"AMD Cheaper than Intel" a mytth?
"AMD Cheaper than Intel" a mytth?
Many people choose AMD over Intel because it seems more affordable, especially when comparing similar performance levels. I looked at some local stores in Hungary and noticed Intel tends to be pricier there. For instance, the Intel i3-10100 vs AMD Ryzen 5-3400G showed a price gap of around 10,000 HUF, with Intel costing about 32,000 HUF compared to AMD's 43,000 HUF.
It seems the issue lies in AMD consistently underperforming compared to Intel, which affects resale value and makes AMD appear cheaper. In truth, they match Intel on pricing competitiveness. Observe the recent increase in their Ryzen 5000 CPUs while Intel was charging $1499 for a 10-core processor just four years ago—AMD now offers 16 cores for $799.
It's not only about the CPU cost. Motherboards matter too, and typically Intel platforms came with pricier boards. I'd also say the i3-10100 performs better than the Ryzen 3 3100 because it's more affordable and lacks the built-in iGPU that raises its price (unless you're aiming for a GPU-free build).
AMD offers better value in many areas, though stock and costs vary by location. Comparing to the US might reveal other insights.
The CPUs being compared serve different audiences. One is a standard budget model with a basic GPU (Intel), while the other features a decent GPU in an older budget CPU. AMD has consistently focused on two distinct areas. Providing a seamless experience on a single chip (APU) at a reasonable cost or offering a traditional CPU without an integrated GPU to avoid unnecessary spending, allowing them to keep prices lower. A strong match for the i3 10100 is the Ryzen 3100 or 3300X (based on price), or the Ryzen 1600AF/2600 depending on what you need. Intel typically includes a GPU in every CPU they produce, even if defective, so you still pay for the manufacturing effort but at a reduced cost. The only situations where Intel can rival AMD’s integrated GPUs are with their top-tier i7 and i9 models, which is unusual since most buyers already expect a dedicated GPU. Upgrading to their new Xe GPU could change this, as placing a high-end integrated GPU in a CPU that usually pairs with a much better GPU would be counterproductive.
It takes relatively little to create a processor. If it were too costly, AMD wouldn't have produced sub-100 dual and quad-core chips in the first generation. It's interesting how a 1200 and a 2700x seemed nearly identical inside the box. How could they be so similar yet cost such different amounts? Probably not more or less to make them, right? It seems unlikely that production costs stay the same for chips like the 5600x versus the 5800X. AMD has always been pricey enough—never quite honest about it. You can't realistically ask for a much higher price on slower processors (like in the past). They pushed big profits for items such as the FX 9590 upon launch. And the Phenom Extreme chip at $1000+? That's actually quite reasonable. A $500 processor is completely normal.