Intel 11th Gen H35 Processors Launched: Fastest Single-Threaded Laptop Performance

[medi01]

AMD pricing on their 5000 series Ryzen is pure BS, starting at 300$ for a 6 core, yet people not saying a thing and swallow it, if intel charged more

People who were fine with Intel charging $1000 for 8 cores, until AMD came and crushed that, are bitching about a company with 43% gross margin vs 60%+ at Intel is asking $300 for a CPU that is faster than last gen's 8 core.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

what do you think has been happening for ages
up and down the spectrum you get amd cards that crushed nvidea for price

Would you agree that Nvidia outrages pricing is ok just because for a long time AMD has not been competitive ?

 

[AusWolf]

Yep exactly. In fact, Intel's latest here is still worse than AMD's mobile 4000-series as Intel's cherry-picked leads in single core are almost margin of error slim but they lose badly in multi-core, power draw/efficiency and price as still too many vendors have the inferior Intel specced variant as the higher priced models.

It should not matter as long as it says 'Special Edition' somewhere on the box.

 

[Valantar]

anti-capitalist crony corporation that literally paid Dell a billion each quarter to not buy AMD products so they could create a monopoly and keep prices artificially inflated?

Sorry to say this, but what you are describing there is pure-bred capitalism. Doing anything and everything in your power to get the upper hand in competition is a core tenet of capitalism, and only market regulations can counteract this. After all, there is an ideological impetus in capitalism to maximize profits, to which fair competition is harmful. Cheating and "unfair competition" is thus a built-in feature of the system, not a bug.

 

[sergionography]

Wait but they are comparing to 4800 which is last gen zen2. Didn't AMD announce the 5000 series mobile zen 3?

 

[daehxxiD]

Even presuming that they're faster why on Earth would I want to buy a product from an anti-capitalist crony corporation that literally paid Dell a billion each quarter to not buy AMD products so they could create a monopoly and keep prices artificially inflated?

Wait, how is that anti-capitalist?

 

[Valantar]

"Measurements are estimated" ? lol? either they are measurements or they are estimates. I wonder how this passed through Intel Legal

This is SPEC, not Intel. SPEC's licence requires all measurements to be listed as estimates unless the data is verified by SPEC.

To quote Anandtech from their use of SPEC's benchmarks:

To note, the requirements for the SPEC licence state that any benchmark results from SPEC have to be labelled ‘estimated’ until they are verified on the SPEC website as a meaningful representation of the expected performance. This is most often done by the big companies and OEMs to showcase performance to customers, however is quite over the top for what we do as reviewers.

Edit: I have no idea why they felt the need to include that on the gaming tests too, though. That's ... weird. Unless SPEC has suddenly launched a gaming benchmark suite? Probably someone in marketing thought it was weird that they had to say that on one slide and not the other.

Also, guess I should mention some of the others here who don't seem to know this. @chris.london @KarymidoN @Chrispy_

Way to go Intel, comparing last gen AMD 4900 series to you latest and greatest! Put that hot (pun fully intended) new chip against a new AMD 5000 series and those wins will be margin of error wins or lose to your competitor...

I mean, I'm as dubious of these claims as the next person, but come on ... how are they supposed to benchmark against a product series that isn't available yet? Do you think Intel can just call up AMD and ask "Hey, you know those new products you're about to launch, could you send us over a few so we can use them as bad examples in our marketing?" Yeah, I don't quite think so. They have to wait for at least distributors to get a hold of actual retail products.

 

[JAB Creations]

Wait, how is that anti-capitalist?

Cornering the market or creating monopolies drives up prices artificially. Capitalism requires checks and balances to prevent unethical behavior. A free market with basic non-intrusive regulation that isn't overreaching or passive creates more wealth while a limited and artificially manipulated market concentrates wealth. Intel literally paid Dell a billion dollars per quarter to not use AMD products in order to monopolize the market, that is as pro-crony and anti-capitalist as it gets short of outright corporate warfare.

 

[Valantar]

Cornering the market or creating monopolies drives up prices artificially. Capitalism requires checks and balances to prevent unethical behavior. A free market with basic non-intrusive regulation that isn't overreaching or passive creates more wealth while a limited and artificially manipulated market concentrates wealth. Intel literally paid Dell a billion dollars per quarter to not use AMD products in order to monopolize the market, that is as pro-crony and anti-capitalist as it gets short of outright corporate warfare.

That's mostly true, but by that definition, nothing even remotely resembling a free market has existed since the Reagan administration (and arguably not since pre-Nixon). So it's kind of pointless to point out examples of that when that is the foundation of the global system of trade. Deregulation and transferring power to those with wealth has been the name of the game since the thinking of Milton Friedman and his peers came into prominence in the 1950s and 60s, after all. There's a reason the current state of global finance is often called late-stage capitalism - it's at a point where the systems are so fundamentally perforated by loopholes that it's a free-for-all, at which point capitalism essentially starts to devour itself through mergers, acquisitions, hostile takeovers etc. After all, from a purely "economics of profit" point of view - which is the dominant ideology of all global capitalism today - competition is harmful as it inherently inhibits the ability to extract profits from labor. And suddenly the inherent lie (or should we say fundamental impossibility?) of "free markets" becomes oh so very visible.

 

[Deleted member 205776]

unethical behavior

Capitalism by itself is unethical.

 

[JAB Creations]

Capitalism by itself is unethical.

Then...

• Techpowerup is unethical because it depends on...
• Computer news which is unethical because it depends on...
• Computer hardware which is unethical because it depends on...
• Capitalist demand for computer hardware which is unethical because it depends on...
• People not sitting around wanting to live off of the government.

Ask this question to yourself: "Am I a productive member of society or am I being used to create conflict by corrupt elements of society via divide-and-conquer tactics?"

 

[Valantar]

People not sitting around wanting to live off of the government.

If you think anything other than capitalism equates to this, then that is where the fundamental flaw in your logic comes from. Capitalism is in no way equal to productivity, nor human enterprise in all its various forms. Given the use of this type of extremely simplistic logic and false equivalencies, I would suggest you direct that last question at yourself, and stop equating criticism as "divide-and-conquer tactics". I mean, is capitalism so vulnerable that it can't even tolerate people on an online tech forum criticizing it?

Also, yes, life within capitalism is fundamentally unethical. However, individualizing blame or responsibility for this is just as fundamentally unreasonable, as there is no way for any human to live outside of the societies that exist during their lifetimes (I mean, you can go live by yourself in the woods, but that's not really a solution to anything, and you're not likely to live long). The system is to blame, and is what needs to change first, before the behaviors of people can hope to change in a meaningful way. One can blame individuals for not seeing the harm in the system or not trying to change it, but not for living within the circumstances that life thrusts upon them. This is why individualization of responsibility is a favorite tactic of right-wing politicians and demagogues - the so-called argument that "if it's so bad, why haven't you fixed it?" (Which of course entirely disregards that anyone this is directed at is trying to fix it, but never mind that I guess.) Let's take recycling and responsible consumption as an example - these things, if successfully adopted by, say, half of the global population (which is never going to happen in a capitalist system), will still not come anywhere near fixing overconsumption of resources or consumerism. Why? Because the sum of all of these small choices is still negligible when compared to far bigger choices made by far more powerful actors - governments, companies, etc. Individualization of blame is both ethically wrong, ineffectual, and a distraction from things that can make real change.