Intel boss Pat Gelsinger says AMD 'is in the rearview mirror' following Alder Lake release

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,074   +3,977
You don't seem so sure about this...
I think the point is pretty clear: We can point to the flaws of all 5000 series overall and the flaws of the 5600g as an SKU in particular.

There was a change since now all nonx SKUs include graphics. It might not be here to stay, it might be just something they'll keep since they now have the ability to do so, I really don't know.

But overall the 5600G as an SKU serves the exact same function the 3600 did for it's generation: It's a cheaper version of the X variant that retains the basic configuration of 6 cores and 12 threads with a trade off in performance.

That's it really. The SKU that actually did disappeared altogether was the 3400 but there are more significant differences: that chip was a 4/8 core chip, not a 6/12. That SKU did go away on Ryzen 5000 along with all Ryzen 3 SKUs.

But if you say "Oh I wanted a cheaper 6/12 core part that's a more bang-for-the-buck and AMD did not do that" then that's not accurate: They did give you exactly that: 6/12 cores that has slightly worst performance but a lower price. It might have failed at living up to the value proposition of the 3600 you could make that point (I disagree, but you could make it) but the chips exist.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,458   +4,390
TechSpot Elite
I remember we were so happy when AMD became competitive again. I celebrated it as I also hoped that competition will bring prices down. Well, it didn't.
This time I don't have high hopes. Should Intel be more competitive with their CPUs we will see what its real impact will be. Maybe it was cartelling that didn't let prices down, and of course we had the covid, supply chain mess afterwards, but AMD is still nowhere to be seen in the value segment of the CPU market. I don't see how the old rules of supply and demand make any sense in today's CPU and GPU markets.
Compared to before Ryzen, prices are way down for CPUs.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,074   +3,977
I don't understand, all the AMD fan boys were telling me AMD was a pro bono publico company that cared about gamers?
They were. Not to go into an in-depth tirade but even if insidious these companies encourage a sport team mentality: Team Red vs Team Blue/Green! Go red!

I have no doubts many users legitimately fall for those kinds of attitudes but I've been constantly and consistently critical of AMD on most stories: To me any corporation, specially as large, are just a different flavor of capitalist pigs.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,028   +1,977
What, are they already bribed yet again Dell
That never stopped....

Wonderful news! Does this mean we get to look forward to seven years of 6P + 4E CPUs with minimal real world performance gains but ever increasing prices?
No, thanks to the people that already forgot what Intel does, once AMD dies, we will be back to 4 cores hell and increased prices as punishment for stopping worshiping them, even if it was for a brief moment.
While no company is a saint, Intel has engaged in some really shady business practices and coasted by on marginal IPC gains when they hadno real competition (basically 2011 until 2021) so I don't see myself supporting them anytime soon.

Hence why I will continue giving AMD my money, because I do know what I will get if they die and Intel takes over again.

Besides, I am honestly confused about all this hoopla about the new intel CPUs, its not like they are 50% faster than a year old AMD CPU.
 

Nintenboy01

Posts: 214   +169
Besides, I am honestly confused about all this hoopla about the new intel CPUs, its not like they are 50% faster than a year old AMD CPU.
I think they were saying Zen 4 will have at least a 25% IPC gain over Zen 3 plus higher clocks so that should put them ahead of even Raptor Lake possibly.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,074   +3,977
I think they were saying Zen 4 will have at least a 25% IPC gain over Zen 3 plus higher clocks so that should put them ahead of even Raptor Lake possibly.
Not sure about Raptop Lake. In theory AMD would be ahead. In practice however, Intel might just start selling 240 AIO water coolers as the "default" cooler for Raptor and just push through the power levels even more to stay equal or ahead.
 
You're Neither AMD nor Intel. AMD is Borg, their x86 PC/Windows offering. M1 Mac is Faster than x86 AMD. AMD is Faster than Cyberman Intel.
In reality Cyberman Intel is 15X (Times) Faster.
What are You and Your Father - Fab-less ARM. Don't know how to put more than 100 Transistor on a Die. Those Mobile Phone ARM Processors are Internally Different. Samsung Exynos - PowerPC.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,203   +2,591
TechSpot Elite
To everyone who thought that Intel would help bring down GPU prices:

With an arrogant douche like this at the helm, I really doubt it. Lisa Su absolutely BURIED Intel but she let her actions speak louder than her words. Intel has a history of saying obnoxious things (like a CPU that's "glued" together) and this is just more of their douchebaggery.

CEOs are the only people who lie more than politicians. I don't think that AMD is worried about what he has to say.
 
Last edited:

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
are they? (honest question)
Can you tell which?

The i7 7700K, a 4 core 8 thread part, debuted in the US around January of 2017 for ~$300-$330 from what I can tell in reviews.

Fast forward to June of 2020 and you have the i3 10100, a 4 core 8 thread part, debuting at ~$130 USD from what I can tell in reviews.

Core/thread counts have been given a violent push forward. Cost per core/thread has become insanely cheaper since Ryzen hit the market.
 

Bullwinkle M

Posts: 671   +534
You're Neither AMD nor Intel. AMD is Borg, their x86 PC/Windows offering. M1 Mac is Faster than x86 AMD. AMD is Faster than Cyberman Intel.
In reality Cyberman Intel is 15X (Times) Faster.
What are You and Your Father - Fab-less ARM. Don't know how to put more than 100 Transistor on a Die. Those Mobile Phone ARM Processors are Internally Different. Samsung Exynos - PowerPC.
(Obligatory rant incoming)

A 10 year old Sandy Bridge is still over 1 Billion times faster than the latest Intel / AMD or Apple CPU when it comes to Natively booting Windows XP!

I'll stick with my Sandy Bridge

Who cares if the new chips can boot and run your Adware/Spyware/Malware faster?

Not me
:)
 
Last edited:

dnous

Posts: 46   +45
What, are they already bribed yet again Dell and other companies to ensure they wont be buying from competition?
Seems like the fine thay had to pay was a good investment and cheap way to reduce competition capacity. Sure Intel have more money to throw at R&D and buy talents from AMD - but aMD is focused, have great minds and solid ideas and I think Intel might be surprised yet again looking at themself in the rear mirror.

The effects of buying Intel OEMs are still felt to this day. Many businesses still only want Intel because they still believe that AMD is somehow lower quality, runs hotter and is slower. Even when testing shows AMD lineup is just as good, if not better. Like getting an i5 system/notebook is a no brainer, but a Ryzen 5 is suddenly a incredibly difficult decision. Even with the current shortages.
 

Peter Farkas

Posts: 600   +460
The i7 7700K, a 4 core 8 thread part, debuted in the US around January of 2017 for ~$300-$330 from what I can tell in reviews.

Fast forward to June of 2020 and you have the i3 10100, a 4 core 8 thread part, debuting at ~$130 USD from what I can tell in reviews.

Core/thread counts have been given a violent push forward. Cost per core/thread has become insanely cheaper since Ryzen hit the market.
Ahh I get what you meant now and you are correct from that perspective.
If you however compare an i7 from 2017 (7700K) with an i7 from 2022 (12700K) the price has gone up from $300-$330 to $409-$419 that is 35%+ of an increase. Though this difference is considerably lower if we factor in inflation.
I was naively hoping that with AMD becoming competitive again, prices would go down, and not on per core/thread basis, but simply an i7 might not cost $300 but only $250. Perhaps my expectation was unrealistic.
Good point though, thanks for the heads up.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 1,049   +855
He can claim that because INTEL has enough money, contracts and man power to not fail. This guy reminds me of that bald MICROSOFT guy but just toned down a few notches lol.

His strategy is -----------------> Keep throwing money and keep hiring previous AMD employees and APPLE and even IBM they were recruiting.
Lisa Su started with pennies and bankruptcy was breathing on her neck literally months away going belly up. Put that guy in Lisa's shoes and I bet AMD would have been done.

 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,302   +2,306
We've come full circle being okay with being offered the same CPU, but with more cache and lower clocks, refreshed GPU's with faster VRAM and x4 4GB video cards. Or is it okay, because AMD is doing it?
 

umbala

Posts: 603   +1,007
Intel's CEO is so clever. If Intel is so good then why do they rely on TSMC now to churn out their best chips? And how many years were they stuck on 10nm before they could actually put out something decent on that node? Also, the only way they can "beat" AMD is by pushing their chips to 5GHz and beyond using insane power levels, turning your computer case into an oven.

My favorite part is how proud they're about catching up to AMD so quickly. All that tells me is that they had some tricks up their sleeves but chose not to use them because they felt there was no competition. Then when AMD pulled ahead all the execs started shitting their pants and pulled out all the stops to try and catch up. If it wasn't for AMD then Intel would've been happy with their 1-2% performance increases every 6-12 months for eternity.

In fact, I believe Intel was never serious about their 10nm ambitions. They thought 14nm would be the limit and they would sit there forever. They did not anticipate other companies (namely TSMC) to invest the kind of money required to go beyond Intel's then-current standard. Remember when Intel didn't want to move to EUV lithography because it was unproven and too expensive? I feel like AMD and TSMC forced Intel's hand in this regard.

PS. - Intel may be having fun taking shots at AMD, but the company they're really worried about isn't AMD. It's Apple. Cleve quips by Intel CEO won't make that looming problem go away, that's for sure.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,302   +2,306
Intel's CEO is so clever. If Intel is so good then why do they rely on TSMC now to churn out their best chips? And how many years were they stuck on 10nm before they could actually put out something decent on that node? Also, the only way they can "beat" AMD is by pushing their chips to 5GHz and beyond using insane power levels, turning your computer case into an oven.

My favorite part is how proud they're about catching up to AMD so quickly. All that tells me is that they had some tricks up their sleeves but chose not to use them because they felt there was no competition. Then when AMD pulled ahead all the execs started shitting their pants and pulled out all the stops to try and catch up. If it wasn't for AMD then Intel would've been happy with their 1-2% performance increases every 6-12 months for eternity.

In fact, I believe Intel was never serious about their 10nm ambitions. They thought 14nm would be the limit and they would sit there forever. They did not anticipate other companies (namely TSMC) to invest the kind of money required to go beyond Intel's then-current standard. Remember when Intel didn't want to move to EUV lithography because it was unproven and too expensive? I feel like AMD and TSMC forced Intel's hand in this regard.
All hail AMD!
 

umbala

Posts: 603   +1,007
He can claim that because INTEL has enough money, contracts and man power to not fail. This guy reminds me of that bald MICROSOFT guy but just toned down a few notches lol.

His strategy is -----------------> Keep throwing money and keep hiring previous AMD employees and APPLE and even IBM they were recruiting.
Lisa Su started with pennies and bankruptcy was breathing on her neck literally months away going belly up. Put that guy in Lisa's shoes and I bet AMD would have been done.
Intel is like the America of the CPU world: too big too fail!
 

umbala

Posts: 603   +1,007
We've come full circle being okay with being offered the same CPU, but with more cache and lower clocks, refreshed GPU's with faster VRAM and x4 4GB video cards. Or is it okay, because AMD is doing it?
Yeah, remember when AMD moved to PCIe 4.0 and Intel was still only 3.0 and all their shills wouldn't stfu about how it was not necessary, no hardware was supporting it or needing it, etc. Now that Intel moved to PCIe 5.0 suddenly it's a must have, and it's a selling point and a very important upgrade!
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,302   +2,306
Ahh I get what you meant now and you are correct from that perspective.
If you however compare an i7 from 2017 (7700K) with an i7 from 2022 (12700K) the price has gone up from $300-$330 to $409-$419 that is 35%+ of an increase. Though this difference is considerably lower if we factor in inflation.
I was naively hoping that with AMD becoming competitive again, prices would go down, and not on per core/thread basis, but simply an i7 might not cost $300 but only $250. Perhaps my expectation was unrealistic.
Good point though, thanks for the heads up.
You only mentioned the uptick in price. What's the percentage difference of performance between the two? I bet it's a lot higher than 35%.
 

Peter Farkas

Posts: 600   +460
You only mentioned the uptick in price. What's the percentage difference of performance between the two? I bet it's a lot higher than 35%.
True, before Ryzen we didn't really get any meaningful performance uplift with each new generation of Intel CPUs and that has definitely changed after AMD pulled their sh*t together.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,458   +4,390
TechSpot Elite
are they? (honest question)
Can you tell which?
Yes I can tell you.

You have high core counts and high clock speeds at sub 300$. For 100-150$ you could get the same performance as the 7700k for a few years now.

I have zero doubt that we would have gotten at most 6 cores for consumer platforms from Intel sub 500$ if not for Ryzen. (and Intel would still be stuck at 14nm today with no need to rush 10nm)

When 1st gen Ryzen launched it brought the 1000$ intel extreme CPU performance to the mainstream, you suddenly had 8 cores for 330$. Intel's immediate response was to launch the 6 core 8700k.

In a single year you had 1.5-2x the cores for the same price or lower. Competition FTW!

This is the CPU AMD was competing with at a third of the price:
 
Last edited:

Watzupken

Posts: 569   +474
From a performance standpoint, I do agree that Intel's Alder Lake has beaten AMD's Zen 3. And even with the stop game 3D cache, I don't think AMD will be catching up, at least not consistently. The Golden Cove chips in ADL offers quite a significant jump in IPC over previous gen, Rocket Lake. Having said that, I actually don't think Intel is selling ADL chips like hot cakes. Generally, you can just look at Amazon for example, and find almost all the i9 to i5 easily. In the past, one can wait up to a few months before being able to get our hands on a new Intel processor. There are still many hurdles to adopt an Alder Lake based system even now. Poor DDR5 availability and high price is one of the main culprit. I suspect Windows 11 requirement is another, but will be alleviated by i3 and i5 chips that lack the E-cores.