No?
Imagine there's no shortage and the CPUs would be at MSRP. Currently, the 5800X is a 449$ MSRP. This Core i7 11700K looks like to be a 479$ or 499$ CPU. Yes, AMD raised the price by ~50$ on their offering and Intel keeps pumping CPUs that are inferior at a higher price. I dunno man. I don't see the argument of gouging here. Especially when the 5800X and 5600X are available at MSRP and in-stock at Amazon.com. And the gouging is done by the retailers taking advantage of the impatient consumer. I'm looking at you, Newegg.
I understand that, in an ideal world, both would be in a somewhat equal footing and would be battling it out for market share. In this case, it would be stupid for one of them to offer CPUs for an higher price when the other offer a better offering for less. As for now, it's still the case for AMD: the Core i9 10900K (10c/20t) is 500$ MSRP. Want more performance and cores? For 50$ more, there's the 5900X at 550$ MSRP. And the 5950X is a class aside. It's a premium product clearly aimed at those that have the money to burn. Intel does not have an equivalent unless you go to their HEDT / server products in which case, AMD clearly wins the price/performance.
Did the 50$ increase from Zen 2 to Zen 3 sucks? Sure. But, imo, it's worth it. If that increase was 100$, there would be argument to go toward Intel more than AMD. Also inflation says Hi.
Oh, and, before anybody says I'm a fanboy... I had only Intel platforms until this year where I decided to go AMD for the CPU... If Intel still had the upper hand, I would have gone there instead.
