If you remember, Zen 3 was launched in late 2020 and prices were like this:

Ryzen 5 5600X US$299
Ryzen 7 5800X US$449
Ryzen 9 5900X US$549
Ryzen 9 5950X US$799

4 year laters with skyrocketed inflation, we have these prices:

Ryzen 5 9600X US$279 (-20)
Ryzen 7 9700X US$359 (-90)
Ryzen 9 9900X US$449 (-100)
Ryzen 9 9950X US$599 (-200)

So, IMHO, I find those prices very competitive since we have "more money" but prices "went down". To me, disturbing issue is MBO pricing. That went to hell. High end B550 board like mine was 200 EUR. Now, similar B650/B850 board is 50+% more expensive. I have no doubts for upgrade from 5900X to 9900X (3D V-cache CPU is not what I need), and DDR5 prices are now stable and good, but MBO selection is given me the kittens.

The prices are competitive but bringing up near peak Covid "inflated" pricing is hardly a good baseline. You don't remember GPU prices from back then? The 5xxx chips were out of stock constantly for about a year till supplies got better & then prices became reasonable.
camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0815Y8J9N

R0H1TThe prices are competitive but bringing up near peak Covid "inflated" pricing is hardly a good baseline. You don't remember GPU prices from back then? The 5xxx chips were out of stock constantly for about a year till supplies got better & then prices became reasonable.
camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0815Y8J9N

The msrps had nothing to do with covid. The 3080 msrp was fine, it was 699. Street prices is what was affected, not msrps.

Just comparing launch prices. AMD went 50 USD hike per CPU over Zen2 lineup from July 2019 when Covid-crisis was nowhere near. OK, if you like, we can compare Zen2 launch prices.

Ryzen 5 3600X US$249 (Zen5 +30)
Ryzen 7 3700X US$329 (Zen5 +30)
Ryzen 9 3900X US$499 (Zen5 = )
Ryzen 9 3950X US$749 (Zen5 -150)

During Covid, real prices were even higher than MSRP.
IIRC, 5600X in Feb 2021 was in vast stock in my country and price was 350+ EUR. 5800X was almost 500, 5900X was 600 EUR and it was - best buy. 5950X arrived in summer 2021 :D I bought mine 5900X in June 2022 for 278 EUR thanks to 1-day-price mistake at some e-talier, was fast enough to snatch it.

As said, IMHO, prices looks good. :)

Yes they are, I'm just saying this is not unexpected & in fact with core count staying the same AMD would've been stupid to increase pricing on these parts. As for actual prices they vary a lot depending on where you are but generally speaking the MSRP (minimum price) is similar across the globe at launch.

TheLostSwedeThis one. Admittedly it has Thunderbolt 3/USB4 support already, but the second chipset is just for the NVMe drives.
rog.asus.com/motherboards/rog-strix/rog-strix-x670e-i-gaming-wifi-model/

My 2022 motherboard. This one already has 8ghz ram kits compatibility tested in latest bios fyi. Also had the 7700x at 5.65 ghz all core oc and now 7800x3d -30 on pbo offset. :love::lovetpu::cool:

bug"So called inflation"? Have you had a single economy course?

I believe he was taking a stab at Nvidia in the context.

GodrillaI believe he was taking a stab at Nvidia in the context.

Taking stabs at Nvidia or Intel is the national sport of the Internet. Nothing new (or useful) here.
Insinuating inflation is made up, however, is an insult to the millions trying to cope with their monthly bills.

What he managed to convey is that he has a very simplistic view of things, unable to understand one metric (i.e. price) can be influenced by many, many factors.

DarkholmIf you remember, Zen 3 was launched in late 2020 and prices were like this:

Ryzen 5 5600X US$299
Ryzen 7 5800X US$449
Ryzen 9 5900X US$549
Ryzen 9 5950X US$799

4 year laters with skyrocketed inflation, we have these prices:

Ryzen 5 9600X US$279 (-20)
Ryzen 7 9700X US$359 (-90)
Ryzen 9 9900X US$449 (-100)
Ryzen 9 9950X US$599 (-200)

So, IMHO, I find those prices very competitive since we have "more money" but prices "went down". To me, disturbing issue is MBO pricing. That went to hell. High end B550 board like mine was 200 EUR. Now, similar B650/B850 board is 50+% more expensive. I have no doubts for upgrade from 5900X to 9900X (3D V-cache CPU is not what I need), and DDR5 prices are now stable and good, but MBO selection is given me the kittens.

Yeah but that was almost 5 years ago now, where 6 cores were much more rare and a lot less apps and games were able to utilize more than 6 cores. Now days 6 cores is nothing, most games utilize 8 cores and there are at least half a dozen games that can also effectively utilize 12 or 16 cores. Furthermore most apps if not all are able to utilize as many cores available and thus 6 cores these days is nothing.

So while a 6 core CPU might have been worth $250 5 years ago or even $300 7 years ago, these days a 6 core CPU is at best worth less than $250, I'd say realistically probably a $220 price with a 8 core CPU probably worth around $300, though not any higher than that.

Again even 4 cores 10 years ago was probably worth $300 or $350, especially high clocked ones which had very fast single core, but that was 10 years ago, 4 cores are basically worthless now. The bare minimum is 6 cores and 8 cores is the standard, the norm.

Also Intel has a 16 core CPU for $370 compared to the 9700x, the 13700k has 16 cores, 8 performance and 8 efficient cores, for $250 they have a 14 core 14600 processor. The worst decision Intel made was to limit their boards to the 14 series being the last supported series, its a very short term platform and NOT worth investing in it. If they had one more generation in these boards they would have been much more successful. No one wants to invest in a dead platform and Intel's current platform is dead, it doesn't support any future processors.

I think getting a $250 14600 is much better than getting a $280 9600x, its going to perform better in multithreading at pretty much all apps and is probably going to be less than 15% slower than the new 9600x. But again its a dead platform and no one wants to invest in a dead, short term platform!

I really think 6 cores should not cost more than $200 in reality.

fevgatos12 to 14 gen was a ~40% MT performance increase within a year. Zen 4 to zen 5 is what, 15% MT performance increase in 2 years.

and 13/14 destroy after 12 month

fevgatosThe r5 and r7 need further price cuts. The r9s are pretty decent. Until 15th gen arrives the 9950x will be the top dog, so even 699 would make sense.

I would agree with the R5 but the R7? If you look at the launch msrp of the 3700x it was $330, adjusted for inflation that is $405. So, the R7 is cheaper than the 3700x when adjusted for inflation.

The R5 3600(non) when adjusting its 200 dollars launch msrp for inflation amounts to $245 in today's money, but it is cheaper than the 3600x which adjusted for inflation would be $305 dollars in today's money.

CraptacularI would agree with the R5 but the R7? If you look at the launch msrp of the 3700x it was $330, adjusted for inflation that is $405. So, the R7 is cheaper than the 3700x when adjusted for inflation.

The R5 3600(non) when adjusting its 200 dollars launch msrp for inflation amounts to $245 in today's money, but it is cheaper than the 3600x which adjusted for inflation would be $305 dollars in today's money.

But the 3700x was competitive with the 500$ 9900k even in MT performance. The 9700x will barely be ahead of the 12700, a CPU from 2021 that currently can be bought for 240$. Big difference, don't you think?

DarkholmIf you remember, Zen 3 was launched in late 2020 and prices were like this:

Ryzen 5 5600X US$299
Ryzen 7 5800X US$449
Ryzen 9 5900X US$549
Ryzen 9 5950X US$799

4 year laters with skyrocketed inflation, we have these prices:

Ryzen 5 9600X US$279 (-20)
Ryzen 7 9700X US$359 (-90)
Ryzen 9 9900X US$449 (-100)
Ryzen 9 9950X US$599 (-200)

So, IMHO, I find those prices very competitive since we have "more money" but prices "went down". To me, disturbing issue is MBO pricing. That went to hell. High end B550 board like mine was 200 EUR. Now, similar B650/B850 board is 50+% more expensive. I have no doubts for upgrade from 5900X to 9900X (3D V-cache CPU is not what I need), and DDR5 prices are now stable and good, but MBO selection is given me the kittens.

Wages haven't caught up with inflation though. Many/most people are spending much more on necessities and have less disposable income, lowering demand and prices. Zen3 released on the coattailsof a strong economy where people had more disposable income.

GodrillaMy 2022 motherboard. This one already has 8ghz ram kits compatibility tested in latest bios fyi. Also had the 7700x at 5.65 ghz all core oc and now 7800x3d -30 on pbo offset. :love::lovetpu::cool:

My point was that having two chipsets doesn't really make sense on a mini-ITX board.

TheLostSwedeMy point was that having two chipsets doesn't really make sense on a mini-ITX board.

In 2022 this was the only choice so I took the leap of faith. Hardware Unboxed did an review on all the itx motherboards including this one FYI.

GodrillaIn 2022 this was the only choice so I took the leap of faith. Hardware Unboxed did an review on all the itx motherboards including this one FYI.

And? The issues is that the 2nd chipset does NOTHING on a mini-ITX board.

fevgatosCome on, tdp went up by 13 watts, 240 to 253.

12900k ---> 13700k, similar performance increase, price went drastically down - again within a year.

You are trying to portray a 15% performance increase in the timespan of 2 years as revolutionary. It's really not?

I guess the real revolution these days is keeping the processor from eating itself to death while delivering that performance, right?

TheLostSwedeAnd? The issues is that the 2nd chipset does NOTHING on a mini-ITX board.

Which am5 itx motherboard do you recommend?

fevgatosBut the 3700x was competitive with the 500$ 9900k even in MT performance. The 9700x will barely be ahead of the 12700, a CPU from 2021 that currently can be bought for 240$. Big difference, don't you think?

in MT yes, but gaming no for the 3700x

For the 9700x, I guess that depends on how you define barely ahead.


The 7700x was ~14-15% faster at 1080p with a 3090ti than a 12700k. And in 1% lows it is nearly 20% faster.

AMD is claiming the 9700x will be around 13% faster in gaming compared to a 14900k. We know that the 14900k is ~12% faster than a 7700x.


So, if we do the math the 9700x should be around ~28.9% faster than a 7700x

Which translates to 9700x being around 46% faster than a 12700k.

Me personally, I would not claim that a ~44% difference is performance is barely a head.

If we take the $240 dollar price tag you supplied and we times that by 1.44 to get the same price per dollar we end up at around $344, which is pretty damn close to the launch msrp of the 9700x. Obviously, you are going to pay a premium to have the latest and greatest.

If you use Techpower up benchmarks for the 14900k than the 9700x should be around 35% faster than a 12700k at 1080p

Craptacularin MT yes, but gaming no for the 3700x

For the 9700x, I guess that depends on how you define barely ahead.

The 7700x was ~14-15% faster at 1080p with a 3090ti than a 12700k. And in 1% lows it is nearly 20% faster.

AMD is claiming the 9700x will be around 13% faster in gaming compared to a 14900k. We know that the 14900k is ~12% faster than a 7700x.

So, if we do the math the 9700x should be around ~28.9% faster than a 7700x

Which translates to 9700x being around 46% faster than a 12700k.

Me personally, I would not claim that a ~44% difference is performance is barely a head.

If we take the $240 dollar price tag you supplied and we times that by 1.44 to get the same price per dollar we end up at around $344, which is pretty damn close to the launch msrp of the 9700x. Obviously, you are going to pay a premium to have the latest and greatest.

If you use Techpower up benchmarks for the 14900k than the 9700x should be around 35% faster than a 12700k at 1080p

I was talking about MT performance, but uhm, what? According to TPU - 720p with a 4090, the 7700x is 4% ahead of the 12700k.

Even on hwunboxed, their latest benchmark has them at 7% difference, check spoilers. In the review you yourself posted the difference is 6%. Where the heck do you get your numbers from?


EG1. Maybe you are comparing to the ddr4 numbers? Cause with ddr5 they are within 5% in all reviews.

fevgatosI was talking about MT performance, but uhm, what? According to TPU - 720p with a 4090, the 7700x is 4% ahead of the 12700k.

Even on hwunboxed, their latest benchmark has them at 7% difference, check spoilers. In the review you yourself posted the difference is 6%. Where the heck do you get your numbers from?

Spoiler

EG1. Maybe you are comparing to the ddr4 numbers? Cause with ddr5 they are within 5% in all reviews.

Misunderstanding then on what the primary performance metric was.

As for the gaming benchmark, where am I getting my numbers from? Pretty simple math from the graphs in the hub at 12:19 in the first video.

In the first video the 1080p average the 7700x has an average frame rate of 218 frames, the 12700k has a frame rate of 187, so 218 minus 187 is 31 frame difference. 31 divided by 187 is 16.57%. Meaning, the 7700x is 16.57% faster in gaming using the HUB benchmark, see timestamp 12:19. If you go by the 1% lows in the same graph the 7700x is 175 and the 12700k is 147, so 175 minus 147 is 28. 28 divided by 147 means the 1% lows are 19% higher on the 7700x at 1080p.

The 14900k in the second video, see timestamp 18:59, for the 1080p shows an average frame rate of 158 and the 7700x is 138, so there is a 20-fps difference. 20 divided by 138 is 14.49%. You then take AMD's own slide showing 9700x having a median gaming performance advantage of 13% when compared to a 14900k.

So, to estimate the performance difference in gaming between a 12700k and a 9700x at 1080p

1 = 12700k.

1 X 1.1657 = 7700x (1.1657)

7700x (1.1657) X 1.1449 = 14900k (1.33) meaning the 14900k is 33% faster than the 12700k

1.33460993 X 1.13 = 1.5 or 50%, so in theory the 9700x will be 50% faster than the 12700k.

If we take the TPU benchmark results for the 14900k: Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown - Game Tests 1080p / RTX 4090 | TechPowerUp

The 1080p shows that the 12700k is 83.7% of the 14900. That is 17.4% slower compared to the 14900k or to put it another way 17.4/83.7 = 20.78% faster than a 12700k.

So, you take 1.2078 X 1.13 (9700x) = 1.3648 9700x, or 9700x is 36.48% faster than the 12700k

Either way you slice it the 9700x is going to be around at least 33%+ performance in gaming compared to the 12700k and could be as much as 50% if you use the HUB benchmarks for 1080p gaming 12 game average.

I found a B650-E Stix I itx motherboard on sale for the next 5 hours for $249 FYI at Amazon.
For the "experts".
www.amazon.com/ASUS-ROG-B650E-I-Mini-ITX-Motherboard/dp/B0BP9LJBP8/ref=asc_df_B0BP9LJBP8/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=692875362841&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3345924311963021948&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9004390&hvtargid=pla-2281435179338&psc=1&mcid=60aba6db1bbf391ea17b3b035eef5375&hvocijid=3345924311963021948-B0BP9LJBP8-&hvexpln=73&gad_source=1

CraptacularMisunderstanding then on what the primary performance metric was.

As for the gaming benchmark, where am I getting my numbers from? Pretty simple math from the graphs in the hub at 12:19 in the first video.

In the first video the 1080p average the 7700x has an average frame rate of 218 frames, the 12700k has a frame rate of 187, so 218 minus 187 is 31 frame difference. 31 divided by 187 is 16.57%. Meaning, the 7700x is 16.57% faster in gaming using the HUB benchmark, see timestamp 12:19. If you go by the 1% lows in the same graph the 7700x is 175 and the 12700k is 147, so 175 minus 147 is 28. 28 divided by 147 means the 1% lows are 19% higher on the 7700x at 1080p.

The 14900k in the second video, see timestamp 18:59, for the 1080p shows an average frame rate of 158 and the 7700x is 138, so there is a 20-fps difference. 20 divided by 138 is 14.49%. You then take AMD's own slide showing 9700x having a median gaming performance advantage of 13% when compared to a 14900k.

So, to estimate the performance difference in gaming between a 12700k and a 9700x at 1080p

1 = 12700k.

1 X 1.1657 = 7700x (1.1657)

7700x (1.1657) X 1.1449 = 14900k (1.33) meaning the 14900k is 33% faster than the 12700k

1.33460993 X 1.13 = 1.5 or 50%, so in theory the 9700x will be 50% faster than the 12700k.

If we take the TPU benchmark results for the 14900k: Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown - Game Tests 1080p / RTX 4090 | TechPowerUp

The 1080p shows that the 12700k is 83.7% of the 14900. That is 17.4% slower compared to the 14900k or to put it another way 17.4/83.7 = 20.78% faster than a 12700k.

So, you take 1.2078 X 1.13 (9700x) = 1.3648 9700x, or 9700x is 36.48% faster than the 12700k

Either way you slice it the 9700x is going to be around at least 33%+ performance in gaming compared to the 12700k and could be as much as 50% if you use the HUB benchmarks for 1080p gaming 12 game average.

Check the video again, clearly you are mistaken. Let me help you out

I'm not mistaken at all; we are just choosing different memory types for the benchmark. I'm using DDR4 results and you are using the DDR5. If I was a betting man I would say the majority of people that have a 12700k probably have a DDR4 board and not a DDR5 board.

What do you think? Do you think the majority of people have a DDR5 board for the 12th generation?

But let's do your DDR5 12th gen benchmark.

7700x is 5.8% faster.

So, we take 1.058 (7700x) x 1.1449 (14900k) = 1.2113042

1.2113042 x 1.13 = 1.368

Meaning if we use the DDR5 it results in the 9700x being 36.8% faster than a 12700k using DDR5 6400, which lines up with the TPU benchmarks. Just an FYI the 14900k is using DDR5 at 7200 per the test setup in the second video.


3:59 timestamp:
So, what is the issue? You just can't accept the possibility that the Zen 5 could be 20+%, potentially 30+%, faster in 1080p gaming when compared to a 12700k using DDR5? Is that the issue? Because so far you haven't refuted the math at all to estimate the performance difference at 1080p gaming in DDR4 or DDR5.

Not bad, I was sure that they would be 50-100USD higher depending of the model.

RuruNot bad, I was sure that they would be 50-100USD higher depending of the model.

I agree. I was betting on higher price for these as well. Good that AMD lowered the price actually. Not bad to be honest.