• 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’s surprise Ryzen killer

It won't work.

Zen 3 is scheduled for this Autumn with at least 15% IPC improvement.
Zen 4 is a die shrink next year around the same time. Give or take at least 15% IPC improvement there plus the possibility for double the core count which on its own may be 100% performance improvement.

Too bad that they need these click-bait headlines in order to scare the birds on the trees :D
 
humbug said:
A word of warning, Raja Koduri, formerly of AMD Graphics, is the same guy who massively over hyped AMD's lacklustre and very much wanting Polaris and Vega GPU's.
Click to expand...
This may not apply to hyping up Intel's CPUs.
However, while Koduri may a super-hyper, to be fair we don't know what the brief was for Vega.
For GPU Compute it was quite good. Problem being that probably made it poor for gaming and AMD didn't have deep enough pockets to take the design, strip out the compute and make a gaming card out of like Nvidia do with Gx100 vs Gx102 etc., and AMD doesn't have the sales in GPU Compute to displace Nvidia in many places and make Vega worthwhile.
So whatever happens with Intel's GPU ambitions will be more interesting. They do have deep enough pockets to adapt the designs to the various markets.
Intel's approach to graphic drivers is about as good (bad) AMD's approach to providing GPU Compute tools, but traditionally Intel have been strong on certain software.
Certainly ICC has been responsible for deliberate poor code on AMD CPUs, but their optimiser is considered very good.
The questions about Intel GPU is are the serious and willing to put in the resources? Or will this turn into another one of Intel's big (expensive) failures like Itanium, Larabee, McAfee, Atom panic and contra revenue, 4GB modem each of which cost $billions?
 
Grim5 said:
Zen4 by the time it's out lol
Click to expand...

TBF,I don't mind if Intel has something better,as competition is a good thing. However,I am not seeing how this can boost performance a lot,unless the small cores,end up taking OS load,etc off the main cores,freeing them up a bit more.

Seems to be a bit of a delaying tactic IMHO.
 
My biggest concern is Intel have gone full fingers in ears (Insert comical Ali gif) This is all very reminiscent of the netburst days.
 
jigger said:
My biggest concern is Intel have gone full fingers in ears (Insert comical Ali gif) This is all very reminiscent of the netburst days.
Click to expand...

Intel has spent the past decade being run by marketing, and I mean that literally. There isn't some highly capable engineer at the helm in the way we see with AMD with Lisa Su and other people down the chain. It's controlled by shareholders and marketing, and despite the gains we see with AMD Intel is still the go-to for a lot of people.

This is slowly starting to change, as a result we're seeing more and more articles such as the above.

Christ, there was one a little while ago that claimed Intel was more cost effective than AMD for gaming after comparing a 3950X to a 9900K while stating the 3950X was a 700-800 buck product and the 9900K a 500.

All companies are totally capable of being utter bags of crap, but Intel have been taking the cake for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Gray2233 said:
Intel has spent the past decade being run by marketing, and I mean that literally. There isn't some highly capable engineer at the helm in the way we see with AMD with Lisa Su and other people down the chain. It's controlled by shareholders and marketing, and despite the gains we see with AMD Intel is still the go-to for a lot of people.

This is slowly starting to change, as a result we're seeing more and more articles such as the above.

Christ, there was one a little while ago that claimed Intel was more cost effective than AMD for gaming after comparing a 3950X to a 9900K while stating the 3950K was a 700-800 buck product and the 9900K a 500.

All companies are totally capable of being utter bags of crap, but Intel have been taking the cake for a long time.
Click to expand...

AMD should come with a counter article, 10980xe vs 3900x, "why Intel is At historically bad value For games"
 
That article made my soul bleed a little.

I can't believe stuff like that passes as journalism.Edit: sorry, not journalism: full time pc hardware reviewer and Youtuber. Yikes.

If intel actually had a competitive product in the works, they probably would have mentioned it a bit earlier to help prevent their stock taking a nose dive.

I'm convinced this is pretty much it for their dominance. It's a slow decline from here on out. By the time they are able to scrape the lead back from AMD, ARM CPUs will be biting their rear end too.

And yes, they only have themselves to blame.
 
I DON'T fancy boys said:
That article made my soul bleed a little.

I can't believe stuff like that passes as journalism.Edit: sorry, not journalism: full time pc hardware reviewer and Youtuber. Yikes.

If intel actually had a competitive product in the works, they probably would have mentioned it a bit earlier to help prevent their stock taking a nose dive.

I'm convinced this is pretty much it for their dominance. It's a slow decline from here on out. By the time they are able to scrape the lead back from AMD, ARM CPUs will be biting their rear end too.

And yes, they only have themselves to blame.
Click to expand...

it is a Forbes article after all - the media outlet that doesn't really have an expertise in any one area and just publish anything and everything - I try not to take what they say as the gospel of Jesus
 
Gray2233 said:
Christ, there was one a little while ago that claimed Intel was more cost effective than AMD for gaming after comparing a 3950X to a 9900K while stating the 3950X was a 700-800 buck product and the 9900K a 500..
Click to expand...

Was this on "forbes" by any chance :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom