In all honesty though, I think for the price what you get compared to Intel is just pure value. 6 Cores, 12 Threads and Unlocked with usual clock speeds upon OCing between 3.8-4.1GHz at only $200US. Which (when overclocked) actually makes it comparable in GAMEPLAY to the i7 7700k (not OC'ed), which has the one of the fastest single core performances of consumer grades CPU's on the market right now. When comparing the 1600 to the 1600x you see that upon OCing of the two they both seem to average a OC speed of more or less equal with gains in benchmarking varying little and in cases of silicon lottery sometimes the 1600 even beats the 1600x in those benchmarks. Now from a consumer stand point this offers tremendous gains for gamers, content creators and even regular users in the tasks performed by each respectively. As gamers now benefits from 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads which can be used while gaming for background processes which may be taking place (for example maybe background updates happening during gameplay or for streaming allowing the extra cores to handle those programs as needed). It is just not feasible in regards to Intel at this point for basic consumers to look for anything with 6 cores because of the massive price difference (personally i'm not even sure if Intel offers anything with 6 cores besides some of their latest processors which may or may not be out yet, but will still be substantially more expensive if prices that have been "announced" are accurate to what they will be upon release). - Just my 2 cents
