InVasManiIntel has a larger R&D budget, but also a broader more diverse selection of IP under it's belt. AMD is the underdog and at a disadvantage and can still beat Intel regardless, but doing that consistently is no easy feat and odds are more favorable that they don't do so given the former. That is the root of the problem and part of where IP falls short and can cause anti competitive monopoly advantages over others trying to compete. How can you compete on a even footing with a smaller budget and less diverse IP portfolio that is only going to continue to become exaggerated the longer the competition dominates over you at the same time!? What do you do if the IP that you need to better compete is already patented and the very IP you need to compete at the same time? How is that not a monopoly in effect?

Lisa Su is not worried about this, AMD is now marching to their own Drum of Keep on Moving Upward and Forward.

eidairaman1Lisa Su is not worried about this, AMD is now marching to their own Drum of Keep on Moving Upward and Forward.

People forget that Intel still pays on X86-64 (AMD64). Also AMD is in consoles on both cpu and gpu...

I thought Zen 3+ was scrapped?? It could still be competitive with ADL and maybe a gem in certain scenarios as it offers something unique akin to the 5775c with the stacked cache.

Early DDR5 adapter tax is rumored to be steep and AMD could really drop the hammer if they released an AM4+ socket that runs tri or dual channel while still being backwards compatible.

I noticed Intel has a 2+8 SKU for mobile alderlake which got me thinking it could be used for a modern take on the Pentium Gold unlocked chip as a budget gaming chip. You could overclock either chip die and it would provide a nice entry chip that could be latter upgraded towards something like 12900K down the road or newer generation of big LITTLE of chips if the extend the socket lifecycle. I like the idea of a unlocked 2+8 SKU where you can push either chip die aggressively. It actually seems like Intel might've had ample space room to do a 2+16 chip if they had wanted.

I really like the idea of a affordable and very asynchronous unlocked big LITTLE arrangement though where each could be adjusted and pushed heavily for a particular use case. It seems like it could offer a lot of value on a tight budget while also being quite efficient. You could get desired result without a lot of excess energy waste in many instances.

I look forward to more in depth analysis of big LITTLE approach because It'll defiantly continue to be used in the future even if it isn't perfect or ideal because there are still clear benefits to be had with it. Figuring out the best area's of improvement is what is needed for it's next generation of big LITTLE chips.

NihilusI thought Zen 3+ was scrapped?? It could still be competitive with ADL and maybe a gem in certain scenarios as it offers something unique akin to the 5775c with the stacked cache.

Early DDR5 adapter tax is rumored to be steep and AMD could really drop the hammer if they released an AM4+ socket that runs tri or dual channel while still being backwards compatible.

AMD just needs to play it's ace card...

Quad channel
3D stacked memory
8C APU comparable to 5800G
RDNA2 based
Full TR PCIE 4.0 connectivity

Now if only that was the reason behind the delay...it would be worth the wait at long last.

How is this the next price/performance king when you have to factor in a new motherboard into the cost.
At least AMD allow people to upgrade to a 5600x on their current board

According to other news, DDR5 will be expensive at start and for a while, if they don't release DDR4 mainboards for them, then the system as whole will be pricier with Intel than as with AMD. I like cheap(ish) systems with best P/P ratio.

defaultluserWhen, in 2024?

It's already been delayed a year now (if you think it will be out before 2024, I have bridge to sell you!)!

www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/intel-to-take-on-nvidia-amd-with-gaming-gpus-in-2022

I want that bridge, to cross my new Alder Lake! :wtf:

But no, 2024 seems a stretch tbh. 2022H2, sure. The marketing also doesn't align with 2024 - they're speeding up as it is right now, probably working towards an announcement for a product announcement (as these things go nowadays...) to be released somewhere in the next 6 months. So yeah that's easily a year away, but if they take much longer, they've lost that momentum.

No surprise here really, we all new Intels P cores had better IPC then AMD's so this is basically a dir moment honestly, but! the other scores shown make me smile as I might go upset a few other people in other "leaked benchmarks" threads :D

Vayra86Wait, where did those 800 ST points go now all of a sudden?

:rolleyes::wtf::sleep:

over 5Ghz in 12900K => 800+ points. 4.4Ghz in 12400 => 650-700 points. Easy when you use your brain.

Unrelated to this, I hope now people understand that every competitor in this market is needed and good and stop hating on Intel, because now when AMD has got the top, they are starting to command big prices for their CPUs, as anyone would do, so I hope people have learned that AMD was selling those affordable puppies just because they were forced to do so.

yeeeemanover 5Ghz in 12900K => 800+ points. 4.4Ghz in 12400 => 650-700 points. Easy when you use your brain.

Consider the question behind that gap. TDP and the reason why a midrange part is capped like that, with such a big disparity to the higher parts.

We know historically Intel had trouble getting 10nm CPUs to higher frequencies. A way to get them there, is more power. We already have stacks where the 65W vs 95W CPUs exist, but we also know they can royally exceed that metric. It remains to be seen how artificial the segmentation here really is.

Why_MeI wonder how many builders purchase that cpu for it's onboard graphics when they can just spend a few more dollars on an 11500.

Try this with an AMD 5600x.

www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813144396
MSI MAG B560M BAZOOKA $139.99

or ...

www.newegg.com/gigabyte-b560m-aorus-pro/p/N82E16813145332
GIGABYTE AORUS B560M $139.99

www.calhountech.com/products/intel-cm8070804497016-intel-i5-11400f-4-4ghz-w-o-graphics.html
Intel Core i5-11400F $207.90

www.amazon.com/Gelid-Solutions-Black-CPU-Cooler/dp/B00BF3LF2I
Gelid Solutions Phantom Black CPU Cooler $39.99

www.amazon.com/TEAMGROUP-T-Force-Vulcan-3200MHz-Desktop/dp/B07T637L7T/
TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4 3200MHz 16GB Kit (2x8GB) CL16 $63.97

Total: $452

Reviews of that cpu w/benchmarks.

www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i5-11400f-processor-review,1.html

www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-11400f/

I can easily exceed that value.


See Ryzen 5 5600G @$239, which comes with 3x the igp performance of the full-fat Rocket Lake (Core i5 11500)!

www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600g-ryzen-5-5000-g-series/p/N82E16819113683?item=N82E16819113683&source=region&nm_mc=knc-googleadwords-pc&cm_mmc=knc-googleadwords-pc-_-pla-_-processors+-+desktops-_-N82E16819113683&gclid=Cj0KCQjw5JSLBhCxARIsAHgO2Scpo8o5u1x2qY7nb4aTMKd9TtxdlsLhQeiK4jwt39RFD-BRpBJH510aAg2SEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Comparably-specced motherboard:

www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-B550M-AORUS-PRO-Motherboard/dp/B089FWXH3S/ref=asc_df_B089FWXH3S/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=459410835726&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5066910152280075462&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9007849&hvtargid=pla-925433539094&psc=1

Because, if you have to pay at least $120 for a GT 1030 gddr5 to back that overpriced mess of a platform. Alder lake is expected to have the exact same castrated 32 EUs as Rocket Lake UHD 750!

Did I mention also that the stock cooler you get with Ryzen is good enough you don't have to spend the extra $40 on an overpriced Intel stock heat-sink replacement?

olymind1According to other news, DDR5 will be expensive at start and for a while, if they don't release DDR4 mainboards for them, then the system as whole will be pricier with Intel than as with AMD. I like cheap(ish) systems with best P/P ratio.

There are bound to be some boards with ddr4, just like there were Z170s with ddr3

HenrySomeoneThere are bound to be some boards with ddr4, just like there were Z170s with ddr3

Of course there will be - with the commensurate 7% performance loss

they are hyping this "empty benchmark win " because they know they have nothing else.

I suppose it's good that you've just outed yourself as a hopelessly deluded team red fanboy, so that the rest of us can now ignore you.

this new cpu from intel alder lake its very tempting, but i will stick with this new cpu from intel comet lake.....

Caring1How is this the next price/performance king when you have to factor in a new motherboard into the cost.
At least AMD allow people to upgrade to a 5600x on their current board

Well, in the first place you have to consider that most people don't upgrade every generation or two, simply because they don't need it, those are going to need to upgrade their motherboard (and possibly memory) anyway; in second lieu AMD isn't allowing people to upgrade from the B350/X370 platforms, even though AsRock has demonstrated that it's technically possible to run the 5000 series on those motherboards, a typical case going against your example is the B350/1600x owner who needs to exchange both motherboard and processor.

olymind1According to other news, DDR5 will be expensive at start and for a while, if they don't release DDR4 mainboards for them, then the system as whole will be pricier with Intel than as with AMD. I like cheap(ish) systems with best P/P ratio.

DDR4 motherboards have been already leaked.

ZoneDymoYou really think the performance leader should still sell at valuebrand prices? you think that is fair?

Yes, because large corporations are greedy soulless entities that don’t deserve sympathy. This “crisis” has shown how willing they are to fleece you at every turn

Vayra86Consider the question behind that gap. TDP and the reason why a midrange part is capped like that, with such a big disparity to the higher parts.

We know historically Intel had trouble getting 10nm CPUs to higher frequencies. A way to get them there, is more power. We already have stacks where the 65W vs 95W CPUs exist, but we also know they can royally exceed that metric. It remains to be seen how artificial the segmentation here really is.

This is valid for AMD also. Midrange parts, for example, non-X CPU have lower top clocks, cause...that is just a way to differentiate things.
Intel doesn't have any problem hitting anything. That is how semiconductors work, power scales exponentially with voltage and frequency.
AMD also has this issue, but less so, because they had an IPC advantage so they afforded to use lower top frequencies on their highest end CPUs, while staying in a decent power level.
Intel...is choosing this strategy to give you absolute top performance if you don't care about power and this is ABSOLUTELY FINE.

So AMD being very power efficient is thanks to 2 main things:
- 7nm TSMC is better than Intel 10nm;
- AMD clocks their top CPUs lower, hence they are in a better efficiency spot;

As a matter of fact, you can read the 10900 CPU review here on techpowerup. You'll see that, because it is not clocked as high as K parts, its efficiency is very similar to Zen 2 parts.

When it comes to technical side of things, given the same power limit and less cores hitting the same boost clocks on single-core and higher boost on multi-core should be the way to go. With power limit being the main limiter multi-core boosts do tend to be higher on SKUs with less cores but single-core boost is basically artificially limited. Lower TDP on lower core count SKUs is arguably also artificial limitation but there are benefits from having lower TDP parts.

Vayra86Consider the question behind that gap. TDP and the reason why a midrange part is capped like that, with such a big disparity to the higher parts.

We know historically Intel had trouble getting 10nm CPUs to higher frequencies. A way to get them there, is more power. We already have stacks where the 65W vs 95W CPUs exist, but we also know they can royally exceed that metric. It remains to be seen how artificial the segmentation here really is.

No wonder really i9 12900 is a ~257W part, so... :)