# Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks



## Uskompuf (Jan 1, 2021)

Intel is preparing to launch their latest generation Rocket Lake-S processors in the coming weeks. We recently saw some leaked Geekbench 5 scores for the eight-core Intel Core i7-11700K showing it beating the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in single-core performance. We have recently received some new benchmarks for the i9-11900K and i7-11700K this time in CPU-Z showing them once again best AMD in single-core performance.

The Cypress Cove core design found in these upcoming processors is expected to bring double-digit IPC gains over Skylake and this is reflected in these scores. Take all these benchmarks with a healthy dose of skepticism as we have no way of confirming these numbers until we can test the chips ourselves. The Intel Core i9-11900K gets a single thread score of 695.4 and a multi-thread score of 6522.1 which puts it 19% ahead of the i9-10900K and 3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in single-threaded performance. The processor still falls far behind the Ryzen 9 5950X in multi-threaded performance due to it having half the number of cores.



 

 

 

 



The Intel Core i7-11700K CPU-Z benchmark results were also leaked however the photo has been edited to hide the exact score. The i7-11700K scores 67X in single-threaded performance, and 63XX in multi-threaded performance. This puts it 18% ahead of the i7-10700K and close to or slightly below the Ryzen 9 5950X in single-core performance.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 1, 2021)

While I may be disapppointed in the core count going backwards, that's some nice single thread scores, Intel are desperate for that lead to have the best gaming CPU & they're most likely gonna get it, Price & power consumption is my concern but competition is good.


----------



## kane nas (Jan 1, 2021)

5900x


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Jan 1, 2021)

kane nas said:


> 5900x


Det0x: has a 5950x 844.3 on single thread in cpu-z on here in the forums.


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (Jan 1, 2021)

Mark my words, Zen3+/XT series release will come soon after Intel's release to take the single thread crown back... Might even be on the 7nm EUV improved node


----------



## Caring1 (Jan 1, 2021)

Double digit heat and power consumption gains.


----------



## Ravenas (Jan 1, 2021)

Great single core performance at the expense of excessive heat and power.


----------



## EatingDirt (Jan 1, 2021)

5900x vs 11900k

2.5% Faster than a 5900x single core
34% slower than a 5900x in multi-core.

Seems like a... something I guess. 

This CPU will need to come in at 5800x's price to be competitive as long as there's stock of 5800x's to be had by the time the 11900k releases.


----------



## chris.london (Jan 1, 2021)

It is a terrible idea to call the top Rocket Lake CPU 11900k. It will be pretty awkward when the 10900k beats it in almost every multi-threaded test. It is just asking for trouble.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jan 1, 2021)

chris.london said:


> It is a terrible idea to call the top Rocket Lake CPU 11900k. It will be pretty awkward when the 10900k beats it in almost every multi-threaded test. It is just asking for trouble.



I dont think anyone is expecting an 8core 16thread cpu to beat a 10core 20thread cpu in multicore performance, but yeah I do agree they should have started a new line of cpu's for this, a different name.


----------



## fancucker (Jan 1, 2021)

For me this is truly representative of superior performance because ST + 8 cores remain the optimal configuration. Most of AMD's success is build upon the 10nm failure and not genuine architectural innovation.


----------



## voltage (Jan 1, 2021)

starting to look impressive, again.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 1, 2021)

At what clock speeds?


----------



## Dave65 (Jan 1, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> Double digit heat and power consumption gains.


At least they are gains..


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jan 1, 2021)

so they sacrificed multi core performance for a single core lead. nothing really new here..


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (Jan 1, 2021)

I can wait till the 12th generation.

My games already run perfectly - especially with my 3090 FTW3.

It's not the CPU I'm anxious for anymore...any i7 or i9 runs games fine.

I want DDR5


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jan 1, 2021)

Jonap_1st said:


> so they sacrificed multi core performance for a single core lead. nothing really new here..



11900K has 8 cores 16 threads like the 11700K, its weird, so 10900K will be faster


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 1, 2021)

No one knows the details on that leak, earlier leaks were running B560 motherboards with DDR4-2133 on ES (eng samples).  That is probably someone else in China who got ahold of an earlier ES sample and not one of the more recent QS samples.  

These two processors, a 5800X and an 11700K QS (quality control, months after the ES releases).  The 5800X in this case is running all core 5Ghz.  And this time, the 11700K is on a good Z490.  An 11900K should be faster than this  :



			Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B550 AORUS PRO AC vs Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z490 AORUS MASTER  - Geekbench Browser


----------



## Psinet (Jan 1, 2021)

i9-11900k substantially slower than i9-10900k in multithreaded performance, 2.5% faster than AMDs last release in single core, HALF AMDs multicore performance.

Intel fan bois:



voltage said:


> starting to look impressive, again.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 1, 2021)

So the 11900k *i9 *is back at *8c/16t* does that mean *i7 *gets *8c/8t* again 

You know what they call this back at Intel ~ *PROGRESS *


----------



## 1d10t (Jan 1, 2021)

Wonder how Intel gonna play their card with SKU, toying with HT, L3 Cache, IGP and TVB? I smell at least 6 SKU, i7+i9 non K, i7+i9 F and i7+i9 K all the same core config. Great selection unlike AMD


----------



## saikamaldoss (Jan 1, 2021)

With 300mhz advantage, it only managed 3%+... Clock to Clock, AMD still won


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 1, 2021)

Ravenas said:


> Great single core performance at the expense of excessive heat and power.



and security issues no doubt.



saikamaldoss said:


> With 300mhz advantage, it only managed 3%+... Clock to Clock, AMD still won



yes, my 5600x draws 84 watts when gaming... and maxes out all games to be gpu bound... so yeah 7nm is king


----------



## z1n0x (Jan 1, 2021)

fancucker said:


> For me this is truly representative of superior performance because ST + 8 cores remain the optimal configuration. Most of AMD's success is build upon the 10nm failure and not genuine architectural innovation.


Our resident stand-up comic is doing his routine again.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jan 1, 2021)

I suspect these will OC quite nicely, 5.6ghz one core and upwards, with rest being 5.5/5.4/5.3.

That's one thing I like about intel chips, you can do per core OC, to have best of both worlds Single and Multi OC.


----------



## TumbleGeorge (Jan 1, 2021)

Jonap_1st said:


> so they sacrificed multi core performance for a single core lead. nothing really new here..


Nothing is sacraficed! Best 8 cores multithread I see.


----------



## harm9963 (Jan 1, 2021)

360 AIO / Conductonaut  , stock.


----------



## yukinin97 (Jan 1, 2021)

Not that impressive, to be honest. Seems like a rushed stop-gap from Intel in an attempt and take the wind out of AMD's sails...

Will hold further judgement until we see the performance per watt(where Intel has historically lagged far behind AMD) and MSRP.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Jan 1, 2021)

Single core performance is the real deal and lets compare 8Core Intel with 8Core AMD. So it seems will be intel faster again, but with more power use...


----------



## EatingDirt (Jan 1, 2021)

TumbleGeorge said:


> Nothing is sacraficed! Best 8 cores multithread I see.


The 5800x is above the 11900k in the multi-threaded graph.
If the 11900k is priced above the 5800x, at or near the 5900x's price, it won't even be worth considering in most use cases(assuming 5800x & 5900x are in stock).


----------



## low (Jan 1, 2021)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> Det0x: has a 5950x 844.3 on single thread in cpu-z on here in the forums.



Haha ... this was made with special watercooling maybe outside. At Stock this 11900k is faster than ryzen 5950x at stock. With OC this 11900k is the fastest SC CPU.

Here is the problem: you have to pay again 550 Bucks for this i9 with only 8 cores. At the end of the year you will see Alderlake (new socket1700, new DDR5, maybe PCI-E 5.0).


----------



## londiste (Jan 1, 2021)

There are two aspects here:
- As an SKU, performance should end up close to 5800X. With a full node disadvantage, power is a problem and pretty certainly that is why multi-core result falls behind. We will have to wait and see what the power consumption will look like but no doubt it will be higher compared to 5800X. Price is up to Intel, they are in disadvantage and should price it lower. On the other hand it is Intel so...
- Architecturally and from "IPC" perspective 3% ahead on a presumably 6% faster clock speed puts it close enough to Zen3. Rocket Lake's Cypress Cove is basically straight Sunny Cove backport. Willow Cove in Tiger Lake adds more cache and some optimizations around that. This puts Intel's architectural state on par with AMD.


----------



## HTC (Jan 1, 2021)

londiste said:


> There are two aspects here:
> - As an SKU, performance should end up close to 5800X. With a full node disadvantage, power is a problem and pretty certainly that is why multi-core result falls behind. We will have to wait and see what the power consumption will look like but no doubt it will be higher compared to 5800X. Price is up to Intel, they are in disadvantage and should price it lower. On the other hand it is Intel so...
> - Architecturally and from "IPC" perspective 3% ahead on a presumably 6% faster clock speed puts it close enough to Zen3. Rocket Lake's Cypress Cove is basically straight Sunny Cove backport. Willow Cove in Tiger Lake adds more cache and some optimizations around that. This puts Intel's architectural state on par with AMD.



A 3rd aspect, i think: if this 11900K is a highly binned CPU, then Intel will have problems with availability. No word yet if this is or not the case but, considering it's a in a super refined node, odds are that it is.

One thing the 5800X is not is a highly binned CPU.

We'll just have to wait and see ...


----------



## Bones (Jan 1, 2021)

fancucker said:


> For me this is truly representative of superior performance because ST + 8 cores remain the optimal configuration. Most of AMD's success is build upon the 10nm failure and not genuine architectural innovation.


Spoken like a TRUE-BLUE Inhel fanbuoy.

It's good to see competition out there and this is how it should be, one pushing the other in a tight race for the crown instead of a one-sided affair as it had been before.


----------



## Batailleuse (Jan 1, 2021)

low said:


> Haha ... this was made with special watercooling maybe outside. At Stock this 11900k is faster than ryzen 5950x at stock. With OC this 11900k is the fastest SC CPU.
> 
> Here is the problem: you have to pay again 550 Bucks for this i9 with only 8 cores. At the end of the year you will see Alderlake (new socket1700, new DDR5, maybe PCI-E 5.0).


pcie 5? lol just as a reminder intel barely started to have pcie4 available on its motherboard when its available for over a year on AMD side. 

DDR5 will be on both side tho, and so far AMD tend to use ram speed better than Intel does. unless intel changes something significant in their next architecture.


----------



## stimpy88 (Jan 1, 2021)

Ahhh, the benchmark that was gimped because Ryzen CPUs started beating Intels...  Yeah, so this benchmark result must be fact!


----------



## efikkan (Jan 1, 2021)

People should not read too much into any synthetic benchmark scores, and certainly not extrapolate this into generic performance. Wait for proper benchmarks of real world applications.

The mainstream segment will be heating up with good products from both camps, and 6- and 8-core models is where most PC builders should be looking anyway. Those who have real workloads scaling beyond 8 cores generally also benefit from more memory channels, more PCIe lanes, sometimes even ECC, etc. I wish the next round of Threadrippers would start at 12 cores, not 24.


----------



## ZeroFM (Jan 1, 2021)

intel going back to 8core cpu ???
Yap they need decrease cores becouse nuclear reactor need fc 360AIO ...


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Jan 1, 2021)

11400F should be the best budget gaming option on the market IF priced below $200. AMD blew it with 5600X pricing.


----------



## Calmmo (Jan 1, 2021)

Nice as this number may look on a sheet not accompanied by any other info, if that 250w number i see floating around is true, then it is not all that impressive.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 1, 2021)

Single-core performance is important but let's not confuse single-thread benchmark runs (1T loaded and all other cores reserved and asleep) with real world applications where 1-2 threads are fully loaded and several others are ticking over with background tasks, probably averaging 5 cores active at all times and 20-30% CPU load, rather than the 6% CPU load of a pure 1T test.

Intel have long been great in single-core benchmarks by simply turning the power consumption up to 11 and flaying the absolute snot out of one core. For a game where typically 2-3 threads are in heavy use, and all cores are awake to run background threads you're going to need an all-core overclock and some insane cooling to get your 5.3GHz.

Rocket lake finally brings the 'Cove' architecture gains to desktop but still doesn't fix the boost/base clock disparity nor the massive power consumption spikes that go hand in hand with a 250W PL2 limit to achieve such madness.



RedelZaVedno said:


> 11400F should be the best budget gaming option on the market IF priced below $200. AMD blew it with 5600X pricing.


AMD blew it with 5600X pricing is *past tense*, and you're comparing it to a future tense hypothetical processor that doesn't yet have a launch date, final specs, or price?

How did you work that one out? As far as I see it, the 5600X is priced against intel 10th Gen and it's sweeping the floor with them.

If you somehow believe that there won't be an AMD answer to Intel's 11400F when it hits the market, then you need to take off your Intel-branded spectacles. AMD and Intel price things as high as they can get away with because they're in the business of making profit first and foremost. If the 11400F is a great gaming CPU for budget gamers, then that's great news but don't expect it to sit far outside the price/performance curve that both AMD and Intel use to extract the maximum profit from each model. Chances are high that AMD will release a vanilla R5 5600 at that point, probably close to the $200 price point, but subject to change based on Intel's pricing of the 11th-gen i5 models.


----------



## Readlight (Jan 1, 2021)

No one can buy it.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Jan 1, 2021)

fancucker said:


> For me this is truly representative of superior performance because ST + 8 cores remain the optimal configuration. Most of AMD's success is build upon the 10nm failure and not genuine architectural innovation.


Um, did you forget about Bulldozer and Excavator architecture before the move to Zen architecture? There is innovation there, but I guess Intel fanboys are blind to that... When a 6 core 5600X can meet and beat Intel's top of the line 8 core 10900K, it takes innovation. Drop the fanboyism and get your facts straight. Did I mention how much more efficient AMD chips are right now compared to Intel chips that get so hot I could cook dinner with one?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 1, 2021)

This chip is probably massive in comparison with a 5800X not just because of the uarch and the ancient 14nm density but also that iGPU that they insist to put in every single CPU no matter it's target market. Even now when they are literally running out of transistors they refuse to let go of that dead slab of silicon.


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 1, 2021)

I have a feeling Intel is still working on a 10 core 20 thread successor but it won't be ready for awhile, they'll probably call it the i9 11950K or some BS, I just cannot fathom a core count decrease.


----------



## londiste (Jan 1, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> Intel have long been great in single-core benchmarks by simply turning the power consumption up to 11 and flaying the absolute snot out of one core.


Not really. At least since Zen2, AMD is doing that to a relatively higher degree. Zen2 and Zen3 push a good 20+W into one core to get the boost speeds. These 1.4-1.5V voltages are doing their job 
What Intel keeps doing is mess with power limits to not throttle multi-core performance too much.


----------



## InVasMani (Jan 1, 2021)

efikkan said:


> People should not read too much into any synthetic benchmark scores, and certainly not extrapolate this into generic performance. Wait for proper benchmarks of real world applications.
> 
> The mainstream segment will be heating up with good products from both camps, and 6- and 8-core models is where most PC builders should be looking anyway. Those who have real workloads scaling beyond 8 cores generally also benefit from more memory channels, more PCIe lanes, sometimes even ECC, etc. I wish the next round of Threadrippers would start at 12 cores, not 24.



I'd like a single CCX 9 core myself. Basically the 3300X Threadripper equivalent would be great. More affordable and performs optimal. Now if they could do a 12c single CCX part that would also be quite interesting, but I think the pricing wouldn't be as a optimal and peak frequency scaling might not be as ideal for a lone wolf CCX.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 1, 2021)

londiste said:


> Not really. At least since Zen2, AMD is doing that to a relatively higher degree. Zen2 and Zen3 push a good 20+W into one core to get the boost speeds. These 1.4-1.5V voltages are doing their job
> What Intel keeps doing is mess with power limits to not throttle multi-core performance too much.


Fair enough, but doesn't the stock PL1 limit even lightly-threaded workloads like gaming after about two minutes? I haven't actually built and tuned an Intel gaming rig since the 9900K which was already so roasty-toasty that I decided a 360 AIO was mandatory because I wasn't willing to ship a system with an air cooler over 1KG hanging off the socket. The only way I could keep performance reasonable was by editing the PL1 limit to 207W to match PL2. At the stock setting clocks nosedived to the point that he could have just saved €300 and bought a 3700X, it was that bad....



Lionheart said:


> I have a feeling Intel is still working on a 10 core 20 thread successor but it won't be ready for awhile, they'll probably call it the i9 11950K or some BS, I just cannot fathom a core count decrease.


The 10-core was a stunt anyway. Skylake's topology was never intended for more than 6 cores and 8-core chips like the 9900K were already pushing the limits of cache and transport across a monolithic die using that architecture.

Rocket Lake is limited by 14nm+++ and won't go any bigger than 8C for manufacturing (and power consumption) reasons, whilst the successor will be Alder Lake which I believe stops at 8 "cove" cores and fills up the multi-threaded performance with Atom cores instead.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 1, 2021)

RedelZaVedno said:


> AMD blew it with *5600X pricing*.


If AMD priced 5600x anywhere close to 3600xt let alone 3600 (non X) it would sell more than all the sales of 5xxx combined atm, not to mention their margins would suffer. They didn't blew it as much as they had little choice, AMD's probably selling more (volume) chips than Intel+Nvidia combined right now in the DIY space.


----------



## Frick (Jan 1, 2021)

Dyatlov A said:


> Single core performance is the real deal and lets compare 8Core Intel with 8Core AMD. So it seems will be intel faster again, but with more power use...



We should compare stuff at the same price level as that is the competition.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Lionheart said:


> While I may be disapppointed in the core count going backwards, that's some nice single thread scores, Intel are desperate for that lead to have the best gaming CPU & they're most likely gonna get it, Price & power consumption is my concern but competition is good.


After the 200+ Watt 10-core disaster they nicknamed Comet Lake, I think it's quite refreshing to see Intel build up some common sense, and use their 14 nm process for what it was intended to be used in the first place: single-threaded performance.


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Jan 1, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> AMD blew it with 5600X pricing is *past tense*, and you're comparing it to a future tense hypothetical processor that doesn't yet have a launch date, final specs, or price?
> 
> How did you work that one out? As far as I see it, the 5600X is priced against intel 10th Gen and it's sweeping the floor with them.
> 
> If you somehow believe that there won't be an AMD answer to Intel's 11400F when it hits the market, then you need to take off your Intel-branded spectacles. AMD and Intel price things as high as they can get away with because they're in the business of making profit first and foremost. If the 11400F is a great gaming CPU for budget gamers, then that's great news but don't expect it to sit far outside the price/performance curve that both AMD and Intel use to extract the maximum profit from each model. Chances are high that AMD will release a vanilla R5 5600 at that point, probably close to the $200 price point, but subject to change based on Intel's pricing of the 11th-gen i5 models.



10400F sells for €138 and 3600 is going for €200, 5600X for €338 here in Germany atm. They both fall in much higher price class atm, but gaming performance is not all that much different, 10400F being faster than 3600 (+6%) and a bit slower than 5600X (-1.5%) at 1080p. Current price premium is just not worth it if you're building PC primarily for gaming especially when 11th gen MBs come out supporting 3200Mhz DDR4, where you will have an option to pair 10400/11400 with budget B or H class motherboard.

And it's not like we don't know what specs and price 11400 will have. Leaked benchmarks are all over the internet. It'll be 6-core/12-thread processor, 2.6GHz base clock and 4.2 (all cores) 4.4GHz (single core) boost clock and 17% singe core IPC gain over 10th gen for €160-180. That sounds much better than €338 option to me.

It's about time brand fanboism dies and people start buying best price to performance ratio or DIY PC gaming will be doomed as normal folks migrate to consoles and only gamers with more money than sense continue with DIY PC hobby. Paying 400 bucks for 6 core CPU in 2021 is pure insanity. That's the price of entire now gen console with 8 cores and 10/12Tflops CPU/GPU in it plus tons of GDDR and large SSD.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 1, 2021)

RedelZaVedno said:


> *17% singe core IPC gain* over 10th gen for €160-180.


Citation needed


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Jan 1, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Citation needed


Intel Core i9-11900K 'Rocket Lake-S' CPU-Z benchmark score leaks - VideoCardz.com
Intel Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake-S" breaks CPU-Z barrier of 700 points with all cores at 5.2 GHz - VideoCardz.com
Core i5-11400 and i9-11900K Rocket Lake CPUs Show Up in New Benchmarks | Tom's Hardware
Intel Core i9-11900K Flagship 8 Core Rocket Lake CPU Benchmarked in CPU-z, Claims Single-Core Performance Lead Over AMD's Zen 3 (wccftech.com)


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 1, 2021)

Those aren't verifiable, at least not from any reputable site.

Also none of them show performance at fixed clocks ~ which is a basic necessity for *IPC *numbers.


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Jan 1, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Those aren't verifiable, at least not from any reputable site.


How about techpowerup? But yeah that's why they're called leaks not reviews. 
11900K vs 10900K +19% single core
11700K vs 10700K +18 % single core
Why would 11400 be any different when it comes to IPC gain?
Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks | TechPowerUp



R0H1T said:


> Also none of them show performance at fixed clocks ~ which is a basic necessity for *IPC *numbers.


You can find a benchmark of 11900ES clocked at locked 4.4Ghz on the net beating 10900K and you can extrapolate IPC gain from that.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 1, 2021)

still 14+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++?


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 1, 2021)

RedelZaVedno said:


> Why would 11400 be any different when it comes to IPC gain?


In case you didn't know cache size also affects *IPC *gains.


RedelZaVedno said:


> you can extrapolate IPC gain from that.


From just one benchmark? Nah not doing that.


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Jan 1, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> In case you didn't know cache size also affects IPC gains.


Not by much when it comes to gaming... 10400F *12 MB* cache, 10900K *20 MB, *performance difference only 9% at 720p regardless of 10900K running at 19% higher frequency. We have to put things into perspective here. 6 cores in 2021 is a gaming  not a workstation CPU. Sure larger cache will help speed up many apps, but 99,9% of ppl buying 12T sub $200 CPU is not interested in workstation loads, but they are interested in what will give them most fps for their hard earned bucks.


----------



## dicktracy (Jan 1, 2021)

Faster in useless benchmarks means it will be MUCH faster in gaming. F to AMD and those who recently bought the extremely overpriced 5800x.

Also, this uses the Icelake architecture from 2017 and the 14nm process node from 2015. AMD’s latest and greatest has, once again, lose to Intel’s older designs. Had they use Tigerlake and 10nm in 2020...


----------



## PanicLake (Jan 1, 2021)

EatingDirt said:


> This CPU will need to come in at 5800x's price to be competitive as long as there's stock of 5800x's to be had by the time the 11900k releases.


I hope it will be like that but knowing intel, it won't.
But then AMD just have to cut their prices... and I believe they have the margins to do it.


----------



## bluetriangleclock (Jan 1, 2021)

This explains the Ryzen 5000 paper launch. AMD knew 11th gen Core processors would take back the gaming crown.

Ryzen: King of Gaming from Nov. 2020 - Jan. 2021.


----------



## yukinin97 (Jan 1, 2021)

dicktracy said:


> *Faster in useless benchmarks means it will be MUCH faster in gaming.* F to AMD and those who recently bought the extremely overpriced 5800x.
> 
> Also, this uses the Icelake architecture from 2017 and the 14nm process node from 2015. AMD’s latest and greatest has, once again, lose to Intel’s older designs. Had they use Tigerlake and 10nm in 2020...


No it doesn't? I mean, this is easily disprovable by simply taking a look at AMD's latest CPUs - They're faster than Intel's in both ST and MT benchmarks but you're not seeing this "_MUCH faster in gaming_" performance increase.  Other than blatant and unnecessary fanboyism, how did even you come to that conclusion? I'll wait for a source backing up that claim, but somehow I doubt I'll see one because It's bullshit.


Happy New Year.


----------



## TumbleGeorge (Jan 1, 2021)

dicktracy said:


> F to AMD and those who recently bought the extremely overpriced 5800x.


LoL AMD is wet for you. But has possibilities in near future overprices to be turned to it's normal size.


----------



## Am* (Jan 1, 2021)

EatingDirt said:


> This CPU will need to come in at 5800x's price to be competitive...



Never going to happen. The fact that Intel are pushing this as the replacement SKU for their 10-core part proves how truly delusional they really are. Their bean-counter CEOs last interview that I saw talked about growing margins on these dinosaur trash-tier products -- that's just how dumb he is. At least when AMD struggled against Intel, they were competing on price super-aggressively and not penny-pinching the few potential customers they had left -- at this point, Intel might as well not bother releasing this trash. Give it to the OEMs to flog this dead horse of a product, because nobody with a brain in the enthusiast market is going to buy it -- not even compared to their current offering, which is going to fall even further in price.


----------



## Ravenas (Jan 1, 2021)

dgianstefani said:


> I suspect these will OC quite nicely, 5.6ghz one core and upwards, with rest being 5.5/5.4/5.3.
> 
> That's one thing I like about intel chips, you can do per core OC, to have best of both worlds Single and Multi OC.



That's like saying your favorite thing about Bulldozer was that you could oc past 5 Ghz.


----------



## Redwoodz (Jan 1, 2021)

SMH. 
 Geekbench never reports proper boost speed so this whole article means nothing.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 1, 2021)

dicktracy said:


> F to AMD and those who recently bought the extremely overpriced 5800x.


What makes you think that 11th gen Core will be any cheaper?


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

So many many salty AMD fanboys in the comment section, lol. This is just the beginning of 2021 guys. Be ready for the many Intel releases coming this year including their gaming GPUs. From now and onward, AMD will no longer be relevant. Ice Lake-SP is coming early this year, the little Rocket Lake Core i5-11600K will humiliate the entire Zen 3 lineup in gaming and single threaded tasks and the 8 core Tiger Lake-H will beat the crap out of Cezanne-H.
AMD has poor stock availability and will have ZERO answer to Rocket Lake-S, Tiger Lake-H and Alder Lake-S in 2021. Zen 3+ on 6nm won't come before 2022 https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-mob...detailed-first-navi2-igpu-coming-with-vangogh and Zen 4 will be a Q2/Q3 2022 product thanks to Apple https://wccftech.com/apple-secured-80-tsmc-5nm-production-capacity-2021/ https://wccftech.com/apple-secures-3nm-tsmc-chip-production/
HAPPY SALTY YEAR AMD fanboys.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> So many many salty AMD fanboys in the comment section, lol. This is just the beginning of 2021 guys. Be ready for the many Intel releases coming this year including their gaming GPUs. From now and onward, AMD will no longer be relevant. Ice Lake-SP is coming early this year, the little Rocket Lake Core i5-11600K will humiliate the entire Zen 3 lineup in gaming and single threaded tasks and the 8 core Tiger Lake-H will beat the crap out of Cezanne-H.
> AMD has poor stock availability and will have ZERO answer to Rocket Lake-S, Tiger Lake-H and Alder Lake-S in 2021. Zen 3+ on 6nm won't come before 2022 https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-mob...detailed-first-navi2-igpu-coming-with-vangogh and Zen 4 will be a Q2/Q3 2022 product thanks to Apple https://wccftech.com/apple-secured-80-tsmc-5nm-production-capacity-2021/ https://wccftech.com/apple-secures-3nm-tsmc-chip-production/
> HAPPY SALTY YEAR AMD fanboys.


How some people think that AMD is going bankrupt at every single Intel launch, or vice versa is... puzzling. 

These companies do NOT depend on making 1% better products than the other one. There's so much more to market competition than that!


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> including their *gaming GPUs*


Probably hearing this since kindergarten, still a joke huh


----------



## yukinin97 (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> So many many salty AMD fanboys in the comment section, lol. This is just the beginning of 2021 guys. Be ready for the many Intel releases coming this year including their gaming GPUs. From now and onward, *AMD will no longer be relevant*. Ice Lake-SP is coming early this year, the little Rocket Lake Core i5-11600K will humiliate the entire Zen 3 lineup in gaming and single threaded tasks and the 8 core Tiger Lake-H will beat the crap out of Cezanne-H.
> AMD has poor stock availability and will have ZERO answer to Rocket Lake-S, Tiger Lake-H and Alder Lake-S in 2021. Zen 3+ on 6nm won't come before 2022 https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-mob...detailed-first-navi2-igpu-coming-with-vangogh and Zen 4 will be a Q2/Q3 2022 product thanks to Apple https://wccftech.com/apple-secured-80-tsmc-5nm-production-capacity-2021/ https://wccftech.com/apple-secures-3nm-tsmc-chip-production/
> HAPPY SALTY YEAR AMD fanboys.


This almost reads like a satirical comment. Imagine shilling so hard for any single corporation, none of which give a single F about you... how do you personally benefit from doing that? Most of us are just enjoying the increased competition but you're out here propping up Intel like your life depends on it lol. I never realized how bad the fanboyism I kept hearing about was until I came into this forum. Yikes.

And when was the last time that AMD was relevant to you? Their marketshare has doubled YoY while Intel's has decreased by 20%... Lastly, Zen 4's release date on AMD's own CPU roadmap was slated for late 2022 LONG before we saw announcements of Apple securing 80% of TSMC's 5nm production capacity. Intel doesn't need to worry about that since they're still stuck with their 14nm++++++++++++++.


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Probably hearing this since kindergarten, still a joke huh


No, this is not a joke but a true reality that will strike in your face in 2021. NVidia RTX 3000 mobile chips are still shipping with Intel 10th gen CPUs. NVidia will need AMD more than ever for their CPU supply as Intel will keep most of their own 8 core Tiger Lake-H chips for their own Xe-HPG gaming GPUs on the laptop market.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> NVidia will need AMD more than ever for their CPU supply


Okay & why is that a bad thing? Zen3 based APUs are looking stellar & probably will dominate TGL-H in some/most cases including gaming!


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Okay & why is that a bad thing? Zen3 based APUs are looking stellar & probably will dominate TGL-H in some/most cases including gaming!


Not a bad thing at all. Just a warning to those who think the PC gaming landscape in 2021 will still be the same as it was 2020 and prior. The 8 core Tiger Lake-H CPUs paired with Intel own Xe-HPG GPUs will outperform any Zen 3 APUs. AMD has a huge stock availability issue that they need to fix first. Whatever product AMD announces during CES 2021 I won't believe it until I see it on shelves.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> No, this is not a joke but a true reality that will strike in your face in 2021. NVidia RTX 3000 mobile chips are still shipping with Intel 10th gen CPUs. NVidia will need AMD more than ever for their CPU supply as Intel will keep most of their own 8 core Tiger Lake-H chips for their own Xe-HPG gaming GPUs on the laptop market.


Okay, so Intel will storm the market with their far superior 11th gen Core CPUs and top of the line gaming GPUs that will wipe AMD and nvidia off the face of the Earth. The End.

My questions are:
1. What makes you believe that the gaming (laptop) market is the only place where Intel, AMD and nvidia sell their products?
2. If the scenario above really happens, how will YOU personally benefit from it?


----------



## coozie78 (Jan 1, 2021)

Having read the thread all I want to add is:


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

yukinin97 said:


> This almost reads like a satirical comment. Imagine shilling so hard for any single corporation, none of which give a single F about you... how do you personally benefit from doing that? Most of us are just enjoying the increased competition but you're out here propping up Intel like your life depends on it lol. I never realized how bad the fanboyism I kept hearing about was until I came into this forum. Yikes.
> 
> And when was the last time that AMD was relevant to you? Their marketshare has doubled YoY while Intel's has decreased by 20%... Lastly, Zen 4's release date on AMD's own CPU roadmap was slated for late 2022 LONG before we saw announcements of Apple securing 80% of TSMC's 5nm production capacity. Intel doesn't need to worry about that since they're still stuck with their 14nm++++++++++++++.


As I said, so many AMD fanboys, who easily get triggered as usual. You belong to the mass and think like the mass. Don't think you're anything different.


----------



## yukinin97 (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> As I said, so many AMD fanboys, who easily get triggered as usual. You belong to the mass and think like the mass. Don't think you're anything different.


Great counterargument. Pleasure chatting with you.

I've been with Intel for the entirety of the last decade to due their historically superior performance in gaming but now I'm an AMD fanboy simply for questioning your claims and your zealous defense of Intel. Alright, bud.


----------



## dyonoctis (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> So many many salty AMD fanboys in the comment section, lol. This is just the beginning of 2021 guys. Be ready for the many Intel releases coming this year including their gaming GPUs. From now and onward, AMD will no longer be relevant. Ice Lake-SP is coming early this year, the little Rocket Lake Core i5-11600K will humiliate the entire Zen 3 lineup in gaming and single threaded tasks and the 8 core Tiger Lake-H will beat the crap out of Cezanne-H.
> AMD has poor stock availability and will have ZERO answer to Rocket Lake-S, Tiger Lake-H and Alder Lake-S in 2021. Zen 3+ on 6nm won't come before 2022 https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-mob...detailed-first-navi2-igpu-coming-with-vangogh and Zen 4 will be a Q2/Q3 2022 product thanks to Apple https://wccftech.com/apple-secured-80-tsmc-5nm-production-capacity-2021/ https://wccftech.com/apple-secures-3nm-tsmc-chip-production/
> HAPPY SALTY YEAR AMD fanboys.


So you are on TPU as well? You looked much more restrained on videocardz, but I see that you are among those who believe that a monopoly and a lack of competition is a good thing...

Even if you don't plan to buy an AMD cpu, it's in your best interest that AMD can keep up, so that the prices doesn't get obscene. AMD already started to jack up the price now that they fell that the "Atlon Fx" era is back, and it's not in Intel DNA to play the budget option. If AMD sells an 8 core at 564€, intel will raise with an i7 at 600€



Patr!ck said:


> No, this is not a joke but a true reality that will strike in your face in 2021. NVidia RTX 3000 mobile chips are still shipping with Intel 10th gen CPUs. NVidia will need AMD more than ever for their CPU supply as Intel will keep most of their own 8 core Tiger Lake-H chips for their own Xe-HPG gaming GPUs on the laptop market.


1. You are aware that Intel was already condemned for antitrust right? And you think that they would have the nerve to pull something like that ?

2. That's assuming that intel GPU can compete with Nvidia in gaming, from what we have seen so far intel igp is merely as fast as vega, wich is already quite old, and their first dedicated gpu compete with a MX350, wich is based on pascal from 2016.

3. Gamers are not the only people looking for a laptop with a strong GPU, and that's where you get into the wall made by CUDA. I don't like Nvidia as a company, but all the software that I use are either CUDA exclusive or are much faster with Optix. If intel cannot provide the same level of software support, it's a whole market that they are going to lose. And there's also all the gaming related exclusive tech that are mature. Cyberpunk showed just how valuable DLSS is.

What Intel is trying to do with their ecosystem is interesting, but with the informations that we have right now, it's farfetched to think that it's going be a mature solution on day one on every segment.


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Okay, so Intel will storm the market with their far superior 11th gen Core CPUs and top of the line gaming GPUs that will wipe AMD and nvidia off the face of the Earth. The End.
> 
> My questions are:
> 1. What makes you believe that the gaming (laptop) market is the only place where Intel, AMD and nvidia sell their products?
> 2. If the scenario above really happens, how will YOU personally benefit from it?


2. If the scenario above really happens, how will YOU personally benefit from it?
Is this a real question? LOL
Here's the answer: The large majority of softwares keep being optimized for Intel hardware because Intel has more presence,... more market share because they sell more units, more revenue to invest in R&D that bring products like my Optane 905P SSD into existence, and soon gaming GPUs, so I can have the option to ditch NVidia if I want.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 1, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Okay & why is that a bad thing? Zen3 based APUs are looking stellar & probably will dominate TGL-H in some/most cases including gaming!


Yeah It’s quite interesting seeing alot AMD Mobile parts paired with NV GPUs reminds me of my laptop in the closet with a Turion X2 and and 8800M. But the fact these combos are available shows that AMD. has decent Mobile CPUs to offer as well Of course I wish AMD would get a full AMD combo like 4500U/5700M combo but sadly the 5600M is all they have to offer while id still like to it paired with a decent AMD Mobile part despite its shortcomings. Intel still has a death grip on the mobile segment despite the fact AMD have solid mobile parts up against the same old hot i7s they keep pedalling  

Curious to see if these upcoming new Intel mobiles actually show some actual innovation because it’s about the only product in a long time that’s actually “new” sink or swim AMD need  get their capable mobile chips in more machines so people can see how there ar actual viable choices in the Mobile segment If this new Intel doesn’t come out swinging  AMD need to sieze that opportunity to showcase the great products.


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

dyonoctis said:


> So you are on TPU as well? You looked much more restrained on videocardz, but I see that you are among those who believe that a monopoly and a lack of competition is a good thing...
> 
> Even if you don't plan to buy an AMD cpu, it's in your best interest that AMD can keep up, so that the prices doesn't get obscene. AMD already started to jack up the price now that they fell that the "Atlon Fx" era is back, and it's not in Intel DNA to play the budget option. If AMD sells an 8 core at 564€, intel will raise with an i7 at 600€
> 
> ...


What makes you think that Intel has to be on par with NVidia for their first try? Intel will get into the high end league in much less time than it took NVidia and AMD to get where they are now and Intel's oneAPI is already CUDA compliant in case you didn't know. DLSS is an NVidia proprietary tech that needs to be implemented game by game. Intel will sponsor the upcoming Hitman 3 and many other games, and we'll see how long devs can keep justifying supporting a proprietary feature from a chip designer who doesn't have a full CPU + GPU ecosystem.
Talking about Anti-trust? Should I remind you that Intel retained their PCIe 4.0 Optane (P5800X) SSD until Ice Lake-SP and Rocket Lake-S were close to their release window. Intel is an ecosystem and they can do whatever they want with it.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> 2. If the scenario above really happens, how will YOU personally benefit from it?
> Is this a real question? LOL
> Here's the answer: The large majority of softwares keep being optimized for Intel hardware because Intel has more presence,... more market share because they sell more units, more revenue to invest in R&D that bring products like my Optane 905P SSD into existence, and soon gaming GPUs, so I can have the option to ditch NVidia if I want.


"The large majority of softwares keep being optimized for Intel hardware because Intel has more presence": Not true. Some games have nvidia tech built in, a smaller number have AMD tech, but technology is mostly developed by Microsoft, and other software companies, who develop their technologies universally, for all hardware. As for CPU and compute scenarios, your software is really not bothered what logo there is on your CPU's box as long as the hardware itself has the necessary instruction sets and computing performance. As for GPU compute, it largely depends on software, where nvidia has the upper hand with CUDA. As far as I know, Intel has nothing to compete with that.

"I can have the option to ditch NVidia if I want": I guess you didn't quite catch my question. If Intel is the ONLY company on the CPU and GPU market, you won't have ANY option, but to buy Intel. With no competition, nothing would force Intel to regulate their prices... do I have to continue?


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> "The large majority of softwares keep being optimized for Intel hardware because Intel has more presence": Not true. Some games have nvidia tech built in, a smaller number have AMD tech, but technology is mostly developed by Microsoft, and other software companies, who develop their technologies universally, for all hardware. As for CPU and compute scenarios, your software is really not bothered what logo there is on your CPU's box as long as the hardware itself has the necessary instruction sets and computing performance.
> 
> "I can have the option to ditch NVidia if I want": I guess you didn't quite catch my question. If Intel is the ONLY company on the CPU and GPU market, you won't have ANY option, but to buy Intel. With no competition, nothing would force Intel to regulate their prices... do I have to continue?


Oh really? The large majority of x86 games use the Intel ISPC compiler  and as long as I know GPUs have their own DRIVERS to compute graphics workloads.
NVidia will still be a viable option,... but in a market with 3 players this time around 
And if I'm a lazy ass as Sony and Microsoft I would tend to prefer the company that can offer me a full CPU+GPU ecosystem.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 1, 2021)

Just a quick data point for comparison. 





Rocket Lake is a sign that Intel has given up competing with AMD in multi-threaded performance. There is only so much you can do with 7 year old 14nm technology. Maybe their next line of CPUs will be called Oven Lake.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 1, 2021)

RedelZaVedno said:


> 10400F sells for €138 and 3600 is going for €200, 5600X for €338 here in Germany atm. They both fall in much higher price class atm, but gaming performance is not all that much different, 10400F being faster than 3600 (+6%) and a bit slower than 5600X (-1.5%) at 1080p. Current price premium is just not worth it if you're building PC primarily for gaming especially when 11th gen MBs come out supporting 3200Mhz DDR4, where you will have an option to pair 10400/11400 with budget B or H class motherboard.
> 
> And it's not like we don't know what specs and price 11400 will have. Leaked benchmarks are all over the internet. It'll be 6-core/12-thread processor, 2.6GHz base clock and 4.2 (all cores) 4.4GHz (single core) boost clock and 17% singe core IPC gain over 10th gen for €160-180. That sounds much better than €338 option to me.
> 
> It's about time brand fanboism dies and people start buying best price to performance ratio or DIY PC gaming will be doomed as normal folks migrate to consoles and only gamers with more money than sense continue with DIY PC hobby. Paying 400 bucks for 6 core CPU in 2021 is pure insanity. That's the price of entire now gen console with 8 cores and 10/12Tflops CPU/GPU in it plus tons of GDDR and large SSD.


That's just supply and demand. The MSRP for the 10400F was $179 compared to the 3600 for $199. The fact the 3600 is €200 for you whilst the 10400F is only €138 is a reflection on the lack of demand and desirability of the 10400F.

The reason nobody wants the 10400F is because it's on a dead platform with stupid arbitrary memory speed limitations unless you pay an extra $50 tax for a Z-series motherboard. Compared to that tax, people just bought the 3600 on an even cheaper AMD board and took advantage of overclocking, unlocked RAM, and the official promise of support for future generations. The low price of the 10400F is a literal reflection on both the horrible limitations of the H or B-series boards, and simultaneously the hidden tax on getting the most out of the 10400F with a z-series chipset. Priced any higher it simply wouldn't be appealing enough to sell.

As for the future price of the 11400F, you're still guessing about something that doesn't yet exist. If you're right, then great! That's fantastic news for budget gamers and brilliant competition that will drive down prices for us all - but please don't quote guesses and hunches like they are iron-clad guarantees, because that's just FUD. Unverified ES/QS leaks and hopeful price expectations are not the same as official announcements and reviews.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> Oh really? The large majority of x86 games use the Intel ISPC compiler  and as long as I know GPUs have their own DRIVERS to compute graphics workloads.
> NVidia will still be a viable option,... but in a market with 3 players this time around
> And if I'm a lazy ass as Sony and Microsoft I would tend to prefer the company that can offer me a full CPU+GPU ecosystem.


"The large majority of x86 games use the Intel ISPC compiler": And AMD's 64 bit instruction set. Neither of these are exclusive to Intel or AMD based systems.
"NVidia will still be a viable option,... but in a market with 3 players this time around": I can't see that happen in the near future, but let's hope it happens. Competition is good for prices.
"And if I'm a lazy ass as Sony and Microsoft I would tend to prefer the company that can offer me a full CPU+GPU ecosystem": AMD?


----------



## coozie78 (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> Oh really? The large majority of x86 games use the Intel ISPC compiler  and as long as I know GPUs have their own DRIVERS to compute graphics workloads.
> NVidia will still be a viable option,... but in a market with 3 players this time around
> And if I'm a lazy ass as Sony and Microsoft I would tend to prefer the company that can offer me a full CPU+GPU ecosystem.


You mean AMD, right?


----------



## Deleted member 206055 (Jan 1, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> and security issues no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, my 5600x draws 84 watts when gaming... and maxes out all games to be gpu bound... so yeah 7nm is king


So let me tell you some facts. I have 10700k that draws 75-85 watts when gaming and gets more frames than yours. I know you think AMD is God’s gift to earth, but guess what? Intel is a better chip for gaming and most other tasks than don’t involve all your cores.. which 90% of users never do. So I’d take Intel all day, still. I came from R5 3600 and it’s a world of difference especially in gaming. And mine takes much less voltage. But you keep hanging on to those meaningless benchmarks  truth hurts


----------



## Patr!ck (Jan 1, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Just a quick data point for comparison.
> 
> View attachment 181936
> 
> Rocket Lake is a sign that Intel has given up competing with AMD in multi-threaded performance. There is only so much you can do with 7 year old 14nm technology. Maybe their next line of CPUs will be called Oven Lake.


No, it is a sign you're worrying for nothing. The 8 core 5.2GHz 11900K multi-thread score is almost on par with my 10 core 5.1GHz 10900K. At 5.3GHz that 11900K will be similar or above the stock 10900K in terms of multi-core performance.



coozie78 said:


> You mean AMD, right?


AMD is a good option, but I will patiently wait for the full Intel ecosystem that also comes with PCIe 4.0 Optane SSDs.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Jan 1, 2021)

dicktracy said:


> Faster in useless benchmarks means it will be MUCH faster in gaming. F to AMD and those who recently bought the extremely overpriced 5800x.
> 
> Also, this uses the Icelake architecture from 2017 and the 14nm process node from 2015. AMD’s latest and greatest has, once again, lose to Intel’s older designs. Had they use Tigerlake and 10nm in 2020...


Um, faster in a useless benchmark does not necessarily translate to faster in gaming performance. Also, Intel is using architecture from the prehistoric CPU era (Core) that has been tweaked to death. They need to get with the program and innovate, such as Foveros, etc. Heck, even Apple came out swinging with the M1 that is already up to speed with Intel and AMD, so Intel is merely a slothful juggernaut that is finally getting their butt kicked and hopefully will lead to more innovation on their part.

As for you, good thing Intel has another fanboy to blindly support them...



unclewebb said:


> Just a quick data point for comparison.
> 
> View attachment 181936
> 
> Rocket Lake is a sign that Intel has given up competing with AMD in multi-threaded performance. There is only so much you can do with 7 year old 14nm technology. Maybe their next line of CPUs will be called Oven Lake.


Hell's Lake, Lava Lake, Molten Lake!


----------



## dyonoctis (Jan 1, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> What makes you think that Intel has to be on par with NVidia for their first try? Intel will get into the high end league in much less time than it took NVidia and AMD to get where they are now and Intel's oneAPI is already CUDA compliant in case you didn't know. DLSS is an NVidia proprietary tech that needs to be implemented game by game. Intel will sponsor the upcoming Hitman 3 and many other games, and we'll see how long devs can keep justifying supporting a proprietary feature from a chip designer who doesn't have a full CPU + GPU ecosystem.
> Talking about Anti-trust? Should I remind you that Intel retained their PCIe 4.0 Optane (P5800X) SSD until Ice Lake-SP and Rocket Lake-S were close to their release window. Intel is an ecosystem and they can do whatever they want with it.


I would be surprised if the people in charge will see Intel actively forbidding a nvidia/intel dGPU/CPU combo on the same level. Back when Larabee was a thing the FTC went after them:
The FTC Sues Intel Over CPU & GPU Competition (anandtech.com).
Look at it this way:  Optane wasn't working with an AMD cpu, but they never went and told to Dell: "You cannot sell an Intel pc if they don't exclusively have an optane ssd." Optane made Intel cpu a bit more appealing, but you are not forced to use Optane if you got an Intel CPU. That nuance is important. (It's like saying: "look, Microsoft already got a small ecosystem going on with the surface. Then one day they decide to make their own cpu/gpu, and go the Apple way while forbidding, anyone else to make a windows compatible pc. That ain't gonna fly, and Microsoft got sued for less). 

And as you're aware, lately the E.U and U.S are pretty trigger happy when it comes to antitrust.

You are the one who said that Tiger lake H won't be sold with RTX 3000, meaning that if Intel cannot compete right now, they are effectively going to be out of the gaming laptop market until they manage to get a parity. Going from a mx350 to an RTX 3060 is a big, big jump and we don't have any data suggesting they got something able to do that.

Intel OneAPI still require the dev to do some work, and history showed me that devs are either slow or won't do it at all if there no benefits. When Apple
got into a fight with Nvidia, they lost a bunch of their customers base who had to use windows even though they were so deep into the Apple ecosystem. It's only now that some dev finally announced a metal version of those apps. Even Pixar who got a tight relationship with Apple is merely considering metal, but their production tools are still deep into the Nvidia ecosystem.

So, I won't jump into any hype train until I see a strong support  for years and years people from Otoy and redshift kept saying "AMD support will eventually come" and don't even get me started on Autodesk. Maya is a software that's been available on every OS even in the Power Pc days, but there's still no words about a native ARM version in the work even though there's a fair amount of Mac based vfx/animation studio who will make the transition. So I have very little faith about seeing Arnold working in Intel gpu's in the close future.

It's not that I don't want to see Intel being able to provide a great ecosystem, it's just that I know that it's not as easy as you make it sound like. Metal was Apple reaction to Nvidia effectively neutering open CL. They tried an open API, and it failed. Everybody wants to make their ecosystem, but the E.U and U.S government are constantly looking over the shoulder of tech company getting too zealous.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 1, 2021)

Gaterchomp said:


> So let me tell you some facts. I have 10700k that draws 75-85 watts when gaming and gets more frames than yours. I know you think AMD is God’s gift to earth, but guess what? Intel is a better chip for gaming and most other tasks than don’t involve all your cores.. which 90% of users never do. So I’d take Intel all day, still. I came from R5 3600 and it’s a world of difference especially in gaming. And mine takes much less voltage. But you keep hanging on to those meaningless benchmarks  truth hurts



it gets more frames than mine? you sure about that?


----------



## efikkan (Jan 1, 2021)

So many cynics in here. But why?
This should be exciting times when the competition in the midrange is the strongest it has been for over a decade. And if both parties can bring a decent volume to the market, we should be looking at some very competitive pricing, with occasional bundles and discounts.



Patr!ck said:


> Here's the answer: The large majority of softwares keep being optimized for Intel hardware because Intel has more presence


Not true. There is no such thing as "Intel optimized" or "AMD optimized" software. The ISA is the same, and we can't target either' architecture's underlying micro operations.



Patr!ck said:


> The large majority of x86 games use the Intel ISPC compiler


Nope.
Most software is compiled with MSVC, GCC or LLVM. Games are mostly compiled with MSVC.
This claim about Intel's copiler is responsible for Intel-biased software is nothing but FUD.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Jan 1, 2021)

Gaterchomp said:


> So let me tell you some facts. I have 10700k that draws 75-85 watts when gaming and gets more frames than yours. I know you think AMD is God’s gift to earth, but guess what? Intel is a better chip for gaming and most other tasks than don’t involve all your cores.. which 90% of users never do. So I’d take Intel all day, still. I came from R5 3600 and it’s a world of difference especially in gaming. And mine takes much less voltage. But you keep hanging on to those meaningless benchmarks  truth hurts


Let me tell you some facts: your fanboy isn’t isn’t appreciated. Your system is different than his and if you like your current setup, great, don’t bash someone else’s and try to claim that yours is better because of a brand or label, that is worse than childish. Intel makes great CPUs and so does AMD. If other people choose AMD, good for them, competition is good. Your comparisons are not worth consideration as your fanboy renders them worthless.

The truth is you need to stop being a troll and start respecting others who prefer different hardware.

Here are some more facts for you that show Rocket Lake at 4Ghz, is slower than Zen 3 at 4Ghz. Note that the CPU is an engineering sample but at the same clockspeed, Intel is losing the IPC race. This highlights the innovation that AMD has done over the past 5+ years in developing Zen architecture.

Rocket Lake Engineering Samples Benchmarked Against Zen 3 | Tom's Hardware


----------



## jaggerwild (Jan 1, 2021)

Why do I even bother reading this threat after the first page was about Intel, I knew all the AMD fans would be in here................


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 1, 2021)

This changes...everything!


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 1, 2021)

jaggerwild said:


> Why do I even bother reading this threat after the first page was about Intel, I knew all the AMD fans would be in here................


Oh look a rather weak veiled troll. Glad you could contribute...


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 1, 2021)

I put little faith in so-called leaks, they just cannot be wholly trusted to be  100%  accurate. 

Theoretically assuming it is accurate in single core, the real competition begins with the load  on the wallet compared to the Ryzen.


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 1, 2021)

If any moderators see this, I kindly ask of you...... Can you do something to rid this site of obvious fanboyish trolls? They're degrading the quality of this site by their mere presence.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jan 2, 2021)

I came across this moments ago.
Bullet points would be that next gen are better than Skylake and and the succeeding "holy" crosses added after Intel's 14nm , whilest closer to Zen 3 than ahead of Skylake.








						Rocket Lake Engineering Samples Benchmarked Against Zen 3
					

Tallying up the scores




					www.tomshardware.com


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Jan 2, 2021)

Lionheart said:


> If any moderators see this, I kindly ask of you...... Can you do something to rid this site of obvious fanboyish trolls? They're degrading the quality of this site by their mere presence.



I wish people would realize that we're here as tech enthusiasts and that we have more in common with each other than we do with any of the big tech companies.

All of the energy spent flexing e-peens rather than enjoying the best performance in computers there's ever been.  The forums are just becoming a toxic mix of people regurgitating the same old company talking points.

That said, I'm looking forward to Rocket Lake and whatever AMD responds with.


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 2, 2021)

weekendgeek said:


> I wish people would realize that we're here as tech enthusiasts and that we have more in common with each other than we do with any of the big tech companies.
> 
> All of the energy spent flexing e-peens rather than enjoying the best performance in computers there's ever been.  The forums are just becoming a toxic mix of people regurgitating the same old company talking points.
> 
> That said, I'm looking forward to Rocket Lake and whatever AMD responds with.


Thankyou, well said.


----------



## Xuper (Jan 2, 2021)

who does think AMD will drop price? I doubt , they will never do that.Intel can now charge more money .Just look at RDNA2 vs ampere


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 2, 2021)

i really expect something not just speed and price that vaporing the wallet


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 2, 2021)

Xuper said:


> who does think AMD will drop price? I doubt , they will never do that.Intel can now charge more money .Just look at RDNA2 vs ampere



AMD won't drop price, and won't need to, they aren't making enough chips to supply current demand by a wide margin anyway.  AMD could probably bump up their charge to their distribution partners and MSRP by 30 to 50% and the chips would sell. 

I suspect that Intel will price the 10700K in the $350-$400 range, just as they've always priced the top of the i7 line.  The i9's tend to be in the $500-$600 range.  The existence of Zen 3 doesn't really alter that because Zen 3 isn't really present in any quantity in the larger market.  Until you see at least one or two of the major OEMs selling Zen 3 systems, its sales volume is miniscule. 

The main thing Zen 3 did was drive up the price of Zen 2.  People are weird like that, halo effects are real.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2021)

Xuper said:


> who does think AMD will drop price? I doubt , they will never do that.Intel can now charge more money .Just look at RDNA2 vs ampere


They will but it's probably gonna take a good 6 months (from launch) before zen3 becomes readily available & affordable.


----------



## Turmania (Jan 2, 2021)

With this rate of supply problems, we probably have to wait for zen4 and next gen nvidia/radeon cards.... this generation i just regard it as a paper launch.


----------



## Crackong (Jan 2, 2021)

Is this performance exclusive with EK cryo cooler ?


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 2, 2021)

Crackong said:


> Is this performance exclusive with EK cryo cooler ?


Would be a great way to demo its performance


----------



## ixi (Jan 2, 2021)

Turmania said:


> With this rate of supply problems, we probably have to wait for zen4 and next gen nvidia/radeon cards.... this generation i just regard it as a paper launch.



Next one should be the same, sadly. I'm still without pc because of the increased prices through the roof... Aint gonna pay for ngreedia, sh1ntel nor amd for more than 100e of msrp.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> AMD won't drop price, and won't need to, they aren't making enough chips to supply current demand by a wide margin anyway.  AMD could probably bump up their charge to their distribution partners and MSRP by 30 to 50% and the chips would sell.
> 
> I suspect that Intel will price the 10700K in the $350-$400 range, just as they've always priced the top of the i7 line.  The i9's tend to be in the $500-$600 range.  The existence of Zen 3 doesn't really alter that because Zen 3 isn't really present in any quantity in the larger market.  Until you see at least one or two of the major OEMs selling Zen 3 systems, its sales volume is miniscule.
> 
> The main thing Zen 3 did was drive up the price of Zen 2.  People are weird like that, halo effects are real.


Agreed. The other thing is, with 8 cores maximum, Intel can only compete in the ryzen 5-7 range. Besides, even if they price their new i7 and i9 competitively relative to the ryzen 7 5800X, you still have to pay the Intel motherboard premium. They have to price the new CPUs at least $100 below the 5800X to make total system costs match, which absolutely won't happen.

I didn't mention ryzen 9 on purpose. With 12 and 16 cores, they're a totally different class. Intel proved with the i9-10900K that they can't compete in this class on 14 nm. I just wish to see more innovation at least on the core i7 range, and reasonable prices from both companies in the future.

All things considered, AMD has no reason to drop prices at the moment.


----------



## goodeedidid (Jan 2, 2021)

Oh boy, I was hoping Intel would lead at least with 10%-20% in single core performance for gaming but there is no advantage over AMD. 3% is in the margins of error.. lol what a joke.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Besides, even if they price their new i7 and i9 competitively relative to the ryzen 7 5800X, you still have to pay the Intel motherboard premium. They have to price the new CPUs at least $100 below the 5800X to make total system costs match, which absolutely won't happen.


Have you looked at motherboard prices lately? The days of cheap AM4 motherboards is somewhat over and Z490 boards are priced right between B550 and X570. When looking at boards full of nice features they are in the same price range.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 2, 2021)

londiste said:


> Have you looked at motherboard prices lately? The days of cheap AM4 motherboards is somewhat over and Z490 boards are priced right between B550 and X570. When looking at boards full of nice features they are in the same price range.


I actually have. Z490 boards are generally £50 more expensive than B550 variants of the same range (Asus Strix, Asus TUF Gaming, etc). As far as I'm concerned, comparing to X570 is irrelevant, as it is a B550 with a couple extra PCI-E gen 4 lanes and a PCI-E gen 4 link to the CPU which you never feel in daily use. What justifies buying Intel is the pricey nature of the Ryzen 5000 series CPUs. If I wanted to build an Intel system now, I'd go with a B460 motherboard (I always buy the x60 series anyway), and a Core i7-10700 or 10700F. A Z490 motherboard with a K processor comes with a price premium that makes B550 with a Ryzen 3000 series CPU a much better value.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 2, 2021)

yukinin97 said:


> This almost reads like a satirical comment. Imagine shilling so hard for any single corporation, none of which give a single F about you... how do you personally benefit from doing that? Most of us are just enjoying the increased competition but you're out here propping up Intel like your life depends on it lol. I never realized how bad the fanboyism I kept hearing about was until I came into this forum. Yikes.
> 
> And when was the last time that AMD was relevant to you? Their marketshare has doubled YoY while Intel's has decreased by 20%... Lastly, Zen 4's release date on AMD's own CPU roadmap was slated for late 2022 LONG before we saw announcements of Apple securing 80% of TSMC's 5nm production capacity. Intel doesn't need to worry about that since they're still stuck with their 14nm++++++++++++++.



Well... its just a tiny minority of leftovers that still try that. Its good laughing stock. We bash back and that's that.

Much like this Intel release.



Patr!ck said:


> NVidia RTX 3000 mobile chips





Patr!ck said:


> Xe-HPG gaming GPUs on the laptop market.



Completely irrelevant to the cutting edge. Laptop performance always trails it, and is a derivative of what the desktop gets. Not a single chip manufacturer can run a business on laptop chips. Not one. Its an intermediate form factor - its a little bit of everything, jack of all trades master of none. How do you design for that anyway? What laptops get is refined process and sometimes better binning on the same architectures as desktops already got.

And let's not forget ARM.

Also... Xe-HPG gaming GPUs in 2021? Where are those? So far Raja showed us a football field sized scalable mega chip with unknown performance and we saw some rebrands of the eternal Intel integrated nonsense. Its a complete laugh so far, there's less development in that area than we see from their CPUs. They're not competitive by any stretch of the imagination yet.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 2, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> Well... its just a tiny minority of leftovers that still try that. Its good laughing stock. We bash back and that's that.
> 
> Much like this Intel release.


The more unreasonable and zealously one-sided someone is, the more entertaining their comments are, a bit like reading the SCROTUS twitter feed. It's all drivelling nonsense from a foaming-mouthed madman but the schadenfreude makes me chuckle.

You just have to enjoy rabid fanboy posts for their ridiculousness and it also serves as a useful reminder of what can happen if you stop critically analysing the arguments on all sides and instead start drinking the marketing department Kool-Aid of just one company.


----------



## Cobain (Jan 2, 2021)

Too much fanboyism on this thread, from both sides.

I used Intel for almost 20 years and recently got a 5600x. This chip doesn't exceed 75w (according to Hwinfo) and it gets very high framerates on every game, providing you dont't have a gpu bottleneck. According to GamerNexus, Anandtech, LTT, Guru3d etc, it is Faster than a 10700k/10900k in most games apart from a few exceptions like RDR2.

Imo the 5600x is the "new" 2500k or Athlon X2.

Fanboys saying Intel still leads in gaming need to check the reviews again. I know for a fact 10900k at 5,2ghz can average 170fps on Warzone for example, while 5600x gets 200fps on every Map location. This is just an example.

Zen 3 is very strong because of its IPC, low cache latency, new ccx layout etc it uses less power than Intel, needs less expensive Cooling and gets Higher frames.

With that being Said I dont agree with guys that come here and Say this new Intel launch is irrelevant. It isn't. They Will probably be the best gaming chip again, as from the leaks we seen the scores are really amazing. Now it all comes to final real world performance, pricing, temperatures, power usage. 

And we might end up having great options from both sides. 11400f on a B560 motherboard + 3200mhz RAM, might BE really interesting for gaming Riga.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2021)

Cobain said:


> Zen 3 is very strong because of its IPC, low cache latency, new ccx layout etc it uses less power than Intel, needs less expensive Cooling and gets Higher frames.


Upgraded to R5 5600X from i5 8400. In my particular case - 1440p at Ultra-ish settings - GPU is the major bottleneck. In a bit of surprising way (5600X should have more headroom and I expected it to run with lower load = cooler) power usage and need for cooling is practically the same (cores and CPU stuff at max 65W) but around 12W of additional system usage is concentreated into CPU package on Zen2/3, PPT and Package Power is 76W for 5600X. Over-dimensioned cooler or (rather PITA) curve tweaking is needed to avoid fan ramp-ups due to high and quickly changing temps. Not the smoothest of transitions but better than Zen2 was.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 2, 2021)

Cobain said:


> Too much fanboyism on this thread, from both sides.
> 
> I used Intel for almost 20 years and recently got a 5600x. This chip doesn't exceed 75w (according to Hwinfo) and it gets very high framerates on every game, providing you dont't have a gpu bottleneck. According to GamerNexus, Anandtech, LTT, Guru3d etc, it is Faster than a 10700k/10900k in most games apart from a few exceptions like RDR2.
> 
> ...


There's a good article here on TPU about just how much better Zen3 is over 10th-Gen Intel. For the most part, the age-old generalisation that we are GPU bottlenecked still holds true, so when people are bickering over single-digit differences between AMD and Intel gaming performance, they're not actually seeing either CPU being fully used and are still hitting a GPU bottleneck:





The minute you actually load up the CPU and take away the GPU bottleneck, Zen3 is so far ahead of Intel in gaming that I'm not even sure the 13-14% IPC gains of Rocket Lake are going to be enough to make up the difference. Sure, it'll get Intel much closer to Zen3 and there's a good chance that Intel, with their own 14nm fabs will be able to meet demand better than AMDs small slice of TSMC. We just need Intel to not be total douchebags with regard to arbitrary crippling of their lower-end CPUs on non-Z platforms this time around.

As a consumer, rather than an Intel or AMD shareholder, what matters is fierce competition, to drive down prices and spread the demand evenly between both suppliers. If team A and B have equal supply but team A's products suck, that means that there's only one viable choice in the market and therefore only half the effective supply. For us all to win, we need Intel to not be dicks, and for both AMD and Intel to fight each other hard to out-supply and undercut each other on pricing. That's why there's no room for fanboyism in 2021. You'll buy whatever's available if you need to at the moment, because there's so little supply and so much demand that you don't have the choice to buy your best option, you'll likely need to settle for anything that works - and that's not a good situation for us as consumers.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> We just need Intel to not be total douchebags with regard to arbitrary crippling of their lower-end CPUs on non-Z platforms this time around.


Yeah, that part I do not get. What are they thinking with? They could get away with this without competition but with Ryzen in the picture, the memory speed limitation in particular is biting them really hard and there are no good arguments for still having it in place.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 2, 2021)

londiste said:


> Yeah, that part I do not get. What are they thinking with? They could get away with this without competition but with Ryzen in the picture, the memory speed limitation in particular is biting them really hard and there are no good arguments for still having it in place.


DDR4 3600 kits are now almost as cheap as the cheapest DDR4 you can find of any speed grade, and when your B460 limits your CPU to 2666MHz then that's a lot of performance that's just thrown in the dumpster by Intel for no good reason, justified by outdated and now irrelevant pRoDuCt SeGmEnTaTiOn. When you don't have the best product and there's a shortage of _all _product, artificially crippling anything you offer for sale is downright stupid.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2021)

Why? I guess none of you remember that Z chipsets actually carry a premium, not just for the *privilege of using unlocked processors but also for supporting higher memory speeds*! Intel's gone out of the way in blocking & *bricking systems in the past where non Z OCing worked* ~ yes I know it was never officially sanctioned by Intel but went on for as much as a year back in Haswell days


----------



## 1d10t (Jan 2, 2021)

But still, I don't get it why "gaming" is all that important. I mean, with nowadays game, common denominator is still a GPU. $500 CPU doesn't get anywhere near $500 GPU. Funny until the very end of this decade, people still parroting "CPU for gaming". Well I don't blame them, someone, I mean, some major company still lives in CRT era. Thanks to them, PC community are now laughing stock from console fanboy, they can do UHD 120Hz while we still debating which is faster in 720p and 1080p


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2021)

1d10t said:


> $500 CPU doesn't get anywhere near $500 GPU.


Up until 3 years ago $300 was horribly expensive for a CPU...


----------



## Cobain (Jan 2, 2021)

1d10t said:


> But still, I don't get it why "gaming" is all that important. I mean, with nowadays game, common denominator is still a GPU. $500 CPU doesn't get anywhere near $500 GPU. Funny until the very end of this decade, people still parroting "CPU for gaming". Well I don't blame them, someone, I mean, some major company still lives in CRT era. Thanks to them, PC community are now laughing stock from console fanboy, they can do UHD 120Hz while we still debating which is faster in 720p and 1080p



Because PC gaming market has a LOT of players using high refresh rate monitors and very high framerates to play multiplayer games like Apex legends, fortnite, Warzone, pubg, valorant, etc etc. Having a locked 200fps (or more) is great for smooth aiming and low input lag with a Mouse.

Then se have single player gamers where I personally can Cope with a locked synched 60fps without any problema with good eye candy depending on the game.

PC gaming is not all about 4k and textures. Many type of gamers, many experiences.

I like to play RTS games a lot and I do prefer a smooth Mouse behaviour to Control all units and explore the map. And I do prefer high framerates on that type of game, compared to 60hz/60fps


----------



## sepheronx (Jan 2, 2021)

Both are fine.

I go for whatever is price to performance.  Intel, believe it or not, has a good price to performance ratio at the moment. A 10400F can be had here for about $200 brand new while 3600 (non x) is $300.  The 10400f does perform better on average. The 5600 is a fantastic processor but rather expensive and not available here.  Motherboard prices are also through the roof but all in all, a good b460 or z490 can be had at similar price to what AM4 has.

I'm not a fan of how rocket lake looks in that it has only 8c/16t max and integrated GPU.  It's a waste imo.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 2, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Agreed. The other thing is, with 8 cores maximum, Intel can only compete in the ryzen 5-7 range. Besides, even if they price their new i7 and i9 competitively relative to the ryzen 7 5800X, you still have to pay the Intel motherboard premium. They have to price the new CPUs at least $100 below the 5800X to make total system costs match, which absolutely won't happen.
> 
> I didn't mention ryzen 9 on purpose. With 12 and 16 cores, they're a totally different class. Intel proved with the i9-10900K that they can't compete in this class on 14 nm. I just wish to see more innovation at least on the core i7 range, and reasonable prices from both companies in the future.
> 
> All things considered, AMD has no reason to drop prices at the moment.



Well, if steam survey is representative (and it's probably _over_ representative, by a wide margin) then > 8 cores amounts to under 1.5% of the market. Since there are boatloads of corporate PCs with zero exposure on Steam, not to mention tons of cheap PCs sold to non gamers and non enthusiasts, that's probably a way high number.   

In other words, even within the enthusiast / gaming segment there aren't that many people using > 8 cores, and those 10+ core segments are not growing much.  6 and 8 core are the ones that are growing. 

If they wanted to compete in core count for this segment of DIY/enthusiast/gamers they need do nothing more than drop the iGPU, something AMD doesn't have and which takes up 1/3 of the die on a 10700K and about 1/4 on a 10900K. 

The fact they aren't doing that and are actually going the other way (bigger / faster iGPU) illustrates where their priority is - the big OEMs.  That is Intel's real primary customer, and those 4650 Zen 2 APUs haven't really made a dent in that. 

Intel has had 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 core 14nm X-Series since gen 7 for those that really want big core counts.  Those are labelled as their enthusiast chips to start with, and they don't have iGPU.   It will be interesting if rocket lake makes it into those.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2021)

sepheronx said:


> I go for whatever is price to performance.  Intel, believe it or not, has a good price to performance ratio at the moment. A 10400F can be had here for about $200 brand new while 3600 (non x) is $300.  The 10400f does perform better on average.


10400F (at ~145€) is about half the price of 5600X (~300€) at the moment, at least in Europe. It does not perform better, both lower IPC and runs at lower clocks but the performance cap it has (while lower than 5600X's) is high enough that GPU you need to exceed the cap on higher resolutions is in a whole different price range. Basically it is the exact same argument Ryzen 1000/2000 (and partially 3000) had 



RandallFlagg said:


> If they wanted to compete in core count for this segment of DIY/enthusiast/gamers they need do nothing more than drop the iGPU, something AMD doesn't have and which takes up 1/3 of the die on a 10700K and about 1/4 on a 10900K.
> 
> The fact they aren't doing that and are actually going the other way (bigger / faster iGPU) illustrates where their priority is - the big OEMs.  That is Intel's real primary customer, and those 4650 Zen 2 APUs haven't really made a dent in that.


In addition to OEM targets and actually not creating too many different dies, why not have iGPU? It is genuinely a value-add. It does not limit performance in any significant way and the only downside is some additional production cost (which may or may not transfer directly to consumer). The fact that AMD doesn't have one is probably a good motivation to keep it.

That additional die space is not useful for more cores in Intel's case anyway, the amount of cores is limited primarily by power.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2021)

1d10t said:


> I mean, with nowadays game, common denominator is still a GPU.



Nowadays?  The GPU has always been the dominant factor when it comes to gaming.  The rest is a bunch of people having a zero sum argument about who has the right or wrong part in their PC based on benchmarks they may not be able to achieve or even see with their current set up and by the time they can achieve and see said benchmarks they will have moved on to a new platform.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 2, 2021)

londiste said:


> In addition to OEM targets and actually not creating too many different dies, why not have iGPU? It is genuinely a value-add. It does not limit performance in any significant way and the only downside is some additional production cost (which may or may not transfer directly to consumer). The fact that AMD doesn't have one is probably a good motivation to keep it.



I think it is there because the OEMs want it, not because it's useful to DIY / enthusiasts.  I always point out, 85% of the PCs sold are those big OEMs, and 2/3 of the client PC market is laptops.  From what I can tell, the number of discrete GPUs sold even this past year where they've sold gangbusters is less than 10% of the number of CPUs sold. 

That would imply that something over 90% of all client PCs are running an iGPU or AMD APU.  

What I'm saying is that PCs with a dGPU are actually a small market segment.  I wouldn't call it "niche", but catering to the  < 10% has hidden costs.  It's probably just not cost effective to split production up that way, plus the iGPU has uses even in the presence of a dGPU.  Strategically, making sure that iGPU is there in 99% of situations helps them maintain developer support.   This may be even more of a factor beyond encoding / streaming uses with AI coming into play.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Well, if steam survey is representative (and it's probably _over_ representative, by a wide margin) then > 8 cores amounts to under 1.5% of the market. Since there are boatloads of corporate PCs with zero exposure on Steam, not to mention tons of cheap PCs sold to non gamers and non enthusiasts, that's probably a way high number.


The majority of people still game at 1080p with a 60 refresh rate.  I post on some game sites in their hardware sections and for every person looking to do a build to run the game at max levels there is a person posting trying to get the game to work at the lowest levels. It's easy to look at our builds on the forum and think everyone has something similar but we are the enthusiasts of the PC world not the norm.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2021)

@RandallFlagg, DIY/enthusiasts are not a big enough segment to warrant separate dies


----------



## sepheronx (Jan 2, 2021)

londiste said:


> 10400F (at ~145€) is about half the price of 5600X (~300€) at the moment, at least in Europe. It does not perform better, both lower IPC and runs at lower clocks but the performance cap it has (while lower than 5600X's) is high enough that GPU you need to exceed the cap on higher resolutions is in a whole different price range. Basically it is the exact same argument Ryzen 1000/2000 (and partially 3000) had
> 
> 
> In addition to OEM targets and actually not creating too many different dies, why not have iGPU? It is genuinely a value-add. It does not limit performance in any significant way and the only downside is some additional production cost (which may or may not transfer directly to consumer). The fact that AMD doesn't have one is probably a good motivation to keep it.
> ...



But I am not wrong in saying it performs better than 3600 which is my statement.

Hence why to me it is a far better buy at this point in time.  Cheaper than 3600, 5600 isn't available and its price is over $400 here in Canada (ranges from $400 if you buy bulk to $450).

iGPU is a waste on the die for higher end models.  I doubt it is limited by power for those cores.  I understand people do want a igpu but the same people spending on anything higher than a 10600 is probably going to have a dgpu already, and that is with prebuild companies (Acer and the like).  Never seen ones here in Canada that has a 10600 and that doesn't have a dgpu.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 2, 2021)

sepheronx said:


> But I am not wrong in saying it performs better than 3600 which is my statement.
> 
> Hence why to me it is a far better buy at this point in time.  Cheaper than 3600, 5600 isn't available and its price is over $400 here in Canada (ranges from $400 if you buy bulk to $450).
> 
> iGPU is a waste on the die for higher end models.  I doubt it is limited by power for those cores.  I understand people do want a igpu but the same people spending on anything higher than a 10600 is probably going to have a dgpu already, and that is with prebuild companies (Acer and the like).  Never seen ones here in Canada that has a 10600 and that doesn't have a dgpu.



There are tons of iGPU systems being sold so saying you've never seen a 10600+ without a dGPU is kinda hyperbolic.  I just pulled up the #1 selling i7 desktop at Best Buy and it is an HP Envy with a 10700 and uses an iGPU.  #2 has a dGPU, but #3-6 are iGPU 10700's.   

For gaming, unless you have a 2070 Super or higher higher any cores beyond 6 with performance beyond a 10400 or R5 3600 is a complete waste.   Most of what is selling right now is the 1660 Super / Ti.   You can occupy one of those just fine with an i3-10100.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 2, 2021)

1d10t said:


> But still, I don't get it why "gaming" is all that important.


It's not any more important than non-gaming, it's just a topic of contention because Intel have been losing to AMD so catastrophically in every other metric for the last few years that "gaming" is all they have left and they're constantly banging that drum with FUD and distraction tactics. Their PR department is running in overdrive, sponsoring videos, branding products, and focusing on Intel's gaming prowess over AMD.

That tiny, insignificant Intel advantage right here:




....is literally the only thing good about Intel right now. That is the one, the only, performance win Intel have, if you can even call it relevant enough to be a win. It's almost completely irrelevant, it's extremely petty, and it's very misleading if you look at it in isolation.

But, it's all they've got. They're flogging this dead horse so hard that there's almost nothing left of the original corpse at this point and every time an Intel fanboy swallows that misleading info and goes on a rabid crusade about how Intel are still faster than AMD, it is another victory for Intel's marketing department. All they have to do is ignore the stupid platform segmentation, the costs, the security vulnerabilities, the power consumption, the cooling requirements, the productivity performance, the missing platform features, the lack of upgradeability, the list of negatives that fanboys simply don't talk about because they've swallowed the Intel marketing is so huge that you basically need to be oblivious to fact and so closed-minded as to be deaf to any and all arguments


----------



## sepheronx (Jan 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> There are tons of iGPU systems being sold so saying you've never seen a 10600+ without a dGPU is kinda hyperbolic.  I just pulled up the #1 selling i7 desktop at Best Buy and it is an HP Envy with a 10700 and uses an iGPU.  #2 has a dGPU, but #3-6 are iGPU 10700's.
> 
> For gaming, unless you have a 2070 Super or higher higher any cores beyond 6 with performance beyond a 10400 or R5 3600 is a complete waste.   Most of what is selling right now is the 1660 Super / Ti.   You can occupy one of those just fine with an i3-10100.



I checked back and couldn't find any link you provided regarding it.  So I apologize if I have missed it.

It is possible outside of Canada such machines are very popular but that is a terrible deal all in its own to pair such a wonky setup.  I know OEM's are rather much like that were they do odd pairings or setups altogether.  I just never recommend those setups to anybody who orders from me.  I tell them if they are to game, a dgpu is more important than the cpu.  Office machines do not need a high end processor.  At my other job, I have to do heavy cpu work with various scripts we build to automate processes.  Most of it works fine with very little difference in performance between using a i3 and an i7.  So a build where there is an i7 and a iGPU always left me scratching my head.

And yes, I agree with your second point.


----------



## londiste (Jan 2, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> It's not any more important than non-gaming, it's just a topic of contention because Intel have been losing to AMD so catastrophically in every other metric for the last few years that "gaming" is all they have left and they're constantly banging that drum with FUD and distraction tactics. Their PR department is running in overdrive, sponsoring videos, branding products, and focusing on Intel's gaming prowess over AMD.


This is an interesting point of view. And I would argue at least for Intel 10-series vs Ryzen 3000 and earlier you are wrong. Something like 10400F vs 3600, 10600K vs 3600X, 10700K vs 3700X shows they are about on par with performance, about the same price and Intel was actually cheaper before Ryzen 3000 got really cheap in anticipation of Ryzen 5000. What Intel was and is losing at is power consumption.

Where AMD really got ahead is Ryzen 5000 which is a very recent development and comes at a price. While prices may vary in regions, EU prices seem to be at least on par with performance difference.
10600K is about 225€ right now, full 25% cheaper than 5600X - the cheapest Ryzen 5000 - at 300€. 
10700 is ~300€ with 10700K at 350€, 33% and 22% cheaper than 5800X. There is even a 10c/20t 10850K at ~425€ that is slightly cheaper than 5800X.

The other part where Intel clearly does not have an answer is 12/16 core CPUs.


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Jan 2, 2021)

low said:


> Haha ... this was made with special watercooling maybe outside. At Stock this 11900k is faster than ryzen 5950x at stock. With OC this 11900k is the fastest SC CPU.
> 
> Here is the problem: you have to pay again 550 Bucks for this i9 with only 8 cores. At the end of the year you will see Alderlake (new socket1700, new DDR5, maybe PCI-E 5.0).



he also has it at 713 too. You're right about pricing
I just hope they don't try to price the thing around the 5950x's price that would be an awful mistake from intel. I could seem them doing this because it's "The fastest gaming CPU"
edit: my notification on here are awful slow lately :/


----------



## ThrashZone (Jan 2, 2021)

Hi,
AMD 30 series prices dropped mostly because amd flooded the market
If they do the same with 50 series the same will happen retail stores don't care they just don't want to be stuck with old series stock.

Intel has the best price drops atm with a lot in stock
Even amd 30 series back up in price because no 50 series are in stock.


----------



## sepheronx (Jan 2, 2021)

I am just waiting on to see if there is a clear difference in gaming with PCI-e 4.0 vs 3.0 with NVME in the future due to texture streaming being pushed for consoles.  If there is, then I can upgrade with my existing z490.  If there isn't and it doesn't matter between the two PCIe's, then I am just gonna buy a 10900 ES chip from Aliexpress for cheap.


----------



## ThrashZone (Jan 2, 2021)

sepheronx said:


> I am just waiting on to see if there is a clear difference in gaming with PCI-e 4.0 vs 3.0 with NVME in the future due to texture streaming being pushed for consoles.  If there is, then I can upgrade with my existing z490.  If there isn't and it doesn't matter between the two PCIe's, then I am just gonna buy a 10900 ES chip from Aliexpress for cheap.


Hi,
Canada yeah I looked at micro center stock 10900k down to 499.us 
Maybe check out B&H before





						CPU Processors | B&H Photo Video
					

Your source for CPU Processors from top brands like Intel, AMD and HP. Visit us to see our large inventory. Decades of great prices and unmatched service..




					www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2021)

sepheronx said:


> I am just waiting on to see if there is a clear difference in gaming with PCI-e 4.0 vs 3.0 with NVME in the future due to texture streaming being pushed for consoles.  If there is, then I can upgrade with my existing z490.  If there isn't and it doesn't matter between the two PCIe's, then I am just gonna buy a 10900 ES chip from Aliexpress for cheap.


You will be waiting a while


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 2, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> But, it's all they've got. They're flogging this dead horse so hard that there's almost nothing left of the original corpse at this point and every time an Intel fanboy swallows that misleading info and goes on a rabid crusade about how Intel are still faster than AMD, it is another victory for Intel's marketing department. All they have to do is ignore the stupid platform segmentation, the costs, the security vulnerabilities, the power consumption, the cooling requirements, the productivity performance, the missing platform features, the lack of upgradeability, the list of negatives that fanboys simply don't talk about because they've swallowed the Intel marketing is so huge that you basically need to be oblivious to fact and so closed-minded as to be deaf to any and all arguments



Actually, what they got is cheap multi-core chips in stock... the 10850K and a 10700K are dirt cheap and awesome for gaming (since there's almost no difference between the top chips anyways.)

I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.




That's basically a $400 10900K... less than the cost of a 5800x, and in stock, ready to ship.

AMD on the other hand....


----------



## ThrashZone (Jan 2, 2021)

Hi,
Yep amd prices are high still so is their single core scores though lol


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 2, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep amd prices are high still so is their single core scores though lol



Yeah they are seriously awesome -- just not enough supply.


----------



## sepheronx (Jan 2, 2021)

dirtyferret said:


> You will be waiting a while


That is what I'm also thinking. That the difference will be nothing.  But I tend to upgrade every 5 or so years.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jan 2, 2021)

fancucker said:


> For me this is truly representative of superior performance because ST + 8 cores remain the optimal configuration. Most of AMD's success is build upon the 10nm failure and not genuine architectural innovation.


Hmmm.....









						The Ultimate Zen: AMD's Zen 3 Achieves 89% Higher Performance Than First-generation Zen
					

An investigative, generation-upon-generation review from golem.de paints an extremely impressive picture for AMD's efforts in iterating upon their original Zen architecture. While the first generation Zen achieved a sorely needed inflection point in the red team's efforts against arch-rival...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Do you enjoy being ignorant? It's pretty obvious that AMD had made a number of massive architectural leaps the last 4 years, and that is very simple to measure. 

Meanwhile, at intel HQ, they are FINALLY moving away from haswell+++++ and are going to Rocketlake, which is STILL on 14nm +++. It would appear that it is intel, not AMD, who have utterly failed at architectural upgrades and are relying on absurd clock speeds and heat output to compete.


----------



## ThrashZone (Jan 2, 2021)

Hi,
Think all Intel releases qualify as Lavalakes lol


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 3, 2021)

londiste said:


> This is an interesting point of view. And I would argue at least for Intel 10-series vs Ryzen 3000 and earlier you are wrong. Something like 10400F vs 3600, 10600K vs 3600X, 10700K vs 3700X shows they are about on par with performance, about the same price and Intel was actually cheaper before Ryzen 3000 got really cheap in anticipation of Ryzen 5000. What Intel was and is losing at is power consumption.
> 
> Where AMD really got ahead is Ryzen 5000 which is a very recent development and comes at a price. While prices may vary in regions, EU prices seem to be at least on par with performance difference.
> 10600K is about 225€ right now, full 25% cheaper than 5600X - the cheapest Ryzen 5000 - at 300€.
> ...


The 10400F vs 3600 - the 3600 is significantly faster than the 10400F on 2666MHz RAM in most of the non-gaming tests. There's no argument in games, Zen 2 closed the gaming gap to intel but only fanboys are going to tell you Zen2 was better. Reviews paint Zen 2 as closer to Coffee Lake for gaming.

The 3600X is pointless because the vanilla 3600 and a basic B450 board are already both unlocked and restriction free. The 3600X wasn't competitive or a sensible option even in an AMD vacuum, so I'm not even going to attempt to defend it against Intel.

For the overlap period of the 10700K and Zen2, the 3900X has always been the closest price match to the 10700K and that ignores the mandatory Z-series chipset tax at ~$50:
https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B086ML4XSB matches the $420 of a 3900X at the same time, and most reviews of the 10700K mentioned/paired the 3900X as the AMD competition to the 10700K.

So, in the comparisons you just made, yes - Intel were about on par with performance, but those comparisons never happened because Ryzen was out in the market a full year before 10th Gen Intel and by the time 10th Gen launched, Ryzen 9 was priced at parity with i7 and i5K + Z490 tax was more expensive than 3700X. Price trackers and launch reviews of the 10-series confirm that.



phanbuey said:


> Actually, what they got is cheap multi-core chips in stock... the 10850K and a 10700K are dirt cheap and awesome for gaming (since there's almost no difference between the top chips anyways.)
> 
> I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.
> View attachment 182085
> ...


Can't argue with that; If you need to buy a CPU _right now, _then the product that's out of stock everywhere is automatically eliminated from the competition.

Before the buying frenzy and subsequent availability/scalping problems muddied the water, I didn't really like  the 10850K because of the _overall _cost; It's not $400, it's $400 plus an expensive $200 Z-series board that can handle a 250W PL2 limit plus the _necessary_ ~$100 of AIO. $675 for 10 cores against $420 for 3900X with a pretty decent cooler and $95 for a perfectly decent B550 board (DS3H or A-Pro are fine for a 3950X). That leaves $160 more in your wallet, a much cooler more efficient CPU, and you get PCIe 4.0 as a bonus if that matters to your workloads.

For gaming, sure - the 10850 is potentially better than a 3900X if you're running at super low res on a high-end GPU, but for gaming you don't need an i9 _or_ a Ryzen 9, you should be allocating as much of your budget as you can to the GPU instead, or holding off to see whether Rocket Lake availability and pricing is any better than Zen3, assuming it's still not going to be "normal" by then!


----------



## watzupken (Jan 3, 2021)

The reason why the Ryzen 3xxx  series is so expensive is because AMD botched up their chip supply. So with Ryzen 5xxx being so rare and expensive, people just go for an older chip to tide over until they can get a Ryzen 5xxx drop in replacement. I am expecting a wave of Ryzen 3000 chip sale when AMD finally get their supply in order.

As for the slight improvement in single core, even if the number is in the high single digit %, I feel RKL is not going to turn the tide for Intel. People who favor Intel will likely still go for RKL, but it is unlikely to entice many potential Ryzen buyers. For me, the higher power consumption and the need for some high end cooling for the higher tier chips is a turnoff for example. I feel the success of RKL will hinge heavily on its price and this is where Intel is always unwilling to budge until recently.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 3, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> The 10400F vs 3600 - the 3600 is significantly faster than the 10400F on 2666MHz RAM in most of the non-gaming tests. There's no argument in games, Zen 2 closed the gaming gap to intel but only fanboys are going to tell you Zen2 was better. Reviews paint Zen 2 as closer to Coffee Lake for gaming.
> 
> The 3600X is pointless because the vanilla 3600 and a basic B450 board are already both unlocked and restriction free. The 3600X wasn't competitive or a sensible option even in an AMD vacuum, so I'm not even going to attempt to defend it against Intel.
> 
> ...



The problem you're going to have with a lot of that is twofold.

Prior to Zen 3, Comet Lake was by far the best gaming chip.  The review sites that constantly said 'go ahead and get AMD' for a gaming system 'because it doesn't make any difference' were dead wrong.

What's sad is most of them won't do CPU scaling tests, you have to look elsewhere.  TPU did one a while back, 3900XT vs 9900K / 10900K with a 2080 Ti.  Here's the 1080P results.  This is a 10 - 12% difference in FPS average.

It is very easy to see here that the Intel chips are GPU limited.  The Zen 2 is getting very much CPU limited with a 2080 Ti.  This didn't matter 6 months ago when very few had such a GPU, but as we go into 2021 and these new 3070s become more available this is what people who bought Zen 2 have to look forward to - this or buy a Zen 3 :






Edit:  I should point out, that;'s an 3900XT, which is a percent or two faster than a 3900X.

The difference at 1440P was 8%, so no it is not showing up at just low res.

So lets now fast forward to today's GPUs.

First of all, a 3070 is faster than a 2080 Ti.  So if you get a 3070 and pair it with Zen 2, you're down 10% or so vs say a 9900K or 10700K just like the TPU review.  Even with a 3060 Ti, which is roughly the same as a 2080 Super, you're going to lose notable FPS.

So all those thousands of AMD posters who said "It's only 1 or 2% fps you won't notice it" - yeah those guys?  They are only right if you stick with a GPU from 2019.

At the more extreme end, what happens if you get a 3090 and pair that with a Zen 2?  Well about the only place we see that is on Zen 3 reviews, but it's pretty clear.  Zen 2 fell farther behind, a lot farther.   I'm going to focus on the 10700K because it was always less than the 3900X.  Some examples :

10700K 15.2% higher fps vs 3900X :





10700K 15.6% higher fps vs 3900X :





Notice that lowly 10400 besting the 3900X above?

You can check the reviews yourself but the trend is prettty clear.  The Intel Coffee / Comet Lake chips had a pretty solid 15% more headroom than Zen 2 as far as games went, and that's the 10700K vs 3900X.  It's more if we're talking the 10900K.  And these, without overclocking.

So, for games, Zen 2 has always been a horrific choice.  People should keep this in mind when reading reviews, these review sites got it very wrong when recommending Zen 2 to gamers.

The second thing is that you're comparing pricing from a long time ago, Zen 3900X vs 10900K.

This is the reality of today.  And the 10900K / 10700K / 10850K will smoke the 3900XT in games.  Anyone building a gaming rig has to be either some kind of stupid, or have really drunk deeply of the AMD kool-aid to pick 3900X :


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 3, 2021)

londiste said:


> @RandallFlagg, DIY/enthusiasts are not a big enough segment to warrant separate dies


That's why AMD puts two in the same package. "Are you a normal user? Here's a CPU. Are you a DIY enthusiast? Here's two." 



phanbuey said:


> Actually, what they got is cheap multi-core chips in stock... the 10850K and a 10700K are dirt cheap and awesome for gaming (since there's almost no difference between the top chips anyways.)
> 
> I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.
> View attachment 182085
> ...


Wow... interesting what supply and demand can do to the market. 

Not to mention that the 10850K doesn't seem to suffer from thermal/power issues as much as the 10900K does. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the 10850K without a blink of an eye.



watzupken said:


> The reason why the Ryzen 3xxx  series is so expensive is because AMD botched up their chip supply. So with Ryzen 5xxx being so rare and expensive, people just go for an older chip to tide over until they can get a Ryzen 5xxx drop in replacement. I am expecting a wave of Ryzen 3000 chip sale when AMD finally get their supply in order.
> 
> As for the slight improvement in single core, even if the number is in the high single digit %, I feel RKL is not going to turn the tide for Intel. People who favor Intel will likely still go for RKL, but it is unlikely to entice many potential Ryzen buyers. For me, the higher power consumption and the need for some high end cooling for the higher tier chips is a turnoff for example. I feel the success of RKL will hinge heavily on its price and this is where Intel is always unwilling to budge until recently.


Agreed. I'd much rather sacrifice a few % in performance and keep my temps under control.

Edit: Not to mention stability. What good is a 5+ GHz boost if you can only maintain it for half a minute?


----------



## 1d10t (Jan 3, 2021)

londiste said:


> Up until 3 years ago $300 was horribly expensive for a CPU...



...and still less core 



Cobain said:


> Because PC gaming market has a LOT of players using high refresh rate monitors and very high framerates to play multiplayer games like Apex legends, fortnite, Warzone, pubg, valorant, etc etc. Having a locked 200fps (or more) is great for smooth aiming and low input lag with a Mouse.
> Then se have single player gamers where I personally can Cope with a locked synched 60fps without any problema with good eye candy depending on the game.
> PC gaming is not all about 4k and textures. Many type of gamers, many experiences.
> I like to play RTS games a lot and I do prefer a smooth Mouse behaviour to Control all units and explore the map. And I do prefer high framerates on that type of game, compared to 60hz/60fps



Dude, only we at these forum are prefer high resolution high refresh rate gaming, and that already put us on a niche, 10% max of market. And I don't understand why must you pursue higher than 120Hz (144Hz). I mean my eyes could only tell a different between 60Hz and 120hz, but higher than that is placebo effect, unless you are the gamer who liked to display epeen counter on right of left corner.
Locked frame rate is from game engine itself, not from hardware limitations. Input lag is different story, it mainly because of monitor (input class divided between classes), and again not because of CPU hogging you down 



dirtyferret said:


> The majority of people still game at 1080p with a 60 refresh rate.  I post on some game sites in their hardware sections and for every person looking to do a build to run the game at max levels there is a person posting trying to get the game to work at the lowest levels. It's easy to look at our builds on the forum and think everyone has something similar but we are the enthusiasts of the PC world not the norm.



That's my whole point.
If you game at 1080p 60hz, would it be wise to invest more than $200 CPU? Let alone recommended it. Once resolution up and demand for higher refresh rate kick in, that your GPU start working.



Chrispy_ said:


> It's not any more important than non-gaming, it's just a topic of contention because Intel have been losing to AMD so catastrophically in every other metric for the last few years that "gaming" is all they have left and they're constantly banging that drum with FUD and distraction tactics. Their PR department is running in overdrive, sponsoring videos, branding products, and focusing on Intel's gaming prowess over AMD.
> 
> That tiny, insignificant Intel advantage right here:
> View attachment 182049
> ...



Sadly, those price to performance king is now lost, AMD is for rich people and Intel for the poor 
Cheapest i3 10100 can be had for $125, while Ryzen 3 3100 is now blatantly $185, almost twice initial price. AMD year old APU doesn't fare better, 3200G chugging $195. If this trend continues, Intel doesn't have to compete AMD in performance or core count, just release mediocre CPU at reasonable price


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 3, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> The problem you're going to have with a lot of that is twofold.
> 
> Prior to Zen 3, Comet Lake was by far the best gaming chip.  The review sites that constantly said 'go ahead and get AMD' for a gaming system 'because it doesn't make any difference' were dead wrong.
> 
> ...


You appear to be trying to counter an argument I didn't make that "Zen is the better gaming CPU". *It isn't, period. *No need to mansplain it to me.

At no point would I have tried to claim Zen2 is faster for gaming because there's no reasonable evidence _anywhere_ to suggest that. When I said:


Chrispy_ said:


> There's no argument in games, Zen 2 closed the gaming gap to intel but only fanboys are going to tell you Zen2 was better. Reviews paint Zen 2 as closer to Coffee Lake for gaming.


I don't know how I can put it more clearly. That's _literally_ three consecutive statements that Zen2 wasn't as good as Intel 10th Gen for gaming directly from me.

My point was that Zen was _fast enough_ that in _most scenarios_ it didn't matter. If you want to run twitch shooters at low res and 200+fps then 5GHz Intel was always the best option but I'd also avoid calling Zen2 a "horrific choice" as you did. In 2019 and most of 2020, a AMD CPU that provides 90% of the gaming performance for 90% of the price and much lower power consumption, was far from horrific. Right now, everything's irrelevant as supply of Zen2 stopped ages ago and Zen3 is almost unobtainable due to popularity and scalping. We'll have to wait several months for supply and demand to balance out and bring any semblance of order.

For now, 10th Gen Intel is still in stock. If you have to buy now, at possibly the worst possible time in the last two decades, then I guess that's what you're buying because that's all that's left anwhere close to MSRP. Intel are struggling with supply just as hard as AMD right now, but with Zen2 selling much higher volumes in the DIY channel throughout the last 18 months and Zen3 demand being stratospheric, you won't find either of them at sensible prices. The 10th Gen Intel didn't sell well at pre-Zen3/Ampere/RDNA2 launch, so inventory sat on shelves and filled warehouse - to our benefit right now because compared to scalper prices on AMD right now it's definitely the better choice.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 3, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> You appear to be trying to counter an argument I didn't make that "Zen is the better gaming CPU". *It isn't, period. *No need to mansplain it to me.


...


Chrispy_ said:


> My point was that Zen was _fast enough_ that in _most scenarios_ it didn't matter. If you want to run twitch shooters at low res and 200+fps then 5GHz Intel was always the best option but I'd also avoid calling Zen2 a "horrific choice" as you did.



You contradict yourself.    Zen 2 for a gamer who wants to keep their system for 3-5 years was and is a horrific choice.  Zen 2 is not _fast enough _when it loses _10%_ vs Comet Lake with a x070 card 6-12 months after it was purchased.  

The gamer that bought say a 10700K is still fine with these new GPUS, they are not much CPU limited on GPUs like the 3060 Ti, or even a 3070 or 3080.  Zen 2 users will lose around 8% FPS with a 3060 Ti, and up to 15%+ on higher end GPUs.  

I wouldn't consider that kind of loss due to CPU selection "fast enough".  That was my whole point.  

Now today, if it were widely available, Zen 3 would be the obvious choice (noting that it isn't widely available).  It clearly has at least a little headroom on GPUs, so will probably be ok for theoretical Nvidia 4XXX series in a couple of years.   Comet Lake seems tapped out on current high end GPUs like the 3080 and 3090, but is at least still in the running vs Zen 3 and even bests Zen 3 on about 1/3 of games.    

Zen 2 - bottom of the chart now.  When 4XXX series release, Zen 2 will likely drop off the chart just like Zen 1 and 1+ have.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 3, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> ...
> 
> 
> You contradict yourself.    Zen 2 for a gamer who wants to keep their system for 3-5 years was and is a horrific choice.  Zen 2 is not _fast enough _when it loses _10%_ vs Comet Lake with a x070 card 6-12 months after it was purchased.
> ...


Are you really arguing over a 10-15% FPS deficit? I bet if you took a Ryzen 9 3900X and a Core i9-10900K, paired both with an RTX 3080, put them side by side, and looked at game performance without an FPS counter on screen, no living being would notice the difference.

Edit: I recommend this video in the topic. First hand experience: I used a Ryzen 3 3100 with my RX 5700 XT while I was waiting for my 5950X to arrive. The Witcher 3 ran at 120 FPS. Now it runs at 140 FPS. Apart from the occasional frame dips with the 3100, I would never tell the difference.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 3, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Are you really arguing over a 10-15% FPS deficit? I bet if you took a Ryzen 9 3900X and a Core i9-10900K, paired both with an RTX 3080, put them side by side, and looked at game performance without an FPS counter on screen, no living being would notice the difference.
> 
> Edit: I recommend this video in the topic. First hand experience: I used a Ryzen 3 3100 with my RX 5700 XT while I was waiting for my 5950X to arrive. The Witcher 3 ran at 120 FPS. Now it runs at 140 FPS. Apart from the occasional frame dips with the 3100, I would never tell the difference.




I found some scaling benchmarks with a 3080.   The difference at 1080P between a 10900K and a 3900X with a 3080 is a whopping 20%.  That's huge, more than an graphics card tier.  In fact, the 9900K (similar to the 10700K) beats 3900X by 15%.  

And in answer to your question, hell to the freaking yes losing an entire tier or in some cases more than a tier of GPU performance due to bad CPU selection matters.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 3, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> You contradict yourself.    Zen 2 for a gamer who wants to keep their system for 3-5 years was and is a horrific choice.  Zen 2 is not _fast enough _when it loses _10%_ vs Comet Lake with a x070 card 6-12 months after it was purchased.


Jesus, how many times can I explain to you that I'm not talking about gaming. Stop trying to steer the argument towards gaming.

Gaming is GPU-limited and has been for a whole decade. *When it isn't GPU-limited, Zen 2 is worse for gaming than 9th Gen and 10th Gen. *We know already. _Everyone does._ There are thousands of reviews, comparisons, benchmarks, articles, proving as much over the course of the last 18 months. You're just adding noise to the thread.

_Edit:_




C'mon man, even though this is an argument that you can't win because everyone already agrees with the side you're taking, who's gonna buy a 3080 to run old games at 1080p medium? That's a 9 game average going back to 2013 titles ffs. 

If, in the future, a game comes along that is so CPU dependent that Zen2 owners are losing loads of performance even at settings and resolutions appropriate to their GPU - then they'll probably just accept that they didn't buy "the gaming CPU" and move on. It's pretty unlikely that will happen because it hasn't happened for the last 9 generations of CPU but hey, I'm not ruling it out....


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 3, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> I found some scaling benchmarks with a 3080.   The difference at 1080P between a 10900K and a 3900X with a 3080 is a whopping 20%.  That's huge, more than an graphics card tier.  In fact, the 9900K (similar to the 10700K) beats 3900X by 15%.
> 
> And in answer to your question, hell to the freaking yes losing an entire tier or in some cases more than a tier of GPU performance due to bad CPU selection matters.
> 
> View attachment 182292


I respect what you're saying, but I tend to disagree. I could never ever in my life notice any difference between a game running at 203 or 239 FPS without a counter on screen. 20% difference (especially in this class) is not gigantic by any means, GPU tier or not. Like I said, I need at least a 50% improvement to see a reason to upgrade.

With this in mind, the only item in this chart that warrants an upgrade is the i7-4770K (although a 141 FPS average still isn't too bad). Tossing a 3900X in the bin just to buy a 10900K is pure madness in my opinion.



Chrispy_ said:


> If, in the future, a game comes along that is so CPU dependent that Zen2 owners are losing loads of performance even at settings and resolutions appropriate to their GPU - then they'll probably just accept that they didn't buy "the gaming CPU" and move on. It's pretty unlikely that will happen because it hasn't happened for the last 9 generations of CPU but hey, I'm not ruling it out....


If a magically unoptimized game comes along that runs at 10 FPS on a 3900X, then it'll run at 12 FPS on a 10900K, because there's a huge 20% gap between them. That's the dividing line between unplayable and ... unplayable.


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Jan 4, 2021)

If Intel ever starts to use a 'current' node process it seems like they'll easily dominate the charts over AMD. The fact that they're able to still be competitive in anyway is impressive considering they're using ancient technology. Anyone disputing this is out of sheer bias in my opinion. However, I have built my last two machines using AMD 3600 processors because they're still the kings of the budget processor.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 4, 2021)

I would agree with @RandallFlagg that the 3900x isn't a great buy since it's sitting in the mid $500's, supply will never come back for the 3900x, and it isn't as well rounded for a gaming/mixed rig -- you can pick up a $400 -10850/ or a $380-$330 10700K + a $150 MSI z490 Pro A and run both at 5.0/5.1ghz without too much issue.

I doubt the supply issues are going to stabilize anytime soon (I hope I'm wrong). But even so -- when the supply does stabilize 5xxx series will be the best but expensive; so Intel's lava lakes will still be in that middle ground (esp with a modest OC) between zen 2 and zen 3 in terms of performance. Gaming wise there's very little difference between zen 3 and intel below 400fps and productivity-wise the 10850 stacks up nicely to the 5800x and the 10700k to the 5600x.

 The 5900x will be the flagship, but anyone who doesn't want to drop $550 on a CPU can be in the market for either 5800x/10850/5600x/10700 without any wrong choices there.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 4, 2021)

phanbuey said:


> I would agree with @RandallFlagg that the 3900x isn't a great buy since it's sitting in the mid $500's, supply will never come back for the 3900x, and it isn't as well rounded for a gaming/mixed rig -- you can pick up a $400 -10850/ or a $380-$330 10700K + *a $150 MSI z490 Pro A* and run both at 5.0/5.1ghz without too much issue.
> 
> I doubt the supply issues are going to stabilize anytime soon (I hope I'm wrong). But even so -- when the supply does stabilize 5xxx series will be the best but expensive; so Intel's lava lakes will still be in that middle ground (esp with a modest OC) between zen 2 and zen 3 in terms of performance. Gaming wise there's very little difference between zen 3 and intel below 400fps and productivity-wise the 10850 stacks up nicely to the 5800x and the 10700k to the 5600x.
> 
> The 5900x will be the flagship, but anyone who doesn't want to drop $550 on a CPU can be in the market for either 5800x/10850/5600x/10700 without any wrong choices there.


That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy *for gaming*. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 4, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy *for gaming*. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.



You don't need a Z490 except to run OC.  You can power unlock on a B460 or H470.

You don't need an expensive AIO unless you're going to OC and / or unlock power limits.  

So if we add in all the negative cost factors of getting a Z490, getting an AIO, add in the benefit - in that scenario the OC / Power unlocked 10700K actually ties it up with the 3900X in productivity :





Or you could just get a B460 and a 10700 non-K with an AIO, power unlock it, and be within 8% on productivity apps and a decisive win in gaming.   

Or you could go purely stock with a stock cooler and win at gaming.  

But if you go and get all those things you're talking about as being _*needed *_then I have to assume you're going to be power unlocking and potentially overclocking since all that extra expense is there.  

In that scenario the best Zen 2 can muster is equal performance for lower power.  Most of the time it's going to lose - even in productivity.  

But if you're talking stock vs stock, then sure Zen 2 wins in productivity.   

But if that is the comparison, there's no need whatsoever for a Z490 nor an AIO.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 4, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy *for gaming*. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.



What you were saying was absolutely right about 2-3 months ago -- since then, the 3900x has risen in price to $500-550+ (almost full price of the Intel 10 core cpu + mobo combo) - and 3900x will likely not back down too soon since they're not focused on that production, especially since AMD is likely to introduce more 5 series in that space.

Right now it doesn't seem that AMD really has a chip between $550-$210 that's available / worth buying over the competition -- the 3600/XT rose in price along with other zen 2 parts to where it's same as a 10600K - (which the 10600K is a much better chip) -- the 3700x is sitting at $325-$350, which is the same price as a 10700 (a generally better overall chip which doesn't need a z490) -- it's really not until you get down to the 3600 non-x at $210 where AMD is very viable again - but that also faces some competition from the 10-series.

I don't think this changes much until the 5600, 5700x or 5900 (non-x, if that is even a thing), release and are available to buy in quantity (which they will sell out like hotcakes for the first few months even at $650 for the 5900 and $500 for the 5700x).


----------



## quakebox (Jan 4, 2021)

Mild single core gain and massive multicore lack I go with 5950x it's the best processor so far also it uses way much less power than 14nm intel processors.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 4, 2021)

quakebox said:


> Mild single core gain and massive multicore lack I go with 5950x it's the best processor so far also it uses way much less power than 14nm intel processors.




Here ya go.  Enjoy!


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 4, 2021)

Th3pwn3r said:


> If Intel ever starts to use a 'current' node process it seems like they'll easily dominate the charts over AMD. The fact that they're able to still be competitive in anyway is impressive considering they're using ancient technology. Anyone disputing this is out of sheer bias in my opinion. However, I have built my last two machines using AMD 3600 processors because they're still the kings of the budget processor.


"Cove" architecture in Rocket Lake is turning out in laptops to be about a 13-14% IPC increase over the old Skylake architecture in Kaby/Coffee/Comet Lake CPUs.

That's a good thing that's long overdue, given how long desktop has been stuck with the old Skylake architecture, but you also have to remember that a new process probably isn't going to reach the clock speeds of 14nm+++ and it's such a mature, refined process that to reach the clocks and yields of 14+++ would probably take a good couple of years after the first successful desktop products on a new node.

The other thing to remember is that Intel's 14nm+++ really isn't that far behind TSMC's 7nm:









Intel's 10nm doesn't work because it's way too ambitious for current fab technology and trying to do far too much at once. Estimates put Intel's 10nm as similar gate density to TSMC's planned 5nm process. It's far denser than the 7nm and 8nm processes at TSMC and Samsung.


----------



## londiste (Jan 4, 2021)

@Chrispy_, Rocket Lake is on 14nm.

10nm was too ambitious for several years but today, when competitors are already there Intel is lagging behind. 10nm was designed to be slightly denser than TSMC's 7nm. Intel supposedly game back a good bit of that density for one reason and another to get working chips out. TSMC's 5nm is clearly ahead, Samsung's 5nm is closer and more competitive today than Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.


----------



## milewski1015 (Jan 4, 2021)

Patr!ck said:


> Be ready for the many Intel releases coming this year including their gaming GPUs.


I'll eat my hat if Intel can churn out a legitimately competitive dedicated GPU this year.



Patr!ck said:


> we'll see how long devs can keep justifying supporting a proprietary feature from a chip designer who doesn't have a full CPU + GPU ecosystem.


Since when does having to manufacture both CPUs and GPUs mean anything to developers?



Patr!ck said:


> Intel will sponsor the upcoming Hitman 3 and many other games


Just like when they sponsored Marvel's Avengers? How did that one turn out? Oh right...








						Marvel's Avengers Reportedly Lost 96% Of Players Since Launch
					

Marvel's Avengers is losing players fast.




					screenrant.com
				






RandallFlagg said:


> What's sad is most of them won't do CPU scaling tests, you have to look elsewhere. TPU did one a while back, 3900XT vs 9900K / 10900K with a 2080 Ti. Here's the 1080P results. This is a 10 - 12% difference in FPS average.


Sure that's all well and good, and as @Chrispy_ mentioned, I don't think anybody is arguing against Intel 10th gen beating out Zen 2 in gaming when it comes to raw numbers. But let's take a step back for a second -  aside from a professional esports gamer that wants the absolute maximum framerate at 1080p, I would argue that anybody in their right mind that's ponying up $1100+ for a 2080Ti and another $400+ for a 3900X/10900K is playing on 1440p at minimum. 



RandallFlagg said:


> Prior to Zen 3, Comet Lake was by far the best gaming chip. The review sites that constantly said 'go ahead and get AMD' for a gaming system 'because it doesn't make any difference' were dead wrong.


Reviewers recommended AMD for gaming systems because they were more versatile chips and offered consumers more value for their money. I recall many of them specifying that Intel was still the way to go for a strictly gaming build if you wanted, no, needed to chase that maximum framerate dragon. But for the budget-minded consumer, AMD offered very compelling chips - yes, they did perform slightly worse in games, but they traded that for generally better productivity performance, as well as overclocking all throughout the product stack that wasn't locked behind a higher-end chipset or K-series CPU.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 4, 2021)

londiste said:


> @Chrispy_, Rocket Lake is on 14nm.
> 
> 10nm was too ambitious for several years but today, when competitors are already there Intel is lagging behind. 10nm was designed to be slightly denser than TSMC's 7nm. Intel supposedly game back a good bit of that density for one reason and another to get working chips out. TSMC's 5nm is clearly ahead, Samsung's 5nm is closer and more competitive today than Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.



Take care when using those nanometer numbers when comparing between different foundries, they are meaningless.

Samsung's 5nm is reportedly 127MT/mm2. 
Intel 10nm and TSMC 7nm are both around 100MT/mm2 (originally Intel was shooting for around 130MT/mm2).
TSMC 5nm is 170ish MT/mm2
Intel's 7nm is estimated to be between 200 and 250 MT/mm2 - better than TSMC 5nm (we'll see). 
Samsung 8nm, which Nvidia is using, is estimated around 60MT/mm2
TSMCs 12nm node is around 28MT/mm2
GloFlo 12nm node is around 37 MT/mm2
Intel's 14nm node is around 38 MT/mm2

Also what the density itself represents varies.  Intel uses a flip flop and a logic gate.  I'm pretty sure Samsung is talking about SRAM, and SRAM is smaller than logic gates.

If we just go by the stated density, Samsung's 5nm is expected to be just a little bit better than Intel 10nm / TSMC 7nm, usually the type of thing that would rank a "+" or some such.  

And Samsung's 8nm is really a node improvement over their 10nm - which itself is rated around 51MT/mm2 or about half of Intel's 10nm.


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Jan 4, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. *On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range*. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy *for gaming*. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.



The exact same boards (Z490 A-Pro and B550 A-Pro from MSI) are within $20 of each other.

This is one of the 'choose AMD' talking points that simply isn't true.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 5, 2021)

weekendgeek said:


> The exact same boards (Z490 A-Pro and B550 A-Pro from MSI) are within $20 of each other.
> 
> This is one of the 'choose AMD' talking points that simply isn't true.


Well, that is true. I admit, I looked at ASUS boards to compare, where there actually is a $50 difference between Z490 and B550 models. I recently had to RMA two MSI boards because neither the original, nor the replacement would post with hardware that works fine in other systems ("Home Theatre 2" in my signature).


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 5, 2021)

milewski1015 said:


> I'll eat my hat if Intel can churn out a legitimately competitive dedicated GPU this year.



Look at NewEgg in the image below, Nvidia 16XX series, sorted lowest cost, any vendor - DG1 and DG2 will be a welcome addition in this environment.  

They knew what they were doing when they decided to start making those cards at this point in time.


----------



## Cybrshrk (Jan 5, 2021)

Am* said:


> Never going to happen. The fact that Intel are pushing this as the replacement SKU for their 10-core part proves how truly delusional they really are. Their bean-counter CEOs last interview that I saw talked about growing margins on these dinosaur trash-tier products -- that's just how dumb he is. At least when AMD struggled against Intel, they were competing on price super-aggressively and not penny-pinching the few potential customers they had left -- at this point, Intel might as well not bother releasing this trash. Give it to the OEMs to flog this dead horse of a product, because nobody with a brain in the enthusiast market is going to buy it -- not even compared to their current offering, which is going to fall even further in price.



You mean current offerings that no one can buy? At least with Intel it's older arch means much better availability. I was actually able to buy a 10900k without issue at launch something thats still not possible for most with the ryzen 3 chips people actually want.



yukinin97 said:


> This almost reads like a satirical comment. Imagine shilling so hard for any single corporation, none of which give a single F about you... how do you personally benefit from doing that? Most of us are just enjoying the increased competition but you're out here propping up Intel like your life depends on it lol. I never realized how bad the fanboyism I kept hearing about was until I came into this forum. Yikes.
> 
> And when was the last time that AMD was relevant to you? Their marketshare has doubled YoY while Intel's has decreased by 20%... Lastly, Zen 4's release date on AMD's own CPU roadmap was slated for late 2022 LONG before we saw announcements of Apple securing 80% of TSMC's 5nm production capacity. Intel doesn't need to worry about that since they're still stuck with their 14nm++++++++++++++.



To be fair he's NOT not right about their being ALOT of salty amd fans in these comment sections..... Articles like this get 10x the posts most offering nothing of use and only trying to make jokes on the Intel side because they are annoyed / scared of their egos defeat being a possibility. 

To me the real sign of cinfidence in your choice you "know" to be superior is to not feel the need to defend it on every post that might challenge it. 

Anyone who thought AMD taking the top performance crown would be anything but a momentary reversals hasn't been paying attention yes Intel is reaching the end of what this arch can provide but it STILL has provided uplifts everytime (something that kept them always in front of amd before). 

It's great that amd actually came to compete this time but to be clear they caught up and did a typical "trading blows" type of win and knowing Intel had a planned upgrade to that existing part coming just several weeks later you'd have to very dim to not assume they "trade blows" the other way very quickly. 

Hopefully what we see is both trading this title back and forth for the majority of the future leading to all of us consistently getting much better bang for our buck whenever we decide to upgrade. The fanboys really need to calm down they act like they WANT Intel to fail as of that is going to make AMD start giving out even more power for free or something... Lol 

And as far as my self I'll always go with what provides the best performance around (but within the "reasonable" top tier stuff and bang for buck) 

For years that's been Intel and with Intel chips typically holding their value much better in the second hand market I've stuck with them (sold 7700k last may for $300 meanwhile my buddy's 1800x from the same time in 2017 only sold for $175)

So I have Intel still and will likley sell this chip (10900k) for the new one if it really increases the gaming performance significantly (its all I really care about). 

Next upgrade will be a mother fresh start and if the second hand resale market looks better I may switch sides but in 2017 I made the right choice going 7700k and I think for my upgrade in May 2020 the 10900k was still my best bet (waiting much longer would have seen my 7700k value drop very fast with 3300x dropping) and with Intel chips still holding their value incredibly well the upgrade to 11 series likely won't cost me much at all. 

I'm happy to reccomened amd when it makes the most sense and it does for many but for me and my timing needs it didn't this past year.... Maybe next time.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Jan 5, 2021)

londiste said:


> @Chrispy_, Rocket Lake is on 14nm.
> 
> 10nm was too ambitious for several years but today, when competitors are already there Intel is lagging behind. 10nm was designed to be slightly denser than TSMC's 7nm. Intel supposedly game back a good bit of that density for one reason and another to get working chips out. TSMC's 5nm is clearly ahead, Samsung's 5nm is closer and more competitive today than Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.


Yes, I was replying to this post which was theorising about _if _Intel ever used a current process for desktop.

At the moment, 10nm is still really _really_ broken. Intel's putting on a brave face and pretending (for the sake of its share value) that 10nm is 'much better now' with Tiger Lake laptops joining the fray, but yields are still poor, clocks scaling is too poor, quad cores are the biggest chips they can successfully produce, and their attempts to make 8-core SKUs on 10nm++ isn't going well. Feb 2020 has been pushed back twice, we're now told TGL-H series are Q1-2021 and if we don't start seeing ES sample leaks soon, followed by QS samples in March/April then you know that the Q1-2021 promise is going to be broken too.

If Intel had _any confidence at all_ in their 10nm++ process, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions of dollars backporting Rocket lake to 14nm+++. Low-end Tiger lake at least makes sense for laptops because even with terrible yields and production problems, having a shipping product on 10nm++ gives investors a reason to stick with Intel.



londiste said:


> Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.


Yeah, news about Intel 7nm is just tumbleweed at the moment. I really hope they're being less ambitious and just get a half-decent process out so that they can lay 14nm+++ to rest (or at least free up 14nm capacity to make ultra-cheap Celeron/Pentium Silver CPUs, Chipsets, and less density-critical products like ethernet and wifi controllers)


----------



## milewski1015 (Jan 5, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Look at NewEgg in the image below, Nvidia 16XX series, sorted lowest cost, any vendor - DG1 and DG2 will be a welcome addition in this environment.
> 
> They knew what they were doing when they decided to start making those cards at this point in time.
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong, they'd be welcomed with open arms - a third competitor in the GPU space would hopefully shake the game up enough so that it's not what it is now. Maybe I don't have all the information (will have to do some Intel dGPU reading), but the last I heard (aside from the article this morning talking about DG2 with 8GB DDR6) was that their dGPU performed similarly to Vega 8/11. 

I should probably refine my statement a little. I could see Intel releasing a "capable" 1080p dGPU sometime this year. But they aren't going to be able to compete at the mid-range/high-end obviously. I predict something in the ballpark of 1660 performance. I'm afraid they're going to have to try and compete on price though, and we've seen how much Intel loves to do that /s. With the lower-end of Nvidia's Ampere line rumored to be DLSS-capable, that makes it harder for Intel to compete on the performance side of things. That said, if they can just be available, that'll be most competitive of all.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 5, 2021)

milewski1015 said:


> Don't get me wrong, they'd be welcomed with open arms - a third competitor in the GPU space would hopefully shake the game up enough so that it's not what it is now. Maybe I don't have all the information (will have to do some Intel dGPU reading), but the last I heard (aside from the article this morning talking about DG2 with 8GB DDR6) was that their dGPU performed similarly to Vega 8/11.
> 
> I should probably refine my statement a little. I could see Intel releasing a "capable" 1080p dGPU sometime this year. But they aren't going to be able to compete at the mid-range/high-end obviously. I predict something in the ballpark of 1660 performance. I'm afraid they're going to have to try and compete on price though, and we've seen how much Intel loves to do that /s. With the lower-end of Nvidia's Ampere line rumored to be DLSS-capable, that makes it harder for Intel to compete on the performance side of things. That said, if they can just be available, that'll be most competitive of all.




On Intel GPUs - just depends on what we call mid range or high end I think. 

I would be very unlikely to buy an Intel dGPU this year because as stated, they probably won't be high end enough for me (RTX 2060).  

But I get the impression that normal joes are scrambling for scraps, it's a world where an RX 570 commands $200 and a 1650 is north of $250.   Many people will give up on desktops because of this, and some will give up on PC gaming entirely.  With the price of these desktop GPUs right now, anyone buying a whole new rig would be well advised to get a laptop instead.  It's actually cheaper than trying to get a desktop with a decent GPU.

So the DG1 is unabashedly low end (RX 550 / MX330 level), but the DG2 looks to be  at least 4x faster which would put it into the 1650 Super range.  It may even rank up with a 1660 given that we have only seen early samples.  

And if Intel sells enough of them, maybe they will make a new fab just for GPUs.   Like the CPU market, if you need something Intel has it.  That supply is invaluable even if you are an AMD acolyte.  Imagine what a CPU, of any brand, would cost if Intel decided to shutter half its fabs.  $5000 Zen 3 anyone?


----------



## milewski1015 (Jan 5, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> On Intel GPUs - just depends on what we call mid range or high end I think.
> 
> I would be very unlikely to buy an Intel dGPU this year because as stated, they probably won't be high end enough for me (RTX 2060).


For sure. Those terms are very subjective and dependent on perspective. I'm not in the market (my 5700XT is still doing just fine, although raytracing and DLSS are tempting), but even if I was I wouldn't spring for an Intel dGPU - don't want to be an early adopter for such a new product that will likely significantly improve year over year.



RandallFlagg said:


> But I get the impression that normal joes are scrambling for scraps, it's a world where an RX 570 commands $200 and a 1650 is north of $250. Many people will give up on desktops because of this, and some will give up on PC gaming entirely. With the price of these desktop GPUs right now, anyone buying a whole new rig would be well advised to get a laptop instead. It's actually cheaper than trying to get a desktop with a decent GPU.


Agreed. If the new console availability wasn't also awful, they wouldn't be a bad option either if all you're looking to do is game. Obviously that's not PC gaming, but it's hard to beat the experience they can offer for the price (MSRP that is). My buddy (that I tried to get to build a gaming rig probably about a year ago) just mentioned to me the other day he wouldn't mind having a PC to run a few games. Wants to hook it up to his 4K TV. I asked what his budget was and he hit me with $500 lol. Even if prices and availability weren't insane right now there's no way $500 gets you a 4K gaming rig. He said he could bump up to $1000, but even then it'd be hard.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 6, 2021)

Something perhaps humorous to the earlier topic.

I've given up on conventional methods of finding one of the new GPUs, so I've installed a scraper and run it to see when cards are in stock.  I'm running two sessions, each one hits two differrent stores.  

So those things put a hefty load on my PC and it's pretty sustained.  

So a funny thought crossed my mind that maybe I should get a new CPU, so I can run more bots, so I can find a GPU.

Sign of the times maybe.


----------



## kane nas (Jan 7, 2021)

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X @ 4723.9 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
					

[hy0xtz] Validated Dump by DESKTOP-A6JKAIO (2021-01-05 21:58:51) - MB: Asus ROG STRIX X570-F GAMING - RAM: 32768 MB




					valid.x86.fr


----------



## Toretobcn (Jan 12, 2021)

What a shame, I could not reach it, I have the 10900k at 55/54 and I do 665 points in cpuz!

The monocore performance of IPC is much better!


----------



## Adam Krazispeed (Jan 17, 2021)

AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> Mark my words, Zen3+/XT series release will come soon after Intel's release to take the single thread crown back... Might even be on the 7nm EUV improved node


Zen3 & RDNA2 Waz also supposed to be on 7nm+ W/ EUV?? Well AMD didn't use 7nm  w/EUV  (BASTERDS)  So why do you think Zen3+ / XT CPUs will be. Yeah id love to see that but i doubt it and we wont be able to buy em anyway


----------



## jared889 (Sep 28, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> and security issues no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, my 5600x draws 84 watts when gaming... and maxes out all games to be gpu bound... so yeah 7nm is king




yeh show us a real life security breach using intel,


----------

