Intel's Core Ultra 7 265K and 265KF CPUs Dip Below $250

[JustBenching]

Most AM4 boards I'm aware of got a Zen 3 BIOS update before or right after launch.

Only x570. Every other am4 mobo did not. Go ahead, show me any x370 / 470 / b350 / b450 that had a bios right after the launch.

So you are locked from upgrading because Intel changes their sockets too often.

No you are not. You don't understand what locked means. That's like saying you are locked from upgrading a CPU cause you don't have the money to buy one. Well...

 

[Tek-Check]

Only x570. Every other am4 mobo did not. Go ahead, show me any x370 / 470 / b350 / b450 that had a bios right after the launch.

And B550 and A520, and gradually other boards in next couple of months.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ASRock/comments/k99nkp/zen3_bios_overview_for_amd_500_and_400_series

I am done with discussing this non-topic.

Back to 265K.

 

[JustBenching]

And B550 and A520, and gradually other boards in next couple of months.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ASRock/comments/k99nkp/zen3_bios_overview_for_amd_500_and_400_series

I am done with discussing this non-topic.

Back to 265K.

b550 and a520 were released with zen 3, lol. The asrock link you are posting is beta experimental bios published ONLY by asrock. You are done but you are wrong, the vast majority of mobos did not support zen 3.

 

[Tek-Check]

b550 and a520 were released with zen 3,

B550 was released months before Zen3. Check the basic info online and stop this nonsense. Absurd.

 

[JustBenching]

B550 was released months before Zen3. Check the basic info online and stop this nonsense. Absurd.

June of 2020, 4 months before zen 3. Im sure someone bought a b550 and a CPU and then upgraded to zen 3, very reasonable scenario

Bro come on now...

This is on topic because the no1 "flaw" of the 265k and the core ultra platform in general that people bring up is upgradability. So straight up comparing to AM4 - which is the platform with the most upgradability makes sense.

So the fact of the matter is if you are making $$ out of it - and you started on anything AM4 - your only reasonable upgrades from an r7 1700 would be a 3900x and a 3950x. Zen+ was a sidegrade and zen 3 wasn't supported until 2 years later so you'd still buy a new motherboard if it made you money, you wouldn't wait for 2 years to get a bios. Realistically you got 1 CPU upgrade (a big one for sure) before you had to swap out your mobo. On the other hand if you started late on am4 so you ended up with an x570 you still only got one upgrade, zen 3. In either case, this whole "support for 10 years" is a myth that doesn't apply to most people but just the enthusiasts that swap pc parts as a hobby (I fall in that category too).

 

[Tek-Check]

This is on topic because the no1 "flaw" of the 265k and the core ultra platform in general that people bring up is upgradability

It's not a flaw if someone doesn't need a drop-in upgrade and wants to make one off purchase. Pretty simple stuff. I said that at the beginning of this very thread. Read it.

this whole "support for 10 years" is a myth

Let's leave AM4 platform alone. You have already made up so much stuff about it without checking first. It's embarrassing. You also post this "10 years" nonsense. Absurd. We are in AM5 platform period and that's what it counts for users of current technology. They will have three generations of CPUs to choose from for drop in upgrades. Some will have more options than others, of course, depending on when they joined the platform. So, considerations are on individual basis, but entire platform overall is another longevity blockbuster with a lot of options. From that point of view, Intel can only compete with very low prices and margins almost close to zero, in order to move any Arrow Lake stock for desktop. Low prices are, of course, good for buyers. And I also referred to that aspect at the very beginning of this thread. So, we are going in circles here...

 

[JustBenching]

Yes, intel is pro consumer and drops margins incredibly low for our benefit. Another important reason to support them over competitors, thanks for reminding me

Everything else you said is - to use your argumentation - absurd, you already made so much stuff up without checking. Embarrassing.

 

[Tek-Check]

Everything else you said is - to use your argumentation - absurd, you already made so much stuff up without checking. Embarrassing.

Anyone can see what was said and make up their mind about what was embarrassing. I will leave that to readers.

Yes, intel is pro consumer and drops margins incredibly low for our benefit. Another important reason to support them over competitors, thanks for reminding me

Sure. The choice is up to readers and buyers. I'd like to see how much Intel would be pro-consumer had their current CPUs been more competitive. Benefit from low prices until you can. I can assure you they are not doing it for you as a consumer. They have more worries on their mind, and shareholders to show viable sales numbers to.

 

[JustBenching]

Anyone can see what was said and make up their mind about what was embarrassing. I will leave that to readers.

Then why mention how embarrassing it is. If it's that embarrassing you don't need to mention it, people will notice

Sure. The choice is up to readers and buyers. I'd like to see how much Intel would be pro-consumer had their current CPUs been more competitive. Benefit from low prices until you can. I can assure you they are not doing it for you as a consumer. They have more worries on their mind, and shareholders to show viable sales numbers to.

They seem extremely competitive to me and they still are very pro consumer. The 265k that is the point of this thread runs circles around the 9700x, .

 

[Tek-Check]

They seem extremely competitive to me and they still are very pro consumer.

This sounds like an adept of Userbenchmark.

The 265k that is the point of this thread runs circles around the 9700x, .

People compare. It's natural. For gaming, 7600X is roughly similar, but cheaper, so 265K works better for those who really need it for a productivity rig and don't want to overpay for gaming, unless they have specific favourite games where Intel CPUs excel.

 

[JustBenching]

This sounds like an adept of Userbenchmark.

People compare. It's natural. For gaming, 7600X is roughly similar, but cheaper, so 265K works better for those who really need it for a productivity rig and don't want to overpay for gaming, unless they have specific favourite games where Intel CPUs excel.

So your argument that Intel is cheaper because they are not competitive was based on whether or not they were competing against the 7600x? That's their competition you reckon? The 14600k costs the same and is faster in both games and MT so yeah, good luck

You really sound totally fair and unbiased man. Im outta here, this is pointless, the usual pro amd shaenanigans going on all over the internet. Nothing can convince you people, it's fine.

 

[Tek-Check]

So your argument that Intel is cheaper because they are not competitive was based on whether or not they were competing against the 7600x? That's their competition you reckon? The 14600k costs the same and is faster in both games and MT so yeah, good luck

You are putting words into my mouth, which is not nice. It's manipulation. If someone wants a gaming CPU, then there are a few CPUs very similar to 265K. One is 7600X, another one is 14600K. I agree that 14600K is even more competitive in this case because it's also good in productivity. That's why people buy older Intel CPUs more than Arrow Lake, which is a problem for Intel, as they contracted certain amount of N3 silicon from TSMC. Take a look at Amazon.

 

[Totally]

Oh here we go.

The "new" release. Tell me what it is?

A slower version (5500X3D) of something that already "released" (5600X3D, in very limited quantities, at a specific physical store). A 2020 architecture.
At some point we need to stop pretending these "new releases" offer anything new.

The last "new" release for the AM4 platform was the 5800X3D in 2022. Everything since then has been a worse version of something that already existed.

Where did I say "new"? Ffs, you quoted my comment. Also new does not mean it has to be faster. I didn't even notice 5500x3d as I had the 5005 series in mind

AMD Launches Socket AM4 Ryzen 5005 Series APUs

AMD is launching new Socket AM4 processor SKUs well into 2025, eight years into the platform's lifecycle. The company just launched six new processor models under the Ryzen 5005G series. These span the Ryzen 7, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 3 tiers, and are all desktop APUs based on the 7 nm "Cezanne"...

www.techpowerup.com

Which are updated speed bumped version of existing counterparts which is in contrast to what everything you said. None of their new releases on the platform aren't any faster than a 5800X3D, no shit but if the person buying is worried about "future proofing" means they don't have the budget anyway for anything faster and that tier APU/CPU is all they need for whatever XX50/XX60 class GPU they end up with.

 

[Rover4444]

Holy fuck, this does actually make me excited about what they're gonna release next. Looking at comparable Z890 and X670E/x870E bundles the former totally shits on the latter.