Support NeoGAF

[K.S v2.0]

Same, 9900 is absolutely fantastic for now. I can't imagine replacing it in the next 5 years unless some massive leap happens.

9900/9th Gen IMO is the real peak of Skylake. That is the 'most' the architecture can realistically be pushed to.

10th Gen is a literal meltdown waiting to happen, with its power draw and heat... ugh. 10th Gen is the definition of 'oh fuck we honestly have nothing, quick just bolt 2 cores on and add 100mhz!' in the face of the new Ryzens.

They shouldn't sell these CPUs in places with hot summers. Bad idea, trust me.

There's a damn good reason closed loop watercooling is fast becoming a standard. Air cooling really isn't cutting it anymore.

 

[ZywyPL]

There is no hate campaign towards intel, they're just not worth it for the moment and future is looking bleak for the next year. They will retain good sales from average customers and compagny deals (businesses wont stop ordering bulk pc with intel cpus in it all of the sudden) but for any enthusiast right now, they're not just worth even looking at.

Yeah, it's not a secret that the general crowd looks at nothing but FPS bars in benchmarks, and as long as Intel can still keep up and even be on top sometimes people's perception won't change. But then again, that applies to pretty much anyone who is not doing anything meaningful with their 2-5k$ PC than just paying video games, we can argue about the process node, number for cores/threads, chiplet design and what's not, but at the end of the day, does it really matter? People want to run games at as high framerates as possible, and until AMD starts stomping Intel with all the technological advantages they have up their sleeves, I think not much, if anything, will change in the grand scheme of things, AMD really needs to fill the top of the charts 9 on 10 times in order to change people's minds.

 

[TTOOLL]

Intel is lost

 

[Mister Wolf]

Once you get to resolutions 50-100% of 4K the CPU doesn't make much difference.

 

[mcz117chief]

Refusing to switch brands at this point is just pure fanboyism.

Didn't you read my post? I spend a good amount of time on older software so for me Intel is the only way to go, it has nothing to do with fanboyism. If AMD can give me a CPU that is perfectly compatible with all software designed for Intel's single core CPUs, that is also fast enough then I will consider it. Fanboyism has LITERALLY nothing to do with my choice.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

They need a new branding though. Era of i3-i5-i7-i9 was nice, but need some new feeling

 

[Chiggs]

I'm thinking no on this, unfortunately. As much as I'd like to see Intel get its head out of its ass, well...it might be a little bit.

 

[K.S v2.0]

I'm thinking no on this, unfortunately. As much as I'd like to see Intel get its head out of its ass, well...it might be a little bit.

Intel always go through these periods. They take a while to actually come up with a good architecture.

Look at how long it was between the fail that was Pentium 4... to the Core/Core2 series. Then how long it took them to go from Core, to the 'i' series, and the best chip ever (Sandy Bridge). Then from there... it was refresh after refresh after refresh with fail upon fail for the most part, just milking the success that was SB and trying to squeeze more out of it... until finally Skylake, then 4 gens of milking the fuck out of that architecture.

Going by history, it'll take them at least another 2-3 years to turn a tick into a solid tock.... after a few minor tocks in between.

 

[Senua]

How many +s this time?

 

[PhoenixTank]

Pleasantly surprised to see those peak clocks - should be interesting with the IPC gain.

It's still 14nm, there won't be any supply issues. If I were Intel I would be concerned about demand issues for something like this though.

Nah. 10900k is or was relatively hard to find in stock compared to the rest of their stack. Might apply to the 11900k if they're really stretching the limits of the process too.

Didn't you read my post? I spend a good amount of time on older software so for me Intel is the only way to go, it has nothing to do with fanboyism. If AMD can give me a CPU that is perfectly compatible with all software designed for Intel's single core CPUs, that is also fast enough then I will consider it. Fanboyism has LITERALLY nothing to do with my choice.

OT, but I am interested in which games/software you're having issues with.
The only thing I've encountered is Dead Island Riptide throwing a wobbly due to the amount of logical cores. No issue with the original either... which is kinda funny.

 

[diablos991]

Let me guess... A new socket? And then a new socket next generation?

 

[mcz117chief]

OT, but I am interested in which games/software you're having issues with.
The only thing I've encountered is Dead Island Riptide throwing a wobbly due to the amount of logical cores. No issue with the original either... which is kinda funny.

I have no issues, I am on Intel.

 

[dave_d]

OT, but I am interested in which games/software you're having issues with.
The only thing I've encountered is Dead Island Riptide throwing a wobbly due to the amount of logical cores. No issue with the original either... which is kinda funny.

I'm kind of curious too since I'm a recent switch to AMD as well. I mean I heard about Destiny 2 having issues which as far as I know have been fixed and now Cyberpunk but I expect those to get fixed as well.

 

[dave_d]

What does this have to do with the fact that any serious individual shopping a cpu right now and for a while, will simply ignore intel?

Well except for the whole thing about AMD having production issues. I mean sure when a 3700x was $295 and a 10700k was $400 it made sense to go AMD. These days when those chips are $330 and $360 it's not such an easy decision.

 

[Bruno_Arrais85]

No thanks.

 

[PhoenixTank]

Let me guess... A new socket? And then a new socket next generation?

Nope. Z490 is meant to be fine for this, alongside new boards. New socket for the set of CPUs after this (Alder Lake currently)

I have no issues, I am on Intel.

Okay... so you're worried about compatibility problems with hardware you don't actually have? Which games/software are you expecting to have issues with then?

 

[VictorVectors]

I WANT Intel to be back. I want that. The same way I miss movies from the 80's.

Nostalgia is an amazing drug, but drugs distort the reality of the situation.

OP, the winds have been blowing for a good long while and no one benefits from you pushing against the change with nothing as the prize.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

What does this have to do with the fact that any serious individual shopping a cpu right now and for a while, will simply ignore intel?

again, rip Intel for now

Btw, look at Intel's stock in the last 6 months:

INTC Stock Price | Intel Corp. Stock Quote (U.S.: Nasdaq) | MarketWatch

INTC | Complete Intel Corp. stock news by MarketWatch. View real-time stock prices and stock quotes for a full financial overview.

www.marketwatch.com

I bought at $45. Seemed like an opportunity.

I just don't see Intel, with all of their resources, continuing to lose the performance war in the long term.

Let me guess... A new socket? And then a new socket next generation?

I think these are supposed to work with whatever the 10900k motherboard was.

 

[mcz117chief]

Okay... so you're worried about compatibility problems with hardware you don't actually have? Which games/software are you expecting to have issues with then?

I remember how often whenever I browsed forums for older games on steam or even newer games there were plenty of posts about "doesn't work with AMD" "compatibility issues with AMD" "fix to make it work on AMD" etc. I don't think I need to explain to you that there are plenty of games from 2000s that work with single or dual cores and in those games Intel just flat out not only works but also works a lot better. It is a hassle free environment to have an Intel CPU.

 

[CosmicHusky]

Still gonna be with Intel. Why?

For simple reasons like compatibility like Thunderbolt-ports, which are like a species about to become extinct on AMD-platforms.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I don't think CPU performance is the bottleneck in gaming.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I thought that Intel had secured a spot on TSMC's 7nm in 2021?? Is it for a processor later in the year or the deal just did not happen?

I'll give them that, their 14nm density is something else haha. If they ever get out of foundry hell, you can't count Intel out yet. It took AMD 3 gens of Zen and a few times on 7nm node just to get ahead.

 

[PhoenixTank]

I remember how often whenever I browsed forums for older games on steam or even newer games there were plenty of posts about "doesn't work with AMD" "compatibility issues with AMD" "fix to make it work on AMD" etc. I don't think I need to explain to you that there are plenty of games from 2000s that work with single or dual cores and in those games Intel just flat out not only works but also works a lot better. It is a hassle free environment to have an Intel CPU.

That rings a bell but sounds more like titles running on Bulldozer & older and requiring AVX or some other instruction set they lacked. Valid for those chips, not valid since Zen.
That you mention games from the 2000s, is a little strange - long decade for gaming, though, lots of change - can you be more specific?
Quite likely an overlap between those holding on to rigs with old AMD CPUs and those looking for (old 3D era?) games. Not judging - I have a fairly large collection of old games myself hence my interest.
You're not giving me much info to go on here... can you remember any? Try me - ideally a well known game or two and fingers crossed I'll have one.

 

[Azurro]

I remember how often whenever I browsed forums for older games on steam or even newer games there were plenty of posts about "doesn't work with AMD" "compatibility issues with AMD" "fix to make it work on AMD" etc. I don't think I need to explain to you that there are plenty of games from 2000s that work with single or dual cores and in those games Intel just flat out not only works but also works a lot better. It is a hassle free environment to have an Intel CPU.

So, you have nothing? Sounds like fanboyism to me.

 

[mcz117chief]

That rings a bell but sounds more like titles running on Bulldozer & older and requiring AVX or some other instruction set they lacked. Valid for those chips, not valid since Zen.
That you mention games from the 2000s, is a little strange - long decade for gaming, though, lots of change - can you be more specific?
Quite likely an overlap between those holding on to rigs with old AMD CPUs and those looking for (old 3D era?) games. Not judging - I have a fairly large collection of old games myself hence my interest.
You're not giving me much info to go on here... can you remember any? Try me - ideally a well known game or two and fingers crossed I'll have one.

Any game that runs on 1 core will perform better on Intel. Games made in 2000s and earlier are not optimized for Zen architecture. So pick any game from that era: FreeSpace series, Gothic series, Jedi Knight series, Total War series, Hearts of Iron series, Homeworld series, Quake series, Half Life series (goldSrc), Dawn of War, Freelancer, Guild Wars, Command and Conquer series, Operation Flashpoint and on and on and on.

So, you have nothing?

I have working games

 

[dave_d]

Any game that runs on 1 core will perform better on Intel. Games made in 2000s and earlier are not optimized for Zen architecture. So pick any game from that era: FreeSpace series, Gothic series, Jedi Knight series, Total War series, Hearts of Iron series, Homeworld series, Quake series, Half Life series (goldSrc), Dawn of War, Freelancer, Guild Wars, Command and Conquer series, Operation Flashpoint and on and on and on.



I have working games

Wait Freelancer has issues? I was actually thinking of trying that on my new rig since I actually have it and I keep putting it off. I guess I should just play it on my old rig then. (3570 with a 970. I know, it'll probably get 3000FPS at 1440p on my intel setup )

 

[mcz117chief]

Wait Freelancer has issues? I was actually thinking of trying that on my new rig since I actually have it and I keep putting it off. I guess I should just play it on my old rig then. (3570 with a 970. I know, it'll probably get 3000FPS at 1440p on my intel setup )

Don't know if it does, but it is a game from that time and it most likely only uses one or two cores so Intel will perform better.

 

[Azurro]

Any game that runs on 1 core will perform better on Intel. Games made in 2000s and earlier are not optimized for Zen architecture. So pick any game from that era: FreeSpace series, Gothic series, Jedi Knight series, Total War series, Hearts of Iron series, Homeworld series, Quake series, Half Life series (goldSrc), Dawn of War, Freelancer, Guild Wars, Command and Conquer series, Operation Flashpoint and on and on and on.



I have working games

I don't understand how PC fanboy wars work, to be honest. It's all faceless brands and components with little performance numbers on screen. Who cares what brand you pick, just get the better performing component and stick it into your build. Right now there's literally no reason to get an Intel CPU, and about the games you listed, I'd be surprised if they don't run at like 400+ FPS at unreal resolutions on everything.

Why are you an Intel fanboy? Can you please explain?

 

[PhoenixTank]

Any game that runs on 1 core will perform better on Intel. Games made in 2000s and earlier are not optimized for Zen architecture. So pick any game from that era: FreeSpace series, Gothic series, Jedi Knight series, Total War series, Hearts of Iron series, Homeworld series, Quake series, Half Life series (goldSrc), Dawn of War, Freelancer, Guild Wars, Command and Conquer series, Operation Flashpoint and on and on and on.

Don't know if it does, but it is a game from that time and it most likely only uses one or two cores so Intel will perform better.

I was asking about games with issues...
In your words: "doesn't work with AMD" "compatibility issues with AMD" "fix to make it work on AMD"

Not sure how you got on to performance. 600-900FPS reported by net_graph in HL1 is probably enough for anyone, though. IPC & clock speed has moved up just a bit since the 2000s
So again.... anything to substantiate the claims of old games not working on AMD chips that are for sale today?

 

[mcz117chief]

I was asking about games with issues...
In your words: "doesn't work with AMD" "compatibility issues with AMD" "fix to make it work on AMD"

Not sure how you got on to performance. 600-900FPS reported by net_graph in HL1 is probably enough for anyone, though. IPC & clock speed has moved up just a bit since the 2000s
So again.... anything to substantiate the claims of old games not working on AMD chips that are for sale today?

Hey, you could be right, I'm not saying I know everything. It is quite possible that current individual AMD cores are enough to run all those games without any issues and their architecture works flawlessly. All I am saying is that older games were built with Intel in mind and that there is a chance that AMD might have issues, since I don't have an AMD pc I obviously can't test that.

 

[Myths]

Been waiting to swap out my stuff. I wanna do both at once so let's see if NVidia can get it together.

 

[eNT1TY]

Intel isn't going to be the king of anything for the foreseeable future except maybe Adobe apps and only with iGPU enabled in some. They mostly get trounced across the board now. The dream is dead for the node. I'll check intel in 2 years when i upgrade from my 9900k @ 5.1 and see where they stand with AMD then.

 

[SantaC]

Intel Rocket Lake-S Core i9-11900K CPU allegedly boost up to 5.3 GHz - VideoCardz.com

Intel’s Core i9-11900K specifications The flagship Rocket Lake-S CPU has already leaked earlier this month through Ashes of the Singularity benchmark website. It was revealed back then that the CPU carries a base clock of 3.5 GHz. Unfortunately, the software does not report on maximum turbo...

videocardz.com

Scheduled for Q1 2021, some reports say it can arrive as early as next month

Great news if true.

It is coming out in March. Not January.

 

[Quixz]

I'll wait for 6Ghz boost 14++++++++++++

 

[PhoenixTank]

Hey, you could be right, I'm not saying I know everything. It is quite possible that current individual AMD cores are enough to run all those games without any issues and their architecture works flawlessly. All I am saying is that older games were built with Intel in mind and that there is a chance that AMD might have issues, since I don't have an AMD pc I obviously can't test that.

You realise that is a far cry from how your posts started out, yeah? From "Intel is the only way to go for old games" & "AMD have compatibility issues" to "maybe they're fine" & you not really knowing. Wasn't looking for a "gotcha" here, I genuinely want to know about issues with older games on AMD chips.

Intel have spent a lot of money over the past decade pushing the idea that everything they make is premium & perfect, with the implication that any competition is cheap & nasty.
You have a 9900(K?) - I'm not trying to convince you to buy AMD, but whether you realise it or not what you're telling us is basically FUD as it stands.

If I play SimCity 4 on my old i7 980X it will silently crash to desktop unless I get it pegged to just a single core/thread. I'm not going around posting that Intel CPUs have compatibility issues with old games. I know it will happen on my AMD CPU as well, because I have a basic grasp of the problem. Phenoms & Bulldozer lacking AVX & things like that? Pretty fair but also entirely irrelevant to what Zen & onwards are like.
Blindly opting for all XCompany products are good, all YCompany products are bad/might have problems is a terrible way to view things.

The Bulldozer vs Sandy Bridge days are gone.
The onus is absolutely on AMD to ensure that they are compatible with older x86 software. Outside of Destiny 2 and software that developers couldn't have dreamed would be run on a 32 thread system, I've not seen an issue.
AMD are on an even footing now and I expect the market to transition to a healthy & competitive trading of blows with Rocket Lake & Zen 4, pushing each other forward.

 

[Manstructiclops]

They need a new branding though. Era of i3-i5-i7-i9 was nice, but need some new feeling

I like the name Netburst.

 

[mcz117chief]

You realise that is a far cry from how your posts started out, yeah? From "Intel is the only way to go for old games" & "AMD have compatibility issues" to "maybe they're fine" & you not really knowing. Wasn't looking for a "gotcha" here, I genuinely want to know about issues with older games on AMD chips.

Because I learned something from a more experienced person. Is it bad to admit mistakes and learn from them?

 

[PhoenixTank]

Because I learned something from a more experienced person. Is it bad to admit mistakes and learn from them?

Absolutely not a bad thing - quite the opposite and I will always applaud that
Taking your other posts in context with your last post I hadn't really got the gist that you thought you were wrong/coming around to the idea or at least were more open on the topic. Perhaps my bad on reading comprehension there.
Anyway, I'm glad. The less fog we have around tech, the better - it is complicated enough as it is!

 

[K.S v2.0]

I like the name Netburst.

They can call it NutBurst this time. With how much fanboys tend to nut over everything Intel, its fitting.

 

[Venom Snake]

 

[Chiggs]

America's 5 Worst-Run Companies of 2020

24/7 Wall St. looks at large public companies to find those that did particularly poorly in the past year due more to strategic decisions than the pandemic.

247wallst.com

 

[D.Final]

America's 5 Worst-Run Companies of 2020

24/7 Wall St. looks at large public companies to find those that did particularly poorly in the past year due more to strategic decisions than the pandemic.

247wallst.com

Wow