DammeronLooks like 5900X will finally take over my 2600k's place, after 10 years of waiting for something good. :)

GoflyingWow... You can use it for 10 years!?!o_O

I’m also still running a 2600k! Next year it will be 10 years since i bought the CPU. Next year I will be upgrading

Let's wait for proper benchmarks, but 5600X and 5800X will be the two models to watch for most of you.
12 and 16 cores are really only relevant for those who run specific workloads which scales beyond 8 cores. Don't get fixated on synthetic benchmarks or benchmarks which are not relevant to you.

ARFRocket Lake is coming and will regain that single-threaded performance crown, despite the fact that in a multi-threaded world the single-thread performance DOES NOT matter.

Quite on the contrary; single threaded performance is more important than ever, and is after all the base scaling factor for multithreaded performance.
Single threaded performance also helps "everything", while more cores only helps certain workloads.

TurmaniaFrom what I see is they fix all intel cpu's at their base speeds and let 5600x run lose at its normal speeds. Because charts certainly does not state they fix 5600x cpu. If that is true, this is one of the worst misleading and false marketing Inhave witnessed from AMD. Taking people as stupid. But perhaps I'm misreading something and refuse to believe my suspicions for now.

It's tests from several sources such as users, it's not in house testing they have control over just like userbenchmark.
They cannot control what users do!!!

The weighting can be found on their forums.
The baselines for each model can be found easily.

Baseline URL.

This is one of the results of a 10600K used for an aggregate which is what you see, Clearly states it turbo'd to 4.8 ghz.

RedelZaVednoVery nice chip, but no way am I paying $300 for 6 cores in 2020/21. I'm gonna wait for 5600 and OC it. 5% more performance at best is not worth 80 bucks more imho.

I get an 8700k 3 years ago for 350, and mine, locked at 4.9 ghz still not bad compared to that new 5600x. Its 3150 single vs 3500. In game probably they will be very close.
8700k on 2017 was really a good cpu for the time.

DrediNot really relevant to the news article, but I wonder how long it’ll take for userbenchmark to change its point system (again) after the launch? Will it become just a memory latency test? XD

I've been wondering the same thing. I also expect that memory latency will suck much less on Zen 3.

DammeronLooks like 5900X will finally take over my 2600k's place, after 10 years of waiting for something good. :)

What a legendary chip that was. Just like the Celeron 300 I had back in the day. Oh and not to forget the Abit BP-6 I think with the dual celerons and NT 4 playing quake 2 online. Ahhh memories.

TurmaniaFrom what I see is they fix all intel cpu's at their base speeds and let 5600x run lose at its normal speeds. Because charts certainly does not state they fix 5600x cpu. If that is true, this is one of the worst misleading and false marketing Inhave witnessed from AMD. Taking people as stupid. But perhaps I'm misreading something and refuse to believe my suspicions for now.

That is nonsense. These are crowd-sourced benchmark numbers, they have zero control over the clock speeds of the CPUs in question. That is of course a significant negative and an argument against the reliability of this data, which thankfully they also list prominently on the results page. It's entirely possible that this is an OC score (though highly unlikely given that overclocking Ryzen for the past three generations has actually meant giving up ST performance outright due to the loss of single core boost, in favor of possibly higher multi core performance), but given the amount of 10900k scores we can absolutely know that they are a representative score in that benchmark for that part. Is it representative of real-world performance? Only if the workload resembles this benchmark, as with all benchmarks. If there is a discrepancy in the reported clocks (Intel reported at base clocks and AMD at boost clocks) that is likely down to how the system reports data to the benchmark, and nothing else - those numbers aren't actual measurements of clock speeds while running the benchmark.

hmm fx8350 for 8 years....so attracted by this cpu...

What I find most interesting in that chart is how a Tiger Lake 15-28W laptop chip is within 1% of the 5600X in single thread.

PooPipeBoyIt will be on top until the same benchmark is run on the higher-clocked Zen 3 chips, if the Cinebench R20 scores are anything to go by...

RandallFlaggWhat I find most interesting in that chart is how a Tiger Lake 15-28W laptop chip is within 1% of the 5600X in single thread.

Intel laptop designs tend to consume as much power as desktops for 1t loads.
Desktops have more cooling so you can turbo for longer and you have a bigger T delta allowing for slightly higher frequencies.

Tigerlake is atleast some breath of hope..

ImsochoboIntel laptop designs tend to consume as much power as desktops for 1t loads.
Desktops have more cooling so you can turbo for longer and you have a bigger T delta allowing for slightly higher frequencies.

Tigerlake is atleast some breath of hope..

References for that power comment? Only the i7-10750H and higher pull up 65W, and that only for ~30 seconds, just like the Renoir Zen 2 laptop chips. And they only do that in multi-core, not single core. Then they drop back to their rated 45W unless you change that in the BIOS. The 5600X is 65W TDP meaning that is most likely its sustained PL1 power draw, I would imagine like most chips (Intel and AMD) its PL2 turbo is probably more like 95W. Not sure how much more wrong you could be here.

Tiger Lake will pull around 54W PL2 for a short time, like 30s, then pull back down to sustained power draw PL1 = 28W. Cinebench is not a short benchmark, so you are talking about a chip that draws around or less than half the power of the 65W TDP 5600X. And it scored within 1% on single thread Cinebench of that 5600X. Hence my comment.

To that point, the Ryzen 4900HS in the Asus Rog G14 - the flagship high performance model for the Ryzen, probably about the fastest you could get 3 months ago - got smoked by in an Ars review of the Tiger Lake based MSI Summit.

efikkanQuite on the contrary; single threaded performance is more important than ever, and is after all the base scaling factor for multithreaded performance.
Single threaded performance also helps "everything", while more cores only helps certain workloads.

Why don't you try to work with a single-core processor if the single-thread performance is so important?
The applications are thread-count starved - we all need more cores because we are always limited by the speed of execution of a single thread, the only way to overcome this limit is to use more cores.

Oh, and to be honest - this PassMark thread is heavily AMD optimised.

Next time try with Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, WinRar compression, Super Pi and other beautiful benchmarks where AMD CPUs get slaughtered.

ARFWhy don't you try to work with a single-core processor if the single-thread performance is so important?
The applications are thread-count starved - we all need more cores because we are always limited by the speed of execution of a single thread, the only way to overcome this limit is to use more cores.

Ah, single-threaded performance must mean nothing then. Gotcha.

Anyone know where I could buy a 128 core processor to improve my computer's performance by 3000%?

ARFWhy don't you try to work with a single-core processor if the single-thread performance is so important?

Despite being so active in these deeply technical subjects, you clearly don't know what "single threaded performance" means.
You should think of single threaded performance as performance per core, because that's what it really is, and forms the theoretical upper limit of multithreaded scaling; cores * performance per core.

All workloads split over multiple cores will encounter diminishing returns with increased core count, as synchronizing more cores is inevitably going to take more time. This overhead might not be significant if you're doing a large batch job that takes minutes or even hours, but if it's an interactive application or a game, then you have a very critical time limit before the application becomes laggy and non-responsive. Since there is an overhead cost with each thread you synchronize, balancing how threads share data and the size of work chunks is essential for good multithreaded performance. In such cases faster cores will lead to better utilization and less stalls and lag, essentially you can scale to more cores before performance gains become negligible.

As I said in my previous post, single threaded performance helps "everything". Whether an application uses 1 or 128 threads, an increase in single threaded performance is nearly always going to benefit a computational workload, and sometimes even help multithreaded performance even more due to less overhead.

ARFThe applications are thread-count starved - we all need more cores because we are always limited by the speed of execution of a single thread, the only way to overcome this limit is to use more cores.

If an application is in fact starved for more threads, then more threads are good.
But applications have to be carefully designed to scale well. Large batch jobs are "easy", while applications like Phoshop etc. are harder. That's why you often see with such applications that more cores helps a little up to a point, but faster cores always help.
Unless an application benefits from thread isolation (which some web server tasks do), faster cores are always going to perform better than more cores. If you have the option between a CPU that has 50% more cores or one that's 50% faster per core, the latter will nearly always win.

ARFOh, and to be honest - this PassMark thread is heavily AMD optimised.

Typical rookie mistake.
There are really no such thing as "AMD optimized" or "Intel optimized".
Just because a piece of software is performing better on one specific piece of hardware, doesn't mean it's "optimized" for it. In 99.9% of cases it simply comes down to the resource balance. The exception are the few cases where unique ISA features are utilized, or the application intentionally runs a slower code path for certain hardware.

DammeronLooks like 5900X will finally take over my 2600k's place, after 10 years of waiting for something good. :)

This is me. 10 years with a 2600k oc'd to 4.9 GHz. Will be moving to 5900 or 5950.

RandallFlaggReferences for that power comment? Only the i7-10750H and higher pull up 65W, and that only for ~30 seconds, just like the Renoir Zen 2 laptop chips. And they only do that in multi-core, not single core. Then they drop back to their rated 45W unless you change that in the BIOS. The 5600X is 65W TDP meaning that is most likely its sustained PL1 power draw, I would imagine like most chips (Intel and AMD) its PL2 turbo is probably more like 95W. Not sure how much more wrong you could be here.

Tiger Lake will pull around 54W PL2 for a short time, like 30s, then pull back down to sustained power draw PL1 = 28W. Cinebench is not a short benchmark, so you are talking about a chip that draws around or less than half the power of the 65W TDP 5600X. And it scored within 1% on single thread Cinebench of that 5600X. Hence my comment.

To that point, the Ryzen 4900HS in the Asus Rog G14 - the flagship high performance model for the Ryzen, probably about the fastest you could get 3 months ago - got smoked by in an Ars review of the Tiger Lake based MSI Summit.

The highest bin tiger lake consumes about 30W @4,8GHz on a medium intensity 1T load according to anandtechs fairly comprehensive tests. In contrast zen2 can’t really use more than 18W per core (max 20W on renoir with uncore etc, matisse is not really power optimized and a lot of power goes to IF & IO die).

Rocket lake is going to be the juice king. 5GHz all core around 320W in cinebench like loads, prime95 will be higher.

I know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.

birdieI know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.

The only thing you’re trying to Sh1t on, is our intellect. But ain’t happening... you can keep them by your bedside

Intel has done this to it self because it was sitting on the big throne for years and didn’t do anything really to innovate the consumer market. Only trying to get user’s money. I guess you liked paying for an i7 and get an i3 all those years.

The 5600X is not an entry level CPU. A CPU that out performers all previous Zen CPUs and most probably Intels also on single thread and match a lot of middle parts with maybe more cores, even Intels, in multi thread, for 300$...
5600X is not replacing 3600nonX
Core count does not determine level of products. Performance does.

Thank fully AMD has now offerings that shifted the entire market and Intel has woken from the eternal sleep and trying put its act/sh1t together, unlike you...

So before you say anything about a +50$ in price for top line products remember how Intel cut 500$ to try to match AMD’s
You would still pay 1000$ for 500$ CPU.

So keep your act and shit together and to your self...
We don’t need that here.

Zach_01Core count does not determine level of products. Performance does.

This is exactly why Ryzen 1000/2000 CPUs got popular in the first place - MOAR cores than Intel at a reasonable price. How fast AMD fans have forgotten everything.

The 5600X is an entry level CPU as AMD hasn't yet announced anything cheaper/simpler. And it's not just $50 more expensive, it's $100 more expensive, or 50%. If Intel had done anything like that for their entry level CPUs people would have torn them apart! And being marginally faster in lots of workloads than Sky Lake from 2015 allows them to dictate insane prices? I don't want to participate in this discussion any longer. It's just dirty. One corporation ripping off it's customers while offering the highest performance? Bad, bad, bad! An underdog now ripping off their customers by offering the highest performance? That's totally OK. F it.

birdieI know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.

birdieThis is exactly why Ryzen 1000/2000 CPUs got popular in the first place - MOAR cores than Intel at a reasonable price. How fast AMD fans have forgotten everything.

The 5600X is an entry level CPU as AMD hasn't yet announced anything cheaper/simpler. And it's not just $50 more expensive, it's $100 more expensive, or 50%. If Intel had done anything like that for their entry level CPUs people would have torn them apart! And being marginally faster in lots of workloads than Sky Lake from 2015 allows them to dictate insane prices? I don't want to participate in this discussion any longer. It's just dirty. One corporation ripping off it's customers while offering the highest performance? Bad, bad, bad! An underdog now ripping off their customers by offering the highest performance? That's totally OK. F it.

Just because it's the lowest tier product launched as of now does not make it "entry level" - by that logic the RTX 3080 is an entry level GPU ...
Just like previous generations, we can expect a 6c12t 5600 non-X (likely in the $230 range), a 6c6t or 4c8t 5500(X), and so on.

Beyond that, while there is a smidgen of truth to what you're saying, you're twisting it way past what's reasonable. Some issues:
-Zen 2 already surpassed Skylake and its derivatives in terms of IPC, beating them by ~7% in AnandTech's testing. Latency-sensitive workloads like gaming was one area where Intel still had the upper hand, but it was also the only area.
- Intel is already hitting >5GHz on 14nm, so saying their 10++ node allows for 4.8GHz is ... a bit weird? You're also skipping over the fact that Ice Lake improved IPC over Skylake by ~18%, which Tiger Lake carries forward (though with much improved clocks thanks to the improved 10++ node), both of which Zen 3 should now handily surpass again. So Zen 3 isn't surpassing an architecture from 2015, but one from 2020.
- Intel's issues don't just stem from their messed up 10nm node, but also their architectural development plans and their failure to improve upon Skylake for far too long when they knew 10nm wasn't panning out. (And especially that it took them five years to backport a newer core design to 14nm.)

As for saying "One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another" - please come back in five or more years. Taking a leading market position (which AMD still doesn't have, just to be clear), does not make you a monopolist. Far from it. Your arguments here are ridiculously simplistic.

I understand your frustrations regarding the higher prices, but there's also reason behind that. AMD has sold themselves as the value option with Ryzen 1000-3000. Now, with Ryzen 5000, they see no reason to present themselves that way, instead selling themselves as the overall performance champion. Thus they have no reason to price themselves lower than Intel - the value comes with the better performance, not the lower price. Does this suck for end users now accustomed to cheap many-core CPUs from AMD? Of course it does! But it is nowhere near a reasonable threshold for being called a ripoff. You're getting your money's worth, after all. It's not like they are returning to $400 4c8t CPUs like we had before Ryzen...
-

ValantarJust because it's the lowest tier product launched as of now does not make it "entry level" - by that logic the RTX 3080 is an entry level GPU ...

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.

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.

Why didn't Intel sell the Core i3 6100 for $183? It was the fastest entry level CPU at that time!

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).

ValantarNow, with Ryzen 5000, they see no reason to present themselves that way, instead selling themselves as the overall performance champion.

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.

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.

cyberlonerhmm fx8350 for 8 years....so attracted by this cpu...

Prepare to have a smile on your face every single time you press the power button.

birdieThis is exactly why Ryzen 1000/2000 CPUs got popular in the first place - MOAR cores than Intel at a reasonable price. How fast AMD fans have forgotten everything.

The 5600X is an entry level CPU as AMD hasn't yet announced anything cheaper/simpler. And it's not just $50 more expensive, it's $100 more expensive, or 50%. If Intel had done anything like that for their entry level CPUs people would have torn them apart! And being marginally faster in lots of workloads than Sky Lake from 2015 allows them to dictate insane prices? I don't want to participate in this discussion any longer. It's just dirty. One corporation ripping off it's customers while offering the highest performance? Bad, bad, bad! An underdog now ripping off their customers by offering the highest performance? That's totally OK. F it.

birdieAll 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.

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.

Why didn't Intel sell the Core i3 6100 for $183? It was the fastest entry level CPU at that time!

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).



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.

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.

Yes yes, RTX3070 anounced by nVidia is the entry level GPU that replaces GTX 1650 and has a price bump of 300%.

Are we in kindergarden here?

The 1600/2600/3600/5600 is the entry level CPUs of AMD... Right...!!!
And the 1200/1300/1400/1500/3100/3300 what exactly are? Sub-entry level or non existent CPUs?
You can cry all you want. 5600X is replacing 3600X and has price bump of 50$. That is a +20% on MSRP with at least the same performance uplift and most probably performs faster than any 6core.

Please... you can try harder than this.

Zach_01Yes yes, RTX3070 anounced by nVidia is the entry level GPU that replaces GTX 1650 and has a price bump of 300%.

Are we in kindergarden here?

The 1600/2600/3600/5600 is the entry level CPUs of AMD... Right...!!!
And the 1200/1300/1400/1500/3100/3300 what exactly are? Sub-entry level or non existent CPUs?
You can cry all you want. 5600X is replacing 3600X and has price bump of 50$. That is a +20% on MSRP with at least the same performance uplift and most probably performs faster than any 6core.

Please... you can try harder than 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.

birdieAll 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.

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.)

birdieThe 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.

Relevance? One is a Skylake part, launched long before any Ryzen, and the other is Haswell, launched several years before that again.

birdieWhy didn't Intel sell the Core i3 6100 for $183? It was the fastest entry level CPU at that time!

... 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.

birdieDouble 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).

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.

birdieEven the most evil company in the world, Intel, didn't allow itself to do that as indicated earlier. F it and I'm out.

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?

birdieSpeaking 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.

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.

birdieI'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.

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.