AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 9 5900X

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yep. AMD have shot themselves in foot somewhat with the pricing structure. The problem they have is that Intel's 10600 and 10700 series are significantly cheaper here in the UK, (the 10900k not so much) and they are decent gaming chips too. On the Mboard side of the equation - there is rough parity in pricing - but Intel are hamstrung by lack of pcie 4.0. As for myself...I will wait for the pricing to settle before doing an upgrade from my r5 3600/b450 MAX combo, and if it doesn't then i'll wait for the next gen. Be it Intel or AMD depending on who offers the best value.

Agreed. The issue is they did the very thing people criticised Intel for,ie,charging much more per core,because Intel were ahead. The problem is if Intel manages to snatch back the gaming lead again next year,will they then price a bit higher than AMD?? This is what happened with GPUs,and slowly Nvidia and AMD started pushing it up every generation.

People have forgotten Intel is using the same Skylake uarch from 2015,just with more cores and higher clockspeeds. They will have PCI-E 4.0 too next year,and since AMD has basically said ATM under £500 is strictly 8 core space,it does give them some breathing space.

Also,I am a Fallout 4 player and a Zen2 CPU is still slower than an old Core i7 6700K! Apparently someone on OcUK forums tested their Ryzen 5 3600 and their new Ryzen 5 5600X,and apparently the minimums were much the same with an RTX3080,which is a bit concerning. So it might, as one or two suggested to me,a limitation of using the same Zen 2 I/O setup.

So do I just wait for a Zen3+ now or Zen4??

Also,next year we have other problems too. Not only any potential AMD USD price hikes per tier,but the UK trading arrangements will be altered. Firstly we don't know if the USD:£ exchange rates will go against us,but also the import structures will have changed. So things such as additional tariffs and haulage charges will be added to the street prices,and any relief will be targetted towards food and medicines,not things such as CPUs/GPUs(which is the correct thing to do anyway).

So even if there are "cheaper" Ryzen 5 5600 non-X and Ryzen 7 5700X CPUs,we will be hit by AMD probably trying to increase the prices of those,plus all the other stuff which will happen next year. The timing is just bad for us in the UK.

"Street prices" include VAT in Uk CAT.

Umm,I said that??

[Terbinator]

How long after the 3800X did the 3700X release last time around?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

How long after the 3800X did the 3700X release last time around?

They released on the same day. What is more concerning is I didn't see any official roadmap of when AMD hopes to release the other SKUs. Unless I missed it - trying to update multiple threads on multiple forums means I can't catch anything(still shocked that RDNA2 thread I started on OcUK forums,has had over 150K views in just over a week - GPUs seem to be far more popular than CPUs!).

[Terbinator]

They released on the same day. What is more concerning is I didn't see any official roadmap of when AMD hopes to release the other SKUs. Unless I missed it - trying to update multiple threads on multiple forums means I can't catch anything(still shocked that RDNA2 thread I started on OcUK forums,has had over 150K views in just over a week - GPUs seem to be far more popular than CPUs!).

Not really that surprising on consumer forums, I'd have thought? GPUs are exciting, competitive and have things like RT tying in with a new console generation Saying that, the 5800X did have 1500 people looking at it at 2PM yesterday on Scan's website.

CPUs are generally stagnant at the minute, Zen 3 is a decent refinement but at the same core counts and costs more. Intel's 14nm Cove's will be coming in Q1 so that will be 'interesting' for sure but is basically their Zen+/2. I imagine it is then when we will see the lower parts from AMD + any pricing adjustments.

[3dcandy]

Whilst I understand people are miffed by a price increase have we kinda forgot what this year has done to businesses? All the people I know are saying that real costs have gone up by 20-30% this year virtually across the board. Intel has stayed cheap because otherwise they wouldn't sell which is what AMD used to have to do. And NV well cough cough they've messed up super big this time round.

Apple has admitted it is struggling to supply iphone 12's, and many suppliers like Logitech cannot keep up with demand for webcams and things and they have gone up 30+% as well due to the demand. We are still in a strange year, we got these cpus pretty much on time, the Radeon 6000 series are pretty much on time and seem reasonably priced in the current climate and so are the cpus.

We all know prices will adjust next year, so perhaps early adoption is not the best way this time and also with BIOS updates for 400 series boards slated for January I''m pretty sure that this is when we see what's what a bit more...

Basically everything has gone up this year to compensate. Let the dust settle and see what is what

[Zhaoman]

While I am a bit annoyed at the price increases especially for the 5600X, I do think the CPU market has changed enough to warrant a readjustment to our own expectations. CPUs are no longer a product with linear performance differences between the SKUs. If you look at the 5600X, it performs virtually the same in gaming benchmarks as the 5900X, the 5950X, the 10600K and 10900K. So for someone who is just interested in gaming and nothing else, you are getting 5950X or 10900K equivalent performance for under £300. It's not like the $300 part is 50% slower in all scenarios than the $600 part, if that were the case I would be far more annoyed at AMD raising the price of entry to the market. But the 5600X in the current landscape of CPUs is on par with top of the range and that to me is the value proposition we have to consider in the price.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

While I am a bit annoyed at the price increases especially for the 5600X, I do think the CPU market has changed enough to warrant a readjustment to our own expectations. CPUs are no longer a product with linear performance differences between the SKUs. If you look at the 5600X, it performs virtually the same in gaming benchmarks as the 5900X, the 5950X, the 10600K and 10900K. So for someone who is just interested in gaming and nothing else, you are getting 5950X or 10900K equivalent performance for under £300. It's not like the $300 part is 50% slower in all scenarios than the $600 part, if that were the case I would be far more annoyed at AMD raising the price of entry to the market. But the 5600X in the current landscape of CPUs is on par with top of the range and that to me is the value proposition we have to consider in the price.

The same argument was used by Intel though. Each year you had faster and faster quad cores which would top HEDT 6C/8C CPUs of the previous generation in gaming. A Core i7 7600K would obliterate a Q6600 or Core i5 750 in a CPU limited game for example. Then if you wanted 8 cores and above there was a premium.

All it lead to was a stagnation in core count and why we had 4 core CPUs for nearly 10 years at consumer level. Intel also started more segmentation too.

So if Intel comes out with a CPU next year which is slightly faster per core in gaming than Zen3,will they rise prices also?? Then if Zen4 beats Intel again,AMD rises prices per core?? A Ryzen 5 5600X is double the price of the Ryzen 5 2600 I bought in 2018. The pound was weaker than today!

The issue is we had six core CPUs at just under £300 from 2016 onwards(Core i7 5820K),and years later we are stuck back at now looking at 6 cores potentially upto £350. So is this the era of 6 cores being the mainstream amount instead of 4 cores?? Because,both Intel and AMD would be quite happy to keep selling 6 cores for that kind of money,and simply just adding a premium for more cores on top.

Plus we are forgetting the consoles are more PC like. It wouldn't surprise if the console refresh moves to a Zen3 core in a few years time. The issue here is the new generation of consoles are far more CPU heavy than any in the last 10 years. Even those Zen2 cores have a ton of memory bandwidth and are on-chip with the IMC(unlike the desktop versions). It wouldn't surprise me one bit they perform better than the desktop equivalent in certain scenarios.

I think it will start to manifest more and more in multiplatform titles as time progresses.

Whilst I understand people are miffed by a price increase have we kinda forgot what this year has done to businesses? All the people I know are saying that real costs have gone up by 20-30% this year virtually across the board. Intel has stayed cheap because otherwise they wouldn't sell which is what AMD used to have to do. And NV well cough cough they've messed up super big this time round.

Apple has admitted it is struggling to supply iphone 12's, and many suppliers like Logitech cannot keep up with demand for webcams and things and they have gone up 30+% as well due to the demand. We are still in a strange year, we got these cpus pretty much on time, the Radeon 6000 series are pretty much on time and seem reasonably priced in the current climate and so are the cpus.

We all know prices will adjust next year, so perhaps early adoption is not the best way this time and also with BIOS updates for 400 series boards slated for January I''m pretty sure that this is when we see what's what a bit more...

Basically everything has gone up this year to compensate. Let the dust settle and see what is what

The issue is that added costs was the same reason Nvidia made for the whole Titan tiering,etc. Yet once companies saw they could get away with it,the pricing stuck even if costs fell,and you can this by following gross and net margins. If they both rise it tells you any cost increases were exceeded by price increases. That is the main worry - is this a one off thing,or is it going to show price creep at every generation??



So a plateau of gross margins this quarter,but nett margins,etc have all risen and this was before Zen3/RNDA2.So it appears so far its not had an effect on AMD.

Plus next year,the UK will probably have more cost increases due to our different trading arrangements,so we could be in for a double whammy here.

The only way I can see prices drop is if Rocketlake or Alderlake beat AMD in gaming. They won't do it outside gaming for sure.

Basically the position might be reversed until then,ie,Intel has more cores for less money since its weaker in gaming and AMD less cores for more money because its stronger in gaming.

I would laugh if Intel became the value champion and AMD was the elite tier champion for those who want the best,but had to pay that premium.

[kompukare]

If you look at the 5600X, it performs virtually the same in gaming benchmarks as the 5900X, the 5950X, the 10600K and 10900K

Well, I wouldn't pay too much attention to current games though as the new console generation will make a big difference.
AT did a write-up on the new Xbox and included a CPU comparison
Plus 16GB vs 8GB.
Way faster NVMe storage allowing real-time streaming.
Far faster and modern GPU.
Will take game developers a bit of time, but in a few years a six core might not be enough for games. Ideally, you'd want a PC to be more powerful than the consoles in every metric.

[3dcandy]

The same argument was used by Intel though. Each year you had faster and faster quad cores which would top HEDT 6C/8C CPUs of the previous generation in gaming. A Core i7 7600K would obliterate a Q6600 or Core i5 750 in a CPU limited game for example. Then if you wanted 8 cores and above there was a premium.

All it lead to was a stagnation in core count and why we had 4 core CPUs for nearly 10 years at consumer level. Intel also started more segmentation too.

So if Intel comes out with a CPU next year which is slightly faster per core in gaming than Zen3,will they rise prices also?? Then if Zen4 beats Intel again,AMD rises prices per core?? A Ryzen 5 5600X is double the price of the Ryzen 5 2600 I bought in 2018. The pound was weaker than today!

The issue is we had six core CPUs at just under £300 from 2016 onwards(Core i7 5820K),and years later we are stuck back at now looking at 6 cores potentially upto £350. So is this the era of 6 cores being the mainstream amount instead of 4 cores?? Because,both Intel and AMD would be quite happy to keep selling 6 cores for that kind of money,and simply just adding a premium for more cores on top.

Plus we are forgetting the consoles are more PC like. It wouldn't surprise if the console refresh moves to a Zen3 core in a few years time. The issue here is the new generation of consoles are far more CPU heavy than any in the last 10 years. Even those Zen2 cores have a ton of memory bandwidth and are on-chip with the IMC(unlike the desktop versions). It wouldn't surprise me one bit they perform better than the desktop equivalent in certain scenarios.

I think it will start to manifest more and more in multiplatform titles as time progresses.




The issue is that added costs was the same reason Nvidia made for the whole Titan tiering,etc. Yet once companies saw they could get away with it,the pricing stuck even if costs fell,and you can this by following gross and net margins. If they both rise it tells you any cost increases were exceeded by price increases. That is the main worry - is this a one off thing,or is it going to show price creep at every generation??



So a plateau of gross margins this quarter,but nett margins,etc have all risen and this was before Zen3/RNDA2.So it appears so far its not had an effect on AMD.

Plus next year,the UK will probably have more cost increases due to our different trading arrangements,so we could be in for a double whammy here.

The only way I can see prices drop is if Rocketlake or Alderlake beat AMD in gaming. They won't do it outside gaming for sure.

Basically the position might be reversed until then,ie,Intel has more cores for less money since its weaker in gaming and AMD less cores for more money because its stronger in gaming.

I would laugh if Intel became the value champion and AMD was the elite tier champion for those who want the best,but had to pay that premium.

This week there have been massive announcements of job cuts in many sectors. The Bank Of England has announced it is pumping £150 billion into our economy. We have slid into another lockdown. I think you are underestimating what the next six months will bring to everyone and AMD has to basically second guess something that is totally new on many levels. They can and might reduce prices but price increases just looks bad all around.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well, I wouldn't pay too much attention to current games though as the new console generation will make a big difference.
AT did a write-up on the new Xbox and included a CPU comparison
Plus 16GB vs 8GB.
Way faster NVMe storage allowing real-time streaming.
Far faster and modern GPU.
Will take game developers a bit of time, but in a few years a six core might not be enough for games. Ideally, you'd want a PC to be more powerful than the consoles in every metric.

Also the fact that the IMC is also on-die and fed by a very wide GDDR6 memory controller(compared to a narrower DDR4 one). Sure GDDR6 does have more latency than DDR4,but I do think those Zen2 cores might actually do better in some scenarios than the desktop equivalents. Also we assume that the Zen2 cores in the consoles haven't had some tweaks either.

Another factor is the consoles have dedicated chips to handle various things such as audio,etc. On the PC part of the processing is always offloaded to the CPU,and that doesn't also take into consideration more overheads and other background tasks on PC. Most review rigs also have a minimal OS install with not much running in the background and the best cooling,so often are the best case scenario.

This week there have been massive announcements of job cuts in many sectors. The Bank Of England has announced it is pumping £150 billion into our economy. We have slid into another lockdown. I think you are underestimating what the next six months will bring to everyone and AMD has to basically second guess something that is totally new on many levels. They can and might reduce prices but price increases just looks bad all around.

I am not underestimating everything - I have said it many times on here and OcUK. You are the one defending price rises during a recession,not me!

Millions of people worldwide are loosing jobs,or simply being paid less. Enthusiasts on tech forums need to stop defending large percentage price rises,like they did with Nvidia. Many companies such as retailers are cutting margins to price more competitively despite actually having higher costs. So why do tech companies get defended when retailers,etc are trying to reduce prices?? They are realising many people have less money to spend now.

Using enthusiast logic they should increase prices then. Is AMD employing 100s of 1000s of people,etc? It isn't.

These companies are almost like some kind of tech religion now! They can do no wrong!

AMD comes along and decides lets jack up prices,especially when its obvious costs are decreasing for them,if NET margins are GOING UP.

Nvidia used all the excuses to increase prices and their loyal fans religiously made XYZ excuses costs were going up,and yet apparently Nvidia's net margins just rose and rose.

AMD net margins have rose,yet their RRPs haven't,so it tells me their supply chain is OK. Why?? Because China,etc has gone back to work and managed their problems.

Most of these companies are just chancers - they will use any excuse to jack prices up. Why wouldn't they?

People have forgotten job losses are worldwide. The price rise affects all countries not just the UK. Its more that they are like so many companies are obsessed with short term margins,the same reason Intel has allowed AMD to sneak up behind them.

If anything many are underestimating what our new trading arrangements will do,as I kind of heard stuff from people I know regarding what is happening. Its not really that great.

For one thing(as I mentioned here a few times),the UK for decades has not invested sufficiently in its ports and storage capacity,and our ports are small compared to many European ones. We have relied on EU integration and JIT,to use EU ports as a main entrance for many of our imports. This is why things such as the Channel Tunnel were built.

Many large companies base their warehousing in Holland and Hamburg,etc. Many companies which sell electronics rely on EU based distributors with warehousing in Holland,etc.

In fact Amazon is one of them - if your item takes a bit longer than normal to arrive,its most likely to have arrived from Germany.

This is why Apple tried to block HTC imports into Europe,by taking them to court in Holland,and they succeeded.

Now once we leave,those imports will have to be checked,and if there are any WTO tariffs on certain classes of imports they will apply. Also do you think if the hauliers are now being stuck in big lorry parks,there won't be extra costs and delays?? If the government is going to take on some of those costs it won't be for stuff like CPUs and GPUs,but food and medicines which are essential.

So now think of those costs added on,plus shortages due to more important stuff being prioritised. These will be ADDED on top of the AMD price hikes with each tier.

Also dependent on how the US election goes and what happens with the EU,the USD might possible increase in relative value too. So actually there is a potential triple whammy of price increases.

Plus there is something else which is slowly brewing too. CC companies,are now cutting credit limits which means credit and easy payment plans might be clamped down on,especially if companies think people might start defaulting on loans. This is quite possible if there are job losses. Many people pay on credit.

So defending price rises,because AMD has looked at Intel and wants some of that gravy is all nice,but AMD timing as usual sucks.

These price rises were always on the cards - because AMD has been slowly increasing its prices since Zen+ on a number of tiers.

They basically said they don't want to be a cheap company. So now you have them not being a cheap company. Lisa Su hasn't hidden it at all if you listen to some of her talks.

Exactly what happened when they had the Athlon 64,and soon did exactly the same as Intel.

Its why in a two horse race,both need to be competing. The "good guy" is a myth in tech,only wheeled out when you are behind.

[DanceswithUnix]

Its why in a two horse race,both need to be competing.

This seems an oddity in tech benchmarking, in any other field I think this would be considered a pretty close 2 horse race.

Yet in PC hardware, a 5% lead gets wording like "slaughtered" and "massive lead" when in reality you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Intel's chips haven't suddenly become slow.

Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is, if market forces aren't working now, then they never will. Once release day pricing settles down ofc.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

This seems an oddity in tech benchmarking, in any other field I think this would be considered a pretty close 2 horse race.

Yet in PC hardware, a 5% lead gets wording like "slaughtered" and "massive lead" when in reality you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Intel's chips haven't suddenly become slow.

Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is, if market forces aren't working now, then they never will. Once release day pricing settles down ofc.

I have pointed it out,but people don't seem to see it. They accepted it with Zen2,Intel was faster but more expensive,but AMD was good enough so better value was more important than performance. Now they literally have just flip flopped,except now Intel is not buyable under ANY circumstances. I just find it utterly weird. It reminds me of when AMD had Bulldozer and AMD was a no go for everything on tech forums(yet Skylake isn't nearly as bad).

The issue is the benchmarking is also weird too. Game 1 is 250FPS on CPU 1,but 275FPS at 720p,CPU1 is destroyed! It's literally no realworld useful difference. Move up to qHD and 4K,the FPS is a few percent apart,and minimums too.

Yet in a game which is actually CPU limited you would see it in much poorer minimums,even at qHD or 4K. But very few of the benchmarks seem to of those games(and its especially true of some of the older ones which are still played and ignored,but that is where Zen2 could be lacking).

The tech press contributes to it sadly - remember the Nvidia retiering and price rises?? Bump problems? Very few called out Nvidia for it,and we saw what happened.The same with Intel doing all its segmentation,all just accepted. Even on here I pointed Intel locking down overclocking to K series models and P/Z series chipsets was a crap longterm move,but was met with indifference.

The issue is if AMD is seeing it works,it just shows you the media isn't doing due digilance and neither are gamers and PC enthusiasts. They just accept the new tiers and increased pricing,etc. In fact not just accept it but actively defend it.

Sadly I agree with the last line - market forces are now totally broken. Its up to consumers to push back against companies,but sadly I have seen a Stockholm syndrome manifest itself with gamers/PC enthusiasts in general,not only with hardware but also games too. Sometimes groups of people push back,but its only temporary as too many just accept the status quo. It kind of reminds me of what you see with Apple.

I am starting to realise criticisms of Nvidia and Intel are probably not true criticisms for what they are doing,but criticisms because they are Nvidia and Intel. In fact I can start to see why Gamersnexus and HUB said certain things about the AMD fanbase.The moment AMD does some of it,many say its OK because AMD is relatively better than those two,but not realising the market is a bit rubbish overall. This is why I can see if RDNA3 actually beats Nvidia,people will be totally OK with AMD copying Nvidia pricing(it's already started).

The problem it just tells Nvidia and Intel what they were doing is fine too,so there is no pressure on them too. The whole if you can't beat them,join them.

[kompukare]

The tech press contributes to it sadly - remember the Nvidia retiering and price rises?? Bump problems? Very few called out Nvidia for it,and we saw what happened.

Tech 'journalists' do not bite the hand which feeds it.
Charlie is still persona non grata in many places due to not understanding that.
Hence why the tech press is so tame.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Tech 'journalists' do not bite the hand which feeds it.
Charlie is still persona non grata in many places due to not understanding that.
Hence why the tech press is so tame.

The problem is the same people who initiated such actions,float around the techworld,and end up working at several companies. So even if a company was OK before,that can change really quickly with the new people who replace the old hands. AFAIK,even AMD seems to be far more proactive WRT reviewers now,unlike in the past where they tended to just let things go. This is why all this good guy stuff can become very fickle,very quickly. Companies know once they control the narrative,well they control the consumers!

[kompukare]

Its why in a two horse race,both need to be competing. The "good guy" is a myth in tech,only wheeled out when you are behind.

While the "good guy" may be a myth, the bad guy is not really.
Therefore, if it is a two horse race, then why buy the one who has a very long history of many anti-consumer moves (Nvidia, Intel, Apple) when they other horse hasn't been quite as bad?

Like in the US elections, why vote for the known sociopath even if the "other guy" isn't nice? Lesser of two evils is a compromise but it is often the most pragmatic choice.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

While the "good guy" may be a myth, the bad guy is not really.
Therefore, if it is a two horse race, then why buy the one who has a very long history of many anti-consumer moves (Nvidia, Intel, Apple) when they other horse hasn't been quite as bad?

Like in the US elections, why vote for the known sociopath even if the "other guy" isn't nice? Lesser of two evils is a compromise but it is often the most pragmatic choice.

The issue is that AMD when given the chance does the same. During the Athlon 64 era they jacked pricing up,had short lived platforms like socket 754,QuadFX and AM2,and didn't care if they screwed people over. They released buggy Phenoms and yet instead of taking them back,made a patch which reduced performance(just like Intel did).

Yet before this they were all about long lifespan platforms,better pricing,etc. Remember,this is not the old AMD,it has people from several of those companies,ie,ex-Apple,ex-Intel and ex-Nvidia. Even Intel and Nvidia played the good guys at one point,offering decent price/performance,features,etc until they did enough to just push pricing upwards and made more tiers and tiers,because consumers allowed them to do so. Gamersnexus have commented on AMD marketing trying to exploit the "good guy" status to try and get one up on its competitors. This is because they themselves get attacked by the very same people if they are critical.

This year so far,they on purpose removed working PCI-E 4.0 BIOSes from 400 series motherboards,attempted to block out mainstream buyers from Zen3(since B450 was the mainstream platform until recently),despite criticising Intel for doing such things(and implying Zen3 support),and even things such as AMD Smart Access Memory,apparently have Linux analogues which work with Zen2(and AMD helped implement it IIRC). Yet AMD only went back on the 2nd point after the community fired back very negatively.

They you had them quietly pushing up the tiers with the motherboard chipsets. The B550 is now moved up a tier,and the B450 is now rebadged as the A520 with no overclocking support. That is all tierisation moves,as is jacking up pricing because they can. That is right out of the Intel and Nvidia manual of doing stuff.

People need to be wary of saying AMD is the "good guy" because AMD can literally become like Intel and Nvidia,if they know they could get away with the same stuff. Intel and Nvidia did what they did because the community just accepted it.

The AMD now is not the same AMD even 10 years ago. So don't think when you strip away all the marketing and PR,they don't have the same end goals as other companies once they are at the top. AMD itself is far more corporate focussed unlike in the past,and this is EXACTLY why Nvidia and Intel acted the way they did.

So in the end if AMD wants to jack up pricing,start its segmentation moves,etc like Intel and Nvidia,in the end as a consumer they are no different than them personally. Because its death by a 1000 cuts,and companies like testing the waters bit by bit.

Each generation a price rise here,a segmentation move there. What Intel and Nvidia did was also very slowly done,because people don't realise it. People on here and elsewhere argued with me about Intel locking out overclocking,Nvidia and its Titan's when I pointed out what it would do to the mainstream markets(in relative terms). Yet after a few years we saw what happened.

We never got £2000 gaming GPUs the first time with Nvidia,but now people have fully accepted £1000+ gaming GPUs are a thing(yet the Titan was below £1000).Then it also fully validates what Intel and Nvidia have done.

Now if all of them are essentially going to act the same,where is the moderating influence?? All of them seem to be trying to price as highly as each other,and enthusiasts/gamers seem to just be too tribal to see what is happening.

Just because they were better in the past,does not give them a pass for the present or future. Being relatively better in a rubbish market,does not mean it is good,its less worse! Using the analogy of an election,if both candidates are a-holes,just because one is a lesser a-hole it still makes them both a-holes!



Remember what happened to Google? Their motto was "Don't be evil" but then they removed it!

Edit!!

Anyway,it is what it is. Prices will go up,until the next big change in the market and that will only happen if Intel has something which is competitive,in both per core performance,and core number. Its quite clear both companies are happy to keep the status quo going for the time-being. Exactly the same as when the Athlon 64 was around. It might be a while!