• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel Has Become AMD: Best Gaming CPUs Are Last Gen

Intel know they're beaten until Alder Lake.
Thankfully for them the glut of 3600 stock is starting to dry up giving them a market to target.
Hopefully the low-mid range value parts don't completely disapear if they become competitive again :rolleyes:.
 
I my 35 years life time, AMD 5950x is my first ever AMD CPU. I've been an intel fan but not anymore.
Intel deserve to be in this position after anticompetitive market practise for years
 
Cooler running said:
Intel know they're beaten until Alder Lake.
Click to expand...
Considering how Intel's performance increase promises of Rocket Lake worked, I doubt that will leapfrog them ahead of AMD in any way.

I mean it's even "big.little" design instead of having full number of full blown desktop cores.
Design which would make lot more sense in mobile/laptop CPUs.
So bringing that to desktop first kinda tells that Intel can't compete against AMD in core count and has to go for such marketing cores.
 
LordBeggar said:
I my 35 years life time, AMD 5950x is my first ever AMD CPU. I've been an intel fan but not anymore.
Intel deserve to be in this position after anticompetitive market practise for years
Click to expand...

Similar to me, I've always been Intel both at home and when picking/building work computers. But for the first time I've gone AMD with the 5600X and apart from a BIOS flash required on the MB I have no regrets.
 
Cooler running said:
Well they're getting a die shrink for the first time in years, it's also going to be competing against Ryzen 5000 when it launches...
Click to expand...
That node has just been complete POS for getting good clocks.
So wouldn't expect clock speeds reaching level of current 14nm++++++ Intels.
 
EsaT said:
Considering how Intel's performance increase promises of Rocket Lake worked, I doubt that will leapfrog them ahead of AMD in any way.

I mean it's even "big.little" design instead of having full number of full blown desktop cores.
Design which would make lot more sense in mobile/laptop CPUs.
So bringing that to desktop first kinda tells that Intel can't compete against AMD in core count and has to go for such marketing cores.
Click to expand...

My bet, big.little will not schedule how it should, windows scheduler will need some major overhauls but even then without tying processes specifically to a given core it just wont work in the x86 scheduler. Let's be honest microsoft completely hashed the scheduler in windows mobile and that never properly worked with big.little... If intel get this to work properly in windows it will be a miracle. I also bet that come review time there will be a plethora of questions around how they should be reviewed, you see the little cores probably based around an atom+20%? with low 1.x/2.x ghz clocks will basically be useless, say you were playing a game you would hope the big cores all go game and you can run all you background processes on the little cores and that sounds awesome, only realistically under windows that's a scheduling nightmare and will probably never work. With that said I hope they make it work but imo they get reviewed as a cpu with a core count equal to that of the number of large cores.
 
I'm hoping Intel come back strongly in the next few years as we've seen what AMD do with pricing the minute they take the performance lead and it will only get worse the further they pull ahead.
 
Vince said:
My bet, big.little will not schedule how it should, windows scheduler will need some major overhauls but even then without tying processes specifically to a given core it just wont work in the x86 scheduler. Let's be honest microsoft completely hashed the scheduler in windows mobile and that never properly worked with big.little... If intel get this to work properly in windows it will be a miracle. I also bet that come review time there will be a plethora of questions around how they should be reviewed, you see the little cores probably based around an atom+20%? with low 1.x/2.x ghz clocks will basically be useless, say you were playing a game you would hope the big cores all go game and you can run all you background processes on the little cores and that sounds awesome, only realistically under windows that's a scheduling nightmare and will probably never work. With that said I hope they make it work but imo they get reviewed as a cpu with a core count equal to that of the number of large cores.
Click to expand...
And that's even bigger question mark than truthfulness in Intel's promises and 10nm node.
It took already quite long for MS to properly get Ryzen's CCD design in scheduler...
And that's with otherwise identical cores.

Now Microsoft would have to code scheduler to understand different capability and performance cores.
Intel must be offering MS shipload of money for allowing their own coders to write it...
(+of course Intel will be no doubt pushing their own AMD performance sabotaging compilers with doubled efforts)
With Microsoft's "competency" can see that scheduler code being buggy as hell for years.

Or at least long enough that whole big.little will be irrelevant on desktop, where there's no need for pinching every single half of watt.
Heck, it's already that compared to AMD offering equal number of full blown cores.
And wasn't AMD thinking about increasing upper limit of core count in coming smaller nodes...



Joxeon said:
I'm hoping Intel come back strongly in the next few years as we've seen what AMD do with pricing the minute they take the performance lead and it will only get worse the further they pull ahead.
Click to expand...
Part of prices is because of availability problems and it's better for long term, if AMD stays ahead of Intel for couple years:
AMD isn't exactly rolling in money, while Intel has still huge reserves.
That means Intel can easily survive many years of being second rate.
AMD again can't afford much of notable mistakes and drop in income.
Or it will become again harder to maintain resources needed for fighting both Intel and Nvidia.
 
EsaT said:
Part of prices is because of availability problems and it's better for long term, if AMD stays ahead of Intel for couple years:
AMD isn't exactly rolling in money, while Intel has still huge reserves.
That means Intel can easily survive many years of being second rate.
AMD again can't afford much of notable mistakes and drop in income.
Or it will become again harder to maintain resources needed for fighting both Intel and
Click to expand...
We are now paying almost the same for the budget chip in the ryzen stack as we were for a flagship 4 years ago, the same goes for Gpus and if it carries on many PC users will be priced out of the new parts market completely. While some of it maybe down to shortages look at what happend when the 1080ti went to 1k during the past mining boom, we got the 2080ti starting at 1k as once these companies know people are willing to pay these prices its tempting to make it the norm.

It was the budget buyers that kept AMD afloat during more challenging times yet the company is quick to turn its back on them now it's the flavour of the month so let's hope AMD does carry on doing well else it may come back to bite them in the future should fortunes change.
 
Last edited:
Joxeon said:
We are now paying almost the same for the budget chip in the ryzen stack as we were for a flagship 4 years ago, the same goes for Gpus and if it carries on many PC users will be priced out of the new parts market completely.

It was the budget buyers that kept AMD afloat during more challenging times...
Click to expand...
While certainly not exactly nicely priced, that starting model still has half more cores than that old flagship level and there's upgradability to high core counts for more power for heavy workloads.
(compared to Intel making you buy new mobo for maybe even 5% more performance)
As for insane GPU availability&price situation AMD is lot less quilty to that than buyers/consumers...
Who first fell for all BS of Nvidia and subsequent pumping up of prices and also allow scalpers.
Neither did AMD invent electricity waste Ponzi schemes.

Actually it was console APUs which provided AMD some level of steady cash flow to justify to debtors and investors that next change in PC part competition/release wasn't going to drop income to zero.
 
EsaT said:
Considering how Intel's performance increase promises of Rocket Lake worked, I doubt that will leapfrog them ahead of AMD in any way.

I mean it's even "big.little" design instead of having full number of full blown desktop cores.
Design which would make lot more sense in mobile/laptop CPUs.
So bringing that to desktop first kinda tells that Intel can't compete against AMD in core count and has to go for such marketing cores.
Click to expand...
It's a Keller design, isn't it?

Seems everything he's done so far has been decent at the very least. Wouldn't write it off just yet :p
 
FoxEye said:
It's a Keller design, isn't it?

Seems everything he's done so far has been decent at the very least. Wouldn't write it off just yet :p
Click to expand...
10nm architecture was likely already ready when Keller was on board.
It just has been delayed many times because of manufacturing node problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom