Intel is changing things up with the non-K versions of Alder Lake

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,649
I vividly remember the days when Intel didn't charged more for a product simply because they had a superior one.

Oh that's right, those days never existed.

Sure, the 5600X is now a bad buy at $300, but it wasn't for some time.

AMD saw an opportunity to make money and they took it...because they're a business. Intel bent everyone over and robbed them for way too long. You should be grateful they saw an opportunity to make some money so they can stick around for a while longer to make sure there is competition against Intel and Nvidia.

If AMD didn't pin intel into a corner and beat them bloody these last few years, you would still be paying ~$300 for a 4C/8T i7.
Both companies are just as bad as each other. But I will say this, when AMD were making their god awful FX range Intel didn’t put their prices anywhere near as high as AMD did with the 5000 series. And also not as high as Intel did previously with their Pentium 4 Extreme Editions, or as much as AMD did with their Athlon 64 FX.

Since Ryzen arrived CPU prices have only gone up as it’s clear that neither AMD nor Intel have no interest in delivering cheap solutions. The cheapest entry to Ryzen 5000 cost the same as the top end i7 from Intel before Ryzen arrived.

As I said both companies are just as bad as each other. If you genuinely believe one is more “ethical” or “consumer friendly” than another then you’ve probably just been suckered in by their marketing and you deserve to be called a “fanboy”.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Both companies are just as bad as each other. But I will say this, when AMD were making their god awful FX range Intel didn’t put their prices anywhere near as high as AMD did with the 5000 series. And also not as high as Intel did previously with their Pentium 4 Extreme Editions, or as much as AMD did with their Athlon 64 FX.

Since Ryzen arrived CPU prices have only gone up as it’s clear that neither AMD nor Intel have no interest in delivering cheap solutions. The cheapest entry to Ryzen 5000 cost the same as the top end i7 from Intel before Ryzen arrived.

As I said both companies are just as bad as each other. If you genuinely believe one is more “ethical” or “consumer friendly” than another then you’ve probably just been suckered in by their marketing and you deserve to be called a “fanboy”.

Well, I guess maybe you've been living under a rock for the last 18 months or so...so I will enlighten you to this global problem involving a virus called COVID-19. It has been a bit of a doozy to the global supply chain and what not...amongst the many issues that have arisen from it, inflated prices due to the virus disrupting...literally EVERYTHING are at the top of the list.

Maybe in a non-covid world prices would have been different...but there's no way to tell.

Also, you can get the 5600G. I don't know of any 'top end i7' in the past that could be had for the same price as a 5600G right now...which is about $250. Or $199 if you happen to be fortunate enough to live near a microcenter location.

*Edit* - Also, the 7700K which was around at the debut of ryzen was still 4C/8T. So for the same money AMD still gave you 50% more cores/threads with the 5600X. The 5600X also dumped all over the 7700K in techspot's review of the 5600X; it wasn't even relevant enough for them to keep it in the gaming portion of the review. At least for the same amount of money, you got significant improvements in performance...especially for anything leveraging thread/core count.

And yes, I am DEFINITELY an AMD fan boy. *looks at the HTPC sitting in front of me* An AMD fanboy with an i5-10400 powered system as well as (2) Intel NUC's elsewhere in my house.
 
Last edited:

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,649
Well, I guess maybe you've been living under a rock for the last 18 months or so...so I will enlighten you to this global problem involving a virus called COVID-19. It has been a bit of a doozy to the global supply chain and what not...amongst the many issues that have arisen from it, inflated prices due to the virus disrupting...literally EVERYTHING are at the top of the list.

Maybe in a non-covid world prices would have been different...but there's no way to tell.

Also, you can get the 5600G. I don't know of any 'top end i7' in the past that could be had for the same price as a 5600G right now...which is about $250. Or $199 if you happen to be fortunate enough to live near a microcenter location.

*Edit* - Also, the 7700K which was around at the debut of ryzen was still 4C/8T. So for the same money AMD still gave you 50% more cores/threads with the 5600X. The 5600X also dumped all over the 7700K in techspot's review of the 5600X; it wasn't even relevant enough for them to keep it in the gaming portion of the review. At least for the same amount of money, you got significant improvements in performance...especially for anything leveraging thread/core count.

And yes, I am DEFINITELY an AMD fan boy. *looks at the HTPC sitting in front of me* An AMD fanboy with an i5-10400 powered system as well as (2) Intel NUC's elsewhere in my house.
Lmao yup you are definitely a fanboy, especially if you genuinely believe the Ryzen 5000 series was only priced high because of the pandemic, that’s some pretty desperate copium you’re displaying there. Same with the core count argument, by your logic if Intel launched a lineup with more cores than AMD it’s ok as long as per core you’re paying less, even if the CPUs themselves cost over $1000 total for example.

You are aware the 3000 series and 5000 series were on the same node right? Right, you probably are but you don’t care, you won’t hear a bad word against AMD it seems.

AMD are just as bad as Intel, both companies price gouge, both companies give zero f*cks about consumers. Only stupid fanboys claim otherwise.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Lmao yup you are definitely a fanboy, especially if you genuinely believe the Ryzen 5000 series was only priced high because of the pandemic, that’s some pretty desperate copium you’re displaying there.

You are aware the 3000 series and 5000 series were on the same node right? Right, you probably are but you don’t care, you won’t bear ti hear a bad word against AMD.

AMD are just as bad as Intel, only stupid fanboys claim otherwise…
Show me the last time Intel gave a 20% performance jump on the same node after 1 generation and I will claim myself as the queen of england. Since,as you said, AMD *only* gave a 20% performance boost from the 3600 to the 5600X.

*whipsers* Intels 14nm++++++++++++++++

And now they're on the 'Intel 7' node which is actually 10nm:


While I know that the methods deduced to measure how small the node is vary...it's still comical to me that they had to advertise their manufacturing node as 7nm since that's what AMD has been doing with TSMC since early 2020 with their mobile chips.
 
Last edited:

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,649
Show me the last time Intel gave a 20% performance jump on the same node after 1 generation and I will claim myself as the queen of england.
Why? That wouldn’t prove anything at all..

They have just recently released Alder lake, which is faster and cheaper than anything AMD can sell. I bet that boils your piss doesn’t it lol.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,584   +1,407

Well, I guess maybe you've been living under a rock for the last 18 months or so...so I will enlighten you to this global problem involving a virus called COVID-19. It has been a bit of a doozy to the global supply chain and what not...amongst the many issues that have arisen from it, inflated prices due to the virus disrupting...literally EVERYTHING are at the top of the list.

Maybe in a non-covid world prices would have been different...but there's no way to tell.

Also, you can get the 5600G. I don't know of any 'top end i7' in the past that could be had for the same price as a 5600G right now...which is about $250. Or $199 if you happen to be fortunate enough to live near a microcenter location.

*Edit* - Also, the 7700K which was around at the debut of ryzen was still 4C/8T. So for the same money AMD still gave you 50% more cores/threads with the 5600X. The 5600X also dumped all over the 7700K in techspot's review of the 5600X; it wasn't even relevant enough for them to keep it in the gaming portion of the review. At least for the same amount of money, you got significant improvements in performance...especially for anything leveraging thread/core count.

And yes, I am DEFINITELY an AMD fan boy. *looks at the HTPC sitting in front of me* An AMD fanboy with an i5-10400 powered system as well as (2) Intel NUC's elsewhere in my house.
Lmao, so AMD fanboys are attempting to push the false narrative that AMD were powerless and could do nothing to prevent their enormous price hikes!

Yeah, no one’s going to believe garbage like that dude. AMD recently price gouged harder than Intel have and it’s got nothing to do with the pandemic. It’s called corporate greed, or just running a business.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Why? That wouldn’t prove anything at all..

They have just recently released Alder lake, which is faster and cheaper than anything AMD can sell. I bet that boils your piss doesn’t it lol.
It's barely faster pending the application...and really...it SHOULD be faster...shouldn't it? Since they've been playing catch up...
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Lmao, so AMD fanboys are attempting to push the false narrative that AMD were powerless and could do nothing to prevent their enormous price hikes!

Yeah, no one’s going to believe garbage like that dude. AMD recently price gouged harder than Intel have and it’s got nothing to do with the pandemic. It’s called corporate greed, or just running a business.
Ya, just like I said previously, it's called running a business.

Additionally, TSMC and all other chip manufacturers, are running at maximum capacity...have been for awhile now. This is when the basic concept of supply and demand comes into play. If you have something that people want, and there are more buyers than supply...then the price goes up. I guess the drastic hike in automobile prices/values has nothing to do with corona and the silicon shortage either, right...? /rollseyes

You, just like shadoweenie over here, are ignoring the fact that Intel dragged everyone along for a LONG time with marginal upgrades to performance...with NO increase in core counts. AMD is then presented with a short window of opportunity to cash in, like Intel has done for-ever, and make some money, and all of a sudden Intel is the good guy? Keep drinking that blue-berry kool-aid.

Y'all projecting fanboy-ism pretty hard right now.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,649
It's barely faster pending the application...and really...it SHOULD be faster...shouldn't it? Since they've been playing catch up...
Right, so we can’t credit Intel because it’s expected to be faster?

Youre blocked, I’m really not wasting my time on AMD fanboys any longer. They are the lowest common denominators in the tech community..
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,584   +1,407
Ya, just like I said previously, it's called running a business.

You, just like shadoweenie over here, are ignoring the fact that Intel dragged everyone along for a LONG time with marginal upgrades to performance...with NO increase in core counts. AMD is then presented with a short window of opportunity to cash in, like Intel has done for-ever, and make some money, and all of a sudden Intel is the good guy? Keep drinking that blue-berry kool-aid.

Y'all projecting fanboy-ism pretty hard right now.
Intel dragged on with small performance improvements? Can you remind me, what were AMD doing during that time? Oh yes that’s it, their products were even worse lol. Why would you blame Intel for not being competitive when they didn’t have any competition? It’s like blaming a sports team for playing a boring game when the other team didnt show up.

Also nobody here has said Intel is the “good guy”. Everyone is just saying that both Intel and AMD are just as scummy as each other, which is the truth. There is no good guy. The people who believe any one of these companies is the “good guy” need psychological help.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Right, so we can’t credit Intel because it’s expected to be faster?

Youre blocked, I’m really not wasting my time on AMD fanboys any longer. They are the lowest common denominators in the tech community..


Ya...actually...they're definitely expected to be faster. Ya know...the thing that the co-founder of Intel, Gordon Moore, came up with in the 70's...
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,649

Ya...actually...they're definitely expected to be faster. Ya know...the thing that the co-founder of Intel, Gordon Moore, came up with in the 70's...
Oh dear, so we can’t praise Intel when they beat AMD because of moores law. But we should praise AMD for Ryzen, even though it arrived after 10 years of failing to beat Intel?

You really are a hopeless fanboy..
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Intel dragged on with small performance improvements? Can you remind me, what were AMD doing during that time? Oh yes that’s it, their products were even worse lol. Why would you blame Intel for not being competitive when they didn’t have any competition? It’s like blaming a sports team for playing a boring game when the other team didnt show up.

Also nobody here has said Intel is the “good guy”. Everyone is just saying that both Intel and AMD are just as scummy as each other, which is the truth. There is no good guy. The people who believe any one of these companies is the “good guy” need psychological help.

On a scale of 1-Intel...AMD isn't anywhere near Intel on the scummy scale.

Once again, without AMD, everyone would be F*******. It's as simple as that.

Ya, AMD was nowhere to be seen, partly, NOT ENTIRELY, due to Intel being a giant douchebag with their anti-competitive practices. No company is good. They're companies looking to make money...because that's what they do.

So, please, quote when I said that AMD was an entity with a moral compass pointing towards not screwing anyone; ever. I'll wait...until I'm pushing up daisies.

If you are unwilling to admit that AMD, solely, violently shoved the progress of CPUs forward, since Intel was a lazy sleeping giant, then you are beyond help.
 

Lounds

Posts: 1,079   +953
I'm surprised intel cheaped out. I wonder if the die for the 12400/12500 is completely different and smaller go the 12600 with no space for where the E cores would actually be on the die.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Oh dear, so we can’t praise Intel when they beat AMD because of moores law. But we should praise AMD for Ryzen, even though it arrived after 10 years of failing to beat Intel?

You really are a hopeless fanboy..

When AMD's entire budget was less than Intel's profits...for who knows how long...it's really sad that AMD was able to beat them...ever.

And, no, they don't deserve praise for catching up to a company they should have continually left in the dust. Especially when you look at the difference in $$$ between the two companies.



Let's see...in 2005 Intel profited $23 Billion. That same year AMD at $2.3 Billion.

This is like Mugsy Bogues dunking on Shaq :joy:
 
Last edited:

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
I'm surprised intel cheaped out. I wonder if the die for the 12400/12500 is completely different and smaller go the 12600 with no space for where the E cores would actually be on the die.

We can only speculate. Thorough, in-depth reviews, of the lower SKUs will tell us how much performance is left off the table without them.

It's the first gen of the big/little arch so there's potential for large gains going forward; Just like AMD with Ryzen over the last few years.

Since AMD kicked Intel square between the legs while they were snoozing, and woke them up, things should be interesting for the foreseeable future.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,649
When AMD's entire budget was less than Intel's profits...for who knows how long...it's really sad that AMD was able to beat them...ever



Let's see...in 2005 Intel profited $23 Billion. That same year AMD at $2.3 Billion.

This is like Mugsy Bogues dunking on Shaq :joy:
Lmao ok so we can only praise AMD because they are worth less.

Goodbye lol.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Lmao ok so we can only praise AMD because they are worth less.

Goodbye lol.

Ya, you already said you were going to block me. But this 'discussion' is clearly worth your time. :)

Doesn't matter why AMD is/was worth less. Yup, I am aware of how much larger their product stack is...and yet AMD came in and knocked them around with a way smarter architecture/design that scales from crazy Server/Enterprise down to the plebs who simply want to play games.

And, once again, never said AMD was good. They're just better than Intel; and Nvidia for that matter.

And, you're still unwilling to admit that without AMD the whole landscape would suck much more than it does now. Because of AMD you can now get an i3 spec'd the same as an i7 from a few generations ago; 4C/8T.
 

umbala

Posts: 603   +1,007
At $194 the 12400 is going to obliterate the 5600x. Cant wait to see the reviews (and AMD's reaction). The article makes it sound like there is some major change, but really outside of not having near useless e cores, there's no difference between this and any other gen of locked intel parts.

I think the lack of e cores, while explainable as intel using the best silicon for the highest end parts, is still kinda odd, in that the e cores would make more sense on the locked parts found in office PCS then in the k parts found in gaming desktops. Even so, the 12400f, much like the 11400 and 10400, is going to be a rockstar in the budget space once b660 boards come out.

Well, they could always be like AMD, sell only the highest end part for a bloated price, and if you are on a budget you can go pound sand and eat feces.
You're an Intel fanboy foaming at the mouth. The ONLY reason Intel will ever lower prices is to compete with AMD. You're welcome.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
You're an Intel fanboy foaming at the mouth. The ONLY reason Intel will ever lower prices is to compete with AMD. You're welcome.

It's not like the availability of core i3 and low-end i5 have been that great recently either. The price of the 3600 plumetted once the 5000 series launched, and when those were all gobbled up for abnormally low prices people turned to the 10400 and 10100. Those have been harder to come by along with cheaper compatible motherboards.

I build systems several times a year, nothing crazy since it's just a fun side gig, but I keep up on what is available at my local microcenters; fortunate enough to live near 2 of them. Availability of lower tier chips has been crap at best partially due to crypto, for the most part, booming again.

So many people are angry that AMD became relevant after they woke the sleeping giant that Intel had become. Like it's some miracle that Intel got back in the game once they hired Jim Keller after he finished a stint at AMD; for the 2nd time. The difference being Keller suddenly left Intel for unknown reasons prior to when he was supposed to be done there.

All this means is greater competition in the space, and us, as consumers win. The products may be more expensive than they once were, but they are also so much more capable...an i5-12600k with 10-cores and 16 threads...when the 9600k was 6 core and 6 thread. 8-thread 3-series parts...how is this not good?

The only thing I'm a fanboy of is progress. AMD was finally able to put the pressure on Intel after too many years of being unable to compete.
 

paul1122

Posts: 219   +232
Like you are all sitting around wondering if you're going to buy an intel or amd setup. Bull****. You'll buy what you want, not because it's cheaper, faster, better or anything like that. Your mind is made up long before you start buying. Tell me I'm wrong, then look online and fall in love with a youtube review. Done. You are buying THAT.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Like you are all sitting around wondering if you're going to buy an intel or amd setup. Bull****. You'll buy what you want, not because it's cheaper, faster, better or anything like that. Your mind is made up long before you start buying. Tell me I'm wrong, then look online and fall in love with a youtube review. Done. You are buying THAT.

You're wrong.

Sincerely, the current owner of Intel, AMD and Nvidia products that have been the best bang-for-buck in the topsy-turvy market of the last 2 years.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 1,049   +855
I vividly remember the days when Intel didn't charged more for a product simply because they had a superior one.

Oh that's right, those days never existed.

Sure, the 5600X is now a bad buy at $300, but it wasn't for some time.

AMD saw an opportunity to make money and they took it...because they're a business. Intel bent everyone over and robbed them for way too long. You should be grateful they saw an opportunity to make some money so they can stick around for a while longer to make sure there is competition against Intel and Nvidia.

If AMD didn't pin intel into a corner and beat them bloody these last few years, you would still be paying ~$300 for a 4C/8T i7.

It is true our stories were hushed at BESTBUY back when INTEL was using "REBATES" to push PC makers to only dealing with INTEL. AMD won the suit but it was too much damage what INTEL did in the 1990's and early 2000's. I worked at BESTBUY fresh out of high school as a sales and tech STAPLES THEN BESTBUY. Our team was PUNISHED if we didn't sell more INTEL over AMD even when AMD was the better choice. Our manager would look at the numbers live and pull us in claiming how they get an incentive for INTEL products instead of AMD.

Anyone over the age of 35 knows how dirty INTEL was and still is.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,034   +3,453
Well, lets see. For the 6 core 5000 series, you have the 5600x. Damn, that's one part. And it's $300, compared to $159 for the predecessor part, for a 20% uplift. Now THAT is a sour pill to swallow.

….

Both a whataboutism AND a red herring, I'm impressed. Also, wrong.

Intel limited supply. AMD, last time I checked, never bothered releasing non X series chips to anyone but OEMs. Intel didnt refuse to launch i5 9000 series parts other then the k series.
For one, the 3600x was $250, so it‘s a $50 price increase. If you look at cost of entry you could use the $200 3600 but the x is not the non-X‘s successor.
Either way, not sure where you are getting $159 from unless you are comparing EOL pricing to launch msrp.

And pointing out that Intel did the same when they were in a supply constrained situation is not whataboutism - it‘s literally comparing behavior in an identical situation. That lower end models existed on paper (only) does not change things. That‘s like the paper special 3300x for which AMD was deservedly criticized.
 

maroon1

Posts: 122   +138
Base clock speed does not even matter. i5 11400 has 2.6GHz base clock speed, but it always run 4+GHz when running games and heavy task

The only real change is that non-K i5 model don't have any E cores. So it will noticeably lose in multi-core performance compared to K model.....