Consider the value of patience before the upcoming update arrives.
Consider the value of patience before the upcoming update arrives.
HT serves more as an added feature rather than a replacement for physical cores. Intel doesn't include HT in many of their CPUs to organize their product range and likely cut costs by avoiding additional checks, not because they're abandoning HT. I don't recall any recent updates about Intel CPUs, but prior reports suggested HT would be reinstated on most chips as before. AMD typically matches or exceeds Intel's core count depending on the price point, so it's unclear if Intel would gain an edge here.
Having issues with Ryzen doesn’t always mean virtual cores are the problem. AMD processors generally offer more cores than Intel ones, but those cores tend to run slower. They also use a distinct type of multithreading. Intel excels in single-thread performance and has certain optimizations in place. That said, there could be other factors at play—such as how Torek handles hyperthreading or SMT—which might affect results.
It seems like this discussion is about how processor performance varies depending on use cases. Many focus on speed for tasks like video editing, but in reality, most people don’t edit enough to notice the difference. This perspective has kept me loyal to Intel despite their upcoming CPU updates.
Intel’s approach seems overly refined, and their products might reflect that maturity. They seem to understand their market deeply, possibly adjusting for personal gain. Models like the 9900k and 3700x both sit at 8/16, yet they’re not comparable. The 3600 and 8700k are both at 6/12, which is similar. A 9900k price matches a 3700x, but no one would mention AMD in that context. They don’t. AMD excels at non-multithreaded designs, such as the 3500 at 6/6. They simply don’t reach the U.S. or EU markets for these models.
Have you noticed the 3000 lineup? Threadripper performs exceptionally well in HEDT applications
AMD could fully replace Intel in the same way they dominated the i5 segment.
If Intel drops 10nm or below, AMD will face challenges. 7nm AMD is still catching up in 3D. With a solid offering now, the options are limited today. Those who prioritize budget-friendly builds are opting for AMD instead. You don’t need extra threads or a "threadripper" to assemble a high-end desktop—there are other components involved. If you have an Intel or AMD system with 3200mhz memory... you’re not wasting your money.
You're not wrong. They likely still make enough money with their sales and the prices they're at, so they're not in a hurry to race to the bottom. From the outside, yeah, their sales are down and people are laughing at them...on the inside, the accountants are probably calculating how long they can ride it out before they actually start seeing negative effects. The 3600 vs the 8700k is an odd comparison, considering they're from different generations. The performance difference is pretty substantial against the older Ryzen parts. AMD is doing a great job, but overall they still have quite a bit of tweaking to do before they're at the level Intel is. Sure, but that's an even smaller niche than the regular line. I meant more for RAM compatibility though, it's still not perfect with Ryzen and that's frankly pathetic. Indeed, Intel is far from out; they have substantially more money to burn through than AMD does. It's also important to know that 10nm from Intel isn't the same thing as 10nm from AMD; Intel is, iirc, currently basically on the same node as AMD, regardless of the naming. AMD does win on the budget end though, and that is really where most people buy. It'll eventually hurt Intel more in the long run, as those people, if they eventually want to upgrade in the future, will simply buy AMD again, because that's what their last few PCs have been. It's the long game AMD is playing, and Intel really can't ignore that for too long or they'll suffer as a result.
True. A 9900k and a 3700x both translate to 8/16. AMD cores at that capacity tend to lag behind Intel cores, though this could shift with higher core counts. At the lowest end, Intel's 16-core setup might outperform AMD's 16-core in certain scenarios. Part of the problem seems to stem from single-threaded applications not utilizing multiple threads fully. It looks like VIA might be using slower cores even more so. Performance depends on both per-core efficiency and cost-effectiveness.