Why people cannot accept that other people can buy whatever they please?
-
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 Ultra 9 285k 'Arrow Lake' Discussion/News ("15th gen") on LGA-1851
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
To be fair I honestly don't get why people are buying Arrow Lake for the most part, unless Intel bring out a magic fix or bring the prices right down. The problem still remains that there are few CPUs which have a really balanced performance profile and/or are well priced.
I think AMD has been winning on gaming, ever since the launch of the Ryzen 7800X3D. Which is still ahead in most games. In terms of MSRP, the 7800X3D offers quite a bit better value than it's successor. Where things like RAM speed or timings aren't much of a factor anymore.
Intel can probably still do well in other areas. AI is a big part of their marketing for laptops.
AMD seems a bit behind on things like generative AI. Intel is hoping to gain some ground with 18a on servers, probably late next year.
Intel can probably still do well in other areas. AI is a big part of their marketing for laptops.
AMD seems a bit behind on things like generative AI. Intel is hoping to gain some ground with 18a on servers, probably late next year.
Last edited:
I imagine Intel are reluctant to reduce prices, because they are paying TSMC through the noise to produce them.
I suppose it makes sense to see if they can mitigate the issues first, before cutting prices. Presumably, any fixes that are released, will need to arrive before the release of the locked Arrow Lake CPUs, which make up a lot of the sales.
They could just make the locked CPUs much cheaper instead, like £100 off vs the unlocked variants.
Because of the significant competition Intel faces now, it could be time to abandon the idea of having locked and unlocked CPUs (e.g. for Arrow Lake Refresh), just release 1 variant only. Lots of people are just going to buy AMD boards instead (for desktop PCs), because the cheaper B series don't restrict CPU frequencies at all.
Last edited:
They've been winning the mindshare on gaming - the 7800X3D has been selling like crazy - the truth is far more complicated - things like game loading times, etc. have been lost in the noise.
Clutching at straws now, Load time on either CPU brand are hardly issues with today's hardware.
Hardly clutching at straws - if you've got say an Unreal 5 engine game which does a lot of shader compiling and decompression when loading it can take considerably longer - even as much as twice as long in some cases - on some CPUs like the 7800X3D than the AMD x950 parts and recent Intel i7s and i9s - problem is no one really benchmarks that much and closest you tend to get is where CPU game development tests are done but that isn't a perfect replication. Same with application installations especially those doing a lot of decompression.
Wouldn't a Ryzen 7950X or 9950X do quite well in terms of game loading times? Even if these are quite pricey.
Next year, there's a good chance that Zen 6 CPUs will be released (fabbed on 3nm TSMC), and allegedly they are working on a (single) CCX with 16 CPU cores. I imagine we'd see the successor to the 9800X3D (+12 and 16 core variants) at some point in 2026.
Transistor density is probably quite important in terms of core count, I wonder if 3nm will be sufficient for a 16 core desktop CPU on a single chip?
Next year, there's a good chance that Zen 6 CPUs will be released (fabbed on 3nm TSMC), and allegedly they are working on a (single) CCX with 16 CPU cores. I imagine we'd see the successor to the 9800X3D (+12 and 16 core variants) at some point in 2026.
Transistor density is probably quite important in terms of core count, I wonder if 3nm will be sufficient for a 16 core desktop CPU on a single chip?
Last edited:
265k makes no sense at £359 even if it worked
Soldato
Shader compilation is a one time event, who cares if a cpu is seconds fatser than another.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,556
If it was something notable then somebody would have benchmarked it and we would see comparisons.
The fact nobody does would indicate in the great scheme of things it really doesn't factor in what CPU you purchase.
Caporegime
It's not though
Update your driver's and it's a shader compilation as well
Also can happen on the fly during games if they don't do it in advance too
Current Intel stuff is just garbage compared to AMD's X3D chips
Soldato
Soldato
Turned it off the moment they said that all the tests were 1080P. I am so sick of them doing this. Hardware Unboxed are particularly guilty.
Completely understand the relevance of 1080P, but I am not interested in which is the best "theoretical" CPU, I am interested in what performance increase I will see at the resolution I play at. if I upgrade.
I know, I know that the bottle neck is the GPU, but I really do think that if the results are the same for the CPU's at the resolutions they play at then they need to know that. How many people would actually upgrade if they aren't going to see any extra performance?
And sure, the question I am asking is more difficult to answer, but I just don't see the point in answering the wrong question because they find answering the right question more difficult.
It's like doing a tyre review on a racing track in the Bahamas when everyone drives in a city in Canada. It's great, but it's not actually relevant.
Last edited:
It’s really not.
Soldato
I think that the reviewers are telling us which is best rather than presenting the information and allowing us to decide. FPS at 1080P isn't the only metric I use to decide so I have to try to ignore what they are saying and consider all the options myself.
idle power draw ect matters to a lot of people , staying cool is top of my list
so 5% before the updates