Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

[hood6558]

Intel was trying to point out that AMD was just taking a server CPU and adapting it to the desktop. So Intel did the same, while showing that TR still suffers from low clock speeds, and Intel CPUs can clock higher than TR ever will. The refrigerated cooler was a bit questionable, but this demonstration shows that Intel has more headroom, and isn't concerned about AMD gluing more cores together.

 

[Evernessince]

Intel was trying to point out that AMD was just taking a server CPU and adapting it to the desktop. So Intel did the same, while showing that TR still suffers from low clock speeds, and Intel CPUs can clock higher than TR ever will. The refrigerated cooler was a bit questionable, but this demonstration shows that Intel has more headroom, and isn't concerned about AMD gluing more cores together.

TR always had 2 dies disabled. They didn't take a sever CPU and make it HEDT, that's what Intel did. All AMD did was enable the 2 other dies on threadripper.

"The refrigerated cooler was a bit questionable, but this demonstration shows that Intel has more headroom"

By that logic AMD processors have a ton of headroom because they go to 7 GHz on liquid nitrogen. No, the only thing a 5 GHz CPU running on a 1200W water chiller and all custom insultated loop with a 29 phase active VRM shows is that professional overclockers will be able to OC it will. It's not remotely possible on any consumer hardware.

There is a reason Intel charges $10,000 for their 28 core server CPU, the yields on such a large die are very low. I'm going to bet that AMD's new processor comes in at less than half the price of Intel's 28-core does and it will arrive on the market much sooner. Linus was able to get the performance of the Intel processor at 4 GHz and it scored around 6,000 cinebench. Make no mistake, the 28 core and 32 core are going to be neck and neck performance wise.

 

[rydizzle]

At the end of the day, as usual, if you want the fastest logic, go with intel. they are the performance kings. I've never really been interested in budget chips or performance. benchmarks don't lie

 

[Fluffmeister]

Yeah from my perspective I couldn't care less, wow great 28 to 32 core CPUs! Just what I need... 27 to 31 extra cores my games won't use.

As it stands IBM is king in supercompuer land, Intel and AMD are starting to lose relevance as CPU progression seems to be at a snails pace.

Give us IPC improvements, then this battle of the duopoly epeens might be more interesting.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Intel was trying to point out that AMD was just taking a server CPU and adapting it to the desktop. So Intel did the same, while showing that TR still suffers from low clock speeds, and Intel CPUs can clock higher than TR ever will. The refrigerated cooler was a bit questionable, but this demonstration shows that Intel has more headroom, and isn't concerned about AMD gluing more cores together.

TR always had 2 dies disabled. They didn't take a sever CPU and make it HEDT, that's what Intel did. All AMD did was enable the 2 other dies on threadripper.

"The refrigerated cooler was a bit questionable, but this demonstration shows that Intel has more headroom"

By that logic AMD processors have a ton of headroom because they go to 7 GHz on liquid nitrogen. No, the only thing a 5 GHz CPU running on a 1200W water chiller and all custom insultated loop with a 29 phase active VRM shows is that professional overclockers will be able to OC it will. It's not remotely possible on any consumer hardware.

There is a reason Intel charges $10,000 for their 28 core server CPU, the yields on such a large die are very low. I'm going to bet that AMD's new processor comes in at less than half the price of Intel's 28-core does and it will arrive on the market much sooner. Linus was able to get the performance of the Intel processor at 4 GHz and it scored around 6,000 cinebench. Make no mistake, the 28 core and 32 core are going to be neck and neck performance wise.

Low yields is NOT the reason for the high price. Watch Linus' recent Xeon video.

 

[Evernessince]

Low yields is NOT the reason for the high price. Watch Linus' recent Xeon video.

Please link the video. Ctrl + F "xeon" isn't coming up with anything and there are dozens of CPU related videos. It could take hours to find the exact video.

 

[Toju Mikie]

Wow LOL
let's see what happens at Q4

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Intel may still not have to be overly concerned, yet. I just chatted with an HP rep and he was publicly defending HP's generally exclusive line of Intel processors for 95% (my estimation from sitting through product offering meetings) of their business class offerings.

I asked him his thoughts on AMD processors approaching or surpassing Intel's performance on workload tests for 3d rendering and extreme excel processing. Hi response: "You wont find many real world situations where performance on that level will make much of a difference especially for a company like yours."

Intel still has a stranglehold on the business market but when you start hearing that from sales reps I have to imaging its just a matter of time before a big retail company starts presenting their business lineup with more AMD hardware offerings.

That's not surprising. We have seen that when AMD has better CPU's, AMD's retail CPU market share is over 50% but on server side AMD did not get real foothold even when offering chips for free. That just proves how stupid server buyers are compared to retail buyers.

That quote from HP rep just proves that. Dumbasses.

0-100 real quick there bud.

Server buyers are not "stupid". Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have two different CPU makers in a single server rooms? Do you actually manage servers, or are you just armchair projecting?

When you are load balancing VMs, you need your hardware to match. You do not want to mix and match if at all possible, and NEVER mix and match different OEMs. And servers are expensive, they are not replaced willy nilly. They are either kept as long as possible, or replaced on a schedule depending on budget for machinery.

AMD is not taken seriously in the server space because they havent competed there for a long time. Bulldozer was an unmitigated failure, but before that the K9 and K10 generations were not doing AMD any favors either, consuming more power, running at lower clocks, and coming in with fewer cores and slower cache. The launch of Core 2 left AMD reeling for over a decade. Nobody is going to take a chance on AMD servers just to have to go through ALL the work of migrating back 5 years later when AMDADHD kicks in and the company drops server chips again (remember, AMD already dropped their server line once, and trust is a lot harder to reearn then it is to loose)

In the server world, moving from intel to AMD or vise versa is a lot of work, brings the risk of system instability, ece. Thus jumping is only done when there is a distinct benefit. AMD may have had a good chip here and there, they need to consistently deliver on competitive performance before serious system admins will begin purchasing their chips en masse. Offering chips for free wont matter if there is no long term commitment.

If AMD continues to keep intel on its toes with EPYC, then AMD's market will most certainly expand. This is not a concern for the retail market, where switching to a different architecture is trivial.

 

[SirChocula]

not denying intels practices, but you are claiming AMD is any different? you like like a whole generation of ships that claimed "x" amount of cores when only half the cores could receive instructions at once? or that they focus on core count and higher frequency because they sound good for marketing while the actual output falls short.. little thing called instruction set per clock isn't as sexy as 5 GHz (or whatever) but an enthusiast understands the importance and the benchmarks have intel chips at top for most price points.

Do you have any reading comprehension, perhaps those above a 1st grader's level? I didn't claim sh*t buddy. I just advised people to learn about Intel's shady practices. The rest of your post isn't worth reading because you're obviously projecting and putting words in my mouth that I never said. GG.

 

[Foobario]

Jesus.... Give it a rest AMD does not have the better CPUs, they just have the right price for them. Oh and in the mobile department AMD has jack-all except for higher prices and if we're talking ultrabooks Ryzen has a lot of catching up to do, but not at the prices AMD is currently asking for mobile parts. As for the data center as long as Intel has contracts on the roll nobody is taking them out. Every one of those contracts comes with a clause for early termination, corporate is a different thing, if the contracts run out or the party involved ties up another contract with AMD that's their business, but Intel isn't going away form the data centers or the business side of things. So stop looking at this crap like the end user is the only thing out there.... Amazon has their business 95% on intel parts so does Micrsoft and so do others. The only thing AMD is doing right now and in a good way is being disruptive and will kick Intel into overdrive (if they didn't do that already).

Wow! Intel Fanboy much? This article was about the 28 core Intel and 32 core AMD CPUs. It can't get much more fanboyish than ''Give it a rest AMD does not have the better CPUs'', it feels like we are talking about politics with some of these hardware company fanboys, you will defend your side to the death! As you can see on my profile, I have an I-7 6700K in my PC, so don't throw the AMD fanboy thing at me please. I guess you could say Intel has better CPUs, but 99.99% of people do not want to spend $3000+ on a CPU, so for those 99.99% of people that does not apply. I hope you at least own some stock in Intel or something, otherwise you are honestly pathetic.

Yes, even if the 28 core Intel chip comes to market it will be priced over $3,000 and no telling how much the server socket will cost. To make matters worse, everyone they sell will reduce the number of Xeons they will sell for over $8,000 as 700mm die don't grow on trees and they probably only get one good die per wafer. So let's say the Intel 28 core chip beats Threadripper 2 by 100 points, seems *****ic to pay over $3K+ to beat a $1,799 chip that is 1.5% slower. Which equates to a nano second advantage for double the price.

However, it is not a given Intel will even be faster.

 

[Puiu]

Intel was trying to point out that AMD was just taking a server CPU and adapting it to the desktop. So Intel did the same, while showing that TR still suffers from low clock speeds, and Intel CPUs can clock higher than TR ever will. The refrigerated cooler was a bit questionable, but this demonstration shows that Intel has more headroom, and isn't concerned about AMD gluing more cores together.

I'm not sure about what headroom you are speaking of. At these huge core counts nobody is stupid enough to OC the system because they can easily destroy the motherboards (those VRMs get very VERY hot). Unless Intel has much higher out of the box clock speeds then I don't see them having a good enough performance lead (if any at all).
If we are to look at the Xeon chip and the prototype that AMD showed off then we can safely guess that both will have very similar single and multithreading performance.

 

[Lastlght]

Like some people said before in the comments, intel is always on the top of benchmarks, thats not a lie

 

[Badvok]

Nice to see Techspot keeping up their AMD fanboi status. How about comparing Intel's 28 core single-die offerings with AMD's single-die offerings. Or perhaps compare Threadripper with a multi-Xeon system, you can get motherboards that will take 4 Xeons - how does a 112 core Xeon compare with Threadripper? Just because you bolt two CPUs together and sell them as a package doesn't make it any different to plugging multiple CPUs into one motherboard.

Also, any allegations of shenanigans can be totally dismissed if you actually watch the presentation, the box was right there on stage with massive cooling very apparent. Perhaps Techspot thought people didn't watch it.

 

[HardReset]

0-100 real quick there bud.

Server buyers are not "stupid". Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have two different CPU makers in a single server rooms? Do you actually manage servers, or are you just armchair projecting?

When you are load balancing VMs, you need your hardware to match. You do not want to mix and match if at all possible, and NEVER mix and match different OEMs. And servers are expensive, they are not replaced willy nilly. They are either kept as long as possible, or replaced on a schedule depending on budget for machinery.

AMD is not taken seriously in the server space because they havent competed there for a long time. Bulldozer was an unmitigated failure, but before that the K9 and K10 generations were not doing AMD any favors either, consuming more power, running at lower clocks, and coming in with fewer cores and slower cache. The launch of Core 2 left AMD reeling for over a decade. Nobody is going to take a chance on AMD servers just to have to go through ALL the work of migrating back 5 years later when AMDADHD kicks in and the company drops server chips again (remember, AMD already dropped their server line once, and trust is a lot harder to reearn then it is to loose)

You have some points, but then again not. Why AMD was not really competing on server space for years? It happened like this:

AMD: We have superior server chip here, it's faster, cheaper and cooler than anything Intel has to offer
HP: It's good but we rather use Intel
AMD: Well, we offer you million chips for free!
HP: No thanks
AMD: **** off then

Why you should offer anything to stupid people that use much worse product for much higher price?

In the server world, moving from intel to AMD or vise versa is a lot of work, brings the risk of system instability, ece. Thus jumping is only done when there is a distinct benefit. AMD may have had a good chip here and there, they need to consistently deliver on competitive performance before serious system admins will begin purchasing their chips en masse. Offering chips for free wont matter if there is no long term commitment.

If AMD continues to keep intel on its toes with EPYC, then AMD's market will most certainly expand. This is not a concern for the retail market, where switching to a different architecture is trivial.

You do realize that it's simply impossible to offer competitive performance continuously if nobody buys those competitive performance chips? This is what happened. Nobody buys better AMD chips, AMD cannot afford to develop faster chips, AMD cannot offer competitive performance.

Clear indication of server buyers stupidity are complaints about Intel server chip prices. That's good logic:

- AMD has better and cheaper server chips
- Server people still buy Intel
- AMD moves attention to somewhere else
- Intel gets 95% of server CPU market
- Server people complain how Intel raises CPU prices

So server buyers complain about situation they caused themselves. That's stupid if anything.

Not surprising Epyc got lots of attention even there is no proof (yet) that AMD will continue delivering high end Epyc chips. That just proves lesson learned and that 15 years ago server buyers were stupid.

 

[Darylp]

Intel was shook. Period.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Yes, even if the 28 core Intel chip comes to market it will be priced over $3,000 and no telling how much the server socket will cost. To make matters worse, everyone they sell will reduce the number of Xeons they will sell for over $8,000 as 700mm die don't grow on trees and they probably only get one good die per wafer. So let's say the Intel 28 core chip beats Threadripper 2 by 100 points, seems *****ic to pay over $3K+ to beat a $1,799 chip that is 1.5% slower. Which equates to a nano second advantage for double the price.

However, it is not a given Intel will even be faster.

ROFLMAO@they probably only get one good die per wafer!!!

SMH...,

 

[hahahanoobs]

Please link the video. Ctrl + F "xeon" isn't coming up with anything and there are dozens of CPU related videos. It could take hours to find the exact video.

Sigh...
Xeons are more expensive primarily, because of ECC support, which is crucial for servers....

 

[elzafir]

0-100 real quick there bud.

Server buyers are not "stupid". Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have two different CPU makers in a single server rooms? Do you actually manage servers, or are you just armchair projecting?

When you are load balancing VMs, you need your hardware to match. You do not want to mix and match if at all possible, and NEVER mix and match different OEMs. And servers are expensive, they are not replaced willy nilly. They are either kept as long as possible, or replaced on a schedule depending on budget for machinery.

AMD is not taken seriously in the server space because they havent competed there for a long time. Bulldozer was an unmitigated failure, but before that the K9 and K10 generations were not doing AMD any favors either, consuming more power, running at lower clocks, and coming in with fewer cores and slower cache. The launch of Core 2 left AMD reeling for over a decade. Nobody is going to take a chance on AMD servers just to have to go through ALL the work of migrating back 5 years later when AMDADHD kicks in and the company drops server chips again (remember, AMD already dropped their server line once, and trust is a lot harder to reearn then it is to loose)

You have some points, but then again not. Why AMD was not really competing on server space for years? It happened like this:

AMD: We have superior server chip here, it's faster, cheaper and cooler than anything Intel has to offer
HP: It's good but we rather use Intel
AMD: Well, we offer you million chips for free!
HP: No thanks
AMD: **** off then

Why you should offer anything to stupid people that use much worse product for much higher price?

In the server world, moving from intel to AMD or vise versa is a lot of work, brings the risk of system instability, ece. Thus jumping is only done when there is a distinct benefit. AMD may have had a good chip here and there, they need to consistently deliver on competitive performance before serious system admins will begin purchasing their chips en masse. Offering chips for free wont matter if there is no long term commitment.

If AMD continues to keep intel on its toes with EPYC, then AMD's market will most certainly expand. This is not a concern for the retail market, where switching to a different architecture is trivial.

You do realize that it's simply impossible to offer competitive performance continuously if nobody buys those competitive performance chips? This is what happened. Nobody buys better AMD chips, AMD cannot afford to develop faster chips, AMD cannot offer competitive performance.

Clear indication of server buyers stupidity are complaints about Intel server chip prices. That's good logic:

- AMD has better and cheaper server chips
- Server people still buy Intel
- AMD moves attention to somewhere else
- Intel gets 95% of server CPU market
- Server people complain how Intel raises CPU prices

So server buyers complain about situation they caused themselves. That's stupid if anything.

Not surprising Epyc got lots of attention even there is no proof (yet) that AMD will continue delivering high end Epyc chips. That just proves lesson learned and that 15 years ago server buyers were stupid.

0-100 real quick there bud.

Server buyers are not "stupid". Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have two different CPU makers in a single server rooms? Do you actually manage servers, or are you just armchair projecting?

When you are load balancing VMs, you need your hardware to match. You do not want to mix and match if at all possible, and NEVER mix and match different OEMs. And servers are expensive, they are not replaced willy nilly. They are either kept as long as possible, or replaced on a schedule depending on budget for machinery.

AMD is not taken seriously in the server space because they havent competed there for a long time. Bulldozer was an unmitigated failure, but before that the K9 and K10 generations were not doing AMD any favors either, consuming more power, running at lower clocks, and coming in with fewer cores and slower cache. The launch of Core 2 left AMD reeling for over a decade. Nobody is going to take a chance on AMD servers just to have to go through ALL the work of migrating back 5 years later when AMDADHD kicks in and the company drops server chips again (remember, AMD already dropped their server line once, and trust is a lot harder to reearn then it is to loose)

You have some points, but then again not. Why AMD was not really competing on server space for years? It happened like this:

AMD: We have superior server chip here, it's faster, cheaper and cooler than anything Intel has to offer
HP: It's good but we rather use Intel
AMD: Well, we offer you million chips for free!
HP: No thanks
AMD: **** off then

Why you should offer anything to stupid people that use much worse product for much higher price?

In the server world, moving from intel to AMD or vise versa is a lot of work, brings the risk of system instability, ece. Thus jumping is only done when there is a distinct benefit. AMD may have had a good chip here and there, they need to consistently deliver on competitive performance before serious system admins will begin purchasing their chips en masse. Offering chips for free wont matter if there is no long term commitment.

If AMD continues to keep intel on its toes with EPYC, then AMD's market will most certainly expand. This is not a concern for the retail market, where switching to a different architecture is trivial.

You do realize that it's simply impossible to offer competitive performance continuously if nobody buys those competitive performance chips? This is what happened. Nobody buys better AMD chips, AMD cannot afford to develop faster chips, AMD cannot offer competitive performance.

Clear indication of server buyers stupidity are complaints about Intel server chip prices. That's good logic:

- AMD has better and cheaper server chips
- Server people still buy Intel
- AMD moves attention to somewhere else
- Intel gets 95% of server CPU market
- Server people complain how Intel raises CPU prices

So server buyers complain about situation they caused themselves. That's stupid if anything.

Not surprising Epyc got lots of attention even there is no proof (yet) that AMD will continue delivering high end Epyc chips. That just proves lesson learned and that 15 years ago server buyers were stupid.

0-100 real quick there bud.

Server buyers are not "stupid". Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have two different CPU makers in a single server rooms? Do you actually manage servers, or are you just armchair projecting?

When you are load balancing VMs, you need your hardware to match. You do not want to mix and match if at all possible, and NEVER mix and match different OEMs. And servers are expensive, they are not replaced willy nilly. They are either kept as long as possible, or replaced on a schedule depending on budget for machinery.

AMD is not taken seriously in the server space because they havent competed there for a long time. Bulldozer was an unmitigated failure, but before that the K9 and K10 generations were not doing AMD any favors either, consuming more power, running at lower clocks, and coming in with fewer cores and slower cache. The launch of Core 2 left AMD reeling for over a decade. Nobody is going to take a chance on AMD servers just to have to go through ALL the work of migrating back 5 years later when AMDADHD kicks in and the company drops server chips again (remember, AMD already dropped their server line once, and trust is a lot harder to reearn then it is to loose)

You have some points, but then again not. Why AMD was not really competing on server space for years? It happened like this:

AMD: We have superior server chip here, it's faster, cheaper and cooler than anything Intel has to offer
HP: It's good but we rather use Intel
AMD: Well, we offer you million chips for free!
HP: No thanks
AMD: **** off then

Why you should offer anything to stupid people that use much worse product for much higher price?

In the server world, moving from intel to AMD or vise versa is a lot of work, brings the risk of system instability, ece. Thus jumping is only done when there is a distinct benefit. AMD may have had a good chip here and there, they need to consistently deliver on competitive performance before serious system admins will begin purchasing their chips en masse. Offering chips for free wont matter if there is no long term commitment.

If AMD continues to keep intel on its toes with EPYC, then AMD's market will most certainly expand. This is not a concern for the retail market, where switching to a different architecture is trivial.

You do realize that it's simply impossible to offer competitive performance continuously if nobody buys those competitive performance chips? This is what happened. Nobody buys better AMD chips, AMD cannot afford to develop faster chips, AMD cannot offer competitive performance.

Clear indication of server buyers stupidity are complaints about Intel server chip prices. That's good logic:

- AMD has better and cheaper server chips
- Server people still buy Intel
- AMD moves attention to somewhere else
- Intel gets 95% of server CPU market
- Server people complain how Intel raises CPU prices

So server buyers complain about situation they caused themselves. That's stupid if anything.

Not surprising Epyc got lots of attention even there is no proof (yet) that AMD will continue delivering high end Epyc chips. That just proves lesson learned and that 15 years ago server buyers were stupid.

Server buyers are older middle management guys who still thinks AMD is a poor people's Intel. They have a budget for Intel-priced chips, or rather pre-built servers, and they have existing relationships with hardware suppliers who probably don't sell AMD. More importantly, most international companies have outdated compliant and compatibility standards which require their offices around the world to use a certain hardware and software brands. This is difficult to change, moreover in only a few short years since EPYC has launched.

 

[avioza]

Core counts make especially bigger difference exactly like 3D Rendering or CFD simulations type of tasks. So in my opinion, your sales rep is misleading you.

I don't think you understood.

We feel he was misleading us. I totally agree and we were not fooled.

 

[James Carter]

Seems like AMD is paying well these days.

The only true and honest comment I've seen on this article.

 

[ACE76]

But will they do it? Or rather, do they have to?

Intel may still not have to be overly concerned, yet. I just chatted with an HP rep and he was publicly defending HP's generally exclusive line of Intel processors for 95% (my estimation from sitting through product offering meetings) of their business class offerings.

I asked him his thoughts on AMD processors approaching or surpassing Intel's performance on workload tests for 3d rendering and extreme excel processing. Hi response: "You wont find many real world situations where performance on that level will make much of a difference especially for a company like yours."

Intel still has a stranglehold on the business market but when you start hearing that from sales reps I have to imaging its just a matter of time before a big retail company starts presenting their business lineup with more AMD hardware offerings.

These responses are coming 50% from HP and 50% from Intel...do you really think that payout to AMD put even a dent into Intel's business? They are still doing all sorts of illegal business desls with their customers...the sad part is that the customers are equally as shitty and guilty...I hope we see a new competitor offer PCs to consumers and businesses alike that actually follows an honest business model.

 

[m3tavision]

But will they do it? Or rather, do they have to?

Intel may still not have to be overly concerned, yet. I just chatted with an HP rep and he was publicly defending HP's generally exclusive line of Intel processors for 95% (my estimation from sitting through product offering meetings) of their business class offerings.

I asked him his thoughts on AMD processors approaching or surpassing Intel's performance on workload tests for 3d rendering and extreme excel processing. Hi response: "You wont find many real world situations where performance on that level will make much of a difference especially for a company like yours."

Intel still has a stranglehold on the business market but when you start hearing that from sales reps I have to imaging its just a matter of time before a big retail company starts presenting their business lineup with more AMD hardware offerings.

Notice how he reminded you that you wouldn't find much performance difference..?
What he didn't say is, that you WILL find a big difference in price, though... for your business..

 

[Foobario]

Nice to see Techspot keeping up their AMD fanboi status. How about comparing Intel's 28 core single-die offerings with AMD's single-die offerings. Or perhaps compare Threadripper with a multi-Xeon system, you can get motherboards that will take 4 Xeons - how does a 112 core Xeon compare with Threadripper? Just because you bolt two CPUs together and sell them as a package doesn't make it any different to plugging multiple CPUs into one motherboard.

Also, any allegations of shenanigans can be totally dismissed if you actually watch the presentation, the box was right there on stage with massive cooling very apparent. Perhaps Techspot thought people didn't watch it.

Hmmmm.....your comparison is forgetting one thing that every HEDT enthusiast, except apparently you, would take into consideration. Price!!!! While you may be willing to pay $10,000 plus for your 4 socket Threadripper destroyer I'm pretty sure 99% of people would go for AMD's $1,799 option as it will work out of the box on most software used in the enthusiast level market. Your 4 socket solution will require expensive optimisations to take advantage of all those cores and still suffer from latency issues as those 4 sockets won't be as efficiently linked as Threadripper.

Go ahead and pull the trigger on your "superior" approach and be sure to post your benchmark scores to show everyone how much of a genius you are.

 

[Foooo]

Isn't this all just posing, on both sides of the aisle, until there's some actual solutions to Meltdown/Spectre? I don't care how fast their new CPU is if it requires me to run a firmware that turns off all its features in order to run it securely when connected to the internet.

 

[wiyosaya]

Thanks for the article. I am glad to see that it calls out Intel for Fake News!

As I see it, for Intel to resort to something like this indicates that they are very worried about the competition. Maybe it will for them to actually return to innovation.