These guys have no idea what they are talking about.

[gpuerrilla]

Same old story. This time the brands swapped places. My 3600 has been fantastic, at least with this socket I can drop in something better down the line if I want to or just overhaul to whichever I can afford later. As long as they go toe to toe it should keep the pricing honest!

 

[humbug]

Where have you been for the last 10 or more years?

He likes to jump on threads like this and take criticisms people have about Intel and turn it on its head as if its actually AMD.

@Bencher The 10700KF was $349, still $50 more expensive.

As a reminder here is the review.

The 10700K beat the 5600X in one game
The 5600X beat the 10900K in 5 games

In productivity the 10700K beats the 5600X in 3 out of 5, typical MT workload, Blender Cycles the 10700K is 5% faster than the 5600X, that was its best result.

The 10700K was $379, the 5600X $299.

That is why AMD sold them in massive numbers, sometimes Mindfactory reported selling more 5600X's than Intel sold CPU's!

 

[Vince]

He likes to jump on threads like this and take criticisms people have about Intel and turn it on its head as if its actually AMD.

@Bencher The 10700KF was $349, still $50 more expensive.

As a reminder here is the review.

The 10700K beat the 5600X in one game
The 5600X beat the 10900K in 5 games

In productivity the 10700K beats the 5600X in 3 out of 5, typical MT workload, Blender Cycles the 10700K is 5% faster than the 5600X, that was its best result.

The 10700K was $379, the 5600X $299.

That is why AMD sold them in massive numbers, sometimes Mindfactory reported selling more 5600X's than Intel sold CPU's!

I was thinking more 7700k (four core cpu) $350, 8700k ($359), 9900k $488.... I mean you could real off so many intel CPU's over the years that have given like 2% gain and have been priced at the very top end. To be clear none of those CPU's were bad CPU's but were intel offering Value here? I don't think so. You can trace this right back to Haswel and before so it's really tough to then turn around and criticise one vendor for doing exactly what the other one has been doing for like 15 or so more.

 

[humbug]

I was thinking more 7700k (four core cpu) $350, 8700k ($359), 9900k $488.... I mean you could real off so many intel CPU's over the years that have given like 2% gain and have been priced at the very top end. To be clear none of those CPU's were bad CPU's but were intel offering Value here? I don't think so. You can trace this right back to Haswel and before so it's really tough to then turn around and criticise one vendor for doing exactly what the other one has been doing for like 15 or so more.

We agree.

Intel had a decade of complete domination while AMD sat licking its wounds after winning the CPU tech war of the 1990's but ultimately getting floored by Intel's massive financial muscle.

It took new leadership for AMD to get over that, during which time Intel was free to do what any large corporation actually wants to do, sit back and do nothing other than overcharge for your endlessly rebranded products.

Its taken Intel until this generation of CPU's to realise that's over, to be fair to Intel they have now realised they are fighting for their position in the market again, if not their long term existence.

 

[G J]

I've noticed little difference when gaming while having browsers/apps open and I've been doing this since I was on a 4 core cpu and the times it did I just closed the apps unless their was some other problem with the OS install itself. If I was to go back to a older system and game while watching youtube the problem may be the resources needed for modern browsers and to decode youtube videos may have an impact on performance.

I had hosed my OS install a while back and fired up a old dual core laptop and I used to use this to watch videos all the time and now the cpu and ram gets near 100% with a few tabs open and youtube playback can be pretty bad.

Edit: snipped the off topic rant as its not really the place for it, spelling, etc.

 

[gpuerrilla]

We agree.

Intel had a decade of complete domination while AMD sat licking its wounds after winning the CPU tech war of the 1990's but ultimately getting floored by Intel's massive financial muscle.

It took new leadership for AMD to get over that, during which time Intel was free to do what any large corporation actually wants to do, sit back and do nothing other than overcharge for your endlessly rebranded products.

Its taken Intel until this generation of CPU's to realise that's over, to be fair to Intel they have now realised they are fighting for their position in the market again, if not their long term existence.

You didnt mention the part Intel paid companies to overlook AMD with software/shenanigans used to make the competitor chips seem to perform worse under certain conditions.

 

[humbug]

You didnt mention the part Intel paid companies to overlook AMD with software/shenanigans used to make the competitor chips seem to perform worse under certain conditions.

That was not the worst of it, these days its not really a problem anymore because software developers are well aware of Intel's compliers diverting AMD's CPU's to a gimped code path, for the most part those developers work back around it.
Its a none issue now.
What ultimately did AMD in was Intel paying people like Dell not to use AMD's better products in any of their systems, Intel used their wealth to buy up all the market share leaving AMD with no way to make any money, its thing that started AMD on the road to bankruptcy, by 2016 AMD was about 1 inch away from that, they had billions in cash reserves but very little income, that dried up, they sold everything, including their home, the campus they built in 1969, just to stay afloat long enough to get Zen ready.

 

[gpuerrilla]

What ultimately did AMD in was Intel paying people like Dell not to use AMD's better products in any of their systems

That's exactly what I said!

 

[humbug]

Do you know how AMD figured out what was going on, how they went from having just overtaken Intel in sales to suddenly 0.

They offered Dell 1 million CPU's for free, Dell told them if they accepted that offer they would actually lose money, it didn't take much more digging to get to the bottom of it...

 

[BUDFORCE]

I was thinking more 7700k (four core cpu) $350, 8700k ($359), 9900k $488.... I mean you could real off so many intel CPU's over the years that have given like 2% gain and have been priced at the very top end. To be clear none of those CPU's were bad CPU's but were intel offering Value here? I don't think so. You can trace this right back to Haswel and before

I reckon all the way back to Sandybridge.

At that time the Sandybridge i5/i7 were absolute beasts (so much so I dont think even Intel realised the impact these would leave) and was a complete no brainer against AMD's "Faildozer" at the time...and this is coming from someone who has always tended to buy/support AMD.

I remember going to an AMD tech demo in london, and some guy from AMD pouring liquid nitrogen onto whatever is was (faildozer I think) trying to get it to clock over 5gz, and I said to him, that I can almost acheive that on a 2600k with an AIR cooler. He didnt even try to argue with me to be fair.

There are still people using Sandybridge CPU's today, and gaming at still what I would consider an acceptable standard even today, I only got rid of mine 18 months ago, and that was only due to playing PUBG at high refresh rates.

After that, every iterration of CPU from intel was really marginal, the Ivy bridges that came next, were actually worse outside of stock figures due to the heat and limited overclocking compared to Sandybridge, but everyone over that marginal, and Intel basked in stagnation.

I am so glad AMD are where they are now, its given competition to the market and the Zen 3 range were great, I don't blame AMD trying to cash in a bit. And just look at the CPU market right now, you could argue is in a good place, best palce it has been for 10 years? - with both offering good CPUs and good prices.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Do you know how AMD figured out what was going on, how they went from having just overtaken Intel in sales to suddenly 0.

They offered Dell 1 million CPU's for free, Dell told them if they accepted that offer they would actually lose money, it didn't take much more digging to get to the bottom of it...

I remember it well but I think through the feedback later on and then only after the lawsuits were done did we get some more meat, but that is one of the reasons why I personally wont throw money at them unless absolutely cutting off my own performance. How on earth people overlook it with their own morals is pretty bad, hence why I dont regret giving them a hard time.

 

[gpuerrilla]

After that, every iterration of CPU from intel was really marginal, the Ivy bridges that came next, were actually worse outside of stock figures due to the heat and limited overclocking compared to Sandybridge, but everyone over that marginal, and Intel basked in stagnation.

It was the pompous 10% gains each tick/tock and shifting socket all the time that I didnt agree with. If you read up a few posts its no wonder they enjoyed such easy market conditions explains the lack of innovation through that era though!

 

[alec]

at least between sandy bridge, ivy bridge, haswell, broadwell, skylake there was always a small improvement (some IPC, some perf/watt). Which became noticeable if you skipped a few generations.
After skylake there were 4 iterations of 0 IPC improvement. The only change was more cores (and higher power use) for top model.

 

[humbug]

I reckon all the way back to Sandybridge.

At that time the Sandybridge i5/i7 were absolute beasts (so much so I dont think even Intel realised the impact these would leave) and was a complete no brainer against AMD's "Faildozer" at the time...and this is coming from someone who has always tended to buy/support AMD.

I remember going to an AMD tech demo in london, and some guy from AMD pouring liquid nitrogen onto whatever is was (faildozer I think) trying to get it to clock over 5gz, and I said to him, that I can almost acheive that on a 2600k with an AIR cooler. He didnt even try to argue with me to be fair.

There are still people using Sandybridge CPU's today, and gaming at still what I would consider an acceptable standard even today, I only got rid of mine 18 months ago, and that was only due to playing PUBG at high refresh rates.

After that, every iterration of CPU from intel was really marginal, the Ivy bridges that came next, were actually worse outside of stock figures due to the heat and limited overclocking compared to Sandybridge, but everyone over that marginal, and Intel basked in stagnation.

I am so glad AMD are where they are now, its given competition to the market and the Zen 3 range were great, I don't blame AMD trying to cash in a bit. And just look at the CPU market right now, you could argue is in a good place, best palce it has been for 10 years? - with both offering good CPUs and good prices.

The one thing AMD still fear is Intel's wealth.

Its actually the driving force behind their diversification, not just GPU's and Consoles, but ASIC's (Xilinx), Cars, Mercedes, Tesla now have a custom AMD chip with integrated Steam Deck in their cars, mobile phones, the new Samsung phones and Tablets now run RDNA2 graphics.

Intel realised if they don't do the same they will get pushed out by ARM and AMD, Nvidia are also realising that if they don't develop an eco system that isn't dependant on Intel, ARM and AMD their long term future is also under threat.

As of this moment AMD are sitting the prettiest.They are the only ones who have the complete package. They don't need Intel, ARM or Nvidia. They have it all.

 

[Vulture]

Where have you been for the last 10 or more years?

He wasn't born yet.

 

[Jay85]

I reckon all the way back to Sandybridge.

At that time the Sandybridge i5/i7 were absolute beasts (so much so I dont think even Intel realised the impact these would leave) and was a complete no brainer against AMD's "Faildozer" at the time...and this is coming from someone who has always tended to buy/support AMD.

I remember going to an AMD tech demo in london, and some guy from AMD pouring liquid nitrogen onto whatever is was (faildozer I think) trying to get it to clock over 5gz, and I said to him, that I can almost acheive that on a 2600k with an AIR cooler. He didnt even try to argue with me to be fair.

There are still people using Sandybridge CPU's today, and gaming at still what I would consider an acceptable standard even today, I only got rid of mine 18 months ago, and that was only due to playing PUBG at high refresh rates.

After that, every iterration of CPU from intel was really marginal, the Ivy bridges that came next, were actually worse outside of stock figures due to the heat and limited overclocking compared to Sandybridge, but everyone over that marginal, and Intel basked in stagnation.

I am so glad AMD are where they are now, its given competition to the market and the Zen 3 range were great, I don't blame AMD trying to cash in a bit. And just look at the CPU market right now, you could argue is in a good place, best palce it has been for 10 years? - with both offering good CPUs and good prices.

Sandybridge and ivybridge were awsome cpu's, it just shows how good they really were by still being used today and not really struggling with day to day tasks. I had one in a media center not long ago and used it for emulation as well and it ran flawlessly still. The generational improvements from there on though were so small and pointless that i didn't bother upgrading still intel 9000 series 9900k.

 

[humbug]

Was Sandy not iterative on Nehalem? i had a 930, to me that was the first true good Core series CPU.

 

[Vince]

Was Sandy not iterative on Nehalem? i had a 930, to me that was the first true good Core series CPU.

Technically you can trace core linage back to p3. p3 was always superior to the p4.

 

[humbug]

Technically you can trace core linage back to p3. p3 was always superior to the p4.

Ah yeah i get you, they tried something different with the P4 and it didn't work so they went back to the P3.

I'm still waiting for 10Ghz clocks.

 

[Joxeon]

It was the pompous 10% gains each tick/tock and shifting socket all the time that I didnt agree with. If you read up a few posts its no wonder they enjoyed such easy market conditions explains the lack of innovation through that era though!

He likes to jump on threads like this and take criticisms people have about Intel and turn it on its head as if its actually AMD.

@Bencher The 10700KF was $349, still $50 more expensive.

As a reminder here is the review.

The 10700K beat the 5600X in one game
The 5600X beat the 10900K in 5 games

In productivity the 10700K beats the 5600X in 3 out of 5, typical MT workload, Blender Cycles the 10700K is 5% faster than the 5600X, that was its best result.

The 10700K was $379, the 5600X $299.

That is why AMD sold them in massive numbers, sometimes Mindfactory reported selling more 5600X's than Intel sold CPU's!

When zen 3 released the 10700k could often be picked up for as little as £250 vs the 5600X which was on back order at a lot of retailers and the ones that did have stock were scalping for up to £350 with resellers asking £400+ on the bay.

Also the 10600k could be had for £200 and would match the stock 10900k in gaming with some overclocking.