How long before Intel get their act together?

Psycho Sonny · 21 Jul 2020 at 13:57

Cpu power is outstripping demand right now.

I game on a 3600x and it never gets anywhere near 100% usage.

It's a good thing but they need to focus on more speed now rather than cores.

Unless you are doing some pretty niche stuff we don't need more cores.

I reckon you could get away with 6 cores and 12 threads for the next decade. Itw I'll be when the PlayStation 6 is released and been around for 3 years before we will need 8 cores and 16 threads.

People think it will happen with the PS5 but it takes 5 or so years before developers really get to grips with the hardware.

Only terribly coded games use lots of cpu power currently.

~>Dg<~ · 21 Jul 2020 at 14:45

think how long consoles last. 5 -7 years. they put 8 cores in em for a reason. so right now you building a pc for the future 8 cores. you good for 5 years probably min.

jigger · 21 Jul 2020 at 17:54

Psycho Sonny said:
Cpu power is outstripping demand right now.

I game on a 3600x and it never gets anywhere near 100% usage.

It's a good thing but they need to focus on more speed now rather than cores.

Unless you are doing some pretty niche stuff we don't need more cores.

I reckon you could get away with 6 cores and 12 threads for the next decade. Itw I'll be when the PlayStation 6 is released and been around for 3 years before we will need 8 cores and 16 threads.

People think it will happen with the PS5 but it takes 5 or so years before developers really get to grips with the hardware.

Only terribly coded games use lots of cpu power currently.

Pre PS4 and Xbox One that was maybe the case, but console devs have been using 8 core X86/64 CPU's and DX12 graphics for 8 years or more.

Psycho Sonny · 21 Jul 2020 at 19:19

~>Dg<~ said:
think how long consoles last. 5 -7 years. they put 8 cores in em for a reason. so right now you building a pc for the future 8 cores. you good for 5 years probably min.

Nobody builds a pc to last 5 years of they want to be future proofed.

The way to future proof is buy what you need now that is cheap and then sell it and buy what's good in the future.

Right now I use a 3600x for that reason.

When I need 8 cored ill sell it and buy a 6600x in 3 generations time. By then ryzen 5 will have 8 or more cores.

~>Dg<~ · 21 Jul 2020 at 19:24

Psycho Sonny said:
Nobody builds a pc to last 5 years of they want to be future proofed.

The way to future proof is buy what you need now that is cheap and then sell it and buy what's good in the future.

Right now I use a 3600x for that reason.

When I need 8 cored ill sell it and buy a 6600x in 3 generations time. By then ryzen 5 will have 8 or more cores.

what you say only makes sense if its cheap. x6 cores have been needed for quite a while. they are the norm. a years time it will be 8 for a modern gaming pc. most people will keep there pcs for 3- 5 years. buy once get the 8 core. buying 6 now you will have to upgrade x2.

many people build pcs to last 3 -5 years. new consoles have 8 cores most of the games will be catered towards them that are new and you will be say on a x6 core. the consoles are out in months. 6 cores you dont buy now unless they cheap and you on a budget.

Joxeon · 21 Jul 2020 at 19:36

~>Dg<~ said:
what you say only makes sense if its cheap. x6 cores have been needed for quite a while. they are the norm. a years time it will be 8 for a modern gaming pc. most people will keep there pcs for 3- 5 years. buy once get the 8 core. buying 6 now you will have to upgrade x2.

many people build pcs to last 3 -5 years. new consoles have 8 cores most of the games will be catered towards them that are new and you will be say on a x6 core. the consoles are out in months. 6 cores you dont buy now unless they cheap and you on a budget.

The 3300X seems to perform fine at the minute although personally I wouldn't go below 6 cores but that said even though the consoles have 8 cores they only boost to like 3.7-8 so a 6 core that boosts significantly higher would probably be fine for a good 5 years.

Psycho Sonny · 21 Jul 2020 at 20:41

~>Dg<~ said:
what you say only makes sense if its cheap. x6 cores have been needed for quite a while. they are the norm. a years time it will be 8 for a modern gaming pc. most people will keep there pcs for 3- 5 years. buy once get the 8 core. buying 6 now you will have to upgrade x2.

many people build pcs to last 3 -5 years. new consoles have 8 cores most of the games will be catered towards them that are new and you will be say on a x6 core. the consoles are out in months. 6 cores you dont buy now unless they cheap and you on a budget.

I'm happy to do frequent upgrades and go mid end. Its why I had a 1080 and now have a 2070 super.

Most gamers upgrade gpu every few years and cpu and mobo every other upgrade.

Nobody sticks with a cpu now for 5-10 years. 4 years max. Me I have had maybe 4 cpus in 5 years.

jigger · 2 Aug 2020 at 13:05

I’m starting to question if Intel will ever catch AMD.

heatonpkmassive · 2 Aug 2020 at 13:59

Me too, they seem to have been caught completely napping in recent years.

Kelt · 2 Aug 2020 at 14:35

jigger said:
I’m starting to question if Intel will ever catch AMD.

I hope they never do.

Their track record of stifling the competition through illegal practises and thereby eneabling their anti-consumer policy of high prices for stunted tech means they don't deserve squat.

FoxEye · 2 Aug 2020 at 16:05

Kelt said:
I hope they never do.

Their track record of stifling the competition through illegal practises and thereby eneabling their anti-consumer policy of high prices for stunted tech means they don't deserve squat.

Hard to disagree with the disgust at their previous actions.

But I'm not sure an AMD monopoly would be a good thing either.

BluesFanUK · 2 Aug 2020 at 17:28

Exactly, zero sympathy for them, and they deserve hammering AMD are giving them, but a one company monopoly is never good. It wouldn't take long for AMD to start blowing prices up if Intel can't offer some level of competitiveness. On one hand it's fair game given how bad Intel and Nvidia have been, but consumer always loses out.

Doobedoo · 2 Aug 2020 at 17:54

Consumers (I really dislike that word) do not help themselves they need to shoulder some of the blame for the inflated prices.

If consumers didn’t buy them these companies would drop prices. Simple stuff really.

heatonpkmassive · 2 Aug 2020 at 19:03

FoxEye said:
Hard to disagree with the disgust at their previous actions.

But I'm not sure an AMD monopoly would be a good thing either.

No monopoly is good, which is why I hope they hit back.

CuriousTomCat · 3 Aug 2020 at 13:57

At least an AMD monopoly would mean more cashflow to throw at their GPU division to compete with Nvidia.

I'm sure Intel will hit back but I hope it's not for another 5 years. That will give AMD chance to grow. They're still small company compared to Intel. I'd like to see them a similar size to each other with similar amounts of cash so they can plough equal amounts into R&D. Otherwise Intel will have another monopoly again.

Intel only need a small lead and the sheep consumers will all flock to them.

Stanners · 3 Aug 2020 at 14:14

Of course intel will be back. And why would anyone only want one payer in AMD :confused:

We need them both pushing each other on price and performance!

hominid · 3 Aug 2020 at 14:46

It's going to be years, 10nm is still not where they need it despite changing it to get it out the door producing parts but yields are still lower than wanted. 7nm is still a mess, nowhere near being ready - so it'll still be a couple of years for that, at least.

AMD deserve some love, they was quite close to going bankrupt spinning off what they could to save/generate money, but now things are looking good but they still need to crack the server market. Intel is paying a lot of money to the big OEM's to keep AMD at a minimum in the server space, in the order of billions of dollars, but that will only last so long as eventually they need to get a part out of the door that can compete - things are fairly dire for Intel at the moment.

jigger · 3 Aug 2020 at 16:44

hominid said:
It's going to be years, 10nm is still not where they need it despite changing it to get it out the door producing parts but yields are still lower than wanted. 7nm is still a mess, nowhere near being ready - so it'll still be a couple of years for that, at least.

AMD deserve some love, they was quite close to going bankrupt spinning off what they could to save/generate money, but now things are looking good but they still need to crack the server market. Intel is paying a lot of money to the big OEM's to keep AMD at a minimum in the server space, in the order of billions of dollars, but that will only last so long as eventually they need to get a part out of the door that can compete - things are fairly dire for Intel at the moment.

My firm is looking at a DC build right now. Intel would have to pay us to use their equipment.

Dave2150 · 3 Aug 2020 at 16:49

LGA 1700 with Alder Lake will likely be the moment Intel leapfrogs AMD, especially if they use TSMC's 7nm or 5nm process to built it on.

Vince · 3 Aug 2020 at 16:55

jigger said:
My firm is looking at a DC build right now. Intel would have to pay us to use their equipment.

They tried with me and even then they couldn't make it competitive. Seriously they cant make them free and the only way it's worth an intel build with everything factored in is if they literally give me the kit! If you run the numbers it's increasingly difficult to make intel look even in the same league. So if you literally can't give them away because, power draw, because patching, because they get spanked silly by the competitions chips, because so many reasons.

I know what your thinking, it doesn't matter! But it really does matters in a DC where you pay by the rack and by the amp, if people are super interested I can flesh out the current costing of my 10 racks including power draw etc for both AMD and Intel to give an idea where the lay of the land is right now in the server space.