F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop No one seems interested in purchasing a new Intel Core Ultra 200S CPU at this time.

No one seems interested in purchasing a new Intel Core Ultra 200S CPU at this time.

No one seems interested in purchasing a new Intel Core Ultra 200S CPU at this time.

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
H
horse700
Junior Member
15
05-25-2016, 12:57 AM
#1
This launch is really disappointing, even worse than the AMD Ryzen 9000 series debut. Would anyone seriously think about building with a Core Ultra 200S? I’m surprised anyone would care. The only logical reason I see is that people favor Intel and are sticking to the older 11th Gen platforms. That makes sense because the Core Ultra 200S would offer a big boost for those who still use pre-Hybrid systems, but it’s not worth it. Gaming performance drops sharply compared to AMD options, and it consumes way more power than cheaper alternatives that perform just as well. Overall, it looks like a tough choice with no clear advantage.
H
horse700
05-25-2016, 12:57 AM #1

This launch is really disappointing, even worse than the AMD Ryzen 9000 series debut. Would anyone seriously think about building with a Core Ultra 200S? I’m surprised anyone would care. The only logical reason I see is that people favor Intel and are sticking to the older 11th Gen platforms. That makes sense because the Core Ultra 200S would offer a big boost for those who still use pre-Hybrid systems, but it’s not worth it. Gaming performance drops sharply compared to AMD options, and it consumes way more power than cheaper alternatives that perform just as well. Overall, it looks like a tough choice with no clear advantage.

M
mkelton19
Junior Member
37
05-26-2016, 02:53 AM
#2
You must have missed 11th gen intel. But no most people should not be considering these cpus as their current pricing. Why buy something worse for more money? This will be another cpu Gen that gets looked back upon as bad as 11th gen was.
M
mkelton19
05-26-2016, 02:53 AM #2

You must have missed 11th gen intel. But no most people should not be considering these cpus as their current pricing. Why buy something worse for more money? This will be another cpu Gen that gets looked back upon as bad as 11th gen was.

G
GrutRus
Member
164
05-26-2016, 07:40 AM
#3
I recall how disappointing 11th generation was; I think this is even more problematic. It seems those who are still using 10th or 11th generation and want an upgrade would likely be the only ones choosing Intel over AMD. At least then you avoid the troubles of 14th generation's problems and high power consumption, right? Ugh, it's tough to say that without sounding forced.
G
GrutRus
05-26-2016, 07:40 AM #3

I recall how disappointing 11th generation was; I think this is even more problematic. It seems those who are still using 10th or 11th generation and want an upgrade would likely be the only ones choosing Intel over AMD. At least then you avoid the troubles of 14th generation's problems and high power consumption, right? Ugh, it's tough to say that without sounding forced.

G
G8UMan
Junior Member
43
05-27-2016, 10:59 AM
#4
The 11th generation was quite disappointing, especially before the big jumps in performance per generation we've experienced lately. I'd agree with that about the 7th generation, which seemed more of a waste of effort compared to Intel's earlier attempts. The Optane feature was essentially useless for consumers and had no socket compatibility, making it less appealing. Still, I'm hopeful for the Ryzen 1000 series. If MCM technology helps reduce costs, maybe we'll see better pricing on higher-end models. I’m not sure they’ll push enough to clear the market.
G
G8UMan
05-27-2016, 10:59 AM #4

The 11th generation was quite disappointing, especially before the big jumps in performance per generation we've experienced lately. I'd agree with that about the 7th generation, which seemed more of a waste of effort compared to Intel's earlier attempts. The Optane feature was essentially useless for consumers and had no socket compatibility, making it less appealing. Still, I'm hopeful for the Ryzen 1000 series. If MCM technology helps reduce costs, maybe we'll see better pricing on higher-end models. I’m not sure they’ll push enough to clear the market.

K
Kaisetsu
Senior Member
651
05-29-2016, 10:46 AM
#5
They made some mistakes with the Zen 5 release and then pushed ARL further. From what I saw, it performed okay in some areas but not great overall. In terms of actual performance, it’s decent but not outstanding. There’s nothing it can’t handle. It shines in certain niches, though. Overall, it falls short compared to both rivals and its predecessors. It varies depending on the specific tests you run—purchase based on your requirements. It isn’t a total loss, just a minor hit in gaming. Some claim it’s weak in gaming specifically; I agree with that view. The main drawback is its small improvement in gameplay. For most purposes, 7800X3D or the newer models are better options. Within a 10% performance range, you’d cover most mid-range chips easily. Other options still deliver solid speeds. For general use, 285K and 9950X seem similar enough. I’d pick the 9950X mainly for its AVX-512 speed, though that’s my special case. This question came up because I’m planning a video editing upgrade—my current system is CPU-bound and showing signs of wear.
K
Kaisetsu
05-29-2016, 10:46 AM #5

They made some mistakes with the Zen 5 release and then pushed ARL further. From what I saw, it performed okay in some areas but not great overall. In terms of actual performance, it’s decent but not outstanding. There’s nothing it can’t handle. It shines in certain niches, though. Overall, it falls short compared to both rivals and its predecessors. It varies depending on the specific tests you run—purchase based on your requirements. It isn’t a total loss, just a minor hit in gaming. Some claim it’s weak in gaming specifically; I agree with that view. The main drawback is its small improvement in gameplay. For most purposes, 7800X3D or the newer models are better options. Within a 10% performance range, you’d cover most mid-range chips easily. Other options still deliver solid speeds. For general use, 285K and 9950X seem similar enough. I’d pick the 9950X mainly for its AVX-512 speed, though that’s my special case. This question came up because I’m planning a video editing upgrade—my current system is CPU-bound and showing signs of wear.

M
MrDarkxD
Junior Member
12
05-29-2016, 02:29 PM
#6
This outcome is impossible. Intel will never lower its pricing relative to its previous generation at a launch like this. The claimed "Cost Savings" apply only to internal expenses, not to the customer. They won’t offer discounts until sales underperform, and they don’t intend to pass those savings on to buyers.
M
MrDarkxD
05-29-2016, 02:29 PM #6

This outcome is impossible. Intel will never lower its pricing relative to its previous generation at a launch like this. The claimed "Cost Savings" apply only to internal expenses, not to the customer. They won’t offer discounts until sales underperform, and they don’t intend to pass those savings on to buyers.

S
SkyCrowzK
Member
189
05-29-2016, 08:43 PM
#7
I also think this could be true, according to Linus' review. The Ryzen 1000 wasn't outstanding either, but it laid the groundwork for future development into a remarkable and distinctive CPU series. The main issue is that Intel's overall value has fallen significantly—about half—and they're likely eager to sell Core Ultra 200S at least moderately.
S
SkyCrowzK
05-29-2016, 08:43 PM #7

I also think this could be true, according to Linus' review. The Ryzen 1000 wasn't outstanding either, but it laid the groundwork for future development into a remarkable and distinctive CPU series. The main issue is that Intel's overall value has fallen significantly—about half—and they're likely eager to sell Core Ultra 200S at least moderately.

W
Waverabbit
Senior Member
643
05-30-2016, 12:03 AM
#8
Definitely not. Actually, I believe this could be the signal I need to switch to AMD. I've been working with Intel since my first PC in the 80s—probably a 286. I haven't joined Team Red, but I feel like now is the right moment.
W
Waverabbit
05-30-2016, 12:03 AM #8

Definitely not. Actually, I believe this could be the signal I need to switch to AMD. I've been working with Intel since my first PC in the 80s—probably a 286. I haven't joined Team Red, but I feel like now is the right moment.

E
Eduardo_GameOn
Posting Freak
921
05-30-2016, 01:28 PM
#9
The number of threads in this space is high compared to other platforms. Many forums you visit regularly are seeing similar interest, especially around AMD choices following the ARL news. It's not unusual.
E
Eduardo_GameOn
05-30-2016, 01:28 PM #9

The number of threads in this space is high compared to other platforms. Many forums you visit regularly are seeing similar interest, especially around AMD choices following the ARL news. It's not unusual.

J
jackfiredl
Member
65
06-07-2016, 06:43 PM
#10
I shared the same opinion about the Ryzen 9000. Regardless of the perspective, it was a disappointing debut, though it has some decent aspects, particularly in multi-threaded tasks and with AVX-512 support. Moreover, they released updated profiles, fixed numerous bugs, and improved many issues before the X3D CPUs arrived—so now most of the original reviews no longer hold up. Clearly, the launch was chaotic, but at least they delivered something. This is different from Intel’s experience.
J
jackfiredl
06-07-2016, 06:43 PM #10

I shared the same opinion about the Ryzen 9000. Regardless of the perspective, it was a disappointing debut, though it has some decent aspects, particularly in multi-threaded tasks and with AVX-512 support. Moreover, they released updated profiles, fixed numerous bugs, and improved many issues before the X3D CPUs arrived—so now most of the original reviews no longer hold up. Clearly, the launch was chaotic, but at least they delivered something. This is different from Intel’s experience.

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next