4 ms·

I found this very interesting, and it seems a similar thing is happening to Intel in the DIY/gaming space right now. For a long time, the Intel i5/i7/i9 were th

by Kapura 6y ago

I found this very interesting, and it seems a similar thing is happening to Intel in the DIY/gaming space right now. For a long time, the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads, with the recently released Ryzen 5000 series boasting performance that competes or tops Intel's top chips in the space, and generally with lower power draw to boot. I'm not a tech journalist, but the way they seem to have done this was exactly what was described in this essay. AMD brought out "chiplet" designs, initially at the low end, but with significant performance gains generation over generation. Combined with simpler motherboard slot conventions, delay's in Intel's next-generation processes, and overperforming Intel in areas like streaming, the value case for buying AMD processors in this space has grown to the point where you would find very few enthusiasts who would strongly recommend Intel over AMD if you're building a new system and wanted the best performance at your price point. Seems the infighting issues described by another poster have not only affected Intel's competitiveness in the mobile space.

greggyb 6y ago
Even the first generation of Zen was not the low end. The low end of x86 is well below anything whose name starts with 'Core' or 'Ryzen'. Ryzen came in the door at #2 in a market that goes well beyond #10. The motherboard conventions aren't simpler, just longer supported. AMD is doing impressive work with Ryzen, don't get me wrong, but they've already been #1 in x86 performance before, in the mid-aughts. Before and after that, their flagships were #2 in x86.
- delfinom 6y ago
  Well, AMD is marketing they have 20% YoY perf enhancements in the pipeline for the next 5 years. They also developed an internal org structure for developing 3 generations in parallel across teams. I would say AMD has high hopes because they have realigned themselves to being successful rather than the corporate rot Intel is suffering
  - artboomy 6y ago
    Do you have any links to read about "developing 3 generations in parallel"?
5d749d7da7d5 6y ago
>the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads I just checked my go-to hardware recommendation site, Logical Increments[0], and not a single Intel CPU makes the list. AMD everything. [0] https://www.logicalincrements.com/ https://www.logicalincrements.com/
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  The idea it's recommending a 3600 over a 10600k for a thousand dollar build tells me there's a slant...
  - Miraste 6y ago
    The 10600k is $100 more expensive and they're putting that money into the gpu instead. That makes sense to me.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      The cheapest 3600 in stock is $80 cheaper than the cheapest 10600k from the same retailer. And they've has offered the 10600k with a $20 rebate on motherboards for months now... $50 should come straight the case which is totally overshooting for a budget PC (I recommend the 300L here) That leaves you with a 10 dollar difference for an CPU that competes with the i9 in gaming... - And by the way, even the next build up chooses a 3600X over the 10600K despite the former even beating the 3700X in gaming benchmarks. The 10600K is an insane value for gaming, and still fast enough for non-gaming tasks. Seeing as they're listing "heavy gaming" as a measurement on these builds it doesn't make any sense for at the very least the i5 to make an appearance.
      - calinet6 6y ago
        You're missing the 5000 series Ryzens, which they just updated this for. The difference is key.
        6y ago
gwbas1c 6y ago
As another poster mentioned, AMD had a much better price / performance ratio in the mid 2000s too. I worked for Intel then... The problem was AMD couldn't compete on volume. An individual could go buy an AMD chip at a great price, but AMD couldn't fill a large order from a PC manufacturer. Furthermore, we suspected their margins were too slim to keep investing in themselves. Remember that DIY pc building is a niche. Something that makes perfect sense when you're building a single PC may not make sense when you're making thousands of laptops.

by Kapura 6y ago

greggyb 6y ago

Even the first generation of Zen was not the low end. The low end of x86 is well below anything whose name starts with 'Core' or 'Ryzen'. Ryzen came in the door at #2 in a market that goes well beyond #10. The motherboard conventions aren't simpler, just longer supported. AMD is doing impressive work with Ryzen, don't get me wrong, but they've already been #1 in x86 performance before, in the mid-aughts. Before and after that, their flagships were #2 in x86.

delfinom 6y ago
Well, AMD is marketing they have 20% YoY perf enhancements in the pipeline for the next 5 years. They also developed an internal org structure for developing 3 generations in parallel across teams. I would say AMD has high hopes because they have realigned themselves to being successful rather than the corporate rot Intel is suffering
- artboomy 6y ago
  Do you have any links to read about "developing 3 generations in parallel"?

5d749d7da7d5 6y ago

>the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads I just checked my go-to hardware recommendation site, Logical Increments[0], and not a single Intel CPU makes the list. AMD everything. [0] https://www.logicalincrements.com/ https://www.logicalincrements.com/

BoorishBears 6y ago
The idea it's recommending a 3600 over a 10600k for a thousand dollar build tells me there's a slant...
- Miraste 6y ago
  The 10600k is $100 more expensive and they're putting that money into the gpu instead. That makes sense to me.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    The cheapest 3600 in stock is $80 cheaper than the cheapest 10600k from the same retailer. And they've has offered the 10600k with a $20 rebate on motherboards for months now... $50 should come straight the case which is totally overshooting for a budget PC (I recommend the 300L here) That leaves you with a 10 dollar difference for an CPU that competes with the i9 in gaming... - And by the way, even the next build up chooses a 3600X over the 10600K despite the former even beating the 3700X in gaming benchmarks. The 10600K is an insane value for gaming, and still fast enough for non-gaming tasks. Seeing as they're listing "heavy gaming" as a measurement on these builds it doesn't make any sense for at the very least the i5 to make an appearance.
    - calinet6 6y ago
      You're missing the 5000 series Ryzens, which they just updated this for. The difference is key.
      - 6y ago

gwbas1c 6y ago

As another poster mentioned, AMD had a much better price / performance ratio in the mid 2000s too. I worked for Intel then... The problem was AMD couldn't compete on volume. An individual could go buy an AMD chip at a great price, but AMD couldn't fill a large order from a PC manufacturer. Furthermore, we suspected their margins were too slim to keep investing in themselves. Remember that DIY pc building is a niche. Something that makes perfect sense when you're building a single PC may not make sense when you're making thousands of laptops.