Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
whm1974 wrote:Can't wait for reviews, but I thought that the 1200 would be a little cheaper.
derFunkenstein wrote:The performance is why the price is higher. A $110 CPU hangs out with the $150+ i3-7350K, and would pretty much smash the $110 Core i3-7100. But you need a GPU to do it.
derFunkenstein wrote:whm1974 wrote:Can't wait for reviews, but I thought that the 1200 would be a little cheaper.
Why? AMD is not competing with Pentiums.
derFunkenstein wrote:whm1974 wrote:Can't wait for reviews, but I thought that the 1200 would be a little cheaper.
Why? AMD is not competing with Pentiums.
Mr Bill wrote:I already posted this on the comments for the review. But consider how easily AMD's current generation of APU's throttle. Maybe the Ryzen 3 gets a smidgeon more overclocking potential without an IGP.
Kougar wrote:What's funky is that there's literally no difference between the G4620 and i3-7100 except for 200Mhz. Oh, and the G4620 supports ECC when the i3 does not. Some great product differentiation on Intel's part right there.
DPete27 wrote:Scouring the web (surprisingly few reviewers OC'd their Ryzen 3 chips) it looks like 3.8-3.9GHz is the most you're going to get on Ryzen 3 1300X/1200
derFunkenstein wrote:The performance is why the price is higher. A $110 CPU hangs out with the $150+ i3-7350K, and would pretty much smash the $110 Core i3-7100. But you need a GPU to do it.
derFunkenstein wrote:They should, but what about more expensive CPUs they can't sell otherwise? The near-instantaneous price drops at Newegg and other stores (like the 1700X for $339, 1700 for $279) indicate that even with the excellent overall performance, AMD is having a hard time shifting units.
derFunkenstein wrote:But what would those charts look like if stuff was still at its RRP, like Intel's? That's my point. It has to be both cheaper AND better to sell well.