New budget king: Intel

[kukkamies]

This feels like a big surprise to me. AMD raised price with 5000 series, intel even lowered some now. The new 11th gen is just a few percent behind 5000 but much much cheaper.

5600X 300$ - 11400F 180$. Performance difference 5% to AMD. 120$ cheaper for intel, price difference ~50%
5800X 460$ - 11700F 330$. Performance difference 5% to AMD. 130$ cheaper for intel, price difference ~30%
5900X 550$ - Intel nothing.

Just one year ago it was the complete opposite. AMD was so much cheaper while similar performance and intel had the very high end. Now intel has 6cores and 8 cores for much cheaper and AMD has the high end 12 core.

Companies are not your friends is really true. AMD had a lot of good brand for selling cheaper but turned around so quick.

[Yizu]

Why would amd price it lower, when they sell everything TSMC gives them? Dont forget Intel have their own fabs, and their lates cpu is on a mature (or rather ancient) 14nm process. AMD would pretty much have something to compete with 11400 or ampere price wise if only people dont have to buy iphones every year or scalpers hoarding the consoles. I doubt they are happy either, they are losing momentum on market share on that sub 300$ cpu, but what can they do, 7nm silicon doesnt grow on trees. AMD is not a charity, they were almost bankrupt only a few years ago.

For me they can get greedy all they want as long as there is competition, last thing you want is amd out of the picture, or else you not getting that 11400 for 180$ right now.

[MrPaladinGuy]

I've been saying for years if AMD could get people to pay more they'd have no second thoughts about doing so, they're a business after all. Most of the AMD love and Intel hate came from Intel schills who hate Intel whereas the logic I saw coming from Intel owners was that they were well-informed and made the best choice for their needs. Anyways, I just went from an 8600k @ an all-core 4.8GHz to a 10850K at an all-core 5GHz and I'm loving it, well that and the RTX 3080 I nabbed is nice too

[Gaidax]

About time Intel woke up and smelled the coffee.

They were hiding for years in their ivory tower completely oblivious to the fact that people moved on.

[Ange]

5900X 550$ - Intel nothing.

It might surprise you why gaming GPU rankings are dominated with 10900k's?

Do you really think a 5900X can do anything against a 10900k @5.3-5.4GHz? To make things worse, you can also use 4400-4600MHz RAM with your OC, because Intel does not have to deal with FCKL limitations (3600-3800MHz memory CAP for AMD).

Wattage / temps under gaming are basicly identical between AMD ZEN3, Intel 10th gen stock or OC, it boils down to frequency and latency, rarely is a game using IPC advantages.

The smart play is to get a cheap 10850k or 10900k with the now pretty cheap Z490 boards. Its not only lower on the budget of your build but will perform higher in games.

Again check OC rankings, nobody is using ZEN3.

[Temp name]

It might surprise you why gaming GPU rankings are dominated with 10900k's?

Do you really think a 5900X can do anything against a 10900k @5.3-5.4GHz? To make things worse, you can also use 4400-4600MHz RAM with your OC, because Intel does not have to deal with FCKL limitations (3600-3800MHz memory CAP for AMD).

Wattage / temps under gaming are basicly identical between AMD ZEN3, Intel 10th gen stock or OC, it boils down to frequency and latency, rarely is a game using IPC advantages.

The smart play is to get a cheap 10850k or 10900k with the now pretty cheap Z490 boards. Its not only lower on the budget of your build but will perform higher in games.

Again check OC rankings, nobody is using ZEN3.

Okay, but how many 10900k's will be able to do 5.3? Because according to siliconlottery, only 1% of the CPUs they've gotten could do their 5.2 OC (and that's at 1.4v, which is quite a lot)

[kukkamies]

It might surprise you why gaming GPU rankings are dominated with 10900k's?

Do you really think a 5900X can do anything against a 10900k @5.3-5.4GHz? To make things worse, you can also use 4400-4600MHz RAM with your OC, because Intel does not have to deal with FCKL limitations (3600-3800MHz memory CAP for AMD).

Wattage / temps under gaming are basicly identical between AMD ZEN3, Intel 10th gen stock or OC, it boils down to frequency and latency, rarely is a game using IPC advantages.

The smart play is to get a cheap 10850k or 10900k with the now pretty cheap Z490 boards. Its not only lower on the budget of your build but will perform higher in games.

Again check OC rankings, nobody is using ZEN3.

True it does look 1-5% better in games. For me the multicore is what I was looking at where 5900x is 30% or more faster.
Gaming even 5600x is similar to 5900x is it not?

[Ange]

Okay, but how many 10900k's will be able to do 5.3? Because according to siliconlottery, only 1% of the CPUs they've gotten could do their 5.2 OC (and that's at 1.4v, which is quite a lot)

5.1GHz is around 1.300V (LLC=STANDARD) on many 10900k this late into production. And of course 5.3GHz with around 1.330V and AVX_OFFSET (~3).
Thats ~210W (POUT) with AVX workloads and means usually ~75°C with a normal AIO and 22°C+ ambient.

My 10900k (11/2020) runs at 1.3V 5.1GHz and at 1.330V (LLC=nothing) 5.2GHz AVX workload (NO_OFFSET) around ~240W (POUT) , here a fresh quick test from today:



Thats not a golden bin, clearly, but it runs 5.3-5.4GHz in games or benchmarks and the only limit I got it the cooling or the cooling noise for AVX at that frequency.

True it does look 1-5% better in games. For me the multicore is what I was looking at where 5900x is 30% or more faster.
Gaming even 5600x is similar to 5900x is it not?

Multicore performance depends on your workload and what CPU it needs for best performance or even just compatibility (MKL / BLAS).

* rendering? thats just stupid against GPUs and CPU+GPU rendering is complettly one sided with CUDA + Intels iGPU-QuickSync
* ML? GPUs are close to 190x as fast in ML (3090) compared to a midsized Threadripper (32 cores), its completly dead for CPUs
* anything - again ANYTHING that even smells like a software that is using heavy math is 99% of the time a library with MKL / BLAS (Intel Math Kernel Library) that usually runs 2.5-3x faster with Intel CPUs as the alternatives that you could use with AMD (many times you dont have alternatives, because OEM/80% of the market is using Intel)

It boils down that the OEM/80% of the market is used to Intel hardware, Intel's glorious support for the Intel compiler that get used for things that have to last for years and the "Windows+Intel" support for even small things like the Windows Scheduler that makes AMD CPUs with constant CCD jumps only a performance king on paper, since you cant verify the benchmark numbers. Techtubers usually just get the best metric or make average numbers because of the huge outliers with AMD CPUs.

The more core feature for desktops is a pure meme as soon as gaming performance ends with more cores, since the world is for 10 years intel only and OEM is still full intel and that wont change. It looks even worse since 2020 because Intel actually grown in OEM market share and thats where most workloads are optimized for anyways.