warlord:

Sadly enough, Intel is gonna win again. The bigger brother of 8700K holding 8c/16t will cost at average 33.3eur more per core plus 16.67eur per thread. Mathematically that means ((33.3x2)+(16.67x4))=66.6+66.68=133.28eur. With other words, it is gonna cost exactly as much as i7 7820X. But it will crush this server wannabe PoS. We are talking about a real gaming cpu and a new generation. Well everyone has eyes for 9 series of intel and ryzen 2.

Wrong. 9 series is slower in gaming than i7/i5. The 7980XE performs far worse in gaming than an 8600k. It's simply not meant for gaming.

Irenicus:

Wrong. 9 series is slower in gaming than i7/i5. The 7980XE performs far worse in gaming than an 8600k. It's simply not meant for gaming.

9 series is the 9XXX not the i9. Irrelevant.

D3M1G0D:

It's certainly true that AMD caught Intel with their pants down, but this isn't really a surprise - it's what happens when companies gain a monopoly for an extended period of time. Board meetings would focus on how to maximize quarterly profits - the odd person who stresses more R&D to counter a potential future threat from a small rival would be regarded with scorn ("crazy Bob is at it again with his Zen talk 😛"). AMD was out of the loop for so long that Intel forgot how to compete.

As apparent as that may be, this is precisely what I'm criticizing. However, you do have an interesting point when it comes to "crazy Bob".

In some ways, it's similar to how people talk about AMD regarding GPUs today - most people would say that Nvidia is so far ahead that AMD will never be able to catch up. Can any of us really imagine AMD coming out with a product that can match or exceed Nvidia's best?

Slight tangent, but I think people heavily over-exaggerate how bad the GPU situation is (I'm not pointing fingers at you, I'm just saying in general). Gamers (and really just gamers, nobody else) complain that the 1080Ti has nothing to trounce it and act like the competition is non-existent, as though the fastest performing GPU is the only thing worth considering. This isn't like the FX-9000 series vs Haswell. Yes, GCN/Vega is obviously behind, but not by a wide enough margin to warrant the complete lack of hope people have. So that being said, I think it is perfectly reasonable for AMD to come out with a product that can match Nvidia's best, with Navi. On the other hand, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to have doubts that it will outperform Nvidia's best (I personally have such doubts). GPU competition could be better, but it could be a lot worse too.

I don't really blame Intel for being in their current situation. Zen was a truly ambitious project and there was no telling how it would do against Intel CPUs, which had the benefit of market dominance and years of software optimizations (we saw this in the first Ryzen 7 reviews, where it trailed badly in some games). My guess is that Intel thought any new architecture that AMD created could be countered by their Core chips, and to a large extent this was true. The challenge for them is to continue the fight when AMD moves on to 7nm with Zen 2, which depends largely on how quickly they can get their 10nm process going.

I still disagree. This is no different than a cheesy action movie, where character A is fighting character B, and A gets knocked to the ground, face down. B then just turns his back to A, slowly walking away, wrongfully assuming A is unconscious (or dead) without confirming, and then gets backstabbed. If you're fighting for your life, the last thing you should do is presume your assailant won't get up again, and willingly put yourself in a weak position. And that's exactly what Intel did. The only difference between this scenario vs Intel/AMD is AMD accidentally punched themselves in the face, got winded from it, and Intel was kinda just like "ok... I guess I'm just going to continue on my merry way". Then, AMD caught their breath and didn't miss at the 2nd attempt. Remember, AMD isn't the only competition - Intel isn't the best in every market they're involved in. They should be used to not underestimating others.

H83:

From what i understand Skylake or Kaby Lake were supposed to be the last CPUs using the 14nm process and current arch and then Ice Lake should have been released on a 10nm process with a brand new arch. The problem is that the 10nm process is broken and their new arch is tied to it making it very difficult to port it to 14nm. So with Ice Lake delayed until they can fix the 10nm mess, Intel only had one solution for their CPU releases, to carry on with their current CPUs with some small tweaks, like increased clocks or cores.

Perhaps there's something important that I don't know (which is a good possibility) but what exactly prevents Intel from releasing the new arch on 14nm? Worst-case scenario, they could just sell 8-core products and smaller. Sure, it's somewhat counter-intuitive to have mainstream and low-end Xeons get the latest tech, but real progress is better than none at all.

So in the end this all Intel can do for the moment until they sort out their 10nm so they can release a new CPU architecture. Good thing that their current CPUs are still good enough otherwise things would be problematic.

Their current CPUs are good enough, but ultimately my point was the 9000 series has nothing compelling to offer, unlike previous generations.

schmidtbag:

Slight tangent, but I think people heavily over-exaggerate how bad the GPU situation is (I'm not pointing fingers at you, I'm just saying in general). Gamers (and really just gamers, nobody else) complain that the 1080Ti has nothing to trounce it and act like the competition is non-existent, as though the fastest performing GPU is the only thing worth considering. This isn't like the FX-9000 series vs Haswell. Yes, GCN/Vega is obviously behind, but not by a wide enough margin to warrant the complete lack of hope people have. So that being said, I think it is perfectly reasonable for AMD to come out with a product that can match Nvidia's best, with Navi. On the other hand, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to have doubts that it will outperform Nvidia's best (I personally have such doubts). GPU competition could be better, but it could be a lot worse too.

Well, that's the thing. Based on recent history, how seriously would you take the idea that AMD will match Nvidia's best? If you had to bet your house on this, which way would you bet? Frankly, I doubt that Huang is losing sleep over the possibility of AMD matching or snatching back the performance crown anytime soon. My guess is that he is keeping an eye on it, but focusing most of his R&D on other projects (AI, cloud computing, self-driving). He certainly wouldn't see it as a mortal threat to his company.

schmidtbag:

I still disagree. This is no different than a cheesy action movie, where character A is fighting character B, and A gets knocked to the ground, face down. B then just turns his back to A, slowly walking away, wrongfully assuming A is unconscious (or dead) without confirming, and then gets backstabbed. If you're fighting for your life, the last thing you should do is presume your assailant won't get up again, and willingly put yourself in a weak position. And that's exactly what Intel did. The only difference between this scenario vs Intel/AMD is AMD accidentally punched themselves in the face, got winded from it, and Intel was kinda just like "ok... I guess I'm just going to continue on my merry way". Then, AMD caught their breath and didn't miss at the 2nd attempt. Remember, AMD isn't the only competition - Intel isn't the best in every market they're involved in. They should be used to not underestimating others.

Well, I don't think Intel is in a life-and-death struggle with AMD here (even during the height of the Athlon days, Intel was never seriously threatened). Recent sales data from mindfactory shows that Intel has retaken the lead (although Zen+ has narrowed the gap once again) and their struggle with Ryzen so far is in trying to maintain that lead. In short, although Ryzen presents a formidable challenge, Intel is still managing to hold their ground. Intel still has time to come up with a suitable response. They may lose some market share to AMD during that time but it's not a gloom-and-doom scenario by any stretch. They currently can't do much more than tweaking and refining their current products but there is still hope that they can get their next-gen fab tech going and that's where their focus is at the moment. I do agree that the 9000 series is kind of stupid. It would make more sense to brand these as 8000 series chips, but you could make the same argument with the Radeon RX 500 series. I guess they think it will generate more sales if people think of it as a next-gen product ("This system features Intel's latest 9th generation Core i7 chip for blazing fast performance!").

D3M1G0D:

Well, that's the thing. Based on recent history, how seriously would you take the idea that AMD will match Nvidia's best? If you had to bet your house on this, which way would you bet? Frankly, I doubt that Huang is losing sleep over the possibility of AMD matching or snatching back the performance crown anytime soon. My guess is that he is keeping an eye on it, but focusing most of his R&D on other projects (AI, cloud computing, self-driving). He certainly wouldn't see it as a mortal threat to his company.

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 ...).

Well, I don't think Intel is in a life-and-death struggle with AMD here (even during the height of the Athlon days, Intel was never seriously threatened). Recent sales data from mindfactory shows that Intel has retaken the lead (although Zen+ has narrowed the gap once again) and their struggle with Ryzen so far is in trying to maintain that lead. In short, although Ryzen presents a formidable challenge, Intel is still managing to hold their ground.

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.

Intel still has time to come up with a suitable response. They may lose some market share to AMD during that time but it's not a gloom-and-doom scenario by any stretch. They currently can't do much more than tweaking and refining their current products but there is still hope that they can get their next-gen fab tech going and that's where their focus is at the moment.

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.

I do agree that the 9000 series is kind of stupid. It would make more sense to brand these as 8000 series chips, but you could make the same argument with the Radeon RX 500 series. I guess they think it will generate more sales if people think of it as a next-gen product ("This system features Intel's latest 9th generation Core i7 chip for blazing fast performance!").

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

wavetrex:

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!

schmidtbag:

Perhaps there's something important that I don't know (which is a good possibility) but what exactly prevents Intel from releasing the new arch on 14nm? Worst-case scenario, they could just sell 8-core products and smaller. Sure, it's somewhat counter-intuitive to have mainstream and low-end Xeons get the latest tech, but real progress is better than none at all.

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...

Aura89:

8, obviously, the way it should be without Intel deciding to try and rip people off every time they get.

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.

Andrew LB:

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.

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.

Andrew LB:

Intel isn't ripping anyone off.

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

Aura89:

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.

Aura89:

If they make the new i5 be 6 core 6 thread, and the new i7 be 8 cores 16 threads, where are the 6 core 12 threads going to (what is currently the i7s)?

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.

Andrew LB:

they are seen by the public as a budget friendly competing product which has historically been a bit behind in performance.

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

The Reeferman:

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

And didn't they cost like $1k? And when was it? Pentium days? Define your "best".

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

Octopuss:

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.

sverek:

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 😛. 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+).

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.

warlord:

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.

D3M1G0D:

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.

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.