Intel Core Series 9000 Specifications published - merely 100 and 200 MHz speed bumps

#5562879 Posted on: 07/05/2018 04:57 PM

---

I agree - like I said, I'm doubtful AMD/Navi will outpace Nvidia. I don't think Nvidia is scared of AMD, but the reason for that comes full circle to my original point: despite being ahead, Nvidia doesn't slow down that much. They're obviously not putting much effort on the gaming front, but they're not slacking when it comes to servers, because they know AMD has real potential to out-pace them, and they don't want to give them the opportunity to do so.

Intel could learn a thing or two from Nvidia (or Samsung, or IBM, or Micron, or ...).

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe Intel will still remain heavily profitable with this 9000 series and will easily run laps around AMD's sales. Their name and presence alone carries a lot of influence to shoppers. But, I feel they're going to turn off a lot of aware people, who will realize the 9000 series has nothing to offer.

I agree there's no gloom-and-doom, but they had plenty of time for a suitable response. As of right now, the best thing Intel has going for them are the superior clock rates.

Haha I also thought the RX 500 series was idiotic, as well as the 300 series. No company is immune to my ridicule

#5562883 Posted on: 07/05/2018 05:19 PM

---

Byebye Intel.

And a big BOO to all the 'tards buying their latest generation with "merely 100 and 200 MHz speed bumps".

No need to call people tards , behave please!

#5562890 Posted on: 07/05/2018 05:52 PM

---

From what i understand it´s very difficult to port an architecture that was planned to a determined node to another node. Maybe some features are only possible on a smaller and more advanced node. Not to mention this is also expensive as hell although money is not an issue to Intel... It´s also possible that right now the majority of Intel engineers are working to fix the 10nm node leaving only a skeleton crew to work on improving current and future CPU releases. And maybe Intel doesn´t want to admit defeat by releasing a new arch that was supposed to happen on a new node on a older one...

This is my opinion from my (very) limited understanding so take my opinions with a large amount of salt...

#5562895 Posted on: 07/05/2018 06:14 PM

---

Intel isn't ripping anyone off. Nobody is being forced to buy their chips. Ripping someone off is jacking up prices on bottled water and food when a hurricane is about to hit. Intel's high end chips are luxuries and the price of the product is dictated by the market and what consumers are willing to pay for it. Plain and simple. The exact same applies to AMD's chips. If they could get another 20% profit on each chip sold, you honestly think AMD would have their prices where they are? Of course they would. But the fact is they are seen by the public as a budget friendly competing product which has historically been a bit behind in performance.

Complaining about the price more than likely means one of two things. You either can't afford it but still want it, or you (like many on this site) have an unhealthy bias against Intel and can't help but show up in every Intel related thread to complain about anything and everything because you think you're helping AMD. The prices for these processors aren't any higher than they have been historically when you punch the numbers into the consumer price index which accounts for inflation. I'm sure this doesn't apply to everyone, so to those who genuinely have an issue with Intel, go and do exactly what the free market expects you to do and buy the competitors product. If your objections are as valid as you claim them to be, then Intel will definitely feel a hit when their market share takes a dive. Then they'll be forced to make changes.

While i have my own issues with Intel like their crappy core to IHS heat transfer which required me to delid for example... I'm overall quite happy with my last three Intel processors. It's going to take a lot more than that though to get me to buy another AMD chip after wasting a lot of money on a POS called Phenom.

And those of you who keep saying to support AMD so Intel has competition... well here's the deal. I'm not a charity. I buy what works and have no desire to buy a lesser product because i have some sort of emotional bond with AMD. When AMD makes the better product, ill happily spend my money with them just like i did back when I bought my Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64, and unfortunately that Phenom pile of garbage.

#5562901 Posted on: 07/05/2018 06:51 PM

---

Making decisions based on your principles is a 2-way street. Buying a superior product for the sake of superiority (regardless of necessity or practicality) can be ever so slightly less stupid of a sentiment as buying a product for the sake of "charity".

That being said, there is an inverse perspective. Under some circumstances, buying the superior product means you want to encourage the quality of the producer, and to put pressure on the competition; being charitable toward a competitor doesn't really show your support of the superior brand. Meanwhile, under other circumstances, the competition may still be adequate, but because they're not better than adequate (in this context, because they can't afford to make something better), you opt not to support them. This causes an imbalance of competition, and in turn, stifles progress.

Context is key here. Notice my phrasing of "some circumstances". Under the circumstances in this context, Intel may have the better product. But, buying them for the sake of "being the best" just encourages the lack of progress we see from them. Why should Intel try harder when people like you give them whatever they ask no matter what? It's not like AMD is trying to be cheap and worse, they legitimately don't have the money to do better. And they don't have the money because people prefer the best. (Side bar: I do entirely put AMD to blame for the FX series - they were deliberately cutting corners with that design, and it backfired)


To clarify, I'm not saying people shouldn't buy the best - I do support "speaking with your wallet". If competition is healthy, buying what you think is the best is what makes progress thrive. But it's very critical to understand that if competition isn't healthy, speaking with your wallet makes the situation worse. If you don't care, then by all means, keep doing what you're doing. You are entitled to your opinion and you may keep doing what you do, I'm just pointing out the flaws in it.

#5562908 Posted on: 07/05/2018 08:00 PM

---

Incorrect.

I can't help you if you need new eyes to see the reality right in front of you.

#5562958 Posted on: 07/06/2018 01:24 AM

---

Incorrect.

I can't help you if you need new eyes to see the reality right in front of you.
He is right in its own sense.
AMD just made Intel CPUs look like a rip off, but in reality, Intel just puts prices to cover its expenses.

See a bigger picture.
The worst what can happen with these new 9000 series is, we have more to choose from.

#5562960 Posted on: 07/06/2018 01:34 AM

---

6c/12t are also going under the the i7 brand I suspect. i5 no SMT, i7 with. It seems it has been like this pretty consistently for desktop CPUs the last decade or so. i5 2500 4c/4t, i7 2600 4c/8t.



I disagree, I can vividly remember consecutive years of AMD having the fastest/best chips available.

#5562962 Posted on: 07/06/2018 02:00 AM

---

And didn't they cost like $1k? And when was it? Pentium days?

Define your "best".

#5562968 Posted on: 07/06/2018 03:49 AM

---

Best as in best performance and less expensive.
It was in the pentium 4, Athlon 64 X2 years. 2003

here a quote that illustrates my point:

"In late 2003 AMD hit a home run with their AMD Athlon™ 64 CPUs. (Here is a reference from Ziff Davis). The AMD technology was literally years ahead of Intel for desktop systems and, at the time, Intel was saying they were heading in a different direction. (They were really trying to minimize the impact of AMD having a 64-bit CPU when they didn't). Even prior to release of AMD's Athlon™ 64, AMD had a CPU that was superior to Intel's offerings in the form of the Athlon™ XP. It was well over a year after AMD had an advanced 64-bit CPU before Intel was able to ship desktop CPUs they could call 64-bit.

Then both Intel, (Core Duo), and AMD, (X2), had what they refer to as dual core, (DC) CPUs, (essentially 2 CPU's in one). Pick up almost any computer magazine worth its salt and you would have found reviews that show AMD way ahead of Intel in raw performance in the DC market. AMD beat Intel in nearly every benchmark. The design of Intel's dual core DC CPU was fundamentally flawed and they had admitted rushing it to market. They also said they were planning to redesign their DC CPU. One computer magazine maven, (John Dvorak, in PC Magazine), had claimed that Intel was at least 2 years behind AMD.. Now who is playing catch-up. This was another article from PC World that points to performance gains using AMD. In the PC World article they were comparing the standard AMD CPU against the Extreme Edition of Intel's CPU which was the top of the line for Intel at the time and far more costly than the AMD counterpart."
source: http://www.pcmax.com/amd_intel.html

#5562982 Posted on: 07/06/2018 06:26 AM

---

Your brain is pile of crap.
How many cores should (the new) i7 have by that twisted logic then?
i7's should be main at 8c/16t, i5 6c/12, i3 4c/8t logic man, intel is only doing this because they can and you let them, if amd had higher ipc and better in fps in games i bet intel shells would think twice, and because all the fame they get from tech youtubers who will then say the new king of gaming cpu is 9xxx.

#5563085 Posted on: 07/06/2018 03:04 PM

---

And didn't they cost like $1k? And when was it? Pentium days?

Define your "best".
The Athlon CPUs were actually quite cheap (far too cheap in my opinion). The original Athlon destroyed the Pentium 3 Katmai/Coppermine and the Athlon XP trounced the Pentium 4 Willamette/Northwood, followed by the Athlon 64 destroying the P4 Prescott. It was only with the introduction of the Core (which was basically Intel going back to the P6 design) and AMD's mistake with the FX (their own version of NetBurst) where Intel started to gain a decisive advantage. I used to be an Intel apologist during these days and let me tell ya, trying to defend NetBurst was tough :p.

Andrew is correct in that people see AMD as a cheaper brand, but not because they were always slower. Intel's brand recognition has always remained strong and AMD often times had to use lower prices to entice buyers. Intel was also able to market their products in a way that made them seem faster (e.g., the Pentium 4 had a far worse IPC than the Athlon XP, but the higher clock speeds made them seem superior to ordinary consumers). It's the reason why AMD resorted to the Performance Rating system (e.g., Athlon XP 2.16 GHz marketed as Athlon XP 3000+).

#5563089 Posted on: 07/06/2018 03:20 PM

---

You are youngsters here I see. AMD when they could have had also expensive CPUs.

Doesn't Athlon 64 FX series ring any bell to you? They were fast but overpriced as hell back in the days also they failed to hold their place and name.

When the chance was right they were selling these 1000$ average. AMD are not a bunch of saints. They are incompetent in the buyer's eye, that why they hold their prices in check since then.

#5563094 Posted on: 07/06/2018 03:54 PM

---

You are youngsters here I see. AMD when they could have had also expensive CPUs.

Doesn't Athlon 64 FX series ring any bell to you? They were fast but overpriced as hell back in the days also they failed to hold their place and name.

When the chance was right they were selling these 1000$ average. AMD are not a bunch of saints. They are incompetent in the buyer's eye, that why they hold their prices in check since then.
I actually liked the fact that they raised prices for the Athlon 64 - like I said, I thought the Athlon XP was too cheap and AMD could have sold them for a lot higher. The low pricing created a knock-on effect - when a product is priced cheaply then consumers will question its quality, reinforcing the notion that AMD is a second-hand brand. I thought AMD was far too consumer-friendly for their own good.

#5563102 Posted on: 07/06/2018 04:16 PM

---

Exactly my thoughts since a decade or more.

Surely, they reduced whatever profit they could squeeze from their CPUs for a quite large period. I wonder if this somehow influenced their R&D letting them become even less competitive until Zen's arrival. I was always skeptical about this. Sometimes consumer believes cheap is also much worse than intended to be. Despite the performance differences there always being people thinking the most expensive is also the best. Hundreds of days/months passed before electrical consumers and/or power users learn what bang for buck means.

I believe AMD made bad decisions. Firstly, they were undervaluing their own product and then secondly they acquired ATI. It was for granted that they couldn't be competitive like that. I do not understand how so many MBAs and doctorates failed to see their near future.