That last sentence annoys me a bit, 7000 series is already competitive, ltt did a video not to long ago and it was a complete toss-up between 7950 and 13900 and Paul's hardware also shows the two just trading blows.

it looks like intel 10nm 2nd GEN(known as Intel 7 node) is already kinda becoming less efficient and lesser performance gains.
12th Gen CPU was impressive, but 13 th gen is meh..nothing special.
AMD clearly has an advantage in 5nm nodes.
i wonder how long will Intel stay at 10nm+.
Hope they dont make it a home it like 14nm..

Price is one thing, power consumption the other. I doubt people considering the chip care about either. For me it is more interesting if the chip will also draw much more power or if it is only a very well, very rare piece of silicon. In my opinion AMD's approach is much more future proof but intel can't simply copy it without facing some sort of backlash.^^

As long as they keep swinging away. They can can do whatever they want with the halos. Parity means I win.

Fatalfuryit looks like intel 10nm 2nd GEN(known as Intel 7 node) is already kinda becoming less efficient and lesser performance gains.
12th Gen CPU was impressive, but 13 th gen is meh..nothing special.
AMD clearly has an advantage in 5nm nodes.
i wonder how long will Intel stay at 10nm+.
Hope they dont make it a home it like 14nm..

I use these codes (Intel 7, Intel 4, etc.) because xx nm no longer has coverage in reality. Intel's 14nm is TSMC's 10nm equivalent, and Intel 7 is TSMC's 7nm equivalent. TSMC keeps a lead (5nm) but it is not as big as the score indicates (10 vs 5).
The refinement of "10nm" allowed the addition of 4-8 E cores and higher frequencies. The potential is huge (FX8350's record has fallen) but the cost is consumption. I suspect that this consumption is not a problem for those who purchase 13900K(S).
Meteor Lake is announced with Intel 4 for cores. We will see.

22% price increase for 1 or 2 fps faster in 3K or 4K resolution. Yeah....no thanks! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

GicaI use these codes (Intel 7, Intel 4, etc.) because xx nm no longer has coverage in reality. Intel's 14nm is TSMC's 10nm equivalent, and Intel 7 is TSMC's 7nm equivalent. TSMC keeps a lead (5nm) but it is not as big as the score indicates (10 vs 5).
The refinement of "10nm" allowed the addition of 4-8 E cores and higher frequencies. The potential is huge (FX8350's record has fallen) but the cost is consumption. I suspect that this consumption is not a problem for those who purchase 13900K(S).
Meteor Lake is announced with Intel 4 for cores. We will see.

Well said.. the tsmc nm numbers are bs .. density and transistor performance matter.. not this bs marketing numbers

Intel is designing the Core i9-13900KS to ward off the threat from AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D "Zen 4" processor...

In order to do that, it needs to be much closer to 13900k. At this point, we don't know if +22% is just one retailer's markup or MSRP. But it's "refreshing" to know that, despite that, we "know" what Intel is designing the 13900ks for.

Prima.Vera22% price increase for 1 or 2 fps faster in 3K or 4K resolution. Yeah....no thanks! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Think 0 fps difference

Prima.Vera22% price increase for 1 or 2 fps faster in 3K or 4K resolution. Yeah....no thanks! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Well, if you buy a faster CPU for more fps @4k... you're doing it wrong anyway ;)

The 22% price increase is a bit steep, but I do think the 13900KS will retain its resale value very well so the extra cost is mostly returned if you resell it.

My experience has been that the fastest processor in a socket doesn't depreciate nearly as fast as other processors. There are always people who want to upgrade their system to faster CPUs even years after the socket is discontinued, and these keep up the resale value of the fastest processor for the socket.

I think the biggest problem might be actually obtaining one. When I bought my 9900KS I had to buy in a combo bundle because no place would sell it alone, and that was before these required combo bundles became common in 2020.

Intel just seem to be doubling-down on "we're faster, power budget be damned", with their GHz chasing. Isn't this the attitude that culminated in several years of terrible Netburst processors?

Intel can't keep pushing clockspeed without exponential power consumption - they're already bumping up against the physical limits of what top-end watercooling can (barely) handle.

Adding more L2 cache seems to have been the reason Raptor Lake is faster than Alder Lake. We need performance/Watt, not GHz, because we've reached the point where there are no more Watts available.

Chrispy_Intel just seem to be doubling-down on "we're faster, power budget be damned", with their GHz chasing. Isn't this the attitude that culminated in several years of terrible Netburst processors?

Intel can't keep pushing clockspeed without exponential power consumption - they're already bumping up against the physical limits of what top-end watercooling can (barely) handle.

Adding more L2 cache seems to have been the reason Raptor Lake is faster than Alder Lake. We need performance/Watt, not GHz, because we've reached the point where there are no more Watts available.

I don't recall the barrier to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 GHz being broken at reasonable perf/W. These milestones are always pushed.

Luckily for us, PL1 and PL2 are still user-accessible, so we can dial back on default settings.

The Von MatricesThe 22% price increase is a bit steep, but I do think the 13900KS will retain its resale value very well so the extra cost is mostly returned if you resell it.

Yes sure, used 12900k is $380, used 12900ks is 390$. Now that is return on investment :roll:
By the why, the price in microcenter is same for both

bugLuckily for us, PL1 and PL2 are still user-accessible, so we can dial back on default settings.

Aye.
Even Zen4 is probably a bit too far beyond the efficiency sweet spot for my liking. A sub-200W PPT gets you something like >97% of the performance for a 15% power reduction, and that's on the stock voltage curve, which is conservative to work with the worst 5% of yields. I'm guessing that almost every Zen4 has a lot of efficiency headroom for people willing to spend 15 minutes with a curve optimiser.

Prima.Vera22% price increase for 1 or 2 fps faster in 3K or 4K resolution. Yeah....no thanks! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

With exponential rise in power and cooling needs.

maxflyAs long as they keep swinging away. They can can do whatever they want with the halos. Parity means I win.

Parity with respect to what? I'm sure people are sick of hearing me say this, but AMD and Intel are far, far, far from parity. I think the figure that illustrates this perfectly is the gulf between Intel's and AMD's R&D budget. For 2021, AMD's R&D budget was $2 billion (since x86 is the far more lucrative market, I think it's safe to assume that over half of this was spent on x86 and less than half on grqphics), meanwhile Intel's R&D budget was over $15 billion! I think it's worth noting that Nvidia's budget for 2021 was $5.27 billion. Which means that AMD has less than one billion to compete against Nvidia's $5+ billion and a little over a billion to compete against Intel's $15+ billion (while its obvious Intel doesn't spend the entire budget on x86, it's safe to assume that they're spending well more than AMD).

When you really consider these figures, I think it becomes obvious how truly impressive it is that AMD has been able to beat Intel over the past several years and at least match or even edge out Nvidia in raster all while literally spending a fraction of what their competitors spend on R&D.

Anyway, the whole point is that AMD's position in x86 is still very precarious, for example, in the most lucrative x86 markets, enterprise and mobility, they are still very far from being even close to 50% marketshare. In my opinion, it would only take a couple mediocre CPU generations in a row (let's face it, AMD not only has to match Intel, but soundly beat them in performance for people to consider it a "win" and for anyone to even consider converting to AMD) for AMD to lose the gains they've made since the release of Ryzen, lose revenue, and have their already comparatively small R&D budget shrink even more. Then BOOM, we're back to the dark days of Intel hegemony, stagnation, and no competition....all I'm saying is that I think too many people just take the recent return of competition for granted when in reality, it could go away again rather quickly with a few bad turns for AMD. In that respect, and for the sake of what's best for consumers in the long term, we should all be hoping AMD has success and keeps growing their marketshare at Intel's expense until they actually reach real parity in a 50/50 market split against all x86 segments....a balance of power between the two companies would result in the best possible conditions for consumers, but we're still very far from that.

Well, that's the top end tax for you.

You want 6ghz it costs.

ChaitanyaWith exponential rise in power and cooling needs.

Modern CPUs don't "need" cooling. You can slap on a weak cooler that will dissipate 95W, that's what they'll use.

bugI don't recall the barrier to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 GHz being broken at reasonable perf/W. These milestones are always pushed.

Luckily for us, PL1 and PL2 are still user-accessible, so we can dial back on default settings.

Seams like idiocy to spend 22% more then dial it back wtaf would anyone do that, just buy a normal one and Still dial that back or better yet a non K series and run as is with more money in your pocket.

TheoneandonlyMrKSeams like idiocy to spend 22% more then dial it back wtaf would anyone do that, just buy a normal one and Still dial that back or better yet a non K series and run as is with more money in your pocket.

Well, if it's better silicon, it will still boost higher even if constrained to 150W or something. Whether that's worth the extra cost, that will vary from one person to another.

AnarchoPrimitivParity with respect to what? I'm sure people are sick of hearing me say this, but AMD and Intel are far, far, far from parity. I think the figure that illustrates this perfectly is the gulf between Intel's and AMD's R&D budget. For 2021, AMD's R&D budget was $2 billion (since x86 is the far more lucrative market, I think it's safe to assume that over half of this was spent on x86 and less than half on grqphics), meanwhile Intel's R&D budget was over $15 billion! I think it's worth noting that Nvidia's budget for 2021 was $5.27 billion. Which means that AMD has less than one billion to compete against Nvidia's $5+ billion and a little over a billion to compete against Intel's $15+ billion (while its obvious Intel doesn't spend the entire budget on x86, it's safe to assume that they're spending well more than AMD).

When you really consider these figures, I think it becomes obvious how truly impressive it is that AMD has been able to beat Intel over the past several years and at least match or even edge out Nvidia in raster all while literally spending a fraction of what their competitors spend on R&D.

Anyway, the whole point is that AMD's position in x86 is still very precarious, for example, in the most lucrative x86 markets, enterprise and mobility, they are still very far from being even close to 50% marketshare. In my opinion, it would only take a couple mediocre CPU generations in a row (let's face it, AMD not only has to match Intel, but soundly beat them in performance for people to consider it a "win" and for anyone to even consider converting to AMD) for AMD to lose the gains they've made since the release of Ryzen, lose revenue, and have their already comparatively small R&D budget shrink even more. Then BOOM, we're back to the dark days of Intel hegemony, stagnation, and no competition....all I'm saying is that I think too many people just take the recent return of competition for granted when in reality, it could go away again rather quickly with a few bad turns for AMD. In that respect, and for the sake of what's best for consumers in the long term, we should all be hoping AMD has success and keeps growing their marketshare at Intel's expense until they actually reach real parity in a 50/50 market split against all x86 segments....a balance of power between the two companies would result in the best possible conditions for consumers, but we're still very far from that.

Hahaha
Well alrighty then!? Reading juuust a bit too deeply into my comment for some strange reason? Ah, ulterior motives I see.
Do you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest this fine morning? That's cool. Everyone has their hang ups. Motives and all that taken into consideration.
My comment was clear, concise and to the point. No in-between the lines reading needed. Nothing sinister behind its meaning. I find it odd that you would take it off into the weeds like this. It obviously triggered you but I DO enjoy a good David and Goliath analogy. Fun. That surely must have been the point of my comment? You know, the inevitable death of the little guy and all that? Or is/was this simply an opportunity to preach? Again, motives? Either way...mmmnah. I have no interest in shareholder parity or market share. GASP! He doesn't care about giant companies? How dare he?! Hehe
I don't own stock in either nor do I plan to. I'm but a lowly consumer looking to capitalize on the current state of affairs.
Suffice it to say, If our girl Su stays true to her character, this potential doom and gloom, 2 or 3 cycles away from Vaderdom scenario just isn't something I concern myself with. You seem to have that covered in spades! With that, I will leave it to you.

To answer your initial question (I assumed it was obvious bearing the threads subject in mind).
Top end performance.

AnarchoPrimitivParity with respect to what? I'm sure people are sick of hearing me say this, but AMD and Intel are far, far, far from parity. I think the figure that illustrates this perfectly is the gulf between Intel's and AMD's R&D budget. For 2021, AMD's R&D budget was $2 billion (since x86 is the far more lucrative market, I think it's safe to assume that over half of this was spent on x86 and less than half on grqphics), meanwhile Intel's R&D budget was over $15 billion! I think it's worth noting that Nvidia's budget for 2021 was $5.27 billion. Which means that AMD has less than one billion to compete against Nvidia's $5+ billion and a little over a billion to compete against Intel's $15+ billion (while its obvious Intel doesn't spend the entire budget on x86, it's safe to assume that they're spending well more than AMD).

When you really consider these figures, I think it becomes obvious how truly impressive it is that AMD has been able to beat Intel over the past several years and at least match or even edge out Nvidia in raster all while literally spending a fraction of what their competitors spend on R&D.

Anyway, the whole point is that AMD's position in x86 is still very precarious, for example, in the most lucrative x86 markets, enterprise and mobility, they are still very far from being even close to 50% marketshare. In my opinion, it would only take a couple mediocre CPU generations in a row (let's face it, AMD not only has to match Intel, but soundly beat them in performance for people to consider it a "win" and for anyone to even consider converting to AMD) for AMD to lose the gains they've made since the release of Ryzen, lose revenue, and have their already comparatively small R&D budget shrink even more. Then BOOM, we're back to the dark days of Intel hegemony, stagnation, and no competition....all I'm saying is that I think too many people just take the recent return of competition for granted when in reality, it could go away again rather quickly with a few bad turns for AMD. In that respect, and for the sake of what's best for consumers in the long term, we should all be hoping AMD has success and keeps growing their marketshare at Intel's expense until they actually reach real parity in a 50/50 market split against all x86 segments....a balance of power between the two companies would result in the best possible conditions for consumers, but we're still very far from that.

Intel's budget coves a software department that is larger then all of AMD combined. Nvidia has extensive R+D tied up in commercial outings for things like the tesla GPUs and the automotive secor that AMD has no real presence in. It's also worth noting that AMD's R+D budget was $2.84 billion, not $2 billion, and this year is on track to possibly break the $5billion mark, rapidly closing the gap with nvidia.

www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/research-development-expenses#:~:text=AMD%20research%20and%20development%20expenses%20for%20the%20twelve%20months%20ending,a%2043.47%25%20increase%20from%202020.

They're not shrinking yet. And I think this needs to be said: if AMD cannot compete and doesnt earn enough money to dump billions into R+D, then that's their fate. It s a competitive market, and AMD needs to compete to survive. They are a multi billion dollar company, they are not your friend. If they want to expand marketshare, they need to offer more then intel. Ryzen 7000 and the AMD 600 platform is overpriced for what it offeres, just like the 5000 series before it, and AMD is paying the price for that.

On the intel hegemony front, I think its worth pointing out that for the majority of that time intel's prices were stable. The cost of i5s and i7s remained relatively sane from 2009 all the way to 2016, with 0 competition. AMD, the moment they got ahead, jacked up prices across the board and has done so again with the 7000 series. It wasnt all bad back then.

ZoneDymoThat last sentence annoys me a bit, 7000 series is already competitive, ltt did a video not to long ago and it was a complete toss-up between 7950 and 13900 and Paul's hardware also shows the two just trading blows.

We can correct it 3d cache will help zen4 destroy raptor lake. There all done.

TheoneandonlyMrKWell, that's the top end tax for you.

You want 6ghz it costs.

Hi,
Intel is it's own silicon lottery scalper :laugh: