3 ms·

They can't get their next-gen fabs (chip factories) into production. It's been a problem long enough that they're not even next-gen anymore: it's current-gen, a

They can't get their next-gen fabs (chip factories) into production. It's been a problem long enough that they're not even next-gen anymore: it's current-gen, about to be previous-gen. So what you're seeing isn't really anti-Intel, it's probably often more like bitter disappointment that they haven't done better. Though I'm sure there's a tiny bit of fanboy-ism for & against Intel. There's definitely some of that pro-AMD fanboy sentiment in the gaming community where people build their own rigs: AMD chips are massively cheaper than a comparable Intel chip.

MangoCoffee 6y ago
>So what you're seeing isn't really anti-Intel, it's probably often more like bitter disappointment that they haven't done better. its back to where everyone design its own chip for their own product but don't need a fab 'cause of foundry like TSMC and Samsung.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Yes, which is why I was practically shouting inside my head when Intel recently announced it would finally open its fabs for outside work the way TSMC operates. Finally! Considering the way Intel is structured around its own designs it might never be a significant source of profits for them, but it should at least help to cover their fixed costs during dry spells and production problems on their own designs.
M277 6y ago
Just a minor nitpick regarding your last paragraph, this is no longer the case. Intel is now significantly cheaper after they heavily cut prices across the board. For instance, you can now get an i7-10700K (which is roughly equivalent in single thread and better in multi thread) for cheaper than a R5 5600X.
- robocat 6y ago
  Nitpick: you are comparing price where you should be comparing performance per dollar, or are you cherry-picking the wrong comparison? My cherry-pick is where the AMD chip is 30% more expensive, but multi-threaded performance is 100% better in this example: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-11900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X/3904vs3862 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-11900K-vs-AMD-... Edit: picking individual processors to compare (especially low volume ones) is often not useful when talking about how well a company is competing in the market.
  - makomk 6y ago
    The comment you're replying to is "cherry-picking" the current-gen AMD processor which offers the best value for most users. You're cherry-picking an Intel processor which almost no-one has any reason to buy over other Intel options (the i9-11900K is much more expensive than the 11700K or 10700k for little extra performance; AMD had a few chips like this last gen, and they actually downplayed how much of a price increase this gen was by only comparing to those poor-value chips). One of these comparisons is a lot more useful than the other.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I still see a significant discount on AMD chips for the same level of performance. An i9 11900k will cost me about $620 for the same performance of obtained from a $450 Ryzen 7 5800x.

MangoCoffee 6y ago

>So what you're seeing isn't really anti-Intel, it's probably often more like bitter disappointment that they haven't done better. its back to where everyone design its own chip for their own product but don't need a fab 'cause of foundry like TSMC and Samsung.

ineedasername 6y ago
Yes, which is why I was practically shouting inside my head when Intel recently announced it would finally open its fabs for outside work the way TSMC operates. Finally! Considering the way Intel is structured around its own designs it might never be a significant source of profits for them, but it should at least help to cover their fixed costs during dry spells and production problems on their own designs.

M277 6y ago

Just a minor nitpick regarding your last paragraph, this is no longer the case. Intel is now significantly cheaper after they heavily cut prices across the board. For instance, you can now get an i7-10700K (which is roughly equivalent in single thread and better in multi thread) for cheaper than a R5 5600X.

robocat 6y ago
Nitpick: you are comparing price where you should be comparing performance per dollar, or are you cherry-picking the wrong comparison? My cherry-pick is where the AMD chip is 30% more expensive, but multi-threaded performance is 100% better in this example: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-11900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X/3904vs3862 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-11900K-vs-AMD-... Edit: picking individual processors to compare (especially low volume ones) is often not useful when talking about how well a company is competing in the market.
- makomk 6y ago
  The comment you're replying to is "cherry-picking" the current-gen AMD processor which offers the best value for most users. You're cherry-picking an Intel processor which almost no-one has any reason to buy over other Intel options (the i9-11900K is much more expensive than the 11700K or 10700k for little extra performance; AMD had a few chips like this last gen, and they actually downplayed how much of a price increase this gen was by only comparing to those poor-value chips). One of these comparisons is a lot more useful than the other.
ineedasername 6y ago
I still see a significant discount on AMD chips for the same level of performance. An i9 11900k will cost me about $620 for the same performance of obtained from a $450 Ryzen 7 5800x.