-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Anandtech bought an Intel i7 11700K a month early, and posted a review.
- Thread starter Delusibeta
- Start date
Well, I was waiting on this review. After reading it I ordered a Ryzen 5 5600X from Amazon ($299+tax) since they were available. It says it will be here Wednesday. I've already got the 3080, so now I just need to put the other pieces together for this new build. I'm not waiting another 6 months or more to find out about Alder Lake.
I don't know where you get these numbers, but searching around a bit, I see the 3800X at MSRP (Will be in stock at Amazon.com on March 9) which is 400$. Everywhere I look, I see MSRP prices for all the CPU you list as "gouging".
Ah, fuck it.
Ryzen 5 3600X, MSRP: 249$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-3600x/p/N82E16819113568 (249$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3600X-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SQBFN2D (249$)
Ryzen 7 3700X, MSRP: 329$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/p/N82E16819113567 (330$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3700X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLPK/ (330$)
Ryzen 7 3800X, MSRP: 399$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-3800x/p/N82E16819113104 (404$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3800X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLPJ (399$ - In stock March 9)
Ryzen 9 3900X, MSRP: 499$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/p/N82E16819113103 (495$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3900X-24-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLP9/ (484$)
Ryzen 9 3950X, MSRP: 749$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-9-3950x/p/N82E16819113616 (730$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3950X-32-Thread-Processor/dp/B07ZTYKLZW (Out of stock - largely scalped)
Ryzen 5 5600X, MSRP: 299$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/p/N82E16819113666 (Out Of Stock, Scalped minimum 70$+)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5600X-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B08166SLDF/ (355$ - very slight gouging on Amazon's part.)
Ryzen 7 5800X, MSRP: 449$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/p/N82E16819113665 (450$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5800X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B0815XFSGK/ (450$)
Ryzen 9 5900X, MSRP: 549$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/p/N82E16819113664 (Out of Stock but listed at MSRP 549$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5900X-24-Thread-Processor/dp/B08164VTWH (Out Of Stock, Delisted, Scalped 350$+)
Ryzen 9 5950X, MSRP: 799$
Newegg.com: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-9-5950x/p/N82E16819113663 (Out of Stock but listed at MSRP 799$)
Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5950X-32-Thread-Processor/dp/B0815Y8J9N (Out Of Stock, Delisted, Scalped 500$+)
I don't see the gouging *anywhere*. Most of the CPUs that are available sell at MSRP or slightly below because of rebates.
Sorry, but your argument does not stand.
8 core Zen 2 at launch: $330 (3700x)
8 core Zen 3 at launch $450 (5800x)
6 core Zen 2 at launch $200 (3600)
6 core Zen 3 at launch $300 (5600x)
The 3600x and 3800x are a pointless comparison point, they were always the rip off SKUs to take advantage of the uninformed, that offered terrible value and sold in much lower volumes. Gamer's Nexus review of the 3600x, was titled paying $50 for a letter. You don't get to pretend the highest selling and best value Zen 2 SKUs didn't exist when doing a price comparison across the generations. If the 6 core and 8 core SKUs worth buying weren't removed then the "only" $50 price hike line would hold true, but that isn't what happened.
Intel 10th gen 6 core retail ~$150/$200 (10400F/10600KF)
I'm not in the US though, here in the UK, the price gouging is very much still alive and well. £180 10600KF (Scan) vs. £350 5600x (Ebuyer as they're out of stock at Scan), double the price, for ~10% more performance (at best) and the same core count, how is that not price gouging?
I paid £265 for my 3700x in May last year. 10 months on, if I wanted to buy an 8 core CPU from AMD's current generation I'd have to pay £420. That's nearly a 60% price increase for the same core count nearly a year later. It's not just a $50 price increase.
Last edited:
Such a terrible time to buy a CPU (Edit: it's alright if you want a budget CPU): terrible products from Intel & overpriced products from AMD. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. I guess there are no terrible products only terrible prices but unless the 11700k is priced the same as the current price of the 10700k, which is never going to happen, it'll have no place on the market.
Comet Lake will remain the best price/performance CPUs on the market then. Who would've thought we'd be saying that 6 months ago...
I can understand the above when you have limited supply but the truly worst thing is that AMD actually released a "5700x" but it's locked to the OEM market as the 5800. Locking products to OEM so you can price gouge the DIY market is just gross and anti consumer.
Comet Lake will remain the best price/performance CPUs on the market then. Who would've thought we'd be saying that 6 months ago...
His argument is that almost no one bought a 3800x or 3600x because they were overpriced. The CPUs that everyone bought were the 3600 & 3700x. Now AMD skipped them so they can get their fat margins on their higher margin products. For Zen 2 you could buy an 8C CPU for $330 while for Zen 3 a 8C CPU is $450. Given the current market it's a smart move from AMD but it's terrible for us consumers. You're effectively getting less cores/$ from Zen3. Intel was called out for staying on 4C too long but AMD have taken it a step further and have actually regressed in cores per pricepoint with Zen 3. Eventually AMD is going to release the 5600 & 5700x but until that day it's valid to call them out for this.
I can understand the above when you have limited supply but the truly worst thing is that AMD actually released a "5700x" but it's locked to the OEM market as the 5800. Locking products to OEM so you can price gouge the DIY market is just gross and anti consumer.
Last edited:
I feel very bad for those who need a new PC or building their first rig right now.. from supply lines, to make the current offer and etc it's hard.
I do expect things to improve by a large margin next year
I do expect things to improve by a large margin next year
If you're still getting performance your happy with in the games you're playing, then yeah. If not, then let me tell you about our lord and savior, the Ryzen 5 5600X...
What has inflation got to do with a price comparison of two equivalent products?
UK inflation in 2020 was around 1%, not more than 50%.....
I'm sure the i9 will do better. But the crazy power consumption seems to make that a bad idea.
Meanwhile AMD parts aren't readily available, plus you've got that annoying USB / PCIE4 GPU issue to worry about.
Sigh.
Meanwhile AMD parts aren't readily available, plus you've got that annoying USB / PCIE4 GPU issue to worry about.
Sigh.
I think we're dealing with a fanboy. There's really no point in arguing with those. Trust me, I've tried many times.
Blaming inflation for a 50% price hike in a single year is such a laughable and stupid argument.
In comparison to GPUs, I don't think CPUs are in such a bad spot for as long as the Intel 10th gen firesale continues. There's some really great bargains to be had right now but I don't expect them to last. If in a few months all we're left with is 11th gen at launch MSRP and the higher priced Zen 3 SKUs (i.e. a 5600 and 5700x don't launch), then, yeah, it might start to look quite bleak.
They're both great CPUs (the 5600x is the 6 core and 5800x is the 8 core) but both currently overpriced for the performance they offer. You should really check the deals in your local market as prices can vary wildly. As discussed previously, here in the UK, the 6 core 5600x is selling for the same price as the 10 core 10850k making it impossible to recommend.
They pretty much perform the same in gaming, especially if you OC, so there isn't really much reason to invest in a 5800X for a pure gaming rig besides future proofing (which is always a fools errand).
Core count isn't everything. The 5600X is just a better gaming chip (and really a better chip in general) than anything Intel has right now and is priced accordingly.
Equivalent? Sure, they have the same core counts, similar cache, etc, etc.... But, clearly, one is much more performant over another.
Also, Zen 2, is the Ryzen 3000 series. Not 2000s. 2000 was Zen+. And the Ryzen 5 3600X (Zen 2) was 249$ MSRP. It's a 50$ price increase, not 100$. If you compare with the 2600X, then, you are skipping a generation.
If you read my first post in the thread, I clearly said that I had (4) Intel PCs before going AMD (for the first time) this year.
Last edited:
not really, but it paired with a A520/B550 motherboard and fast RAM (3600 MHz, or higher if you're willing to tweak BIOS settings) is a very cheap and solid base for max pure gaming FPS for now (5800X while doing other things with your PC in games), while with Intel 6 core parts have low memory speed caps and the only way around them and to overclock at all is with more expensive Z490 boards.
The 10600KF is definitely an equivalent product as a gaming CPU. You're talking about a 10% performance increase for the 5600x at 1080p with a 3090. For the vast majority of GPU/resolution combinations, gaming performance is going to be practically the same. I feel like everyone has just forgot how competitive the 10600KF still is in gaming.
Who's talking about the 2600x as well? I'm talking about the 3600 (and both me and other posters have stated this multiple times), which was far and away the highest selling Zen 2 CPU on the market, we can't pretend it didn't exist. The 3600x was always a complete rip off. Being $50 more expensive than the rip off SKU isn't exactly a great comparison. Until a 5600 SKU exists, then it remains a $100 price bump for the 6 core tier vs. Zen 2 (and $120 for the 8 core tier). Just because, you managed to rip off a few customers in the previous generation with an overpriced SKU, doesn't mean you can get away with pretending a $100 price increase is only $50.
First paragraph: that's competition. Also who the fuck would game at 1080p with a 3090???? Anyway.
Second paragraph: You are talking a 100$ price bump from the 5600X compared the 10600KF? Then, yes, sure. However, the AMD part has 6c/12t and Intel is a 6c/6t. And thus, the AMD part yields better performance in multi-threading. However does that performance gain is worth the 100$ (or 50$ if you go Zen 2)? It's up to your use case. The 8-core parts is (i7 10700k) is 400$ MSRP (sell for less right now though). The Zen 2 equivalent is roughly the same price (3800X) and the 5800X is 50$ more but put a beat down on the Intel part (and soon 11700K). The Core i9 11900K is 500$MSRP and is 10c/20t. The quivalents are the Zen 2 3900X and 5900X. The 3900X (12c/24t) is the same price and is somewhat less performant than the 10900K. So, at the same price point, it goes toward Intel. However, the 5900X, for 50$ more, obliterates the 10900K.
Again. It depends on what you do with your rig. Are you strictly gaming? Are you doing something else too? There are different price points for each performance tier. This is good. If you are good with Intel's 200$ offering, then good. If people wants the extra edge for 100$, then, let them be.
End of story.
How does that matter? Your reasoning is like a fanboy: repeating the same argument over and over again (only a $50 price hike), ignoring valid arguments when they counter your own (it's really much more than a $50 price hike because there are no budget CPU like the 3700x this time), bringing up nonsensible arguments to defend the company (inflation). I mean you check off all the boxes. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
I've seen fanboy simp for companies when they didn't even own any products from that company. Humans are weird or maybe they were just getting paid. Who knows what their though process was like.
How does it matter? Well, I sway where the performance is. I see the price increases as a fee of increased performance.
In the time of Zen+ and the 9900K, I was arguing in Intel's favor because they had the better offering. Time has changed and now, well, AMD's ahead. So, yeah.
The same was true with my previous computer.
There was also a misunderstanding in there. He was talking of a 10600KF vs. the 5600X. Of course, if you are strictly gaming and son't need the extra performance and thread the 5600X offer, then, yeah. It's a 100$ you can save there.
The prices of 10th gen have been slashed pretty drastically these last few months to compete with AMD and to clear stock for Rocket Lake, making them a great budget option. I got a 10850K last month for $300, which I thought seemed like a better value overall for multitasking and not just gaming compared to the $300 5600X. I don't plan on sticking with it for long though, I'll upgrade to Meteor Lake or Zen 5 in two years for DDR5.
Rocket Lake is almost impossible to recommend unless you absolutely need PCIE 4.0. If you can wait, Alder Lake sounds like a massive improvement. If you can't, 10th gen is substantially cheaper for not that much worse performance or Zen 3 for the same price and better performance. The 11900K priced so close to 5900X is laughable, if only stock weren't such an issue.
Rocket Lake is almost impossible to recommend unless you absolutely need PCIE 4.0. If you can wait, Alder Lake sounds like a massive improvement. If you can't, 10th gen is substantially cheaper for not that much worse performance or Zen 3 for the same price and better performance. The 11900K priced so close to 5900X is laughable, if only stock weren't such an issue.
Seems random. Had no issues with x570 Dark Hero paired with 5900x. Can only speak for myself though.
Reading through the whole review front to back, it's pretty appealing how it's just not anything to sway anyone who's isn't desperate for a CPU. Ryzen 5800/5900x processors are not so hard get and even on Facebook/aftermarket they're lots selling for basically retail+tax.
That is the way I'd want to go for the next couple couple of years to see where AMD's next gen platform is going.
That is the way I'd want to go for the next couple couple of years to see where AMD's next gen platform is going.
In games?
On a 3080/3090/6800xt at 1080p you'd see a small difference. At a higher resolution or a lower end GPU, I don't think you'd notice the difference.
Last edited:
I haven't kept up with the differences between AMD and Intel but is it still generally true that high-end Intel CPU's are better for demanding Emulators or has that changed recently?
Not say that individual isn't biased (we all are), but the argument has merit. That said even most economists I've spoken with have no clue what they are talking about.
"Inflation" is the measure of the change of price of necessities which are highly subsidized by the government, at least hear in the US. Under current economic conditions, namely low capital circulation, the price of highly sought-after goods and equities is more closely approximated by the percent increase of money printed. Over the past trailing 12 months, this value is about 40%. To clarify, that's 40% of all money ever printed was printed in the last 12 months. The price of housing in my area did the same. Take a look at other goods and assets that are in shortage.
The economic values of inflation have been pretty useless for some time, as they aren't segmented for different goods or assets.
Think about how long we have had 1 or 2 percent "inflation" and 5 to 20% annualized average price increases of computer hardware with respect to the same tiers.
I don't understand how Intel could've dropped the ball on their 10nm process so badly. And now, if I'm reading this right, there is an actual regression in core latency from 10th to 11th gen? lololololol what the heck is going on at Intel?
Intel are always one generation away from regaining the crown these days
tbh I wouldn't buy Intel again out of principle. They got so lazy and the PC market was just utterly boring when they had no competition.
I honestly think you will. Source: me, going from 3950X to 5950X
Well fuck.
I was incredibly cautious when they announced that this is a backport. Most of that turned true but even then it could match the Zen 3s in gaming even if it would eat a lot more.
But hooooly shit this is a mess. In the best case scenario the backport would've resulted in the already known MC performance with the downgrade to 8 cores, along with hits on the clocks. But still, the IPC gains could've translated into matching the 5000 series Ryzens.
But then again nothing is perfect with Intel nowadays. The cache situation just complete fucks with all the gains they had with the new core.
I can see Intel looking at this and saying "Fuck it, I'm tired already, just send it out". They are clearly done with this and are looking at AL. They definitely knew that this won't be too good and probably expected that the backport might have further problems.
I don't blame them. This is probably the peak result of the incredible mismanagement that happened there in this decade. I expect things to improve from now on honestly, or at the worst case in a few years we are going to see TSMC competitive Intel chips if AL doesn't pan out.
It's not like they didn't have successes. Tiger Lake is actually good (if it wasn't overshadowed by the incredible M1). They can turn this around. It just seems like the desktop CPUs were simply too late.
At this point with the new CEO Intel is going to take a bit of a backseat with desktop CPUs. They can't keep spinning this, they are probably going to concentrate on what's next.
It's truly sad, because AMD is going to get cocky. They already are. I am still incredibly happy with the 5600X though.
I was incredibly cautious when they announced that this is a backport. Most of that turned true but even then it could match the Zen 3s in gaming even if it would eat a lot more.
But hooooly shit this is a mess. In the best case scenario the backport would've resulted in the already known MC performance with the downgrade to 8 cores, along with hits on the clocks. But still, the IPC gains could've translated into matching the 5000 series Ryzens.
But then again nothing is perfect with Intel nowadays. The cache situation just complete fucks with all the gains they had with the new core.
I can see Intel looking at this and saying "Fuck it, I'm tired already, just send it out". They are clearly done with this and are looking at AL. They definitely knew that this won't be too good and probably expected that the backport might have further problems.
I don't blame them. This is probably the peak result of the incredible mismanagement that happened there in this decade. I expect things to improve from now on honestly, or at the worst case in a few years we are going to see TSMC competitive Intel chips if AL doesn't pan out.
It's not like they didn't have successes. Tiger Lake is actually good (if it wasn't overshadowed by the incredible M1). They can turn this around. It just seems like the desktop CPUs were simply too late.
At this point with the new CEO Intel is going to take a bit of a backseat with desktop CPUs. They can't keep spinning this, they are probably going to concentrate on what's next.
It's truly sad, because AMD is going to get cocky. They already are. I am still incredibly happy with the 5600X though.
Why in the world did Intel go back to 14nm? I mean just deal with poor yield if that's the issue and take the financial hit. They continue to lose mindshare to AMD and is terrible for their future prospects in the consumer space.