- May 2, 2017
- 3,153 (2.41/day)
- Lund, Sweden
|Processor||AMD Ryzen 5 1600X|
|Cooling||Custom CPU+GPU water loop|
|Memory||16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16|
|Video Card(s)||AMD R9 Fury X|
|Storage||500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)|
|Power Supply||EVGA Supernova G2 750W|
|Keyboard||Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint|
|Software||Windows 10 Pro|
Uh, what? No, none of those have ever been entry level CPUs. They are, and have always been, mid-range parts. In the Ryzen 1000-series there were the 1200 and 1300X. In the 2000 series there was the 2300X, with 2000-series APUs (2200G and 2400G) filling out the entry level offerings. In the 3000 series you had the same again, with the 3100 and 3300X, alongside the 3200G and 3400G. You seem to be conflating which parts are interesting to enthusiasts with what their product tier is. This is simply not true. xx60(X) Ryzen CPUs are very much mid-range parts. (I'd say the xx60 non-X is lower mid-range, xx60X is just plain mid-range, and the xx70 is upper mid-range.)All three vendors AMD, NVIDIA and Intel have a naming scheme they follow closely. XX80 products from NVIDIA have always been top tier, starting with GeForce4 4800Ti. Ryzen XX60 CPUs have always been entry-level, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 2600, Ryzen 5 3600 and now Ryzen 5 5600X. Again, if Intel had done anything like that, people would have torn them apart and they had the performance crown for more than a decade.
Relevance? One is a Skylake part, launched long before any Ryzen, and the other is Haswell, launched several years before that again.The Core i3 6100, much faster in single-threaded mode than anything from AMD at that time was sold for $117.
The Core i3 4130 before it, $122.
... it wasn't. That was the i3-6300. Besides that, due to the massive increase in core counts in the past 3 or so years the range and tiering of CPUs has obviously changed - hence why we no longer have $400 4c8t CPUs, as I said. All your examples here illustrate is just how terrible value the i7-6700K and similar chips were even in their time.Why didn't Intel sell the Core i3 6100 for $183? It was the fastest entry level CPU at that time!
What double standard? You're comparing different lineups and saying they are the same. There have been xx60X SKUs in all Ryzen series so far. There will in all likelihood be in the 5600 series, but it has as of yet not been launched. I would be shocked if there wasn't a ~$230 5600 non-X launched in a few months - and if that turned out to be true, I would indeed be rather pissed. You are allowing your apparent bias against AMD to make you preemptively angry long before the full 5000 series lineup is launched; you are creating a reason for yourself to be mad. Please stop.Double effing standards and hypocrisy from AMD fans all the effing time even when their idol starts ripping off (Ryzen 5 3600 $200, Ryzen 5 5600 with the same number of cores $300).
Allow itself to do what? To increase their prices as they got into a better competitive positioning? Given that Intel has been dominant in CPUs since at least 2006 I really don't have the data available to comment on that. But I don't know about you, but to me, bribing OEMs to use your product instead of a competitor's is ... ever so slightly worse than increasing prices a little. Just a tad, you know?Even the most evil company in the world, Intel, didn't allow itself to do that as indicated earlier. F it and I'm out.
First off: acting like a monopolist does not make you one. Secondly, there are many reasons beyond being a monopolist for increasing prices - such as delivering a superior product. Or are you saying BMW and Mercedes are monopolists because they price their cars higher than Toyota and Honda? Intel didn't need to increase prices because they had already created a market situation where they were selling dirt-cheap CPUs for $400 and calling them high-end. AMD tore down that system, and now you're somehow complaining that in late 2020 you can get a $300 6c12t CPU that at 65W TDP/88W max power draw boosts to 4.6GHz with significantly higher IPC than competing solutions? I mean, the 3600 was a fantastic value CPU, but the 5600X is promising to be noticeably faster - it's clocked higher and has much higher IPC, after all. It's still not as great value as the 3600 was, but it's not bad - and again, there will in all likelihood be a 5600 non-X.Speaking of monopolies. Yes, AMD is playing like a monopoly. They've got the highest performance and they've started dictating prices which indicate they have no competition. Again, refer to my example at the beginning of the post: Intel did not allow itself to increase prices between generations for similar products, except when they started to offer significantly more cores. AMD has increased the price of their entry level CPU by whopping 50%, not $50 you keep mentioning.
Dude, you need to calm down. You have created an entirely arbitrary definition of "entry level" that you are then using to whine about a situation that isn't real. Is the 5600X more expensive than the 3600? Yes. Is it also much faster? Yes. Is it in the same product tier? No, that would be the (likely ~$230) 5600 or the ($249) 3600X. Is it going to be the entry level Ryzen 5000 chip going forward? Not in any way, shape or form. Launching higher end parts first, and filling out the midrange and lower end later is entirely standard industry practice. AMD does it, Intel does it, Nvidia does it, and there is nothing inherently problematic with this.I'm ignoring your posts from now on. You've failed to address the fact that Intel doesn't allow itself to raise prices when they release faster better products. You're trying to compare the 5600X to the 3600X which wasn't the entry level CPU, it was the 3600 which cost $200, so the difference is not $50 but $100, i.e. whopping 1.5 times. Good luck with AMD a-licking and vindicating their monopolistic behavior (because it is what is is). What's bad for Intel and NVIDIA, is totally OK for AMD. I get it, now I have nothing else to talk with you about.