I found it surprising and impressive.
I found it surprising and impressive.
I see 1600AF offers a solid deal at the moment. I used to believe the smaller 9100F might outperform it in games, but that doesn't seem to be true. These are just gaming outcomes. The productivity standards look much higher for 1600AF. Right now, I’d lean toward suggesting a 6c12t CPU, even with its slightly lower performance, rather than a 4c4t CPU-s. Especially since more games are taking advantage of extra cores. I know the 9100F could be better for older titles, but in the long term it doesn’t seem like a worthwhile choice.
1600 AF isn't offered everywhere. Intel CPUs are generally accessible in most countries around the globe.
In my region both options exist, though the prices vary. The 9100F is around 70 euros, while the 1600AF ranges from 90 to 95 euros. That shows a noticeable cost gap. When looking at 9400F versus 1600AF, the latter is about 145 euros, making the 1600AF a more affordable choice. I should have realized AMD better.
The 1600AF aimed at the consumer market was essentially AMD's message to Intel: "Absolutely, we can reduce the cost of placing your 9400F in a tougher spot."