you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 242 points 10 months ago (33 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    Don't forget the awfully fast socket changes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Even within the same socket family, looking at you lga1151, can you run into compatibility problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    I think AMD also did a smart thing by branding their sockets. AM4, AM5, what do you think is going to be next? I bet it's AM6. What came after the Intel LGA1151? It wasn't LGA1152.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Yea, for the customer it really doesn’t matter how many pins a certain socket has, only is it compatible or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    AMD tried the Intel thing too by stopping support of past generation CPU on latter AM4 boards though. Only after public outcry did they scrap that. Wouldn’t put it past them to try it again on AM5.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Are there a lot of people wanting to plug Zen 1 chips into B550 motherboards? Usually it's the other way around, upgrading chip in an old motherboard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    It can happen if the old motherboard failed, which was more likely than the CPU failing.

    There was talk of not providing firmware update for old chipsets to support new gen CPU as well, which is relevant to the cases you mentioned.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It wasn't arbitrary, they named them after the number of pins. Which is fine but kinda confusing for your average consumer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago*

    I just read the other day that at least one motheboard manufacturer is bringing back AM4 since DDR4 is getting cheaper than DDR5, even with the "this isn't even manufactured anymore" price markup. That's only even possible because of how much long-term support AMD gave that socket.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    They really segmented that market in the worst possible way, 2 cores and 4 cores only, possibility to use vms or overclock, and so on. Add windoze eating up every +5%/year.

    Remember buying the 2600(maybe X) and it was soo fast.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    The 2600k was exceptionally good and was relevant well past the normal upgrade timeframes.

    Really it only got left behind because of its 4C/8T limit as everything started supporting lots of threads instead of just a couple, and just being a 2nd Generation i7.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Coincidentally, that’s the exact cpu I use in my server! And it runs pretty damn well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Really it only got left behind because of its 4C/8T limit as everything started supporting lots of threads instead of just a couple, and just being a 2nd Generation i7.

    Past me made the accidentally more financially prudent move of opting for the i7-4790k over the i5-4690k which ultimately lasted me nearly a decade. At the time the advice was of course "4 cores is all you need, don't waste the money on an i7" but those 4 extra threads made all the difference in the longevity of that PC

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Only one affected AMD, forget which. But Intel knew about the vulnerabilities, but chose not to fix the hardware ahead of their release.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Yea that definitely sounds like Intel... Though it's still worth pointing out that one of them was a novel way to spy on program memory that affects many CPU types and not really indicative of a dropped ball. (outside of shipping with known vulnerabilities, anyways)

    ... The power stuff from 12/13th gens or what ever though... ouch, massive dropped ball.

  • source
  • parent