101–110 of 163 posts
So this CPU is about to compete with AMD Ryzen 4000 laptop series?
AMD Ryzen has a track record of shipping on time, whereas novel process Intel CPUs have not shipped on time for nearly half a decade. They will certainly compete at some point but I'd expect Ryzen 4000/5000 mobile processors to be out when AMD says they will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile amd has been cleaning their clock for decades at a better price point. Literally there were people born that can legally drink now. Intel is the grey goose of chips. Amd gets the job done
My first CPU at age ~8 was a Pentium Pro, followed by a Pentium II. That was the last Intel CPU I ever owned. I stuck on an FX8350 for a while, and it was never the bottleneck for gaming performane compared to the GPU. For a non-enthusiast, AMD has been a great choice almost for my whole life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "We have a formal process for what types of things are lakes vs. bays vs. peaks," Tripp told us. However, he didn't elaborate on what that process was. "Different components are named after different geographic areas." https://www.tomshardware.com/news/decoding-intel-code-names
Just about every product since 2015 has been a lake. I'd guess "lake" is the code word for "just overclock last year's chip and call it a day"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone I know, including myself, have gone AMD 39xx. Damn what a beast at a reasonable price.
At this point though intel has slashed their price/core to be competitive if not better than threadripper. They don't have anything that compete in core count, but if you look at the 9980/10980 series with 18 cores, its very competitive on a price basis per core with the 24/32/64 core threadrippers. If you want max cores then you still need to go with threadripper but if 18 is enough, i don't get all the hate 10980 g…
That's not a fair comparison, considering that price per core usually goes up the more cores there are. Also, if you check pcpartpicker you'll see all the i9s with greater than 12 cores are either sold out, or well above their MRSP.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900-vs-...
Aside from the pressure from AMD, I think there's another force at play here. There are quite a lot of people now that just use a web browser on their desktop or laptop. For them, a 5 year old (or older?) CPU is good enough that they don't know they are missing anything. Especially if they have enough memory and an SSD.
I have several laptops that are newer (within the last 2-5 years), but they're used primarily by my kids or for work.
Aside from the pressure from AMD, I think there's another force at play here. There are quite a lot of people now that just use a web browser on their desktop or laptop. For them, a 5 year old (or older?) CPU is good enough that they don't know they are missing anything. Especially if they have enough memory and an SSD.
> There are quite a lot of people now that just use a web browser on their desktop or laptop. As opposed to the people who used to use their computer for email and spread sheets? I would argue that the resource needs of a web browser has absolutely been increasing over time. The 4GB of RAM in that old laptop just does not work for the modern web. And considering how many web site now require the client to run tons an…
Completely false, I'm on 4GB RAM and Q9300. I haven't had any issues. 99% of websites run smooth. I even code on this machine. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24145436
EDIT: I have 10 tabs open right now in Firefox. From bbc.com, HackerNews, and Zillow. I also have AnyDesk, Slack, Signal, VSCode, and a couple of other programs open right now. No performance issues.
EDIT2: I opened up Chrome with Youtube in addition to the above, here's proof everything is still doing well: https://imgur.com/a/SlxT4yE
EDIT3: Ok now i'm just having fun. I added a Netflix tab to Chrome. Opened up a big project in VSCode. Added Vivaldi browser, Notepad++. It stuttered a little (5-10s) loading up the programs but once they were up, it's fine again: https://imgur.com/a/BNqPKU9
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel's CPUs today are still king when it comes to single-thread workloads, like gaming. The main difference in the past two years has been that AMD has taken the lead in multi-thread performance, and that's scared Intel so much that they've significantly improved multi-thread performance and price across the board. The difference is quite stark, in both directions [1]: AMD destroys Intel in anything that benefits fr…
> But, Intel wins when gaming; usually by around 5-10%. 10% more CPU performance is going to provide overall gains that are difficult to measure. That's even more true for games, which nowadays are seldom CPU-bound.
Of course, that "more performance" often means "Running at 300fps instead of 270 fps", and it really doesn't matter. And, the higher the resolution, the more GPU stress you'll see, so at 4K-class resolutions its far closer to trading between CPU-bound and GPU-bound.
But, then, DLSS2 complicates things further by amplifying what the GPU is capable of at even very high resolutions, and the RTX 3080 Ti is releasing in a couple weeks.
So its only possible to speak in generalities about facts which are true in most situations. In the past decade, there has not been any competitively positioned products which would make an Intel/Nvidia PC not the generally-best option for PC gaming. AMD deserves a ton of credit for what they've done with Ryzen, and outside of gaming, BUY RYZEN. But, within gaming, it's a far more complex equation which depends on how much you're spending, what you're using the PC for other than gaming, if you're streaming, etc: In short, its such a complex equation that its better to just not think about it and flip a coin.
I have a Intel i5 2500 that I paid $209 for in April 2011. I'm looking at new i9 desktop chips and they're like 50% faster. 10 years? WTF? The laptop chips are barely faster. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900-vs-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4GB of RAM on a machine (regardless of OS) is absolutely fine for browsing the "modern web".
Windows alone uses like 2GB, open some tabs and you are already out of ram. I think 8 is the new minimum.
The phase "open some tabs and you are already out of ram" is a bit of an exaggeration.