Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why? I answered that, upstream, already.
I have my second 3700x, enroute (along with RAM and a mobo, of course). It will join my other 3700x and my 2700x. When AMD releases the 4000 series, one of the 3700x will replace the 2700x and the 4700x will go in its place. Intel can't do that.
Maybe because you have been using Intel to much? J/k of course, but I fully intend to populate my b450 with a 4xxx series ryzen when they come out. I'll probably find a cheap MB b350 to toss my 1600x into and pass down to one of my kids. I don't care about pcie 4, so unless b550's come in under $100 for an itx before the 4xxx series is released, I see little reason to pay to upgrade. Again, this a why AMD and they planned (and announced) longer term support for AM4 which gives you more options, even if you choose to upgrade MB, you at least had an option even if you didn't use it.
Understood, I have 3 kids and keep 5-6 desktops up to some level of use for gaming, so it's mid grade for basically everything. Hand me downs are the norm. To me being able to repurpose is a huge boost... If I can save $100-$150 on a MB that's another $100 towards GPU, CPU, Ram, or being able to upgrade more than one at a time.
Yeah, I am always looking for good deals on here to upgrade the kids PC's . Just missed out on a really good priced rx470, someone beat me to it. My daughters both have rx 560's, so a 470 or 570 would be a good upgrade if I can get it cheap enough . Then the rx 560 would migrate into my server and I can set it up for real-time transcoding for Plex so I don't have to keep using my CPU cycles.REALLY valid. I normally pass down whatever I had super cheap on here for anyone that wants it.
Intel quit making motherboards because it wasn't selling any. OEM's like HP and Dell build and design their own. Intel didn't understand the DIY enthusiast market either. It thought you could throw a skull on a standard motherboard and it would appeal to gamers. They never understood what features or design elements appealed to gamers and enthusiasts.
You could make an argument for the 3990X being a new market segment. I'll concede that point. It's at a price point we've never seen before and honestly, the only thing it has to do with HEDT versus the high end workstation segment is that it shares the same motherboard as the rest of AMD's HEDT parts. However, the 3950X certainly isn't. The mainstream segment in the past has had $1,000 CPU's in it from both companies. Perhaps extending the segment was the wrong word. It's more like AMD has placed something in it at a price point we haven't seen in recent years.
A brief history lesson.
For many years, AMD sold reverse engineered copies of Intel CPU's with just enough changes to keep them from being sued into oblivion. Of course, that didn't stop Intel from trying anyway. AMD had been relegated to creating CPU's which were perceived as "knock offs" of Intel CPU's. This went on for years and years. As a result of worse performance in benchmarks and software compatibility problems, AMD was forced to sell its products at prices far less than that of its competitors. That all changed when AMD bought NextGen Systems and hired the engineers behind the DEC Alpha CPU's. Then came the venerable K7 and K8 CPU's. At long last, AMD was able to not only compete with Intel on even footing, but even surpass them in some areas. Despite its success, AMD was never able to quite get away with charging as much as Intel could for it's CPU's until the FX-51 came out. It's successors all held the same price point, but it was with the FX series that AMD was finally able to charge the same amount of money Intel did for it's Extreme Edition CPU's.
Introduction
I think you are misunderstanding the idea of equivalency as well as Intel's pricing strategy. Simply put, there is no evidence to support your claim and quite a lot of evidence that your statement isn't true. Intel has a reputation for being greedy, which is largely deserved. I think that's clouding people's view of the company. AMD being the "underdog" for most of the last two decades and some good will its built with the DIY enthusiast community by not changing CPU sockets so often has the inverse effect in coloring perceptions of that company. It's perceived in a much more positive light than Intel as a result.
Intel sets the standard, AMD responds to it.
But is any of this true? The short answer is no. If you think AMD giving you more performance for the same money, or even charging less at times is sign the company is less greedy than Intel, you are being naive. Everything these companies do boils down to them making as much money as possible for their products. They do this in two important ways: By reducing operating costs and by charging as much as they can for their respective products. Who charges more for what simply comes down to which company has the most market share or which one has the performance advantage. Over the last three decades, Intel has been the dominant company in the market between the two. Generally speaking, Intel has offered better processors. Being the company that has produced the better performing parts and selling the most units has made it the leader. As a result, Intel sets the market prices. AMD responds to those prices.
Intel isn't as greedy as you think it is.
Naturally, it's easy to think of Intel as being greedy as some of its processors are quite expensive. Obviously, there is plenty of evidence to show that it has a history of being greedy, but it's still not as greedy as you think it is. Intel used to charge more for their processors than they do today. Intel's mainstream market offerings used to include $1,000 Extreme Edition CPU's. Those were found in every OEM's product line and often in models that weren't necessarily built around gaming. When the average price spent on computers was higher than it is today, having an ultra-high end CPU in a fairly mundane system wasn't as uncommon as you would think. Intel's mainstream segment today is capped at half the price it used to be. Adjusting for inflation, it's far less than that. A $1,000 Pentium IV Extreme Edition in the late 90's or early 2000's is much more expensive than today's Core i9 10980XE at $1,000. Intel has also generally kept the mainstream segments offerings at virtually the same levels for several years despite annual inflation being a good enough reason to increase prices year over year. It does not always do so. Generally, a CPU like the 2700K took the same price point as it's immediate predecessor. In this case, the 2600K and the 3770K took the price point of the 2700K and so on.
A brief history lesson.
For many years, AMD sold reverse engineered copies of Intel CPU's with just enough changes to keep them from being sued into oblivion. Of course, that didn't stop Intel from trying anyway. AMD had been relegated to creating CPU's which were perceived as "knock offs" of Intel CPU's. This went on for years and years. As a result of worse performance in benchmarks and software compatibility problems, AMD was forced to sell its products at prices far less than that of its competitors. That all changed when AMD bought NextGen Systems and hired the engineers behind the DEC Alpha CPU's. Then came the venerable K7 and K8 CPU's. At long last, AMD was able to not only compete with Intel on even footing, but even surpass them in some areas. Despite its success, AMD was never able to quite get away with charging as much as Intel could for it's CPU's until the FX-51 came out. It's successors all held the same price point, but it was with the FX series that AMD was finally able to charge the same amount of money Intel did for it's Extreme Edition CPU's.
Brand recognition and market appeal.
Right there, we have the first instance of AMD charging just as much as Intel was for it's product. AMD had the faster product, sure. You have to understand that Intel has far more brand recognition than AMD does. As enthusiasts, we often forget that we keep up with trends and different brands, but not everyone does that. AMD has never been in the public consciousness the way Intel has. The only scenario where AMD can charge as much as Intel does, is when AMD has a significant performance advantage over its rival. AMD isn't giving you more performance for the money because it's generous. It does so because it simply doesn't have a choice. If these processors are equal, people will opt for Intel because its what they know. It's what they trust. It doesn't matter how right or wrong this is, that's simply how it is.
I'm sure all of us have gone to the store to buy some product only to find that product is sold out. If there is another brand that's just as good, then it doesn't matter if they cost the same. However, if there is some off brand product there from a company you've never heard of, will you be willing to pay the same price for it? It's doubtful unless the item is so cheap that taking that chance is essentially risk free. However, if that product is substantially cheaper, then you are going to be more inclined to give it a chance based on the fact that it's cheaper. Alternatively, if you hear something's supposed to be better than something else, you might still be wary of it. It's a hard sell at the same price in a lot of cases. However, if you hear something's 50% faster or whatever, then it starts to sound like it might be worth the risk depending on the application.
Simply put, that, in a nutshell is the relationship between price, performance, and AMD vs. Intel. Intel has set the standard for a very long time. AMD can only charge what Intel does when it has a significant performance advantage. Often, only a significant advantage will do. AMD can't simply charge $500 for an 8c/16t Ryzen 3800X. It's faster than Intel at somethings, but not decisively so. Certainly not enough to justify paying the same money for it. At $500, AMD has to give you a 12c/24t CPU that decisively beats Intel's Core i9 9900K in order to sell people on it. Sure, some of us would choose AMD anyway or not care if the prices were close enough, but for that sale to be as enticing as possible, AMD needs the CPU to be a lot better. Not just a bit better some of the time.
Equivalency comes in multiple forms.
You also need to understand, there are two kinds of equivalencies. Like for like and price point. You could certainly make the argument that the Ryzen 7 3800X is an 8c/16t CPU just like the Core i9 9900K is and that AMD charges less for it. Two a degree, this si a like for like comparison. However, AMD doesn't fare all that favorably in this case. While the 3800X matches or even beats Intel's Core i9 9900K at times, the vast majority of the time, the 9900K is going to be faster. It's not decisive in AMD's favor. Again, AMD has to charge less than Intel does for the 9900K or people would just opt for Core i9 9900K's. I play Destiny 2 with a lot of people who aren't "computer enthusiasts." They all build 9900K's because Intel is what they recognize and that's what they know. It doesn't matter to them that the Core i9 9900K is only 5-6% faster on average than AMD's 3800X is. Nor does it matter that the 3800X is cheaper. All they hear is that the 9900K is faster for gaming. Where like for like equivalency goes, there are other factors at play such as brand recognition. Again, AMD is charging less for the 3800X because they probably wouldn't sell very many of them if they weren't cheaper than the 9900K.
The second type of equivalency is price point. At the time the 3900X launched, the price point topped out for the mainstream segment at $500. The Core i9 9900K was actually dropped ever so slightly to $450 at that time, but this was a knee jerk reaction to the obviously superior 3900X coming out. The 3900X was priced the same. Both CPU's represented the absolute top end of each companies offerings in that market segment. Therefore, they are equivalent. Yes, AMD's is faster. Yes, AMD gives you more cores for the money, but they have no choice if they want to compete. Succeeding in business is about more than having a better product. AMD has to overcome years of market dominance from Intel. To do that, it must offer more than it's rival. If Intel is held to a certain standard, than AMD can't just meet that standard. It has to exceed it, or they will not succeed. It isn't generosity, altruism, benevolence, or anything of the sort that leads AMD to give you a faster performing part than Intel for a given amount of money. It's necessity. It certainly isn't a lack of greed and that's my point.
Examples of AMD charging more for its products and extending the price range of market segments.
To further this point, Intel set the standards for price points and AMD exceeded them with a 3950X at $750 in the mainstream segment and $4,000 in the HEDT segment. The 3970X launched at the same price point formerly occupied by Intel's Core i9 7980XE and later, the 9980XE. Intel had to respond by cutting their prices in half because it had no choice in the face of AMD's superior performance. However, Intel upped the ante with it's Xeon W-3175X. This CPU cost a whopping $2,999. AMD came along and dropped a Threadripper 3990X at $4,000. So there. we have more examples of AMD charging as much in a given point of the product stack as well as extending the price range of each segment. That is to say that AMD is now charging more at the top of the stack than Intel is. Where the desktop is concerned, it is AMD that is now setting the standard. That standard is now charging more than Intel does for it's top offerings in each desktop segment. Out performing Intel is a given as it has no choice if it wants to try and sell a $4,000 CPU for desktops.
Example of AMD's Greed.
Now, AMD is cheap as hell in the server market with Epyc compared to Intel's Xeon Scalable offerings. Intel still rules that market, albeit for different reasons. AMD can't set the prices there, nor can they charge as much as Intel does because it has even less market share in the enterprise segment than it had in the desktop segment when the first generation Zen CPU's dropped.
Let's put this another way. Given Intel's still using monolithic dies and 14nm yields become considerably worse when trying to increase core counts and clock speeds, it stands to reason that AMD's modular 7nm approach is more efficient at this point. A CPU like the Core i9 10980XE probably has razor thin margins compared to AMD's 3960X and 3970X CPU's. Yet, AMD charges more for them. Taking this further, Intel's Xeon W-3175X is a 28c/56t monster that costs a fortune. It's almost certainly more expensive to produce than any 32c/64t AMD CPU to date. I'd almost bet my house on AMD's margins being far better on it's 32c parts than Intel's are on something with 28 cores. Doesn't it stand to reason that AMD is simply being greedy when it could be charging less for a given product? Or does that thinking only apply to Intel? Yes, it's true that they perform better and offer more cores and threads. However, more performance is expected as products are iterative. If performance didn't improve, then the life cycles of these products would gradually get longer with CPU's holding their values better on the used market. If I buy a Camaro SS in 2020, I expect it to out perform my 2001 Camaro SS in virtually every imaginable scenario.
AMD's socket longevity isn't because AMD is being nice.
AMD's reputation for socket longevity is misunderstood. While it has some consumer benefits, AMD's choice to hold onto sockets comes down to reducing its R&D costs. It has little to do with being good to the consumer. AMD would stand to make more money from us if it sold us more products. However, developing sockets, chipsets and new motherboard platforms carries with it a lot in terms of costs. AMD has dropped out of and re-entered the chipset market more times than Bernie Sanders and Ross Perot have dropped out of the Presidential race combined. Making it's CPU's compatible with existing motherboards and chipsets has always been a practical solution for AMD.
At the time Socket A came around, Intel's LGA 775 had a very long service life. Intel's switched chipsets and sockets more than it needed to and shame on them for that. However, AMD's not doing this came down to not wanting to invest the capital in research and development for newer platforms and chipsets for processors that weren't selling well in the market place. Since the introduction of Core 2 Duo, until the Ryzen came out, Intel dominated AMD completely. It couldn't invest the money into a new platform for upgraded Bulldozer CPU's. Late in Bulldozer's life cycle, when its products were languishing in obsolescence, AMD's offerings were only bought to upgrade existing systems or as bargain basement options to build cheap systems for various purposes. By in large, for budget systems, having the latest I/O features isn't a priority. It was more of the same during Phenom's life cycle. AMD did spend money on developing chipsets for its APU line which is something that ultimately didn't pay off for them.
To give you an idea, AMD designed X570 in house and it's expensive as a result. The chipset itself is derived from the I/O die of the Ryzen CPU's themselves. It costs motherboard manufacturers more than AMD chipsets ever have. In fact, I've been told it costs more than Z390 for motherboard manufacturers to buy. The chipset is actually quite good, but rather than continue to work on it and scale it down to the lower price points reports are that AMD outsourced B550 to ASMedia. AMD has more often than not, outsourced chipsets to third parties and has been doing so off and on since the Athlon days.
Basically, AMD keeping sockets for really long times comes down to the costs of developing chipsets and platforms for their CPU's being so high. AMD doesn't have Intel's resources for doing this. AMD talked about the great cost of keeping the Ryzen 3000 series compatible with existing AM4 motherboards being expensive, and to some extent it is. However, there are lots of costs that factor into developing a chipset and platform for a CPU that AMD rarely wants any part of. There is an added bonus of the community applauding the backwards compatibility, even when its actually problematic from a platform perspective.
I'm interested what reasons people had when there bought Ryzen.
I agree, and being one of those people bucking the bandwagon, I’ll share my reasons for building some recent new Intel systems.Ryzen has the DIY market now for obvious reasons. Better perf/$$ and more cores/$$.
Since most people are now buying Ryzen for these obvious reasons. It would actually be much more interesting to hear from people bucking the bandwagon and buying new Intel processors in the era of Ryzen.
Understandable, I always suggest buying what makes sense for your use case. I don't game as much as I used to, I do more development work (compiling, databases, etc). My server is currently Intel, my desktop AMD, and my 3 kids all have Intel systems. I am going to upgrade my server after zen 3 comes out (upgrade my desktop with zen 3), probably get a mid/lower AMD chip for my son, pass his 6600k down to my daughters PC. Still waiting for some benchmarks to make a decision on the server, right now it's dual xeon's, but I am probably going to a more mainstream PC build for it. I am currently thinking about just putting my current 1600 in there as it would support my needs and burn less power, but it's not much of an upgrade. I also use it for a plex server, so intel qsv would be nice, but I could just as easily throw a cheap GPU in there for transcoding as well or get one of AMD's upcoming APU's which are supposed to come with more cores (depending on motherboard support of course). Some times it's so difficult because something new is always coming around the corner, lol.I agree, and being one of those people bucking the bandwagon, I’ll share my reasons for building some recent new Intel systems.
Main PC is a Xeon 2288G with 32GB ECC RAM. Not used for gaming, currently using the integrated GPU. The reasons I chose this over a Ryzen build were I wanted verified, out of the box ECC RAM support and the highest single thread performance. Also this build was started before the Ryzen 3000 chips even came out, I just used a place holder i3 until I could find a 2288G.
Gaming PC. This is not built yet but planning a 10600K system. Why not AMD? This was a hard decision and I went back and forth several times. I ultimately ended up going with Intel because X570 motherboard availability is a mess right now and the game I plan to play the most is (I think) CPU bottlenecked so again, highest single core performance is a priority. And I wanted to play around with overclocking and I think Intel CPUs usually have more headroom to overclock.
And finally, I’m in the process of upgrading my Plex server to a Xeon 2176G. Why not AMD? This was another hard decision and I almost got one of the $85 1600 AF chips. Definitely a unique scenario but I got a good deal on an ES 2176G, I also wanted a motherboard with IPMI, and the integrated GPU on this CPU adds a lot of value for Plex.
So there you have it, 3 scenarios where I believe Intel was the logical choice.
I did recently upgrade another gaming/multipurpose system from a 7700K to a 3700X so AMD is getting some love from me.
Ryzen has the DIY market now for obvious reasons. Better perf/$$ and more cores/$$.
Since most people are now buying Ryzen for these obvious reasons. It would actually be much more interesting to hear from people bucking the bandwagon and buying new Intel processors in the era of Ryzen.
Thanks for the honest feedback. From most reviews unless you're running into CPU bottlenecks, so low resolution high Hz with a 2080+, you won't really see any difference.I swapped out my 3600x for a 9900k because I got a good deal on it ($300) and I already had a motherboard sitting around so I didn't have any added cost. I certainly didn't buy it new. Honestly, I don't really notice any difference in games between the two with the same video card (5700 flashed to XT) at 1440p. It definitely consumes a lot more power (some 200W under load) and runs hotter. I'll probably keep it until Zen 3 and then do a complete new build and then upgrade my father's X99/5960x with it. Everyone else in my family is on AM4 hand me downs.
AMD is the better value for sure but no need to exaggeratePrice for Performance you cant touch AMD, you can buy a complete amd system for the price of a Intel CPU for starts.............It took amd new am4 socket to MAKE intel wake up and stop making us pay 500 bucks for a quad core cpu and buy a new motherboard as well, re-install windows all over again........................
NO Exaggeration requiredAMD is the better value for sure but no need to exaggerate
Price: | $1,499.99 & FREE Shipping |
I think I picked a good time to leave AMD and a good to time to come back. I was reading on the history of AMD CPU products and they had some trouble after the early Athlon until things worked out with Ryzen 2000 desktop series. They've hit a sweet spot with Zen 2. Good motherboard support and good user experience. This latest AMD build I did was one of the most trouble free I've experienced even compared to Intel builds. I think Zen 3 is really going to nail it down.
Like the entire 64-bit instruction set? Oh, wait, that was AMD... . And pcie 4.0 ? Oh, AMD too... Maybe bringing more cores to consumers... Doh. Yeah, I feel they haven't been bringing a lot lately and are just riding previous success and AMDs previous disaster. They did do a lot and I don't want to take that from them, but I've been less than impressed the last few years. My core 2 quad is still rocking though! And the Skylake still runs fine, not much has changed besides refining 14nm and getting amazing clocks out of it. If it wasn't for AMD who knows... We'd all be running itanium based CPUs maybe with 2-4 cores?I don't have a preference as a consumer either. On a purely philosophical level, I like that AMD is giving Intel some really good competition, it's great for us lowly consumers. One thing I do like about Intel is they are the driving force behind the personal computer and set most of the standards. They've been the best for compatibility and interoperability. Though lately AMD is doing pretty darn good there as well.
In any case my AMD system has been treating me well so far. Whether I go Intel or AMD next time will depend on the same reasons I jumped to the AMD ship this time, value and performance for my consumer dollar.
We'd all be running itanium based CPUs maybe with 2-4 cores?
There was a time where I really wanted this to happen. I had photos of the Merced die shot on my wall. I think one of Intel's biggest mistakes with Itanium was not making it mainstream. With that said AMD did mess up Intels plans when it introduced a 64 bit x86.
Like the entire 64-bit instruction set? Oh, wait, that was AMD...And pcie 4.0 ? Oh, AMD too...
It failed because it wasn't backwards compatible. Businesses were you old none of their existing software would work. The Itanium design pushed a lot of the work onto compiler developers for optimization. Being it is as new, compilers weren't that great yet. The pushback for backwards compatibility and as so great that Intel was forced to implement an x86 emulator, which was inherently slower than a real chip. This was supposed to be a holdover until software could catch up (compilers and businesses finding new or recompiling old software). The other option was use AMD and you could run x86 full speed along side AMD64. All apps ran at full speed and software didn't have to be recompiled (although, could potentially gain some speed if it was). AMD64 was similar to x86 so compilers did have to implement it's but optimizations were similar so it was much easier to implement effectively. Itanium was also not any faster even against it's normal competitors... So what were businesses investing in? They could be a guinea pig for a newer slower processor, or they can get something that just works and gives them a much easier upgrade path and runs their software faster if compiled (more registers in AMD64 vs x86 so less memory accesses required) in 64-bit.AMD has done a lot to advance things along. Even if you only ever use an Intel CPU they've made a difference. I think their biggest coup is winning over the 64 bit CPU architecture. Now Intel is conforming to a standard AMD created. I don't understand why IA64 failed though, they must have done their best to keep it away from the mainstream, why?
Actually, it is artificially high due to it being out of production and dwindling supply. The 9900KS, at current street price, is well over double the price of the 9900K.NO Exaggeration required
Intel Core i9-9900KS Desktop Processor 8 Cores up to 5.0GHz All-Core Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 Z390 127W
by Intel
4.8 out of 5 stars 2,119 ratings
| 337 answered questions
Price: $1,499.99 & FREE Shipping
Need to get a pcie 4.0 card, lol. Mayb not worth the cost unless you have some great hardware and networking equipment. Yeah, I do more compiling nowadays than gaming. I went from i5-3450 to 1600, probably see what zen3 has and either get something in the 4000 series or a cheaper 3000 when prices come down.Ubuntu 20.04 Gaming box: 4770k -> 3900x ($389 + Crosshair VI for $100)
Works great, modern update. When I'm not gaming it's way faster at compiling stuff!!! Way faster at compressing backups/vm images. I can actually do stuff WHILE i'm gaming with no slowdown that is noticeable.
The only downgrade is my old board had a x16 physical -> x2 electrical. My new setup has a 3rd x16 physical -> x1 electrical so my 10Gbit NIC is limited to about 3Gbit/s....