Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Is Intel losing their minds?! (Minor rant)


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:02:54 AM

Posted 11 July 2017 - 11:42 PM

Ah intel, for many they are the be the gold standard for CPU manufacturers , for over a decade they have been the one dominant company as far as processors are concerned.

But it seems now in the wake of AMD's new Ryzen platform it seems all those years of dominance have turned the brains of Intel to melt into a puddle in their reaction to it.

 

First lets talk about Kaby Lake X and hoo boy is this one a royal mess.

Now don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with enthusiast grade processors, Ryzen will soon have threadripper and i will be very interested in how that looks in comparison with what I have in my Ryzen 7 1700.

But looking at the Core i7-7740X and the Core i5-7640X they are simply repackaged versions of the 7600K and the 7700k meaning that the so called enthusiast grade is getting a processor that you can buy for cheaper on the non enthusiast grade platform. Intel has failed to make this new platform to look appealing on that front.

Look I am not saying the whole of the X299 platform is bad but man is there a lot of other things wrong with it, like limited PCI express lanes.

I mean yes Z270 is getting old but the new platform looks very weak compared to what AMD is offering right now, not saying AMD is perfect as it does lack single thread performance but everything else looks rather silly.

 

But hey i can ignore that part if I wished but i cannot ignore the rumor that intel may be killing off the Pentium G4560 and all I can say is what the flying bleep?

Yes though rumor has it (for now) Intel may be killing off their best budget processor the Pentium G4560

 

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Rumor-Intel-May-Discontinue-Pentium-G4560-Processor

 

http://digiworthy.com/2017/07/07/intel-pentium-g4560-prices/

 

So in effort to boost the sales of the core i3 a processor line that lately has looked very silly recently when you could get a processor that can do just as well as it with the Pentium G4560 intel decides that no getting money from people who want to build a budget gaming PC using what is hands down one of the best processors for the money is not good enough?

What kind of bullbleep business decision is this crap?
Its like frigging GM being pissed off that Cadillac and Buick sales are down so the best thing to do is to kill Chevrolet!

Or Toyota thinking that the best way to sell a Lexus is to terminate the name Toyota!

What is Chrysler going to kill off Dodge, Jeep and bleep Fiats now?

If this rumor does turn out to be the truth then Intel seriously needs to find the first large body of water, tie a stone to their legs and jump in.

I mean really this is your answer to AMD intel, kill off a great budget processor so you can sell your bleep i3's that very soon will look rather bleep when Ryzen 3 comes out.

Good job intel, well done you pea brained money grabbing imbeciles.

If this really is your answer to AMD then you deserve to have your collective asses kicked by AMD.

Its one thing to make a rather questionable platform that is Kaby Lake X and its another to even think of killing off a processor that is making you money.


Edited by MadmanRB, 12 July 2017 - 10:29 AM.

You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

xu847p-6.png


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:09:54 AM

Posted 14 July 2017 - 07:32 PM

Hey, according to this CPU synthetic benchmark website Intel is making all the processors in the Top 10+ fastest CPUs on the planet, both on a single and multi-core basis. How do you justify that? I'm not trying to be mean, I honestly want to know your opinion as you clearly know much more than me. (In fact, I didn't understand around 50% of your post. I don't know enough, lol.):)



#3 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3,222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:02:54 AM

Posted 14 July 2017 - 08:22 PM

Because in the end benchmarks in the end dont matter, its value and bang for your buck is where things count.

yes in multi core scores yes Intel has beaten the current AMD lineup with the Intel Core i9-7900X but it is three times as much money as the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

And its not just the processor, the motherboard is also in the possible cost.

Plus benchmarks mean nothing to real world performance

But if benchmarks are the only thing of value then:

 

 

AMD is still the better value as the AMD numbers are not that far off.

Yeah the intel beat the AMD, whoopee bleep bleep when its three times the price plus the motherboard and cooler.


Edited by MadmanRB, 14 July 2017 - 08:34 PM.

You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

xu847p-6.png


#4 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,011 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:02:54 AM

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:02 PM

I have never understood why some put so much stock in benchmarks when it comes to evaluating actual "in practice" performance.

 

I realize that there needs to be some sort of standard that can be tested to, but there's an awful lot of "close enough is way more than good enough" when it comes to how a computer performs "in the real world."  It's also entirely possible to design things such that an excellent processor is confounded by what surrounds it.

 

Of course, I'm one of those people who's never bought top-end processors ever at the time they were introduced or even near to it.  I don't do the kind of computing that requires awesome computing power and speed.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#5 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3,222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:02:54 AM

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:08 PM

Wel its not like benchmarks are invalid as they can help some make a decision based on their needs, indeed benchmarks can determine a lot in real world performance.

However benchmarks should not be a selling point, price to performance should come first.

It can be the best processor ever made but it doesnt matter if it costs three times as much as its competitor and that said competitor is a viable option.

Again this is intel being silly again by not offering better prices on their processors.


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

xu847p-6.png


#6 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,011 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:02:54 AM

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:13 PM

MadmanRB,

 

            I am not trying to disagree with you one bit.

 

            Like all things, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.  As you've pointed out, it makes little difference if you can squeeze scads more performance out but the cost to get it is prohibitive compared to "good enough for most instances" at a much lower price point.

 

             You fit the tool to the task, and then find the lowest priced tool that will do it with adequate durability.   Paying for something you don't use is insanity (and lots of people get suckered into doing so).


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#7 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3,222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:02:54 AM

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:19 PM

Indeed, in fact that is why i got my Ryzen 7 1700 as it has so much power for its price point.

Sure in gaming its not the greatest but is better than my old i5 4460 and the fact it opens the door to what i really want to do as in make videos on youtube then it will pay for itself.

Sure gaming wise its not as good as the Core i5-7600K at gaming due to optimization but man is it great at multitasking and multi threaded operations such as video rendering.


Edited by MadmanRB, 14 July 2017 - 10:20 PM.

You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

xu847p-6.png


#8 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:09:54 AM

Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:43 AM

I see. So, if everything was free in a theoretical world, you would go with the Intel chips as they are slightly better. However, in real life AMD's CPUs provide much more value for their price-point.

 

I, and I presume most of the other people, look at benchmarks to provide some clarity in the chaotic variability of processors, as I don't know enough in order to assess their value from the numbers myself. Also, benchmarks are used pretty much everywhere out of curiosity and sometimes can swing the decision of the potential buyers massively. That's why, for example, Ferrari, McLaren and Porsche, with their LaFerrari, P1 and 918 models respectively, shied away from giving their cars for testing for so long, as buyers who pay top dollar for such vehicles usually would like to buy the fastest car on the planet among the three, even if it makes them vain in the eyes of the bystanders. BTW, just in case you're wondering the three cars turned out to be, much like Brian predicted, incredibly close enough in terms of performance. On the same day, on the same track, in the same conditions, with the same tires, with the same driver, with the same wind, with the same fuel and pretty much all other variables that could realistically be made the same, the Porsche 918 was fastest on average, followed by the Ferrari LaFerrari and the McLaren P1. However, if you use the manufacturer's suggested tires, fuel and driver, the placements vary once again. So in the end, as you both said, benchmarks don't really matter when everything is so close to the margin of error. :)


Edited by Just_One_Question, 15 July 2017 - 08:45 AM.


#9 The-Toolman

The-Toolman

  • Members
  • 1,441 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:54 AM

Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:56 AM

MadmanRB,

 

            I am not trying to disagree with you one bit.

 

            Like all things, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.  As you've pointed out, it makes little difference if you can squeeze scads more performance out but the cost to get it is prohibitive compared to "good enough for most instances" at a much lower price point.

 

             You fit the tool to the task, and then find the lowest priced tool that will do it with adequate durability.   Paying for something you don't use is insanity (and lots of people get suckered into doing so).

I agree cost has everything to do with anything purchased.


I'm grumpy because I can be not because I'm old.

 

The world is what you make of it, if it doesn't fit, you make alterations.

 

Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.  (Mark Twain)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users