point of upgradability is for OLD motherboards to support new CPU's, not the other way around. What's the point of a brand new expensive x570 to support , let's say, the R5 1600?

What you want is your old motherboard to support new CPU's, so you can upgrade hassle free. So right now the x470 supports 3xxx and 5xxx alongside the 2xxx it was launched with. 3 generations in total, and that happened AFTER the outcry on social media. If you don't remember, AMD announced that 5xxx CPU's will not work on x470. They had to take it back after huge lashback from the community. So they basically tried to pull an Intel as well.

The 6700k cost 350 and was a 4c cpu. I assume you are talking about the 6900k, but that is not a mainstream CPU. That one support more PCIe lanes, quad channel memory and ECC. I am talking about mainstream platforms, AMD has tripled the cost of mainstream CPU's. It's a fact. Your opinion does not matter. Up until 2018 the most expensive mainstream CPU from Intel was 350€, and it had been teh same for the last, like what, 10 years? Then AMD started "competing", and now we have mainstream CPU's going for almost 1k. LOL
And I
I agree, you are being liberal with the truth. 1st gen Ryzen does not work on x570. But even if it did, it's irrelevant. The point of upgradability is for OLD motherboards to support new CPU's, not the other way around. What's the point of a brand new expensive x570 to support , let's say, the R5 1600?

What you want is your old motherboard to support new CPU's, so you can upgrade hassle free. So right now the x470 supports 3xxx and 5xxx alongside the 2xxx it was launched with. 3 generations in total, and that happened AFTER the outcry on social media. If you don't remember, AMD announced that 5xxx CPU's will not work on x470. They had to take it back after huge lashback from the community. So they basically tried to pull an Intel as well.

The 6700k cost 350 and was a 4c cpu. I assume you are talking about the 6900k, but that is not a mainstream CPU. That one support more PCIe lanes, quad channel memory and ECC. I am talking about mainstream platforms, AMD has tripled the cost of mainstream CPU's. It's a fact. Your opinion does not matter. Up until 2018 the most expensive mainstream CPU from Intel was 350€, and it had been teh same for the last, like what, 10 years? Then AMD started "competing", and now we have mainstream CPU's going for almost 1k. LOL
And Intels 8 core Rocket Lake 11900k launched at 539$, and AMDs 5900x 12 core launched at 549$, and the 5800X at 449$, so who is charging more per core? Those would be more appropriate comparisons, AMDs top 8 core, and 12 core (which is at similar price to Intels top 8 core, so much more performance for much the same price).

So Intel is still charging top dollar for their top chips, and you get 12 AMD cores for 8 Intel cores. The 11700k is cheaper, but that is not Intels top 8 core chip, the 11900k is. And the 5950X launched at 799$ (would be great if my local exchange rates allowed such pricing here, but what can you do) , so double the cores, for less than double the price of Intels top 11900k, so your thinking is flawed, AMD provides better value (and more performance) in the segments you are complaining about.

If you want better prices, you need to go over to Intel and get them back into competition, because right now, they are not bringing any to the market segments you are complaining about, not in core count, price, or performance, and so are decidedly worse value in those segments. So I honestly have no idea what you are on about. You are not fact checking anything you bring to the debate.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 358   +212
And I

And Intels 8 core Rocket Lake 11900k launched at 539$, and AMDs 5900x 12 core launched at 549$, and the 5800X at 449$, so who is charging more per core? Those would be more appropriate comparisons, AMDs top 8 core, and 12 core (which is at similar price to Intels top 8 core, so much more performance for much the same price).

So Intel is still charging top dollar for their top chips, and you get 12 AMD cores for 8 Intel cores. The 11700k is cheaper, but that is not Intels top 8 core chip, the 11900k is. And the 5950X launched at 799$ (would be great if my local exchange rates allowed such pricing here, but what can you do) , so double the cores, for less than double the price of Intels top 11900k, so your thinking is flawed, AMD provides better value (and more performance) in the segments you are complaining about.

If you want better prices, you need to go over to Intel and get them back into competition, because right now, they are not bringing any to the market segments you are complaining about, not in core count, price, or performance, and so are decidedly worse value in those segments. So I honestly have no idea what you are on about. You are not fact checking anything you bring to the debate.
I didn't say Intel charges less. I said the moment AMD got into the market the prices have gone up. Of course Intel will follow AMD's price gouging, no reason not to.

As I've said before, the 8700k has 50% more performance than the 7700k at the same price. And they both released the same year :O
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 85   +75
I didn't say Intel charges less. I said the moment AMD got into the market the prices have gone up. Of course Intel will follow AMD's price gouging, no reason not to.

As I've said before, the 8700k has 50% more performance than the 7700k at the same price. And they both released the same year :O
Yes, prices have gone up, on both AMD and Intel side, depending on the segment, but so has performance and core count, and AMD is still charging less for more in the upper segments.

And the 8700k was launched in the same year as the 7700K, and at the same price (50$ more expensive than the 7700k, but close enough), which proves Intel could have done it sooner, and only did it thanks to AMD. So Intel was price gouging for years, only willing to sell four cores all that time, and did not move the market forward, which hurt the markets development overall. So we were charged the same prices for 4 cores for all those years, when Intel could have easily moved us on to more cores at the same price, price gouging and stagnation at its best. Further proof is in how quick Intel got out 8 and 10 core models in the years following the 8700K, Intel took advantage of the market for far too long. And Intel quickly upped the price of the 9900k which was launched at 479$ compared to 359$ for the 8700k, while the 3700X and 2700X launched for 329$, so Intel followed Intels lead with higher pricing there.

So the 2700X (and 3700X) also came with lower prices than its 1800X predecessor, so cheaper than the 8700k with 2 more cores. And even now that AMD has a performance lead, Intel is still charging more for less in those segments. So Intel is the one price gouging if that is what you want to call it, while AMD is giving you much more for the money (and products that Intel has no competitor for), so it is an major improvement compared to the competition. The core count and performance bar has been raised significantly thanks to AMD (from 4 cores to 16 in 3 years, with better year on year IPC performance), with acceptable pricing for what they deliver in those segments, even more so compared to Intel. If you want better pricing in the upper segments, then Intel needs to bring competition and better pricing in those segments, but according to their pricing over the years (and Alder Lake being a big/little core design), I don't have my hopes up, but we will see.

And I am of course all for better pricing and would indeed welcome it as well, but it takes two to tango, and Intel is asleep on the dance floor. Intel has done well with their pricing in the lower tiers though (such as the 11400f), and I would like to see that type of aggressive pricing in the upper tiers of their line-up as well.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 358   +212
Yes, prices have gone up, on both AMD and Intel side, depending on the segment, but so has performance and core count, and AMD is still charging less for more in the upper segments.

And the 8700k was launched in the same year as the 7700K, and at the same price (50$ more expensive than the 7700k, but close enough), which proves Intel could have done it sooner, and only did it thanks to AMD. So Intel was price gouging for years, only willing to sell four cores all that time, and did not move the market forward, which hurt the markets development overall. So we were charged the same prices for 4 cores for all those years, when Intel could have easily moved us on to more cores at the same price, price gouging and stagnation at its best. Further proof is in how quick Intel got out 8 and 10 core models in the years following the 8700K, Intel took advantage of the market for far too long. And Intel quickly upped the price of the 9900k which was launched at 479$ compared to 359$ for the 8700k, while the 3700X and 2700X launched for 329$, so Intel followed Intels lead with higher pricing there.

So the 2700X (and 3700X) also came with lower prices than its 1800X predecessor, so cheaper than the 8700k with 2 more cores. And even now that AMD has a performance lead, Intel is still charging more for less in those segments. So Intel is the one price gouging if that is what you want to call it, while AMD is giving you much more for the money (and products that Intel has no competitor for), so it is an major improvement compared to the competition. The core count and performance bar has been raised significantly thanks to AMD (from 4 cores to 16 in 3 years, with better year on year IPC performance), with acceptable pricing for what they deliver in those segments, even more so compared to Intel. If you want better pricing in the upper segments, then Intel needs to bring competition and better pricing in those segments, but according to their pricing over the years (and Alder Lake being a big/little core design), I don't have my hopes up, but we will see.

And I am of course all for better pricing and would indeed welcome it as well, but it takes two to tango, and Intel is asleep on the dance floor. Intel has done well with their pricing in the lower tiers though (such as the 10400f), and I would like to see that type of aggressive pricing in the upper tiers of their line-up as well.
Im not really sure where you see progress. I bought an 8700k + a z370 for 520€ back in 2017. That CPU achieved 4.150 CBR20 score overclocked. With the same money today I can buy a 5600x that achieves 4.600 cbr20 score overclocked. That's a 10% improvement after 4 years. WOW, insane progress right?

I'm sorry but to me, progress is paying the same money I did x amount of years ago and buying something faster. That's is definitely not the case anymore. AMD is price gouging hard.

All I know is, after AMD joined the game, the high end mainstream CPU costs 3 times as much. Intel had no competition either between 2009 and 2017, yet it kept the prices static. AMD just keeps increasing them.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 85   +75
Im not really sure where you see progress. I bought an 8700k + a z370 for 520€ back in 2017. That CPU achieved 4.150 CBR20 score overclocked. With the same money today I can buy a 5600x that achieves 4.600 cbr20 score overclocked. That's a 10% improvement after 4 years. WOW, insane progress right?

I'm sorry but to me, progress is paying the same money I did x amount of years ago and buying something faster. That's is definitely not the case anymore. AMD is price gouging hard.

All I know is, after AMD joined the game, the high end mainstream CPU costs 3 times as much. Intel had no competition either between 2009 and 2017, yet it kept the prices static. AMD just keeps increasing them.
No, for AMD it has been a year on year IPC increase, and when combined with their CPUs that feature 12 to 16 cores, puts them into performance categories that Intel has no competitors for. While Intel is charging 5900X prices for only 8 cores, which increases the performance per dollar even further, and is obviously a step up in price/performance. And for those that use our PCs for work that can make use of the cores, and dont do cinebench benchmarks all day, the jump in performance from 6 to 16 cores can be remarkable.

So Intel is charging more for less, while AMD is giving you more for less. And we have been talking about the upper tier segment, not just the six core segment. And with Intel, you are of course limited to only 8 cores, which offers limited improvement over six cores in applications that can make use of more than 8 cores compared to AMDs upper tier.

Intel kept the prices static because it kept its product line static. AMD could also keep their prices static if they stopped innovating and stagnated like Intel, then both Intel and AMD would be sitting on 6 cores, and prices can stay the same, your point makes no sense. Intel has charged more for more cores as well, and always has, from their HEDT line to the 9900k, Intel charged more per core, even the 8700k cost 50$ more than the 7700k, and the 9900k was 479$, while AMDs 3700X and 2700X were cheaper at 329$. Your logic is flawed. Intel didn't want so many cores on the mainstream desktop, it was happy charging 1000$ for its HEDT CPUs, and wanted to keep the mainstream market low core count and high priced (300$ was a lot to charge for a 4 core CPU, prices should have come down over time not stagnated for 4 core Intel CPUs), so Intel are happy to continue charging top dollar for their top CPUs, as they always have.

And if you expect a 16 core CPUs to cost as much as an 8700k at 359$ when we have only had 16 cores CPUs for just over 2 years, then you are out of your mind, because not even Intel wants to charge that little for their top end mainstream CPUs, and they don't, and never would release a brand new top of the line 16 core CPU for 350$, Intel is too happy charging you almost 600$ for only 8 cores, just as they were too happy charging you 300$ for a quad core CPU for almost a decade.

And yes Intel had no competition during those years, which is why Intel took advantage for all those years, but Intel had a hand in slowing AMDs return to competition, whereas Intels stagnation was much of Intels own doing, AMD didn't use any underhand tactics against Intel.
 
Last edited:

bandit8623

Posts: 335   +186
Intel will bypass 4.0 and go to 5.0. actually makes sense. they delayed so long. 5.0 spec has been out for a long time
 

Irata

Posts: 1,675   +2,807
Intel will bypass 4.0 and go to 5.0. actually makes sense. they delayed so long. 5.0 spec has been out for a long time
They did introduce PCIe 4.0 support in both Rocket Lake and their latest server CPU if that is what you were referring to. Afaik TGL has it, as well.