• 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.

Rocket lake leaks

4K8KW10 said:
Why not?!
Click to expand...
Oh come on, you really have to ask this question? Intel are not in the habit of lowering prices. Leaks so far show the 11900K to be priced the same as the 5900X, all because it possible beats it in select 1080p gaming by 4% (with a 15% error margin). That is ludicrous, but that is Intel and their super shiny "we're the very best" premium pricing.
 
LePhuronn said:
Same as Comet Lake before it.
Click to expand...

At least you get 2 more core with Comet Lake, now we are back to ~8.

Intel have given up on trying to keep up with AMD, now we are back to "you only need #### Cores" But we are Intel, so we are Blue, not Green, or is it Red? no its Burnt Orange these days isn't it? what the name of our CPU's again? 4800H? Ah... i get so confused.
 
humbug said:
At least you get 2 more core with Comet Lake...
Click to expand...
But were those 2 cores even worth anything? Games didn't make use of them and multicore benchies weren't all that.

humbug said:
...now we are back to ~8. Intel have given up on trying to keep up with AMD, now we are back to "you only need #### Cores"
Click to expand...
I'll reserve judgement on Intel "giving up" and back to dictating core counts until Alder Lake's successor. Rocket Lake physically couldn't fit more than 8 cores because of the design backport to 14nm and the confines of the LGA 1200 package. A core regression is still embarrassing though, but that one was a necessity. As for Alder Lake, 8 big cores is likely playing it safe for now given 10nm is still rubbish, but don't forget there are 8 little cores too. That immediately isn't "oh, 8 cores are enough". Top end Alder Lake is, technically at least, a 16 core CPU. And it'll probably be billed as a 16c/24t CPU as well.

Don't forget about Ice Lake server. If Intel really can get the 32 core SKU yielding well enough, that should give them confidence in 10nm to start getting core counts up for Alder Lake's successor (or even a refresh). If 2023 rolls along and Intel are still shovelling 8 cores in the face of a 20 core Zen 4, then yeah we'll discuss "giving up" and "dictating the market" then.
 
LePhuronn said:
But were those 2 cores even worth anything? Games didn't make use of them and multicore benchies weren't all that.


I'll reserve judgement on Intel "giving up" and back to dictating core counts until Alder Lake's successor. Rocket Lake physically couldn't fit more than 8 cores because of the design backport to 14nm and the confines of the LGA 1200 package. A core regression is still embarrassing though, but that one was a necessity. As for Alder Lake, 8 big cores is likely playing it safe for now given 10nm is still rubbish, but don't forget there are 8 little cores too. That immediately isn't "oh, 8 cores are enough". Top end Alder Lake is, technically at least, a 16 core CPU. And it'll probably be billed as a 16c/24t CPU as well.

Don't forget about Ice Lake server. If Intel really can get the 32 core SKU yielding well enough, that should give them confidence in 10nm to start getting core counts up for Alder Lake's successor (or even a refresh). If 2023 rolls along and Intel are still shovelling 8 cores in the face of a 20 core Zen 4, then yeah we'll discuss "giving up" and "dictating the market" then.
Click to expand...

Using 'half cores' to get the numbers up on paper, after 4 years now Intel still don't have a real answer to AMD's "Glue", its not just cores, people are building servers with an IO throughput so high there are half a dozen people networked to it scrubbing through 8K video with 0 latency, not even close to possible with anything you get from Intel.

There has been a huge leap in performance over the last few years and its making Intel's head spin, its all down to AMD's "Glue" and Intel's idea's fall well short of it.

80 Core CPU's with 256 PCIe lanes incoming.
 
This is a very interesting thread just to add another bone of contention, that is getting long in the tooth at this point.

PC gamers and high end production users do really make up a small portion of both AMD and Intel's user base.

As much as it pains me to say it given AMDs recent launches, I still believe Intel are on top and are likely to out sell AMD.

Production issues with AMDs latest launch and no end in sight at the top end, especially given Gibbo's latest response wrt 5900 and 5950 and Intel being on older (easier to produce) more readily available architecture is a sure fire way to win.

Intel still has that little bit more brand awareness to the uninitiated so for the standard user it's automatically the go to. - Especially for laptops

Hopefully that all changes going forward and AMD can really start to gain headway but I doubt it's going to effect/affect Intel for the next couple generations. It's more after that point as others have said.

Before anyone says, yes j realise that AMD has had a stellar quarter and stats on Steam etc are in AMDs favour, but again thats not the main consumer of their products and its to be expected given a product launch in a pandemic when people have more of a requirement.

*Ducks for Cover*
 
Hardnuta said:
This is a very interesting thread just to add another bone of contention, that is getting long in the tooth at this point.

PC gamers and high end production users do really make up a small portion of both AMD and Intel's user base.

As much as it pains me to say it given AMDs recent launches, I still believe Intel are on top and are likely to out sell AMD.

Production issues with AMDs latest launch and no end in sight at the top end, especially given Gibbo's latest response wrt 5900 and 5950 and Intel being on older (easier to produce) more readily available architecture is a sure fire way to win.

Intel still has that little bit more brand awareness to the uninitiated so for the standard user it's automatically the go to. - Especially for laptops

Hopefully that all changes going forward and AMD can really start to gain headway but I doubt it's going to effect/affect Intel for the next couple generations. It's more after that point as others have said.

Before anyone says, yes j realise that AMD has had a stellar quarter and stats on Steam etc are in AMDs favour, but again thats not the main consumer of their products and its to be expected given a product launch in a pandemic when people have more of a requirement.

*Ducks for Cover*
Click to expand...

I agree with you after seeing Lisa Su say this:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-f...C-gaming-until-at-least-2H-2021.517280.0.html

AMD managed to set new records in Q4 2020 despite challenges posed by the pandemic and the US-China trade war. However, the ongoing lean period of availability of CPUs and GPUs (and inflated pricing as a consequence) may continue until the end of 1H 2021.

Responding to an investor query, AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su said, "overall demand exceeded planning" and CPU/GPU shortages will primarily impact gaming hardware and the low-end of the PC market. Gaming products impacted include both consoles and gaming CPUs and GPUs. This will continue until production resumes at full capacity, which may take up to 2H 2021. Dr. Su felt that the higher-margin products are likely to be more readily available at retail.

As per information gained by Tom's Hardware, AMD's inventory has increased to US$1.4 billion in unsold goods. This inventory not only includes fully ready chips but also those in various stages of production and packaging. So, while AMD's increased wafer capacity at TSMC results in more chips, packaging shortages apparently still seem to affect the supply chain.

Ultimately, consoles such as the Sony PlayStation 5 and Microsoft Xbox Series X and Series S are likely to be the most affected of all until 2H 2021. Whatever little stocks are being made available right now tend to be quickly lapped-up by scalpers, who sell them for a high mark-up on sites like eBay.

The situation does not currently look good for gaming CPUs and GPUs such as the new Ryzen 5000 processors, Radeon RX 6000 series, or NVIDIA's Ampere RTX 30 series either. Adding to the supply woes is the fact that global GDDR6 shortage is expected to continue well into February and may be even beyond thus affecting all NVIDIA and AMD GPUs that use this memory standard.
Click to expand...

In the end it is the company which can get more supply out which is going to sell more. Sadly for AMD it is probably Intel and Nvidia who are in a better situation ATM.
 
Hardnuta said:
This is a very interesting thread just to add another bone of contention, that is getting long in the tooth at this point.

PC gamers and high end production users do really make up a small portion of both AMD and Intel's user base.

As much as it pains me to say it given AMDs recent launches, I still believe Intel are on top and are likely to out sell AMD.

Production issues with AMDs latest launch and no end in sight at the top end, especially given Gibbo's latest response wrt 5900 and 5950 and Intel being on older (easier to produce) more readily available architecture is a sure fire way to win.

Intel still has that little bit more brand awareness to the uninitiated so for the standard user it's automatically the go to. - Especially for laptops

Hopefully that all changes going forward and AMD can really start to gain headway but I doubt it's going to effect/affect Intel for the next couple generations. It's more after that point as others have said.

Before anyone says, yes j realise that AMD has had a stellar quarter and stats on Steam etc are in AMDs favour, but again thats not the main consumer of their products and its to be expected given a product launch in a pandemic when people have more of a requirement.

*Ducks for Cover*
Click to expand...

Well, you can sell a million times more 'bad' products than your competitors products and it doesn't make it any less 'bad' i'm not saying Intel products are 'bad' they are not, far from it, the fact remains AMD produce better products.

Using "Whataboutism" and then state the obvious as if it should be a revelation to us and that we should all realise we are wrong, no, that's not the argument we are making, its not about who sells the most products, its about what's actually better and you can cite how much bigger Intel is than AMD over and over again no one is going to disagree with that but you're way off point.
 
humbug said:
Well, you can sell a million times more 'bad' products than your competitors products and it doesn't make it any less 'bad' i'm not saying Intel products are 'bad' they are not, far from it, the fact remains AMD produce better products.

Using "Whataboutism" and then state the obvious as if it should be a revelation to us and that we should all realise we are wrong, no, that's not the argument we are making, its not about who sells the most products, its about what's actually better and you can cite how much bigger Intel is than AMD over and over again no one is going to disagree with that but you're way off point.
Click to expand...
There are no bad products only bad prices.
 
@CAT-THE-FIFTH

AMD's inventory has increased to US$1.4 billion in unsold goods. This inventory not only includes fully ready chips but also those in various stages of production and packaging
Click to expand...

Good Grief... its not just silicon AMD are in short supply of then its the rest of it to make up the retail ready chips.
 
Hardnuta said:
Production issues with AMDs latest launch and no end in sight at the top end, especially given Gibbo's latest response wrt 5900 and 5950 and Intel being on older (easier to produce) more readily available architecture is a sure fire way to win.
Click to expand...

Intel have their own fabs, which is a blessing and a curse - they aren't reliant on TSMC, but they are reliant on their own tech. So they can get the production out, but their process engineering has lagged severely compared to the state of the art and they're stuck with it.

Hardnuta said:
Hopefully that all changes going forward and AMD can really start to gain headway but I doubt it's going to effect/affect Intel for the next couple generations.
Click to expand...

It's already affecting intel - they are losing share in the server, workstation and laptop markets. Their investors are getting itchy and starting to talk about splitting up their design and fab operations, and their CEO has just stepped down.

They still have a huge market share, they're going to be the larger seller for a while, but the point is they're in trouble and they're being attacked from all sides - Ryzen, Threadripper and EPYC from AMD, M1 from Apple, various other manufacturers (Samsung, Qualcomm, Huawei) in the mobile/low power space.

They're beginning to look like an IBM...
 
pc-guy said:
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/amp...-hits-98c-and-gulps-250w-just-like-comet-lake

i9 11900kf >250w PL2 98c with a 360AIO. That sounds pretty insane.



not sure if this bit is meant to be a dig at intel or they are being serious.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit of a dig, the reason Intel have this 58 second 250 Watt PL2 is because they know most benchmarks don't last much longer than that. Toms Hardware use much longer duration testing.

If i bake lighting in Unreal Engine my CPU starts at 4.75Ghz, its at 4.65Ghz 2 hours later........ and no where near 250 Watts from start to finish.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom