• 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

rustyk21 said:
I don't know what you mean by one spectrum to the next. Unfortunately it's a bit telling that you've also also accused me of peddling statements that could indicate bias.
You can spin it any way you want, so can Intel, or AMD, or Glofo or anybody. The fact is, you can't criticise one company for being so bad at something, but defend another company for taking so long to catch (and surpass) it.

Your post contains a number of emotive words like 'laughable', 'inspired', 'pathetic', so it's clear that you're lacking some objectively. As a consumer, I do my research and buy whatever suits my use case and budget at the time. You're reading too much into things, I'm not interested in brands, I'm interested in products.
Click to expand...

you criticise AMD for its slow progress and at the same time defend intel’s glacial progress?

bulldozer was horrific. Skylake and the subsequent lakes are stagnations and horrific also due to Intel’s lack of progress on fabrications. Two horror shows don’t make a family Christmas blockbuster. Justifying AMD has had this and done that wrong is not a way to justify intel’s lacking.

you claim to be an informed consumer and unbiased in your opinion. But your words and statements thus far clearly don’t indicate so much. I don’t think I have read into too much of anything, i am just calling it for what it is.
 
intel have been leapfrogged
caught sleeping

they thought amd would be comfortably behind them so progress stagnated

wonder where we'd be now if companies didnt have that attitude !
 
pc-guy said:
you criticise AMD for its slow progress and at the same time defend intel’s glacial progress?

bulldozer was horrific. Skylake and the subsequent lakes are stagnations and horrific also due to Intel’s lack of progress on fabrications. Two horror shows don’t make a family Christmas blockbuster. Justifying AMD has had this and done that wrong is not a way to justify intel’s lacking.

you claim to be an informed consumer and unbiased in your opinion. But your words and statements thus far clearly don’t indicate so much. I don’t think I have read into too much of anything, i am just calling it for what it is.
Click to expand...

I haven't actually criticised or defended either company. You're the only one comparing them. You're just calling it as you see it, not as it is.
And actually, it's quite a feat to draw the conclusions that you already have, it just reads like a deflection tactic on your part.
But I'm happy to leave it as is, as it's not fair to derail the thread too much as this feels like a bit of a storm in a teacup :-)
 
q974739 said:
If all you are doing is playing current games and expect to keep your current machine for 2 years, sure.

Alternatively, if you're running VMs, doing other interesting things or want to game while running anything else, you want more than 8 cores.

Or if you're expecting the computer to be relevant in 3-5 years, when we've gone to 10-12 cores. Or, hell, you have dreams of doing anything interesting at all.

Because, as I'm sure you're aware, 640kb will be enough for anyone.
Click to expand...

99 percent of people dont do anything needing more than 4 cores never mind 8. its not saying if you need it use it its just many people are buying 12 cores and the like and wont even use em. better off just getting the fastest 8 core and that will last you five years.
 
Loads of people weren't using 4 cores when they were buying them, they just lasted longer compared to those who bought dual cores.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
99 percent of people dont do anything needing more than 4 cores never mind 8. its not saying if you need it use it its just many people are buying 12 cores and the like and wont even use em. better off just getting the fastest 8 core and that will last you five years.
Click to expand...
Are we talking 99% of people or 99% of pc gamers ? cos a lot of games use more than 4 threads now ive been led to believe ?
 
why do you think the new consoles have 8 cores ? you wont need any more than that for their lifecycle. so a good 5 years.
 
From my perspective, I'm looking at upgrading my 10 core system to one which has more cores. But if all you do is play games, 8 cores will be fine.
 
pc-guy said:
Won’t be surprised there. Faster single core makes up the lack of cores.

so the two should be similar.

but if someone has 10900k what is the incentive to upgrade to 11900k or whatever the top sku there is. You get less cores and the same amount of horse power. Those with >8cores must have a reason for needing them. Other than just being the most expensive CPU money can buy.
Click to expand...

PCIE4.0
 
rustyk21 said:
I haven't actually criticised or defended either company. You're the only one comparing them. You're just calling it as you see it, not as it is.
And actually, it's quite a feat to draw the conclusions that you already have, it just reads like a deflection tactic on your part.
But I'm happy to leave it as is, as it's not fair to derail the thread too much as this feels like a bit of a storm in a teacup :)
Click to expand...

if you read back 4k8k's comments, he was implying the intel's 9th and 10th gens are high power consumption CPUs based on very old architecture which had been rehashed for better half of a decade and on a fabrication node that has been juiced as much as it can give. the 11th gen probably will also run very hot. this was in direct comment to someone mentioning bulldozer was power inefficient and ran extremely hot.

you then chipped in and tried to school him about AMD on the back of that. it's hard for someone reading it not to think you are trying to defend intel's past shenanigans.

intel and amd both have had shockers in the past. intel (hopefully) is trying sort their stuff out so they can get more competitive fabrications so can give us better value products. or cause AMD to re-evaluate their pricing. long live competition.
 
Grim5 said:
Rocket lake slower than comet lake for games?

Click to expand...
the guy claims he picked up the CPU in the back of a taxi! yeah right...

BIOS probably not refined to run that chip properly yet. may improve later. also didnt he mention some issues with drivers that he cant load in GPU other than 1660TI and some weird PCIe behaviour
 
Edit scratch that ^^^^ those slides are completely believable, ST scores around Zen 3 MT less than the 10900K, yes absolutely.

There are more slides in the wild tho, and its these i don't trust, faster in these games than the 10900K No, not even that..... but look at the Zen 3 scores, i know Zen 3 is a solid 30% faster than Ice Lake in games like CS:GO but whatever these are one of them Zen 3 is near 2X as fast.

dskhlvh.png



https://www.hardwaretimes.com/intel-core-i9-11900k-review-leaks-out/
 
diehard humbug living with that csgo benchmark in his bed. picks one benchmark that amds top then just rolls with it for years lol. ashes of singularity not good enough now :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom