131–140 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exorbitant prices on warmed-over revisions of yesterday's product in a market devoid of competition broadcasts "we've stopped trying because we own the market" . Yes, that can trigger an emotional response in people.
>we've stopped trying because we own the market I always laugh at that take. Imagine working for Intel today and hear people complain you're not even trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood this idea that someone feels sleighted for something out of their price range that they perceive should be valued lower for their benefit while complaining that the company is setting up prices for their benefit too. Is it grounded on facts or mostly an emotional response?
A very succinct description of a common thought pattern. You see it frequently applied to premium brands like Apple and BMW.
When i read comments here i'm wondering how and why people are either for or against intel? IF i need to upgrade, i will check the current situation and will buy the best cpu in comparison to my needs and price. If it means that i need tons of core because of my workload i might choose a threadripper. Do i need to compile often and i know a specific intel cpu will save me ton of time waiting but it costs more? Fine.…
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-...
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900-vs-Intel-...
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-...
Things have indeed slowed down but you're cherry picking numbers. +50% single-thread but +200% in multi-threaded!
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…
> The 10900k is better than the 3900x for gaming, but its also a ~$120 up-sell Is it correct to think that compared by work-done-by-watt AMD is currently better than Intel? (in this example Intel's 10900k uses 250-300W [1], AMD's 3900x uses 140-170W [2]?) In my case I use often many threads/processes (generated by databases and/or my Python programs that usually spawn as many subprocesses as possible without overload…
If you're after minimal power usage in order to optimize for electricity cost, while still keeping good performance, actually: mobile Intel CPUs tend to be the best pick. AMD has some strong mobile CPU options, but they're essentially impossible to build into a desktop PC, whereas mobile Intel CPUs are available in products like the Ghost Canyon NUCs (ok, well, "available" may not be the right word, because they're freakin' impossible to find right now, but Officially, anyone can buy them).
If you're after lowering heat output for the purposes of reducing noise or increasing overclocking performance, generally its better to solve this via better cooling. Noise is more of a function of bad cooling, rather than super-high heat output from the processor. Many people view liquid cooling as "super high overclocking performance", but actually: The biggest benefit to liquid cooling is that it reduces "air churn" inside the case by removing the typical CPU radiator fan just sitting in the middle of the case spilling air in every direction. Instead, you've got dedicated intake/output fans on defined sides of the case, resulting in clear air paths, which increases fan efficiency, reducing the number of fans you need or reducing the amount of work they need to do.
But: the laws of thermodynamics state that heat can't just disappear. If you're optimizing for actual heat reduction for the sheer purpose of heat reduction, then an Intel mobile CPU or Ryzen desktop CPU is better (with Intel mobile CPUs being better by far).
Check out the Ghost Canyon NUCs. If you can find one, they're more expensive than just DIY, but would likely be a great option for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only way this would apply would be through shared overhead, which given that we are talking about different product lines often tends to be minimal. this is very much not minimal in the CPU business though. intel's entire line of (consumer) desktop parts is different bins of the same chip. they wouldn't be able to offer an i3 for $120 if they weren't also selling i9s for $500. and they probably couldn't sell co…
> intel's entire line of (consumer) desktop parts is different bins of the same chip. Is that true? Intel's 14nm yields are high enough that it wouldnt really make sense for the dirt cheap quad core processors to secretly be 8 core processors with half the cores (and cache) disabled.
I won't be buying Intel CPUs for years to come. Haven't upgraded since 2016. Years of "incremental" improvements while still advertising $1000+ CPU prices has deterred me for quite some time. Intel fanboys might eat it up though. Given their history of significant delays in the current roadmap, how does this compare to their competition who is quickly advancing on 10nm? Also what is this internal naming schema? > The…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The 10900k is better than the 3900x for gaming, but its also a ~$120 up-sell Is it correct to think that compared by work-done-by-watt AMD is currently better than Intel? (in this example Intel's 10900k uses 250-300W [1], AMD's 3900x uses 140-170W [2]?) In my case I use often many threads/processes (generated by databases and/or my Python programs that usually spawn as many subprocesses as possible without overload…
Yes: In terms of performance per watt, AMD generally beats Intel. It's not really even close in many situations. What this means for consumers is more complex, as there are many variables you can try to optimize for. If you're after minimal power usage in order to optimize for electricity cost, while still keeping good performance, actually: mobile Intel CPUs tend to be the best pick. AMD has some strong mobile CPU o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exorbitant prices on warmed-over revisions of yesterday's product in a market devoid of competition broadcasts "we've stopped trying because we own the market" . Yes, that can trigger an emotional response in people.
>we've stopped trying because we own the market I always laugh at that take. Imagine working for Intel today and hear people complain you're not even trying.