Optimum Tech made a very interesting video that goes over retail prices in various markets of both Nvidia and AMD's lineup of GPUs
In every market, the 6600XT is cheaper than both a 3060 and 3060 Ti and typically close to MSRP. This excludes the AMD.com and Founders Edition cards you can get from Bestbuy. Personally, even at MSRP, thanks to the way AMD has gimped the 6600XT, I wouldn't recommend it.
In most other instances, it's the opposite. Nvidia is generally much cheaper/similarly priced than AMD cards for all other tiers of GPUs in most other markets.
Intel is claiming Skylake levels of performance with their small cores for Alder Lake S.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16881/a-deep-dive-into-intels-alder-lake-microarchitectures/4
"Anyway, by these graphics it looks like that for peak single thread, we should see around +8% better than Skylake performance while consuming just over half the power – look for Cinebench R20 scores for one Gracemont thread around 478 then (Skylake 6700K scored 443). With +8% for single thread in mind, the +80% in MT comparing 4 cores of Gracemont to two fully loaded Skylake cores seems a little low – we’ve got double the physical cores with Gracemont compared to Skylake here. But there’s likely some additional performance regression with the cache structure on the new Atom core, which we’ll get to later on this page.
These claims are substantial. Intel hasn’t compared the new Atom core generation on generation, because it felt that having AVX2 support would put the new Atom at a significant advantage. But what Intel is saying with these graphs is that we should expect better-than Skylake performance at much less power"
Now we need to wait and see how it pans out as Intel has had some janky claims in the past. But if the claims are true and the big cores have a 19% uplift in IPC compared to rocket lake and the small cores perform similar to Skylake, that would be insane performance!
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850
