Did Intel really lose?

[-]

The_elder_smurf@reddit

I can promise you intel was already losing by the 12600k. The 12600k was an alright chip depending on price and mb combo ect, intel was still competing here at this time, but its i7 and i9 counterparts were a waste of sand. The 14600kf was simply a worse chip for the money than the amd offering period. 12th gen was the last time intel had any chips worth buying over amd. It's crazy what happened to intel after losing their monopoly, all the billions they lost trying to play catchup to a company a 10th their size

[-]

Cindysphoto@reddit

Just curious as to what kind of rendering only took 10 min on the 14th gen, but 2 hrs on the 12th gen?

I'm in the same boat basically. My last build was the 12700k when if first came out and Ive been quite happy with it. But I dont do video, rather lots of Photoshop work though. I was thinking of upgrading to 14th gen, but the microcode debacle kept me away.

[-]

Bonobo77@reddit (OP)

Exporting footage some high end footage from a PXW-Z280. Unfortunately, exporting anything 2 stage VBR in Premiere Pro is still CPU bound. No cuda core love just yet.

[-]

Cindysphoto@reddit

Ahh Ok. Though I don't do much with Video, I'm surprised that the difference is that significant. Good to know.

[-]

lorem_ipsum_aenean@reddit

The only one losing is consumers of Intel don’t step their game up.

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

Them not stepping up their game and thus having discounted chips on the market is a consumer win as well. Casual gamers the ones who don’t care about 250+ FPS should be snatching them up.

[-]

_Rah@reddit

Its not really a win, if its not sustainable. You want both companies to be profitable.

[-]

Fredasa@reddit

It's baffling watching Intel die on their hill of nothingburger micro-improvements, even in the face of total disaster.

[-]

pack_merrr@reddit

Idk exactly what period you're referring to but some of the leaks about Nova Lake sound pretty interesting to me. E-cores have supposedly will have really big performance gains over Arrow lake, I'll be interested to see what the new LP-cores bring to the table as well. Even more exciting I think is the news about the new bLLC(Big Last Level Cache), aka big ass L3 cache under the die, aka Intel's response to 3d v-cache.

Intel has clearly had their share of mistakes, but I do think their approach of having different P/E cores with asymmetric performance in the same die is really the way of the future, I wouldnt be surprised if AMD adopts a similar approach eventually. Zen 5 did split cores into multiple CCD's on the higher end models, which in turn introduced some latency that impacted some workloads. That never really mattered much in games, but if games continue to take more and more advantage of how many cores modern CPUs have (which seems to be the way things are going) that could theoretically matter more if AMD doesn't improve their approach here. Arrow Lake for all its flaws kind of has Zen 5 beat in this department, the structure of the die allows cores to pass data around and play with each other a lot more smoothly, and the way E cores are utilized has came a long way since they debuted in Alder Lake.

Might sound crazy, but I could see a scenario 1/2 generations down the road where were asking the exact same questions, but instead of Intel were asking how AMD shit the bed so badly. Intel has a lot to build on with the recent innovations they have made, and personally I think there's a lot to find compelling about their architecture compared to AMD. That's not to say I'm not aware of the many mistakes they've made, not only in chip design but as a company, so I can just as easily see a situation where AMD has an even greater monopoly and Intel is somehow looking even worse than they do now. In the interest of innovation though I hope it's more the former.

[-]

greggm2000@reddit

The rumors out there (which may be wrong), have Intel ditching E-cores and going back to hyper/multi-threading. It’s possible Intel has even said so publicly, I don’t remember. I don’t think having that combo of P and E cores works out well in practice, and that’s part of why Intel is doing as badly as they are.

[-]

pack_merrr@reddit

I've heard this as well, but that it's the newer revisions of the E-core architecture that's going to become the new "P-core" and the current P-cores are going to be dropped. Apparently they're able to squeeze a lot more performance out of the E-core architecture, and they'll obviously be suped up from their current state if that rumor is correct. The way I understood it, then the new LP-cores would get "promoted" to where E cores are now.

Raptor lake honestly holds up just fine in 2025, most of AMDs lead over it in tasks like gaming comes from having the 3d v-cache. Obviously with the caveat that is only the case for as long as those chips don't rust themselves to shit, but I'm going to hold my breath and say Intel hopefully won't make that mistake again. So, I'm not sure about your claim having P and E cores don't work out in practice. The early parts that didn't look good was specifically with games, that didnt utilize any more than 4-6 cores, scheduling things to E-cores, when they "should" have been only using the P cores. That problem has basically been solved by now. Id argue "in practice" it makes way more sense than the alternative. The idea is if I'm doing something computationally heavy like gaming I can use my bigger beefier cores, and offload less important things like discord or browser windows onto E cores. Or even when I'm doing something simple like just browsing the web, I can only use my more power efficient E cores.

[-]

greggm2000@reddit

I’ve heard the rumor as well, that in a few generations, E-cores will become the new P-cores.. but that doesn’t mean that Intel will make new E-cores. Also, Intel is rumored to be reintroducing HT, so in a few gens we’ll be back to where we were before: only P-cores + HT (+ a couple of very low power cores for background OS tasks). If the combo of P and E cores was so great, why would Intel be reverting, and why would AMD be dominating without them?

In practice, P + E cores have some uses, but P + HT seems to be the approach that works best.

[-]

odellrules1985@reddit

I mean massive performance bumps are very hard. AMD had massive improvements because they were behind. But even now their gains are smaller. I think Intel is on the correct path though. Get to an efficient design then get performance gains out of it. They were just throwing efficiency out the window for performance. But I think if they can give comparable if not better performance and similar efficiency we can see a real CPU war happen, which everyone should want. Otherwise we get stagnation, like when AMD wasn't competitive at all.

[-]

UnknownFiddler@reddit

The issue is that they really can't make anything better right now not that they are choosing not to compete. Their architecture issues from the 13th/14th gen were a complete disaster for the company and they cant just come out and release something amazing. It takes multiple generations and a ton of R&D to dig yourself out of a hole. AMD was stuck in that hole for nearly a decade before they got back on track with Zen.

[-]

IAMA_Plumber-AMA@reddit

Yeah, the period between the Phenom II and Zen was rough for AMD. Still salty I sold my 1090T and replaced it with an FX8350.

[-]

odellrules1985@reddit

To be fair Phenom 2 was a good bump in that road. Phenom was a terrible product that failed against an older and inferior Core 2 Quad design, by that I mean C2Q was MCM vs monolithic and external MC vs IMC. Phenom 2 was a good fix although not dominant to Core 2. Bulldozer, however, was just outright terrible and almost sunk AMD.

[-]

Silodal@reddit

Still have fx 6300 with me.

[-]

Liam2349@reddit

Everyone who bought that CPU has the right to be salty.

[-]

mcflash1294@reddit

depending on the price... I got an FX 8150 build for absurdly cheap in late 2013 and rode it into the sunset (GPUs: HD 6850, HD 7850, dual HD 7950, and finally an R9 Fury Nitro). Was performance not ideal? Absolutely! but it did play cyberpunk 2077 just fine and most of the other games I threw at it barring ARMA 3.

I do kind of wish I splurged on a i7 2600k though, I lucked into a build with one (pre overclocked too) that someone left by the trash and MAN what an upgrade.

[-]

RephRayne@reddit

The switch from NetBurst into Core from the Intel side.

[-]

airmantharp@reddit

They could’ve replaced the E-cores with L3 cache and made AMDs X3D lineup irrelevant. Even on 12th gen they’d still be ahead.

[-]

SirMaster@reddit

Why did they cancel royal core then? A new architecture designed by the legendary Jim Keller himself.

[-]

Fredasa@reddit

The most conspicuous thing to me is that they don't have an answer to X3D and don't even seem interested in beginning to develop an answer. They have to do this.

[-]

ThatDarnBanditx@reddit

It is an issue with the companies culture l worked there 5 years, they as a company are just delusional and promote people who are pretty awful at their job while refusing to give promotions and pay raises to some of the backbones of the company.

[-]

RolandMT32@reddit

And on top of that, Trump said he wanted Intel's current CEO to resign due to ties to China.. And their CEO has only been the CEO for a few months.

[-]

pm_me_ur_side8008@reddit

To be fair Trump is a fucking idiot.

[-]

dertechie@reddit

As much as I may not agree with the new CEO’s tack, I trust an MBA that can see Intel’s balance sheets over someone who bankrupted a casino. Also the person pushing to take away tens of billions from them because that money is associated with his predecessor.

Intel has had a decade long issue of having leadership that’s on the wrong side of the MBA-Engineering split. People that are there to make Wall Street happy that only think of R&D as a cost center. I think the new guy is a little too much there to convince investors that someone they trust is in charge.

The talk of spinning off the fabs deeply concerns me. I don’t want to see the second or third best fab company in the world essentially throw that away before they have enough customers outside Intel to fund next gen development. Maybe I’m old fashioned from the time that Intel’s greatest strength was a world beating fab arm before they neglected it.

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

"Nothingburger micro-improvements" is why it took AMD 4 years to even ADDRESS intercore latency, while Intel dealt with it with rocket lake.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit

How did Intel deal with intercore latency with rocket lake?

And wdym it took AMD 4 years to deal with intercore latency?

Intercore latency is also a hilariously useless benchmark for the vast majority of benchmarks.

[-]

JonWood007@reddit

It killed AMD's gaming performance for a while. Intel had ring bus while AMD their infinity fabric thing with chiplets, which caused massive latency problems causing gaming issues. They didnt address this until the 5000 series by making their chiplets 8 cores. And then they did X3D. 1 2 punch. Meanwhile intel introduced latency to theirs. Rocket lake was just weird. Alder lake introduced it by adding ecores. Raptor lake mitigated it somewhat, but then core ultra added a ton of it by switching to their new tile thing.

Those kinds of issues are really important for gaming. Ryzen sucked for gaming for a while because of them. Then when they addressed them they were ahead while intel had....the same performance they always had. Alder lake vs 5000/7000 series was kind of a wash given the DDR4/5 options (DDR4 = 5000 series performance, DDR5 = just short of 7000 series performance). Raptor lake was on parity just with more cores. And yeah. Not much has changed since. AMD has X3D which is REALLY REALLY INSANELY FAST but only available on premium 8 core models.

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

Changes that came along with Cypress Cove cores that I couldn't care to understand at a technical level, as well as ring-based cache.

The Ryzen 9k series dropped local-die latency by almost 4 times over contemporary 7k models. Cross-die latency is still horrifically bad, pushing equal timeframes to the 13900 (effectively reversing 12900 -> 13900 efforts in favor of better P-cores).
The 14900K, matching the 9950X's local-die latency, then pushes 3\~3.5x faster cross-die latency.
The next Ryzen lineup is primarily pushing towards inter-die latency to tie call times to be consistent with local-die latency.

Intercore latency isn't a "useless benchmark" (nor a benchmark at all), it's the sole reason why amateurs with no knowledge whatsoever of setlists rank the 9950X3D below the 9800X3D, while the 9950X3D is demonstrably better than the 9800X3D. If you buy a plug-and-play CPU and receive gimped performance because of a draw mechanic that you're simply unaware of, there's a problem.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit

Changes that came along with Cypress Cove cores that I couldn't care to understand at a technical level, as well as ring-based cache.

It didn't. RKL did not have any improvement in intercore latency, not any significant one at least.

There are fewer cores, but IIRC they also ran the ring slower, it's basically a wash.

There's no fundamental changes. The real changes with the ring came with ADL adopting TGL's dual ring design, as well as increasing the number of slices (as did RPL), and all of Intel's changes in future archs hurt core to core latency.

The Ryzen 9k series dropped local-die latency by almost 4 times over contemporary 7k models

It's a (fixed) bug.

The next Ryzen lineup is primarily pushing towards inter-die latency to tie call times to be consistent with local-die latency.

I doubt there's any significant uplift in die to die latency, even with better packaging. There's no need for it to be, and that's not the case with strix halo, which also uses better packaging than ifop.

Again, cross-ccx latency is not a big deal.

Increasing the number of slices per CCX is always nice too ig, but again, not a big deal.

Intercore latency isn't a "useless benchmark" (nor a benchmark at all),

It is a benchmark, and yes it is useless.

it's the sole reason why amateurs with no knowledge whatsoever of setlists rank the 9950X3D below the 9800X3D, while the 9950X3D is demonstrably better than the 9800X3D

Because of scheduling bugs that cause cores to be split across CCDs, yes.

Performance profiling from Chips and Cheese shows that to not be a big deal.

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

I see what you are saying but I want whatever saves me money. When times are good and they are rigging the prices and raking in billions that is my problem. When they are suffering that is my problem as well? Why didn’t they save some of those billions for a rainy day? Or was their plan for stock to go up up up forever?

I am not going to cry for wittle wo corporation. Win or lose for them, I as a consumer had nothing to do with it. I’ll take the low prices.

[-]

Thag-@reddit

Its not about crying, as you say we get up the ass in both extremes, we need a middleground not one company winning aginst the other. You might have low prices for short while but thats a very short amount of time. Tbh i think both companies equal lowers price and increases competition more on anything but the shortest term.

[-]

Ai-on@reddit

When was the last time both companies released truly competitive products that drove prices down? Hasn’t AMD been competing with Nvidia, yet Nvidia still raises prices with each new generation?

[-]

dotareddit@reddit

Hasn’t AMD been competing with Nvidia

AMD hasn't competed at the top end GPUs for a long time.

They have focused more on price/preformance gpus but delays and the same old issue let nvidia take the dominant market share.

AMD cause have been stuff competition to Intel after the ryzen refresh. The real kicker being Intel absolute fumbling of microde and overheating issues which ultimately are still outstanding (correct me if im wrong) and have left a bad mark on their brand.

Personally I r3cently upgraded from years of intel to amd.

If they clean up their track record for a few generations, or AMD missteps I will consider intel for my next cpu

[-]

pack_merrr@reddit

I'm not sure if I would consider 2 and a half years a "long time" lol

I mean sure it was clearly beat out by the 4090, but what do you think the 7900xtx was if not an attempt at competing with Nvidia at the high end?

[-]

dotareddit@reddit

Where are you getting two years from?

Also, if the 7900xtx was a true competitor at the time. It would have had more marketshare. Consumers were dying for lower prices at the top end.

Thats just truth of the situation.

Competing on specific scenarios but being behind at 4k by 20% isnt competition. Its a different market segment.

[-]

pack_merrr@reddit

It's roughly 2 and a half since the 7900xtx launched.

I guess we're just working on different definitions of "compete" and top-end. 7900xtx was clearly an attempt at competing at the "top end" by AMD. And by top end, I don't mean literally head to head with the 4090, I mean near the top end of the market which that card clearly is even if it's more an 80 series card translated into Nvidia. If AMD thought they could make a card at a realistic price point to compete with the 90 series then, I think they would have.

[-]

M3g4d37h@reddit

the only intel chips I ever loved and saw as a good value were the Q6600.

[-]

Ai-on@reddit

So when was the last time that both companies offered competitive products that resulted in lower prices?

[-]

dotareddit@reddit

For GPUs, I dont know exactly but I remember 7950s -pre GTX 1080s being a good period.

For CPUs. Post ryzen upto the recent intel 13th gen issues.

[-]

bughousenut@reddit

After years (even decades) of using AMD I just finished a build with Intel. I don't game and Intel runs better on some programs I use.

[-]

Liason774@reddit

There hasn't been enough supply in the gpu market for competition to matter. AMD hasn't been competing with nvidea high end so 4090 5090 can still be priced at watever they want. Plus nvidea no longer relies on consumer sales so they don't really need to outsell AMD since majority of their income is now days centers.

[-]

Ai-on@reddit

So when was the last time that both companies offered competitive products that resulted in lower prices?

[-]

thatissomeBS@reddit

Literally always. That's how it works. If either company left the market prices would go up substantially.

[-]

Ai-on@reddit

Since the 1st gen Ryzen cpu, Intel never lowered their prices until 14th gen and ultra.

[-]

SpitefulRedditScum@reddit

Lowering price and being competitive are not the same thing.

[-]

Ai-on@reddit

I agree, hence my original comment.

[-]

aaron_dresden@reddit

I don’t know how they would be able to compete on supply when they both use the same chip fabrication company. We need more diversity in fabrication options to improve things.

[-]

Thag-@reddit

Not too many years ago intel and amd were very competitive, its just Intel that that shat the bed. Nvidia unfortunately a long time ago and it clearly shows(other than just the 1 manufacturer of the die situation which isn't on them).

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

So where do I as a consumer come into this situation? That is their issue not mine. Consumers should care about their bottom line and a good warranty. That is the end of the transaction.

Should a bunch of bad decision made by corporate managers give me the blues or something?

What is me pretending to care on Reddit going to do for their situation or mine? I care about my money. Anyone here claiming otherwise are real saints of the community.

[-]

realribsnotmcfibs@reddit

People are trying to tell you there are broader implications to not having functional competition in a space. You are cashing out your 401k for a vacation, the long term cost is far more than the couple of dollars you got to put into your pocket temporarily. Screw intel for blowing 150 billion over the last 2 decades on stock buy backs as they run the company into the ground, but that does not mean these type of companies are not critical for the space and for overall national and economic security.

This will get worse as intel continues to fall behind you will have one single company to look to for future CPUs. The rate of advancement will slow and integrators and large scale industrial users will loose negotiating power when making large purchases pushing up the cost of grandmas next computer also.

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

“Oh, I wish Intel was more competitive. These current low prices are bad for consumers because it hurts their bottom line!” how would some dude on the internet saying that affect anything? I rather not worry about stuff that I can’t control. I worry about my money. That is where the transaction ends. It’s a consumer and business relationship is it not? I am not a corporate fanboy.

I am not five years old, of course there are broader implications.

[-]

realribsnotmcfibs@reddit

No it absolutely will affect you.

In times of conflict or war you need to be able to produce components locally. They hold knowledge as an institution that is desperately required for the United States. Hence why it should just be nationalized at this point. I’d rather the government plow some billions into the company every year for the next few decades to maintain a supply base and institutional knowledge than essentially give up and become helpless the day TSMC decides it no longer serves in their best interest to support the west which is entirely possible given the current situation in Asia.

This isn’t just about your $400 gaming CPU this is about the ability to produce weapons in a time of need. To produce medical equipment…to continue to fuel your tech based economy. There is a world where the lack of ability to fab our own semi conductors could directly translate to loss of life both on the battlefield and in day to day life.

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

Hey I could also pretend not read any of what you said. Have fun.

[-]

Secret-Ad-2145@reddit

You as a consumer benefit from competition between CPU makers. Competition incentivizes improvement, greater product variety, and lowering prices as they want your dollar. You yourself don't need to do anything, in fact, but you reap all the benefits in this relationship.

If one competitor fails, then the other one has no incentive to innovate as much or lower prices. In fact, if it wasn't for competition we wouldn't have had the Ryzen reboot that we all love so much currently. And because intel had been slacking, those Ryzen cpu prices remained high. This is in net negative to you.

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

This is not an advanced concept so I didn’t say it. Of course competition is good. Is this buildapckids?

“So then Intel not doing well is bad for competition.”

Yes true. But what does me enjoying low prices and then feeling guilty about it because Intel is poorly managed have anything to do with anything?

If we really really want Intel to succeed for competition sake, and really mean it by arguing here, then okay I get it. But for me I rather not worry about multinational multibillion dollar corporations fucking up. That’s just me. There are other more concerning things for me to worry about.

[-]

Secret-Ad-2145@reddit

But what does me enjoying low prices and then feeling guilty about it because Intel is poorly managed have anything to do with anything?

Nobody is asking you to lose sleep over intel, though. In fact, you're not involved at all beyond being a customer (something I said earlier since you missed it). All I was saying it's generally in your favor Intel is managed better and there's competition. I'm not sure why you find that such a struggling concept.

[-]

Thag-@reddit

So Don't? I dont think anyone is implying anything of the sort, if you not an enthusiast in a given hobby you don't need to care.

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

Not caring about what I think isn’t what is happening here is it?

What is happening are retorts about me being wrong because competition is good. Like we all just discovered that concept. I even said I “get what they are saying but…” it’s not advanced stuff.

I am saying, which many seem to not be seeing is

Company makes product.

I buy product.

End of transaction.

They are not a charity. They will fuck us— and have, if they could. Low prices no matter the reason is good for the consumer.

[-]

DCGMoo@reddit

Because dominance by one company allows that company to raise prices, which absolutely hurts the consumer. Look no further than nVidia GPUs to see this in action. Their strength allowed them to raise prices to the moon, which is great for their stock price but painful for the consumer.

Now imagine what could happen if AMD & Intel really screwed up badly and totally lost consumer confidence in their GPUs altogether, leaving nVidia as the only option for high quality cards. You think they're going to keep the prices where they are now once competition disappears, just to be nice to consumers?

One company developing a monopoly absolutely affects your wallet. Anyone who understands business knows that if you want to pay reasonable prices, you should be rooting for competition as having options is what keeps prices in check.

[-]

pack_merrr@reddit

I mean In a perfect world we would probably have more than 2 companies making x86 chips also. Then we woudnt have to play this game between the two of them.

[-]

mpyne@reddit

I see what you are saying but I want whatever saves me money.

A competitive marketplace is what saves you money in the long run. You won't like AMD if they end up being the only relevant PC chip supplier, we're already seeing the effect of higher prices from TSMC being the only relevant fab.

[-]

ForThePantz@reddit

Intels mgmt did stock buybacks and got those juicy bonuses. Long term failure? That’s the next guy’s problem. 12 gen was great. We didn’t buy 13. 14 was a waste of good sand - like zero gains over 13. Ultra was great for our secretarial staff. We’re all AMD and Apple now. Hopefully Intel fires a lot of c-suite suits and brings back some quality engineering but those layoffs followed by layoffs followed by layoffs. Intel is hemorrhaging good people and money. I’m waiting for doors to close and selling off remaining assets. Even if they design good chips I’m not sure they can get yoelds high enough to make money. But sure! Maybe they’ll turn it around.

[-]

PsyOmega@reddit

You want both companies to be profitable.

No, i want both companies to be almost technically equal, but one commands a clear lead and the other is forced to sell at-cost to stay in the market. I buy whichever then offers the most perf per $. When AMD had the edge and launched the 5600X for 300 dollars, Intel responded by dropping the 10400F to like 150, and i snatched one up.

[-]

SirIAmAlwaysHere@reddit

No you don't want that. Because it's almost impossible to sustain - the one behind can't get the R&D done to get a product made to "swap" positions. You want two (or better yet 3 or 4) companies producing generally equal value products at near identical pricing that have small but meaningful differences, allowing consumer choice. That way both companies will continue to thrive and keep producing good products.

You do NOT want one company starving and having to sell substandard products (because that's the only way you'll see one company really dominate, at least initially). Especially since once a company achieves a dominant position and holds it for awhile, the temptation to do anticompetitive crap is almost overwhelming to today's class of soulless amoral CEOs.

Apple a 3rd party? M4 laptops for $850? No, they don't. They sell something that's so stripped down its like selling you a car with 4 spare tire donuts on the rims and missing the entire top ("its a convertible! Says apple). Oh and it costs you $1000 to buy upgrades that cost $300 for PC hardware. Literally. Apple is not a competitor in the laptop space since the mid-2010s. They decided to charge a 100% premium for the Apple logo, and virtually all actually usable Apple laptops are in the $2-4k range. And the whole "Apple 8Gb is just like Windows 16GB" stuff is an outright lie

Hint: a 3rd party doesn't have a 7% of the market share. That's a bit player. And Apples share of the non-rich country market is somewhere below 1%.

Intels price reductions in the laptop space are due to the increasing pressure AMD's low power offerings have been applying, with Strix Point being a stake in the heart of Intels offerings.

Oh, and a 10400 is in no way equivalent to a 5600X. A 12400F absolutely. But a 5600X is over 50% faster than a 10400. And the price performance of the 5600X back then was substantially better too. Heck, a Ryzen 3600 could have been had for the same price as a 10400 4 years go, and it's still faster.

The 10the and 11th gen were quite bad. 12the gen were good if power hungry 13th and 14th were low end of mediocre, and 15th was worse.

Right now the i5s of the 12-14th gen can have great value due to price reductions but their general performance is still Meh.

[-]

PsyOmega@reddit

No you don't want that. Because it's almost impossible to sustain - the one behind can't get the R&D done to get a product made to "swap" positions. You want two (or better yet 3 or 4) companies producing generally equal value products at near identical pricing that have small but meaningful differences, allowing consumer choice. That way both companies will continue to thrive and keep producing good products.

I very much want it, as it drives prices down. The current GPU pricing inflation is because AMD and Nvidia are a near-equal duopoly in their competing price brackets.

Apple a 3rd party? M4 laptops for $850? No, they don't. They sell something that's so stripped down its like selling you a car with 4 spare tire donuts on the rims and missing the entire top ("its a convertible! Says apple). Oh and it costs you $1000 to buy upgrades that cost $300 for PC hardware. Literally. Apple is not a competitor in the laptop space since the mid-2010s. They decided to charge a 100% premium for the Apple logo, and virtually all actually usable Apple laptops are in the $2-4k range. And the whole "Apple 8Gb is just like Windows 16GB" stuff is an outright lie

What a wild misunderstanding. Apple is, indeed, selling 16gb M4 air laptops for $850 on average. The build quality of these laptops is superior to any sub-1000 dollar PC laptop. The performance is vastly superior as well, and they're fanless to boot. NO PC LAPTOP on the market currently is fanless. So what premium exactly is being exacted from the apple logo? The M4 Air 16gb is the best price/performance laptop out there. Nothing else comes close. 32gb PC laptops are all 2000 dollars too. Apple hasn't sold an 8gb laptop for years so you are showing how out of date and/or biased you are.

Hint: a 3rd party doesn't have a 7% of the market share. That's a bit player. And Apples share of the non-rich country market is somewhere below 1%.

Then why does the Slim 7i cost like 800 now when it launched for 2000? They were forced to compete with M4 Air discounts.

Intels price reductions in the laptop space are due to the increasing pressure AMD's low power offerings have been applying, with Strix Point being a stake in the heart of Intels offerings.

Strix point doesn't exist, practically. Sure you can buy one if you search, but they aren't lining the shelves of real retailers.

Oh, and a 10400 is in no way equivalent to a 5600X. A 12400F absolutely. But a 5600X is over 50% faster than a 10400. And the price performance of the 5600X back then was substantially better too. Heck, a Ryzen 3600 could have been had for the same price as a 10400 4 years go, and it's still faster.

Never said they were equivilant, but it was in like 95%th percentile for half the price, which was my original point, but you lack reading comprehension.

The 10the and 11th gen were quite bad. 12the gen were good if power hungry 13th and 14th were low end of mediocre, and 15th was worse.

Again, false. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J0iP520WoY The 12400 was slightly short, but always within a reasonable margin for being, again, half the fracking price.

[-]

the_mailbox@reddit

yeah wtf haha, apple not a laptop competitor? Their laptops are amazing

[-]

Mrgluer@reddit

how are both going to be profitable? tech is a zero sum game and is monopolistic in nature. winner takes all, if you have the best $/perf ratio you win. in the long term the flip flopping of who’s better will allow them to stay afloat, but once high interest rates cause debt financing to get expensive it becomes difficult to keep up if you’re on the losing side especially in a capital intensive sector. When interest rates are low, any of these companies could stay afloat, when the rates go up they have to atone for their sins. Here’s how it works. Intel and AMD have been neck and neck. Whenever AMD wanted to catch up they’d raise capital, by debt or equity and then generate revenue which should be higher than the interest on the debt. Both guys did this for the last 10-15 years. Now Intel needs to raise capital for being behind, so they have to raise debt, but yesterday’s price ain’t today’s price. AMD can cruise by on their cash reserves from profits over current gen. Everything extra that intel needs to do is at high interest. After couple cycles of this they stack debt to the point where they become junk and can’t even develop new products any more and then they bust. It’s what happened to AMD in the GPU sector. Intel is donezo unless they get a massive lump sum and use it to be ahead of AMD by 2 gens and hope that AMD takes on debt just to lose. NVDA has an advantage because they spread the costs over 2 years and don’t have any FABs. intel is def a lost company, sad because they could’ve gotten out of the noose but they kept tightening it. trump is probably going to “accidentally” bump into the chair.

[-]

_Rah@reddit

I'm confused. Are you telling me two companies that compete cannot both be profitable and co exist? Because that would be a very weird statement to make considering that they have been co existing for a long time now.

As someone whose first PC was an Intel Pentium 3, followed by an AMD Athlon 3200+, these companies have ben competing just fine.

[-]

Gex2-EnterTheGecko@reddit

Unrelated to PC gaming, but thus is why I'm so worried about Xbox. If they basically just give up and go full third party (which seems likely) Playstation is gonna get really shitty. We've seen what happens when Sony gets cocky and it's not pretty.

[-]

ashyjay@reddit

That's what I done, 265k for £265 is a bargain and due to less popularity motherboards are a bit cheaper too.

[-]

Scanphor@reddit

Just finished a rebuild around the same - very pleased with how its performing

[-]

dontpaynotaxes@reddit

In the short term it is, in the long term it will lead to predatory pricing.

[-]

Prrg88@reddit

Not really. Intel seems to be dumping employees like crazy. If they can't compete, then they will quit it seems. We definitely don't want another monopoly

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

Even with Intel there isn't a problem with pushing over 300fps.

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

Fps isn’t the problem.

Its chip lifespan.

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

What about chip lifespan isn't sustainable?

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

When the computer CPU’s are typically one of the last thing that die

power supplies, RAM and motherboard’s, always die much more quickly

So when a whole bunch of CPU started throwing out the same error, people noticed, and then Intel tried to cover it up for a while and then people kept noticing and then Intel had to announce that they fucked up really hard and here we are now

[-]

KP0719x@reddit

My i7-14700k pushes 300+ in stellar blade. I forgot to check with bf6 beta but it ran really good, no stutters, no lag was too focused on not dying lol.

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

The performance is not the problem.

14900k are still preferred for 5090 world records….

The problem is 13th and 14th gen die fast.

They break.

[-]

pack_merrr@reddit

Someone chime in if I'm incorrect, but to my knowledge this was mostly a product of the amount of voltage those chips produce turboing with stock power settings. There's a reason you don't see 14500s degrading.

I don't think there's reason to believe the microcode fixes didn't mitigate the problem, and even if they didn't I think it's likely entirely possible you could achieve the same result tweaking some bios settings. That being said, you shouldn't have had to do either to get a chip that doesn't shit out on you. To Intel's credit though, they've been pretty good with giving out replacements when it does happen.

[-]

bubblesmax@reddit

The microcode does NOTHING to fix the damage that's already been done it is literally just a bandaid for damage going further. So if you burned your CPU's innards its a "you made this bed now lie in it." Tier of situation.

[-]

UngodlyPain@reddit

Yeah when pushing out like 1000+ watts, and already doing stuff like liquid nitrogen cooling Intel's LAST gen part is still very solid in the meta for certain world records.

That really doesn't say much about how the 99.9999% of people should go.

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

BF6 as a whole is horrendous in optimization, definitely better than BF1 but way too much is relying on the CPU. I'm playing at 4k and my GPU is still sitting at 30% (even at 30% it's outputting about 250fps in drawn frames), though my CPU is only capable of pushing out 60\~70 dps. I have 1/4 of the effectiveness that I should have as a baseline.

[-]

Tyler-98-W68@reddit

It's not optimized like crap.....

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/battlefield-6-open-beta-performance-benchmark/

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

LoOk wHaT mY fAvOrItE bLoGpOsTeR sAiD

Did you not read a single word I've written?

[-]

Tyler-98-W68@reddit

Favorite blog poster? Nah techpowerup is much more than a blog poster.......

I read exactly what you said. If it was optimized like crap why is it fully playable on an rtx 5060?

[-]

Bambeakz@reddit

Dont get why you get downvoted because I experience the same and don't experience that in any other game. Playing on 1440 with a 12600K/5070TI/32GB combo and also between 60-70 and when it dips under the 50 it feels like it is 30 fps.

[-]

OGigachaod@reddit

BF6 runs fine on my 12700k

[-]

Bambeakz@reddit

Not on my 12600K with a 5070 TI sadly. 60-70 fps with dips on 1440

[-]

UngodlyPain@reddit

It's a short term win, if they go out of business it's also GG. And it's not like their discounted prices are doing them anymore favors than when AMD was discounting like fx 8320s

[-]

Achillies2heel@reddit

Intel can only lay off 30,000 employees so many times...

[-]

Ditendra@reddit

Well said, I'm a casual gamer myself. As long as I have 60fps I'm absolutely fine. Don't need more than 60 on my 60Hz monitor which is also absolutely fine for me, and Intel also is better in productivity and mutlitasking thanks to more cores, so I decided to go with Core ultra 7 265KF and the price I paid on Amazon on a discount was only $230, which is an amazing price for this kind of CPU. I'm very happy with my choice.

[-]

r0llingthund3r@reddit

That's a short sighted win. Less competition is ultimately really bad for consumers

[-]

T-hibs_7952@reddit

Never said that.

[-]

r0llingthund3r@reddit

lol.. you complain about me missing your point and then somehow pivot to an argument against corporate socialism? Who are you arguing against 😂😂

[-]

MyStationIsAbandoned@reddit

not wanting or needing 250+ FPS makes me a casual now? or is there like a missing common.

[-]

Technical_Moose8478@reddit

This is also true. There are myriad needs for cpus that don’t require 4k 120fps. It’d be nice if they focused more on lower power consumption on their low end though, as right now IMO AMD owns the high end and ARM owns the low end, I don’t think I currently have an intel machine at my office other than an older mac mini.

But back when we set up ETH miners? All intel, their low end chips used to be cheap, super power efficient, and pretty capable other than slow boot times…

[-]

aa_conchobar@reddit

Buildapcsales?

[-]

spdelope@reddit

r/buildapcsales

[-]

spdelope@reddit

What website do you recommend for such sales

[-]

Yauchout@reddit

Snatching them up.. where are these insane deals because I've been trying to find a reasonable combo deal with Intel quick sync for a few months .. it's honestly cheaper to go amd and buy a low end Intel GPU for that use then a 12-14400k combo plus it leaves the pcie slot open for a lci raid card

[-]

Rampant_Butt_Sex@reddit

They havent stepped up their game since Ivy Bridge. Sat on their laurels for too long and then AMD released Ryzen. So THEN they decided i5s should have 6 cores. They havent innovated, naming their amalgamation of core series smooshed with atoms and calling them performance cores and e-cores isnt a new innovation either.

[-]

bubblesmax@reddit

I'm throughly convinced that the whole P vs E core topic was just a bs way to market making weaker CPU's seem powerful. And bleach over the reality they made incompetent cpu design. Cause even if you don't know cpu harware level design on a jargon level. It doesn't take much design and location brain power. As a non cpu engineer to realize if you are going to have TWO DIFFERENT cpu cores arctectures maybe don't MIX them together XD. in the same cpu die's.

Like for me that was a hard no go when I did any level of research into the newer intel CPU's.

As it only makes interference between the different core architectures at a fundamental level. Like if you got E cores you don't want them getting their signals jumbled up with P cores. And vice versa.

And I know what some are gonna be like "why is that so bad?" And my answer to that is very simple. Why would you want a turtle doing a horses job.

[-]

bubblesmax@reddit

If you do any complex task tests with high end intel cpu's you quickily realize the e cores aren't actual high end cores they are more than likely to be cores that intel repurposed into the new cpu's to recycle outdated cpu's cores. Is my hypothsis.

And to those who are like then what makes AMD different from the whole e and p core intel build? AMD cpu's have only performance cores meaning every core is designed to be running to its maximum capacity there is no having to compute which core to use when. Its like a breakless rollercoaster there isn't any redundant checks for how fast the system is running all it looks at is if the core is being used or not and uses it if it needs it and any core not being uses is allowed to just exist. There is no redundant less powerful processing. Its all one cohesive power unit.

[-]

Truenoiz@reddit

This really is it- tech journalists have lamented for a decade on the incremental nature of Intel's CPU designs, and the fact that they use socket obsolescence to effectively add to CPU price by forcing a motherboard update every generation. Intel got fat and lazy after stealing AMD's lunch in the early 2000's, and continued to rest on the couch after losing the big lawsuit. AMD has fully returned the favor now, but just with better products, and not more underhanded business practices.

[-]

xambreh@reddit

after stealing AMD's lunch in the early 2000's

I agree but it was only after mid 2000's really. AMD 'won' the race to 1Ghz (not that it mattered) and Intel's Pentium 4 was ultimately a flop. Only with Nehalem (and Bulldozer) Intel started to gain big time.

[-]

Sicardus503@reddit

I'm peeping that Nova Lake coming up with the bLLC X3D-style caching. Intel's coming back.

[-]

bughousenut@reddit

It wasn't so long ago that AMD was nearly bankrupt.

[-]

lvbuckeye27@reddit

You could have bought AMD for $1.80 a share in 2015. I know because I tried, but for some stupid reason, I've never been able to access the Etrade account that i opened specifically to buy AMD. Fml.

[-]

Tomorrow-Memory-8838@reddit

I did buy AMD for $3... I sold it for $6. >.<

[-]

lvbuckeye27@reddit

I mean, at least you doubled your money.

The return rate will haunt me for the rest of my days. I have been blessed enough to make pretty good money doing something that I love. I have fucked off a LOT of money "in pursuit of Happiness." Enough that I could be retired by now, had I invested in my future instead of temporary happiness.

But the ONE time that I decided to invest in my future instead of a temporary good time, I got fucked by, "There are security issues with your account. Please call this number," only to never actually talk to a person. I was just put on hold forever. I have never recovered my Etrade account. That money is gone, and I have no hope in ever getting it back.

I should have a million fucking dollars in that Etrade account. And I don't. Because of some stupid unresolvable security issue that never let me access my own money, that I wired directly from my checking account, nor ever let me make a single stock purchase or trade.

I lost $10k actual. Whatever. It's only money, after all. But I didn't just lose $10k. I lost a MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. Because Etrade sucks.

[-]

WasabiofIP@reddit

I lost $10k actual. Whatever. It's only money, after all. But I didn't just lose $10k. I lost a MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. Because Etrade sucks.

Okay a) you didn't call the number to recover an account with $10k in it? Literal skill issue whatever happens next; b) if it makes it feel better you most likely would have sold before the current price. It's like all the people who had like $20 in bitcoin 15 years ago being like "damn I would have had $600 million dollars now!!!!" No, you would have sold when your $20 went to $1000 and you wanted a new TV.

[-]

xabrol@reddit

X86 is losing entirely, itll all be arm in 10 years

[-]

RTXEnabledViera@reddit

It's not like they'll just exit the business, like MS with the console market. You don't simply stop making processors.

[-]

80espiay@reddit

Let’s be real, Intel also lose in that situation.

[-]

Outrageous-Log9238@reddit

Intel employees sure have been losing too.

[-]

dslamngu@reddit

It’s not just consumers at large who would lose. Intel being a viable large-scale chip manufacturer (not just designer) for advanced nodes is crucial for American economic and national security. If they don’t step up, the US loses a crown jewel. It’s not clear what other American firm would viably step in to fill the role. TSMC and Samsung have fabs in the US, but these are foreign companies with their own interests. Globalfoundries only works with mature nodes.

[-]

Technical_Moose8478@reddit

/\ this. As they downsize I hope they admit defeat in the gpu game and focus entirely on cpus.

[-]

7adzius@reddit

Didn’t they fire a lot of staff and put profits towards rebuying stock instead of investing into research and development? They kinda seem dead in the water for at least half a decade

[-]

billyhatcher312@reddit

intel needs to listen to what customers want not the investors this is how u win the people back listening to investors is a death sentence

[-]

Gorblonzo@reddit

Technology gets better over time. Any modern high end cpu will blow away your decades old hardware. The reason people say intel is dying is because, for a start, the equivalent options from AMD are just more powerful its that simple. The other reasons are more complex and to do with economics and corporate mismanagement which is leading to a huge loss in profit, large investments that are going nowhere and mass layoffs

[-]

gblawlz@reddit

There's no bad hardware, only bad prices.

[-]

accountantantalising@reddit

My current pc is intel but the one I’m making in two weeks is AMD. I bought the 9950x3d, brand loyalty is silly, they aren’t sporting teams, you’re not cheering for an underdog you are wasting money on an inferior product in almost every single comparable facet at this point.

Intel will never send you an email to tell you they love you and no one that walks into your office and looks at your computer will even know what cpu is driving it. Out of all the brands you could have loyalty for, CPUs makes the least sense.

[-]

AbleBeef@reddit

I was team Intel since the Pentium 3 days with a tiny foray into Athlon64. I never had an issue or needed a warranty claim. Fast forward to the 13900K which we had 3 of (Me, and my two older sons). All three of them failed before the microcode fix was released. Intel did everything they could over 3 months to get out of warranty claims until it finally became widespread. They did eventually replace the 3 CPU's but I no longer trust them now or in the future. My youngest son just turned 8 and I built him a AMD rig to go along with the 3 other AMD rigs we have running in our home. If I can ever get my wife to game, we will have a 5 AMD rig.

[-]

Few_Plankton_7587@reddit

Intel lost the 12th gen too

Intel has been in contention since Ryzen came out. They officially lost in gaming to Ryzen 3000 series, heavily lost in mobile CPUs to Ryzen 4000 series, and intel hasn't won anything since Ryzen 5000 until THE most recent generation, which wins in productivity, but not gaming.

Intel CPUs have been on the downhill for a long time. Even if 12th Gen was a cool, but short lived breakthrough.

[-]

no0ns@reddit

No reason to have brand loyalty. Just buy whatever is best for your budget. Right now it's Amd for me, but before that it was Intel only from Pentium 4 to 6600k. 5600x was just an insane value proposition.

[-]

jackrabbit323@reddit

5800 XT on sale for Prime Day. Buddy had an extra AM4 board he gifted me. If I hear the music I'm gonna want to dance.

[-]

UnethicalFood@reddit

I've seen this same ball bouncing for as far back as I can remember, and this too shall pass. I love AMD and remember the thrill of their first big forray into 64 bit that knocked the wind out of intel for years. Intel finally recovered with the core architecture, but even during those years playing second fiddle on pereformance, they still held the vast majority of the market share. Event with their stumbles now, they have a bigger threat from ARM than AMD.

AMD is doing better, and that's great. But because we all seem to love them doesn't really carry the market weight we would like.

[-]

BeaverPup@reddit

Team red all the way baby. My computer has to match my collection of Milwaukee tools. 😛

[-]

DueConclusion6291@reddit

The problem is 14th gen 700k+ cpus have very high failure rates. I loved 10th gen intel and my daughter is still using one.

The 600k 14th gen will most likely be fine. Stick with that till you upgrade then get into am6 once it is out. Am6 looks like it is going to be ridiculous.

[-]

FeedbackConstant2104@reddit

I mean the company is falling apart. So yeah.

[-]

epik@reddit

Intel 7700k oc’d to 5k from 2017 has kept me running to this day and now, after all the research, parts are arriving for my am5 build.

Thank you intel for the past and best of luck in the future.

[-]

HotRodTractor@reddit

I recently fired up a brand new 285k. My use case is heavily single core use (SolidWorks), and the 285K has the best single thread numbers and respectable multithread numbers. Comparing benchmarks i took on my own system (SPECapc for SolidWorks 2024) my CPU numbers are right there with the top numbers from BOXX's entry they showcase as the top Solidworks machine (running AMD).

[-]

Least-Researcher-184@reddit

The latest analysis of Intel so far have not been encouraging.

Video from gamersnexus https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cXVQVbAFh6I

[-]

xcal87@reddit

In the past 2 yrs, I built 3 Intel rigs for myself and friends only to realize amd x3d delivers 200 fps more in cs2 vs Intel similar top end. Was out of the loop for so long had no idea amd was the go to particularly because Intel kept showing their ads in major tournaments. Oh ya and forgot to mention 2 of the cpus 'flamed out', one 13th gen and one 14th gen. Just a pos really

[-]

DreadFawks@reddit

Intel 12th-14th isn't bad by any means, but AMD's X3D chips simply outperform it in gaming while running significantly lower power/heat. Hell, the AM4 5800X3D was competitive against it, and the newer AM5 chips just leave it behind.

The problem is, the 12th-14th gen platform is dead going forward as Intel's core ultra (basically 15th gen) switched to a new platform. Unfortunately, it also went down in gaming performance vs 14th gen. So, your options are to buy new Intel at lower performance, buy older Intel at slightly better performance, but no upgrade path, or just buy AMD and bmget both better performance and an upgrade path going forward.

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

Except 13th and 14th gen die fast

Like the chips: they dies

[-]

TheYucs@reddit

The performance didn't change in a statistically relevant way after the microcode updates. What was happening was the 13/14900K, 700K, and sometimes the 600K but rarely, was boosting beyond 1.6v at low load killing the CPU because of a fucked up thermal boost algorithm. They've fixed that and then fixed the 1.7mOhm AC/DC Load line defaults and so far it seems to have at least delayed the degradation because I haven't heard any widespread issues since microcode x129 and x12B.

Pushing the chip performance wasn't the issue, it was an unnecessary amount of voltage being pushed through the CPU during low load boosting. You can still get a 14700K to 5.8/5.9 GHz all core under 1.4v and a 14900K to 5.9/6 GHz all core in a safe manner using microcode x12B and x12F.

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

Next gen was turned down which

[-]

Cressio@reddit

Oh I didn't realize there was a 12F, gonna go install that rn, thanks for mentioning that

[-]

Kustu05@reddit

There was no performance decrease with the microcode updates. I'm still getting 2000 points in Cinebench 2024.

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

They had to turn down performance (on the following generation of products) because 14th gen was killing itself.

[-]

NoMither@reddit

It's mainly the i9's that were killing themselves fast before the final microcode(s) released to address it, my 13600K is from launch day ( Oct 2022) and has been powered on mostly 24/7 since then without any issues, I have until 2027 to RMA if needed.

Latest bios / microcode installed.

Of course with the way things are going I'll most likely go AMD with my next CPU upgrade unless Intel releases something competitive by then.

for now I'm happy with the 13600K if anything I need a GPU upgrade first.

[-]

Elitefuture@reddit

The new intel also has no upgrade path. So both new and old intel has 0 upgrades.

[-]

ooxZxoo@reddit

Truth been told.

[-]

OriginalCrawnick@reddit

The 5800x3d has kept me going to this day, I'm actually debating if next gen x3d is my upgrade or not. If it's the last on am5 - pending benchmarks I might try to make it to am6.

[-]

PsyOmega@reddit

The 5800x3d has kept me going to this day, I'm actually debating if next gen x3d is my upgrade or not. If it's the last on am5 - pending benchmarks I might try to make it to am6.

You'll make it to am6

Don't upgrade until you've got a GPU better than a 4090, or the CPU is distinctly holding you back in any way (it is not currently a true bottleneck to any game and likely won't be for many years)

[-]

Vandrel@reddit

There are absolutely games there the CPU is the bottleneck even with the most powerful CPUs available. MMOs like WoW and FFXIV especially.

[-]

Azmasaur@reddit

It’s almost impossible not to be CPU bottlenecked in WOW, you’d have to do something like a gtx1660 with a 9800x3d.

Even my 5800x3d will drop down to 10 fps in mythic raid on ultra settings. But with more reasonable settings it remains a great experience of 50+ fps in the most intense moments and ~200fps in less intense gameplay. Then in most shooters its GPU limited even with current gen GPUs like 9070xt or even 5080 at 2k ultra wide.

That works for me, at least for the next few years.

[-]

PsyOmega@reddit

5800X3D plows through them.

also calling that a cpu bottleneck is like calling, oh i dunno, a 400hp car a horrible experience compared to a 600hp car. Anything above 100hp is fine.

[-]

Vandrel@reddit

5800X3D plows through them.

No, it doesn't. Games like WoW are extremely CPU heavy and you're not going to be getting 144 fps in raid environments even with a 5800x3D. Even a 9800x3D gets drops down to 50-ish fps in the most demanding parts of the game.

[-]

Weeaboology@reddit

I had the same question, but hardware unboxed just posted a video focused on the 5800x3d that’s worth the watch. Short version is I’ll likely be riding the 5800x3d wave into AM6, especially if you play at 4K and even 1440p

[-]

OriginalCrawnick@reddit

5090 in 4k 144hz but not dying at the lower fps in Wilds.

[-]

Jagrnght@reddit

Aren't you worried about only getting around 400fps at 1080 with a 5090 if you stay with a 5800x3d? I looked at the graphs in techspot’s recent retro overview of the 5800x3d and my conclusion was that I'll likely get another 10 years from this CPU.

[-]

xole@reddit

5800x3d is fast enough for people that play GPU heavy games. For games that are CPU heavy, like Civ6, mmorpgs like Guild Wars 2, etc, a faster CPU is useful. I went from a 5800x3d to a 9800x3d and tested civ6 speeds with a save game that took ~45 seconds to run a turn. The 9800x3d was about 40% faster.

[-]

DKlurifax@reddit

Exactly what I said yesterday when I was talking to a friend about upgrading. This 5800x3d is amazing and should be able to hold up to AM6.

[-]

Chehalden@reddit

I have a regular 5800x & the cost to performance uplift is just not there for me

[-]

evangelism2@reddit

13th and 14th gen with their self immolating chip absolutely were bad and this should not be forgotten.

[-]

txmail@reddit

while running significantly lower power/heat

For me this is a huge thing. I am still trying to get one of their GE processors but the price on them remains astronomically high (for the higher performance ones) --- but they sort of pay for themselves when used in home servers.

I thought with the new efficient and low power cores Intel would have stepped ahead in this category... but it just does not work. I got a 255h system and was furious that the LPE cores never activated because the chip design basically never lets them, so you have to pin processes to them instead, but the power envelope stays the same with just less performance. Its nuts.

[-]

xellot@reddit

Intel's been losing market share to AMD for two major reasons, in my opinion:

AMD has had clear upgrade paths for multiple generations with AM4 and AM5. Most people were fed up with Intel's motherboard platforms only supporting 1-2 generations over the years, versus AM4 having 4 distinct CPU generations with extreme generational uplifts on a single platform. It's a great value proposition, especially for early adopters. You could've started out with a Ryzen 1800X and upgraded down the line to a 5800X3D. It's likely that AM5 is getting 1-2 more generations as well.
Intel really fucked up with the 13th and 14th generation chips. They have built-in flaws related to power delivery which are causing the chips to degrade and die very quickly. Intel tried to bury the issue and didn't acknowledge anything publicly until in-depth videos proving the issue from Gamers Nexus were released, and then confirmed by multiple other outlets. These CPU's could be upwards of $500 USD, and even when Intel acknowledged the issues, they did not recall the CPUs affected. This caused them to lose a huge amount of trust from the public - rightfully so.

[-]

Liringlass@reddit

I think it’s beyond that. Both your points, which are major, don’t impact me. I have a 13700 that went unharmed so far, and i don’t upgrade cpus often enough to care about motherboard replacement.

But if tomorrow my cpu dies for some reason I’ll go AMD because they’re better right now. They weren’t yet when i bought mine - that was before reliability issues surfaced and intel was still better at productivity.

I still hope Intel survives because we need competition, just like we needed amd to survive before and we’re now getting the benefits from it.

[-]

TrollCannon377@reddit

Intel really fucked up with the 13th and 14th generation chips. They have built-in flaws related to power delivery which are causing the chips to degrade and die very quickly.

Yeah Intel basically got caught with their pants down when AMD really started picking up steam with the 3000 and 5000 series processors as well as the 3D v-cache and tried to bridge the gap by just shoving way too much power at their chips with predictable results that being said I really do hope they can come back a single chip maker dominating the CPU market is bad for consumers whether it's Intel or AMD

[-]

Vokasak@reddit

Most people were fed up with Intel's motherboard platforms only supporting 1-2 generations over the years, versus AM4 having 4 distinct CPU generations with extreme generational uplifts on a single platform.

There's a 0% chance this is "most people". I'm not even sure it's most people on this sub. Some people definitely do piecemeal upgrades, but many others, myself included, build a balanced system and use it as-is for as long as possible.

I can't imagine, for example, wishing I could carry forward my previous build's 4th Gen Intel motherboard to my current system. It would mean being stuck with older slower RAM, older PCIe, etc etc. And then having to deal with eBay or FB marketplace to get rid of old parts... Just ugh. It'd be one thing if I were still 14 and had more time and less money, but as an adult with a mortgage and back pain, I can't be opening up my tower every 3 months to change out a 5800x for a 5800x3D and then trying to flip old parts on the used market. I have neither the time nor the patience for that shit.

So no, there's a ton of people, I'd even argue "most people", who don't give a single fuck about "upgrade paths" or Intel's lack thereof.

[-]

za419@reddit

Yeah, especially with the CPU I think the number of people who upgrade once every 4 generations is very low. In my entire time of having my own desktop (not quite a decade), I've had a total of two CPUs, and even then mostly because the motherboard for my first got fried, and I have no intention of switching again anytime soon.

People talk a lot about the whole "Dead socket" thing, but frankly the thought has never remotely factored into my mind when I choose a CPU that I might or might not be able to reuse the motherboard when I switch it out.

[-]

Oxflu@reddit

Intel's new generation are far behind am5 x3d and will remain behind.

[-]

mariano3113@reddit

Want to through another perspective in there.

AMD sorta seems to have learned from their early EPYCand Threadripper HEDT missed promises and are having a Chrysler K-car moment. -Some of the EPYC CPUs are like rebranded Ryzen desktop(even compatible on same motherboard and cooling solutions), and even some of the high-end mobile CPUs are also rebranded Ryzen Desktop(although soldered in socket).

Add that a good number of servers were based more on desktop CPUs rather than actual Xeon/threadripper. The 13th/14th Gen issues were enough for some servers to switch entirely over to AMD. That is going to be a lasting effect, until(unless) AMD makes a critical error as well. (Zen 5 non-x3d didn’t seem like a huge gaming increase over Zen 4 but the server side improvements were much more pronounced)

The issue right now is regression stagnation from both CPU and GPU for gaming metrics….as the industry as a whole seems to prioritize AI. (When/if the consoles start launching with AI hardware features….that might be my exit sign)

[-]

TooManyDraculas@reddit

I wouldn't discount the productivity market either.

While there's still significant "this software/task likes this brand" going on, Threadripper kind of hit that entire subject like a bomb when it was released, along with the higher core count Ryzens.

There's still typically a costs per spec premium on Intel systems in that market, so budget and the upgrade path etc keeps AMD relevant even where an Intel chip is technically better at a given task.

Maybe clock for clock an Intel chip does your video work faster. But if the AMD system you can afford, does it faster than the Intel system you can afford. And that AMD system stays relevant for longer at lower cost before replacement.

Then you go with AMD. And the more of an impact that's had over time, the more software differences have dropped away.

[-]

LegitimatelisedSoil@reddit

Consumers are far less forgiving for stuff like motherboard lackluster support than the data centre of productivity crowd that will be annoyed but will fork over the cash because they have less options since they need to be able to hit certain criterias.

I've been on AM4 since 2018 and I don't really see me going am5 unless prices drop when AM6 launches because they continue to support it and until a year or two ago we're still releasing cpus for the platform. It's the issue Intel had with pricy upgrades liem why spend double or more on the upgrade when all you need on amd is plop in a new cpu and off you go.

I think ryzen 3000 was the past truly exciting lineup to me like the x3d is cool but I mean like the entire generation. 5000 series was cool from at launch the prices weren't great, we didn't get any good budget performance chips until later and we kinda lost the scrappy low end with stuff like the Athlons and R3 3100 or the R5 1600af.

[-]

bubblesmax@reddit

Intel lost the marathon but won the sprint unfortunately most don't care about the sprint especially gamers.

Intels main grievance is their highest end CPU's at least i9's have a critical flaw that causes them to have consistent crashes with gaming. In such a way that developers have given up on trying to find a fix for them. And with that went in droves the sales of intel cpu's for the gaming market.

It also doesn't help that intels solution to the stability issues and concerns was to just dump more power through the CPU which is a bandaid at best for the actual issues and the end result is higher energy bills and higher heat. Which ironically means also higher AC bills.

And ironically AMD CPU's have a similar situation they get hot but they actually during long sessions use slightly less power for similar results. YES they also get hot but they dont' crash as often , and they have more steady lows with FPS. And they are ironically have similar architecture to the console CPU's so theres less anomalies when it comes to testing.

It also doesn't help that AMD is consistently discounting chips MV's just low enough that its almost a steal to go team red via PC bundles and combination sales. In the form of buy a cpu + mobo bundle and get 30% or more off the combined purchase. And AMD has a history of not abandoning past chipsockets so its not every new PC buy a new WHOLE PC/Mobo every new CPU upgrade.

Even allegedly the AM6 CPU's that mind you have even more pins than their AM5 CPU socket are some how still backwards compatable?! With their AM5 counter parts. Its like woah. Thats bordering into the wild.

[-]

DeusXNex@reddit

I just know for gaming AMD is king right now and no one is really buying intel. Their last 2 gens(13th and 14th) had issues so if you haven’t I would update your mobos bios. But especially their new ultra chips are probably only being purchased through prebuilts

[-]

ShamedSalesman@reddit

For me they did. I really enjoy the AMD CPUs I've had and haven't had a single solitary issue since I starred using them. I mostly just game with my pc, so it makes sense for me to use AMD.

They offer for me a cheaper product, a better product and more longevity for my parts because I dont have to swap my MOBO each generation when I want to upgrade and I can just plug and play with a new ryzen.

Honestly Im probably going to leave Nvidia behind too and get an AMD GPU when its time to upgrade my 4080.

[-]

douknowmike@reddit

Intel is not gonna take this shit lying down. They’re forced to improvise and innovate in order to retain the gaming market.

[-]

2raysdiver@reddit

We're comparing Porsches to Ferraris. No, it isn't worth the expense to swap out your 14600k. I mean, yeah the 9950X will be an improvement over the 14600k, but you didn't go all out for the 14900K, either. And most the team red, are team red for gaming, where the X3D chips shine, for the most part.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6211vs5717vs6296/AMD-Ryzen-9-9950X-vs-Intel-i9-14900K-vs-Intel-Ultra-9-285K

[-]

Rich73@reddit

Gamers Nexus just put out a video on Intel being in a freefall and things are looking worse than I realized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXVQVbAFh6I

[-]

FunThis8212@reddit

AMD has been killing it in price-to-performance, especially for the mid-range, but the 14600KF is still a solid choice. Staying on the same motherboard saved you a good amount of cash, and Intel's single-core performance is still really strong for smooth workflows.

[-]

5kyl3r@reddit

even if intel were faster, their chips are flawed from the factory and oxidizing. thousands of people were gaslit by intel when they complained about instability. even enterprise customers. enterprise customers that get to see large batches of these failures are who broke the silence on this, and intel did all the wrong things in response to that.

if you want a chip that will last, run faster, run cooler, and reliably, go red (for now). if you want a harder to cool chip that might be faster in some scenarios that might also become unstable later due to manufacturing issues, backed by a company that's been gaslighting people comparing about instability, go team blue.

I don't really have bias either. I've build hundreds of pcs, even one nearly every year for myself, and I usually get whatever is fastest at the time, regardless of what team it is. for a long time, that was intel. but now? team red. in terms of GPUs, team green has been in the lead for too long. I hope someone gives them a reality check soon so I can try some alternatives without requiring big compromises

[-]

Rocket-Pilot@reddit

Doing a same socket upgrade is cheaper than rebuilding.

AMD has better products for the DIY gaming market at the moment. This community primarily is building PCs for gaming. That's really all there is to it. Intel still has decent products and they can make sense for certain circumstances, like already owning a motherboard.

[-]

roadkill612@reddit

Our most precious resource is time, & a cpu swap is far less fraught too.

[-]

ultrafrisk@reddit

Boradwell introduced the cpu cache and amd blew it up 500x the intel size. Intel used it for their igpu. I think after a few more years cpu cache can be copied?

[-]

Ok-Race-1677@reddit

AMD has been winning for the better part of the last five years but that doesn’t mean intel was deficient or u usable (14th gen voltage issue frying chips thing aside).

[-]

lolwatokay@reddit

A correction, 1995 was 30 years ago. But Intel has in recent history significantly rested on their laurels while AMD took massive strides aces legitimately makes some of the best CPUs, especially for gaming, while also being a good value.

Then, even more importantly, the 13th and 14th generations had significant issues https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/1egthzw/megathread_for_intel_core_13th_14th_gen_cpu/

The microcode bug was actually physically damaging the chips. This together has caused a shift in perception and buying preferences. I’m sure if you look at Steam’s hardware charts Intel core is still the most common though.

[-]

TrollCannon377@reddit

Part of it is also just a lot of people on older Intel hardware 12th and 11th Gen are both still perfectly usable chips so despite people holding on to builds AMD hawking up that much market share in just 5 years is seriously impressive for AMD and troubling for intel

[-]

lolwatokay@reddit

Yeah given that it’s what’s out there still vs what’s being sold right now and it’s still moved this much suggests a huge swing in buying patterns

[-]

Secret-Ad-2145@reddit

Edit: yeah today it’s just about 60:40 Intel:AMD

It's crazy, they're losing 1% per month. It's going to slow down at some point since a lot of gamers are on laptops or have old computers, but I reckon any new builders will be strongly amd.

[-]

twigboy@reddit

I'd say they peaked around 11th gen. I'm a SFF PC enjoyer and we monitor power draw closely due to cooler size constraints.

12th gen was when they started pushing the power envelope further an further, leading to the 13th and 14th gen issues.

[-]

Ok_Class4848@reddit

they peaked at 9th gen.

10th gen was…. Just a rebranded 9th gen.

11th gen was the infamous “waste of sand” generation.

[-]

twigboy@reddit

Oof you might be right, I can't remember so many fuckups that far back

[-]

hiromasaki@reddit

Wasn't the 11th Gen mostly reviewed as "waste of sand" because the performance increase over 10th Gen was minimal compared to power increase?

Or am I mis-remembering?

[-]

Miller_TM@reddit

It was also a downgrade for the i9s, the 11900k was 8 cores when the 10900k was 10 cores.

So yes, a waste of sand.

[-]

timfountain4444@reddit

No, you're right. 11th gen was a flop...

[-]

itsabearcannon@reddit

For SFF, absolutely nothing beats X3D in performance per watt. My 9800X3D capped at 65W is competitive at 1440p with a 14900K running full tilt at 250+ watts.

[-]

SonOfMrSpock@reddit

I'm on AM5 and there is a rumor about 16 cores + x2x3D = 192 MB L3 cache processor. I could upgrade to that by just replacing cpu. Thats what makes AMD more attractive.

[-]

xole@reddit

That cpu will likely only benefit a few specific workloads. For most gamers, a 9800x3d would be a better purchase. If you need extra cores, the current 9950x3d would be just as good for most people.

But along the lines of your post, zen 6 will almost certainly be on AM5, so we have 1 more gen on AM5 coming.

[-]

SonOfMrSpock@reddit

I'm not a gamer. Why everyone assumes it must be a gaming pc?

[-]

TrollCannon377@reddit

X3D chips mostly benefit gaming and also most people building a custom PC are usually gaming

[-]

cucumbercoast@reddit

X3D primarily benefits gaming. People interested only in productivity tend not to buy X3D CPUs.

[-]

AbrocomaRegular3529@reddit

Ams has caught up if not surpassed in every regard where intel was a dominating force such as productivity or single thread performance or even efficiency. Intel efficiency cores are less efficient that amds performance cores. Amd has done this while being cheaper than intel until 2024.

X3d cache eliminated intel from gaming market basically. There is no reason to buy any intel cpu for gaming unless they are on very good sale that performance per $ is higher than amd counterpart.

[-]

ra1d_mf@reddit

Considering you were on LGA1700 already, it makes sense that you upgraded to a higher end LGA1700 CPU. But nowadays, the Core Ultra 200 series is just so much worse at gaming than even the 14th gen Intel parts that it makes no sense to go Intel. AMD chips are getting cheaper and cheaper and the performance gap at the top of the stack is incredible.

[-]

unretrofiedforyou@reddit

I literally had a 12900k + z690 , BIOS ready to upgrade. By why should I spend at least $400 plus tax for what’s practically almost a 2 yr old chip (14900k) when for another what , $200 more I can go with a AM5/x870e+9800x3d combo at MC and have at least a 40% uplift WHILE being confirmed able to move onto to zen 6. People are moving over for a reason.

[-]

sernamenotdefined@reddit

Not to mention AMD will bring Zen6 to AM5, while intel has already said their next gen CPU will again need a new socket.

They really say on their thumbs at intel while AMD was executing.

[-]

SinisterPixel@reddit

Wait, where was this said? I figured we'd move on to a new socket in a couple of years but now I'm wondering just how long the AM5 socket will stick around

[-]

Elitefuture@reddit

Next gen is guaranteed to be on AM5. But after that, I think AM6 would follow.

AMD might revive the dead a few times with random refreshes to sell through unsold binned CPUs like they did with AM4. But just expect next gen to be the 3rd and last major release on AM5. There was of course 8000 series and possibly another apu series in between, but the naming was mostly just to set it apart from the non APU cpus.

[-]

AwayAtKeyboard@reddit

Zen 7 will likely be on AM6 apparently

[-]

IncredibleGonzo@reddit

They’ve said AM5 till at least 2027 IIRC so probably Zen 6, then Zen 7 on AM6 with DDR6 is my guess.

[-]

Jaybonaut@reddit

and AM5 will still be supported after AM6 anyway also.

[-]

TactualTransAm@reddit

They just released a new AM4 CPU for some markets. AM5 probably won't die for a long time

[-]

Adventurous_Mine_169@reddit

Well, I know which CPU I'm getting

[-]

Limis_@reddit

But nowadays, the Core Ultra 200 series is just so much worse at gaming than even the 14th gen Intel parts that it makes no sense to go Intel. AMD chips are getting cheaper and cheaper and the performance gap at the top of the stack is incredible>

This makes it sound extremely negative, as if Intel were way behind — but it’s actually the opposite. Take the overpriced X3D CPUs out of the picture, and Intel is often even faster than AMD’s 9000 series.

[-]

CinnabarSin@reddit

Not just that but the performance per watt with Intel is atrocious with it often taking 2-3X the power to do the same work.

[-]

Truenoiz@reddit

Yep, Intel chips have to run super hot just to even be in the race, just like AMD did during the Bulldozer era. I remember everyone crapping on AMD at the time because of it, but Intel appears to be immune. Not sure why they get a pass now.

[-]

misfit_xtnt@reddit

Because AIOs got cheaper. And cases have better airflow so cooling is a bit easier and cheaper. But yeah Intel does get a pass too in that department.

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

For gaming? The performance gap is minimal from cpus side at 1440p+. A lot of people still play at 1080p to be fair, but I imagine anyone playing at 1080p doesn't want to spend 450$ on a CPU

[-]

Puzzleheaded-Lion-26@reddit

For gaming its the same yes but at least you get the next gen (supposedly till at least 2027) with the same socket. And about your comment, a lot of people play 1080p with big cpu for example in fps shooters or in 5v5 shooter since you need the fps. That’s why I switched to a 9800x3d and a 4070

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

I can get 400+ fps in cs2 at 1440p with setting not on minimum and that's the only comp shooter I have installed (or played really) in the last 10 years. It's not necessary for comp shooters even at 1080p. Is it better at 1080p? Yes, I never said otherwise. Is it worth paying more than twice that of a different perfectly capable CPU? Maybe if you're a pro player.

Upgradability is nice I'll give you that, but outside of a really nice deal I wouldn't plan on swapping cpus in a 5 year span anyway, maybe that's just me though.

[-]

Puzzleheaded-Lion-26@reddit

Thats just you, some people want to play ultra with a 1080p so a a 9800x3d and a i9 14900k make sense for them that the fun in having choice Maybe you don’t get it but having the ability to buy something that will last is also a good enough reason

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

How many people do you really think that is? Percentage wise

[-]

persondude27@reddit

You say "at 1440, the gap is minimal".

Which is the same as saying "in a 65 mph zone, a Ferrari and my Honda Civic go the same speed."

That doesn't mean that the Ferrari and the Honda Civic are the same speed; it means that there's an artificial limiter that means you can't see the difference.

The logic there is broken: why would you spend the same money to get a slower CPU? Sure, it might have the same result if you're GPU limited, but what happens when you then upgrade your GPU? Or if you play a game that is more CPU heavy?

It always makes more sense to buy a better gaming CPU for the same price, and right now the 265k is getting crushed in terms of value.

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

That doesn't mean that the Ferrari and the Honda Civic are the same speed; it means that there's an artificial limiter that means you can't see the difference.

You're taking my comment out of context. This is exactly my point, in the situation they are used by the majority of people, they are the same. I personally am not playing games 1080p minimum settings trying to get the most amount of fps, while also spending 1500$+ on my pc, that's just a waste to me. It's also worth remembering they are not priced the same, and a CPU half the cost will perform the same(ish) in higher resolutions, that's my point. I have never said the 9800x3d is worse than a 9600x for example. I have only said there is no impactful performance difference at higher resolutions.

The logic there is broken: why would you spend the same money to get a slower CPU?

What are you even talking about here? I'm talking about cheaper cpus performing the same at 1440p and higher. Nowhere did I reference the 265k lol where are you getting that from? Also just checked the price, it's about 200$ cheaper than the 9800x3d still. And if I was building a PC right now I would rather buy that and put that 200$ into the GPU if I had to budget my build honestly. But if I expand my choices past those 2 I would rather get a 7600x or 9600x than Intel.

You've implied a lot from my comment and pretty much made up an argument for me.

[-]

persondude27@reddit

Ok, how about this:

Show me a single Intel setup (CPU + mobo) that performs better at gaming than the equivalently priced AMD offering.

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

Show me a single Intel setup (CPU + mobo) that performs better at gaming than the equivalently priced AMD offering.

Where did I say that? Where in my first comment did I even mention Intel? And where did I say equivalently priced?? I was specifically talking about mom x3d vs x3d at 1440p+. I don't think you know what strawmen are.

And my logic isn't flawed LMAO. If I can buy a toaster with 10 slots but I only eat 2 pieces of toast at a time why would I buy more than 2 slots? That is the situation the majority of gamers are in. And then less they agree with that take the more likely they are to play at higher resolutions, where again x3d chips matter less

[-]

ra1d_mf@reddit

A lot of people do for competitive games, even though the vast majority are not nearly good enough to justify 400 fps. Also, a lot of games are very CPU heavy in the strategy genre, so CPU does matter even at high res there. Also, Minecraft is still one of the biggest games in the world and runs like crap, and many Vanilla players need x3d to just play at reasonable framerates.

[-]

Evla03@reddit

Vanilla on my PC runs at over 600fps (although with a X3D-chip), and many thousands of fps with optimisation mods and reasonable settings. I don't think you'll ever need a X3D cpu for minecraft...

[-]

aa_conchobar@reddit

My I7-4770k from yearsssss ago with a small OC to 4.4ghz still handles current gen strategy games flawlessly (at 30fps) paired with a 1080ti lol

[-]

Azoraqua_@reddit

The last part is BS. Even a midend CPU can deliver reasonable framerates and especially with optimization mods which is quite common.

[-]

ra1d_mf@reddit

A lot of people are scared to play with mods because they think it's still the wild west of 2012 and they'll get a virus or something stupid. Stuttering is incredibly common on even high-end CPUs, including my 7600x3d

[-]

Azoraqua_@reddit

That’s more so of the game being the way it is than the hardware being problematic. Reference being me that developed plugins and mods for the game for nearly a decade.

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

Yea and I still get around 120+ fps in most modpacks with their crazy shaders on. Even if a 9800x3d literally doubled my fps how much of a difference does that make in Minecraft?? Lmao

[-]

Azoraqua_@reddit

Barely any, any capable CPU will do the job. Along side a decent GPU would still help. And some additional RAM allocated would help well too.

On top of that, if the GC is misconfigured it can cause minor to significant stutter.

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

What's gc in this context? But yea, I used to play vanilla Minecraft at 15fps on a laptop when I was younger so any modern hardware is already going to be way better and infinitely more playable

[-]

curiousdugong@reddit

A 7600x3d is not a high-end CPU

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

So comp games which all hardware at that price point, or even half of it, can run at 300+ fps? You really think the average 1080p gamer wants to drop 450$ to increase that, even if it literally doubles fps?? Strategy games sure, I hear they have good uplift but I genuinely cannot find good benchmarks comparing cpus in them so I'll just give you that, but I'll add that that's a pretty small subsection of games.

And the Minecraft comment is just not true lol. I loaded up vanilla Minecraft a while back and I got 800-1200fps on minimum settings. and Minecraft being one of the biggest games in the world is because console players and younger kids, I doubt they are buying x3d chips because they they can't afford it, and cannot put it in a console. Or they're <13 years old and dont even know their 30fps is awful and are having a blast anyway.

[-]

komobyte@reddit

I’m an Intel user and biased towards Intel as well, but sadly AMD is ahead. That doesn’t mean Intel’s CPUs are useless, though. They work just as well as any other, but AMD offers better platform longevity and gaming performance, often with lower TDP.

[-]

Achillies2heel@reddit

Intel is indeed cooked in the current environment.

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

People on reddit are regular people. They are just humans. They are not some god tier technology expert with personal experience. In my honest opinion, and I do not mean to disrespect but I don't know how to say it better, redditors in general are like sheep. Sheeps are known for jumping out of a cliff if the first one jumps or fall, the other sheeps just follow it without thinking.

This is reddit. It went viral that intel had cpu issues. Intel responded to this, literally proving statistics that even with those issues, they still had objectively less issues than amd cpu's. This respons never went viral, and people are now stuck with "intel bad amd good".

It's the same with nvidia gpu's. Apparently nvidia bad amd good there as well. The reason is because of nvidia prices doesnt correspond with the gpu power or naming. But if you look at the amd prices, they are pretty much the same as nvidias, maybe 50 euro less or something. So why arent amd greedy and bad then?

You probably heard something at school, some rumor 25 years ago (idk your age), and then later in life it turned out it was a myth and false fact, going literally around the world as a funfact. This is how reddit it atm.

No, intel is not bad. Intel is not a small company. If you ask people why they go with amd, they will either copy paste some chat gpt stuff, or link gamernexus youtube video. But they dont have personal experience themselves. And amd cpu's have 8 core for the same price as intels 20 core or something. Then they will say cores doesnt matter, because amd's 3xd cpu give more fps. It's still less cores for the same price. The reason it works is because games dont normally use more than 8 cores anyway. But its like vram meta now, people hate on vram even though games dont use more vram than the gpu. But they never talk shit about amd's 8 core cpu? It can be the same in the future, that games suddenly start using more cores. So amd now selling less than half the cores compared to intel for the same price, and people LOVE IT and say core doesnt matter. Yes it does!

So long story short, my personal opinion, people say amd good intel bad because they have no fing clue!

[-]

Bonobo77@reddit (OP)

It really does feel like marketing hype.

[-]

167488462789590057@reddit

This comment makes it seem like you avoided every other comment with facts and statistics to confirm your own biases, like you posted this hoping someone would agree with you, and as a result picked the least reputable comment to agree with.

[-]

Bonobo77@reddit (OP)

you make it sound like we are arguing religion here, something based on 100% faith.

The basic market share of pre-built computers especially laptops and business desktops are over 70% Intel. I can't believe that billion and trillion dollar computer companies, don't know understand what is happening.

I agree AMD is crazy popular for reasons, it seems to be solely based on everyone getting an average net increase of 5-15FPS gaming, and gaming about 3 hours a day saves you less than $2 a month on your power bill vs. Intel.

Based on that argument and my personal biases, it still feels like a lot of hype for not a lot of gain.

What am i missing here?

[-]

167488462789590057@reddit

you make it sound like we are arguing religion here, something based on 100% faith.

Quite literally the opposite. Im saying there is no room for faith or teams or any of that type of thing. This is a pure numbers game where the only subjectivity is goals.

I can't believe that billion and trillion dollar computer companies, don't know understand what is happening.

This is called an appeal to authority, and also ignores that these markets are not only influenced by things outside of objective performance measurements (like consumer perception which lags behind reality, or inertia, or backroom deals (you can read more about that and massive fines they received as a result)), but are also slow. Even they are starting to swing though as like mentioned the marketshare overall between the companies is on a collision course and the numbers you are reading will be behind the current numbers but will still show you this trend.

You also have to understand that laptops have completely different constraints, and actually intel has far more valid options to offer in laptops than they do in the desktop space.

agree AMD is crazy popular for reasons, it seems to be solely based on everyone getting an average net increase of 5-15FPS gaming, and gaming about 3 hours a day saves you less than $2 a month on your power bill vs. Intel.

Im not sure I understand your logic here.

Even if what you were saying was true (its not, as the differences are often far greater than what you've described), why would anyone pay more for less for what they use their machine for? Does that make any sense to you?

Based on that argument and my personal biases

I think the latter is doing a lot more lifting than the former there...

What am i missing here?

A willingness to actually look at the data or realize how silly it is to have any allegiances to massive multi national corporations that make square mineral designs.

[-]

frenchtoast_____@reddit

It really feels like you haven't done any research at all and are biased. I own a 9800x3d and a 265k so I have both but your ignorance is shining.

[-]

thejerg@reddit

I'll take your advice and disregard this reply since you're a redditor and probably don't know anyway.

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

My opinion is my opinion. I literally wrote in my post and offended the whole reddit. I didnt expect a single upvote or anyone to agree, this is simply me saying my opinion, and the fact that I say an unpopular opinion that I know will give me downvotes, shows that I am pretty strong against propaganda. You on the other hand, are not. You could have critical thinking instead, but no you literally go with the easy flow here. Why are you so scared? No one will hurt you if you go against the crowd with an objective fact here and there. This isnt north korea.

[-]

thejerg@reddit

You realize it's very easy to look this stuff up right? Everyone does benchmarking. Everyone shows the pros and cons of various cpus. Even in this thread there's plenty of nuance. You posted a whole ass rant for no reason, and didn't even bother to include numbers to support your claims. You are literally the redditor you told OP to ignore.

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

Yeah cool, you did great google a benchmark.

Hey, turns out benchmarks completely useless. Why? Because literally every single gaming pc out there is different. Turns out, my amd 9070 didnt work with my pc but 5070 did. I have i7-12700k. Didn't find a single benchmark with my setup and ram and motherboard.

But hey benchmark right cool.

[-]

167488462789590057@reddit

Turns out, my amd 9070 didnt work with my pc but 5070 did.

I really hate to say it, and there is no real other way of saying it, but this sounds a bit tech illiterate.

The idea that one make of gpu "cant work" in one system, is... ridiculous.

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

Tried troubleshooting it for 55 days with expert. New installed windows. They kept telling me to update drivers. Didnt see a single new driver update from amd the entire 55 days I had the card. Ssd's completely formatted too. Tried on every game I could, same crash happened on every game. 30% of the times I launced a game, it was massive stutter and unstable fps, unplayble and it helped relaunching the game.

55 days mate.. 55 days we troubleshoot. I was in contact with the expert team from the shop I bought from, and yes these are pc builders, and we had contact with amd.

So don't sit there as an amateur redditor to tell me that I am bad for not making the gpu work.

Went with 5070 and its so much better. But hey, hate me for saying this right? Like Im a liar and a criminal right?

[-]

167488462789590057@reddit

Tried troubleshooting it for 55 days with expert.

This sentence alone only confirms my previous thoughts unfortunately.

The idea that AMD cards must be bad because you couldn't get one to work despite every person except for you managing just fine doesn't seem a bit ridiculous to you? At best you got a bad card, but that happens with any brand and is a matter of statistics.

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

Wtf you talking about? I bought 9070 that didnt work no matter what we did for 55 days. Whats your problems?

[-]

thejerg@reddit

And as we all know, anecdotes beat averages right?

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

btw, benchmark is useless. The moment you do anything multitasking, which literally everyone does, that benchmark is completely useless. It's tested without any other application open.
I have two monitors. I have disc and messenger open, chat gpt app, tons of tabs, and if you launch anything ingame currency related in an mmo, cores matter way more than you think. Yes test elder ring benchmark and see amd cpu good, but try playing mmo's and suddenly cores matters like for real! Then steam open, I also have epic games open, I play with webcam sometimes with my daughter and my girlfriend. I have news up constantly.

So yes, the benchmark you see, is not real scenario. AMD managed to place cores in a way that makes a bit more fps in games, but in the end, you still pay the same price for 3 times less cores. I am not doing that because of a benchmark went from 180 fps to 190 fps. No way.

Didnt want to tell you this because you was nasty to me, and I know the type of person you are, that will keep disagreeing with me regardless of arguments, but I decided whatever, why not. I need to work on the way I process peoples opinions on me. I know how many stupid people are out there, and I am not getting affected by them. If I listened to people around me, I would be a religious cocain non vaccinated hippie believing in healing stones by now.

[-]

167488462789590057@reddit

It's fascinating just how wrong the majority of this comment is.

The part at the end about games not using more VRAM than gpus have is especially blatantly wrong and completely easy to verify.

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

Its fascinating just how people are find with 8 core cpu because games today doesnt use more than 8 cores, and completely ignoring every single multitasking there is, like even just having twitch on a second monitor is not tested in benchmarks.
But the moment 1 out of 1 million games uses more than 8gb vram, everyone complaining 16gb vram is too little and losing their mind over it.

I go intel. You go amd. Stop saying I'm wrong when I'm not. You can have a subjective opinion, sure.

[-]

umamusume_racing@reddit

i doubt games are going to use that many cores in the future, but they might.

that said, you buy the right tool for the job and since they don't use 20 cores today i'm not buying a chip with 20 cores

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

Yeah exactly my point. People buy the "right tool for the job" like you said, but still they complain about vram but not amd cores. But hey, I go intel 20 cores. you go amd 8 cores. We are not the same. Enjoy having zero clue about pc. I will enjoy having clue about pc.

[-]

umamusume_racing@reddit

because vram actually matters for games and most games don't use that many cores and may not ever due to how games are designed?

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

vram matters but cpu cores dont XD

Im done

[-]

umamusume_racing@reddit

yeah because it's game design not server design

[-]

EatSleepBeat@reddit

I only read the first sentence and stopped. I ain’t got time to read all that. Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind, thinkin' I can see through this and see what's behind, got no way to prove it, so maybe I'm lyin'. But I'm only human after all, I'm only human after all don't put your blame on me, don't put your blame on me

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

yeah zoomer, learn to read. Im sorry I wrote too long mr adhd.

[-]

Vioret@reddit

This entire post is delusional.

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

Do you think I expected upvotes and happy people when I literally offended the entire reddit?

[-]

ImYourDade@reddit

I generally agree with your comment, except I have heard of people claiming that the microcode updates haven't completely fixed the issues with high tier 13/14 gen Intel chips.

Intel responded to this, literally proving statistics that even with those issues, they still had objectively less issues than amd cpu's.

Also what's this about? And even if it's true, and cpus weren't dying because of their issues

[-]

Votten_Kringle@reddit

they fixed it, and worse case you need to upgrade motherboard bios.

[-]

pickasecs@reddit

While the sheep thing might be real,i guess you can say that intel has more power but lack consume and heat management,so amd chose to be more of a jack of all trades:decent power,good performance,stability,heat and consume management.On the other hand, GPU cards are another story.Nvidia profits from GPUs are only around 20%.This means that if Nvdia would stop selling GPUs they would not loose too much profit.AMD GPUs are not matured and do not perform the same,the AI solutions are a bit behind,Nvidia is also a big AI selling company.Unlike Intel,Nvidia is a solo player in the GPU industry as they stopped producing high end products focusing on mid end.

Both CPUs are competitive products.If they are that good,i guess everyone has its limitations.On the other hand,Nvdia offers a tiny bit more reliable products(GPUs) and better AI.

[-]

Zamorakphat@reddit

Swapping sockets every few years ensures me that I won’t be running intel on my builds for a long while, even if they magically cooked up some crazy CPU

[-]

Impossible-Tiger-935@reddit

hmmmm right

[-]

Bonobo77@reddit (OP)

If anyone wants the full story, I went to a local shop to to replace my old GPU in my sons rig. He needed something better then my old 1070ti. I upgraded him to my 3080, another pandemic purchase. Went to the store to get a 5070, ended up getting a 5070TI open box and a sweet deal, i have to assume it was an error, $1025CAD!!!

Then I am at the counter to pay, and I look over at the CPU's behind glass, and I see an unlocked 14600KS 14core for just over $200cad, NEW!

It was kinda a crazy head spinning day, ran to the car just in case they were going to call me back!!

[-]

IcyBrilliance@reddit

Make sure you update your motherboard to the latest firmware ASAP. That gen has some serious issues leading to degradation over time.

[-]

Ditendra@reddit

Same here, I'm loyal to team blue as well and bought myself core ultra 7 265KF instead of AMD cpu. As far as I understand, AMD increased cache size a lot comapared to Intel CPUs and cache is very important, especially in gaming. This gives AMD better boost in gaming compared to Intel, however it's not like that Intel's CPUs are bad in gaming, especially their latest core ultra CPU. Also, Intel performs better when doing multitasking and rendering, especially in video editing thanks to its more cores. Also, power efficiency is improved in their latest core ultra CPUs compared to their previous generation CPUs which had heat and power efficiency problems, sadly. Oh, I forgot to say, latest AMD cpus are also better in power efficiency seems like.

I would say for pure gaming probably better to go with AMD cpu and probably that's why most people are going with AMD. For gaming, but also productivity Intel is better choice. Despite the fact that I'm a very loyal Intel fan, I must say I'm impressed how AMD managed to improve which is good for competition. That being said, I'm still happy with my intel CPU. It still lets me play latest games. It's like comparing McLaren to Porshe. Of course McLaren is faster than Porshe, but hey, Porshe still won't disappoint you if you want speed. This is a good video to understand strengths of both CPUs.

[-]

Garry2431@reddit

Unfortunately this is something intel brought upon themselves.

[-]

kirk7899@reddit

The IO on Intel desktop/laptop is still much better than AMD equivalents. Also at idle Intel desktops take much lower power.

[-]

OptionalCookie@reddit

I went team red.

Mind you, I got my i7-6700k for $150 back in 2016 directly from Intel.

I just built my PC a few weeks ago with a 9800x3d. I used my 6700k for almost 10 years -- when I heard about the oxidation issues with the 13 and 14 gens Intel became a hard pass.

[-]

toolschism@reddit

Hey, more phenom friends.

Phenom II x6 -> fx 8350 -> i5 6600k (I think) -> 3800x3D -> 5800x3D.

[-]

Fair_Struggle8536@reddit

FX6300 (OR 6100?) -> I7 4800K -> I7 6700K -> I7 12700K

Next pc might be amd .. lol

[-]

GerhardtDH@reddit

Ah yes, the Phenom days. Back when I was debating if getting a blow job meant you lost your virginity.

[-]

kapsama@reddit

Another Phenom friend here.

Phenom II X4 975 - > 4790k -> 9700k -> 5800x3D.

[-]

CoconutMochi@reddit

That's really close to mine haha, just minus the 9700k

[-]

Subject-Complex8536@reddit

Celeron 3Ghz (can't find the model) > Phenom II X6 1090t > i7 2600 mobile > i3 6100 > 1600AF > 5700X3D

[-]

toolschism@reddit

Yea man that phenom was a beast. I used it for my wife's gaming PC for ages until I moved her over to the 6600k.

[-]

Brisslayer333@reddit

3800x3D

Hmm...

[-]

toolschism@reddit

Ah sorry you're right it was a standard 3800 lol

[-]

NekoNoNakuKoro@reddit

My first build was also a Phenom II. I went from a X4 to an X6, ran that the longest time through most of the 2010s. Wanted to upgrade but AMD's offerings were meh until Ryzen.

[-]

Kitchen_Part_882@reddit

Lol, I held onto my FX 8120 for way longer than I wanted to (financial reasons) and jumped from that to a Ryzen 1600.

[-]

EliWhitney@reddit

i had a similar path with phenom II > 6700k > 12600k and now I'm looking back at red for the next build. or maybe just the 395 max chip in a sff/itx box.

[-]

Superb-Marketing5099@reddit

Interesting I went phenom x6 -> 3570k delidded ~> 8700k delidded -> 13700k which degraded ~> 9900x

The intel platform feels much lower latency to use but the much lower power requirements and excellent overall performance of AMD in both gaming and productivity is now clearly the best platform

[-]

ecco311@reddit

"feels much lower latency to use"

Which context do you mean? Because I kinda have my doubts that anyone could actually "feel" a difference. And I also doubt that there is one.

[-]

Bumbling_homeowner@reddit

I upgraded to an AMD 7700 from an old Intel processor. The Intel would boot in under 10 seconds. The AMD takes about a solid 30 seconds to fully boot.

Idk if that’s what OP is talking about re: latency.

[-]

Meaty32ID@reddit

The intel 2000 to 9000 series motherboards were booting up way faster than what either AMD or Intel do now. It doesn't really mean anything though.

[-]

Cressio@reddit

As a lifelong 95% Intel user, if you're building new right now, you should be going AMD. They're just simply better on a better platform.

If you're building used, Intel 12th gen is extremely competitive and basically objectively the best value option right now. But it's a dead platform, and if/when you go to rebuild, you'll be rebuilding everything.

Intel has historically been the performance king for most of my life hence why I've almost always used them but they're not right now. They're really not that far behind imo especially once they start exploring v-cache as they're doing, but they are behind.

[-]

Atulin@reddit

Is AMD truly that much better in real world proformance:price ratio?

And in their processors not randomly killing themselves, yes

[-]

mariano3113@reddit

Not randomly killing themselves to the same %.

Definitely have been X3d suicides and bios updates for *fix.

Not near the frequency of 13th/14th gen, but still large enough to issue a Bios revision.

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

Those are mobo problem.

With intel the chips themselves have the problem.

Much harder to fix clearly

[-]

mariano3113@reddit

I concur it seems to be a motherboard problem -Even though there have been failures with Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte ...all to a smaller scale than AsRock.

No Supermicro or server 9000 series failures reported yet.

[-]

ghaginn@reddit

That's a good comment. A shame you got downvoted.

[-]

Miller_TM@reddit

Most of the X3D chips dying are in Assrock motherboards.

Hell, even some non X3D chips are being killed by Assrock mobos.

[-]

mariano3113@reddit

Correct most have been AsRock

Total found now potentially 157 dead 9800X3Ds, 130 on ASRock boards, 20 ASUS, 5 MSI, 2 Gigabyte.

(https://www.reddit.com/r/ASRock/s/xM30c25OMT)

[-]

mrheosuper@reddit

They are losing, that's a fact. But they are not completely destroyed(yet).

[-]

UltraPiler@reddit

Intel really blew it with the 13th-14th gen defects knowing your CPU is ticking time bomb. And they also made it hard to RMA this chips. They also rebranded alder lake to 13th 14th gen i5. And now is in core 5 ultra.... They also disabled the avx512 feature from the bios from the first batch alderlakes which I like to use for rpcs3. Later on they laser cut it permanently. Also X3D is king when it comes to gaming and nothing beats threadripper if you really need a HPC setup. Nothing beats real cores rather than lame cores by Intel which has different arch than p cores.

[-]

Jack99Skellington@reddit

Intel is fighting two fronts: performance vs AMD, and power usage vs ARM. They've been lately concentrating on power usage, which almost no gamer cares about. This has allowed AMD to take the performance crown.

[-]

NessLeonhart@reddit

My 9800x3d is amazing.

[-]

SX86@reddit

If you did nothing else but upgrade your CPU and keep everything else the same, you did the most economical thing. Depending on your use cases, you probably wouldn't notice the difference between the newest AMD chip and last gen Intel.

Also, in my opinion, if you're happy with the performance you are getting, then it is all that matters.

For your next build or laptop, you'd definitely need to look at both AMD and Intel offerings and see what fits your budget and needs best.

[-]

bikingfury@reddit

Most gamers praise AMD bc they can run poorly optimized games a little better by offering more cache right on the CPU. However, that is only true for their X3D chips.

[-]

HotDribblingDewDew@reddit

Brand loyalty is for morons. Intel got complacent, get AMD now. Pray that Intel gets their shit together.

[-]

MrTomatosoup@reddit

Calling 1990 the last 20 years is a bit of a stretch xD

Hate to bring the bad news but that is 35 years ago

[-]

Bonobo77@reddit (OP)

Right, I am old now.

[-]

JonWood007@reddit

Intel's "losses" are greatly overstated in the desktop CPU market. They dont have an answer to X3D, sure, but have you seen how much modern X3D CPUs cost? Typically $400-450. That's EXPENSIVE. LIke when I buy a CPU, I spend around $200-300. And once you start getting into the $300 or less price range, the performance evens out quite a lot. The 7000/9000 series AMD and the 12th-14th gen intel CPUs (and core ultra) all kinda perform....the same. Intel wins on core counts. AMD wins on power efficiency. AMD has a longer lasting socket, but who is gonna be upgrading their CPUs so often they actually put multiple CPUs in the same socket?

Honestly, if you want the gaming crowd, 9800X3D is the only answer, with 7800X3D being the runner up and everything else being behind. But that includes AMD's own non X3D chips. A 7700x will perform like a 13600k/14600k in games. And cost about the same these days. What's the big deal?

People act like intel is as far behind AMD now as AMD was in the bulldozer days. Again, unless you focus exclusively on X3D vs nonX3D gaming performance, the delta is nowhere near as extreme as that. back then we were talking AMD being 30-40% down...at the $200 price point. AMD's best chips competed with the core i3 2100 or 4130 or whatever. Now, as long as you avoid that $400+ X3D price point, which is like i7 tier these days, ya know, flagship, the worst performance delta you're gonna get berween the two companies at the same price point is what, 10% either way depending on sales? Yeah. Let's face it. The delta isnt that extreme. Theyre pretty much neck and neck. Maybe AMD slightly ahead because of power efficiency. But that's about it.

[-]

dfm503@reddit

The 14600kf is great, but the 14700, and 14900 SKU’s self destructed, while still losing in gaming to the 7800X3D, so for the gaming market, they lost hard.

[-]

1337Cammy@reddit

There are no bad products, just bad prices.

[-]

KazefQAQ@reddit

More like Intel can't offer more value for the money, the performance is aight but at the price Intel is selling, AMD just have more price to performance for gaming, but there are still some program that doesn't play ball with AMD

[-]

elonelon@reddit

the triangle we need : watt-price-performance.

how can 120++ watt can beat 500watt ?

[-]

CarpenterPristine527@reddit

And kicking intel’s ass in gaming with their x3d chips. They’re gonna skyrocket if intel doesn’t give them some competition.

[-]

Neutromatic369@reddit

For gaming and most(?) productive workloads it’s AMD

But for Intel I’ve seen them still be used for server work (the quicksync feature for encoding) and I’ve seen some productive workloads still beat out AMD in the ultra series but not much else to look forward to

This is coming from me with my 12900k since I can’t upgrade more so I want 13/14th gen or ultra series

[-]

silversurfer022@reddit

Intel makes sense if you are in Iceland or something. A free space heater is nothing to sneeze at.

[-]

Cold-Inside1555@reddit

It really just lost on the high end desktop market and some server/workstation market. For laptop the core ultra are extremely powerful under thermal constraints, and offer better performance per watt than the best AMD chips, while for midrange desktop like i5/r5 range, it still competes pretty well, although not necessarily the best, you can get many intel midrange chips with good price.

[-]

Mrdaffyplayz@reddit

even low end am5 has better power efficency and thermals still.

[-]

Cold-Inside1555@reddit

I mean high end am5 under laptop thermals, not low end in this case. So things like 9955HX3D don’t perform as good as intel when you limit the power to like 30-50w idk the exact numbers

[-]

Comrade_Chyrk@reddit

I dont know about productivity, but nowadays if your building a gaming pc, there is no reason to go with Intel over the x3d cpus. They just blow Intel out of the water.

[-]

CMDR-LT-ATLAS@reddit

Intel was good....not anymore!

AMD is the best at CPUs now

[-]

AnnieBruce@reddit

If your setup works, it works. I probably would have gone AMD but not that big a deal.

Make sure the microcode gets updated for the 14th gen. Windows update should work, or you could do a BIOS update and be sure it's on there regardless of what you do with your OS. Not sure if it's baked in to newer examples or how long it was sitting on the shelf.

[-]

Roph@reddit

Your 14600KF is a ticking time bomb, it's not a question of if it'll die, but only when. I'd be so nervous to be using a 13/14th gen Intel CPU knowing it has a fatal hardware flaw that means it will degrade and start causing issues and eventually completely die.

[-]

AnnieBruce@reddit

Intel did release a microcode update that seems to have fixed the problem. Didn't reverse damage but would stop it from happening if you got it installed in time.

Of course, being a little concerned about whether the new microcode actually fixes the underlying problem or just buys people some more time is reasonable.

[-]

awr90@reddit

Most of it is Reddit hype. Intel has an x3d competitor coming out in a year and it’ll likely be better for gaming and productivity and have more cores than the AMD equivalent.

[-]

likely_deleted@reddit

Between the 7800x3d and 7090xt, im finally looking at leaving intel and team green. Still hopeful for good news from Intel arc

[-]

deelowe@reddit

Amd is vastly superior. Intel has major major major issues as a corporation. It's too much to cover for a reddit thread but I work in hardware development professionally and Intel has so many systemic issues as a company, it's insane.

[-]

nameorfeed@reddit

Yes, amd has won this decade. Amd cpus are better rn. But that shouldn't matter to you, you said yourself you're happy with what you got. Don't ruin your joy. The best thing you can do after getting a new rig and making sure it works, is to stop looking any tech related sub/stop benchmarking and just enjoy it.

[-]

joergonix@reddit

Intel is in a tough spot because from a technology perspective they are barely trailing AMD, but from a business perspective they are in a dire place. x86 CPU sales are decreasing slightly as the worlds compute needs are becoming more and more GPU reliant. On top of that they have lost Apple as a massive customer. It's not even so much the pressure from AMD causing Intel problems, it's that their business model has them fabbing their own chips and designing and engineering their own fabrication technologies. AMD only needs to worry about their chip designs and a bit of partner work with TSMC for their chips, but Intel has a huge amount of investment to make happen for any new node. When x86 sales were expanding and Intel was selling a lot of chips this strategy gave intel higher profit margins. Today Intel needs to make some tough decisions about in house fabrication.

[-]

Sett_86@reddit

They're not lost, but they certainly aren't winning.

In gaming AMD's best beat Intel's best by almost 50%. In productivity it's even worse.

What's worse is there is no catch up in sight. Not good.

[-]

NickiChaos@reddit

We're just in a time where AMD is making the better processors. There was a LONG time where Intel was making far superior chips to AMD.

It's cyclical.

[-]

makoblade@reddit

It's not really a win lose thing. Currently, Intel CPUs are lower tier than equivalent AMD ones, especially for gaming. The e core gamble largely fell short.

AMD has been eating intel's lunch for years now, with the 11th gen Intels being so incredibly mediocre and Basically no uplift to the 10 series, and then later 13 and 14 series self destructive flaws. Meanwhile AMD continued traditional core setups and their 3D cache tech handily outclassed Intel in ash cases the cache matters.

[-]

Tango1777@reddit

No, they did not. But people always love to see the number 1 fail, so they exaggerate and praise it. Reality is Intel made a design mistake with a few 14th gen desktop CPUs and the next generation is just not groundbreaking, but it's still a progress in other aspects like energy efficiency of mobile CPUs. You are happy with your laptop, because there is nothing not to be happy about. Intel'll come back in 1 or 2 generations with the fastest CPUs on the market and AMD will be trying to catch up once more and will have to do what they always do, offer competitive price tags. Intel did not give up, but we also have to remember that personal/gaming/home CPUs are responsible for only a very small % of Intel's annual revenue, they don't need to rush anything.

[-]

k20vtec@reddit

Yes

[-]

580OutlawFarm@reddit

For gaming, yes amd simply blows intel out of the water. This is coming from someone who also did a 12600k/3080 12gb build shortly after the 3080 12gb released..back then Intel was king...now? If goure gaming the 9800x3d is just insane. I just did a new 9800x3d/5090 build and it really is crazy how much better the 9800x3d is....even with my 3080 12gb thrown in instead of the 5090, so I could see just how much better it was than my 12600k...its just absolutely insane the difference..

But if youre doing a "work pc" only, then yes thats where intel is going to shine..those e cores really help productivity, not that a 9950x3d won't hold its on..its still great, but for work specifically intel is still where its at..

Now, this COULD all change with their new Last Line BIG Cache on the nee cpus coming

[-]

dwburner69@reddit

I've only built Intel nvidia for a good 20 or 30 years for myself. Did amd nvidia this time.

Price and possible lingering burnout issues were main reasons. Also them constantly swapping sockets kinda makes me mad. Where's the upgradeability.

[-]

whatisthisthing2016@reddit

So what cpu did you get? I've also been using Intel since having a 80286 but needing a new high end pc and thinking of getting 9950x instead of i9 ultra 285 for first time, longer upgrade path, till 2027 at least, all work station, well unreal engine and Ai work, so will get 5090 as well, how you finding having moved to amd, lot of money to take a chance with, what would you suggest?

[-]

dwburner69@reddit

I didn't have to max out. This was a test run and if I don't like it in a few years I can pass it to someone or set it up in another room.

I did a 7800x3d and a 5070 founders.

I legit did not want to risk it with a 4 grand build so you are asking the wrong person for a high end build. I cannot justify a 90 for anything I do.

No complaints tho. Everything is smooth. Had to learn a bit about motherboards and the amd install but it was easy.

I wanted a 5080 founders but the computer had to be built on a deadline. So thats another reason why I didn't max out gpu. Full build was like 1800 tho.

https://i.imgur.com/OgB8NT9.jpeg

If I did the better cpu and gpu I would have had to get a bigger psu and nicer case and better ram etc. Nickle and dime and the price doubles somehow.

[-]

whatisthisthing2016@reddit

Great thx, need to build the pc in the next month or 2, already have case and psu and have decided on specific 5090, was thinking just go Intel as usual but most off putting thing is them canning this socket next year, so basically any upgrade would require a new motherboard and cpu, but amd apparently stated they will use am5 until at least 2027 so even in 2027 I would still be able to just upgrade cpu, everything else to me is quite equal, as price for 9950x and i9 285k is exactly the same here. The motherboard will be proart x870 or for Intel the z890 proart, and I intend to put 98gb ram and cudimm ram currently only goes to 48gb so no real benefit there, thunderbolt also, I don't care much for thunderbolt support. So I think at this stage AMD might be the way to go.

[-]

dwburner69@reddit

Keep asking around you got some time. Sounds like you have a good plan and just need to sleep on it.

Im pretty confident the intel fixed their burn out issues. But yea, its scary stuff. Faith in the company is at lows. I keep watching all my semiconductor stocks move up and down and up while Intel just sits and does nothing.

[-]

RealityGoneNuts2610k@reddit

With layoff of thousands of employees, no innovative design, trying to shift to TSMC their manufacture of their chips. I guess Intel is in red.

[-]

DescriptionMission90@reddit

Intel has had a definite rough patch. There's 2-3 generations of amd processors that are pretty undeniably superior to the intel equivalents in the same time frame. But this has happened before, in both directions. Only time will tell if this snowballs them into obscurity, or if the turntables will go around again in a year or three like they always have in the past.

[-]

Homewra@reddit

With zen6 coming around the corner why would anyone build an intel system? Their motherboard won't be supporting their next release.

[-]

gwestr@reddit

285K is a great proc, especially on power consumption. Don’t feel like I need anything faster.

[-]

halodude423@reddit

I'm on intel (14700) from AM4 (3700x) and yes AMD is ahead of intel. Intel needs lots of P and E cores to do what AMD can do with \~half the cores (and them being all P cores) and with (usually) less power and heat. For now that 14th gen chip is still fine though. It's just AMD does the same and sometimes more with less.

Currently Intel is on life support as a company as a whole.

[-]

SuspiciousWasabi3665@reddit

Intel fucked up the 13th and 14th badly with issues that literally destroy cpus. Meanwhile amd absolutely knocked it out of the park with 7800x3d and 9800x3d. Intels latest AI chips have also been underwhelming performance wise.

[-]

F9-0021@reddit

Intel is closer to AMD in CPUs than AMD is to Nvidia in GPUs. Intel has a high end offering that trades blows with AMD's best offering.

When you compare like for like by comparing the regular Zen 5 lineup to Arrow Lake, it isn't even that far behind in gaming when properly tuned. AMD doesn't have any competition for their 3D cache chips, and boy do they let you know it. Almost $500 for an 8 core chip that's only useful for gaming is a borderline scam. But apparently gaming at 1080p with a 5090 is the only thing a computer is good for, at least if you believe reddit and the tech media.

For a more realistic system, there's no functional difference between AMD and Intel except that Intel has better multithreaded performance for the price.

[-]

thefish12124@reddit

Intel atm lost hard but i believe they will make it back in the game in 2-3 years. I dont think a big giant like intel will finish like this.

[-]

letsgotoarave@reddit

People see "some % of difference" and don't realize that in real use cases that often translates to something you wouldn't notice unless you're comparing simply for the sake of comparing.

[-]

Ivarock@reddit

Por lo que cuentas, tu actualización al 14600KF fue una jugada bastante lógica y eficiente para tu caso. Aprovechaste tu placa base actual, evitaste el gasto y la complicación de un cambio de plataforma, y obtuviste un salto de rendimiento enorme, sobre todo en productividad, que es lo que más valoras.

La razón por la que ves tantos builds “equipo rojo” hoy es que AMD, con Ryzen 5000 y sobre todo 7000, logró un rendimiento multicore muy competitivo y en muchos casos mejor precio/rendimiento, especialmente para quienes renderizan, streamean o trabajan en cargas masivas. Además, sus placas base AM5 prometen soporte a varias generaciones de CPU, lo que atrae a quienes quieren longevidad de plataforma.

En tu caso específico, migrar a AMD hubiera significado:

Comprar nueva placa base y probablemente RAM DDR5 si no la tenías.
Gastar más tiempo y dinero solo para lograr un rendimiento que, en juegos, no te daría un salto tan grande frente al 14600KF.
En productividad, sí hay modelos Ryzen que podrían igualar o superar, pero la diferencia no justificaría el gasto extra si ya lograste pasar de 2 h a 10 min en render.

En resumen: para tu uso, tu lealtad al “equipo azul” no te costó eficiencia ni sentido común. Pagaste unos cientos más, pero te evitaste el salto de plataforma y aún así obtuviste un upgrade brutal. Si quisieras entrar a AMD, tendría más sentido en tu próximo cambio de placa base completo, no ahora.

[-]

zerostyle@reddit

Even when you bought intel 12th gen AMD had already caught up by like zen 2 / 5000 series

[-]

VanWesley@reddit

Since you already had the mobo and RAM, then no, it wasn't a waste to go from 12th to 14th gen for you.

If it was new build however, I wouldn't call it a complete waste, but you definitely would've gotten a better bang for your buck to go with AMD instead of Intel 14th gen.

[-]

PersnickityPenguin@reddit

Intel is going to go bankrupt. It will take a miracle for them to stay in business next year.

[-]

lqvz@reddit

I have intel, AMD, and Apple M chips. There are still situations where I would choose intel over the others…. But those situations are getting fewer-and-far-between now more than ever.

Intel is in a particularly rough spot with AMD outperforming them with new innovations, ARM surging with Qualcomm and new Windows on ARM getting proper attention from Microsoft.

Intel also can’t get their manufacturing and fabrication in gear and might need TSMC to step in with a partial acquisition.

They’re in a bad spot.

Fortunately… X86 is going to be really hard to permanently kill and while x86 is around, intel will be around… maybe not making great chips, but they have x86 coattails to ride.

[-]

noiserr@reddit

ARM surging with Qualcomm and new Windows on ARM getting proper attention from Microsoft.

Amazon had to put a "frequently returned item" badge on Microsoft Surface laptops with Snapdragon Elite X chips. ARM is simply a compatibility nightmare on PC. Apple did a clean cut over to ARM and ran into similar issues but the developers had no chance but to slog through it. No such thing is happening on PC.

[-]

princejsl@reddit

Not sure if this is relatable but I am happy with 7800x 3D. My 14500k produces so much heat even after adding 4 fans to the 240mm radiator. AMD was known for heat and millions of memes out there making fun of it. Now look at intel, so much heat.

The only problem is the boot time on intel is much faster (windows 11 pro) compared to AMD. not sure if its motherboard or chipset issue but I will vote for AMD.

[-]

Few_Understanding_20@reddit

It really comes down to what you’re using your rig for. AMD has come a long way. So has intel. You using your rig for productivity, and that’s where intel and nvidia shine. Most people are using their rigs for gaming, and AMD is just unbeatable in that department. Take into account AMD’s 3D V-CACHE, and the inflated prices of higher end nvidia cards, and the picture is clearer on why so many gaming consumers are running team red.

[-]

Blue-moom123@reddit

The thing is, intel cpus aren't that bad! 14600k/13600k onward are still better than say 7900x3d in term of pure performance (source hardware unboxed). There is just no upgradeability and their newer cpus prices don't really make sense, especially in my region. Their 13th and 14th gens are still good at a better price than AMD cpus even. But going with Intel means you can't upgrade to the top cpus: 9800x3d. So when it can't win in both upgradeability nor in top tier gaming performance, it's just not really worth it unfortunately

[-]

szczszqweqwe@reddit

Honestly, even Ryzens 5xxx were on pair with 12th gen, since then Intel struggled, and AMD released x3d line and just keep releaseing stronger CPUs gen after gen.

Sure 13/14th gen isn't bad on performance alone, but energy consumption is stupendous, some of them died and their socket lasts 2 gens. Ultras aren't bad in a void, but they are hardly faster than 14th gen and have more reasonable power consumption.

Meanwhile even last gen 7800x3d/7950x3d are one of a top gaming CPUs, only falling behing their newer versions (9800x3d/9950x3d). and AM5 is likely to get 1, maybe, maaaybe 2 more generations of CPUs.

[-]

Alendrathril@reddit

Life comes full circle. The first PC I ever built was in 2004 and back then it was AMD or bust. Anyways, we should be glad of AMD's success but always hope the best for competition.

[-]

b-maacc@reddit

The 14600KF is a fine in socket upgrade from your 12600K, though there was something wrong with your previous setup if you render time took 2 hours and 10 minutes. The new chip is faster but not that much faster.

People frequently recommend AMD because it's a great choice for many peoples build, Intel has some good use cases too.

[-]

coreytrevor@reddit

Who tf says "team red" like it's a serious thing? These are corporations with shareholders, not an NFL team. Just buy whatever is the best at the time of your build, in this case AMD.

[-]

Proud_Purchase_8394@reddit

He’s had exclusively Intel CPUs for 35 years, think he’s definitely on “Team Blue”

[-]

Echo-Four-Yankee@reddit

Does your PC do what you need to do in a timely fashion? It sounds like it does to me. If so, Intel didn't lose. They won you as a customer. AMD is better for purely gaming, Intel is better for creators/productivity work, but AMD is very close to Intel in that area as well.

[-]

DocZvi@reddit

Intel is just worse at gaming across the board, lower FPS in performance and because AMD got better at productivity there's no reason not go team red these days. I got a 7950x3d for 380 bucks on eBay and it blows any Intel I've ever seen out of the water in both gaming and productivity. Intel isn't bad, it's just the AMD is better and cheaper now

[-]

The-w-ac-he-r@reddit

I use an intel ultra 7, and for my use cases it works amazingly. At this point in time I don’t have a graphics card. And the intergraded graphics in said cpu work amazingly. I’m surprised more people aren’t using these, it’s a great cpu.

[-]

legatesprinkles@reddit

Intel has been unexciting. 12th gen was last time people liked the new iteration and upgrade. 13/14th gen were not exciting upgrades and have the degradation issue and high power consumption. Then they did the ultra rebrand and the iteration was somehow barely an upgrade and at some times worse than their prior gen. Its not like intel cpus are bad but they are unexciting and AMD besides their Ryzen 7000 series has made progress with their iterations while also not raising the prices too much. For the past 3 gens intel releases feel lazy, overpriced and need a new motherboard. If you're a gamer and you were able to get a 5800X3D and you see the benchmarks for the latest and greatest intel cpus vs that...well its unexciting.

[-]

ezVentron@reddit

I went with AMD two and a half years ago, yup, my 7800X3D is soon turning three years old. I was initially never going to get AMD, but every review pointed me that way. I started out with a Pentium 4 back in early 2000s, upgraded to a Core 2 Duo E8400, after that a i7 950, after that I got a i7 3770k, then a 5930k (still have that PC, still works, runs with a 1080 and Asus Rampage MOBO), then a 8700k, upgraded for a 10900k, then turning over to AMD, and will probably stay there.

Intel has been to comfortable at the top, and reacted to late.

[-]

kaeyre@reddit

What are you missing? I guess that whole chapter of 14th gen intel CPU's shitting themselves in people's systems. I'm on my third 14900k replacement.

[-]

MrFrisB@reddit

Currently yeah, I don’t think anything is final as far as loose vs currently behind though. AMD didn’t have a chance competing at the top end a decade ago, cpu or gpu wise and were competing on budget offerings. Unless intel goes bankrupt hopefully some form of competition will continue to push better products, and who’s on top will shake up each generation in an ideal world.

[-]

alvarkresh@reddit

The main issue with the latest gen is just that it feels like a bit of a lackluster regression, even though the new Core line does excel at productivity (aka number crunching) which data analysis etc depend on.

[-]

Bottle_Only@reddit

Not just intel. Getting sub 7nm processes has challenged multiple companies to the breaking point. Samsung and global foundries included.

People complain about GPU prices but never stop to think about the fact they can get their hands on the most cutting edge material science and technology. All but one manufacturer has failed to bring economical yield to the market, yet a student with a summer job has access to this.

What an amazing time to be alive.

[-]

Rusted_Metal@reddit

I was also on team blue, but switched to team red for CPU during pandemic. The reviews were great for the 5xxx series so decided to take the plunge and haven’t looked back since. I now have 3 systems with AMD; 5900x, 7800X3D and now 9950X3D.

Also, look at Intel stock. It was once a Goliath but the company is now in trouble.

[-]

Professional-Crow115@reddit

Using both, nope not much of a difference. Just go with whichever is cheaper and available.

[-]

NotLunaris@reddit

By observable metrics relevant to gamers, AMD can be ahead in many usage scenarios.

However reddit is rarely indicative of reality. Understand that PC building is incredibly niche; despite this sub having 8 million subscribers, PC builders are but a drop in the bucket of consumers - the vast vast majority will simply buy a prebuilt, and doesn't have a care in the world what hardware it's running as long as it's a suitable price point and doesn't explode. Even if every single PC builder was using AMD, Intel still wouldn't bat an eye in terms of the market.

So be objective. Base your parts choices on benchmarks and established reviews.

Personally I believe we're at the point where CPU upgrades within the same motherboard chipset are no longer relevant. A modern mid-range CPU's performance can keep up for 5 years without issue. I'm on an i5-12400 that I got for $100 and don't see a need to upgrade anytime soon. Chances are when I upgrade in ~2028, DDR6 will be out, since it has refreshed once every 7 years since DDR3 in 2007.

[-]

captain_black_beard@reddit

When was the last yime Intel was relevant? I think thr last tome i had Intel qas the 6700k

[-]

notislant@reddit

I'm curious if intel will be back by the time I need a CPU upgrade in a few years, or if they'll continue to shit the bed.

[-]

DKsuperfan@reddit

I will never buy intel cpus

[-]

No-Second9377@reddit

Honestly i won't buy an intel out of principle. As soon as AMD became relevant again, intel magically found a way to give significant performance increases gen over gen. Which means they were intentionally giving the world dogshit processors from like 2010-2016, all while charging a massive premium.

[-]

KillEvilThings@reddit

Now if only people held this principle for Nvidia's garbage.

[-]

DaLegends6@reddit

The problem is Intel isn’t king anymore unless in niche circumstances. And Intel has been lacking in providing features across the range, making unnecessary segmentation.

Lunar lake (your Core Ultra V) has good battery life —> Can’t compete with Apple.

Core Ultra Series 2 —> Great multithreaded and single threaded —> Can’t compete with The 14900k —> Which can’t compete with the 9950X3D in multitasking or 9800X3D in gaming

14th Gen and 13th Gen —> Extremely power hungry, Stability issues —> On par with Zen 4 in gaming (Loses to X3D), loses by an even larger margin with Zen 5 X3D.

If you want powerful mobile chips —> Apple M4 series and Zen 5 Strix (Strix Halo) are vastly superior in performance.

Server, Hyperscale, Super-compute and AI —> GPUs are king, ARM and AMD are second. Intel is honestly a joke in this area and you would be laughed out of the room for going with Intel (unless you were sponsored).

——— However Intel is still king in some places

Home scale servers —> Twin Lake CPUs are honestly pretty great, and Intel quick sync does pretty well (Lack of ECC is annoying)

14-16 inch laptops that use the Arrow Lake HX —> Edges out Ryzen Strix laptops (Still loses if you compare to the X3D laptop chips; which are more for desktop replacement)

Certain single threaded workloads —> Photoshop/ Lightroom does well.

—— Bottom line Intel isn’t the best of the best in anything. I loved Intel and used Intel for years. But since Zen came out, and Apple Silicon came out, I find it hard to consider Intel for any of my use cases

[-]

samusmaster64@reddit

At 1080p in certain games AMD has an advantage, but for overall workloads and gaming at 1400p or higher, the difference isn't as extreme as many make it sound.

[-]

Bambeakz@reddit

Lol what?! I have the 12600K and I had no clue the 14600K uses the same socket and was planning to go to a 9800X3D but that upgrade would cost me at leat 800 euro. This looks like a great in between upgrade for that amount of money.

I was so used to that Intel kept changing sockets that I never double checked.

[-]

Bonobo77@reddit (OP)

It was super easy. Don’t forget to upgrade your Mobo firmware for the lastest intel inspired updates and fixes. Also, the KS chips are easy to find on sale.

[-]

Bambeakz@reddit

Did you try the BF6 beta or the new Mafia game by any chance? I really wonder what FPS you would get. Or are you only using it for productivity?

[-]

InnocenceIsBliss@reddit

You spent a couple hundred bucks, kept your board, and jumped to the 14600KF. That chip punches way above its price in productivity. In Blender, Premiere, and media-heavy tasks, it outperforms AMD’s similarly priced options like the 7600X and even holds its own against the 7800X3D in multi-threaded work. Quick Sync also gives Intel a leg up in encoding and render pipelines.

Unless you were chasing max gaming FPS or building from scratch, switching to AMD wouldn’t have given you better real-world results for the money. You made the right call.

[-]

Micro_Pinny_360@reddit

Not really. Sure, us PC builders are unanimously choosing Intel, but pre-builts and laptops are still much more popular, and these are areas where Intel still dominates the market. If you check the Steam Hardware Survey as of July 2025, though, AMD is increasingly getting closer, as Intel is running on just 58.75% of PCs. Yes, that's still a majority, but far from what it used to be.

[-]

pimpostrous@reddit

It’s all relative. I went from a 5600x to a 265k due to my heavy photoshop and Lightroom. The speed increase was nothing short of massive. Went from waiting for 5-10 seconds for presets to load for each one to being near instantaneous. Also noticed around a 10% uplift in gaming even in 4k. Probably could have achieved similar or maybe better results with a 9800x3d or 9900. But the cost was almost double. So at this point, I think Intel has now become the value brand the way AMD used to be. But if you’re not gaming in 4k, the benefits of the x3D become more prominent so going. For an x3D system makes a lot more sense

[-]

Mrdaffyplayz@reddit

why didnt you just go for a 5800x3d or 5700x3d???

[-]

pimpostrous@reddit

Cost for a 5800x3D was around 300. The entire Intel 265k with z890 mobo and 64 gb of ddr 5 cl30 Ram came at $400. Thus I say intel has become the value play the way AMD used to be. Also the only AMD CPU chips that can keep up with Intel core ultra for productivity tasks from is the 9000 series ryzen 9s, even the current 9600/9700 fall far behind. Both the 7800x3D and the 5700/5800 x3D perform significantly worse. The older X3D architecture only benefits 1080p/1440p for gaming but actually performed worse outside of games until they fixed the architecture with the 9800x3D.

Honestly wasn’t even expecting any FPS increase with gaming since I’m mostly GPU bottlenecked so I was pretty surprised and happy with a free 5-10% uplift.

[-]

rebelSun25@reddit

Intel played their cards. Way back in the day in Core 2 duo they had an astounding lead, they could have crushed AMD and they did. Not only did they use their lead to get retail on board but also the mobile market and the corporate market. I was witness to their dirty tactics. They would come in to a retail store and then bribe starting with the manager and the employees not to promote Zen or Zen to AMD CPUs on top of that they would throw in bonuses based on how many skews they promoted and sold from the Intel lineup. The bad thing for them was that by then their skews were beginning to be stale and very uncompetitive compared to AMD. So they chose the path on which they are and they've only got themselves to blame. Just ask anyone who had to upgrade their motherboard just because Intel makes them every f** generation

[-]

ahoypolloi69@reddit

When AMD loses ground to Nvidia, it is acceptable.

When Intel loses ground to AMD, it is unacceptable.

The gamer boys always give AMD a free pass.

Case in point, AMD is at least a couple generations behind Nvidia with gpu, who can coast and put out products like the 5080 that barely moves the needle. This generation of GPU is a push while AMD licks their wounds and tries to catch up.

Yet people still eat them up. Can't find a 9070xt in stock anywhere.

On the cpu side, Intel could be 5% slower and all of a sudden it is a catastrophy. But AMD is effectively 100% behind Nvidia in gpus and it is acceptable.

Gamer boys on reddit, fueled by gamer boy hardware reviewers, have skewed perception.

[-]

JipsRed@reddit

The 13th gen and 14th gen dying early fiasco ruined intel CPU brand and trust. They claimed to have fixed it already, but trust once broken, is hard to fix. Also AMD has been churning out faster CPUs than intel so there’s no reason to buy intel nowadays except for specific purposes.

[-]

Mrdaffyplayz@reddit

Right now if your building a brand new pc for gaming. Theres 0 reason to go with intel. AMD offers... X3D v cache technology, way better efficency,way cooler cpus, better multi-core performance,better and easier overclocking, better bang for buck,am5 will last wayyy longer than any intel socket,13th and 14th gen is still unstable too...

[-]

cheseball@reddit

Remember this is an ongoing competition. Intel losing means we might get innovation from them. I think it's a good thing, as long as they don't collapse because they completely missed the AI demand in data centers.

[-]

Any-Neat5158@reddit

Intel didn't lose.

They've been trading blows with AMD for decades now. In the time from of when Intel went from the Core 2 DUO's to the Core i7 920 SKU's they really started to open up a lead over AMD. AMD was behind for quite a few years until they brought out the Ryzen series of chips.

It was so apparent because Intel basically got SUPER lazy. We're talking like low single digit percent increases in performance improvements from one generation to the next, but they certainly didn't stop the price tags from moving up. As soon as Ryzen came about, and as it went into it's second and third generation and started to mature, Intel suddenly had to light a fire under their own asses.

Ultimately strong competition between vendors is the best thing for the consumer. Gives you options, keeps prices in check and a higher value return on the dollars you do spend.

[-]

DJBayside@reddit

AMD's been playing the long game both with GPUs and CPUs for awhile now, slowly but surely building market share and better, more affordable products on both fronts. They still have some work to do GPU-wise (but the 9070XT is a great step in the right direction) but CPU-wise, they've definitely completely won over the gaming market at this point. Their CPUs are just exponentially better for gaming now compared to the newer Intel chips, and on top of that Intel is constantly switching up socket types requiring new motherboards to be purchased in addition to the new CPU, meanwhile AMD is gonna bring Zen6 to AM5.

TL;DR AMD has simply been outmaneuvering Intel in the CPU market, in addition to Intel getting particularly sloppy and careless in regards to the gaming market in recent years.

[-]

Substantial-Singer29@reddit

Intel makes the mark of probably beone of the best examples of how you can have bad leadership, take a monolith of a company in The span of over a decade basically reduce it to rubble.

I was a shareholder in intel for a very long time until the early two thousand twenties. It seemed pretty evident with their lack of reinvesting into Research And losing their contract with apple Is things weren't going to go well.

I got out I honestly didn't expect it to be near as much of a shit show as what it's turned into.

Though it's relatively distant and not a high likelihood the reality of that bankruptcy is actually on the table for them is something I never would have guessed.

[-]

ConsistencyWelder@reddit

Intel is behind in desktop, for gaming, but still valid for productivity if you stay clear of the 13700/13900/14700/14900, since they degrade over time.

The Lunar Lake CPU's aren't bad. Decent battery life, although if battery life what you're going for, you would consider a mac. If you're willing to live with MacOS of course.

But Lunar Lake performance is now great, their single thread performance is good, but multicore is pretty terrible:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6393vs6143/Intel-Ultra-7-268V-vs-AMD-Ryzen-AI-9-HX-370

[-]

LyriWinters@reddit

I think they're fine.

[-]

daniel_thor@reddit

Intel is in bad shape. Every acquisition they made in the last 20 years has gone sour. They bet on vertical integration but couldn't keep up with TSMC process innovations. They are on at least the third CEO in five years. I moved off of Intel first on my laptop because the heat to performance ratio on my last Intel laptop was just out of control.

Intel's Nova Lake CPUs are slated to be built by TSMC, so if they are priced competitively they may regain a lot of ground on AMD.

None of this is to say Intel is never a good buy. They seem to have started discounting and their quality control issues also seem to be behind them so it becomes more of a price to performance question on the desktop.

[-]

jfriend99@reddit

A render going from 2 hours (120min) to 10 min is NOT just from changing from 12600K to 14600KF. There's some other major difference between those two. The 14600KF is maybe 40% faster in all-core benchmarks (because it has more performance cores and is clocked faster) and 10% faster in single-core benchmarks. There's no way the 14600KF is 12x (1200%) faster at anytthing.

[-]

phy597@reddit

Yep, top ten yes ten computers on Amazon have AMD CPU’s. Intel has not been able to get the die shrink correct like Taiwan Semiconductor. AMD number one in desktop processors

[-]

mariano3113@reddit

Intel Arrow Lake is TSMC though...

[-]

phy597@reddit

Correct but intel has not been able to manufacture these CPUs at intel foundries.

[-]

kariendol@reddit

14nm+++++++, never forget...

Intel core ultra series are pretty nice for productivity though, especially ultra 5 and 7(ok for game, but worse than prev gen..). At the top end its a wash between 285k and 9950x/9950x3d for productivity. Dedicated gaming machine amd x3d all the way.

i wont recommend intel i9 13th and 14th gen due to degradation issue. i7 or lower might be ok for few years? 🤨

[-]

RedBoxSquare@reddit

On performance to watts scale, which measures technology advancements, AMD dominates.

Performance to price is usually determined by supply and demand. AMD is more desired so price is higher, so it doesn't favor AMD as much. There is nothing wrong with getting an Intel CPU if you already have the motherboard. (Actually there is something wrong with 13/14th gen CPU's boost voltages)

i7 258V is still behind AMD. It is has low power usage because it doesn't have the performance, not because it has good performance per watt. But performance is more than enough for most people (companies tend to overbuild performance for office workers).

[-]

LegitimatelisedSoil@reddit

If you were on AM4 even today you have little reason to leave it right now until AM6 because of how much upgrade room it has all the way to the 5800x3d.

Like I joined AM4 at 2nd gen ryzen and I've never had to worry about running a new motherboard because I've been able to just swap them out for the newer version.

[-]

ValuableJumpy8208@reddit

They leapfrog each other constantly. AMD is on top now and in a few years, intel will be back on top.

[-]

Stunning-Elk-1570@reddit

Intel is barely alive not deas to be honest the intel processors are good but the price is insane

[-]

daeganreddit_@reddit

first, a lot of users on reddit who are vocal are bias to AMD. previously i had only built an athalon system. but the rest had been Intel. the reason today that I am building a Ryzen 9 system is because of intel's 13 & 14 generation. those chips, without microcode updates to the motherboard, request to much voltage and will cook themselves. the very reason i stuck with Intel was because of the reliability. the only way to keep a 13/14 series from ending its own life prematurely is to either have been lucky because you were undervolting, or have the microcode bios updates for your motherboard.

[-]

zephyrinthesky28@reddit

Unless you have a 4080 or higher GPU for 1440p+lower, or only play eSports/shooters/sims, I doubt most people would be able to tell the performance difference without an FPS counter between a 12600K or 7600X.

[-]

Azronath@reddit

I have friends that work for Intel as Engineers and they fully acknowledge they got complacent and arrogant because of their market dominance. By the time they realized their lack of innovation was slowly killing them it was too late. At this point it'll be hard to come back. To top it off, because of their failures lots of the top engineers and people left, they fired their CEO, laid off thousands of people, and have lost favor with the public.

Now with that being said, AMD having no competition will be terrible for consumers. Just like Nvidia dominates the GPU market and rips everyone off but quadrupling the price of cards from previous generations, AMD will have free reign to charge whatever they want.

I sincerely hope Intel makes a comeback but they have terrible leadership and CEO.

[-]

totorohunter@reddit

When your product burns itself up and you ignore the problem and blame your customers for months until finally pushing a "fix" doesn't promote consumer confidence.

[-]

cluberti@reddit

Only Apple can get away with “you’re holding it wrong”.

[-]

SkarletIce@reddit

not really, Intel lost the "Best Gaming CPU in the world" title to the AMD x3d CPUs, Now that aside they did have an issue where some CPUs were defective and they were dishonest about it and how long they knew about it. That said they are still making great CPUs that offer excellent productivity CPUs and with the recent price cuts they are super competitive with their price equivalent AMD CPUs (not the 285k) but their 14th gen is still more than capable of keeping up with AMD in almost any brand new title out there

So did they lose? in general yes they lost both in being the best and being customer friendly and reliable. U however didn't lose the 14600k is an amazing CPU that is shocking how capable it is especially for the price.

[-]

meteorprime@reddit

If it lives, sure

13th and 14th gen CPUs have a problem and die fast.

Intel handled it all very very badly too.

[-]

Shadowraiden@reddit

tbf AMD has always been competitive on a lot of aspects especially in the budget ranges.

Intel was generally better at the higher end or for say gaming/productivity but that changed massively for gaming with the x3d CPU's which has been a game changer and made AMD vastly ahead for any type of potential gaming use. it then doesnt help Intel hid very nefariously a massive flaw in their CPU's that has led to them failing which has caused people being even less trustworthy.

[-]

These-Tradition6732@reddit

The 12th generation Intel chips were definitely the absolute king at the time, but their products didn’t perform well afterwards.

[-]

itsamamaluigi@reddit

Your 14600KF should be fine. Once you get to 13th and 14th gen i7 and i9 CPUs (that is, the 13700, 13900, 14700, and 14900), Intel fucked up and made CPUs that permanently and irreversibly degrade over time, which will eventually die.

Their replacement, the Ultra 200 series, are considerably slower and more expensive than AMD's offerings.

So yeah, Intel is in a bad place right now. This is a problem for consumers because AMD no longer has to compete so hard. I don't want another situation like we had in 2011-2016 where AMD's FX chips were extremely far behind Intel, which led to Intel slacking off, not bothering to improve their CPUs while charging high prices. Competition is good.

[-]

Kitchen_Part_882@reddit

Intel lost it when their high-end 13th and 14th gen CPUs started dying and they tried to blame anyone except themselves.

Look up "intel degradation" for the full details, they tried to push the silicon too hard to keep up with AMD.

To be fair to Intel, they did start honouring warranty claims on affected processors, but only after they ran out of people to blame.

The result is that Intel had to dial things back a bit and just aren't competitive for gaming at this time (AMD 3d cache helps a lot here too)

There was also a bad batch of 13th-gen CPUs that had a separate issue with oxidation of the die.

[-]

simagus@reddit

Came here to see if anyone had said this. Some of the CPU's were frying on some motherboards allegedly due to voltages being incorrectly specified and I would suggest perhaps not the wisest specifications for the chips that broke under those conditions.

[-]

pixel8knuckle@reddit

Its hard to wrap my head around there only being two shows in town for decades and one bad gen of chips and intel falls apart? They were also top dog for so long, yet amd thrives from underdog positiok? I guess i just dont “get” how decades of success cant recover from some failures. Hell i was so confident in intel i had bought their 13th gen chip not knowing the overheating risks/bios issues. Thankfully my chip was not a failure, but i bet many accidentily bought unknowingly.

[-]

ioiplaytations2@reddit

A few things to note: 1. X3d chips ---> highly marketed to being the best processor for gaming. 2. Higher end 13th and 14th gen processors having those instability issues with voltages, etc... which causes long term degradation. They say upgraded microcodes solved this issue, but the damage is already there. Thousands of posts and build recommendations online say to stay away from Intel 13 and 14 generation. 3. Core ultra is more so marketed into productivity and AI and less so into gaming. It's a powerful CPU, but I don't think the world is leaning towards that direction yet. More people are into gaming and traditional cpu intensive tasks. Maybe in a couple more years when AI becomes the norm (it's there, just not yet meta). 4. Sockets. People are skipping out on 1851 because 1954 is coming out soon. So no upgrade paths for Intel. 5. Price. Despite all the above problems, Intel processors, at MSRP, are still more expensive than AMD.

[-]

bubbarowden@reddit

I’ve always been a loyal AMD guy but this time I went with 14600k bc it was such a good value. The chip easily runs w my 5700x3d but was half the price.

[-]

Training_Try7344@reddit

I love my i9-13900k! I'm Intel all the way and always have been ..

[-]

Vioret@reddit

You can love it all you want, Any intel chip in the last several years is worse than AMD.

[-]

mariano3113@reddit

I have mainly AMD chips, but for iGPU video encoding...Intel wins Intel Quicksync almost always wins.

7600x(itx gaming desktop), 9600x(travel itx with low profile gpu Gemcase C9), 13600k (Plex server), i5-7200u (Qotom router box), 5900HX (Minisforum HX90) former travel CPU and now a media PC, Rasperry Pi4 as music player (moode audio via Orchard Audio dac), Raspberry Pi3b as OSMC player in living room. (2Nvidia Shields in family room and master bedroom)

I will most likely replace the 7200u with another Intel qotom box when it dies and most likely will always run Intel on my media server.

I do not agree that Any Inyel chip in recent is worse than AMD counterpart...it depends on use-case.

[-]

jizzlewit@reddit

That's such a blanket statement...

[-]

Xece08@reddit

Lol if intel is still winning. Mid range cpu's would still be quad cores.

[-]

pixel-spike@reddit

Your 268v is a one of the best cpu for efficiency. It even beats any and cpu. For low Wattage. It's only beaten by apple m series.

[-]

RolandMT32@reddit

I used AMD for a lot of years (1994-2011), and I've been using Intel now. My current PC is one I built in 2019 with an i9-9900K, but honestly, even then, I may have gone with the AMD offering. It seems to me AMD has been ahead since 2019, and I haven't heard anything yet about Intel recovering.

[-]

PsyOmega@reddit

Intel is okay. It'll give you "playable" fps in gaming and reasonable productivity performance.

AMD won because they offer similar productivity perf for less money. And they offer X3D gaming chips which have a massive performance edge over intel that intel quite simply can't catch up to.

[-]

Brisslayer333@reddit

I maxed out to a 14600KF for cheap. I am happy, my game don’t crash

Update your BIOS

[-]

KillEvilThings@reddit

This post very conveniently ignores the fact Intel destroyed their brand image, lost out in every way in competitiveness because they were stuck on the 10nm process whereas AMD is now 2 to 3 fab generations ahead of intel, currently on the 5nm fab(Zen 5 is on '4nm' but it's literally just a mildly fancier 5nm process).

In the process of Intel attempting to compete they ended up killing their own products, being insanely inefficient.

You think they haven't lost because you're sitting in your own world of "wow my stuff's fine! They never lost!" Is the equivalent of being ignorant and keeping your head stuck in the sand and saying because I see no problems thus there aren't any.

AMD is actually destroying intel in most conceivable ways aside from some important legacy support intel has.

It was so fucking bad that server usage of intel reported failures in the...literal uncountable by now, whereas in the same usage, AMD reported like 24?.

Now if you're a corporate enterprise and your enterprise consumers are saying hey shit's fucked and the competitor has none of that, can you actually say you're still winning?

They only win because of people like you who still think Intel is AWESOME.

[-]

TallComputerDude@reddit

268V looks neat. I imagine it's quite compelling hardware. Previous Intel CEO wanted to dump the fab business. Newer one wants to keep it. Meanwhile, Samsung says they have 2 nm solved and TSMC is suddenly somehow behind.

Now the Intel CEO is in trouble with Trump and it's a potential national security issue. They can bring in another CEO, but these two leadership transitions in rapid succession could have a negative impact.

Intel has now let desktop fall behind mobile, as far as I can tell. Microsoft is trying to make the NPU happen and Strix Halo potentially soon owns the HEDT space owned for desktop and laptop. Suddenly we all have 128 GB and then what? Meanwhile, many tech bros still somehow think they must have CUDA for the stonks?

And we still can't get HBM3e in consumer and that's what we might have seen without this inflating AI bubble sucking all the more interesting memory into the data center.

If people discover they actually don't need CUDA, Nvidia automatically takes a hit. If Microsoft continues to improve Windows on ARM the way it has, Nvidia wins back the crown with its own MediaTek "APU" and crushes both Intel and AMD. There are so many different ways it could go.

[-]

Nexxus88@reddit

"Lose" is a strong way to put it. Lose implies they have thrown in the towel, they haven't What they have done is fumble the ball direly, and even after fumbling the ball arguably still have not recovered from that.

The Ultra chips are find if you want productivity, but a lot of Reddit (me included) are gamers, and Previous previous-gen Ryzen (7000 series) beats out current-gen Intel in that regard.

Not only that, previous-gen Intel beats out Intel currently too, and that's an entirely dead platform I am on a 9800x3D right now, arguably the best gaming chip on the market. and in 2 years, I can get another top-tier gaming chip that will slot in here (if AMD keeps their word.) If I had a 7800x3D too I could do the same thing.

Or I could get a comparatively high-end previous-gen Intel CPU and deal with their whole CPU degradation issues which they seemingly still haven't fully solved, since there are fringe cases pf dying 14th gen chips popping up as is my understanding, and this is not even meaning Intels complete and utter mishandling of that situation and doing everything in its power to not take accountability/do the right thing concerning them.

[-]

Bonobo77@reddit (OP)

I’ll admit to being pedantic. :)

[-]

GoofyGills@reddit

The 12600K still slaps pretty hard relative to anything newer from Intel.

[-]

Lazer_beak@reddit

Maybe very long term, intel is in decline, they had school boy errors in gen 14 , but for now , Intel has much much more market share amd 40.39% of the market share compared to Intel's 59.52, haven't don't get too excited once AMD is dominant they will probably be just rapacious as intel

[-]

JohnToFire@reddit

Because I use vmware workstation heavily, it's Intel only for me

[-]

YoSpiff@reddit

I've always built with AMD, since the 386/40 in the early 90s. Most of that time they have lagged behind Intel, providing more bang for the buck, but it appears AMD have now exceeded Intel. I expect the two companies will continue to leapfrog each other for many years.

[-]

vedomedo@reddit

I was an avid Intel user, since pentium 2, but I swapped out my 13700k for a 9800X3D. That doesnt mean I’m using AMD forever from now on, I’m simply using whatever is best.

[-]

Yellow2345@reddit

I’m tempted to upgrade my 12400 to a 14600. It’s certainly not necessary for the games I play but the other option for years down the road would be a full rebuild since i can’t do much else with LGA1700. 14th gen wouldn’t be a bad match for when i eventually upgrade my 3060 Ti to RTX 60xx series.

[-]

Flashy_Yam_6370@reddit

Those cpus are strong. But 12600 to 14600 will not make rendertime go from 2 hours to 10 mins. That is BS. You either changed settings or enabled GPU rendering.

[-]

Own-Indication5620@reddit

IMO, no. The Intel 'hate' these days reminds me of the AMD 'hate' prior to Ryzen. My Ryzen 3 chip died within 2 years and I replaced it with a 12600K. At the time the Ryzen CPU didn't even feel that much faster than my old Sandy Bridge 2500K which overclocked super well without issues. Gaming and single-core performance was a joke. I couldn't even OC the Ryzen at all.

Now the newest Ryzen's I believe are objectively great CPUs and the benchmarks prove that, especially in gaming. But when you look at value/price wise, the newest Intel Ultra chips are just fine. They're also producing great benchmarks in non-gaming workloads, even above a lot of Ryzen benchmarks.

My 12600K can OC very well. I'm still happy with it, and the E-cores work very well at reducing power consumption. My PC runs cool. I have had zero issues with it so far.

I believe Intel will turn things around. It's not over yet, they just need to get more creative again.

[-]

FreeBSDfan@reddit

I have a 285K in my desktop primarily because I do entirely non-gaming workloads: the 24 cores do help versus the 9950X's 16.

I would, however, love a flagship non-gaming AMD-based laptop, even if I have an Intel-powered desktop.

[-]

Own-Indication5620@reddit

Yeah and right now that CPU is a great deal compared to something like the 9000 X3D series in my view. If things were the other way around where people still had a preference for Intel it would seem like one of the best deals going.

Anyway, AMD has done a phenomenal job. It's hard to believe in a lot of ways. I never gave up on their GPUs, I've always been an Intel CPU/AMD GPU person and have never had any major issues with either one yet. I probably just had back luck for my Ryzen chip to fail on me - but even when it was working I wasn't blown away. I'll have to test a newer one at some point and see how I feel.

[-]

coolboy856@reddit

For consumer productivity, Intel is easily the best choice. Their mainstream chips wipe the floor with AMD's chips of the same price range in productivity tasks due to their core-centric engineering focus.

For gaming, AMD has been an obvious choice with the Ryzen series for years, especially with their introduction of 3D V-cache technology. Their popularity is also contributed to long-term socket support and relative reliability compared to Intel's chips in the past years.

[-]

Additional_Ad_6773@reddit

Intel has lost badly in every single endeavor it has attempted in the last 5 years across ALL of its various business entities and divisions.

I see a world where Intel files for bankruptcy, dissolves, and has its assets sold to the highest bidders inside the next decade.

[-]

Biggeordiegeek@reddit

Ryzen took a bit to find its feet the 1st gen was ok, but not the best, but the generational improvements have been amazing and now they really are on top

Intel need to stick to the course, Core Ultra is like Ryzen 1st gen and if they stick at its I am sure it will get better, we need Intel to keep AMD honest

[-]

AceLamina@reddit

Not really, for gamers? Probably

But for everyone else they're still the better option At least for desktop anyway

[-]

Hrmerder@reddit

It's a fact AMD is now running beyond circles around Intel in pretty much every category possible for CPUs but let's not sit here and act like AMD is our friend either.. Without competition we clearly see crap happening just like Nvidia vs AMD vs Intel, with Intel being the rooted for underdog in discreet GPU territory anyway. AMD might as well say they make video cards for a hobby as Nvidia continues to have giant heaps of market share, and yes the 9070xt is cool and all without a doubt, but just like good ole' Nvidia cards, good luck trying to find it at MSRP... And AMD cards aren't even supported nearly as well in AI (if most of the time at all).

This becomes a much broader issue in general, but long and short is if one competitor drops the flag, we all lose, just like AMD pretty much dropped the flag for the 60xx series, and 70xx series (if not worse in 70 series than 60 series).

I have always been an AMD fanboy just as OP has clearly always been an Intel fanboy. I went from (funny enough) intel 386sx 33mhz -> AMD 486 133mhz -> AMD Athlon X2 -> AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition -> AMD R5 5600x but Intel HAS to compete. If they dropped out we might as well just give up on home compute and go tablet only because Intel was actually one of those old school companies that were known to pop knee caps if you got in it's way..

[-]

The-Numbertaker@reddit

If you didn’t want to spend any more money, that jump to the 14600kf is a solid upgrade. Compare that price to the cost of buying an AMD equivalent or better cpu and a new motherboard.

But yeah x3d chips are just that much better, but only for higher end builds cost-wise. Ironically, the 14600kf sits at a nice sweet spot where there isn’t a perfect AMD equivalent. I have one, and I couldn’t justify spending 2x the price or more on a 7800x3d. Basically AMD is dominating high end and I’d say it’s closer to an even split in the mid range. AMD is probably still winning at low budgets though with the 5500, 5600 etc.

[-]

KFC_Junior@reddit

amd with x3d is dominating for games, intel now is shitting all over amd in terms of price/perf for productivity. 13700k, 14700k, 13900k, 14900k still beat out all non x3d chips for gaming, current gen (arrow lake/core ultra) was a step back in gaming due to the new chiplet design but its even more efficient than their amd counterpart. 285k = zen 5 non x3d in gaming, 265k = zen 4 non x3d gaming. but the 265k is the price of a 9700x and dominates a 9900x in productivity

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/18.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6324vs6326vs6205vs6171/Intel-Ultra-5-245K-vs-Intel-Ultra-7-265K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-9700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-9900X

not fucked to find my price comparison thing i typed out but just look on pcpartpicker for it, majority of countries amd is getting shit on by intel in price/perf

[-]

-Radiation@reddit

I already had to send two i5 13600KF for warranty and it sucks being without system for a month every time. So for me Intel would not be a choice again, must less that generation.

[-]

167488462789590057@reddit

Just a matter of fact

Don't just pay attention to the 9800X3D, but also the ones under it. Keep in mind the 9950X3D is under the 9800X3D (not pictured), and then you have the first intel CPU, which is last gen, from Raptorlake, and has people reasonably afraid intel didn't really fix the degradation issues as they've said it was fixed before too.

So then you say, well lets ignore the 13th and 14th gen to get away from any degradation fears.

What is next?

5 different AMD CPUs, then the current intel flagship that costs a lot more than some items further up. Keep in mind some are even missing from this list.

So yeah, intel has fallen, and AMD has almost started to outnumber them in servers too due to their much higher efficiency currently as Intels fabs are both their noose and their lifeboat.

Don't get attached to brands I think is the lesson. Just stick to the facts and figures.

[-]

spudatoe4@reddit

Every time I read these kinds of statements I think the same thing. Every thing makes sense at a certain price point, if you can get a 14400 at discount and have LGA 1700 then it’s a no brainer.

If you’re happy with your performance then again, it’s a no brainer.

If it’s a new build completely and you want an upgrade path, then go AMD, but again at certain price points it still makes sense to go intel

[-]

HotAlbatross2788@reddit

gaming: intel

work: intel cuz of the L3 cache AMD gets FPS

[-]

No-Preparation4073@reddit

Price / performance / cost / power requirements AMD generally has them spanked at every turn. AMD caught up to and overtook Intel by sticking a long time with the same socket, which made upgrades easy and simple - while Intel seemed to check sockets like most people change socks.

Intel chips tend to use more power for the performance given, and they do tend to have issues. You can google for those things, plenty of weird stuff happening.

AMD in the mean time is moving forward full speed with AM5 socket now, and the chips like the gaming 9800x3d will melt your mind.

I always built intel until one christmas a ways back I built a computer for my son. 2700x AMD. Thing was a rocket ship compared to my up to date Intel system. Now there are 4 intel systems in the house, and never have they disappointed me or let me down.

[-]

nivlark@reddit

11th gen was an unmitigated disaster. In many workloads it was slower than the previous generation. So 12th gen received praise for mostly fixing that, and also for price cuts to more accurately reflect market positioning. In absolute terms it wasn't anything spectacular.

Meanwhile AMD's big breakthrough was V-Cache, which for games specifically allowed them to match and now beat Intel's flagship CPUs at a lower cost and with a fraction of the power draw. Intel hasn't been able to innovate at the same level, and so they've fallen behind in "mind-share".

They can still be competitive further down the product stack, and an in-socket upgrade is always going to be better value than building a whole new system.

The bottom line, as ever, is that blind loyalty to a particular brand is dumb, and you should always evaluate the entire market to work out what the best product for your budget and use case is going to be.

[-]

skyfishgoo@reddit

if gaming is the only thing that is important to you, then AMD

if you have other interests then Intel is the right choice

i went intel and have no regrets (except for all the better deals that i could have had if i could have waited, which i couldn't have so it doesn't matter).

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

AMD presents a far easier plug-and-play system baseline that Intel has never quite had. To get an i9 to compete with a 9950X3D you'd need a LOT of tweaking that the 9950X3D gets straight out of the box.

[-]

deadfishlog@reddit

AMD is better for gaming, but if you’re rendering, you’ve made the right choice.

[-]

The_soulprophet@reddit

I have both. I can’t tell the difference in gaming at 1440p and above between any x3D chip and any K intel chip with most gpus.

The most surprising cpu to me was the 5600x3d in an itx build. Very, very good gaming cpu. However, the heat/watts doesn’t paint the entire picture of what’s going on. The idle on that cpu surprised me.

[-]

Kingdom_Priest@reddit

I mean, we need sacrificial consumers to keep intel afloat. A dead intel is bad for all consumers. Keep buying intel bro.

[-]

SinisterPixel@reddit

The AM3 platform wasn't particularly good, and gave Intel a very easy market to play in. Unless you were going super budget, you went Intel. Intel knew this, and started resting on their laurels.

Then in 2018, AMD dropped their first Ryzen chips. Not only were they undercutting Intel on price, but they were doing significantly better in price:performance. So the AM4 platform began getting popular.

Intel's issue is that they took too long to try and respond to the market. Every generation of Ryzen was offering significant improvements over the last, so the gap between Intel and AMD kept growing. By the time Intel realised they couldn't win the market simply by existing anymore, AMD were already leagues ahead, and Intel have spent years playing catchup. The microcode error in certain Intel CPUs burning out cores by overloading them didn't help either. A lot of people simply lost any trust in the company.

We're seeing something similar start to happen in the GPU market too, where a lot of people are coming over to Team Red, because their offerings are starting to become a lot more attractive. For now, Nvidia still has the raw performance market, but certain Radeon cards just have such incredible price:performance that at certain points, it's just better to go AMD over Nvidia.

I understand brand loyalty, and if you've been building for 20 years, you've very much existed in an Intel dominated market for most of the time you've spent PC building. But things have changed. There are still some great Intel CPUs out there. But outside a few edge cases, there's almost no reason to pick Intel over AMD. AMD simply have both better price:performance, and overall performance on their side right now.

[-]

Jennymint@reddit

Yep.

When I was young and income was tight, I always went AMD because they were great budget CPUs.

Now that I'm older and can afford to pay a premium, I go AMD because their CPUs are the best on the market.

It's not even brand loyalty. I used to dream of being able to afford an Intel CPU. But they dropped the ball hard.

[-]

SpiderDK1@reddit

Intel loses all its company... and it is a big loss for us... no competition - higher prices - less improvements...

[-]

IGunClover@reddit

Yeah bro.

[-]

yick04@reddit

"losing" is relative. It's all cyclical.

[-]

ashyjay@reddit

I have a 14700 in my work computer and it's certainly quick and can cope with all my spreadsheets.

Intel is great for budgetish builds I just upgraded my desktop with a 285k was about £300 cheaper than if I went with a 9800X3D and comparable motherboard.

The 285k is a huge step up over my 5ghz 5800x without overclocking,

I'd have to say Intel didn't lose, consumers are winning right now with good options from Red and Blue sides depending on priorities, AMD for all gaming and maximum frames, Intel for if you have work to do as well.

If only AMD and Intel could sort out higher end GPU options so I can tell Nvidia to do one.

[-]

DoggoCity@reddit

for you, upgrading to the 14600kf made sense because you had something it fit into already. new builds though? AMD per dollar is just delivering more performance these days. whatever you can get on Intel’s side, AMD has something for around the same price that performs better. not to mention, the new Core Ultra CPUs have had issues in a lot of games and some productivity workloads. I hope they step up their game soon, otherwise consumers will lose next

[-]

Betancorea@reddit

Loyalty means nothing in this day and age. You go where the performance and cost efficiencies are. End of the day I want a system that works as good as it can for the amount of money I spend. AMD hits that sweet spot.

[-]

Libelle27@reddit

Had a similar thing here earlier this year. I built my PC bath when the 8th gen intel cpu’s came out and went for the 8700k as it was a beast for its time. Then when upgrading in early 25, advice EVERYWHERE basically said to go team red and after doing my own DD, i’m now running a 9950X3D

[-]

Dubbs_R32@reddit

Heck of a jump right? I made a similar upgrade just a generation earlier - 7700K to 7950x3D.

[-]

VirtualArmsDealer@reddit

Intel didn't produce a good gaming lineup this time, that's a. I'm old enough to remember the last and swing. It'll come back to intel soon

[-]

Isitharry@reddit

1 (Title). Yes, at the moment, seemingly. Intel screwed its consumers and did a poor job addressing their thermal issues. Additionally, they really didn’t step up in competing with AMD in gaming. More, AMD maintained socket longevity, which made the upgrade paths effectively cheaper 2. Nothing. Lots here tout “future proofing” and further upgrade paths. It’s not a completely bad mindset when building new and fresh. But in your case, it sounds like you have FOMO, but I could be wrong 3. This is situational and depends on your use case. Best to compare benchmarks on software/workflow that YOU use. 4. I’m going to say yes. You performed an upgrade for not much cash. Your price to performance is quite good.

[-]

K1llrzzZ@reddit

AMD was behind for a really long time and still managed to make a comeback, maybe Intel could too but as of late they are not doing too good. They fell behind because they were stuck on the same 24nm node for years and uses Skylake cores for like5 generations... then Rocket Lake was a mess, less cores, worse gaming perf, higer TDP... 12th gen was good but 13 and 24 had stability issues and a lot of them needed to be replaced, Intel didn't respond for a long time it made them look real bad. And the new 200 Ultra CPUs are a step back in performance compared to 14th gen while AMDs X3D chips are way ahead in gaming.

[-]

ZW31H4ND3R@reddit

AMD has come a long way and is on top.

[-]

SmellsLikeAPig@reddit

Intel is better if you are into homelabs. More cores less power usage when idle.

[-]

Kilbane@reddit

Yes they did.

[-]

Broken-Akashi@reddit

I think team red is more for gaming while team blue is more for productivity but I don't read much on the lastest things since it changes every month/year.

Honestly if you're happy stick with Intel if not go AMD.

[-]

Cohibaluxe@reddit

For gaming AMD is just simply better. Intel eeks out in quicksync-accelerated workloads (photoshop, for example), but is otherwise more expensive, takes more power and is ultimately slower. There’s also the 13th and 14th gen chips commiting suicide issue that Intel says they’ve fixed but only time will tell.

[-]

9okm@reddit

12600k to 14600k is a sensible upgrade. Everything is fine.

[-]

Fanex24@reddit

Bro i just thought about this 2 minutes ago timing is crazy