TurmaniaI remember the times when amd was ahead of Intel.especially 1 core 1 ghz days. Make no mistake those days AMD itself was charging premium. Neither companies are innocent. Competition is good for us consumers as they have to improve and make prices competitive.

TurmaniaNeither companies are innocent.

MetroidYes, same can be said for

medi01Neither person stealing bag of chips from a store, nor a pedophile are innocent, indeed.

SteevoIf true this may be AMD striking while the Intel is hotter and slower.

lynx29expected to ship late 2020 intel 7nm, and it will probably destroy AMD 7nm

JossSure, because AMD will sit still for the next two years :rolleyes:
Oh, and Intel is with a capital letter.

lynx29Steam states 96% of all Steam users still run on 1080p, I imagine the majority of those 96% are 144hz as well, even fi only 51%,

MetroidIf it was not for amd we would be with intel 14nm for decades or till something would come out and make something better, intel was not really trying it cause they were at the top of the food chain. Yes, same can be said for amd, if it was not for intel core 2 in 2006 then we would have been ***** too.

lynx29I'll wait on benchmarks. As it stands, intel is still unbeat for min fps by 10 frames across the board at any resolution for majority of games, which provides a smoother gaming experience. avg and max frames AMD does equal at 1440p and 4k, but Intel is still dominant at 1080p which Steam states 96% of all Steam users still run on 1080p, I imagine the majority of those 96% are 144hz as well, even fi only 51%, so a Intel system is still netting those users 20-30 more frames in games, which is indeed useful if you are rocking 144hz and you want AAA games to be smoother (which I do, I rock a 240hz 1080p and its lovely not having motion blur in my life)

EarthDogYou may want to look at the stats again.

60% of users are at 1080p. I would also bet good money says most refresh rate is 60hz. I'll bet 51% of users here, who many would argue are enthusiasts, dont use 144hz monitors. Sorry, on those points at least, you are wrong.

lynx29ntel 7nm is making faster progress than intel 10nml

Vya DomusLet me get this right, you believe 7nm is on track making better progress when they are still struggling to bring 10nm on the table ? Mind you they claim 7nm has double the density and all of this comes after they've just explained to everyone how they made the mistake to go for a overly aggressive node shrink with 10nm. An that was meant to arrive what , 3 years ago ? For a company with such expertise and resources to be so out of touch was a major red flag.

This does not bode well, they are in big trouble.

lynx29yep, intel 7nm is making faster progress than intel 10nm, expected to ship late 2020 intel 7nm, and it will probably destroy AMD 7nm, so AMD needs to get the sales as soon as possible to gain market share back.

www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-10nm-slowly-coming-in-20197nm-with-euv-is-on-track.html

Nasdaq IntelWell, 7 nanometers for us is a separate team and a largely separate effort. And we are quite pleased with our progress on 7, in fact very pleased with our progress on 7, and I think that we have taken a lot of lessons out of the 10-nanometer experience as we defined that and defined a different optimization point between transistor density, power and performance and schedule predictability.

So, we are going back to more like a 2x scaling factor when we get back to 7 and then really moving forward with that goal. So we are very, very focused on getting 7 out according to our original internal plans.
One thing I will say is that as you look at 7-nanometer, for us this is really now a point in time where we will get EUV back into the manufacturing matrix, and therefore, I think, that will give us a degree of back to the traditional Moore’s Law cadence that we were really talking about. 14 and 10 were really about double patterning and quad patterning in the absence of EUV.

TurmaniaI remember the times when amd was ahead of Intel.especially 1 core 1 ghz days. Make no mistake those days AMD itself was charging premium. Neither companies are innocent. Competition is good for us consumers as they have to improve and make prices competitive.

XzibitThere was no mention of date by Intel in the Nasdaq Investor call for 7nm nor that its making faster progress then 10nm.



Not sure how you came to that conclusion since the Guru3D link doesnt attribute dates to 7nm either.

Manu_PTThis!!! High refresh rate is the future. 240hz is the best gaming experience I ever had and ryzen is still not up to it.

Ryzen 7nm 4,6ghz will tho. And no more reasons to go intel.

lynx29yep, intel 7nm is making faster progress than intel 10nm, expected to ship late 2020 intel 7nm, and it will probably destroy AMD 7nm, so AMD needs to get the sales as soon as possible to gain market share back.

www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-10nm-slowly-coming-in-20197nm-with-euv-is-on-track.html

maze100by that time AMD will be on Zen 3/4 with perfected Chiplet design and 5nm EUV

Intel is in serious problem, from what we know their 10nm uarch is still monolithic, and by the time intel launches first 10nm product AMD will move to Zen 3/2+ with 7nm+ EUV (second gen 7nm)

so if intel with late 2020 product can only beat AMD early 2019 product, its nothing to be happy about

lynx29I'm buying whatever chip has best min and max FPS for games across the board at all resolutions. so far that is Intel, AMD still has a ways to go.

Also, I overclocked samsung b-die on 8700k to CAS 13-14-14 3200, AMD can barely keepy 3200 CAS 14 stable, and I know several people who couldn't even use XMP on ryzen and paid for 3200 CAS 14 ram only to have to run it at 2933 cas 14. I think DDR5 ram and infinity fabric is when AMD will dominate, but we will see, long time away. hopefully in the Spring AMD finally can win me over and be number 1 in the benchmarks at 1080p 240hz, I am a little impressed by 2700x, but overall would still buy a 9600k right now if I were in the market for a new chip. in some games the min fps is 15-20 fps better than ryzen, and that is a huge different at 1440p when every frame matters for smoothness on drops

TurmaniaI remember the times when amd was ahead of Intel.especially 1 core 1 ghz days. Make no mistake those days AMD itself was charging premium. Neither companies are innocent. Competition is good for us consumers as they have to improve and make prices competitive.

EatingDirtOf course Intel is faster than AMD currently(10%ish IPC advantage, massive clockspeed advantage & latency advantage), but this article isn't about 2700x's, it's about 3700x's. If the rumors about clockspeed & IPC improvements are true, then intel's advantage in frame rate may disappear completely. Rumors are just rumors however, we'll see when they release the products next year.

As for the difference between Intel & Ryzen currently @1440p, it's little-to-nothing unless using a $1,200+ 2080 Ti, and occasionally the $700 2080(1080 Ti). Those GPU's are not main-stream products, and anything lesser than those @1440p get virtually identical FPS in most games, as the games become GPU bound.