Yep. Intel sat on their asses for a decade pushing quad cores one has to pay extra to even overclock.
Then AMD implements chiplets, comes out with affordable 6, 8, 12, and 16 core desktop processors with unlocked multipliers, hyperthreading built into almost every model, and strong performance. All of this while also not sucking down power like Intel’s chips still do.
Intel cached in their lead by not investing in themselves and instead pushing the same tired crap year after year onto consumers.
And all of the failures that plagued the 13 and 14 gens. That was the main reason I switched to AMD. My 13th gen CPU was borked and had to be kept underclocked.
It would cause system instability (programs/games crashing) when running normally. I had to underclock it through Intel’s XTU to make things stable again.
This was after all the BIOS updates from ASUS and with all BIOS settings set to the safe options.
When I originally got it I did notice that it was getting insanely high scores in benchmarks, then the story broke of how Intel and motherboard manufacturers were letting the CPUs clock as high as possible until they hit the thermal limit. Then mine started to fail I think about a year after I got it.
In the 486 era (90s) there was a not official story about the way Intel marked its CPUs: instead of starting slow and accelerate until failure, start as fast as you can and slow down until it doesn’t fail.
As a person that generally buys either mid-tier stuff or the flagship products from a couple years ago, it got pretty fucking ridiculous to have to figure out which socket made sense for any given intel chip. The apparently arbitrary naming convention didn’t help.
Which is a pretty arbitrary naming convention since the number of pins in a socket doesn’t really tell you anything especially when that naming convention does NOT get applied to the processors that plug into them.
Or the 1200 different versions of CPUs. We just got some new Dell machines for our DR site last year and the number of CPU options was overwhelming. Is it really necessary for that many different CPUs?
Tbf AMD is also guilty of that, in the laptop/mobile segment specifically. And the whole AI naming thing is just dumb, albeit there aren’t that many of those
All of the exploits against Intel processors didn’t help either. Not only is it a bad look, but the fixes reduced the speed of the those processors, making them quite a bit worse deal for the money after all.
Meltdown and Spectre? Those also applied to AMD CPUs as well, just to a lesser degree (or rather, they had their own flavor of similar vulnerabilities). I think they even recently found a similar one for ARM chips…
Yep. Intel sat on their asses for a decade pushing quad cores one has to pay extra to even overclock.
Then AMD implements chiplets, comes out with affordable 6, 8, 12, and 16 core desktop processors with unlocked multipliers, hyperthreading built into almost every model, and strong performance. All of this while also not sucking down power like Intel’s chips still do.
Intel cached in their lead by not investing in themselves and instead pushing the same tired crap year after year onto consumers.
Don’t forget the awfully fast socket changes
And all of the failures that plagued the 13 and 14 gens. That was the main reason I switched to AMD. My 13th gen CPU was borked and had to be kept underclocked.
what was the issue?
It would cause system instability (programs/games crashing) when running normally. I had to underclock it through Intel’s XTU to make things stable again.
This was after all the BIOS updates from ASUS and with all BIOS settings set to the safe options.
When I originally got it I did notice that it was getting insanely high scores in benchmarks, then the story broke of how Intel and motherboard manufacturers were letting the CPUs clock as high as possible until they hit the thermal limit. Then mine started to fail I think about a year after I got it.
In the 486 era (90s) there was a not official story about the way Intel marked its CPUs: instead of starting slow and accelerate until failure, start as fast as you can and slow down until it doesn’t fail.
As a person that generally buys either mid-tier stuff or the flagship products from a couple years ago, it got pretty fucking ridiculous to have to figure out which socket made sense for any given intel chip. The apparently arbitrary naming convention didn’t help.
It wasn’t arbitrary, they named them after the number of pins. Which is fine but kinda confusing for your average consumer
Which is a pretty arbitrary naming convention since the number of pins in a socket doesn’t really tell you anything especially when that naming convention does NOT get applied to the processors that plug into them.
deleted by creator
Or the 1200 different versions of CPUs. We just got some new Dell machines for our DR site last year and the number of CPU options was overwhelming. Is it really necessary for that many different CPUs?
Tbf AMD is also guilty of that, in the laptop/mobile segment specifically. And the whole AI naming thing is just dumb, albeit there aren’t that many of those
Well this scheme seems much more reasonable and logical to me.
All of the exploits against Intel processors didn’t help either. Not only is it a bad look, but the fixes reduced the speed of the those processors, making them quite a bit worse deal for the money after all.
Meltdown and Spectre? Those also applied to AMD CPUs as well, just to a lesser degree (or rather, they had their own flavor of similar vulnerabilities). I think they even recently found a similar one for ARM chips…
Even the 6-core Phenom IIs from 2010 were great value.
But to be fair, Sandy Bridge ended up aging a lot better than those Phenom IIs or Bulldozer/Piledriver.
There are so many dimensions to this