-
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 Core i7-11700K beats Ryzen 9 5950X by 8% in Geekbench 5 single-core benchmark
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
I've bought two 8CX powered professional laptops this year for daughter and wife, paired with 16gb ram and 512gb ssd , my ryzen 5 laptop doesn't touch it for snapiness , battery life or performance (when native) it runs all x86 apps under emulation very well and the only pitfall is x64 emulation which MS is due to pushing an update out for. The GPU is even handier then anything Intel puts out. Arm will take over the mobile space in its entirety leaving data centre and desktop/workstations which I'm sure in another decade will be completed under threat
You get nothing for free, all is included in the price of any product. You may get that extention at the cost of thermals and power consumption but nothing comes for free, its lead there will create a pitfall elsewhere
I believe Intel will price 11th gen rocket lake very competitively vs Ryzen 5000, as they know TSMC has increased the prices of the wafers AMD is buying. Intel have a good opportunity to twist the knife here.
Lets assume i9 11900k is priced similarly to the 5900x. In that respect, you're getting AVX-512 for 'free', as the AMD parts simply lack it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,579
- Location
- Rutland
Or you could view it as getting 4 extra cores for free with AMD as the Intel part simply lacks them. I'd rather have 4 more cores and half the power usage than AVX-512 any day.
Neither AVX-512, nor the increased IPC, nor any competitive pricing will save Intel from having the 20% market sales share at the major Western stores.
Because the problems are elsewhere and not targeted / solved yet by Intel - high power consumption - up to 300 watts, relatively low core count - only half of what is offered by Ryzen, and of course - all the security and legal issues with Intel's business and operations.
This is great to hear - let's hope more people understand this, too and join the trend
Because the problems are elsewhere and not targeted / solved yet by Intel - high power consumption - up to 300 watts, relatively low core count - only half of what is offered by Ryzen, and of course - all the security and legal issues with Intel's business and operations.
This is great to hear - let's hope more people understand this, too and join the trend
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
If that's priced similarly to the 5900X it's a total losing proposition, as you only get 66% of the processing power. It needs to compete with the 5800X on price to be at all worthwhile.
I'm sure they'll price it based on it's performance. If it's the top performing gaming CPU, by a decent margin, then it will command a premium.
Not that many care about how much faster it will complete cinebench apart from those who need 10, 12, 16, 32 cores etc. Those people know what they want, and are likely using purpose built workstation type systems (Xeon, Threadripper etc). Time is money for content creators, who do hundreds of hours of video rendering, encoding etc, so I'm sure those invested professionally have 28 core Xeons, or 64 core threadrippers etc
I'm sure they'll price it based on it's performance. If it's the top performing gaming CPU, by a decent margin, then it will command a premium.
Not that many care about how much faster it will complete cinebench apart from those who need 10, 12, 16, 32 cores etc. Those people know what they want, and are likely using purpose built workstation type systems (Xeon, Threadripper etc). Time is money for content creators, who do hundreds of hours of video rendering, encoding etc, so I'm sure those invested professionally have 28 core Xeons, or 64 core threadrippers etc
So Threadripper is workstation/professional processors of Xeon equivalent? I remember looking at the prices of them and going.... Daaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmnnnnn!
Which made me wonder, how many on this board owns them...
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
If it's only got 8 cores, it's not the top performing anything.
There is a world of people who use their machines for all sorts of things that can benefit from more cores, who do not want to spend the sort of money to get a TR or Xeon setup. These folks will benefit from higher core counts in the mainstream market. Games will continue to use more cores as well. You're just trying to justify intel's total lack of ability to deliver higher core counts.
You really are a shameless fanboy. (you're far from the only one around, of course)
FYI major intel investors are now talking about a corporate breakup to try to save the company, as between AMD and Apple, they're looking pretty b0rked right now.
Everything goes in cycles. I remember people saying the same thing with AMD before Ryzen became what it is.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
This is the first time I recall Intel being so far behind on both fronts; fabrication and architecture.
The issue being that even if they catch up in one area, overall they will probably still be well beaten.
The non-K chips with an iGPU at 65w are one of the few areas that they still win.
Mainly because AMD hasn’t released anything decent to retail yet after all these years of Zen chips.
One day.
The issue being that even if they catch up in one area, overall they will probably still be well beaten.
The non-K chips with an iGPU at 65w are one of the few areas that they still win.
Mainly because AMD hasn’t released anything decent to retail yet after all these years of Zen chips.
One day.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
They seem to be recommending taking the same approach as AMD did some years back - spin off the foundries to sink or swim on their own, as they seem to have been holding things back lately.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
Intel have pretty much nothing on the horizon right now. 10 nm is still not fully out the door, they have already confirmed a delay to 7nm and let's face it, it will be delayed further.
AMD have a clear path to 5nm, with predicable IPC improvements, further power efficiency gains, increases in core count and 4x threading per core that they can dish out whenever they feel like we deserve it
Then we have apple, who are already on the 5nm process and with their first gen desktop implementation of ARM have frankly embarrassed intel (and to some extent AMD) with performance per watt that should have a lot of people in each of these companies very worried.
A potential wildcard in my eyes is that Intel's fab business has strategic value outside of just Intel. I can't imagine too many people would be comfortable with TSMC having an effective monopoly over semiconductor manufacturing, remembering that all of the IP from these companies will be going through that channel as well. On that train of thought, I wouldn't be too surprised if Intel's fabs got a serious cash injection over the next few years to become competitive again.
AMD have a clear path to 5nm, with predicable IPC improvements, further power efficiency gains, increases in core count and 4x threading per core that they can dish out whenever they feel like we deserve it
Then we have apple, who are already on the 5nm process and with their first gen desktop implementation of ARM have frankly embarrassed intel (and to some extent AMD) with performance per watt that should have a lot of people in each of these companies very worried.
A potential wildcard in my eyes is that Intel's fab business has strategic value outside of just Intel. I can't imagine too many people would be comfortable with TSMC having an effective monopoly over semiconductor manufacturing, remembering that all of the IP from these companies will be going through that channel as well. On that train of thought, I wouldn't be too surprised if Intel's fabs got a serious cash injection over the next few years to become competitive again.
The non-K chips don't win in anything - a 35-watt Ryzen 5 4600H is faster than the 65-watt Core i5-10600:
14,854 marks vs 14,011 marks.
PassMark - AMD Ryzen 5 4600H - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
PassMark - Intel Core i5-10600 @ 3.30GHz - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
They win everything because they are actually available at retail which was the point I was making.
Or do you expect people to use soldered laptop chips in their socketed desktop?
Completely clueless.
lol
The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G is available, retails for ~£175, and scores 16,634 marks PassMark - AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
Socket is AM4
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
First you mention a laptop chip and now you mention a chip that is OEM only and might not even have BIOS support in retail boards.The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G is available, retails for ~£175, and scores 16,634 marks PassMark - AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)
Socket is AM4
It's almost as if you are trying to win troll of the year right at the end.
I think you have won.
Hopefully Zen 3 APUs get a retail release and the pricing is reasonable.
One can dream.
You are wrong - the aforementioned SKU is NOT OEM only and works perfectly, for example on the MSI X570 Tomahawk:
MSI Global