AMD Cuts Down Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" Production As Demand Drops Like a Rock

[ModEl4]

Look, I will list for you 28 features (14 on each board), to show that both B650 Pro and Mortar boards are more advanced than B660 boards. You will need to learn to pay attention to details and appreciate board design effort in future in order to avoid rushed and emotional conclusions.

Lol in my previous response it took me 10 seconds to check specs and point your errors.
You said that:
On B650, you get x16 Gen4 slot, whereas Intel's is Gen3. Wrong
WiFi is 6E, Intel's is 6. Only on the A Wifi not on Mortar so half wrong
There are three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650. Only on the A Wifi, on Mortar the 20Gbps and 10Gbps USBs are the same, exactly like i posted, so half wrong again
Memory support is slightly higher on B650. it is essentially insignificant +6200MHz for B660 (tested how many months ago and what was then the faster available DDR5) and +6400MHz for B650 - zero cost difference!

It seems to me that you are that will need to learn to pay attention to details...

B650 Pro board is more advanced and promising because:
- B650 has second PCIe slot at Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth (64 Gbps) for additional AIC storage of other peripheral; B660 has Gen3 x4
- B650 Pro has internal USB 10 Gbps for front I/O, B660 has 5 Gbps
- B650 supports NVMe and SATA storage RAID, B660 supports only SATA RAID
- B650 has WiFi 6E, B660 is WiFi 6
- B650 has three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650
- B650 has memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 has larger chipset heatsink
- B650 has larger and more spacious VRM heatsink covering rear I/O, B660 has a miserable VRM heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still expect B650 Pro to cost the same as B660? Nonsense.

The below differences are not insignificant and do not cost €10 more. I hope the list helps you appreciate those differences.

I said 10€ or whatever and it was about Mortar, regarding A Wifi model i just stated that the €70 difference is not justified, so I won't even lose my time for the above that you wrote!

Regarding both Mortar boards, differences are significant enough to explain different price.
- B650 memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B660 second slot is Gen3 x4, on B650 it is Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth
- B650 has onboard graphics on DP port is 4K/60 on B660, and DP port on B650 supports 8K/60
- B650 has four USB 5 ports at rear I/O on B650, and four USB 2.0 on B660
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 has a better audio chip ALC4080 with front supprt for high bit audio, B660 has ALC1220
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 comes with one more SATA cable
- B650 comes with WiFi antenna, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 board has more robust and longer NVMe drive heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still you expect B650 Mortar to cost the same as B660? Another nonsense.

It's enough that I'm losing my time to point out your mistakes in Mortar:

MAG B650M MORTAR WIFI

Powered by AMD Ryzen 7000 series processors, the MSI MAG B650M MORTAR WIFI is hardened with performance essential specifications to outlast enemies. Tuned for better performance by Core boost, memory Boost, Premium Thermal Solution, M.2 Shield Frozr.

www.msi.com

MAG B660M MORTAR WIFI

Powered by Intel 12th Gen Core processors, the MSI MAG B660M MORTAR WIFI is hardened with performance essential specifications to outlast enemies. Tuned for better performance by Core boost, Memory Boost, Premium Thermal Solution, M.2 Shield Frozr,

www.msi.com

B650 memory support is slightly higher on B650 it is essentially insignificant +6200MHz for B660 (tested how many months ago and what was then the faster available DDR5) and +6400MHz for B650 - zero cost difference!
- B660 second slot is Gen3 x4, on B650 it is Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth
Yes just like i said (you made a mistake saying it's 16X not 4X) and the cost for MSI is $2-3 more i would guess
- B650 has onboard graphics on DP port is 4K/60 on B660, and DP port on B650 supports 8K/60 The DP is the same version 1.4 for both, it's the integrated GPUs that support different resolutions, there is no cost difference for MSI
- B650 has four USB 5 ports at rear I/O on B650, and four USB 2.0 on B660 Just like i mentioned but the cost difference is insignificant also here
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!) I agree it's nice to have it, what's the cost for MSI $3-5 i would guess?
- B650 has a better audio chip ALC4080 with front supprt for high bit audio, B660 has ALC1220
They are very similar according to Igor's Lab and anyway i wouldn't expect more than $5-10 difference for MSI to implement it
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector $0.5-1 more?
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not Super, now I'm ready to pay 70€ more lol
- B650 comes with one more SATA cable wrong again, according to above links both have 2
- B650 comes with WiFi antenna, B660 does not wrong again, according to above links both have it
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins yeah more elaborate somehow still LGA with 17 more pins...
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not oh please stop wasting my time, you try too much...
- B650 board has more robust and longer NVMe drive heatsink are you serious, we are talking about 70€ you are really trying now (I'm not even sure if it's more robust but even if it was what's the cost difference)
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA so essentially AMD is charging 60€-55€ more (i deducted the 10€-15€ from the street price difference) in order to offer the up to 2025+ support, so it's not free and it doesn't have anything to do with M/B cost

12600K is on average 10% slower in 1080p gaming than 7600X. Your graph comes from a single review. The graph below comes from 3D Centre in Germany, one of the most advanced tech analysis team in the world, who gather data from all individual reviews at launch, and later on, to re-validate results.
Chances are that 13600K will neither be faster in gaming than 7600X nor 7700X. It will be faster in productivity workloads than both Ryzen CPUs.
13700K compares with 7900X and 13900K compares with 7950X. Chances are that 13700K will not be faster in gaming than 7700X either.

View attachment 266089
Happy digesting of the information above.


You have a lot to read, digest and learn. Welcome to a good place for that. I have learnt a lot.

Lol i have read the reviews that i think are valid, I don't care about others.
The above table regarding gaming performance difference is not representative at all imo and it's not that i didn't wanted Zen4 to be better, i posted about possible Zen4 gaming performance before we even had any gaming score leaks and i was very optimistic for Zen4 but sadly it didn't turn out so good as AMD claims.
In time i think it will get better as the platform matures, but it will never get to a point that 7600X is 5% faster than 12900K in 1080p like AMD claimed...
Regarding what I have to read, digest and learn probably we don't have the same view (but thanks anyway for welcome, although i would expected it when i joined TPU, why didn't you back then?)

 

[Tek-Check]

Lol i have read the reviews that i think are valid, I don't care about others.

Look, you do you, regarding boards and interpreting reviews. I have no time arguing more about features on four entry boards. Silly. Have more important things to do in daily life than wondering how much one feature cost or another and whether you are satisfied with it.

The general point of listing was to show that B650 is more advanced, because it is. Those more advanced features come in a package, after extra labour hours and components are used. If you do not like the final price of package, that's absolutely fine. I do not like initial prices either. The only thing you cannot argue with me is that those boards should have the same price.

On B650, you get x16 Gen4 slot, whereas Intel's is Gen3. Wrong
WiFi is 6E, Intel's is 6. Only on the A Wifi not on Mortar so half wro

Finally, you are requested to give members a benefit of a doubt before pointing back anything in bold text, and ask them to clarify before labelling anything as "wrong".

I initially looked into differences on Pro boards. I did not start from what is the same, but from differences. That's why I did not mention the first GPU slot. B650 does have another x16 slot Gen4 and B660 Gen3. The only thing I didn't explicitly say was that those slots are electrically wired x4. I was not wrong and you did not give me a benefit of a doubt, which is the attitude you are expected to change in future. I do agree that I could have worded it better.

In the original post, I suggested later in the text that Mortar boards might have similar differences, implicitly saying that preceding text was about Pro board. I didn't have time to look at Mortar initially. When I did, I found some differences too. So, posting that I was "half-wrong" was pointless because I separated the two lists later on and I didn't write about Mortar initially. Again, wording could have been better, but it also you who need to give a benefit of a doubt and not nitpick where not needed, but ask for clarification if unclear. It is true that WiFi version has the same antenna and cable. I take that back, as i looked into non-WiFi column.

Vast majority of new boards are overpriced, from low end to halo models. Plus, AM5 chipset link is crippled to 64 Gbps, half of what CPU provides. I will not buy a new AM5 board until this is fixed, either with PCIe switch or new edition of Prom21 chip.

I have nothing more to say about those four entry boards. Never spent so much time in my life on such boards.

 

[Hofnaerrchen]

If you want less power, wait for desktop APU next year. It will be either 65W (6-core) or 95W (8-core), or both on different SKUs.

Why would I... there is no use in replacing a Zen 3 R7 with a Zen 4 APU, Especially if you consider platform prices. They are not competitive at all. If I had to buy a new platform apart from AM4 now I'd rather buy an i5 but as I said: AM4 is still a very good offer - especially when it comes to price/performance and energy efficiency. AM5 might become interesting again with Zen 5 but until then: No thanks!

 

[Tek-Check]

AM5 might become interesting again with Zen 5 but until then: No thanks!

It seems that less power will only be available on lower SKUs from now on, and on APUs, which is no go for you being on Zen3 R7. It's doubtful that Zen5 will come with smaller power package, as we are, fortunately or not, in performance cycle in PC world. Still, running CPUs in ECO mode brings power saving with minor. performance loss, as I have seen in several initial measurements. Initial prices are not good, I agree.

 

[mahirzukic2]

I guess all those Gen5 redrivers are free and don't increase the cost at all eh?

If you check motherboards pairs like MSI PRO B650M-A/B660M-A WIFI or MSI MAG B650M/B660M Mortar WIFI etc, you can see that in Germany stores are selling the AMD ones with +€65, +€70 and the specs are very similar with no PCI-e 5.0 for the AMD ones (so no PCI-e 5.0 excuse there...)

Well, those Gen5 drivers certainly don't cost 100, 200 or 300 $ or €.
As I have in previous posts shown, the BIOS flash chip doesn't cost 100$ either, nor the 8 copper layer PCB, nor just about anything else you can name.
There is no such thing which could be gotten from the bottom of the barre which will increase the AM5 boards' price by couple of 100s of USD or EUR.

 

[Tek-Check]

There is no such thing which could be gotten from the bottom of the barre which will increase the AM5 boards' price by couple of 100s of USD or EUR.

Part of price hike is an early adopter premium. Prices will have to go down in a few months, if not earlier, as no one will sell new gear in any significant amount.

I wonder how much labour costs have gone up in Taiwan and other parts of Asia where boards are produced, together with inflation? If you found that core compenents are essentially similar in market value, where else we could look for cost increase, apart from early adopter premium, to explain new prices?

For example, Gigabyte has one factory in Taiwan providing 25% of production capacity. As motherboard productions still requires a lot of manual labour, that factory will need to pay workers more than the one in, say Malaysia, due to different standard of life in the two countries. Is it possible that Gigabyte would need to offset those differences in retail prices, and if yes, how much?

 

[mahirzukic2]

Part of price hike is an early adopter premium. Prices will have to go down in a few months, if not earlier, as no one will sell new gear in any significant amount.

I wonder how much labour costs have gone up in Taiwan and other parts of Asia where boards are produced, together with inflation? If you found that core compenents are essentially similar in market value, where else we could look for cost increase, apart from early adopter premium, to explain new prices?

For example, Gigabyte has one factory in Taiwan providing 25% of production capacity. As motherboard productions still requires a lot of manual labour, that factory will need to pay workers more than the one in, say Malaysia, due to different standard of life in the two countries. Is it possible that Gigabyte would need to offset those differences in retail prices, and if yes, how much?

Yes, sure there might be differences in living standards of those 2 countries, or some others.
But those differences don't make a AM4 80$ board turn into AM5 250 - 300$ board.

That conversion is a result of some very dark black magic.

 

[THU31]

I wonder if they are really surprised by the low demand.

After years of stagnation, AMD brought a revolution to the CPU market. We got cheap 6- and 8-core processors and Intel had to respond. We basically got double the performance. Then they brought 12 and 16 cores to the mainstream and Intel had to respond with their new hybrid and high IPC architecture. Multi-threaded performance skyrocketed.

Zen 3 was already a small step forward. IPC improvements were decent, but core counts stayed the same and clock speeds did not go much higher. Prices did, though, especially with no entry-level processors for 1.5 years since launch.

What does Zen 4 bring, except for the need to replace the entire platform? Not one of these processors is appealing to anyone already owning an older CPU with an equivalent core count.


"A well-run corporation does not waste money to research innovations, unless, of course, keeping up with the competition demands it."


Seems that after an amazing 4-year period (2017-2021) we might be looking at another stagnation in the CPU market. And it happens right when GPUs are starting to get very bottlenecked. Those yearly 10% improvements will not be enough, but at least there is hope for 3D cache. We need a major new architecture, though.

 

[Tek-Check]

What does Zen 4 bring, except for the need to replace the entire platform? Not one of these processors is appealing to anyone already owning an older CPU with an equivalent core count.

Google it and find out what it brings.

Seems that after an amazing 4-year period (2017-2021) we might be looking at another stagnation in the CPU market

Pricing is initially too high. AM5 is a premium platform at the moment. Uplift in productivity workflows is substancial. Watch reviews. That's why the only CPUs selling are 7900X/7950X. Transition to AM5 will be slow. AM4 is still good for majority of people. And that's fine.

Zen4 is another step towards more serious changes in Zen5.

 

[ModEl4]

Those yearly 10% improvements will not be enough, but at least there is hope for 3D cache. We need a major new architecture, though.

It seems so.
At least Nvidia is trying to combat this with frame interpolation (DLSS3.0), i wonder what AMD's answer will be with maybe RDNA4?

 

[Tek-Check]

Here is an interesting power efficiency graph for 5950X, 7950X ans 12900K.

 

[ModEl4]

So last year's 12900K going from 241W to 142W is losing only 10% or so performance and at 50W has the same efficiency as 5nm 7950X?

 

[Am*]

AMD messed up this launch massively. I'm one of the few people looking to build a new PC right now and there's completely no point of me doing so due to:

• Motherboards are grossly overpriced. The price difference between X670 and X670e is nonexistent. There are almost no decent X670 boards available without cutting massive corners.
• Even with the above fact, almost every motherboard has been on pre-order for over a month and are still mostly unavailable.
• There are no decent mATX or mITX boards. There is only 1 board in both categories - both ASUS (ROG Strix and Crosshair Gene), and both are complete garbage and grossly overpriced. The mITX one (ROG Strix) is almost £500 (a complete joke) or the mATX Crosshair Gene one for almost £600 with a single PCI-E x1 slot for expansion?? And both only support a pathetic 64GB RAM maximum? WTF would I be paying that sort of money for? ASUCKS' logo, RGB lights and not much else.
• There are no new GPUs available to pair them with from AMD. I'm not buying an entirely new PC and pairing it with some garbage overpriced 2 year old card that's about to be obsoleted. Despite the crazy discounts that I've heard about in the US, we've had none happen here in the UK or Europe.
• No X3D variants available. CPUs like the 7700X are stuck in a weird no-mans land -- where it's faster in some things, but slower in some games and still costs more than the 5800X3D.
• DDR5 still way too expensive.

I honestly don't know what AMD were thinking or how they were expecting a different outcome.

 

[Tek-Check]

So last year's 12900K going from 241W to 142W is losing only 10% or so performance and at 50W has the same efficiency as 5nm 7950X?

It looks like up to 8 threads, 12900K cores can keep up parity. A graph from Gordon form PC World.

So last year's 12900K going from 241W to 142W is losing only 10% or so performance and at 50W has the same efficiency as 5nm 7950X?

Here is the a new power scaling and efficiency chart for 13900K vs. 7950X, from HUB. Intel's i9 needs 70% more power (ooouch!) to achieve ~38000 points and match 7950X.

Steve also found that i9 reaches 100 degrees and thermally throttles after just 17 seconds at ~305W, even with 420 mm AIO.
7950X continues to operate at 95 degrees normally, even with 120 mm AIO cooler.
In Blender, the CPU used ~500W of system power, with GPU idling. He branded this power hungry situation as "absolutely absurd", worse that i9 in Gen 11.

 

[cvaldes]

Intel's i9 needs 70% more power (ooouch!) to achieve ~38000 points and match 7950X.

Nothing new there. When Intel fumbled their process node transition trying to move from 14nm, they tossed efficiency out the window to stay competitive with AMD. Ginormous dies sucking huge amounts of electricity to match the performance.

AMD will own Intel in the performance per watt metric for a couple more years. It'll be a tough battle for Intel to claw its way to the top of the performance per watt summit. And right now AMD is using TSMC as its foundry partner so they aren't giving up any easy points.

 

[Why_Me]

Nothing new there. When Intel fumbled their process node transition trying to move from 14nm, they tossed efficiency out the window to stay competitive with AMD. Ginormous dies sucking huge amounts of electricity to match the performance.

AMD will own Intel in the performance per watt metric for a couple more years. It'll be a tough battle for Intel to claw its way to the top of the performance per watt summit. And right now AMD is using TSMC as its foundry partner so they aren't giving up any easy points.

Intel's locked cpu's is where it's going to be at.

 

[cvaldes]

Intel's locked cpu's is where it's going to be at.

From a performance per watt metric, Apple M-series SoCs are where it's at for personal computers.

Of course, there's nothing (apart from money usually) that prevents people from owning multiple systems from different components inside. There's always some compromise being made whenever you buy something. Often it is cost.

 

[ModEl4]

It looks like up to 8 threads, 12900K cores can keep up parity. A graph from Gordon form PC World.
View attachment 266355


Here is the a new power scaling and efficiency chart for 13900K vs. 7950X, from HUB. Intel's i9 needs 70% more power (ooouch!) to achieve ~38000 points and match 7950X.
View attachment 266359
Steve also found that i9 reaches 100 degrees and thermally throttles after just 17 seconds at ~305W, even with 420 mm AIO.
7950X continues to operate at 95 degrees normally, even with 120 mm AIO cooler.
In Blender, the CPU used ~500W of system power, with GPU idling. He branded this power hungry situation as "absolutely absurd", worse that i9 in Gen 11.

I'm just messing with you.
I agree and i posted before that 7950X will be more efficient than 13900K and is to be expected being 5nm core + 6nm IOD vs intel7 and based on Alder/Zen3 efficiency delta.
But will also be $100 less than 7950X, if you compare it with $549 7900X (eventually we are probably going to have $579 13900KF also) it will win even in MT efficiency, AMD's pricing is clearly off.
If Zen4 platform had better pricing and around +10% better gaming performance it would be great though. (Also AMD should have made 142W the default PPT with 230W being an option, not the other way around imo, or at least make it two default PPT options easily selectable and give in marketing and review guidelines more emphasis to the 142W option)

 

[cvaldes]

(Also AMD should have made 142W the default PPT with 230W being an option, not the other way around imo, or at least make it two default PPT options easily selectable and give in marketing and review guidelines more emphasis to the 142W option)

The reality is that AMD needs to launch with a halo product that features top performance otherwise Intel would just stomp all over them in benchmarks.

From a practical standpoint, these are early production runs of this silicon. AMD is probably finding some yield challenges in getting higher performing, lower power parts.

They bin anyhow and most of the better samples will end up in their Datacenter business or maybe OEM builders like HP, Dell, Lenovo whose big institutional customers demand efficiency more often than Joe Consumer. At some point yields may improve enough for this to trickle down to retail SKUs.

Expecting it at new generation retail launch is not particularly realistic.

 

[ModEl4]

The reality is that AMD needs to launch with a halo product that features top performance otherwise Intel would just stomp all over them in benchmarks.

From a practical standpoint, these are early production runs of this silicon. AMD is probably finding some yield challenges in getting higher performing, lower power parts.

They bin anyhow and most of the better samples will end up in their Datacenter business or maybe OEM builders like HP, Dell, Lenovo whose big institutional customers demand efficiency more often than Joe Consumer. At some point yields may improve enough for this to trickle down to retail SKUs.

Expecting it at new generation retail launch is not particularly realistic.

If you glance through the reviews, the vast majority of techsites already test performance in lower PPT level (at least in one benchmark like CBr23 for example or in more than one depending the site) so AMD's MT performance potential would not escape public's attention anyway.
Just the emphasis would be in how more efficient Zen4 design is.
Regarding yields, I'm not talking about more efficient yielded dies, just the same Zen4 CPUs that we have now but with lower PPT options from the getgo, the results are great in lower PPTs as many Zen4 reviews show.
What I'm suggesting thought may have a downside for AMD regarding SEP levels that would get away asking (but great for us consumers) (also it seems even with the 230W strategy AMD didn't got away regarding what CPU prices is asking, but this is mostly gaming performance and motherboard cost fault) (if it had two factory PPT default options and executed better in marketing approach about it, i think it would have been a win, but i don't disagree with what you point out)

 

[THU31]

Intel's locked cpu's is where it's going to be at.

What a good video. Incredible efficiency after undervolting, losing 10% gaming performance with a 50% reduction in power draw.
The value of the 13900K for just gaming is terrible, though, just as it always is for the i9s. This is a productivity CPU.

But the i5s and i7s will offer amazing value for gaming. I think AMD will have to launch the X3D versions at the price of the regular ones.

 

[Why_Me]

What a good video. Incredible efficiency after undervolting, losing 10% gaming performance with a 50% reduction in power draw.
The value of the 13900K for just gaming is terrible, though, just as it always is for the i9s. This is a productivity CPU.

But the i5s and i7s will offer amazing value for gaming. I think AMD will have to launch the X3D versions at the price of the regular ones.

This ^^ ... I'm looking forward to the January release of the i5 13400 / 13400F and i7 13700 / 13700F + B760 boards.

 

[cvaldes]

If you glance through the reviews, the vast majority of techsites already test performance in lower PPT level (at least in one benchmark like CBr23 for example or in more than one depending the site) so AMD's MT performance potential would not escape public's attention anyway.
Just the emphasis would be in how more efficient Zen4 design is.
Regarding yields, I'm not talking about more efficient yielded dies, just the same Zen4 CPUs that we have now but with lower PPT options from the getgo, the results are great in lower PPTs as many Zen4 reviews show.
What I'm suggesting thought may have a downside for AMD regarding SEP levels that would get away asking (but great for us consumers) (also it seems even with the 230W strategy AMD didn't got away regarding what CPU prices is asking, but this is mostly gaming performance and motherboard cost fault) (if it had two factory PPT default options and executed better in marketing approach about it, i think it would have been a win, but i don't disagree with what you point out)

AMD is going to put their best silicon samples in the hands of their datacenter customers.

The consumer PC market is expected to contract after the pandemic-driven sales spike. Unfortunately this means that consumers will be offered AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA's sloppy seconds.

Leading with a lower PPT would be too difficult and time consuming to explain to that contracting consumer audience. It would definitely be a talking point for enterprise purchasing agents. Under different circumstances, what you are proposing might be worth considering but all companies need to adjust for the existing conditions, many of which are not in their control.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Really happy with 5950x and 6800xt, does all i need it to do for games and work..
I was going to upgrade as soon as the new came out but them MB prices, fuck em..

I wouldn't mind my daily driver being stepped up to a Radeon RX 6800 XT and/or a Ryzen 5950X, but the 5900X and 5800X is probably good enough and I'm so happy with my Sapphire Nitro+ RX 6750 XT!

Wouldn't be surprised if I need a PSU upgrade, though.

 

[ACE76]

Lisa Su if you read this: Integrated graphics wasn't the answer, Intel already has that market, and you have APU's, you should have simply made a budget APU and marketed that to businesses directly. We want the 7800X3D. We would have all given you our money if you had done this on launch day. Saving it for next year was a mistake, because many of us have the upgrade itch and will probably go with Raptor Lake if the price is right at the 6 and 8 core model ranges (the 95 celsius thing will turn away casual users). I personally want a F model Intel, because integrated graphics have given me trouble in high refresh gaming in the past.

Sigh. six figure employees these companies have, and it takes some history major to give them the answer.

Yeah buying a dead end LGA1700 is apparently a better buy than a platform you'll be able to upgrade for years to come. Have fun with that 300 watt bloated Raptor Lake junk.