Intel officially dead as a serious chip manufacturer

[Iliena]

Lucky. I got my 7800X3D for 610 bucks, no joke. At launch week cus my old PC died... these were the real store prices for weeks too. Now its super cheap... meh. Btw, gen 5 drives get soo hot, i dunno if i ever wanna get one. Giant heat sinks, annoying small cooling fans that sound bad and break fast... insane prices for barely any serious speed bumps... They aint too fast in comparison to gen 4, at least for game loading/windows starting and other stuff. Yea yea, the moving of files is like double speed, but thats fine. I dont often do that anyways. For reading, Samsung and Kingston have very similar drives that are gen 4. I feel like gen 5 will be a thing in at least 2 more years, if they ever figure it out that is. If not? Skiiip.

P.s. If there ever is a Gen 6... ouch. I dont even wanna imagine the price or the temps.

I held off on upgrading to a 7800X3D at launch mostly due to the price, especially when you added how expensive DDR5 and mobo's were at the time.

I'm currently on the fence with gen5, hopefully if DirectStorage get's more support and the drives get more reliable and cheaper it will become more worthwhile. I currently have a 1TB Seagate 530 as boot device in my gaming PC and I will carry on using that for now.

[Northelim]

Oh look.

A thread title where people use phrases such as "officially dead" which would imply that the company itself is actually releasing an "official" statement of something bad happening. But instead the phrase is being used to create drama and is trying to pass as a fact when it's opinion actually just a really an uninformative, uneducated and ignorant opinion.

Sounds like it's written by a person who's ego is so high that if they actually fell down to their IQ, then they would end up killing themselves due to how low that IQ is. Marvelous.

This is coming from an AMD used by the way who bought a Ryzen 9 7950X in July for a new PC build. Imagine claiming that a big corporation is "officially" dead as a fact based on a really shitty opinion without any factual information or proper research.

This thread needs to be closed and you need to be perma banned.

[Thoriangun]

Thanks for the specific tips. I appreciate it.

First of all the company that built is has a "guarantee" but reality is I have to send my PC to them for over a month to get it fixed, and I have to pay the shipping, so I don't want to deal with that. The economical and smart choice is to just send it in and deal with not having a PC for a month, but honestly the issue is less annoying than having to deal with not having a PC for that long. I rather just deal with it and not max out my graphics settings in intensive games like Diablo 4. Most of my days I don't play anything that max out my CPU.

I have "Cooler Master Hyper 212". And in my country it's a "pre made" where you choose the parts so it's like a hybrid of premade and self made.

I could try ordering your suggested cooler. I don't find the exact text you wrote. Is it the same as or similar to "Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE"?

I dont really know what the eco mode is in bios, but I have already turned up the fan speeds and the case (Fractal Design Define 7) is supposed to have pretty good cooling.

I was not really searching for tech tips when I wrote my post, I just was saying why I will go back to Intel on my next computer. 1 bad experience is all you need to avoid a product. Spec sheets is not the absolute truth.

The cooler I linked is the Frost Spirit, its a bit bigger then the peerless Assassin which is also a good cooler looking at the benchmarks.

The Frost spirit is a bigger cooler but I have a big enough case for it, but honestly even if you go intel as your next chip ( I am as well for my reasons above your post ), getting a good cooler is nice to have really.

I'm also gonna be honest but the Hyper 212 isn't really good enough cooling for the 5900X at all, its not suited for it, thats probably where the issue is really.

For Eco mode, you can look for youtube videos on your motherboard maker, this is assuming you are comfortable with messing with bios settings.

[Pann]

@MiiiMiii When you say that your 5900x runs too hot, do you mean that the temperatures are high or that it is thermal throttling?

You can check whether it is thermal throttling by running a few multicore runs of Cinebench R23 - https://www.maxon.net/en/downloads/c...-r23-downloads - with HWINFO64 - https://www.hwinfo.com/download/

In the sensors section of HWINFO you will find a section for your CPU which will tell you whether your CPU is throttling or not.

If it is not throttling I would not worry too much about the temps but as Thoriangun says the 212 is not the best option for such a highend CPU.

[Iliena]

Thanks for the specific tips. I appreciate it.

First of all the company that built is has a "guarantee" but reality is I have to send my PC to them for over a month to get it fixed, and I have to pay the shipping, so I don't want to deal with that. The economical and smart choice is to just send it in and deal with not having a PC for a month, but honestly the issue is less annoying than having to deal with not having a PC for that long. I rather just deal with it and not max out my graphics settings in intensive games like Diablo 4. Most of my days I don't play anything that max out my CPU.

I have "Cooler Master Hyper 212". And in my country it's a "pre made" where you choose the parts so it's like a hybrid of premade and self made.

I could try ordering your suggested cooler. I don't find the exact text you wrote. Is it the same as or similar to "Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE"?

I dont really know what the eco mode is in bios, but I have already turned up the fan speeds and the case (Fractal Design Define 7) is supposed to have pretty good cooling.

I was not really searching for tech tips when I wrote my post, I just was saying why I will go back to Intel on my next computer. 1 bad experience is all you need to avoid a product. Spec sheets is not the absolute truth.

As the said the cooler isn't up to the job of cooling a 12 core CPU, that's on the people who built it who decided to save money fitting a budget cooler on a top end CPU, personally I would be complaining to them that they sold you a system that's not fit for purpose, due to an inadequate cooling solution.

[rogoth]

Oh look.

A thread title where people use phrases such as "officially dead" which would imply that the company itself is actually releasing an "official" statement of something bad happening. But instead the phrase is being used to create drama and is trying to pass as a fact when it's opinion actually just a really an uninformative, uneducated and ignorant opinion.

Sounds like it's written by a person who's ego is so high that if they actually fell down to their IQ, then they would end up killing themselves due to how low that IQ is. Marvelous.

This is coming from an AMD used by the way who bought a Ryzen 9 7950X in July for a new PC build. Imagine claiming that a big corporation is "officially" dead as a fact based on a really shitty opinion without any factual information or proper research.

This thread needs to be closed and you need to be perma banned.

no, it's not opinion, it's not uninformed, and it's not designed to cause any drama whatsoever, you're one of those who are causing 'drama' by misreading and misinterpreting what's written because your reading comprehension skill is not a sufficient level.

I'm glad you brought up IQ, the last standardised IQ test I took I scored a 127, the threshold for 'Genius' is 140, and the threshold for 'Gifted Genius' is 165+, based on the fact the global average IQ is 84, and the fact you're likely American (based on your location tag stating Florida) where the national IQ is BELOW the global average and falling consistently which has led to calls for global intervention in your abysmal education system, I feel you have VERY LITTLE room to talk about IQ levels, but thanks for trying.

Lets get this clear: I stated, as fact based on all available data, that with the release of the '14th gen' Intel desktop chips as a company, they are 'dead' as a serious chip manufacturer, this is based on the fact that their '14th gen' lineup is quite literally just overclocked 'golden samples' of their 13th gen chips, there is no generational improvement despite the generational increase in naming scheme, it is also highlighting to the wider audience that Intel, who are still using the same monolithic die process technology they used for the 9900k and 10900k which are now 6-7 years old for their newest chips showing that they are no longer market leading in terms of chip manufacture for their desktop processors and that they haven't been competitive in the space for a few years now after the reports they had lost their market cap lead over AMD and were now the weaker of the two on a total market share basis.

add to the fact that the 'market lead' people seem to want to keep bringing up for Intel is based on very old, and very out-of-date processors that are on the verge of being mass replaced over the next year/18 months completely, as shown in previous posts showing the steam hardware survey, the Intel processor chips that make up the majority there are from the devil's canyon era, and the 'best' modern CPU in that bracket is the lowest of the low-end 12th gen chips if you look at actual like for like comparisons, AMD and Intel have basically a 50/50 split for modern era market share, which is only going to swing more and more in favour of AMD with their superior gaming performance from the 'X3D' chip lineup which is being heavily iterated on generation over generation, unlike Intel who is as mentioned, still stuck on their geriatric manufacturing process that is relying on 'one chip for everything' mantra that worked 15 years ago.

if you want something to provide context for why Intel are dead as a serious chip manufacturer, you only need to look at the 'chip shortage' period of 2020/2021, TSMC was at capacity (a much larger total capacity than Intel just to be clear, they have significantly more fab space than Intel), and during this time Intel were nowhere near capacity, they had to sell some of their fabrication capacity to chips that were used in household appliances because TSMC didn't have process technology that old left functioning in their fabs, literally no computer chip manufacturer went to Intel for fab space because Intel lacked both the hardware and the software knowhow to manufacture cutting edge chips needed at the time which is why there was a global shortage because ONLY TSMC were capable of producing said chips, if that's not damning then I don't know what is.

no, it truly doesn't, and I find it funny that someone likely from America would promote stifling free speech, although saying that I do guess the topic is about the slow and painful death of a staple American company so I can maybe understand your butthurt over that and don't want to face reality that America is a shithole laughed at on the global stage and not the shining utopia your government and capitalist overlords have brainwashed you into believing it to be.

- - - Updated - - -

I bet 90%+ of people wouldn't even see the difference. If you're in that 10% that does you know which works best for what you do. As for gaming.. just get the best one you can get for your budget and don't worry about AMD or Intel branding. CPU isn't the biggest factor in most games these days. A few frames here or there on this game or that game isn't going to be a deal breaker unless you are literally an esports level player. Even then just spend more on your video card and see way more power then you will by making some AMD/Intel choice.

My kid has my hand me down 7700k processor from like 7 years ago and it has no problems on gaming or basic school stuff he uses it for. So weather you go current gen AMD or Intel you gonna crank as far as cpu is concerned.

I just wanna make something clear, I'm not against your general point, however, something that needs to be highlighted and hammered home, Intel are literally on the floor, without some serious impetus they are just going to continue with what they are doing and relying on the general ignorance of the consumer-base as a whole to keep selling products.

the overarching point I was making when I opened this thread was related to people in a position to buy said products, I'm not talking about kids at school playing Fortnite or Roblox or whatever else after doing their homework, nor was I talking about people who play older titles happily on this less than impressive hardware, as we are seeing now with almost every major game release this year unless you can toggle texture packs on download, high res textures are now eating up more than 10GB of GPU memory, making older cards and the sad excuse for new cards from Nvidia functionally useless for gaming in that context, the same thing applies to CPUs, as games become more demanding on TOTAL system resources, and become more and more reliant on multi-core performance (something Intel sucks majorly at btw), without hitting these companies where it hurts and forcing them to innovate to regain what they have lost, there won't be any real competition, and as stated, all Intel are doing is pushing the silicon chips closer and closer to the red line of power draw, they are borderline there already currently and they have failed to produce an actual 'NEW' chip in over 6 years, the current implementation of 'big core little core' is them taking the old monolithic die structure of a 9th or 10th gen chip, bolting on a bunch of laptop cores to the substrate and copying the Ryzen infinity fabric system to make them work together, that's it, and if you want to waste your money on a product that is out of date in the current landscape of chip manufacture, then that's up to you, but I want to see these kinds of products actually innovate and be competitive and be actually new.

[Linkedblade]

no, it's not opinion, it's not uninformed, and it's not designed to cause any drama whatsoever, you're one of those who are causing 'drama' by misreading and misinterpreting what's written because your reading comprehension skill is not a sufficient level.

I stated, as fact based on all available data, that with the release of the '14th gen' Intel desktop chips as a company, they are 'dead' as a serious chip manufacturer

No, it's your opinion. You haven't provided any data. You linked a Gamers Nexus video that doesn't support your statement.

- - - Updated - - -

no, it truly doesn't, and I find it funny that someone likely from America would promote stifling free speech, although saying that I do guess the topic is about the slow and painful death of a staple American company so I can maybe understand your butthurt over that and don't want to face reality that America is a shithole laughed at on the global stage and not the shining utopia your government and capitalist overlords have brainwashed you into believing it to be.

It's not stifling free speech. It's our right of free speech to respond to you and show you're wrong. Also, AMD is an American company.

- - - Updated - - -

the overarching point I was making when I opened this thread was related to people in a position to buy said products,

They're still competitive in performance and price. Which if you watched the gamers nexus video that was their conclusion

I'm not talking about kids at school playing Fortnite or Roblox or whatever else after doing their homework, nor was I talking about people who play older titles happily on this less than impressive hardware, as we are seeing now with almost every major game release this year unless you can toggle texture packs on download, high res textures are now eating up more than 10GB of GPU memory, making older cards and the sad excuse for new cards from Nvidia functionally useless for gaming in that context,

Mentioning graphics performance of cpu's is marginally relevant. And why would you use a gamers nexus video as "evidence" if you don't care about what the average gamer is playing?

the same thing applies to CPUs, as games become more demanding on TOTAL system resources, and become more and more reliant on multi-core performance (something Intel sucks majorly at btw)

Not really. Again the cpu's are competitive in both single and multicore, not the best, but comparing them price/performance or availability is a better metric than "at the top of the chart."

without hitting these companies where it hurts and forcing them to innovate to regain what they have lost, there won't be any real competition,

If there isn't competition, how are they dying?

and as stated, all Intel are doing is pushing the silicon chips closer and closer to the red line of power draw, they are borderline there already currently and they have failed to produce an actual 'NEW' chip in over 6 years,

12th, 13th, and 14th gen are on the same process node, but there are architectural differences. Granted 14th is a refresh of 13th gen, so those are fewer. But intel still has their next die shrink coming, allegedly, with arrow lake

the current implementation of 'big core little core' is them taking the old monolithic die structure of a 9th or 10th gen chip, bolting on a bunch of laptop cores to the substrate and copying the Ryzen infinity fabric system to make them work together, that's it,

No? the e-cores are newer revision of atom cores, which are more akin to ARM cores than x86 desktop cores. That's what makes them efficient, lack of outdated instructions. And this is similar to what AMD has done with Zen and Zen-c cores. The entire market is moving toward RISC processing. Granted if intel has to resort to staying on a process node for a forth generation, that's troubling for them, but they are far from dead. But your lazy description of the hardware makes it abundantly clear: you don't know what you are talking about.

and if you want to waste your money on a product that is out of date in the current landscape of chip manufacture, then that's up to you, but I want to see these kinds of products actually innovate and be competitive and be actually new.

Not out of date, because they're competitive. Not out of date because they're on one the most modern architectures and process nodes. If you want there to be competition then you wouldnt be naysaying one of the only two pc cpu companies.

- - - Updated - - -

add to the fact that the 'market lead' people seem to want to keep bringing up for Intel is based on very old, and very out-of-date processors that are on the verge of being mass replaced over the next year/18 months completely, as shown in previous posts showing the steam hardware survey, the Intel processor chips that make up the majority there are from the devil's canyon era, and the 'best' modern CPU in that bracket is the lowest of the low-end 12th gen chips if you look at actual like for like comparisons, AMD and Intel have basically a 50/50 split for modern era market share, which is only going to swing more and more in favour of AMD with their superior gaming performance from the 'X3D' chip lineup which is being heavily iterated on generation over generation, unlike Intel who is as mentioned, still stuck on their geriatric manufacturing process that is relying on 'one chip for everything' mantra that worked 15 years ago.

Where are you getting the information for who is replacing their old intel cpu's? Are you talking about just the gaming market, which is quite small compared to large scale computing? Steam hardware survey is for only people that play games through steam. It's not representational of all pc gamers, or all pc users. It's mostly irrelevant. But you say in the same post you arent talking about people that play the kind of games on steam. So which is it?

The X3D cpu's for amd have been great. But taking a huge amount of l2$ and l3$ is not a new trick. I'm surprised intel hasn't done it themselves yet, but intel makes millions of soc's and that's what they do for those packages.

[rogoth]

No, it's your opinion. You haven't provided any data. You linked a Gamers Nexus video that doesn't support your statement.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not stifling free speech. It's our right of free speech to respond to you and show you're wrong. Also, AMD is an American company.

- - - Updated - - -


They're still competitive in performance and price. Which if you watched the gamers nexus video that was their conclusion


Mentioning graphics performance of cpu's is marginally relevant. And why would you use a gamers nexus video as "evidence" if you don't care about what the average gamer is playing?


Not really. Again the cpu's are competitive in both single and multicore, not the best, but comparing them price/performance or availability is a better metric than "at the top of the chart."

If there isn't competition, how are they dying?


12th, 13th, and 14th gen are on the same process node, but there are architectural differences. Granted 14th is a refresh of 13th gen, so those are fewer. But intel still has their next die shrink coming, allegedly, with arrow lake


No? the e-cores are newer revision of atom cores, which are more akin to ARM cores than x86 desktop cores. That's what makes them efficient, lack of outdated instructions. And this is similar to what AMD has done with Zen and Zen-c cores. The entire market is moving toward RISC processing. Granted if intel has to resort to staying on a process node for a forth generation, that's troubling for them, but they are far from dead. But your lazy description of the hardware makes it abundantly clear: you don't know what you are talking about.



Not out of date, because they're competitive. Not out of date because they're on one the most modern architectures and process nodes. If you want there to be competition then you wouldnt be naysaying one of the only two pc cpu companies.

- - - Updated - - -



Where are you getting the information for who is replacing their old intel cpu's? Are you talking about just the gaming market, which is quite small compared to large scale computing? Steam hardware survey is for only people that play games through steam. It's not representational of all pc gamers, or all pc users. It's mostly irrelevant. But you say in the same post you arent talking about people that play the kind of games on steam. So which is it?

The X3D cpu's for amd have been great. But taking a huge amount of l2$ and l3$ is not a new trick. I'm surprised intel hasn't done it themselves yet, but intel makes millions of soc's and that's what they do for those packages.

I was referring to the muppet demanding I get a perma ban for making a thread that seems to have hurt his feelings, I have nothing against anybody who wants to provide a counter point to my argument, why did you misinterpret what was said just to try and make a 'gotcha' point?

Intel CPU lineup is some of the least competitive for the cost that's been seen since they were still using 4-digit naming nomenclature, so I genuinely have no clue where you get the idea that they are both competitive in a market that they are already out of date in, and are worth the price when they are so far above what they are actually worth that they are borderline 'waste of sand' materials currently.

can you stop trying to misconstrue what was written, furthermore, if the trend in 'modern gaming' continues, then hardware is going to be even more important if 'kids' want the new big thing to play for Christmas, birthdays etc, it's already been seen with the newest cyberpunk 2077 expansion where the MINIMUM requirements to even run the game at the lowest settings possible were increased, and the minimum RECOMMENDED hardware is now ~£/$ 1500 machine based on current market prices, and that's just this one game, there's a ton of new games coming up in the following 12 months or so that are gonna have similar if not MORE DEMANDING hardware requirements to run, and game devs are starting now to make use of the multi-core performance of CPUs and as has been well demonstrated by the 3d v-cache technology that AMD have implemented, something that Intel quite literally cannot compete against both in real terms, and on paper because it's a copyrighted technology, so as more and more game devs start making games where cache is a factor, Intel looses by default, or is this fact something else I'm supposedly pulling 'out of my ass'?

they are only 'competitive' in workloads that favour fast single-core performance, they cannot and have not been able to compete with ANY multi-core workload for several generations now, and they are only able to get that fast single-core performance by pushing so much juice through the chip they are close to hitting thermal limits of the hardware itself, I wouldn't really call that a long term or viable strategy would you?

I'm talking PRIMARILY about the desktop market, which by volume is the LARGEST consumer base for either Intel or AMD, I'm also stating that with the most recent release of Epyc and Threadripper, companies that require heavy processing are switching to AMD-based solutions as Intel simply doesn't make a product with the kind of raw throughput that Epyc provides, not to mention the sheer volume of PCIE connectivity that it has at its disposal, this shift started with the past generation of Epyc processors in server farms around the world, but there has been a large uptake in recent months of switching out old Intel Xeon processors over to AMD processors in the server space.

I'm also talking about gaming in general and using the Steam hardware survey, which may I remind you has ~120 MILLION active monthly users, you can use it as a general tool to extrapolate out and it also helps show the spread of different types of things people are playing on what types of hardware, so you can infer where some of the more common player bases are at in terms of their overall hardware, nobody Is using it as definitive proof of anything, more of just a guide showing that once the people on the oldest hardware are forced to upgrade, what happens then?

atom cores are the name given to the CPU cores used in their 'mobile' versions of desktop CPUs, aka taken a laptop CPU, bolted it onto a desktop CPU substrate, and copied the Ryzen infinity fabric technology to make the two into a single unit, and called it good. also to correct you on something, 12th gen was the first of these products, 13th gen was a refresh of 12th gen, they just bolted on yet more 'e cores' to the substrate, and 14th gen is as i stated, a 'golden sample + overclock' of 13th gen, they are ALL the exact same CPU architecturally, they are all built using the exact same process technology that Intel has been using now for 6-7+ years MINIMUM.

I fully know what I'm talking about, I explain it in generalties so that people can pick up the concept quickly without any need for previous knowledge of the topic, and if they want to read about it further they are more than welcome to do so, if I want people to understand what I'm saying I can't just go into it thinking everyone knows what I'm talking about by using specific language or examples they have no concept of can I?

Intel as a company have been using 'out of date' process technology now for years, they have only barely been able to keep up with TSMC and AMD due to the aforementioned juicing of their power draw, the actual method of making their chips is a full generation BEHIND what TSMC uses, and is also a long way behind the likes of Samsung for certain lithographic processes, so remind me again how 'competitive' Intel is based on these facts.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I just wanna make something clear, I'm not against your general point, however, something that needs to be highlighted and hammered home, Intel are literally on the floor, without some serious impetus they are just going to continue with what they are doing and relying on the general ignorance of the consumer-base as a whole to keep selling products.

the overarching point I was making when I opened this thread was related to people in a position to buy said products, I'm not talking about kids at school playing Fortnite or Roblox or whatever else after doing their homework, nor was I talking about people who play older titles happily on this less than impressive hardware, as we are seeing now with almost every major game release this year unless you can toggle texture packs on download, high res textures are now eating up more than 10GB of GPU memory, making older cards and the sad excuse for new cards from Nvidia functionally useless for gaming in that context, the same thing applies to CPUs, as games become more demanding on TOTAL system resources, and become more and more reliant on multi-core performance (something Intel sucks majorly at btw), without hitting these companies where it hurts and forcing them to innovate to regain what they have lost, there won't be any real competition, and as stated, all Intel are doing is pushing the silicon chips closer and closer to the red line of power draw, they are borderline there already currently and they have failed to produce an actual 'NEW' chip in over 6 years, the current implementation of 'big core little core' is them taking the old monolithic die structure of a 9th or 10th gen chip, bolting on a bunch of laptop cores to the substrate and copying the Ryzen infinity fabric system to make them work together, that's it, and if you want to waste your money on a product that is out of date in the current landscape of chip manufacture, then that's up to you, but I want to see these kinds of products actually innovate and be competitive and be actually new.

I don't really argue against your point either. But the root of my statement is more aimed at individual people that maybe having to choose between getting say a better graphics card, for example, because they are gripped by some sort of brand loyalty (either way) when really for your average consumer it really doesn't matter more than just getting the best chip/mb platform you can get because of some deal you spotted on new egg, for example. I feel a lot of people are baited into way over buying when it comes to CPUs these days. This goes for between brands like we are talking about but also within the brands themselves on product lineup.

My current system is a Ryzan 7800X3D. I suspect it will be the backbone of my PC for at least 5-7 years. I was pretty much an Intel person up until this purchase as well. The big reason I went this direction was I was just tired of hotter and more power being the results of mid gains from my pervious PC (I basiclly built it because my sons PC was getting up over like 10 years old -- 3770K and he needed a new one and he could have my hand-me-down). The biggest reason was I found a deal where I got a MB/CPU combo for like a 150 bucks less then a comparable option due to just lucky timing.

The only thing I kinda am meh about with your response is this like.. corporate side taking you seem to take. Don't get me wrong you are right for a good bit of it.. but trust me AMD will do the same evils as soon as its easy for them to do so. They are not anyones friends. They did make an innovation leap in concept and design, but lets not forget they were in the dog house for a LONG time for concept and design fails as well. Intel can and probably will adjust and design something just as well in the future because finally competition exists again. The worse thing that can happen is Intel dies and AMD becomes the solo king of the hill that then can just start doing what got Intel into this postilion in the first place, no reason to push design and innovation because no one else is there to push it and suddenly its just about quick bucks and baiting customers. The best way to push innovation isn't by picking a side. It is by having sides to pick. The closer these two are at in market share the more they will dump into R&D and things will be driven forward. The worse thing that can happen is one falls off to non-competitive and then the other can just sit around and get fat for nothing. Its exactly what happened to Intel.

[Twdft]

Lets get this clear: I stated, as fact based on all available data, that with the release of the '14th gen' Intel desktop chips as a company, they are 'dead' as a serious chip manufacturer, this is based on the fact that their '14th gen' lineup is quite literally just overclocked 'golden samples' of their 13th gen chips, there is no generational improvement despite the generational increase in naming scheme, it is also highlighting to the wider audience that Intel, who are still using the same monolithic die process technology they used for the 9900k and 10900k which are now 6-7 years old for their newest chips showing that they are no longer market leading in terms of chip manufacture for their desktop processors and that they haven't been competitive in the space for a few years now after the reports they had lost their market cap lead over AMD and were now the weaker of the two on a total market share basis.

Based on your IQ I would have assumed you know what the word "fact" means.

[Beefhammer]

Lets get this clear: I stated, as fact based on all available data, that with the release of the '14th gen' Intel desktop chips as a company, they are 'dead' as a serious chip manufacturer, this is based on the fact that their '14th gen' lineup is quite literally just overclocked 'golden samples' of their 13th gen chips, there is no generational improvement despite the generational increase in naming scheme, it is also highlighting to the wider audience that Intel, who are still using the same monolithic die process technology they used for the 9900k and 10900k which are now 6-7 years old for their newest chips showing that they are no longer market leading in terms of chip manufacture for their desktop processors and that they haven't been competitive in the space for a few years now after the reports they had lost their market cap lead over AMD and were now the weaker of the two on a total market share basis.

This is 100% opinion and not fact.

[Atrea]

based on the fact the global average IQ is 84

The global average IQ is 100, because IQ uses a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
66% of the world falls between an IQ of 85 and 115, with about 2% being above 130 or below 75.

You have a very strange relationship with the word "fact".

[Tuor]

atom cores are the name given to the CPU cores used in their 'mobile' versions of desktop CPUs, aka taken a laptop CPU, bolted it onto a desktop CPU substrate, and copied the Ryzen infinity fabric technology to make the two into a single unit, and called it good. also to correct you on something, 12th gen was the first of these products, 13th gen was a refresh of 12th gen, they just bolted on yet more 'e cores' to the substrate, and 14th gen is as i stated, a 'golden sample + overclock' of 13th gen, they are ALL the exact same CPU architecturally, they are all built using the exact same process technology that Intel has been using now for 6-7+ years MINIMUM.

E-cores are their own thing, totally diferent design than P-cores, they based on old Atom cores, current implementation is called Gracemont, Meteor Lake will use an evolution of those cores called Crestmond. E-cores are not laptop cores adapted to descktop, as said, thei their own thing.

Why would Intel need to copy infinity fabric, they have their own thing called foveros, whille infinit fabric uses the slow substrate lanes to conect the chiplets, Foveros uses a silicon substrate which should be a lot faster.

Foveros isn't being used at the moment, the current intel design is full monolithic...


The picture is an Alder Lake (12th gen) there is no need to copy infinit fabric in this design because everithing is packaged within the same silicon. The P-cores are the dark blue, the e-cores are light blue, notice the diference in size?

[rogoth]

i don't usually do 'i told you so' posts, but this is pretty fucking damning.

[dacoolist]

if this is anything to go by, then Intel, who have been scraping the barrel of what they can do with their geriatric silicon process for years now, then they have officially done an AMD from the FX era, if you want an actually forward-facing CPU that offers both immediate and long term growth then the only option currently is Ryzen.

Not trying to add any extra flame to this bonfire but.. aapl dropped intel for a reason..

Again: dont take this as I hate intel: take this as a - I know all of you foaming at the mouth angry people that dont even understand the m-series of mac chips with your 2000W psu and 16x 8k displays to play minecraft at 200,000 fps and all that ballocks.. but deep down: its two companies eating each others asses when ol faithful aapl is sitting back smoking their boots with power per watt+an soc that pretty much folds the competition.

So again: you all should be hating on aapl not each other - you're going to need all the salty hate you need for the future

[Sorshen]

While criticism of naming scheme is valid, intel doing these slides is kind of insane considering their last 10 years.

[Simca]

I think Intel just doesn't care about the consumer desktop segment of the market, especially the gaming-focused part.

I bet the management at Intel looks at things like the AMD Ryzen 7800X3D and thinks "Wow, look at those fools, thinking that putting that much effort into such a niche product is worth their time. Talk about small peanuts."

I don't know whether that line of thought is accurate or not, but that's just the impression I've gotten from them (well and the 'does it help AI? no? don't care' bit in the last couple years).

[Huzzaa]

Not trying to add any extra flame to this bonfire but.. aapl dropped intel for a reason..

Again: dont take this as I hate intel: take this as a - I know all of you foaming at the mouth angry people that dont even understand the m-series of mac chips with your 2000W psu and 16x 8k displays to play minecraft at 200,000 fps and all that ballocks.. but deep down: its two companies eating each others asses when ol faithful aapl is sitting back smoking their boots with power per watt+an soc that pretty much folds the competition.

So again: you all should be hating on aapl not each other - you're going to need all the salty hate you need for the future

Off the rails here m8. Apple is on ARM making it's own CPUs, not x86_64...
Different animals completely.

And yes, they're pretty damn good chips.

PS. CISC vs. RISC

[Linkedblade]

[video=youtube;xUT4d5IVY0A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUT4d5IVY0A[video]


i don't usually do 'i told you so' posts, but this is pretty fucking damning.

This confirms nothing. Intel having a shitty marketing team, has nothing to do with you saying the entire company is dead. What's hilarious is that the only information you have supplied is two youtube videos. Neither of which support your claim.

[DeltrusDisc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUT4d5IVY0A


i don't usually do 'i told you so' posts, but this is pretty fucking damning.

Brother, please. Go outside. Something. This is becoming worryingly obsessive and I am thinking about calling a welfare check for you.

I think Intel just doesn't care about the consumer desktop segment of the market, especially the gaming-focused part.

I bet the management at Intel looks at things like the AMD Ryzen 7800X3D and thinks "Wow, look at those fools, thinking that putting that much effort into such a niche product is worth their time. Talk about small peanuts."

I don't know whether that line of thought is accurate or not, but that's just the impression I've gotten from them (well and the 'does it help AI? no? don't care' bit in the last couple years).

You honestly are hitting it right on the nose, I daresay. I've always thought there's no way these chips are THAT important to them, but I was happy nonetheless that they kept making them and pushing improvements. The datacenter and supercomputer markets (with the AI involved in them, too) however are where the real money is at. To think Intel is worried about the gaming segment is kinda hilarious, really. All the gamers the world over are probably giving them pennies compared to the many super computers/data centers out there using Intel's server parts.

And as @Linkedblade pointed out: shitty marketing team =/= can't make a good chip anymore.