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

RedBear

Posts: 34   +30
"Much worse" sounds strong to me, it makes it sounds like they're completely useless, they're different and Intel is segmenting the market in a kind of weird way, but looking at the benchmark of the 12600 they're not that bad either.
 

Lounds

Posts: 996   +897
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.
Yeah it's strange it's like people's minds forgot that AMD always discount their older range of products when they have a new product line, so they can sell the old stock off. When the Ryzen 2000 series launched you could buy Ryzen 5 1600 for as low as £120. I'm sure discounted EOL pricing will happen with the launch of Zen3+.
 

BSim500

Posts: 882   +2,060
"Meanwhile, the 12600 loses a lot"
Does it really? When TechPowerUp disabled the E cores, fps dropped by a mere 1.6% (1080p) to just 0.6% (1440p) yet was still +7-9% faster than the overpriced 5600X (link). I'm not in the market for a new CPU, but if I were I'd certainly consider a 12400-12600 paired with a B board if that's all there is in it for half the price...
 

SixTymes

Posts: 173   +110
Although this info is a bit interesting. it also falls into the catogory of "a lot to do about nothing."

I for one do not take sides anymore, all I want is fast stablility and longevity. so far, with this new ceo Intel is proving itself again.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +55
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.
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.
These two guys get it.
 

Gezzer

Posts: 198   +100
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.

I don't know if I'd say the e-cores are useless. From what I understand, and a lot comes down to how well the scheduler is tuned for the new architecture, the e-cores are meant to free up the performance cores by running less resource intensive threads. Which I would guess would mean a lot of the OS background ones.

So in scenarios where you need as much out of the p-cores as you can get, like gaming or rendering, it makes perfect sense to have e-cores. But OTOH if you're using a system for more mundane uses that don't require a lot of horsepower, and let's face it other then rendering and gaming other uses usually don't, forgoing the big-little architect makes sense.

IMHO most K variants are purchased by power users that either really need as much performance as they can get, or think they do. Non K variants, especially the sub $200 ones, go in systems that are seldom ever stressed by the end user. Having a high clock and lots of cores are wasted in those cases and a basic 4 or 6 core with hyperthreading will be more than enough. Hell in my work environment most of the computers are still 2/4 core systems and no one complains about that. The network on the other hand...
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +55
Does it really? When TechPowerUp disabled the E cores, fps dropped by a mere 1.6% (1080p) to just 0.6% (1440p) yet was still +7-9% faster than the overpriced 5600X (link). I'm not in the market for a new CPU, but if I were I'd certainly consider a 12400-12600 paired with a B board if that's all there is in it for half the price...

That's on a 12900K. It has sufficient cores for any games that are out right now as there is, generally speaking, little to no benefit past 8C/16T.

Also, there are people who do things besides game. If you look through the application performance section there are instances where disabling the little cores can make a pretty substantial difference.
 

Fulljack

Posts: 37   +35
Intel selling quad core i7 for 7 generation: I sleep

AMD charging 300$ for hexa core CPU: real ****

either you guys has a memory of goldfishes or simply Intel fanboy. accept it.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 13,141   +6,438
Intel selling quad core i7 for 7 generation: I sleep

AMD charging 300$ for hexa core CPU: real ****

either you guys has a memory of goldfishes or simply Intel fanboy. accept it.
Even with AMD's core count AMD sucked until they release Ryzen. Why complain about Intel only selling quad core CPUs? When that is all they needed to compete with AMD. You just revealed how much of a fanboy you are.
 

Fulljack

Posts: 37   +35
Even with AMD's core count AMD sucked until they release Ryzen. Why complain about Intel only selling quad core CPUs? When that is all they needed to compete with AMD. You just revealed how much of a fanboy you are.
so just accept Intel selling quad core for years just because there's no competition? you support monopoly just to made your point, eh?
 

ScottSoapbox

Posts: 238   +411
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.

I guess you could count the 5600 non x, except that is OEM only. Oh, there's the APUs I guess, if you dont mind paying for a GPU you dont need and a smaller L3 cache. What was the complaint about segmented intel products again? A locked multiplier? At least they dont cut the cache, and the locked parts get within 1-200 mhz of the k parts.

There's also the 3600 for $220, if you dont mind buying a last gen part, of course you can get a 9000 series i5 6 core that will outperform it for even less. Darn, not a good look for AMD there.

Projection, thy name is ScottSoapbox. Sorry I insulted your glorious AMD. Face facts, AMD abandoned the budget market. You could get, at one point, a 10400f, b560 motherboard, and cheap RAM set for only a little more then a 5600x CPU alone, and such a setup would technically outperform any 3000 series 6 core part in games.

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.

And, of course "well well well intel did it" is not an excuse to abandon the budget market.
Exactly, thank you. If you want a zen 3 build, you either pay for the vastly overpriced x series or take a hike back to 2019 chips. Intel at least allows you to buy lower end locked versions of their chips for a cheaper price, and if you are a budget builder the difference is nil, unless you have a 3090 and a 144hz display laying around.

The 5600x represented a 40-100% price increase (depending on market and MSRP VS available price) over the 3600 for a 20% performance increase. And as you mentioned, it also represents a 25% decrease in core count for the same price compared to the 3700. AMD is praised for this for some odd reason. Meanwhile, intel releases a 6 core i5 that can potentially outperform the 5600x for the price of a 3600, and people lambast them for "segmenting the market". It's such a bizzare reaction, as if the existence of a locked part means intel no longer sells the k series chips (it reminds me of how gamers whined about an easier setting being put into dark souls, because how dare mroe casual fans wish to play the game without investing 50 hours into mastering the dodge?).
I think it's hilarious that you created the narrow subcategory of 5000 series 6-core CPUs to show that AMD makes only one part (rather than just admit your statement was pure hyperbole) then go on to find not one but two exceptions to your own strawman argument.

I mean you are losing this argument with yourself! :joy:
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 13,141   +6,438
support monopoly just to made your point, eh?
How would Intel selling CPUs with higher core count going to change anything. That would have made it worse on AMD. You are going the wrong direction to break the monopoly. AMD not competing fueled the monopoly. You should know this from the last few years.
 

Fulljack

Posts: 37   +35
How would Intel selling CPUs with higher core count going to change anything. That would have made it worse on AMD. You are going the wrong direction to break the monopoly. AMD not competing fueled the monopoly. You should know this from the last few years.
it gives consumer more power, an incentive for software developer to make apps that has better parallelization, instead focusing on single core alone. in the end, creating more progress for the market as a whole, just like Intel and AMD are currently doing in the last 3 years. sure, it made AMD worse, but does it matter? are Intel legally binded to not sell HCC for consumer so AMD can survive? of course not. for a company, they only prioritize profit instead of progress, and that is what both AMD and Intel are doing.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 13,141   +6,438
it gives consumer more power, an incentive for software developer to make apps that has better parallelization, instead focusing on single core alone.
This is where I see things a bit differently. If it wasn't for AMD failing to produce single core efficiency. They wouldn't have needed to branch out with twice the core count as Intel. You are defending them for their short comings. And then have the nerve to blame Intel for not following suit.
 

Fulljack

Posts: 37   +35
This is where I see things a bit differently. If it wasn't for AMD failing to produce single core efficiency. They wouldn't have needed to branch out with twice the core count as Intel. You are defending them for their short comings. And then have the nerve to blame Intel for not following suit.
so no incentives to push hardware are fine, got it.

AMD might contribute to how Intel operate post-Sandy Bridge given their Excavator uArch are a failure, but that doesn't mean it's AMD fault completely for Intel monopoly behavior. last time I checked, those two are a different company with no business planned together at all. Intel's action are Intel's own responsibility—as simple as that.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 1,008   +818
Even with AMD's core count AMD sucked until they release Ryzen. Why complain about Intel only selling quad core CPUs? When that is all they needed to compete with AMD. You just revealed how much of a fanboy you are.

Nope. Phenom 4 core didn't suck and was actually faster than the early versions of the FX chip and the Phenom 6core was a very good performer but hard to find. Phenom X4 965BE I had played FARCRY 4 max settings around 50-60FPS if I can recall and that was with an old school 1TB HD, 8GB of RIPJAWS DDR2 yes DDR2 lol and a highly overclocked RX560 4GB. Phenom legend was artificially killed due to that instruction set used in some modern games called SSE 4.2a or whatever it was. I and other's complain to three game develpers one being a FARCRY game (forgot the series maybe 4) the other being a RESIDENT EVIL game and forgot the third one but the patch was added 1-2 months later!