MikeM
Member
You’ll be back. Probably.
This is interesting if that is the case. Given the looming recession and the expected decrease in silicon demand, I wonder how long this will be attempted before they walk it back/sales.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel plans to increase prices by up to 20%
- Thread starter winjer
- Start date
This is interesting if that is the case. Given the looming recession and the expected decrease in silicon demand, I wonder how long this will be attempted before they walk it back/sales.
amigastar
Gold Member
Same, got an I7-11700k, will milk it as long as possible.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
me when i milk the pins of my CPU for that sweet sweet performance milk
Try 10, 3770k gang!
7700k at 1440p w a 3080. Not seeing a huge reason to upgrade now as I don't play a lot of new AAA games
Chiggs
Gold Member
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
tusharngf
Member
About that.
The i5-12400 is gaming king for a reason.
Its a monster in that mid range and AMD really overpriced their mid range cpu's.
winjer
Member
The chip shortage is over. Demand is much lower, without miners and covid restrictions.
By that reasoning, prices should go down, not up.
Apple Supplier Warns of 'Excessive Chip Inventory'—No, Really
TSMC cites softening demand in PCs, smartphones, and other consumer segments.
gizmodo.com
Last edited:
StateofMajora
Banned
Besides that the chip shortage barely affected cpus in comparison to graphics cards
In the end intel can charge more if they want but people will only buy it if it's better vs. amd. Raptor lake should be better than zen4 but the v cache models may beat Intel.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Im pretty sure X3Ds will be better in gaming but still lose in everything else, X3Ds are expected to release 6+ months later...........Intel will have already started talking about MeteorLake which is a full new refresh.
StateofMajora
Banned
I've read quite a bit on zen 4 and raptor lake.
Raptor lake, and zen 4 should receive an equal boost in IPC plus clocks, maybe zen 4 has a bit more IPC gain, but alder lake was already ahead enough that raptor lake should keep the lead over zen 4.
Something like an 7800x3d, will probably beat the i7 13700k in games, but not the 13900k because it will have a huge boost in cache, esp. level 2 cache ; double what zen 4 has per core. That's P cores btw. If anything I expect the 13900k to be the gaming king, but v cache has been super potent, so I can't say for sure. 5800x3d vs 12900k is basically a tie for games but you have to spend a lot more on ddr5 for the i9.
Also, the 12900k already beat the 5950x for workstation use, but the 13900k will completely crush the 7950x because of an extra 8 E cores.
Basically Intel has this won for everything but maybe the x3D vs i7, and it depends on price of course. All the k skus are getting more E cores so multicore across the board is Intel's win.
Mister Wolf
Member
Intel being Intel.
Bonfires Down
Member
That sucks but if they offer the best product at the best value I'll still buy it. I'm sure Apple has significantly higher profit margins than Intel but I still buy their stuff often because it's the best fit for me.
Based on what benchmarks? AMD has already said Zen 4 can be 40% faster in multithreaded benchmarks, so it could be very close.
Gen.Grievous
Member
Doubt they will increase retail CPU prices much. Market is way too competitive. SIs and big businesses will see the most increase.
StateofMajora
Banned
Did you not read the part about 8 more E cores on the 13900k.
You do realize that zen 4 core counts are staying the same?
winjer
Member
But E-cores are not used in games. In fact, if they were used, it would cause a huge performance loss.
Here is a test by der8auer, with only the e-cores. Performance drops to almost half of the P-cores.
Fortunately, the Windows scheduler and the CPU front-end are able to keep the heavier threads away from such weak cores.
At least for the most part. Owners of the 12900, for example managed to get a small improvement by disabling the e-cores.
And let us not forget that the 12900K and 13900K, only have 8 P-cores.
So if a game scales beyond 8C16T, it will have to drop work into the e-cores.
Meanwhile on a 5900X, or 7900X, it can just keep delivering work to regular performance cores.
Here is a test by der8auer, with only the e-cores. Performance drops to almost half of the P-cores.
Fortunately, the Windows scheduler and the CPU front-end are able to keep the heavier threads away from such weak cores.
At least for the most part. Owners of the 12900, for example managed to get a small improvement by disabling the e-cores.
And let us not forget that the 12900K and 13900K, only have 8 P-cores.
So if a game scales beyond 8C16T, it will have to drop work into the e-cores.
Meanwhile on a 5900X, or 7900X, it can just keep delivering work to regular performance cores.
Last edited:
cormack12
Gold Member
I always wonder if the price hike works out more lucrative from consumers who just wait until prices drop again.
Like they may deter 25% of consumers who were planning to buy, but does the price increase cover that shortfall. I guess that's the chance marketing and finance have to justify...
Like they may deter 25% of consumers who were planning to buy, but does the price increase cover that shortfall. I guess that's the chance marketing and finance have to justify...
winjer
Member
Considering that inflation is sky high in most countries, means purchasing power just had a big cut.
With inflation at 10%, it basically means we lost 10% of our wages.
Intel increasing prices at this time is likely to reduce demand.
Calling 911 Melts Beams
Banned
higher numbers are always better
StateofMajora
Banned
Bro, I'm talking about for workstation use. 24 cores are going to slap zen 4 silly in rendering. And all of those cores, including the E cores get an IPC boost.
But for games, we barely even need more than 6 cores at the moment.. that's why Intel's design is so brilliant ; they are only using the necessary amount of big cores to maximize their performance and this is why alder lake beat zen 3 significantly.
In instances where we thought games were scaling beyond 8 cores, like death stranding, it was actually scaling with the extra cache on the 5900x.
Last edited:
MadPanda
Banned
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
I take it you missed the workstation part of his post?
winjer
Member
In rendering? Only if you go for a low core count Zen4.
Each of those e-cores are worth about half of a P-core. And they don't even have SMT.
But all cores on a 7950X are full performance and have SMT.
Now, I have seen an IPC improvement for the P-cores of 9+%. But nothing related to the E-cores. Seems like you are just guessing at this point.
The 5950X still beats the 12900K. Despite being 1 year older than Alder Lake.
And AMD has already shown Zen4 being 31% faster than Alder lake in Blender.
But then there is Threadripper. If all you care is rendering, there is nothing better. You can go up to 64C/128T
Last edited:
StateofMajora
Banned
Zen 4 faster than the previous gen Intel arch with 8 fewer E cores? You don't say?In rendering? Only if you go for a low core count Zen4.
Each of those e-cores are worth about half of a P-core. And they don't even have SMT.
But all cores on a 7950X are full performance and have SMT.
Now, I have seen an IPC improvement for the P-cores of 9+%. But nothing related to the E-cores. Seems like you are just guessing at this point.
The 5950X still beats the 12900K. Despite being 1 year older than Alder Lake.
And AMD has already shown Zen4 being 31% faster than Alder lake in Blender.
12900k can beat 5950x in some workloads, that aren't blender, but beats it in all single core loads.
The E cores on 13th gen are still gracemont but the cache has been tweaked. The official rates increases from Intel have been stated as 15% single core boost, and 40% multicore for the 13900k. I would say it could be higher than that, or right around there.
winjer
Member
Rendering programs don't care much about cache and memory.
Also your numbers are exaggerated. Someone already has a 13900K and posted benchmarks.
10% for single thread improvement and 35% improvement for multithread.
These are very similar numbers to the improvements that AMD has showed.
So for rendering, we are probably going to see a tie between a 7950X and the 13900K.
Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake 5.5 GHz CPU Benchmarks Leak Out: 10% Faster Than Core i9-12900K In Single-Core & A Massive 35% Gain In Multi-Threaded Tests
Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU at 5.5 GHz offers a huge performance increase over its predecessor, the 12900K in leaked benchmarks.
wccftech.com
StateofMajora
Banned
It says that's not final silicon
winjer
Member
Neither was in the AMD presentation.
StateofMajora
Banned
Let's just wait and see. We need competition and amd is reliant on tsmc so yeah you better believe I want Intel to stomp.
winjer
Member
Well said. This seems to be one of the closest generations that AMD and Intel have fought.
You state yourself that a 40% multicore boost is expected for the 13900k. And AMD themselves state they can achieve a 40% boost with Zen 4, and in their official slides talk about a >35% boost.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...-uplift-more-than-35-overall-performance-gain
So that would put the two parts on similar footing. You ask how this is possible without increasing core counts? Well the all core frequency of the 5950x is only ~4.4 GHz, and Zen 4 is already hitting 5.5 GHz all core on engineering samples. Going from 4.4 GHz to 5.6 GHz would be a 27% boost. And then add in the potential 10% IPC boost and you are at a 39.7% overall increase.
Last edited:
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
Prices are why people avoid pc gaming I remember paying all kinds of money for a motherboard and having all kinds of issues.
El gallo
Member
That’s what i did. Pc upgrading right now is not worth it. And no one wants to admit it, but pc versions aren’t really the most optimal compared to their console counter part. Particularly Xbox games.
Series X and or PS5 is the way to go.
GreatnessRD
Member
Nah, excuses are why people avoid PC gaming. Most think its still the early 2000s with building and buying PC parts. Some folks spent $800-1000 on PS5's when they first hit. Could've bought and/or built a PC that would be better than the PS5 and PS6, but that's not my business. Yeah, some folks will have issues, that's the nature of all tech. Just depends on your level of patience with certain things, haha.
To stay on topic though, if Intel has a better product with Raptor Lake than Zen4, I guess the price hike will be an easier pill to swallow for those adopters of the product. I'd wait for the deals personally, because fuck these corporations. Especially after they had a field day of super green bottom lines because of the covid era.
Grumpy Toe Nail
Banned
So what, were going to subsidies their industry just for them to increase their prices anyways?