No certainty about the situation.
No certainty about the situation.
Following the release of the 3rd generation Ryzen 9s and Threadrippers, I have some concerns about Intel's position as a top processor maker (a sentiment shared by many). Yet, I found a detailed plan for their upcoming 10th generation chips built on 14nm technology. These updates seem solid improvements compared to the previous ninth-gen models. The new 14nm chip includes an additional enhancement, which could lead to improved performance per thread and some architectural changes. Also, the HD graphics in the 7th generation are available on these processors, which should be beneficial for budget gamers using i3 10100 and 10300 chips. I also noticed a larger L3 cache and a different socket design—this might require a new motherboard. The increased core count and support for hyper-threading across the lineup could help Intel close the gap with AMD in multi-thread performance. Still, it remains to be seen if this will be enough. While single-core performance is currently Intel's strength, adding more cores and hyper-threading may narrow the difference with AMD's offerings. The i9 and i7 processors might still be sufficient to bridge the gap with the Ry7 and Ry9 (3900x). With the upcoming 4th generation Ryzen arriving soon, it’s unclear how long Intel can maintain its lead. In June, Ice Lake will launch. If Intel maintains their single-thread advantage, high core clocks, and a diverse 4-10 core range, the 10nm architecture could be quite strong. I’d like to hear others’ opinions on this. Many claim Intel is no longer competitive, but I believe there’s still room for growth in the future.
Seen some claims about 10nm being available in June 2020, but I might be mistaken.
If they followed this path on the 9th generation, instead of acting recklessly with the 9900k and turning it into an i9, selling faulty 9900ks as i7-9700k wouldn’t have made AMD dominant as it currently is. A theoretical i5-10600k unlocked at 6/12 for $269 would be a strong rival to the Ryzen 5 3600x, making the price gap clear. It would make sense because it’s essentially an 8700k, which still performs well in games. Intel made a mistake with the 9th generation launch, I think—it put them in trouble.
I’d opt for an unlocked i3, even a 4C/4T model, if they offered a lower price for women’s machines. Right now a 8350K costs $15 less than a 9600K on Amazon, and you can find a 9350K there or on Newegg. Why choose a 4C4T i3 when a faster 6C12T Ryzen CPU is available for the same price? If they brought unlocked i3 prices down to under $100, I’d likely buy one. But that seems like a distant possibility at the moment.
By then, the price of 3700x is likely to halve unless AM5 makes a mistake
It's already too late. I mentioned they could have handled it better if they'd started with the 9th generation instead. By now, it's just too little, too late.
It would have changed everything if this list represented the newest generation instead of what we currently see. (Launch Prices) $179 i3-10350k 4/8 4.8ghz vs $150 Ryzen 5 3400g $199 i5-10500 6/12 4.2ghz vs $199 Ryzen 5 3600 $269 i5-10600k 6/12 4.9ghz vs $249 Ryzen 5 3600x $389 i7-10700k 8/16 5.1ghz vs $399 Ryzen 7 3700x Instead of the big shift "Just buy 3600/3700x" because the 9400/9600/9700k models already had SMT, which is now common. There would be a real justification for picking Intel parts, and recommendations wouldn’t be so one-sided.