Why I Still Love Intel...

[James]

Buy Intel CPUs on Amazon (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/2u0jN

Purchases made through some store links may provide some compensation to Linus Media Group.

 

As AMD grows in power, there's a few things I hope Intel continues to be great at...

 

 

 

[TetraSky]

And this video shall henceforth be referenced to show how much of an Intel shill Linus is.

[nick name]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

And this video shall henceforth be referenced to show how much of an Intel shill Linus is.

Bruh, he praised the people that he's interacted with at Intel -- he didn't praise the company.  

[Kilrah]

So Linus is an Intel, AMD, Apple, Samsung, Android, Nvidia, AMDagainbecausewhynot shill... oh and LTTSTOREDOTCOM too 

[Lurick]

5 minutes ago, nick name said:

Bruh, he praised the people that he's interacted with at Intel -- he didn't praise the company.  

And overall it's pretty solid. Intel wouldn't have gotten as far as they have without doing things well. Lack of competition caused them to wallow though and now they are caught sitting down but overall I'm sure they'll get back up, which is a good thing for both sides because continued and fierce competition is great for the consumer

[samcool55]

5 minutes ago, nick name said:

Bruh, he praised the people that he's interacted with at Intel -- he didn't praise the company.  

So, he loves the people at intel, not Intel itself, even tho that's the title.

And that's the problem here. The title screams INTEL SHILL. But he isn't.

 

But people probably don't watch or listen the video and go on a keyboard rampage anyway so they should either change the title or prepare for a shitstorm.

 

It's in the details

[TetraSky]

2 minutes ago, nick name said:

Bruh, he praised the people that he's interacted with at Intel -- he didn't praise the company.  

For the first few minutes. Then he proceed to praise everything Intel, disregard their flaws (all the various security issues) just because they are unlikely to cause damage to Intel's reputation, of all things.

This video wasn't needed if all he wanted was to praise the people he interacted with.

 

[nick name]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

For the first few minutes. Then he proceed to praise everything Intel, disregard their flaws (all the various security issues) just because they are unlikely to cause damage to Intel's reputation, of all things.

This video wasn't needed if all he wanted was to praise the people he interacted with.

 

Ok, I see what's going on here now.  You have a nice day.  

[TetraSky]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

the world could use a lot more love these days ._.

I agree. Still don't believe this video should exist.

[Void Master]

13 minutes ago, Lurick said:

And overall it's pretty solid. Intel wouldn't have gotten as far as they have without doing things well. Lack of competition caused them to wallow though and now they are caught sitting down but overall I'm sure they'll get back up, which is a good thing for both sides because continued and fierce competition is great for the consumer

Yup remember what linus said

Intel will never fade away just like that....

they've been through harder times.

 

[AshRiver]

Linus sponsored by Intel.

[komar]

Linus told the cold hard truth in the beginning - AMD is much smaller company and it cant compete in RnD.

 

I knew that the drivers will be hell when I bought my 1500x and x370 board. Took me 3 days to finally update the BIOS so the clock would allow the system to boot into windows in under 15 mins. Took months before I could use the full potential speed of my RAM. Still to this day, there are issues from time to time, yet I'm fine with it.

 

A friend of mine was arguing how the current AMD chips could only compete vs the 2nd and 3rd gens I cores in stuff like "squeezing the full potential in OC"and so on BS which YES, that means even so old Intel chips are designed better, but the general consumer DOESNT CARE!

 

From my point of view, I would always prefer the more value, but I also understand Linus point of view about the business end - you can't still trust AMD fully!

[Astroflash]

I disagree about buying the "product" rather than the brand. I always, always look for the company that seems the least "evil" and doesn't try to screw over their customers through shady marketing or anti-competitive behaviour etc. This means I'll happily buy a product which is inferior to another, as long as it's a company I can get behind.

 

There's a lot I don't know and understand about business, but I still have to wonder what their desktop engineers have been doing for the past 5-10 years. Sure they might have had little to no competition in the desktop space which makes lack of exciting innovation semi-justifiable, but even when the competition finally came around, they were barely ready. Were we really going to be stuck with 4-core mainstream Desktop CPUs forever until a competitor came along and did something?

 

Another thing to note from the video is that Linus seems to like Intel because he knows there are plenty of genuinely good people there, which I'm sure is true, but by continuing to support them in their current form would help validate the mistakes from the people higher up at the company. Are they evil? almost certainly not. But damn it would be interesting to see their thought-processes.

[RainfallWithin]

16 minutes ago, Astroflash said:

I disagree about buying the "product" rather than the brand. I always, always look for the company that seems the least "evil" and doesn't try to screw over their customers through shady marketing or anti-competitive behaviour etc. This means I'll happily buy a product which is inferior to another, as long as it's a company I can get behind.

 

There's a lot I don't know and understand about business, but I still have to wonder what their desktop engineers have been doing for the past 5-10 years. Sure they might have had little to no competition in the desktop space which makes lack of exciting innovation semi-justifiable, but even when the competition finally came around, they were barely ready. Were we really going to be stuck with 4-core mainstream Desktop CPUs forever until a competitor came along and did something?

 

Another thing to note from the video is that you seem to like Intel because you know there are plenty of genuinely good people there, which I'm sure is true, but by continuing to support them in their current form would help validate the mistakes from the people higher up at the company. Are they evil? probably not. But damn it would be interesting to see their thought-processes.

Almost all companies create a bad product at some point. The good companies learn and try to avoid the same mistake in the future. If you only buy from companies that never made a bad product, you'd only be buying from brand new startups releasing their very first products with no experience.

AMD also has a long history of shooting itself in the foot, just like Intel. For example, the following is from only 1 week ago.

 

[Nystemy]

In my own experience running multiple computers, both Intel and AMD ones.
I do have to say that I don't mind paying the "Intel tax" to a degree, their platforms have simply "just worked".

All the AMD systems I have used have developed problems over the years, not saying that the Intel systems haven't thrown a couple of blue screens too.

Though, partly looking at AMD for my next rig, mainly since they have the only reasonably priced high clock speed and high memory bandwidth CPUs that I can find.
Now most people do not need 8 memory channels, though it is more or less useful depending on the application. And some stuff I do benefit from more memory bandwidth. (Cache really isn't of help since the data sets are way to large.)

I have though also looked at Intel's LGA3647 platform, but they don't have any clock speeds that are high enough for the system to also function as a reasonable desktop for single threaded applications. (And their cost to performance is currently outside of "Reasonable", I can put up with some errors if it means that one gets something for a lot cheaper.)

Though, who knows, Intel might release a new server processor some day with high core clock speeds....

[Astroflash]

12 minutes ago, RainfallWithin said:

Almost all companies create a bad product at some point. The good companies learn and try to avoid the same mistake in the future. If you only buy from companies that never made a bad product, you'd only be buying from brand new startups releasing their very first products with no experience.

AMD also has a long history of shooting itself in the foot, just like Intel. For example, the following is from only 1 week ago.

 

Yeah I've been following that closely, and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out. From what I've seen though, it did look like AMD was at least slightly deceptive in the marketing department. Sure, companies make bad products and that's fine.. But stuff like that is a big no no as far as I'm concerned. 

 

Maybe I take this stuff too seriously, but I refuse to buy Samsung products on the principle of deceptive marketing. It wasn't long ago they literally used a DSLR to advertise photos taken on their phones. I don't want to give money to a company that is willing to go out of its way to deceive its users. 

[Nystemy]

5 minutes ago, Astroflash said:

but even when the competition finally came around, they were barely ready.

Here is a little secret about CPU and system development, it can take over a year or three to make a new CPU core implementation.
Making just a new CPU chip can take more than a few months, sometimes over a year. (as in designing a new chip.)
Making a new product skew from an already developed chip can take a week or two in comparison.

So when a competitor comes in and throws a total curve ball, then it can take years before an actual response is made.
In the mean time, one can't really do much more than push out a few new skews, maybe trim the performance a bit, unlock a few features and lower prices.
Though, non of that is a response in form of a new line of products.

Not to mention that a market leader isn't just going to instantly jump onto an idea just because the competitor does something. Though, to be fair, Intel should have released more high core count CPUs for the desktop segment many years ago...

[RainfallWithin]

16 hours ago, Astroflash said:

Yeah I've been following that closely, and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out. From what I've seen though, it did look like AMD was at least slightly deceptive in the marketing department. Sure, companies make bad products and that's fine.. But stuff like that is a big no no as far as I'm concerned. 

What they have done this time is absolutely fine with most people, but they created the outrage themselves by constantly criticising other companies that did the same.

 

I've owned 2 AMD graphics cards and 1 AMD CPU. 1 graphics card had artifacting in its completely stock state, the other graphics card outright died at a very young age. The CPU had huge problems with RAM support.

 

Does this mean I'll never recommend AMD? No. I would simply tell someone not to buy those specific products...

Intel has not advanced quickly enough when they were the leader, and AMD has overtaken them. I also wouldn't be purchasing an enthusiast Intel CPU if I was looking for one right now, but what Linus is speaking about is that people have to remember that there are still extraordinary engineers that work there, and it's nice to recognise the work they do, instead of insulting them for working at Intel.

[Astroflash]

2 minutes ago, Nystemy said:

Here is a little secret about CPU and system development, it can take over a year or three to make a new CPU core implementation.
Making just a new CPU chip can take more than a few months, sometimes over a year. (as in designing a new chip.)
Making a new product skew from an already developed chip can take a week or two in comparison.

So when a competitor comes in and throws a total curve ball, then it can take years before an actual response is made.
In the mean time, one can't really do much more than push out a few new skews, maybe trim the performance a bit, unlock a few features and lower prices.
Though, non of that is a response in form of a new line of products.

Not to mention that a market leader isn't just going to instantly jump onto an idea just because the competitor does something. Though, to be fair, Intel should have released more high core count CPUs for the desktop segment many years ago...

Well I guess they did release higher core count desktop CPUs a good few years back, but they sure as hell weren't scared to throw a fat price tag on them for the privilege. 

 

And also, I would counter that a company as big as Intel should've been more prepared. But hey, they're not obligated to be ready I guess.

[Nystemy]

3 minutes ago, Astroflash said:

Well I guess they did release higher core count desktop CPUs a good few years back, but they sure as hell weren't scared to throw a fat price tag on them for the privilege. 

 

And also, I would counter that a company as big as Intel should've been more prepared. But hey, they're not obligated to be ready I guess.

Yes, their 6 core CPUs were fairly silly high prices to be fair, main reason why few people bought them...

Though, the main reason they were caught of guard were due to AMD breaking rank.
The industry has tried before with multi die approaches to CPU building, Intel used to do that for a lot of their quad and dual core chips back in the day.
(Half the CPU on each chip, if a chip breaks during production, one looses half a CPU, not a whole one. And one can also build a Dual core CPU with half of a quad core one. So bonus.)

Reason the industry stopped doing this were due to inter chip communication becoming a real bottleneck to performance.
Though, AMD tried again and did things a little bit differently. (Their whole Infinity fabric concept)
So suddenly, AMD could build a CPU with 1, 2, 3 or even 4 or more chips and have a very large range of core counts, they could also bin their chips better, and then they had fixed a lot of the interconnect issues. So suddenly, the multi chip approach were very competitive.

Intel one the other hand had largely given up on it at the time, though recently started looking into it again.

[Astroflash]

10 minutes ago, Nystemy said:

Yes, their 6 core CPUs were fairly silly high prices to be fair, main reason why few people bought them...

Though, the main reason they were caught of guard were due to AMD breaking rank.
The industry has tried before with multi die approaches to CPU building, Intel used to do that for a lot of their quad and dual core chips back in the day.
(Half the CPU on each chip, if a chip breaks during production, one looses half a CPU, not a whole one. And one can also build a Dual core CPU with half of a quad core one. So bonus.)

Reason the industry stopped doing this were due to inter chip communication becoming a real bottleneck to performance.
Though, AMD tried again and did things a little bit differently. (Their whole Infinity fabric concept)
So suddenly, AMD could build a CPU with 1, 2, 3 or even 4 or more chips and have a very large range of core counts, they could also bin their chips better, and then they had fixed a lot of the interconnect issues. So suddenly, the multi chip approach were very competitive.

Intel one the other hand had largely given up on it at the time, though recently started looking into it again.

I always assumed that information that critical would leak out of the companies to some degree given they are so big..no?

 

Was Ryzen genuinely a surprise? I would have thought that given the time it takes to design these CPUs, stuff would eventually leak one way or another.

 

Isn't that how the consoles end up with virtually identical specs every time, even though there are huge gaps between releases? Or is that just because the options are obvious..?

[lewdicrous]

If Linus made "Why I still love AMD/Nvidia...", people will call him an AMD/Nvidia shill, instead of an Intel shill.

 

 

Floatplane shill, on the other hand, is true. Just look at him repping a FP shirt instead of one from LTT. /s

[SkyHound0202]

We seriously need to make VIA Technologies great again to break the Intel/AMD x86 processor duopoly.

[Nystemy]

11 minutes ago, Astroflash said:

I always assumed that information that critical would leak out of the companies to some degree given they are so big..no?

 

Was Ryzen genuinely a surprise? I would have thought that given the time it takes to design these CPUs, stuff would eventually leak one way or another.

 

Isn't that how the consoles end up with virtually identical specs every time, even though there are huge gaps between releases? Or is that just because the options are obvious..?

A lot of the people working on implementing a CPU core is generally very keen on not giving out any of that information. Since both they and the company knows that only the people in the team knows of those details. So spilling the beans on it can very quickly make one an "unpopular" dude to say the least, not to mention paying the damage fees....

 

Then the teams are fairly small as well. (And honestly, it is usually a bunch of different teams, each working on their thing. So if something leaks, one can very accurately figure out who did the mistake.)

Though, why consoles tends to get similar specs is likely due to console makers talking to a chip maker, and to game developers during development of the console.
And for the PS2, and PS3, Xbox, and Xbox 360, IBM were the chip maker. For Xbox one (and its variants), and PS4, PS5 AMD is the chip maker. (Nintendo is though not using the same chip maker, nor really the same game developers either, so that is why their consoles have dramatically different specs.)
So it doesn't take long for a "general" spec sheet to be formulated without actually being written down. So that is why consoles tends to have similar specs, some minor differences here and there though.

[Luscious]

Ditto on the AMD Epyc Windows 10 lack of support issue!!! How many YEARS has Epyc been around and workstation customers are STILL today left with dual Xeon platforms as their only performance choice. I would have thought that with the 2nd gen Epyc launch AMD would finally WAKE UP and make Windows 10 support official, more so given the huge performance leap 2P 64-core Rome has over Intel's best Xeon.

 

Even in the HPC/GPU server space it wasn't that long ago that you could buy a dual Xeon box with Windows 7 installed on it from the manufacturer with warranty - a pure consumer OS.

 

One thing I do have to give Intel credit for is their product segmentation. It was always a trade off between clock speed and core count. Their newest 8 core Xeon runs at 3.9GHz with a higher cache and TDP than their previous 6244. That means it's now possible to build a 16 core workstation rig with a base clock of 3.9 and still have two cores/four threads run at 4.5 on demand.

 

When companies SIT ON THEIR LAURELS consumers always lose. I remember all too well when netbooks were the hot items and Intel couldn't be bothered releasing a newer Atom fast enough to keep up with the demand. What happened? Tablets caught up and consumers switched devices. Had Intel pushed that little bit harder the "mini laptop" would still be a thing today as opposed to the Surface Go effort by Microsoft trying to cram a PC into a tablet form factor.

 

Now it is AMD sitting on it's laurels. You would think a company wouldn't be like that when they are out in front, but are they really in the lead if that's the case??? BRING WINDOWS 10 SUPPORT TO EPYC. Your potential workstation, small business and other high end hardware buying customers will thank you, never mind give Intel some proper competition.