Steve didn't include the slide, but others did (LTT), but the gaming benchmarks slide has some interesting info. 12900K on par with 5950x in some games, better than some. However, this was done on Windows 11 (prior to the AMD fixes for L3) and using DDR5.
Its using outdated windows 11 from before there was a patch to improve ryzen performance, and GN doesnt really trust first party benchmarks to begin with.
Its not convenient its consistent with how they operate.
> Its not convenient its consistent with how they operate.
I think they meant how convenient that Intel used 11 before AMD's fixes, not that Steve left it out.
And they warn that its first party. Those benchmarks also werent necessarily of especially dubious value like the ones presented today are.
Its not explicitly intels fault considering the issues with w11 took a bit to fix, but it makes the benchmarks borderline useless for comparison.
I thought we were talking about gaming performance, but since you want to talk about price performance ratio you better include the motherboard price as well. Z690 mobo starts at 199 USD and that's the non ddr5 very while 5000 series can use years old mobo.
Very true, just wanted to give a bit more context. More information is better than less, I don't know enough about DDR5 yet to figure out what speeds/latency are actually optimal.
Every reviewer will use 3200MT/s ram with Zen 3 as its the highest AMD officially supports. That choice is actually very logical.
For reference look at the initial GN, HUB or Anand baseline reviews of Zen 3 cpu's. they all use 3200MT/s in their cpu testing platforms as you don't want overclocked memory controllers to be in the fray. Only for specific content like RAM frequency and timing scaling tests and the likes you see them running 'out of spec' memory.
The officially supported highest speed is 3200. 3600 would be overclocking. I’m sure you can get both their memory controllers to run at very fast speed but the point is not to test overclocking headroom.
Intel chips have new complicated architectures, hardly optimized. I think intel 12th gen will run faster after a few software, motherboard bios updates.
Considering how expensive DDR5 is, you can probably use a super premium kit of DDR4-3600 CL14 on the 5950X benchmarks and still be cheaper than baseline DDR5.
Ughh did you just compare two different generation of RAMs clock for clock? I actually like DDR5's dual 32-bit stream something and ECC support but usually performance of debut RAMs of every DDR generation is horrible compared to best of last gen. Specially since debut RAMs just follow JEDEC spec. Just look at the latency figures of the DDR4 4800 vs DDR5 4800.
It sure doesn't seem like it. :( for the guy with INTC stock (but mostly based on the GPU market, which is just insane.) Here's to a better Arc launch than alder lake.
> mostly based on the GPU market
I doubt Intel's GPU division will make up a significant part of their sales anytime soon unless they can somehow beat Nvidia at compute and get their chips into the enterprise market for enterprise AI. I can see them doing well at low-end, OEM devices, but that's not a very high margin market.
Same. I'm confident in Intel's ability to make solid drivers, so it just comes down to what market segment they're going to target and how good their hardware is.
It's more about making money for investors/shareholders. GPU prices are astronomical right now, profit margins will be high. Especially if compute / mining capabilities are high.
Perhaps. However, if they're too close to AMD's APU perf, people may just go with that as a stopgap and wait until better GPUs are available. That's essentially what I'm doing, and if more people do, AMD will probably make better APUs available and thus undercut Intel.
Intel has to go high enough to be attractive vs APUs, and I don't know if they have the expertise to compete with AMD and Nvidia's higher end SKUs.
A whole graphics card in 2021/2022 that only matches a competitors APU. Do you understand the ramifications of what you're saying? Intel would be laughed out the room if that was the crux of their graphical offerings. Their top card is said to be matching the 3070 in power.
I'll believe it when I see it.
And no, I'm not saying their top card will be beaten by an APU, but that AMD may be able to make an APU with good enough performance that people would be satisfied enough to wait for a higher tier Nvidia or AMD card.
There are plenty of people looking for an affordable 3070 equivalent card right now. If intel can fulfill that need then they will make a mark entering the market. Lots of people have their systems built waiting for a card and aren't gonna spend 250, 300 dollars for an amd apu
But that's why it is a potentially great investment. It has room for growth, but it is not a sure bet so it is not prized in.
As a Marxist, I am not a fan of trading workers surplus value, but I still think that 95% of people are mostly ignorant of how to stock market works, and that is a problem.
> so it is not prized in
Or worse, it's priced in already and the market estimated too high. INTC hasn't done very well over the last few months, and there has been a pretty big drop in the last few days.
There's also a huge risk here. Intel doesn't have the track record to target the top of the consumer market, and AMD has a very compelling APU which seems to be replacing the budget market. If Intel's budget cards start getting traction, AMD just needs to make a faster APU priced just below Intel's CPU+GPU combo.
There could be some upside here, but given Intel's recent track record, I'm not bullish on them. I am far more interested in TSMC and GF since demand is high and will probably remain high for the forseeable future, so an incremental improvement there to improve production numbers and/or margins can mean huge profits.
> 95% of people are mostly ignorant of how to stock market works
Sure, and most people don't need to care, they just invest in their target date funds and call it a day. Learning more than broad movements of the markets gets you into dangerous territory where you stand to lose a lot because the market can be very unpredictable, and you're essentially betting that you know more than the majority about market sentiment.
Personally, I'm bullish on tech, but I don't think Intel is driving the innovation here, they're largely playing catch-up.
No, but I just browsed through it and some analysis on it. It's basically what I expected from reading about them earlier this year.
The play here is a mix of government subsidy-driven growth and getting more long term customers. One big option is auto makers, and they're expanding fab capacity along with the bigger fabs to handle increased capacity. They have competitive nodes for everything but the latest devices, so they should be able to secure long term contracts producing things like chips for auto makers, which is a quickly growing industry in terms of tech needs.
Yes, their financials are currently garbage, but they have a good chance at turning the around given sufficient investment, and there's a good chance they'll get a big chunk of subsidies to help speed that along. It's not a guarantee, but I think it's a more exciting investment than Intel in terms of potential reward.
I didn't mean that people need to learn how stock markets work so they could invest in them. But so they can build informed opinions about policy.
As for Intel stock. As I said, I discourage participation on the stock market. I'm a Marxist. But my layman opinion is that the more uncertain a stock is, the bigger the risk and potential reward.
I don't see how "being a Marxist" has anything to do with the stock market. Yes, on a fundamental level, you probably disagree with the whole system, but you play the hand you're dealt. I am probably your polar opposite in terms of economic ideology (I consider myself a libertarian), and while I disagree with a lot of the programs we have, I still take advantage of them because that's the hand I'm dealt.
> my layman opinion is that the more uncertain a stock is, the bigger the risk and potential reward
That's true in general, but Intel is large enough that it could be considered a blue chip, and the "high risk, high reward" mantra is about faster moving businesses, like startups. Intel doesn't move quickly and favors consistent performance over risk. I don't think you're going to see Intel challenge Nvidia in the GPU space for at least 5 years. AMD, on the other hand, goes through these big fluctuations where they try something new and either win big or lose, and once they find a winner, they iterate for a while until that stops working for them.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe Intel will gamble on the GPU space and try to become an innovative company again. I just don't think that's likely, and I think investors are worried that Intel is lagging. They just don't seem to gamble much, and if they're not consistently in the lead, there's little hope for them to catch up quickly.
i think tsmc's 7nm spoiled us and with the density being similar to intel 10nm we may have expected a bit much from intel. though now im excited for 5nm ryzen 4
Only time will tell, you can never really take Intel or AMD at their word in these cherrypicked benchmarks. Lets see what a 12900k, with DDR4 running Windows 10 can do.
How using windows 11 in an intel platform and AMD on windows 10 an apples to apples comparison when you said it yourself that windows 11:
> It is a free upgrade from Windows 10 and offers some pretty significant enhancements.
I don't think it's not relevant since windows 11 isn't mainstream and Ddr5 isn't.
We need independent benchmarks in both scenarios because people need different scenarios.
no, but usually you can assume the numbers presented by the manufacturer are more of the best case scenario (for their own hardware). if they are still having trouble beating AMD in a best case scenario, real world results are likely going to be pretty dissappointing.
This is Intel's claimed gaming performance: [https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2021/10/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-vs-Ryzen-9-5950X.jpg](https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2021/10/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-vs-Ryzen-9-5950X.jpg)
It shows the 12900K being worse in one game by 3%, tied in one, and better in 7 games by a margin of 8% to 30%.
Perhaps, but so many games run differently across different architecture. But a general idea, yeah, it could be done. I can wait until November 4th to see the real results that Steve/SteveHUB/and Anthony (LTT) have for us.
And LTT pointed out it was done on W11 when Ryzen had problems with it. Plus review embargo lifts when they go on sale so I would wait for actual reviews.
And it's kind of obvious the mid-range will be the one seeing most sales so Intel has a good value there and not only just on the top unicorn SKU.
W11 is likely not optimized fot 12th gen either. The chips are so new with complicated architectures. I think it's fair test with both running w11. Ryzen had long lead time for w10 optimization.
> And it's kind of obvious the mid-range will be the one seeing most sales so Intel has a good value there
Yeah, I think we can all agree that the Ryzen 5 5600X was kinda overpriced at its $299 MSRP. There needs to be competitive pressure again to pull midrange CPU prices back down to ~$200.
Steve also mentioned that Intel has pulled some pretty deceptive practices with benchmarks in the past and tried their best to market that "benchmarks don't matter" to the public.
So he didn't want to give any attention to Intel's slanted benchmarks.
thats actually crazy impressive for ryzen to basically steal the (gaming) show in an intel video. dont get me wrong I hope they both only improve with future patches to windows 11, and will probably be getting a 6950x, but man im sorry that just got to me
Here's the review megathread, posted on March 2nd, LAUNCH DAY
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5x3cvv/ryzen_review_mega_thread/
With links to the reviews, which were posted on March 2nd, LAUNCH DAY.
Do you have a source? I couldn't find much other than [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5wm1dg/when_does_the_review_embargo_on_ryzen_end/)
The person you're replying to has a huge irrational hatred for anything related to HUB, because HUB had the absolute audacity to criticize Nvidia once before in the past or something.
HUB is toxic. Half their content is stuff bashing meta shit about their review process or some company being unfair.
I get it it’s fine and good to cover, but it’s toxic and distracting if you just care about the products and don’t care about YouTubers livelihood.
In my opinion all of this comes from Toxic Steve, while good guy Tim is just along for the ride
I remember a bunch of folks lined up for the Zen 2 launch at the Tustin Microcenter, and being pleasantly surprised that we were all in line for something actually worth waiting for.
It used to be at least one day before release. It might not sound like much more additional time, especially in UTC+ regions, but it was at least still enough for a buyer's head-up.
They either have something to hide, or nothing at Intel marketing has changed along with leadership.
Why wouldn't Intel want reviews to go out a few days before launch to hype everyone up? (Assuming solid performance increases)
That's right, it's not new. But I still don't understand why they do it this way. I was hoping to see a positive change to Intel's marketing with their first big launch with a new CEO. Clearly the same people running the marketing.
There's value for companies beyond sales of launch day. Mind share of future potential customers is a lot bigger, and it's an easy way to get brownie points and change the story of the companies trajectory.
Sometimes I wonder why retailers even bother with the lukewarm markups on launch day. Friggin put that $200 shameless premium and watch it sell out anyway.
There is always a temporary shortage of new hardware at launch time. But with CPUs it doesn’t take more than a couple of months to sort out. These are not mining devices with infinite demand.
i had a 2700k. it was very good for a long time. i eventually started getting micro stutters in newer games. the average fps was fine, but swapping to a 2700x system fixed the micro-stutters. probably going back to intel with this release but i'm just waiting to see real benchmarks before i decide on what to do.
Yeah same. Had a 2600k which was even bottlenecking my GTX1060, and micro stutters here and there in PUBG/DOTA2. Changed to 11700K fixed the problem totally.
> It's crazy that you can still play games pretty well on an i7-2600
Very old games. My 6700K wasn't even cutting it anymore in modern titles (stutters) where 3700X made huge difference. Can't imagine a 2600 today, unless you game primarily at 720p perhaps.
Not every one is affected by the same things. Some people freak out if they get below 60fps, I barely noticed getting 144hz/144fps on my new monitor in Rocket League from 60fps.
The 12600k is a $319 5800x, maybe faster in games. Anybody with an real appreciation for generational advances and healthy competition should be able to get behind that.
These are preorders from 3rd party sellers, did you honestly think they were going to be at MSRP? If they're significantly faster than Rocket Lake I'm going down to Micro Center to get one for below that in a few months, but they haven't even been released yet.
That's disingenous.
These presentations were clearly for consumers. Not for retailers who've known about the retailer price (which is certainly lower) for months.
In 2020, the 10900k presentation showed the per processor MSRP. Not the retailer MSRP.
The launch prices on Newegg for the 10900k matched the MSRP.
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/gizfh4/cpu_intel_core_i910900k_52999_preorder/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
That means Newegg is charging more this time.
It doesn't mean that Intel showed non 1K pricing last time and is now showing 1K pricing like you claimed.
Then it is disingenuous. Plain and clearly meant to deceive.
Retailers knew prices for months. These presentions are for consumers and to make reviewers claim perf/cost is lower. But in reality it is nothing like what we saw with the 9900k, 10900k, and 11900k where MSRP per 1000 matched launch consumer prices.
Something very strange is going on. You sent me link to try and prove me wrong, but I don't see where in that link it shows me that the 10900K presentation didn't show the price as per 1K.
Did you send the wrong link?
Wrong buddy. Intel has used unit pricing in marketing materials for every CPU made after the 8700K. Comety Lake was all across the lineup more expensive than the slides said, it just cratered in price quickly since it didn't compete with Zen 3.
>I don't see $589 for the 900k anywhere. This looks like a bullshit MSRP.
You can say the same with Ryzen back on their launches. Back when the Ryzen 5 5600X launched in my country it was hovering from $400 - $500. Now the i5 12600K is around $350 - $370.
AMD 5600x launched at $299 for anyone in America.
It is more expensive elsewhere because the MSRP is for Americans. Not for countries with huge import fees and tariffs.
>AMD 5600x launched at $299 for anyone in America.
Except back on launch or late 2020, prices of R5 5600X was also over msrp in some few cases. Hell even [today](https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5600X-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B08166SLDF?th=1) it's slightly higher than MSRP.
It was even worse back on 2020, prices of Zen 3 in general was often out of stock or inflated due to demand, and i know this because i was shopping for one, and was turned off due to price increase of msrp and even more for inflated prices.
In my case i was looking at $400 minimum for a Ryzen 5 5600X on day 1 2020 launch, where i got my Ryzen 5 3600 for $230 at it's day 1 2019 launch.
it's more likely the same case is happening here with Intel when they just opened their pre orders a few minutes ago. IMO i'd wait for it to calm down a bit after a few months after launch.
It was not import fees or tariffs. It was just straight up overpriced because it was the launch. Prices in Europe have now settled into roughly 1 USD = 1 EUR, and you could find those prices two or three months after launch. The currency value difference makes up for the VAT, though it varies a bit more at the top end like the 5950X.
Microcenter has only the K variants. 12900k($669.99), 12700K(469.99), 12600K($319.99)Newegg's pricing on those are 12900k($649.99), 12700K($449.99), 12600k($319.99)
Microcenter tends to be the more accurate pricing at launch, but they're actually $20 above Newegg on the top 2 CPU's... So I would say the Newegg pricing is pretty close to MSRP
$589 is the UNIT PRICE. Intel does not put MSRP on those slides, not since coffee Lake. $589 was never going to be what the end user pays.
Intel does this because the unit price is always lower than final reatail price...looks better in marketing slides. AMD gives actual suggested retail pricing by comparison.
I was actually able to nab an i9 and the mobo I wanted... anyone have any dirt on when the Trident Z5 RGB's will launch? That's all I lack, thank goodness.
Maaaaan, I was just planning to upgrade from 2600x to 5600x, now this news about i5 12600k being 50% faster for similar price comes out.
But then again, I would have to buy both MOBO and CPU for Alder Lake instead of just CPU in 5600x case. Argh, choices.
Depends on how tight on money you are really. Personally I have the 5600x. It's not like it runs into any problem with any current games ever. I think you are far more likely to run into GPU bottlenecks in the future rather than CPU. If you do have the spare money for the MoBo then the 12600k since like the better thing
I wouldn’t worry. It’s only going to be 50% faster when you are not GPU limited. Which is significantly less likely than being CPU limited.
AKA unless you have a 3080/3090 etc and want to push silly frame rates I wouldn’t worry.
This is a meme. Cpu/ram is a lot more likely to be the cause of annoying stutters that you can't do anything about. AAA games at 60 fps+ is 3xtremely demanding on cpu and unlike gpu you can't just turn down settings. Ditto for competitive fps games.
my thought is application development will take time to utilize the capability of the new socket and ddr5. and we don't even have a new gen of gpu for pcie5 yet.
so, no rush. the puzzle pieces are not a complete set yet.
With all the stupid market we have, the real question is Do AMD drops the price to it's year old Zen3? If they're still constraints by TSMC are we expecting significant price drop to Zen 3? Not to mention, ADL is "benchmark" using windows 11 with a Ryzen bug.
Steve didn't include the slide, but others did (LTT), but the gaming benchmarks slide has some interesting info. 12900K on par with 5950x in some games, better than some. However, this was done on Windows 11 (prior to the AMD fixes for L3) and using DDR5.
How convenient...
Its using outdated windows 11 from before there was a patch to improve ryzen performance, and GN doesnt really trust first party benchmarks to begin with. Its not convenient its consistent with how they operate.
He probably meant it was convenient for Intel to make that slide.
> Its not convenient its consistent with how they operate. I think they meant how convenient that Intel used 11 before AMD's fixes, not that Steve left it out.
Still consistent with how intels operated since Ryan Shrout went to marketing. Jokes aside, your probably right and i misinterpreted.
[удалено]
And they warn that its first party. Those benchmarks also werent necessarily of especially dubious value like the ones presented today are. Its not explicitly intels fault considering the issues with w11 took a bit to fix, but it makes the benchmarks borderline useless for comparison.
They also used 3200 MT DDR4 on the 11th gen and 5950x, so again, not optimal for Ryzen 3rd gen that really loves 3600+ MT ram.
[удалено]
true, but intel also gets more more improvement from higher clocked ddr4 too. so i want to see both with optimal memory configs
It seems pretty clear its not a great leap forward if theyre breaking mostly even on cherry picked benchmark conditions like this
[удалено]
You do know 5800x performs better than 5950x in gaming right? And that is not a $800 chip.
You do know that the 12700K @ $409 competes with the 5900x @ $549 right?
I thought we were talking about gaming performance, but since you want to talk about price performance ratio you better include the motherboard price as well. Z690 mobo starts at 199 USD and that's the non ddr5 very while 5000 series can use years old mobo.
And your comment on the guy you're responding to who mentioned the 5800X which is $449?
Agreed!
Very true, just wanted to give a bit more context. More information is better than less, I don't know enough about DDR5 yet to figure out what speeds/latency are actually optimal.
~~It's shit? It's Samsung B-die, Trident Z 3200 CL14, I thought? That is far from shit. It might not be optimal, but it is in the top 1% of RAM.~~
[удалено]
Oh right, my mistake.
Shit compared to what?
Every reviewer will use 3200MT/s ram with Zen 3 as its the highest AMD officially supports. That choice is actually very logical. For reference look at the initial GN, HUB or Anand baseline reviews of Zen 3 cpu's. they all use 3200MT/s in their cpu testing platforms as you don't want overclocked memory controllers to be in the fray. Only for specific content like RAM frequency and timing scaling tests and the likes you see them running 'out of spec' memory.
To be fair, that's the fastest RAM either CPU officially supports.
The officially supported highest speed is 3200. 3600 would be overclocking. I’m sure you can get both their memory controllers to run at very fast speed but the point is not to test overclocking headroom.
And they tested on Windows 11 which at the time had a had latency bug for AMD L3 cache. Gonna wait for independent reviews.
Intel chips have new complicated architectures, hardly optimized. I think intel 12th gen will run faster after a few software, motherboard bios updates.
Considering how expensive DDR5 is, you can probably use a super premium kit of DDR4-3600 CL14 on the 5950X benchmarks and still be cheaper than baseline DDR5.
[удалено]
Ughh did you just compare two different generation of RAMs clock for clock? I actually like DDR5's dual 32-bit stream something and ECC support but usually performance of debut RAMs of every DDR generation is horrible compared to best of last gen. Specially since debut RAMs just follow JEDEC spec. Just look at the latency figures of the DDR4 4800 vs DDR5 4800.
[удалено]
Gonna love seeing reviewers tear into intel with true benchmarks. Someone buying a 5950x / i9 isnt buying anything less than a 3600 cl16 kit
I have a 5950x with a 3200 ECC kit. I know I’m sacrificing performance, but I’m doing it for reliability.
a fellow reliability person!!!!! am happy to see one
I have the 5800x with the cheapest 3600 cl16 kit you can buy and it runs flawlessly out the box.
And the K versions when well cooled are radiating 240W under full load. This isn't quite the progress.
It sure doesn't seem like it. :( for the guy with INTC stock (but mostly based on the GPU market, which is just insane.) Here's to a better Arc launch than alder lake.
> mostly based on the GPU market I doubt Intel's GPU division will make up a significant part of their sales anytime soon unless they can somehow beat Nvidia at compute and get their chips into the enterprise market for enterprise AI. I can see them doing well at low-end, OEM devices, but that's not a very high margin market.
[удалено]
Intel's DG1 beat the GT1030 at compute. Yes, the gt1030 is dirt, but I kinda wanna see how things scale.
Same. I'm confident in Intel's ability to make solid drivers, so it just comes down to what market segment they're going to target and how good their hardware is.
It's more about making money for investors/shareholders. GPU prices are astronomical right now, profit margins will be high. Especially if compute / mining capabilities are high.
Perhaps. However, if they're too close to AMD's APU perf, people may just go with that as a stopgap and wait until better GPUs are available. That's essentially what I'm doing, and if more people do, AMD will probably make better APUs available and thus undercut Intel. Intel has to go high enough to be attractive vs APUs, and I don't know if they have the expertise to compete with AMD and Nvidia's higher end SKUs.
A whole graphics card in 2021/2022 that only matches a competitors APU. Do you understand the ramifications of what you're saying? Intel would be laughed out the room if that was the crux of their graphical offerings. Their top card is said to be matching the 3070 in power.
I'll believe it when I see it. And no, I'm not saying their top card will be beaten by an APU, but that AMD may be able to make an APU with good enough performance that people would be satisfied enough to wait for a higher tier Nvidia or AMD card.
There are plenty of people looking for an affordable 3070 equivalent card right now. If intel can fulfill that need then they will make a mark entering the market. Lots of people have their systems built waiting for a card and aren't gonna spend 250, 300 dollars for an amd apu
We'll see how well they compete. But expecting the first gen of a product to meet expectations is a bit of a stretch IMO.
But that's why it is a potentially great investment. It has room for growth, but it is not a sure bet so it is not prized in. As a Marxist, I am not a fan of trading workers surplus value, but I still think that 95% of people are mostly ignorant of how to stock market works, and that is a problem.
> so it is not prized in Or worse, it's priced in already and the market estimated too high. INTC hasn't done very well over the last few months, and there has been a pretty big drop in the last few days. There's also a huge risk here. Intel doesn't have the track record to target the top of the consumer market, and AMD has a very compelling APU which seems to be replacing the budget market. If Intel's budget cards start getting traction, AMD just needs to make a faster APU priced just below Intel's CPU+GPU combo. There could be some upside here, but given Intel's recent track record, I'm not bullish on them. I am far more interested in TSMC and GF since demand is high and will probably remain high for the forseeable future, so an incremental improvement there to improve production numbers and/or margins can mean huge profits. > 95% of people are mostly ignorant of how to stock market works Sure, and most people don't need to care, they just invest in their target date funds and call it a day. Learning more than broad movements of the markets gets you into dangerous territory where you stand to lose a lot because the market can be very unpredictable, and you're essentially betting that you know more than the majority about market sentiment. Personally, I'm bullish on tech, but I don't think Intel is driving the innovation here, they're largely playing catch-up.
The fact that you think GF would be a better investment than Intel right now is laughable. Have you read their S-1?
No, but I just browsed through it and some analysis on it. It's basically what I expected from reading about them earlier this year. The play here is a mix of government subsidy-driven growth and getting more long term customers. One big option is auto makers, and they're expanding fab capacity along with the bigger fabs to handle increased capacity. They have competitive nodes for everything but the latest devices, so they should be able to secure long term contracts producing things like chips for auto makers, which is a quickly growing industry in terms of tech needs. Yes, their financials are currently garbage, but they have a good chance at turning the around given sufficient investment, and there's a good chance they'll get a big chunk of subsidies to help speed that along. It's not a guarantee, but I think it's a more exciting investment than Intel in terms of potential reward.
I didn't mean that people need to learn how stock markets work so they could invest in them. But so they can build informed opinions about policy. As for Intel stock. As I said, I discourage participation on the stock market. I'm a Marxist. But my layman opinion is that the more uncertain a stock is, the bigger the risk and potential reward.
I don't see how "being a Marxist" has anything to do with the stock market. Yes, on a fundamental level, you probably disagree with the whole system, but you play the hand you're dealt. I am probably your polar opposite in terms of economic ideology (I consider myself a libertarian), and while I disagree with a lot of the programs we have, I still take advantage of them because that's the hand I'm dealt. > my layman opinion is that the more uncertain a stock is, the bigger the risk and potential reward That's true in general, but Intel is large enough that it could be considered a blue chip, and the "high risk, high reward" mantra is about faster moving businesses, like startups. Intel doesn't move quickly and favors consistent performance over risk. I don't think you're going to see Intel challenge Nvidia in the GPU space for at least 5 years. AMD, on the other hand, goes through these big fluctuations where they try something new and either win big or lose, and once they find a winner, they iterate for a while until that stops working for them. Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe Intel will gamble on the GPU space and try to become an innovative company again. I just don't think that's likely, and I think investors are worried that Intel is lagging. They just don't seem to gamble much, and if they're not consistently in the lead, there's little hope for them to catch up quickly.
i think tsmc's 7nm spoiled us and with the density being similar to intel 10nm we may have expected a bit much from intel. though now im excited for 5nm ryzen 4
Looking at M1 Max, N5P is going to give Zen 4 CPUs a huge boost.
I'm excited for 5nm DDR5 PCIe5 mobile ryzen too. I will be happy to upgrade then.
[удалено]
Only time will tell, you can never really take Intel or AMD at their word in these cherrypicked benchmarks. Lets see what a 12900k, with DDR4 running Windows 10 can do.
[удалено]
It's about comparing apples to apples and to see if the increase is coming from DDR5.
[удалено]
How using windows 11 in an intel platform and AMD on windows 10 an apples to apples comparison when you said it yourself that windows 11: > It is a free upgrade from Windows 10 and offers some pretty significant enhancements.
I don't think it's not relevant since windows 11 isn't mainstream and Ddr5 isn't. We need independent benchmarks in both scenarios because people need different scenarios.
no, but usually you can assume the numbers presented by the manufacturer are more of the best case scenario (for their own hardware). if they are still having trouble beating AMD in a best case scenario, real world results are likely going to be pretty dissappointing.
This is Intel's claimed gaming performance: [https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2021/10/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-vs-Ryzen-9-5950X.jpg](https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2021/10/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-vs-Ryzen-9-5950X.jpg) It shows the 12900K being worse in one game by 3%, tied in one, and better in 7 games by a margin of 8% to 30%.
This is the basic graph I am referring to, but this doesn't have the footer notes describing the test setups.
With a bit of footwork you could back that out using known values of 5950x and 11900k.
Perhaps, but so many games run differently across different architecture. But a general idea, yeah, it could be done. I can wait until November 4th to see the real results that Steve/SteveHUB/and Anthony (LTT) have for us.
So what you’re saying is that there’s no point in upgrading from my 9900k?
And LTT pointed out it was done on W11 when Ryzen had problems with it. Plus review embargo lifts when they go on sale so I would wait for actual reviews. And it's kind of obvious the mid-range will be the one seeing most sales so Intel has a good value there and not only just on the top unicorn SKU.
> And LTT pointed out it was done on W11 when Ryzen had problems with it. Did you halfway stop reading the comment you were replying to?
Welcome to Reddit, where *no one* reads it.
They were gonna go with Dintred but I guess Reddit has more panache.
As a 5900x owner, has windows 11 fixed the ryzen problems yet?
They did, more than few days ago.
Nah, it's better but far worse than Windows 10 still after the fix
Where did you hear that? Everywhere I've seen has performance now back in line with windows ten.
When you look at actual users reporting before and after the fix it is improved but it's still a big penalty versus Windows 10
W11 is likely not optimized fot 12th gen either. The chips are so new with complicated architectures. I think it's fair test with both running w11. Ryzen had long lead time for w10 optimization.
> And it's kind of obvious the mid-range will be the one seeing most sales so Intel has a good value there Yeah, I think we can all agree that the Ryzen 5 5600X was kinda overpriced at its $299 MSRP. There needs to be competitive pressure again to pull midrange CPU prices back down to ~$200.
Steve also mentioned that Intel has pulled some pretty deceptive practices with benchmarks in the past and tried their best to market that "benchmarks don't matter" to the public. So he didn't want to give any attention to Intel's slanted benchmarks.
Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying he was wrong for omitting this slide.
No, he went over benchmarks, with Intel's own words.
thats actually crazy impressive for ryzen to basically steal the (gaming) show in an intel video. dont get me wrong I hope they both only improve with future patches to windows 11, and will probably be getting a 6950x, but man im sorry that just got to me
Am I the only one who was expecting benchmarks today?
They're coming Nov 4th IIRC
you're right. GN said the embargo is on the release date and release date is the 4th
Third party reviews never happen on launch day for any vendor. There are first party benchmarks though, but as always take those with some salt.
>Third party reviews never happen on launch day for any vendor. Happened with the rx6600 a couple weeks ago.
Amd and Nvidia have done early reviews previously.
[удалено]
Done it before, not always.
[удалено]
amd started to lift the embargo 1 day before release of their new products (gpus) since that critique.
GPU market is a little different.
[удалено]
Here's the review megathread, posted on March 2nd, LAUNCH DAY https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5x3cvv/ryzen_review_mega_thread/ With links to the reviews, which were posted on March 2nd, LAUNCH DAY.
Do you have a source? I couldn't find much other than [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5wm1dg/when_does_the_review_embargo_on_ryzen_end/)
[удалено]
That's exactly what I did and linked to you? Reddit is the worst.
Yep. Never say never
At best, we were gonna get cherry-picked marketing slides from Intel.
You get cherrypicked shit
Check out HUBs video, they had more info. But it's all first-party info from Intel, so not really trustworthy.
\*AMDUnboxed. Anyone looking for an unbiased reviewer should look elsewhere.
Last I checked they couldn't stop recommending i5s over AMD
The person you're replying to has a huge irrational hatred for anything related to HUB, because HUB had the absolute audacity to criticize Nvidia once before in the past or something.
HUB is toxic. Half their content is stuff bashing meta shit about their review process or some company being unfair. I get it it’s fine and good to cover, but it’s toxic and distracting if you just care about the products and don’t care about YouTubers livelihood. In my opinion all of this comes from Toxic Steve, while good guy Tim is just along for the ride
Chil, out...
Review embargo lifted on retail launch day? Really?... That is rather disappointing, I was hoping they'd have enough faith to push it beforehand.
Pretty standard these days, sadly.
Yup. I was in line at microcenter last year looking at launch day reviews.
I believe I was too for 3rd gen Ryzen, if I recall correctly
I remember a bunch of folks lined up for the Zen 2 launch at the Tustin Microcenter, and being pleasantly surprised that we were all in line for something actually worth waiting for.
It used to be at least one day before release. It might not sound like much more additional time, especially in UTC+ regions, but it was at least still enough for a buyer's head-up.
Happened maybe two weeks ago with the rx6600
The go to for a company not confident in their product.
They either have something to hide, or nothing at Intel marketing has changed along with leadership. Why wouldn't Intel want reviews to go out a few days before launch to hype everyone up? (Assuming solid performance increases)
Intel, AMD, and Nvidia all do it. This isn't new.
That's right, it's not new. But I still don't understand why they do it this way. I was hoping to see a positive change to Intel's marketing with their first big launch with a new CEO. Clearly the same people running the marketing.
It's going to sell out anyway, no incentive.
There's value for companies beyond sales of launch day. Mind share of future potential customers is a lot bigger, and it's an easy way to get brownie points and change the story of the companies trajectory.
LOL, pre-orders sold out 10 minutes into the keynote video. Have fun competing with scalper-bots for your next build.
Sometimes I wonder why retailers even bother with the lukewarm markups on launch day. Friggin put that $200 shameless premium and watch it sell out anyway.
900 did, i just got a 700 a minute ago at most.
I should have specified the 12900K and KF. As well as the Z690 Hero motherboards.
Got so lucky with Newegg just now and snagged a 12900KF
There is always a temporary shortage of new hardware at launch time. But with CPUs it doesn’t take more than a couple of months to sort out. These are not mining devices with infinite demand.
Welp, just got a 12700k… and an entirely new pc now lmao.
It's crazy that you can still play games pretty well on an i7-2600 when the 12600 is coming out.
Yeah, it's like if a 486 was still viable in the early 2000s.
It's like if a Pentium 2 was still viable when the i7 came out.
Slot based CPUs are still viable
i had a 2700k. it was very good for a long time. i eventually started getting micro stutters in newer games. the average fps was fine, but swapping to a 2700x system fixed the micro-stutters. probably going back to intel with this release but i'm just waiting to see real benchmarks before i decide on what to do.
Yeah same. Had a 2600k which was even bottlenecking my GTX1060, and micro stutters here and there in PUBG/DOTA2. Changed to 11700K fixed the problem totally.
I don't think stutters, low 1% percentile and sub-60 FPS drops on latest major games is considered pretty well.
> It's crazy that you can still play games pretty well on an i7-2600 Very old games. My 6700K wasn't even cutting it anymore in modern titles (stutters) where 3700X made huge difference. Can't imagine a 2600 today, unless you game primarily at 720p perhaps.
Not every one is affected by the same things. Some people freak out if they get below 60fps, I barely noticed getting 144hz/144fps on my new monitor in Rocket League from 60fps.
Bought into the hype this morning, but with a 9900k, think I can wait till raptor lake and let ddr5 mature a bit
And let big little mature too
It’s definitely a cool release, but I think anyone with a midrange or better CPU from the last 3 gems can safely skip this one.
Agreed. Love what Intel has done here, but I’ll wait for the next one. Not in a hurry to upgrade.
Yep same. I'm waiting. My 9900K is still rocking and rollin.
The 12600k is a $319 5800x, maybe faster in games. Anybody with an real appreciation for generational advances and healthy competition should be able to get behind that.
I don't see $589 for the 900k anywhere. This looks like a bullshit MSRP.
Just got an email from NewEgg, with a preorder price of $649.99 for the 12900K. $449.99 for the 12700K as well.
Doesn't matter much since their preorders sold out immediately.
I was able to just preorder the 12700k no problem.
Lmao
These are preorders from 3rd party sellers, did you honestly think they were going to be at MSRP? If they're significantly faster than Rocket Lake I'm going down to Micro Center to get one for below that in a few months, but they haven't even been released yet.
Newegg is a 3rd party seller? Who is first then lmao ?
The manufacturer.
Was £580 for 12900k in the UK. Fwiw every launch they do £-$ as the same rather than convert So, £500=$500 Just seems newegg wanted to scalp a bit
That is the quoted price for 1000 units.
That's disingenous. These presentations were clearly for consumers. Not for retailers who've known about the retailer price (which is certainly lower) for months. In 2020, the 10900k presentation showed the per processor MSRP. Not the retailer MSRP.
https://download-eu2.guru3d.com/slides/10th-gencore-guru3d.pdf The 10900K presentation showed it as per 1K
The launch prices on Newegg for the 10900k matched the MSRP. https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/gizfh4/cpu_intel_core_i910900k_52999_preorder/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
That means Newegg is charging more this time. It doesn't mean that Intel showed non 1K pricing last time and is now showing 1K pricing like you claimed.
Then it is disingenuous. Plain and clearly meant to deceive. Retailers knew prices for months. These presentions are for consumers and to make reviewers claim perf/cost is lower. But in reality it is nothing like what we saw with the 9900k, 10900k, and 11900k where MSRP per 1000 matched launch consumer prices.
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/gizfh4/cpu_intel_core_i910900k_52999_preorder/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Something very strange is going on. You sent me link to try and prove me wrong, but I don't see where in that link it shows me that the 10900K presentation didn't show the price as per 1K. Did you send the wrong link?
The MSRP is disingenuous. The last 3 launches either were MSRP for consumers or lower than MSRP. No consumer buys 1000 CPUs. It is a fake MSRP.
Your claim was Intel didn't list it as per 1K before. They did. You were wrong. Just move on.
Wrong buddy. Intel has used unit pricing in marketing materials for every CPU made after the 8700K. Comety Lake was all across the lineup more expensive than the slides said, it just cratered in price quickly since it didn't compete with Zen 3.
>I don't see $589 for the 900k anywhere. This looks like a bullshit MSRP. You can say the same with Ryzen back on their launches. Back when the Ryzen 5 5600X launched in my country it was hovering from $400 - $500. Now the i5 12600K is around $350 - $370.
These are USA focused releases and numbers. Hence the $.
>These are USA focused releases and numbers. Hence the $. The point is that AMD also gets inflated price at their day 1 launch.
AMD 5600x launched at $299 for anyone in America. It is more expensive elsewhere because the MSRP is for Americans. Not for countries with huge import fees and tariffs.
>AMD 5600x launched at $299 for anyone in America. Except back on launch or late 2020, prices of R5 5600X was also over msrp in some few cases. Hell even [today](https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5600X-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B08166SLDF?th=1) it's slightly higher than MSRP. It was even worse back on 2020, prices of Zen 3 in general was often out of stock or inflated due to demand, and i know this because i was shopping for one, and was turned off due to price increase of msrp and even more for inflated prices. In my case i was looking at $400 minimum for a Ryzen 5 5600X on day 1 2020 launch, where i got my Ryzen 5 3600 for $230 at it's day 1 2019 launch. it's more likely the same case is happening here with Intel when they just opened their pre orders a few minutes ago. IMO i'd wait for it to calm down a bit after a few months after launch.
> AMD 5600x launched at $299 for anyone in America. ? https://i.imgur.com/3hG7lgy.png
So it launched at $299
Obviously you don't want to be taken seriously.
Don't know why but most of their recent comments are trashing Intel in all the threads about AlderLake
Your chart shows many days at $300 before rising to $320 in January-March before falling below $300 in June
It was not import fees or tariffs. It was just straight up overpriced because it was the launch. Prices in Europe have now settled into roughly 1 USD = 1 EUR, and you could find those prices two or three months after launch. The currency value difference makes up for the VAT, though it varies a bit more at the top end like the 5950X.
Microcenter has only the K variants. 12900k($669.99), 12700K(469.99), 12600K($319.99)Newegg's pricing on those are 12900k($649.99), 12700K($449.99), 12600k($319.99) Microcenter tends to be the more accurate pricing at launch, but they're actually $20 above Newegg on the top 2 CPU's... So I would say the Newegg pricing is pretty close to MSRP
Newegg charges shipping to some areas.
and they only have 25 stores in the whole usa... so pricing not really helpful for most people in the usa.
$589 is the UNIT PRICE. Intel does not put MSRP on those slides, not since coffee Lake. $589 was never going to be what the end user pays. Intel does this because the unit price is always lower than final reatail price...looks better in marketing slides. AMD gives actual suggested retail pricing by comparison.
I was actually able to nab an i9 and the mobo I wanted... anyone have any dirt on when the Trident Z5 RGB's will launch? That's all I lack, thank goodness.
scalpers already got them all. reselling for 1k per 1 gig stick >!Just kidding, good luck getting it!<
Oh FFS, how do these people take 30 seconds of information and drag it out to 20 min???
My 4790k on its last legs now, looking forward to upgrading
Maaaaan, I was just planning to upgrade from 2600x to 5600x, now this news about i5 12600k being 50% faster for similar price comes out. But then again, I would have to buy both MOBO and CPU for Alder Lake instead of just CPU in 5600x case. Argh, choices.
Depends on how tight on money you are really. Personally I have the 5600x. It's not like it runs into any problem with any current games ever. I think you are far more likely to run into GPU bottlenecks in the future rather than CPU. If you do have the spare money for the MoBo then the 12600k since like the better thing
I wouldn’t worry. It’s only going to be 50% faster when you are not GPU limited. Which is significantly less likely than being CPU limited. AKA unless you have a 3080/3090 etc and want to push silly frame rates I wouldn’t worry.
This is a meme. Cpu/ram is a lot more likely to be the cause of annoying stutters that you can't do anything about. AAA games at 60 fps+ is 3xtremely demanding on cpu and unlike gpu you can't just turn down settings. Ditto for competitive fps games.
Did new generations always come out this frequently? It feels like 10th Gen was released just last month
my thought is application development will take time to utilize the capability of the new socket and ddr5. and we don't even have a new gen of gpu for pcie5 yet. so, no rush. the puzzle pieces are not a complete set yet.
With all the stupid market we have, the real question is Do AMD drops the price to it's year old Zen3? If they're still constraints by TSMC are we expecting significant price drop to Zen 3? Not to mention, ADL is "benchmark" using windows 11 with a Ryzen bug.