tfdsafAMD needs to lower prices, they can't sell these at the suggested prices. The 7600 needs to be $200, while the 7600x needs to be $250, not a penny more!

Intel is destroying them with higher core counts, better gaming performance and much better multithreaded performance, while being a little a bit more expensive!

The 13600k is the sweet spot of great value and great at every field.

The 7700 needs to be something like $290 at most, with the 7700x at $330

TheinsanegamerNAnd launching at the prices the (X) series should have launched at.

If these are remotely close to the (X) series in performance then AMD may as well discontinue the (X) until the 3D parts arrive.

tfdsafAMD needs to lower prices, they can't sell these at the suggested prices. The 7600 needs to be $200, while the 7600x needs to be $250, not a penny more!

Intel is destroying them with higher core counts, better gaming performance and much better multithreaded performance, while being a little a bit more expensive!

The 13600k is the sweet spot of great value and great at every field.

The 7700 needs to be something like $290 at most, with the 7700x at $330

tfdsafAMD needs to lower prices, they can't sell these at the suggested prices. The 7600 needs to be $200, while the 7600x needs to be $250, not a penny more!

Intel is destroying them with higher core counts, better gaming performance and much better multithreaded performance, while being a little a bit more expensive!

The 13600k is the sweet spot of great value and great at every field.

The 7700 needs to be something like $290 at most, with the 7700x at $330

Space LynxAMD really needs to work on its NVME performance. on Raptor Lake my KC3000 1TB scores were insanely high, but on 7700x I got below average, but still acceptable scores in crystaldiskmark. There is a reason reviewers use Intel when testing nvme drives, never knew this until recently. Raptor Lake also felt more snappy than my 7700x rig, so it wasn't just placebo.

That being said, I still appreciate that AMD cares more about gamers than the other two companies. I know I will not go Nvidia again due to cost (my 6800 XT at $540 was a bang of a deal) and AMD has consistently always allowed great gaming experiences at more affordable price for the working class, and I respect that.

MusselsI was aware of this on chipset lanes, but not CPU lanes

Sure this isn't a case of specific benchmarks being platform biased?

pressing onThe issue simply is that the imminent Intel i5 13400/F, 13500 and 13600 CPUs will all run in a cheap B660 motherboard with DDR4 memory, including any existing DDR4 memory. This will make them extremely well-placed for both new builds and upgrades in a budget sector of the market where every $, £ and € etc counts. The AMD 7600 will be hampered from the outset by higher board costs and higher DDR5 memory costs. At some stage the memory costs issue will go away but probably not this year. It might be worth noting that the Spring 2023 CPUs are actually based on the Alder Lake die used to produce the 12600K and upwards. There are rumours that Intel will produce a further round of budget i5s in Spring 2024 that will be based on the Raptor Lake die. This would make Alder Lake/Raptor Lake a three year platform instead of the usual two years. It's possible because the CPUs are dual DDR4/DDR5 so even users on cheap DDR4 boards could transition to a DDR5 board in the future and keep their CPU, although they would still be changing the board and memory.

Space Lynxraptor lake still loses about 10-20 fps in games without ddr5. just a side note.

Space LynxI only used crystaldiskmark, but I can also tell an overall "snappiness" feeling when using Intel raptor lake in day to day usage, even just using file explorer. It's def not placebo.

Musselsconsidering how easy it is to set up a PC entirely differently, that's not much to go on


you can set a higher DPI setting in windows and suddenly wow the mouse moves so fast and its so snappy, refresh rates, etc

pressing onThe benchmarks I've seen show there is a difference, sometimes very little but nothing consistently like those numbers. But it will obviously vary depending on the game and screen resolution. I have seen comments that the lower latency of DDR4 gives a smoother gaming experience so it may be more that just fps that matter.

MusselsI was aware of this on chipset lanes, but not CPU lanes

Sure this isn't a case of specific benchmarks being platform biased?

Space Lynxraptor lake still loses about 10-20 fps in games without ddr5. just a side note.

pressing onThe benchmarks I've seen show there is a difference, sometimes very little but nothing consistently like those numbers. But it will obviously vary depending on the game and screen resolution. I have seen comments that the lower latency of DDR4 gives a smoother gaming experience so it may be more that just fps that matter.

tussinmanFrom what i've seen up to 20FPS is mostly in games that are already running well over 144hz (which means most people won't even notice) and the DDR5 you see with decent leaps over DDR4 are reviewers running those $250-300 dollar ram kits which obviously isn't in play for the scenario he was talking about (mid level/value price tier)

tfdsafAMD needs to lower prices, they can't sell these at the suggested prices. The 7600 needs to be $200, while the 7600x needs to be $250, not a penny more!

Intel is destroying them with higher core counts, better gaming performance and much better multithreaded performance, while being a little a bit more expensive!

The 13600k is the sweet spot of great value and great at every field.

The 7700 needs to be something like $290 at most, with the 7700x at $330

AnotherReaderWhile I agree that DDR5 usually shows benefits in cases where the frame rates are already high, the pricing disparity between DDR5 and DDR4 isn't that bad now. Techspot used DDR5 6000 CL36 in their comparison with DDR4 last year. In the USA, It's around $180 on Newegg and DDR4 3600 CL16 is about $153 there. I think that price difference isn't significant enough to choose the slower DDR4.