ratirtAMD did a 8c 12c and 16c CPUs and Intel followed with 10th gen ramping up the cores to 10. AMD did a 64 and followed by 128 core. What stagnation? Intel was forced to go e-cores route to make up for it and advertise its CPUs as 16c (8+8) and with RL 24c (8+16) because making a CPU with just p-cores would not happen. Decrease? WTF? ryzen 1 1300x has had 4 cores No SMT bro. same for the Zen+ and 2nd gen Zen except 2nd gen 3000 series was 4c8t as the lowest part. This is the product segmentation and different tiers of CPUs.
You are twisting the truth so badly man.

The 3700 had 8 cores at 329 msrp. The 5600x one year later had 6 cores at 300 msrp. And it was slower in mt performance. But nope, intel stagnated

Amds 12 and 16 core were way outside the mainstreams pockets. We are talkimg about the 300 to 350 range since thats the price of intels cpu when intel was supposedly stagnating. Amd is offering a steady amount of cores for the last 5 years, and its going to stay the same for at least another 2. So 7 years in total. In the meanwhile, they also increased the cost per core with the zen 3.

fevgatosWhat decrease? The 3700 had 8 cores at 329 msrp. The 5600x one year later had 6 cores at 300 msrp. And it was slower in mt performance. But nope, intel stagnated

Amds 12 and 16 core were way outside the mainstreams pockets. We are talkimg about the 300 to 350 range since thats the price of intels cpu when intel was supposedly stagnating. Amd is offering a steady amount of cores for the last 5 years, and its going to stay the same for at least another 2. So 7 years in total. In the meanwhile, they also increased the cost per core with the zen 3.

Then buy a 5600 non-x for $200 MSRP. It is not a decrease in core the prices are changing. All products release counter competitors actions whatever shows on the market. Leapfrogging each other in products and prices. Competition. The prices will change and they have changed for the 5000 series CPUs as well. Remember, the 5000 series CPUs are 2 years old. Obviously the pries back in the release date were different and market was different with Intel's product stack. Now it has changed again and it will change again soon since new products are up in line for release.

ratirtThen buy a 5600 non-x for $200 MSRP. It is not a decrease in core the prices are changing. All products release counter competitors actions whatever shows on the market. Leapfrogging each other in products and prices. Competition. The prices will change and they have changed for the 5000 series CPUs as well. Remember, the 5000 series CPUs are 2 years old. Obviously the pries back in the release date were different and market was different with Intel's product stack. Now it has changed again and it will change again soon since new products are up in line for release.

The 5600 didnt exist until basically very recently

ppnThe thing is that 1P/2T equals 2E or 1000 points, so they don't need that many P cores to win the SP score, we need a glorified Pentium Gold with 2P/20E.

To 'Win' these benchmarks all they need is using all 12 slots of a 13900k and make a 2P/40E CPU
Only 2 P cores so they could put 6 GHz all day and claim the ST king
And the 40E will handle all the MT tests.

This thing will absolutely dominate the benchmarks
But should be a pain the butt to anyone actually using it in a PC.

fevgatosThe 5600 didnt exist until basically very recently

Exactly. you bring up a MSRP for a 5600x from two years ago and obviously the price is different now just as the market 2 years back was different and Intel had a different line of products. in 2020 AMD's competition, may 10th gen was released it has competed with 3000 series ryzen and the 3600x was cheaper than a 10600K. Then 10600 and 3600 with the latter one being cheaper. That same year November 5000 series was released and 2021 April 11th gen Intel to compete with 5000 series Ryzen which hold the crown of performance. 5000 series was a huge jump in performance vs zen2. Price for Zen 3 changed with AlderLake release since it started to be competitive a lot and faster which is not a miracle. Intel had to make 11th gen which was not as successful and in some cases you could see regression in performance vs 10th gen not to mention top model no longer had 10 cores. It was cheaper than a zen 5000 competing product since it was not as good. It has changed a lot since 2 year ago and you should put that into perspective when talking about competition and new products releases including MSRP and changing landscape.
Price for zen3 in Norway
5600x is $240
5600 is $220
MSRP does not apply here for the Ryzen 5000 series products today.

ratirtThis thread and comments remind me of kids arguing who's dad is better :)

Sadly this is what it has turned into.

I don't remember all the childish bickering and brand cheer leading being this bad like 20 years ago. It was there but never to this level. Buy what suits your budget, stop comparing your rig to what other peoples build. enjoy how much faster computers have become.

And remember there will always be something faster out next year.

Respect your fellow forum members and internet citizens there are more important things in life than computers after all.

MakaveliSadly this is what it has turned into.

I don't remember all the childish bickering and brand cheerleading being this bad like 20 years ago. It was there but never to this level. Buy what suits your budget, stop comparing your rig to what other people build. enjoy how much faster computers have become.

And remember there will always be something faster out next year.

Respect your fellow forum members and internet citizens there are more important things in life than computers after all.

No neither do i. I have had some real fun and friendly times on TPU in the past, now it's gone. Just stop all the bullshit anti Intel crap, i don't see any anti AMD stuff so it is obviously only one team doing it. And without hands on experience, you know nothing. I know nothing about 5800x or any 5 series Ryzen, but there are an awful lot of ADL experts that don't have them and never will. Maybe i need to stop defending Intel and let the crap go on, but why should i. The people doing it need to stop, and enjoy what they have.

ratirtWhat stagnation?

The AMD stagnation he's talking about is the price per core on the mainstream SKUs.
Cheapest 6 core Ryzen at launch:
1600 = $220
2600 = $200
3600 = $200
5600X = $300
-----1 and half year and one Alder Lake launch later-----
5600 = $200

Cheapest 8 core Ryzen at launch
1700 = $330
2700 = $300
3700X = $330
5800X = $450
-----1 and half year and one Alder Lake launch later-----
5700X = $300

Street prices the same will happen,the lowest street prices were something like this, the 1600 was sold for $85 for some time, the 2600 just above $100, the 3600 at around $150, the 5600(X) is around $180.
The biggest issue in my opinion is that as soon AMD was in similar position to Intel during the quad-core era, they increased the launch prices by 50% and didn't release cheaper SKUs or significant price cuts until multiple months after Intel answered.

KaitouXThe biggest issue in my opinion is that as soon AMD was in similar position to Intel during the quad-core era, they increased the launch prices by 50% and didn't release cheaper SKUs or significant price cuts until multiple months after Intel answered.

Which Intel NEVER did after 5-6 years of complete market domination. That's why amd is completely disgusting

fevgatosWhich Intel NEVER did after 5-6 years of complete market domination. That's why amd is completely disgusting

AMD have to, they don't even make half the money Intel do, I think that is why they do it.

TiggerNo neither do i. I have had some real fun and friendly times on TPU in the past, now it's gone. Just stop all the bullshit anti Intel crap, i don't see any anti AMD stuff so it is obviously only one team doing it. And without hands on experience, you know nothing. I know nothing about 5800x or any 5 series Ryzen, but there are an awful lot of ADL experts that don't have them and never will. Maybe i need to stop defending Intel and let the crap go on, but why should i. The people doing it need to stop, and enjoy what they have.

Neither company really deserve for us to be fighting over who's best its stupid both make decent enough products and we are in a much better place choice wise than what we've had for the majority of the past decade. This year we are getting Raptorlake which looks good and Zen4 that looks equally promising.......

Even I'm guilty of this but we have sorta been spoiled with these 15-20%+ plus increases gen on gen going from Zen2 to Zen3 and RKL to ADL Causing some to be disappointed by 10-15% ST increases rumored for this years CPUs. Much better than the 5% ish gains we got for almost 7 generations prior to there being competition.

Honestly assuming prices stay somewhat in check people should be super excited we are getting 4 major tech launches this year.... I'm personally just hoping Intel continues to hit their release windows and that AMD doesn't get complacent we need both companies to do well as consumers anyone who can't see that is just a blind fanboy.

What a weird CPU. To me it does not compare to a 5950X in CPUZ.. its more like a tuned 5900X in multi, but not quite.. and it spanks it in ST. For R23, it scores the same in MT as my 5900X at 4750MHz static.. but a little more than 300 points off my ST score in my favor, which is a bit weird.

KaitouXThe AMD stagnation he's talking about is the price per core on the mainstream SKUs.
Cheapest 6 core Ryzen at launch:
1600 = $220
2600 = $200
3600 = $200
5600X = $300
-----1 and half year and one Alder Lake launch later-----
5600 = $200

Cheapest 8 core Ryzen at launch
1700 = $330
2700 = $300
3700X = $330
5800X = $450
-----1 and half year and one Alder Lake launch later-----
5700X = $300

Street prices the same will happen,the lowest street prices were something like this, the 1600 was sold for $85 for some time, the 2600 just above $100, the 3600 at around $150, the 5600(X) is around $180.
The biggest issue in my opinion is that as soon AMD was in similar position to Intel during the quad-core era, they increased the launch prices by 50% and didn't release cheaper SKUs or significant price cuts until multiple months after Intel answered.

fevgatosWhich Intel NEVER did after 5-6 years of complete market domination. That's why amd is completely disgusting

AMD had a better product and didn't want to price their products with a lower price Intel's counterparts. Why would AMD do that if they have had superior product? Intel released 10th gen CPUs in April followed by AMD products in November. Why would AMD lower the price to Intel's or below? It is a competition. Moving forward, 11th gen showed up and same thing. You guy say 50% price increase? It wasn't 50%. 3800x at launch was $399, 5800x was $449 at launch. I can't see that as a 50% increase. You guys have to understand the market and what the competition is doing. AMD has had a better product and priced it accordingly to the competitors counterparts and that was an OK move and logical move.

BTW.
Intel offered 4% increase in performance maximum for years and customers were stuck with the 4c8t technology for years adding an instruction set each year not to mention, short of PCI-e lanes. 8 or more cores where unreachable due to price for the product which was so damn high even by today's standard. Not to mention each generation new motherboard. Literally, there was no advancement the way it is now. Intel never did this being the dominant in the market? You have no idea what you are talking about.

ratirtAMD had a better product and didn't want to price their products with a lower price Intel's counterparts. Why would AMD do that if they have had superior product? Intel released 10th gen CPUs in April followed by AMD products in November. Why would AMD lower the price to Intel's or below? It is a competition. Moving forward, 11th gen showed up and same thing. You guy say 50% price increase? It wasn't 50%. 3800x at launch was $399, 5800x was $449 at launch. I can't see that as a 50% increase. You guys have to understand the market and what the competition is doing. AMD has had a better product and priced it accordingly to the competitors counterparts and that was an OK move and logical move.

BTW.
Intel offered 4% increase in performance maximum for years and customers were stuck with the 4c8t technology for years adding an instruction set each year not to mention, short of PCI-e lanes. 8 or more cores where unreachable due to price for the product which was so damn high even by today's standard. Not to mention each generation new motherboard. Literally, there was no advancement the way it is now. Intel never did this being the dominant in the market? You have no idea what you are talking about.

And that's exactly why amd is despicable. See pricing their cpus lower than intel doesnt mean that intels cpu would be more expensive. It would mean that intel would have to drastically lower their prices. But they didn't, zen 3 was the best gift anyone ever gave to intel. They get to keep their margins and still be the value for money option. I mean look at what intel did with alderlake, they didn't price them sky-high. The 12600k was beating the 5800x in EVERYTHING yet it was priced way lower. Heck, even the 12700 was cheaper than the 5800x. Cause intel isnt greedy. Amd is

Regarding your btw, that's a lie that keeps spreading around by the amd community. Intel gave us a bigger perfromance increase (2012 to 2015) than amd did in the 300-350 msrp bracket. Just compare the 6700k to the 3770k, there is around a 40-45% increase in mt performance. Now compare the 1700 to the 5600x (same price) and you'll realize how you are just repeating lies.

fevgatosAnd that's exactly why amd is despicable. See pricing their cpus lower than intel doesnt mean that intels cpu would be more expensive. It would mean that intel would have to drastically lower their prices. But they didn't, zen 3 was the best gift anyone ever gave to intel. They get to keep their margins and still be the value for money option. I mean look at what intel did with alderlake, they didn't price them sky-high. The 12600k was beating the 5800x in EVERYTHING yet it was priced way lower. Heck, even the 12700 was cheaper than the 5800x. Cause intel isnt greedy. Amd is

I get your stand but despicable is a very strong word. It is very unfair from you to say that. Because you don't see anything bad with Intel releasing a product that isn't much different from previous gen. Intel should have lowered the price while releasing but they didn't. They wanted to release fast to cash in. Leap in the 3000 series and 5000 series was huge. So the price was in my opinion fair. Besides, The lower price for AMD at the first ryzen and other iterations of the CPUs, didn't bring much profit but you have to start somewhere. Dude. 12600K was just released. Literally just released so stop quoting this as a huge achievement. It took Intel 2 gen to catch up and now they have released finally something that is faster after 2 years of AMD being in the top charts in general performance.
5800x is lower in price since it's been here for 2 years now and AL is better if you have to go for anew build. It is faster.

fevgatosRegarding your btw, that's a lie that keeps spreading around by the amd community. Intel gave us a bigger perfromance increase (2012 to 2015) than amd did in the 300-350 msrp bracket. Just compare the 6700k to the 3770k, there is around a 40-45% increase in mt performance. Now compare the 1700 to the 5600x (same price) and you'll realize how you are just repeating lies.

With your statement it is not true I'm afraid. I'm sorry but you are not right and there are plenty of benchmarks proving this.
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i5_6600k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,12.html Check Guru3d
Also you could get 4th and 3rd gen like 4960X or 3960X which in some cases were faster and had more cores and threads and were cheaper by the time 6700K showed up. I'm not saying 6700K was bad but saying 45% faster is untrue. AVX hardware acceleration was a good feature. I mentioned it earlier when Intel was getting one feature more every gen to boost some specific scenario but general performance uplift was not that significant. Also, I was referring to gen over gen improvement not few generations back. 1700x vs 5700x/5800x since these are in the same ballpark for comparison. 5600x goes with 1600x for comparison. Sorry but your comparisons are flawed. Since you want to compare pricing only not general performance uplifts as well. Look into that.
12600K has higher MSRP price than 10600k but you didn't bring that up did you?

fevgatosAMD for 5th generation in a row has kept the same number of cores (actually, they decreased them with zen 3, from 8 at 300€ to 6!) but everyone is ecstatic about it. That's insane isn't it

That's because most people are idiots and judge CPUs based on cores and not performance.

MakaveliI don't remember all the childish bickering and brand cheer leading being this bad like 20 years ago.

ratirtI get your stand but despicable is a very strong word. It is very unfair from you to say that. Because you don't see anything bad with Intel releasing a product that isn't much different from previous gen. Intel should have lowered the price while releasing but they didn't. They wanted to release fast to cash in. Leap in the 3000 series and 5000 series was huge. So the price was in my opinion fair. Besides, The lower price for AMD at the first ryzen and other iterations of the CPUs, didn't bring much profit but you have to start somewhere. Dude. 12600K was just released. Literally just released so stop quoting this as a huge achievement. It took Intel 2 gen to catch up and now they have released finally something that is faster after 2 years of AMD being in the top charts in general performance.
5800x is lower in price since it's been here for 2 years now and AL is better if you have to go for anew build. It is faster.


With your statement it is not true I'm afraid. I'm sorry but you are not right and there are plenty of benchmarks proving this.
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i5_6600k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,12.html Check Guru3d
Also you could get 4th and 3rd gen like 4960X or 3960X which in some cases were faster and had more cores and threads and were cheaper by the time 6700K showed up. I'm not saying 6700K was bad but saying 45% faster is untrue. AVX hardware acceleration was a good feature. I mentioned it earlier when Intel was getting one feature more every gen to boost some specific scenario but general performance uplift was not that significant. Also, I was referring to gen over gen improvement not few generations back. 1700x vs 5700x/5800x since these are in the same ballpark for comparison. 5600x goes with 1600x for comparison. Sorry but your comparisons are flawed. Since you want to compare pricing only not general performance uplifts as well. Look into that.
12600K has higher MSRP price than 10600k but you didn't bring that up did you?

Why the heck would i compare the 5600x to the 1600 when it costs 50% more at msrp prices? Comparisons are done at the same price point. I don't care about the names, that's just marketing tricks that companies use to make you compare what they want to compare.

Fact is, amd didnt move the needle at ALL in mt performance with zen 3. I mean both the 5600x and the 5800x were atrocious for the price.

Just run the numbers from the guru3d review, the 6700k was around 50% faster than the 2600k and 30% from the 3770k in cinebench. Now do the same for the 5600x compared to the 1700 and tell how exactly was intel stagnant but not amd???

fevgatosWhy the heck would i compare the 5600x to the 1600 when it costs 50% more at msrp prices? Comparisons are done at the same price point. I don't care about the names, that's just marketing tricks that companies use to make you compare what they want to compare.

Fact is, amd didnt move the needle at ALL in mt performance with zen 3. I mean both the 5600x and the 5800x were atrocious for the price.

Just run the numbers from the guru3d review, the 6700k was around 50% faster than the 2600k and 30% from the 3770k in cinebench. Now do the same for the 5600x compared to the 1700 and tell how exactly was intel stagnant but not amd???

you are talking to deaf ears, people on here just don't want to hear about Intel.

Tiggeryou are talking to deaf ears, people on here just don't want to hear about Intel.

It's weird cause im not even saying something that should be contestable. I just checked the reviews and noticed for example that in MT performance Intel gave us a bigger increase between 2011 and 2015 than AMD did between 2017 and 2021 at the 300-350€ bracket. But people keep repeating the same nonsense about intel stagnating, it's insane :O

fevgatosIt's weird cause im not even saying something that should be contestable. I just checked the reviews and noticed for example that in MT performance Intel gave us a bigger increase between 2011 and 2015 than AMD did between 2017 and 2021 at the 300-350€ bracket. But people keep repeating the same nonsense about intel stagnating, it's insane :O

probably 80% on here have AMD, we are deffo the minority, and it shows

dirtyferretThat's because most people are idiots and judge CPUs based on cores and not performance.

lol boss I was around for those days and it still wasn't as bad.

My first computer was a 286!

ratirtAMD had a better product and didn't want to price their products with a lower price Intel's counterparts. Why would AMD do that if they have had superior product? Intel released 10th gen CPUs in April followed by AMD products in November. Why would AMD lower the price to Intel's or below? It is a competition. Moving forward, 11th gen showed up and same thing. You guy say 50% price increase? It wasn't 50%. 3800x at launch was $399, 5800x was $449 at launch. I can't see that as a 50% increase. You guys have to understand the market and what the competition is doing. AMD has had a better product and priced it accordingly to the competitors counterparts and that was an OK move and logical move.

BTW.
Intel offered 4% increase in performance maximum for years and customers were stuck with the 4c8t technology for years adding an instruction set each year not to mention, short of PCI-e lanes. 8 or more cores where unreachable due to price for the product which was so damn high even by today's standard. Not to mention each generation new motherboard. Literally, there was no advancement the way it is now. Intel never did this being the dominant in the market? You have no idea what you are talking about.

The cheapest 6-core and 8-core parts on Ryzen 5000 launch were 50% more expensive than the cheapest Ryzen 3000 parts with the same core count at launch. No one recommended the 3800X and 3600X at launch because their pricing was horrible.
That is the same logic people used to justify Nvidia hiking the shit out of the GPU prices with RTX 2000, a new product increasing the price more than the performance it provides over the previous, in other words being a worse value, is horrible for the consumers, it's dumb to think that it's ok for a new product to be 30% faster and 50% more expensive every time. After a few years we would have PCs costing as much as basic new cars.
By the your logic Intel could've priced the 12600K at $400 and the 12700K at $550 and it would've been fine because that's what the 5800X and 5900X costed at the time Alder Lake launched.

I hated that Intel stagnated the core count, barely improved for years and increased the price of their flagship CPU in 10% twice in a row, and I hate that AMD is stagnating the core count and increased the prices for the mainstream SKUs with Ryzen 5000 launch. I hated that Nvidia increased its prices with RTX 2000, and hated that AMD followed it.
I'm against everything I consider negative for me as a consumer, it would be dumb not to be.

fevgatosWhy the heck would i compare the 5600x to the 1600 when it costs 50% more at msrp prices? Comparisons are done at the same price point. I don't care about the names, that's just marketing tricks that companies use to make you compare what they want to compare.

Fact is, amd didnt move the needle at ALL in mt performance with zen 3. I mean both the 5600x and the 5800x were atrocious for the price.

Just run the numbers from the guru3d review, the 6700k was around 50% faster than the 2600k and 30% from the 3770k in cinebench. Now do the same for the 5600x compared to the 1700 and tell how exactly was intel stagnant but not amd???

You said 40%-45% now it is 30%. Like I said 4% every gen with certain apps working better due to new instructions set.
5600x is 6c6t just like 1600x and you have to consider price hikes for intel as well during that time, pandemic and chip shortage. Compare price now and see what you will get. Ignorance is bliss.
I think it is time to close my conversation with a statement.

KaitouXThe cheapest 6-core and 8-core parts on Ryzen 5000 launch were 50% more expensive than the cheapest Ryzen 3000 parts with the same core count at launch. No one recommended the 3800X and 3600X at launch because their pricing was horrible.
That is the same logic people used to justify Nvidia hiking the shit out of the GPU prices with RTX 2000, a new product increasing the price more than the performance it provides over the previous, in other words being a worse value, is horrible for the consumers, it's dumb to think that it's ok for a new product to be 30% faster and 50% more expensive every time. After a few years we would have PCs costing as much as basic new cars.
By the your logic Intel could've priced the 12600K at $400 and the 12700K at $550 and it would've been fine because that's what the 5800X and 5900X costed at the time Alder Lake launched.

I hated that Intel stagnated the core count, barely improved for years and increased the price of their flagship CPU in 10% twice in a row, and I hate that AMD is stagnating the core count and increased the prices for the mainstream SKUs with Ryzen 5000 launch. I hated that Nvidia increased its prices with RTX 2000, and hated that AMD followed it.
I'm against everything I consider negative for me as a consumer, it would be dumb not to be.

Intel was getting the market back which AMD lead with 5000 series for 2 years almost. No wonder they would not price it higher their market declined in sales pretty bad with AMD's ryzen 5000. It was a move to gain back the performance crown and pricing to counter AMD with that strategy. You have to look at a bigger picture. Also, pandemic and chip shortage during the launch. You have a short memory. NVidia is a different story. They have been raising the price of GPU chips for some time.
Now you have a person who says AMD is stagnating the cores and that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

ratirtYou said 40%-45% now it is 30%. Like I said 4% every gen with certain apps working better due to new instructions set.

It is up to 70% in some benches that benefit from ddr4. I left them out and went for cinebench. It's 56% faster than the 2600k. Please, enlighten me how exactly is that 4% per gen?

ratirt5600x is 6c6t just like 1600x and you have to consider price hikes for intel as well during that time, pandemic and chip shortage. Compare price now and see what you will get. Ignorance is bliss.
I think it is time to close my conversation with a statement.

No, the 5600x is 6c12t.

Point is, intel with the "4% performance increase per gen" gave us more performance increase than AMD does the last 4 years. And apparently you just realised it's actually true, so you decided to dodge instead of admit it.

ratirtNow you have a person who says AMD is stagnating the cores and that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

They kept the exact same cores for the last 5 years, and probably for at least 2 more, at the category that most people are interested in buying. Sure you can say that they increased the core counts at the 600 and 800€ category, but not many people are interested in that. I mean, Intel also increased the core counts at their hedt models.

In fact, amd reduced the number of cores you get for each € you spent, so yeah.

fevgatosNo, the 5600x is 6c12t.

yeah just like the 1600x i was checking your knowledge.
Sure, Intel did give more performance especially with the stagnation for God knows how many years with performance and cores unless HEDT for astronomical prices.

fevgatosIt is up to 70% in some benches that benefit from ddr4. I left them out and went for cinebench. It's 56% faster than the 2600k. Please, enlighten me how exactly is that 4% per gen?

There's been more gens between 6700k and 2700k. You might have missed that.

fevgatosThey kept the exact same cores for the last 5 years, and probably for at least 2 more, at the category that most people are interested in buying. Sure you can say that they increased the core counts at the 600 and 800€ category, but not many people are interested in that. I mean, Intel also increased the core counts at their hedt models.

In fact, amd reduced the number of cores you get for each € you spent, so yeah.

Yeah and you have 16c in the desktop segment. Without AMD you would have been stuck at 4c or maybe 6c if Intel was in the mood which would have come with a huge price bump.
I think AMD deserves a credit here with this move.
You also have technological constants which come with a price if you want to go higher than 16c and might not be desirable to have more than that. You have a 32c and 64c chips as well. Intel never achieved that so why stagnation is in your dictionary here? 128c is going to be released.
You argue about core stagnation with 16c with AMD's lineup and Intel didn't achieve that since just now and with ecores nonetheless.
At the same time you say 8c is more than enough. Get your story straight.

No they did not reduce anything, the prices went up with the chip shortages and pandemic and why the hell AMD should charge less for something that is way superior product? It just got back to normal few months ago. Look at the prices now. What the hell is wrong with you? I really cant believe, people can be that ignorant as you are right now.

Just move on man.
You just don't knowledge any arguments. Look for a thrill with arguing with somebody else.