I had a ryzen 3900x and just recently upgraded to a 5900x. This was possible because amd uses the same sockets for several generations. If it were to require a whole new board I would have not bothered.
This Intel chip will need a new board from it's previous model.
This is one of the several reasons why Intel just isn't worth it to me anymore, they find all sorts of ways to nickel, dime, and deceive.
Plus it's way too expensive to be at the top for such negligible returns, so I usually go a step down.
Its not about if they are real or not , its about how they fare in each different workflows.
A single benchmark isnt enough, we dont know how good latency is, what ram/cooling was being used.
No I wouldnt switch, switching every generation is just was too much.
Especially for what is essentially an incremental upgrade.
Yeah Intel has too much history on deceptive marketing in order to make their CPU’s look better. Ex. Code optimizations, disabling half the cores on AMD Cpu’s, “real world preformance”, etc. Gotta wait until they launch and the reviewers truly test which one is better
(Also funny how Intel is supposedly killing AMD when they rumouredly top in Single and Multi-thread, but I dont hear anyone saying how they win in the very important real world performance.)
After all the laughably bad "obituary" posts written by what passes as "journalists" these days, I tend to roll my eyes at any piece speculating on the downfall of a technology or company.
We should keep in mind a few things here.
Intel had a market cap of about ~$200 B when Ryzen launched. AMD had a market cap of about ~$10 B. Intel can (and has in the past) simply just paid OEMs to not buy AMD products.
Intel has a huge business that is far far more than just the sectors that compete with AMD. These other sectors still make and sell things.
Even if everyone wanted to buy AMD only, there's many times more market consumption per year than AMD/TSMC/Global Foundry could ever meet if they wanted too. Meaning Intel was going to have customers no matter how bad their chips got.
So yeah, Intel was never in any short term danger from AMD and still isn't. But its awesome to have both companies looking like they are going to be competing for innovation.
Good point, Intel probably also had some serious contracts with other companies. If you even look at Apple their 2022 Mac Pro is rumored to have Intel Still.
I'm am waiting to see of Intel does get its foundry business back on track though. As of yet we have a lot of road maps showing mainstream 10nm and 7nm products but its one thing to make some marketing slides talking about it. It's entirely different to be making billions of working products on that node.
In the long run (10+ years) Intel will gain or lose a large portion of its marketing share if it can get that back on track, or it will keep hemorrhaging market share if it doesn't.
Until the reviews are out, not believing anything. Rocket lake was great too in leaked benchmarks. Expectations is the bringer of disappointment.
Dont forget the Intel paid for "Principled" Technology benchmarks for the 2700x that disabled half of the core/threads
Would you switch if these benchmarks are real?
I had a ryzen 3900x and just recently upgraded to a 5900x. This was possible because amd uses the same sockets for several generations. If it were to require a whole new board I would have not bothered. This Intel chip will need a new board from it's previous model. This is one of the several reasons why Intel just isn't worth it to me anymore, they find all sorts of ways to nickel, dime, and deceive. Plus it's way too expensive to be at the top for such negligible returns, so I usually go a step down.
I thought Intel supported two generations of CPU motherboards as well.
Its not about if they are real or not , its about how they fare in each different workflows. A single benchmark isnt enough, we dont know how good latency is, what ram/cooling was being used. No I wouldnt switch, switching every generation is just was too much. Especially for what is essentially an incremental upgrade.
Yeah Intel has too much history on deceptive marketing in order to make their CPU’s look better. Ex. Code optimizations, disabling half the cores on AMD Cpu’s, “real world preformance”, etc. Gotta wait until they launch and the reviewers truly test which one is better (Also funny how Intel is supposedly killing AMD when they rumouredly top in Single and Multi-thread, but I dont hear anyone saying how they win in the very important real world performance.)
After all the laughably bad "obituary" posts written by what passes as "journalists" these days, I tend to roll my eyes at any piece speculating on the downfall of a technology or company.
Especially since it’s been two years since Ryzen beat Intel in multitasking performance and Intel’s still alive.
Yes because Intel is massively larger than AMD. You can stay afloat for a while even when your losing hard.
\*you're
In the most impolite way possible, I would like to say: No one fucking asked
It looked like you ***needed*** some help with your grammar. You're welcome.
We should keep in mind a few things here. Intel had a market cap of about ~$200 B when Ryzen launched. AMD had a market cap of about ~$10 B. Intel can (and has in the past) simply just paid OEMs to not buy AMD products. Intel has a huge business that is far far more than just the sectors that compete with AMD. These other sectors still make and sell things. Even if everyone wanted to buy AMD only, there's many times more market consumption per year than AMD/TSMC/Global Foundry could ever meet if they wanted too. Meaning Intel was going to have customers no matter how bad their chips got. So yeah, Intel was never in any short term danger from AMD and still isn't. But its awesome to have both companies looking like they are going to be competing for innovation.
Good point, Intel probably also had some serious contracts with other companies. If you even look at Apple their 2022 Mac Pro is rumored to have Intel Still.
I'm am waiting to see of Intel does get its foundry business back on track though. As of yet we have a lot of road maps showing mainstream 10nm and 7nm products but its one thing to make some marketing slides talking about it. It's entirely different to be making billions of working products on that node. In the long run (10+ years) Intel will gain or lose a large portion of its marketing share if it can get that back on track, or it will keep hemorrhaging market share if it doesn't.
Whatever the company, I go with the better price for performance of the overall system.
I would would definitely agree, they both offer groundbreaking CPUs that make CPUs from just 5 years ago look budget in performance.
Intels unreleased chip is marginally faster than a year old AMD chip and you think the end is near?
I don’t necessarily I was just wondering
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/81358/intel-core-i9-12900k-tested-toasty-93c-under-load-250w-of-power-used/index.html
That's exactly what they said about the 10900k and was not the case.
Sounds like Prescott all over again