Core i3 is now a Core i7: Intel increases core counts

[ThonyGreen]

On 10/12/2019 at 10:55 PM, sowon said:

I'll believe it when I see it, and even if I see it, what are the chances of it being not a 14nm+++++ referesh?

Sounds just like my i7-4790

"i3-10100, 4c8t, 3.6 base, unknown turbo"

[pas008]

4 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

true but also not true. amd is increasinly more succesful. has more cores and threads. and is just dominating the cpu market as of late. 
Intel sees their income drop. so now they see that they need to get off their lazy asses and do something to compete. 

i had a i5 7600 before i went to the 2600x. been happy ever since. Will 100% also go amd with their new cpu's when they come out. the 3000 series is good. but.. im going to wait a bit maybe ill jump the 2000 series and take the 3000 if the 3950x will be any good. 

What

True but not true? Doesn't make sense

 

Do you realize intel isn't just about cpus 

They have their hands in many areas 

And selling out all their cpus

Thanks to amd finally we will see Intel going chiplet and/or more real cores which will be nice which they will need to stay relevant in server market soon

But then again amd not remaining competitive in the past isn't Intel's fault

 Intel took that time to jump into many other areas and find alternative markets besides the declining desktop market

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

What

True but not true? Doesn't make sense

 

Do you realize intel isn't just about cpus 

They have their hands in many areas 

And selling out all their cpus

Thanks to amd finally we will see Intel going chiplet and/or more real cores which will be nice which they will need to stay relevant in server market soon

But then again amd not remaining competitive in the past isn't Intel's fault

 Intel took that time to jump into many other areas and find alternative markets besides the declining desktop market

Not too mention the fact that majority of Intel's customers don't need 16 cores, massive overclocks or sustained multi threaded performance.   No company wastes development on products it can't sell at a reasonable profit when it doesn't need to.

[thechinchinsong]

On 10/20/2019 at 6:25 PM, mr moose said:

But it does reflect on Intel and is a problem for them.    If I was Intel I wouldn't do it either for that reason alone.

 

And the only way Intel can give their blessing is if they test every motherboard,  as I already said that is not going to happen because it is not worth their time or effort for the small portion of their consumer base who would need it.

 

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251882-overclocker-claims-x299-vrm-temperatures-disaster-limit-skylake-x-potential

https://www.techpowerup.com/234922/update-on-the-intel-x299-platform-vrm-disaster

 

These are not low end boards and highlight the exact issue that can and does occur.

 

When the CPU is throttled down to 1.2Ghz because the VRM can't keep up then that looks bad for Intel regardless who's fault it is.  That's why Intel outright doesn't list them as being compatible. 

 

They could have done what AMD has done with AM4. Obviously they didn't want to do that for all the reasons you mentioned, but they could have. I've heard the argument of "They are a company not a charity, they aren't gonna do things for free" and "It's not worth their effort". They are the leader in a duopoly in the desktop CPU space. If AMD can afford to do it, then Intel can too. Just because its only for a small group of people doesn't mean that its not worth arguing for. Also, the boards that you bring up in the last part are x299 which isn't socket 1151?

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

They could have done what AMD has done with AM4. Obviously they didn't want to do that for all the reasons you mentioned, but they could have. I've heard the argument of "They are a company not a charity, they aren't gonna do things for free" and "It's not worth their effort". They are the leader in a duopoly in the desktop CPU space. If AMD can afford to do it, then Intel can too. Just because its only for a small group of people doesn't mean that its not worth arguing for.

You can argue that, but it isn't going to make it any more feasible, desirable or profitable for them to do it.

 

41 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

Also, the boards that you bring up in the last part are x299 which isn't socket 1151?

I know,  The point is If they can't control VRM issues on HEDT what makes you think all the other junk on the market is going to work well enough.   It's not, hence why Intel won't waste their time trying to validate every single board and just move on to  a new socket.

[thechinchinsong]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can argue that, but it isn't going to make it any more feasible, desirable or profitable for them to do it.

 

I know,  The point is If they can't control VRM issues on HEDT what makes you think all the other junk on the market is going to work well enough.   It's not, hence why Intel won't waste their time trying to validate every single board and just move on to  a new socket.

Its completely feasible. I'm arguing that if this is the attitude that people have towards tech companies, then said company definitely won't include those features even if it was easier than it was back then. Instead of defending Intel on a financial level, acknowledge that they did a anti-consumer move in order to generate for revenue, and then push the company to make a more consumer move later down the line. 

 

For the VRM issues, yes HEDT is more premium, but you CAN literally run with "junk" motherboards with mainstream processors because that how little power they require for base clock operation. There aren't problems of mainstream processors hitting base clocks on "junk" boards because even the "junk" boards are able to do just that.

[mr moose]

35 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

Its completely feasible. I'm arguing that if this is the attitude that people have towards tech companies, then said company definitely won't include those features even if it was easier than it was back then. Instead of defending Intel on a financial level, acknowledge that they did a anti-consumer move in order to generate for revenue, and then push the company to make a more consumer move later down the line. 

I'm not sure exactly why you think that,  but I'm not defending anything.  it's just business 101.   It serves no purpose to expend resources to value add for a very small portion of your market.  

 

35 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

For the VRM issues, yes HEDT is more premium, but you CAN literally run with "junk" motherboards with mainstream processors because that how little power they require for base clock operation. There aren't problems of mainstream processors hitting base clocks on "junk" boards because even the "junk" boards are able to do just that.

You have ignored the point,   and to be honest I am getting tired of saying the same thing over and over.  Believe whatever you want,  I am not about to concur with your opinions without some substantial reason to do so.   Not everything is rooted in anti consumer behavior you know.  Sometimes the nature of the beast just means it's less convenient than you would prefer.

[thechinchinsong]

On 10/25/2019 at 12:45 AM, mr moose said:

You have ignored the point,   and to be honest I am getting tired of saying the same thing over and over.  Believe whatever you want,  I am not about to concur with your opinions without some substantial reason to do so.   Not everything is rooted in anti consumer behavior you know.  Sometimes the nature of the beast just means it's less convenient than you would prefer.

Just because something has logical business foundations doesn't mean it can't also be anti-consumer. Yes of course it's easier for Intel to go the way that they have and yes they make more money, but that doesn't make it better for consumers. Of course this is my opinion, but I also think more people should share this opinion, because if more people did, then Intel would be under more pressure to make it more convenient for more people. Yes, the nature of the beast is less convenient that I would prefer, but maybe I would prefer to change the nature of the beast to be more convenient to the consumer. I still don't understand your point (its been a while). What is the summary of your overall position? 

[amdorintel]

On 10/12/2019 at 4:11 PM, NumLock21 said:

it would be pretty difficult to fool it

photoshop is easy to use

[GloriousPain]

On 10/12/2019 at 6:13 PM, The1Dickens said:

I feel like Intel is just loosing control of their own product lines. If the i3 has HT, does that mean the i5 will? Why add HT to all the CPUs suddenly, when just last generation they removed it from all but the new i9 series? What happens to the 4c i5 when you can get a 4c i3, if both have HT? They spent that last few generations flooding the market with products for the only reason of charging obscene prices that now their own product lines are likely going to be cannibalizing each other.

intel used to have HT on i3s...

 

Gen 4-7 atleast it was

 

i3= 2c4t

 

i5= 4c4t

 

i7= 4c8t

 

So intel could maybe go along the lines of something like that except with all the numbers doubled. Or they could just go the AMD route and have it be all hyperthreaded just adding 2 cores at a time.

[RejZoR]

And they'd still drag this model for another decade if AMD didn't release moar cores parts and kicked them in the balls.

[jagdtigger]

On 10/13/2019 at 11:03 AM, porina said:

Even if it kinda stalled since then

Yeah, i kinda figured it since i still didnt met any game that would have issues with cpu bottle-neck.... (4670k@4,5GHz)

[amdorintel]

12 hours ago, GloriousPain said:

intel used to have HT on i3s...

wasnt there a hack for i3's to get the extra bit out of it

 

[mr moose]

23 hours ago, thechinchinsong said:

Just because something has logical business foundations doesn't mean it can't also be anti-consumer. Yes of course it's easier for Intel to go the way that they have and yes they make more money, but that doesn't make it better for consumers. Of course this is my opinion, but I also think more people should share this opinion, because if more people did, then Intel would be under more pressure to make it more convenient for more people. Yes, the nature of the beast is less convenient that I would prefer, but maybe I would prefer to change the nature of the beast to be more convenient to the consumer. I still don't understand your point (its been a while). What is the summary of your overall position? 

My point is:

 

The only way Intel are going to go back and test/verify/put tighter requirements on mobo manufacturers for power delivery is if there is a market big enough to demand that.  There isn't right now and likely will never be one.  You are literally demanding a company test and guarantee a product for a niche market that should already know how long that platform will be supported for.

 

There is nothing anti consumer in what Intel have done with their platform support,  you buy a motherboard and PC now it will last well long enough that regardless what brand you get you will have to upgrade ram, mobo with the CPU.   If you like owning the latest and greatest you already know that today's gen 8 motherboards are not very likely going to support gen 11 CPU's in the future, so getting upset when they don't is unfair, not anti consumer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You are literally demanding a company test and guarantee a product for a niche market that should already know how long that platform will be supported for.

Not to mention the people who upgrade their CPUs on the same motherboard tend to be few and far between. 

 

On top of this, if we demanded a company to support a platform for a long time in computer time, it's likely the new CPU won't shine to its fullest because the rest of the system is holding it back.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Not to mention the people who upgrade their CPUs on the same motherboard tend to be few and far between. 

 

 

Those people are the niche within the niche.

[GloriousPain]

On 11/24/2019 at 1:32 PM, amdorintel said:

wasnt there a hack for i3's to get the extra bit out of it

 

? No?

[GDRRiley]

On 10/12/2019 at 3:44 PM, Opencircuit74 said:

*Looks at my i7-6700k with a measly 4 cores and 8 threads*  "You got this buddy, I don't have the budget to replace you."

I feel you running a 6600K

[Juanitology]

God bless AMD for this

[Mark Kaine]

On 11/24/2019 at 9:47 PM, mr moose said:

Those people are the niche within the niche.

Well at least with Ryzen that seems quite common. 

 

 

[RejZoR]

On 11/24/2019 at 9:47 PM, mr moose said:

Those people are the niche within the niche.

The niche Intel created...

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Well at least with Ryzen that seems quite common. 

 

 

it's not more common among ryzen uses than Intel.

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

The niche Intel created...

 

i know what you are trying to say,  but that's not how these markets have ever worked, or ever will work.

[Mark Kaine]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

it's not more common among ryzen uses than Intel

It's ok to be wrong sometimes.

 

 

What's not so ok is being wrong and then doubling down on it without any proof or reason whatsoever. 

 

 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

It's ok to be wrong sometimes.

 

 

What's not so ok is being wrong and then doubling down on it without any proof or reason whatsoever. 

 

 

Why so childish?

 

Perhaps you should do some googling,  or even just read a few of the threads on this forum regarding upgrades.  The most common upgrade time for CPU/whole PC is 5 years, with very few electing to upgrade before 2 years. Slightly more often for GPU only upgrades.  It is a multifaceted activity which has no one single way of achieve the end result so you need to be aware that when people say they upgrade every generation Some are lying for internet cred, some are referring to the new RGB fans. 

 

 

 

There are plenty of others but if you read throughout the posts many people claim to CPU upgrade between 4 and 6 years.  

 

 

[RejZoR]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

it's not more common among ryzen uses than Intel.

 

i know what you are trying to say,  but that's not how these markets have ever worked, or ever will work.

It has. Intel basically artificially always added that 1 extra pin that prevented backward compatibility. Where AMD managed to deliver 3 generations of CPU's using same socket. Seems to be easy if you're willing. Intel just isn't and intentionally made it impossible to do that even if you'd be willing to upgrade CPU's on same mobo.