• 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 a Pretty Big Problem..

Chuk_Chuk said:
I’m out of the loop. Could someone please bullet point What’s happened to intel in the last 5 years.
Click to expand...
10th gen: last Skylake-based 14nm+++++++++++++ CPU. Higher memory speed of 2933 for i7 and 2666 for i5/i3.

11th gen: new "Cove" based architecture.
- Suffered poor performance and efficiency due to being backported to 14nm (was supposed to be on 10nm).
- Gaming performance not great compared to 10th gen, but productivity performance was improved due to higher IPC. The IGP also got an upgrade from Skylake in terms of features.
- Platform introduced PCI-E 4.0 support. Higher memory speed of 3200.

12th gen: first CPU on 10nm and a decent upgrade on the Skylake architecture.
- Introduced hybrid architecture with performance cores (P-Cores) and efficiency cores (E-Cores).
- Productivity performance greatly improved on E-Core models.
- Platform introduced PCI-E 5.0 support and DDR5 (4800).

13th-14th gen: pretty much the same as 12th-gen, but there were some tweaks to the cache and it has significantly higher gaming performance in some circumstances for the true "Raptor Lake" models (most of the non-K models are not).
- Memory speed uprated to 5600 for K models and i5-14600.

13th-14th gen: suffered multiple problems, believed to be due to manufacturing, design and BIOS/microcode bugs.
- The fix status is not confirmed by the community, but Intel claims that it is (if you update your BIOS to the latest).
- Degraded CPUs are unfixable and have to be returned. K-CPUs have an extended warranty of 5 year if they are retail boxed. 12th gen CPUs are not affected.

15th gen: renamed to Core Ultra. Unlike 12th-14th it is no longer compatible with DDR4.
- Manufactured by TSMC, instead of Intel.
- Hybrid architecture kept, but hyperthreading has been dropped on the P-Cores.
- Performance is currently rather inconsistent and a questionable upgrade on 13th-14th gen CPUs, but the platform is improved versus previous gen (which was not competitive with AMD's AM5).
- Platform introduced PCI-E 5.0 lanes for a M.2 slot (13th-14th had to steal these from the GPU) and higher memory speeds (up to 6400).
 
Last edited:
Chuk_Chuk said:
I’m out of the loop. Could someone please bullet point What’s happened to intel in the last 5 years.

Last I checked intel were stuck on 14nm++++++++ and was struggling with efficiency and core count.
Click to expand...
The issues have been building for more than 5 years.
Their first 14nm desktop chips were released June 2015.
The latest Intel node used in their desktop chips is still a 10nm variant.
By the time they move on from relying on TSMC and have a smaller node than 10nm, it will probably be 11 years since 14nm was first available.
By contrast, it took them 9 years to move from 65 to 14 nm, which covers 5 nodes.
 
Can't see Qualcomm buying Intel - even if they raised the money somehow they'd be betting the farm.
 
Last edited:
More problems for Intel.


nsvayYY.png


484Cv1i.png
 
TrixP10 said:
maybe they don't see like that.
An opportunity? do or die?
Click to expand...

With some of the liabilities which would be part and parcel of it anyone acquiring Intel needs deep pockets to realistically absorb some costs before turning things around in the longer run - not overreaching to afford the acquisition as Qualcomm would have to do.
 
Rroff said:
Doubt they'll get anywhere with it unless evidence comes to light of a fundamental flaw deleteriously affecting all or a large number of CPUs. Which despite the claims from some parties there is not at this time.
Click to expand...

It would also takes years to resolve, because Intel has made it clear they blame the AIB motherboard companies and the AIB motherboard companies blame Intel. So it will be for a judge to decide where the blame is: Intel, AIB or the Consumer and doing that will take a lot of time through the courts, especially because there isn't just one AIB either, there is like a dozen companies that make Intel motherboards and all of them could be dragged in too. And the judgement could even be that Intel and the AIB is to blame, and then the judge has to decide what percentage is each party to blame etc it becomes quite complicated
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
It would also takes years to resolve, because Intel has made it clear they blame the AIB motherboard companies and the AIB motherboard companies blame Intel. So it will be for a judge to decide where the blame is: Intel, AIB or the Consumer and doing that will take a lot of time through the courts, especially because there isn't just one AIB either, there is like a dozen companies that make Intel motherboards and all of them could be dragged in too. And the judgement could even be that Intel and the AIB is to blame, and then the judge has to decide what percentage is each party to blame etc it becomes quite complicated
Click to expand...
of course Intel won't pay up, even if it takes 15 years in the courts. Their lawyers are as good as thier accountants lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom