Ranmacanada
And that's your problem, you're buying your CPU's in Canada.

Actually, the prices which I paid for both my i7-6700K and R7 1700 were competitive. Canada Computers (with discounts) provided the best pricing option at the time of purchase. I do my research when it comes time to buy components and if the better option was from Amazon, .com or .ca, that's the one I would have taken as I did for my daughters Sapphire Nitro+ RX Vega 56.
 
What I was pointing out in my post was the pricing issues facing Intel and AMD, and the way AMD's products now bracket Intel's newest CPU as a result of Intel's own pricing strategy. The 2700X provides a huge undercut given relative performance. And with the 1900X as you have pointed out, getting so many more PCI-e lanes at the expense of slower gaming performance but a a lesser price will be worth it for many.
 
The simplest way to explain purchasing an overpriced product it is addiction. Heroin isn't cheap, either. But people boycott food and water for it.

panzlock
 
With this product it's also important to consider the price points. The 2700X is considerably cheaper than the 9900K. The Intel product has the better of the AMD offering but, at the price point and resulting PC performance it makes zero, ZERO sense to purchase the blue chip.

In my mind, AMD was able to influence Intel to force 9900K's creation unnecessarily.  They branded 2800X as 2700X and implied to wait for Intel's response before pushing out a 2800X.  So Intel went all out, and the price of 9900K reflects the threat of cannibalizing their own 7820X and 9820X.  I actually think, however, 2700X is better aimed, and Intel may win, against 9700K.  Price performance difference there is a better fight, hyperthreading be damned.


That being said, I wonder how long AMD will allow 1920X priced just above 2700X?  In fact, I'd like to see a review of 9700K and 9900K versus just 1920X Threadripper, simply due to TCO.  My interest in Ryzen purely exists from the standpoint of more cores per dollar versus Intel.  If Ryzen 7nm AM4 ends up having an 8c16t flagship again, I'll be let down because it isn't progressive to me.  That would be evidence of AMD settling into an Intel-style routine just because Intel won't have more than 8c16t until 10nm.  Ryzen 7-3700X should be a 12c24t at the $300 mark.  High-turbos and IPC, TBH, I don't really care.  A lower-power version of 1920X at 7nm is of particular interest, especially if Intel miraculously follows.