AsiJu:

Yeah remember that, actually had two of them myself back in the day. Like the Athlon XP 2400+ was supposed to equal 2.4 GHz Pentium IV even if it had a lower clock frequency. And perhaps practically it did, but surely a confusing naming scheme.

Officially this was a rating against the athlon thunderbird one that it was equivalent to a thunderbird clocked to 2400 at least that what amd was saying 😛

This was the one time they could have finally switched to transistor density (something like transistors per square millimeter) but nooooo they had to go in the total opposite direction.

Intel is back to trying to compete with vaporware and obfuscation. *golf clap* Makes you feel sorry for the Intel apologists. Intel: "Even if we cannot make competitive products, we will change our terminology to make what we sell sound more competitive!" Now, that's a winning strategy [not.] Every day the situation becomes more idiotic. Wasn't changing the TDPs enough? Guess not.

Xionor:

The whole "nm nodes/process" numbers are almost meaningless these days. It's so arbitrary to the point where it's like saying Intel i5 6400 is faster than Ryzen 5 5900 because 5 = 5 but 6600 > 5900. As you can see in the graph in the article, Intel's 10nm is equal or better to TSMC's 7nm, so it's really pointless. I'm glad they're moving to a different naming scheme.

Intel's quoting the numbers it wants to quote and nothing else. So, no--Intel's 10nm does not = AMD's 7nm. That's so lame, really. The truth is in the TDPs--but with Intel those are always changing...;)

Seems to me Intel has been drinking again. We all know theres no point in arguing with a drunk.

Intel clown inside

No you remember Pentium PR rating and AMD Athlon XP 1600+? I next would be 20 core cpu, which would be in reality 4 cores + 16 very small cores, just to look beefy..

hearnia_2K:

Reminds me of when AMD Athlon XP started using model numbers that looked lick clock frquqnecies, but were some kind of performance measure, when compared against Intel CPUs.

AsiJu:

Yeah remember that, actually had two of them myself back in the day. Like the Athlon XP 2400+ was supposed to equal 2.4 GHz Pentium IV even if it had a lower clock frequency. And perhaps practically it did, but surely a confusing naming scheme.

I'm even old enough to remember when Cyrix was naming their CPUs backthen in late '90s to match Intel counterparts: Cyrix P166+ (133MHz) to fight Intel Pentium 166MHz, Cyrix P200+ (150MHz) to match Intel Pentium 200MHz, not sure but think Cyrix even had P233+. Most old farts here know how that ended up lol... iirc I had a Cyrix P166+ for a while and that thing was a POS, couldn't OC that crap not even a bit. Not long time has passed since I've bought P166+ and iirc got me Intel 233MHz MMX few weeks later, it was night and day difference. Year by year it's getting harder to track down and store all that info in our geek brains about what manufacturers are doing in terms of manufacturing process, all those "my dad is stronger than you dad" nm fights about who's producing smaller nodes. All of us consumers should not care that much about MHz/GHz, nm... ffs just give us more efficient CPU cores followed by lower power usage and lower temperatures, OS and SW that could make propper use of all those cores and that's all. Not trying to start another rant or derail this topic but personally I'm not even thinking about trying to get the max out from the CPU with OC past few year, consumer OC as we knew it 5, 10, 20 years ago is history, without huge money burned on LN2, chiller or at least massive WC system there is no 30%, 40% or even higher CPU performance uplift with OC as we remember back in lets say Celeron 300A, 1st gen 1156 and 1366 i5's and i7's and, 32nm Westmere's, i7-2600K days... and almost any a bit more than average Joe could do that OC bacthen. When I told 15, 20, 25+ years old OC stories to my kids they almost think I've gone mad 😀 Lucky me I still have almost all that fully functional HW to prove my stories but they"re not interested in OC, not a bit, fully understandable. Rant is over. Intel, AMD, TSMC, Samsung... whoever. Efficiency, performance and lower power consumption/temps is all and consumers should care about whwn chosing CPU, GPU... I don't even want to know or care about this stupid nm production fight their marketing is trying to bomb us everyday with.

CrazY_Milojko:

I'm even old enough to remember when Cyrix was naming their CPUs backthen in late '90s to match Intel counterparts: Cyrix P166+ (133MHz) to fight Intel Pentium 166MHz, Cyrix P200+ (150MHz) to match Intel Pentium 200MHz, not sure but think Cyrix even had P233+. Most old farts here know how that ended up lol... iirc I had a Cyrix P166+ for a while and that thing was a POS, couldn't OC that crap not even a bit.

Yeah, you're not kidding. The P166+ was the very first CPU I fried trying to overclock it. It had zero headroom. Went up in smoke instantly. I replaced it with a 166MMX and the 233MMX soon after.

Maybe it´s better ti stop discolosing the process being used and just sell the products base on their performance, power envelopes and prices but this is getting ridiculous...

The intel hatred is glaring in this thread. Intel just clarified that their 10nm is comparable to others 7nm, so they call it 7 like everyone else.... No confusion, nothing misleading. Just conforming to the standards that TSMC and Samsung are going by.

Margalus:

The intel hatred is glaring in this thread. Intel just clarified that their 10nm is comparable to others 7nm, so they call it 7 like everyone else.... No confusion, nothing misleading. Just conforming to the standards that TSMC and Samsung are going by.

Yah - this has been known by most people looking at feature sizes for a while now but you have the usuals coming out in this thread.

waltc3:

Intel's quoting the numbers it wants to quote and nothing else. So, no--Intel's 10nm does not = AMD's 7nm. That's so lame, really. The truth is in the TDPs--but with Intel those are always changing...;)

The truth is in TDP? Really? The truth about process manufacturing is in something that each company defines on it's own and is designated for specific chip designs? That's a real stretch of logic lol

mackintosh:

Yeah, you're not kidding. The P166+ was the very first CPU I fried trying to overclock it. It had zero headroom. Went up in smoke instantly. I replaced it with a 166MMX and the 233MMX soon after.

lol, my Cyrux P166+didn't went up in smoke but it was super-unstable even with +1MHz on the FSB, multi was locked on these iirc. Sure motherboard I was using was quite nice for OC, sadly but can't remember the brand and mobo model, was so confused trying to OC that damn thing asking myself: "...what am I doing wrong, did I get the dud chip or what!? Maybe these are OCing somewhat different?..". At least 10 different Intel and AMD CPUs OCed prior to Cyrix P166+, all of them had some OC headroom, some more, some less, but this P166+: nada! Nothing helped: higher voltage made OC attempts even more unstable. Tried using huge air cooler (custom made CNC miled aliminium block + 120mm fan attached to it I've used to OC Pentium 100MHz, or it was Pentium 120MHz, f*ck me I'm geting old, can't remember all those details, thing was weird looking, almost fugly, but cooling capacity was insane, not sure but around 1.5Kg weight, custom made brackets keeping all that mass screwed to hang from the top of the case) and zero difference. Had to give up OC that POS few days later. Funny enough but thunk none of local OCers backthen who knewed what nm process was used for production of any of our CPUs used for OC in mid/late '90 and early 2000s, none of us knew or cared about that. Not sure but that "production node nm thingy" I've heard about maybe in Celeron 300A (Slot 1) OC days, or it was back in the AMD K7 TBred A, B, Barton OC days. No one I knew backthen was interested in that, all we cared about was "moar MHz and higher FSB speed because that's where the power was coming out!" 😀 Good old days, cheap OC => massive performance uplift...

AsiJu:

"What process do you use?" "4" "4 nm?" "No just 4" "Which is what?" "7 nm actually" "But you call it "4"?" "Yes, it gives a clearer picture"

Except it's not 7nm, and it's also better than TSMC's 5nm, so you're kind of just displaying your lack of knowledge.

AsiJu:

Wonder if they'll also now do a 180 on their "real-world performance" mantra as allegedly the 12th Gen CPU is faster than Ryzen in Cinebench...

They don't need to, cause it's faster in everything, not just Cinebench 😉.

Badger2k:

They don't need to, cause it's faster in everything, not just Cinebench 😉.

OMG, its such a shocking surprise that something released nearly a year after AMDs current release, it would be faster. Someone get the press for this exciting development.

Margalus:

The intel hatred is glaring in this thread. Intel just clarified that their 10nm is comparable to others 7nm, so they call it 7 like everyone else.... No confusion, nothing misleading. Just conforming to the standards that TSMC and Samsung are going by.

awwe is it hurting your Intel fragile fanboyism? Intel deserves the heat, and the hatred.

Yes down with capitalism! Go red and become part of the borg hive-mind!

@AsiJu & @CrazY_Milojko hehe my first overclock was on a qdi advance 10 pentium 3 copermine from 933mhz 133 fsb..to 1050 and 150 fsb ... literally the only setting the mb was allowing few fixed fsb values ....but it worked 😛. I remember how unimpressed i was with pentium 4 early models especially the the 1.4ghz and 1.6 ghz model with rambus ram was so underwhelming i sat on my p3 till i got an athlon 64 3000 !

AsiJu:

Never used Cyrix or AMD back in the 486 / Pentium era myself so that's interesting to hear.

early cyrix was whack, a complete x86 implementation with no reliance on intel patents, and faster than the intel equivalent.

AsiJu:

Also just think: the same motherboard could use an Intel, Cyrix or AMD processor. Boggles the mind these days!

Yep, it was mind blowing backthen to know that one can choose CPUs from 3 different manufacturers to fit into single board/socket.

Astyanax:

early cyrix was whack, a complete x86 implementation with no reliance on intel patents, and faster than the intel equivalent.

Sure, in real MHz per MHz comparison Cyrix CPUs from 1st gen Pentium era were faster than Intel counterparts i.e. Cyrix P166+ (133MHz) was indeed faster than Pentium 133MHz, also in synthethic benchmarks. As far as I remember Cyrix P166+ felt even snappier than Pentium 166MHz in most DOS games I've played backthen, in "light usage" on Windows 95 too. But in heavy workload Intel Pentium CPUs were faster, talking about Pentium 166MHz against Cyrix P166+, but also Intel was quite more expencive backthen. I remember like it was yesterday that I had to buy Cyrix P166+ backthen because couldn't afford Intel Pentium 166MHz, here inSebia it was like 2x to 3x more expencive, hyperinflation here was insane backthen. Knew many people here who couldn't afford real Intel x86 CPUs so they've grabbed first in line affordable CPU either from AMD or Cyrix pile. But for the money they've costed Cyrix P"something"+ CPUs were really OK, lack of OCability is what killed them in my eyes.

AsiJu:

Yeah I remember watching a vid by Nostalgia Nerd about Cyrix's history and that part was covered too IIRC. Also learned that it was actually Quake that killed Cyrix, lols.

Got LGR and Norstalgia Nerd for years on my YT sub list 🙂 Indeed great content there. Yep, Intel Pentium 100MHz OCed to 120MHz in my other PC completely demolished Cyrix P166+ in Quake. iirc no other game or any other piece of software prior Quake made look Cyrix CPUs so poor. But nevermind Quake, Cyrix CPUs were very popular here in average Joe's PCs backthen.