AnarchoPrimitivIs it ever valid to engage in the logical fallacy of whataboutism? Somebody else's behavior is never a defense for your own.

On another note, it IS worth pointing out that this Alder lake chip is being compared to 2.5 year old technology because ANY comparison should be given proper context.... It's like how I point out that Intel has an R&D budget 650% greater than AMD's and an annual revenue 800% greater than AMD's to demonstrate how when taken in context, Alder lake's average performance gain over a 1.5 year old Zen 3 architecture is not that impressive considering Intel literally has a magnitude greater amount of financial resources to invest and financial reality is the primary factor in determining these outcomes. It makes it all that more impressive what AMD has accomplished considering their shoestring budget by comparison. I challenge anyone to find another example from any other industry where a company the size of AMD with it's small amount of financial resources compared to Intel, has been able to beat a competitor the size of Intel for several years and still manages to stay competitive with 1.5 year old products despite the completely uneven playing field.

I dont think it matters to how old tech it is being compared to but rather the comparison is to a product from the same segment or equivalent in some way. Just because AMD has not released anything to tackle Intel, doesn't mean this comparison is pointless. If AMD releases new processor I'm sure it will be compared to Alder Lake as the fastest currently available from Intel's line of products. The race that these two companies have is a good thing. I like seeing new releases from both. There's a different story if they are worth any attention. Alder Lake is not a bad product and it is obvious Intel will compare it to 3300x because there is nothing else available from AMD but there will be something for sure.

Kartialso here is a funny note you guys ignores - R3 5300G, is WEAKER than R3 3300X - only benefit it has, is a iGPU... nothing else

It's Zen 3. The 3300X is Zen 2. The 5300G has less cache but is faster in workloads that don't need more than 8MB.

new architecture product beats old architecture product
THIS IS INSANE! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

KartiWow, the AMD schills are more and more showing how they ignore the facts....

Why i3-12100 is compared to R3 3300X? Maybe because this is still the best 4C/8T "budget" CPU that AMD ever released into the public - even when it was a paper launch that existed for like 3-4 months.
Why not R3 5300G? Well, because R3 3300X beats - to the pulp - 5300G.... only benefit of "latest R3" cpu, is that is has a iGPU - nothing else.

What Intel should compare their cpu against? When AMD literaly pisses on the low end / low budget community..
With your way of thinking, i5-12400/126000 ETC should not be compared to R5-5600X. Why? Because 5600X is already "a year old" - then blame AMD for pissing on their community, not Intel.

And here is small add from me.
Ironic how AMD schills claim that "These tests have no standing cuz the cpu is older" - yet, the same people, have no single issue when AMD is doing that...

IRONIC - right?

You're right in one way - it is the last 4c CPU AMD has released. But that doesn't change the fact that "new product is faster than old productc" in a rapidly developing product segment is... well, expected? I'd call that a minimum expectation.

reason why Intel is comparing against AMD's current offerings (and including their own 11th gen) is because AMD doesn't even have a competitor that's up-to-date or have anything close to the segment Intel is targeting at.

KartiWhen AMD literaly pisses on the low end / low budget community..

Sounds very 2007-esque and 2008-esque.

RJARRRPCGPSounds very 2007-esque and 2008-esque.

Sounds very corporation doing what corporations do too.

RJARRRPCGPSounds very 2007-esque and 2008-esque.

I remembered when AMD was headed for the toilet during the same period that AMD had the Athlon 64 FX60 and Athlon 64 FX62 and the first-gen Phenoms, which seemed to clock like you know what! Seemed to clock no better than a 90 nm from 2005, IIRC!

Very good placeholder chip to max out graphics card budget. Doesn't even need to beat Ryzen 3 in performance, the availability of budget processors by Intel is autowin given AMD's scarcity. AMD's lack of foundry capacity is really crimping their presence in this space, although I think they are more than happy to sacrifice the meager profits of this segment.

It's about time we got a good budget CPU. 4 alder lake cores are gonna be sweet for SFF budget builds.

SelayaAbout time we're getting a better quadcore.

The fucking irony.......

ratirtSure but these are not available and the 5600g is much faster with dGPU and iGPU nonetheless and obviously costs a bit more but you pay more and get more and these are available. It's not like you pay way more for an equivalent product in performance. It's just something to consider when aiming for a product of that sort.

And, again, the 5600g is in a completely different budget class.

If you can afford a 5600g, then why not get a 12400 which will beat the snot out of it? If you're looking at the budget for a core i3 then likely doubling your CPU cost isnt an option, making the 5600g a no go. When talking about the core i3, only the ryzen 3 line is comparable in price, and that is a segment that AMD has willingly abandoned for the last two years.

RJARRRPCGPI remembered when AMD was headed for the toilet during the same period that AMD had the Athlon 64 FX60 and Athlon 64 FX62 and the first-gen Phenoms, which seemed to clock like you know what! Seemed to clock no better than a 90 nm from 2005, IIRC!

Yes, 90nm clocked better then 65nm. The 6200+ and 6400+ black editions were 90nm because AMD couldnt get over 3 GHz stable on 65nm, which continued through the first phenoms.

No E-cores, so no DRM incompatibility nonsense or OS scheduling discrepancies, right?

TheinsanegamerNAnd, again, the 5600g is in a completely different budget class.

If you can afford a 5600g, then why not get a 12400 which will beat the snot out of it? If you're looking at the budget for a core i3 then likely doubling your CPU cost isnt an option, making the 5600g a no go. When talking about the core i3, only the ryzen 3 line is comparable in price, and that is a segment that AMD has willingly abandoned for the last two years.

True. if you can buy 5600g you can easily buy 12400. You just forget that AMD unlike Intel, has an upgrade path and newer processors work on older platforms. So you better put this in your calculation as well if you want to be precise. You are talking about 12400 brand new platform against 5600g just a CPU and you are good.
If AMD abandoned this segment as you say, maybe it's due to low demand or if they had to choose between high end desktops and low end, high end is more lucrative option for them which in business makes absolute sense. Besides, the demand is huge in all segments anyway and with shortages you need to make so cuts so which one you would choose if you had to do it. Ditch high end and go with the low end or entry PC?

Kartiwhy you want to compare a 4C/8T to 6C/12T?

Well, I thought that Intel "shills" battled for years to argue that more cores don't matter when all Intel had to offer is processors that were vastly outnumbered in terms of core counts.

Now it's suddenly important ?

Kartialso here is a funny note you guys ignores - R3 5300G, is WEAKER than R3 3300X - only benefit it has, is a iGPU... nothing else

Have you considered that those two processors are meant to cater to the needs of very different customers ? It's very obvious that the iGPU is the most important aspect to whoever buys a 5300G and the fact that a 3300X is faster is absolutely irrelevant because that's simply not what those people are after, they just want fast integrated graphics.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone than in the context of using a dedicated GPU a 5300G is not real choice to most people.

i dont understand this trend of comparing the shiny new generation with the ancient one, really dont get and everyone does with both intel and amd

ExcuseMeWtfNo E-cores, so no DRM incompatibility nonsense or OS scheduling discrepancies, right?

Probably. We'll have to wait for the review of the i5 12400 to find out, that will be the first non e core model available.

ratirtTrue. if you can buy 5600g you can easily buy 12400. You just forget that AMD unlike Intel, has an upgrade path and newer processors work on older platforms. So you better put this in your calculation as well if you want to be precise. You are talking about 12400 brand new platform against 5600g just a CPU and you are good.

I dont calculate CPU upgrades, because frankly CPUs are not something you should be switching out every year or two. A good CPU will last damn near a decade while still providing enough performance. If you play at 60 FPS, like most gamers do, then the i5s of the sandy/ivy era are just now getting to the point where they can no longer maintain 60 FPS for 1% lows even with an OC on them. If you're a more casual gamer or building a PC for mroe then just gaming, then the CPU tends to last even longer. By the time you want to upgrade, the platform has also evolved significantly.

Fans of AMD will point out upgradeability, I'll point out that the 8700k made available shortly after the ryzen 1000 launch is still competitive in games with the 5600x, 4 years later. If you bought into intel, there is no need to upgrade to more cores, you could if you wanted to, but frankly there's no need. By the time you have the money and want to upgrade, there will be a new generation of budget hardware with new features you might want, such as better RAM compatibility, faster PCIe, integrated wifi 6, whatever.

ratirtIf AMD abandoned this segment as you say, maybe it's due to low demand or if they had to choose between high end desktops and low end, high end is more lucrative option for them which in business makes absolute sense. Besides, the demand is huge in all segments anyway and with shortages you need to make so cuts so which one you would choose if you had to do it. Ditch high end and go with the low end or entry PC?

Low demand isnt how I would describe it, seeing as the ryzen 3300x sold out immediately and even the 3100 was hard to come by. People can blame the shortages, but intel during their "chip shortage" a few years back still launched and maintained a library of lower end models. They might not have had as much stock as would have been nice, but they didnt just ignore the market like AMD has been doing lately.

Shortage or no, you always address the higher margin stuff first, then move to lower offerings. What you dont do is completely ignore the market, as that allows your competitor to scoop up all those sales unopposed.

noel_fsi dont understand this trend of comparing the shiny new generation with the ancient one, really dont get and everyone does with both intel and amd

Huh? Are you suggesting that a new generation shouldnt be compared with what it is replacing? How would you know what the improvements were gen to gen then?

Its not just intel and amd. Every company, in EVERY market, does that. Because it makes sense. The 330x is not "ancient",, it was the last CPU AMD made in this segment. If it is too old to be compared to, then frankly that speaks wonder about how AMD has abandoned the market.

Lets see its price and the AMD competents when that comes to market. I hope we have real competition in the low-end CPU market once again.

I can't help but feel that in terms of Alder Lake's tech and silicon area, there should be more E-cores in their non-flagship parts. This week has been a whole bunch of Alder Lake news, none of which has E-cores anywhere.

For the masses, for general purpose comupting, E-cores are the way; Cost-effectiveness and efficiency are what matters for mainstream and low end - where are our small-die, cost-effective SKUs with emphasis on machines using an IGP rather than a dGPU? Intel's own deep-dive suggested they were going down this route for ultra-mobile anyway and it's hard to argue that the target audience for a desktop i3 wouldn't also be better served by a cheaper piece of silicon with 4 more threads and better graphics. It's clear from the diagram below that Intel wanted E-cores across the entire product stack - so where are they?!



Maybe I'm missing the point of lower-end machines but for lighter gaming, especially on the IGP, the E-cores are good enough by themselves. That "Ultra Mobile" part is around half the die area of the "Desktop" silicon and it's not like it won't still have fantastic single-threaded performance for typical consumer apps using the 2C/4T Golden Cove P-cores. I'd take a 2C/12T i3 with a better iGP over a 4C/8T part and a struggling IGP any day of the week for anything other than a rig intended for a (currently very expensive) dGPU.

Perhaps they're scared to enable the E-cores because 4 E-cores are vastly superior to one P-Core and enabling them on cheaper parts would cannibalise the hell out of their mainstream i5 parts with 0 E-cores?
Or perhaps their 10nm "7nm" process is still struggling hugely with defects and they're covering up that the yields with a working E-core block are abysmal.

Chrispy_Perhaps they're scared to enable the E-cores because 4 E-cores are vastly superior to one P-Core and enabling them on cheaper parts would cannibalise the hell out of their mainstream i5 parts with 0 E-cores?

From a recent findings from hardware unboxed, it is the other way around.
There are something seriously lacking / cut from the E-cores.
Depending on workloads,
Sometimes it matches skylake, but sometimes it performs as worse as the bulldozer
E-cores performance just isn't stable.
And switching between P and E cores is nightmare.

Since the 4 E-core cluster roughly the size of 1.5 P-cores
I would rather get 2 P-cores instead of 4 E-cores

TheinsanegamerNI dont calculate CPU upgrades, because frankly CPUs are not something you should be switching out every year or two. A good CPU will last damn near a decade while still providing enough performance. If you play at 60 FPS, like most gamers do, then the i5s of the sandy/ivy era are just now getting to the point where they can no longer maintain 60 FPS for 1% lows even with an OC on them. If you're a more casual gamer or building a PC for mroe then just gaming, then the CPU tends to last even longer. By the time you want to upgrade, the platform has also evolved significantly.

Fans of AMD will point out upgradeability, I'll point out that the 8700k made available shortly after the ryzen 1000 launch is still competitive in games with the 5600x, 4 years later. If you bought into intel, there is no need to upgrade to more cores, you could if you wanted to, but frankly there's no need. By the time you have the money and want to upgrade, there will be a new generation of budget hardware with new features you might want, such as better RAM compatibility, faster PCIe, integrated wifi 6, whatever.

I don't think you're properly considering the situation of people who benefit the most from being able to upgrade their CPU.

Of course you don't switch your CPU every year, but if your motherboard platform lasts 5 years you can start off with a low-end to midrange CPU and then upgrade to a much faster CPU 3-5 years later.

The 8700K really isn't competitive with the 5600X in games unless you're GPU limited. Even if it did match the 5600X, the 8700K was significantly more expensive, especially when considering platform costs.

High-end CPUs like the 8700K are for people who want the best they can get right now and are likely to upgrade to a new platform anyway once significantly faster CPUs are available. Long-lasting platforms are for people who want the best value rather than the best absolute performance and/or don't currently have the budget for a flagship CPU but are likely to in 3-5 years.

I bought my PC with a Ryzen 3 2300X and a second-hand graphics card a couple of years ago. The value and convenience of being able to swap to a 5600X when I upgrade my graphics card without having to replace my motherboard is an absolutely massive advantage AFAIC. I could have spent 3x as much on my motherboard, cooling, and CPU to get an 8700K if I wanted to, but there would have been no point because I'm bottlenecked by my GPU in all the games I play anyway. This way I spend about the same amount of money and end up with a better (faster, and more efficient) CPU in the end without losing out on any significant amount of performance.

Gamers who play at 60fps don't need a 6700K or a 5600X. They may be the majority of gamers, but they're surely not the majority of gamers who buy high-end CPUs (at least not if they have any sense). They don't need to upgrade as often, but in many situations swapping to a ~5-year-old high-end CPU on the same platform is much better value than buying a new motherboard and RAM and a more modern midrange CPU.

TheinsanegamerNYes, 90nm clocked better then 65nm. The 6200+ and 6400+ black editions were 90nm because AMD couldnt get over 3 GHz stable on 65nm, which continued through the first phenoms.

I had a 65nm Core 2 that can't do 3 Ghz stably, LOL.

ADL complete domination from top to bottom. Greedy AMD probably won’t even bother to give Zen3D for the entry and lowend market just like there’s no 5300x. They simply used their loyal fans as stepping stones and now pretend they don’t exist.

Lisa Su in 2018: *Parks her own Lexus* Hello my fans!

Lisa Su today: *Driver parks her Maybach* Who the hell are you? Get out of my property!

Intel really needs to put a better iGPU in some of these lower end parts.

If I did not have a dGPU already, and were trying to build a minimum-budget but functional desktop (<$500) that I could game with, I'd choose an APU.

This part becomes a winner the moment you decide to fork up for a dGPU, like a $800+ build where you're putting in a 1650 ($350) or higher. It's also a winner for PCs not meant specifically for gaming. So that does cover a lot of bases, just wish they'd make a lineup with the full Xe iGPU, it would compete better with the APUs.

The real question here is why AMD never released ryzen 3 with their 5xxxx generation. Is it because they wanted to maximise profits with targeting limited number of chips to higher price processors? But a budget oriented company that survived with selling 200 usd processors would not abondon their core base surely ? Or would they ?

dicktracyADL complete domination from top to bottom. Greedy AMD probably won’t even bother to give Zen3D for the entry and lowend market just like there’s no 5300x. They simply used their loyal fans as stepping stones and now pretend they don’t exist.

Lisa Su in 2018: *Parks her own Lexus* Hello my fans!

Lisa Su today: *Driver parks her Maybach* Who the hell are you? Get out of my property!

ADL domination. In what? Power consumption of the 12900K? Job "well" done in that case.
And im sure Intel is such a good caretaker for givin out food coupons for those who got screwed over by their constant dead ending of platforms and no upgrade path. Oh and Gelsinger problably take a bicycle to work every day too lol.

TurmaniaThe real question here is why AMD never released ryzen 3 with their 5xxxx generation. Is it because they wanted to maximise profits with targeting limited number of chips to higher price processors? But a budget oriented company that survived with selling 200 usd processors would not abondon their core base surely ? Or would they ?

I think AMD is focusing on higher margin products as much as possible with the fab allocation it has, without completely abdicating in any market.

It makes total sense from a business standpoint.