Intel gags benchmarks via license in latest microcode fixes,Debian says Nope.avi - Sensationalist Headlines

Should also be noted that AMD's technically already beaten Intel when it comes to single core clock speeds, they've got the first ever 32 core 64 thread CPU overclocked to a stable 6GHz

Clock speed, especially overclocks that can only be achieved with 0.1% of units, don't really mean anything. What matters is performance, and we measure performance by benchmarks, not technical specs.

Of course, was meant as a bop on the nose in terms of "Slendermang posted: Until AMD can compete with Intel in single core clock speeds, OR programs and games get better multi-core utilization, I (and I'm sure many others) are going to continue using their products."

If it requires LN2 it doesn't really count imo

Running at a higher frequency than Intel's stock flagship ones doesn't, breaking the world record does, which still shows what the chip is capable of, exotic cooling or not

The problem AMD's always had has been low IPC, which means they've needed that extra clock rate just to be able to keep up. The sheer dedication they have to shoving more cores into their processors is quite admirable though.

The damn nerve they had still staying on the damn core clock count for so long and driving up prices for 5% single core performance every generation. I am real glad AMD is back in the game, if Ryzen came a little earlier I'd picked up that one. Though the overclock-ability on Intel is generally better I must admit, Pair this with their superior single thread performance and AMD is still lagging behind by a felt 5% to 10% margin. But at-least AMD doesn't artificially cut overclock, PCI lanes, cores, etc...

The hyperthreading on even their lower end CPUs is just such a nice gesture.

I was talking about AMD there, just to clarify. Intel's not done much at all on the whole "adding more cores" part after all. Though their insane dedication to squeezing even more IPC out of their processors is quite admirable as well, just for different reasons.

Not 'always', back in the Pentium 4 days it was the exact opposite, with Intel focusing on terrible performing processors running at high frequencies, while AMD put out products that performed way better with both lower frequencies and lower prices. The masses still flocked to Intel, due to their superior marketing and the fact that they were already a household name

They would be really stupid not to. They are in a very unfavorable position, so they must push the envelope as much as they can: Being open to their customers Improving quality of their cores Introducing new to the market

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/23/intel_microcode_license/ Yep, as expected, they did a U-turn.

Don't know why anyone would buy an intel now that Ryzen is here and quite good. They're easier on the power draw, they generate less heat, they perform just as well, they're cheaper... The only down side is if you're upgrading to a Ryzen from any AMD parts, you're going to need a motherboard and DDR4 RAM to go with it

Still can't quite beat the 7700K for gaming.

It's within 5% margin easily

https://i.imgur.com/iJy3r6V.png https://i.imgur.com/7e7IB3E.png Userbenchmark isn't super accurate but it's usually okay for getting a basic idea of performance.

Intel simply do not have to worry about losing market share because they're sharing it with literally one other company. This is what sucks about a market with only 2 options, that's by definition a monopoly. Only having 2 options isn't a real choice, and tbh being perfectly rational I don't even have 2 choices. Having a PC that's primarily used for upper mid tier gaming with light workstation use Intel/Nvidia feels like the only option, whereas for my stepdad who's the reverse use case ( heavy workstation with light gaming) AMD/Radeon feels like the only option. Even if I'm wrong, I've still just got 2 options, that's incredibly limiting.

This is the exact use case that Ryzen is extremely dominant in right now.

I was heavily considering getting a Ryzen for my latest system upgrade, but then there were the issues with code compilation causing segmentation faults on Ryzen CPUs, and lots of issues regarding virtualization and IOMMU. I ended up getting another Intel instead, as I really couldn't afford the risk of running into those issues myself, as I'm a heavy C++ programmer who constantly runs multiple VMs for my development.

iirc that was all fixed with Ryzen 2

My quick googling still seems inconsistant in regards to IOMMU support working fine, but I do know that they managed to fix the compilation issues they had. But either way, I'd already finished the system upgrade by then, so it probably won't matter for another five or six years until it's time for the next upgrade.

There's no reason to buy Intel anymore really when you consider just how much more you're going to pay between the more expensive mobo and CPU that comes with buying Intel. Even if it was 20% worse in single thread, I can save enough money from not buying Intel to upgrade to the next level of graphics card from the one I was going to get. You're going to see far more improvement in most games from the gfx card than the cpu. Multi-thread is also much more supported for new games than people seem to think for some reason, so single-core performance is pretty moot. Also if the game came out years ago, new hardware shouldn't find much issue running it anyway in terms of single core speed, since it ran just fine on older hardware, and newer hardware is a consistent step up, seeing as how I highly doubt it'd be market effective to sell hardware downgrades to people...