Intel/AMD Pricing War Imminent? 11th Gen Core i7 (8C/16T) to Undercut Ryzen 7 5800X by $100, Rumors Claim

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,595
Points
113
intel-core-new-logos-1024x576.jpg
Image: Intel



According to rumors shared by leaker OneRaichu, Intel is gearing up for a pricing war with AMD due to the inadequacy of its upcoming Rocket Lake-S (14 nm) generation, which will presumably struggle to match the Zen 3 (7 nm) architecture in terms of performance. The company plans to offer its 11th Gen Core processors at lower prices to stymie the flood of enthusiasts who are flocking to red team.



The tweet claims that Intel’s 11th Gen Core i7 processors will echo AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X with 8 cores and 16 threads, but unlike red team’s option, which costs $449, Intel will be pricing them much lower – as cheap as $349.



That’s a $100 difference. While the savings may not be enough to sway...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...


 
kcthebrewer said:
The fight of the dead end platforms
Click to expand...

So? If you keep your PC for 3 to 5 years, it really doesn't matter. Chances are, by the time there is a worthwhile CPU upgrade, you'd have to buy a new motherboard anyway. Or at the very least, it would be desirable given the changes that end up being made to that platform over the life of it. Many of those old B350 and some X370 boards aren't exactly ideal for a 3950X. AM4 is three years old. It's total life cycle will be right around 4 years. If you bought into the platform early, and you keep your PC three years then you are buying X570 right about now. If you buy every 4 or 5 years, you'll be buying at the start of a new platform. By the time you buy again, we'll likely be past whatever the next generation has to offer.

On the Intel side, it makes no difference given the life span of its platforms. Intel's mainstream platforms never last more than one product generation and one refresh of that same product. LGA 1200 still has some life left in it as it will also accommodate Rocket Lake-S as well.

Most people buy computer hardware every few years. It's easy to lose sight of that on an enthusiast forum where many of us buy much more frequently.
 
Yeah, Intel's pricing might make a difference until AMD releases the 5700x for $100 less than the 5800x.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Yeah, Intel's pricing might make a difference until AMD releases the 5700x for $100 less than the 5800x.
Click to expand...

The thing you have to understand is that Intel doesn't need to be cheaper than AMD. It's still banking on it's name brand recognition. It can ride that out through a lot of the tough times. AMD is gaining marketshare, but they are a long way from catching Intel. The DIY / Enthusiast market where people are aware of just how good AMD is right now is a very small segment of the population. Even among gamers this is true. Example: Virtually all of the people I play Destiny 2 with are all running Core i9-9900K's and 2080's or 2080 Ti's.

I also know a few people that don't give AMD a second look due to bad experiences in the past. AMD's platform has had either feature parity or superiority for some time now, but that wasn't always the case. For a very long time AMD lagged Intel and even when they didn't on paper, the experience left a lot to be desired. In other words, in some circles AMD is still fighting their reputation as "that other company that makes processors."
 
I'm guessing he's less talking about next gen architecture for x86 and more about x86 vs arm.
 
Yeah, convincing people to go with AMD is a tough sell. People have very long memories. I tried it on many occasions with people who are intelligent and understand the arguments. The comeback is always, "my gut tells me not to and I trust my gut".
 
Bezant said:
Yeah, convincing people to go with AMD is a tough sell. People have very long memories. I tried it on many occasions with people who are intelligent and understand the arguments. The comeback is always, "my gut tells me not to and I trust my gut".
Click to expand...
There gut will be missing out on performance this time.
 
I do have to wonder about these ' past experiences'. I had AMD since 100mhz, then k6 then duron, then a8 with an e2 sprinkled somewhere and an a2 or some such using as a third computer, with a now a ryzen laptop and a ryzen full desktops as the main one.. all of those with no problems I didn't create myself, fully knowing I might, and I did. The older systems I tossed in working condition, the e2 or whatever it was , I fried by screwing it it.
Im betting lot of this "past experiences" stem from having an already negative view of the product, of having a view of the "budget " product and then via confirmation bias just cementing the position. Any problem, most likely user created would go to cementing the idea.
If anything this gives amd even more reason to raise prices as much as the market allows should they offer the higher performance. Sadly price also goes deeply in perception, and that perception skews every problem a user will encounter. Im sure Intel systems crash all the same, slow down and can be crap all the same ( well actually i live this everyday at work, its all intel), if you have a positive view of intel you will be like, yeah its the software, needs a reinstall.. yeah is hdd, is too slow.. yeah it needs more memory... Yada yada... You don't go, oh its intel, its those processors.... AMD on the other hand being in second place, im sure many would go, oh its that weird processor, just a new computer... And of course, new will be better no matter what, fresh install more hdd, more memory most likely... And so, well cementing the idea having nothing to do with reality.
 
Uvilla said:
I do have to wonder about these ' past experiences'. I had AMD since 100mhz, then k6 then duron, then a8 with an e2 sprinkled somewhere and an a2 or some such using as a third computer, with a now a ryzen laptop and a ryzen full desktops as the main one.. all of those with no problems I didn't create myself, fully knowing I might, and I did. The older systems I tossed in working condition, the e2 or whatever it was , I fried by screwing it it.
Im betting lot of this "past experiences" stem from having an already negative view of the product, of having a view of the "budget " product and then via confirmation bias just cementing the position. Any problem, most likely user created would go to cementing the idea.
If anything this gives amd even more reason to raise prices as much as the market allows should they offer the higher performance. Sadly price also goes deeply in perception, and that perception skews every problem a user will encounter. Im sure Intel systems crash all the same, slow down and can be crap all the same ( well actually i live this everyday at work, its all intel), if you have a positive view of intel you will be like, yeah its the software, needs a reinstall.. yeah is hdd, is too slow.. yeah it needs more memory... Yada yada... You don't go, oh its intel, its those processors.... AMD on the other hand being in second place, im sure many would go, oh its that weird processor, just a new computer... And of course, new will be better no matter what, fresh install more hdd, more memory most likely... And so, well cementing the idea having nothing to do with reality.
Click to expand...

It's not all made up. There were real technical issues with some of the older CPU's and motherboard platforms. I've been building and servicing PC's for over 20 years and did so back when AMD was considered a company that built "knock off" 386 and 486 CPU's. Back in those days the CPU's ran into compatibility problems with software and when benchmarked against their Intel counterparts, they produced slower results virtually every time.

CPU's like the K5 were pretty awful. Abysmal performance and it was late to market. The K6 was actually decent, but many Super 7 boards weren't. AMD's CPU's were fine in those days (due to strategic acquisitions) but the Super 7 platform and the deluge of non-Intel chipsets were pretty bad. AGP card compatibility and generally **** drivers back in the Windows 9x days were beyond horrendous to deal with. To be fair, this wasn't something you could lay at AMD's feet. This was due to **** chipsets and drivers from VIA, SIS and others. Up to the Athlon 64 days this continued. NVIDIA's nForce chipsets did a lot to change things as NVIDIA actually did a pretty good job with its chipsets.

The Phenom and Bulldozer days were better in some respects. Long gone were the software compatibility problems but performance relative to Intel was basically ****. The boards certainly beat the super 7 days, but you often had to buy higher end to get a good one. AMD has never had the same control over its board partners Intel has. As a result, the lower end of the product stack for various vendors were (and arguably still are) basically trash. Generally you'll have better luck with lower end Intel motherboards than you will lower end AMD boards. Having said that, today, I review a lot of both and aside from the quirks brought about by long term socket compatibility, AMD does a fine job with its CPU's and it's platform.

I started reviewing motherboards back when the socket 939 Athlon 64's were top dog. Even to this day setting up an Intel system is easier if you try to put an OS on a RAID array. There are platform advantages, but AMD still lags Intel on its SATA controllers and their relatively poor flexibility by comparison.

I was there for most of the good stuff between AMD and Intel. I've been building these things for 23 or 24 years now. I've owned these things (over many different product generations) and I've been reviewing these things for 15 years. AMD platforms and some of their CPU's historically weren't fantastic and were no where near Intel's equal and I'm not just referring to performance. Some of the negative perceptions of AMD's products isn't made up nor is it all just personal bias. The issues were very real. That's not to say Intel hasn't had its share of issues. Intel has had different issues, but it also had a larger customer base, more money for marketing etc. Generally, they've made right their bigger wrongs in terms of the products.

Having said that, I'd say some of these people may not have tried AMD CPU's and platforms in recent years. I have a co-worker at my day job that refuses to look at anything AMD because of his experiences during the whole K6 era with ****ty Super 7 boards. I don't know how prevalent this attitude is, but I've seen it on more than one occasion.
 
Also to mention is that OEM system builders have favored Intel since forever. Everything from corporate generic workstations up to high end graphical workstations and servers Intel has been the standard. AMD just never got a foot hold in those markets, which account for the majority of sales. It's even harder for AMD to gain ground in the server market. Performance aside, a lot of server clusters and datacenters are all virtual now. And you can't simply swap out an Intel blade for an AMD blade in the same cluster. Hardware versions won't match and VM's won't run.
 
Riccochet said:
Also to mention is that OEM system builders have favored Intel since forever. Everything from corporate generic workstations up to high end graphical workstations and servers Intel has been the standard. AMD just never got a foot hold in those markets, which account for the majority of sales. It's even harder for AMD to gain ground in the server market. Performance aside, a lot of server clusters and datacenters are all virtual now. And you can't simply swap out an Intel blade for an AMD blade in the same cluster. Hardware versions won't match and VM's won't run.
Click to expand...

Strong arm business tactics aside, Intel has generally enjoyed much greater production capacity than AMD has. AMD historically hasn't been a consideration to replace Intel in the OEM market (even with Intel's supply issues) as their production capacity can't match their needs. Global Foundries won't have the capacity. They make the I/O dies for all the Ryzens. While TSMC is a giant in the industry, AMD isn't their only customer. It's unclear how much capacity it could allocate to AMD even if the sales were there.
 
I'm just talking about if someone is on AM4, it doesn't make any sense to move to Intel just for 11th gen even if it is 'faster' (and vice versa)

For new computer buyers or people who don't plan on upgrading for years, it really doesn't matter - you would want to get whatever is cheaper and performs well relative to your needs.

Intel has lost this generation/chipset and dropping $100 off their pricing is unlikely going to change anything.
 
Got my 1700. Skipped 2700. Bought 3800x. Just sold it waiting on 5800x. May or may not jump to x570. I have a b550 itx board that just needs a case and I'll be set. I don't normally upgrade this much, but I can't help myself. It's a sickness....if my wife knew, she'd throw me in the looney bin.
 
I got into a X570 with a 3900x not so long ago. I'm looking at the 5900x and thinking... Maybee I'll just ride that one as it's only a CPU swap since I already have an x570 board.
 
I really have no reason to upgrade my 2700.

Nothing I do requires more juice. Photo editing, 4K60 gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top