Intel Rebranding "Core i" Brand to "Core Ultra"

[MageTank]

56 minutes ago, vertigo220 said:

I guess I can see that, though anybody building their own computer should at least know enough to not mix AMD and Intel CPUs and motherboards, and if they don't, sorry, but that's on them, and they should have done just a tad more research.

Putting the burden on consumers is a very poor way of thinking about this, especially if its your job to market to said consumers. Not all consumers are tech savvy and some simply don't have the time to do research on socket compatibility. They simply want to be told "You are trying to do this? Buy this". The easier companies can make this on consumers, the better.

 

1 hour ago, vertigo220 said:

It's well-established and can likely be found easily with a bit of searching, so I don't want to get into it here.

I googled "Why does Intel have a higher market share in laptops" but nothing anti-competitive came up. If you are making this claim, at least cite a source so I can educate myself.

1 hour ago, vertigo220 said:

But there's a reason why laptops have historically been almost entirely Intel, and even now, with AMD being regarded by most as superior to Intel for a few years now, the majority of laptops continue to use Intel vs AMD.

Who is making this claim that AMD is superior to Intel in the mobile segment? Last I checked (with the exception of iGPU performance), Intel mobile chips are still very competitive in multi-threading and outright better in single threaded performance, albeit at the cost of weaker power efficiency.

This video shows the exact same laptop with the only differences being the platform and processors. Intel is consistently on top in 95% of the benchmarking. How exactly does that equate to AMD being regarded by "most" as superior? The market share itself begs to differ: https://wccftech.com/intel-claws-back-notebook-and-desktop-pc-market-share-from-amd-in-latest-mercury-research-report/

 

If your claims are true and most people are regarding AMD as the superior option, why is the market not reflecting that? Is this the anti-competitive stuff you are referring to? If so, what exactly are they doing? AMD themselves have acknowledged that all current antitrust issues with Intel are resolved: https://www.amd.com/en/legal/notices/antitrust-ruling.html

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, cmndr said:

 

I know someone who had an i7 930 who was fine with its performance but the system died. 
He was on a budget and was kind of shocked I'd suggest an i3 12100 since an i3 was "slower" than an i7. 

The i3 12100 has ~2x the IPC, runs at ~30% higher clock and supports a bunch of hardware acceleration the ancient chip from 2010 does not. It's generally 2-3x faster.

 

Yes, but that issue stems from product segmentation, not the SKU numbers.

We will always have that issue as long as people just look at 1/6 of the product name and think that's all they need to do. The same issue might (and probably does) happen with products from AMD and Nvidia as well.

 

I don't think there is a product naming scheme in the world that can help a consumer who thinks their processor from 2008 (I think) is better than a processor from 2022, just because it used to belong to a high-end product segment and the new one belongs in a lower product segment. Especially not when they are called 12100 vs 930. Even someone who just goes by "higher number = better" (which is not how you should shop but let's say someone does) would still reach the correct conclusion, albeit for the wrong reasons.

[vertigo220]

52 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Putting the burden on consumers is a very poor way of thinking about this, especially if its your job to market to said consumers. Not all consumers are tech savvy and some simply don't have the time to do research on socket compatibility. They simply want to be told "You are trying to do this? Buy this". The easier companies can make this on consumers, the better.

 

I googled "Why does Intel have a higher market share in laptops" but nothing anti-competitive came up. If you are making this claim, at least cite a source so I can educate myself.

Who is making this claim that AMD is superior to Intel in the mobile segment? Last I checked (with the exception of iGPU performance), Intel mobile chips are still very competitive in multi-threading and outright better in single threaded performance, albeit at the cost of weaker power efficiency.

 

This video shows the exact same laptop with the only differences being the platform and processors. Intel is consistently on top in 95% of the benchmarking. How exactly does that equate to AMD being regarded by "most" as superior? The market share itself begs to differ: https://wccftech.com/intel-claws-back-notebook-and-desktop-pc-market-share-from-amd-in-latest-mercury-research-report/

 

If your claims are true and most people are regarding AMD as the superior option, why is the market not reflecting that? Is this the anti-competitive stuff you are referring to? If so, what exactly are they doing? AMD themselves have acknowledged that all current antitrust issues with Intel are resolved: https://www.amd.com/en/legal/notices/antitrust-ruling.html

Except I see it as a help, not a burden, to the consumer, because they can look at it and say these two parts are directly competitive and roughly comparable (granted that's not always the case). You could also say it's a burden for them to have to try and compare two brands when they are significantly different in their naming. Nobody seems to take issue with i-3/5/7/9 and R-3/5/7/9 or RTX 4080 vs RX 7800 despite them being so similar, because it allows a more-or-less direct comparison.

 

Most reviews I've read over the past few years have generally been in favor of AMD over Intel, including with otherwise similar models. AMD has almost as much single-core performance while having better multi-core performance, lower power usage, better efficiency (yes, those are two separate things), better iGPUs, and lower cost. There will of course always be exceptions, but in both professional reviews and in forums, I've seen a lot more praise of and recommendations for AMD than Intel in the past few years. And market share does not equal superiority. As I mentioned, AMD has suffered in laptop market share for years due to Intel's practices, and even despite that their share has increased dramatically over the past few years, because they are so good compared to Intel. As for benchmarking, I really hope you aren't referring to userbenchmark.

 

Regarding the anticompetitive stuff, I don't need to provide anything, because, despite your claims that you couldn't find anything, you provided a link that says it all. Why would Intel have paid AMD $1.25B and agreed to abide by a set of ground rules and entered into a consent degree with the FTC if they weren't engaged in anti-competitive behavior? And that link also details said behavior, with the very first point being the main one I read about years ago and the primary reason Intel has the market share you believe is due to better performance.

 

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, but that issue stems from product segmentation, not the SKU numbers.

We will always have that issue as long as people just look at 1/6 of the product name and think that's all they need to do. The same issue might (and probably does) happen with products from AMD and Nvidia as well.

 

I don't think there is a product naming scheme in the world that can help a consumer who thinks their processor from 2008 (I think) is better than a processor from 2022, just because it used to belong to a high-end product segment and the new one belongs in a lower product segment. Especially not when they are called 12100 vs 930. Even someone who just goes by "higher number = better" (which is not how you should shop but let's say someone does) would still reach the correct conclusion, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Exactly. There has to be a point at which people need to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. If somebody wants to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a computer without doing the most basic of research first, that's on them. People can say it's putting a burden on consumers, but companies aren't and shouldn't be responsible for holding consumers' hands, either. It's not about going overboard trying to make it idiot-proof, which nothing is; it's about people being lazy and not caring enough to bother spending an hour looking at a few noob-friendly articles on the topic, of which there are undoubtedly hundreds, if not thousands. There's a thing called the internet that exists now and has essentially the whole of human knowledge on it. If people can't be bothered to use such an immense resource to research before making a large purchase, that's on them.

[cmndr]

54 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, but that issue stems from product segmentation, not the SKU numbers.

We will always have that issue as long as people just look at 1/6 of the product name and think that's all they need to do. The same issue might (and probably does) happen with products from AMD and Nvidia as well.

 

I don't think there is a product naming scheme in the world that can help a consumer who thinks their processor from 2008 (I think) is better than a processor from 2022, just because it used to belong to a high-end product segment and the new one belongs in a lower product segment. Especially not when they are called 12100 vs 930. Even someone who just goes by "higher number = better" (which is not how you should shop but let's say someone does) would still reach the correct conclusion, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Most consumers are not well informed. 

It's easier to convince a consumer that an ultra 3 is better than an i7. Heck they might even think that their i7 from before their middle-schooler was born might need replacement. 

 

 

35 minutes ago, vertigo220 said:

Why would Intel have paid AMD $1.25B and agreed to abide by a set of ground rules and entered into a consent degree with the FTC if they weren't engaged in anti-competitive behavior?

I believe Intel was generally anti-competitive. 

With that said here's some reasons why a company might settle a legal issues
1. lawsuits are expensive

2. lawsuits create risk

3. lawsuits might establish an unfavorable legal precedent that might harm the company later

4. Executives get bonuses/performance reviews based on achieving goals, getting an ugly legal matter taken care of, might be useful for getting a bonus or avoiding termination. 

[Arika]

49 minutes ago, vertigo220 said:

Regarding the anticompetitive stuff, I don't need to provide anything, because, despite your claims that you couldn't find anything, you provided a link that says it all. Why would Intel have paid AMD $1.25B and agreed to abide by a set of ground rules and entered into a consent degree with the FTC if they weren't engaged in anti-competitive behavior? And that link also details said behavior, with the very first point being the main one I read about years ago and the primary reason Intel has the market share you believe is due to better performance.

Which happened in 2009... that was 14 years ago. So tell me why that means Intel still has some unfair power that means they get to have the largest market share in 2023? I highly doubt a lot of laptops that exist out there are from before 2009.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

 

How is E-2186G (desktop), E-2186M (Mobile) any different from i7-13700 (desktop), i7-13700H (Mobile)?

Because I can see from the "86" part number the '6' in that chip is a 6-core chip, where as I can't see anything meaningful in '700' telling me that it has 8P cores without looking it up.

 

The existing desktop numbering has absolutely no meaningful way of going "this chip is better than that chip", and without going to something like geekbench or passmark, you can't even tell which chip is better if you had to pick. Neither tell you what socket, chipset, E-cores, threads, memory capacity, memory type or what graphics core it uses.

 

You as a a Desktop BYO might just look at the price and go "the most expensive one" even though the KF clocks higher than the K, the lack of the GPU might have been something you wanted for video decoding/encoding.

 

In a laptop you often just see 20 laptops in a store that look identical, and you have to look each one up on your smartphone cause the sales person sure won't know the difference. So that Mobile and Server version of the Xeon, "bigger number better" is easy to see.

 

The desktop number? people will just go my existing i7 from 10 years ago must be better than the current i5 because it's an i7. The problem is simply the number-letter soup is unmarketable and not something you can trademark to prevent competition from using the exact same numbers.

 

 

[divito]

Speaking of Ultra, Intel should just partner with Dragonball and use Saiyan levels for their products.....introducing Intel Ultra Instinct!

[vertigo220]

1 hour ago, cmndr said:

Most consumers are not well informed. 

It's easier to convince a consumer that an ultra 3 is better than an i7. Heck they might even think that their i7 from before their middle-schooler was born might need replacement. 

 

 

I believe Intel was generally anti-competitive. 

With that said here's some reasons why a company might settle a legal issues
1. lawsuits are expensive

2. lawsuits create risk

3. lawsuits might establish an unfavorable legal precedent that might harm the company later

4. Executives get bonuses/performance reviews based on achieving goals, getting an ugly legal matter taken care of, might be useful for getting a bonus or avoiding termination. 

Yeah, I realize that, but Intel is and has always been a bigger company with far more money than AMD, so I find it unlikely they would settle, especially since that gives the impression of guilt.

 

57 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Which happened in 2009... that was 14 years ago. So tell me why that means Intel still has some unfair power that means they get to have the largest market share in 2023? I highly doubt a lot of laptops that exist out there are from before 2009.

Do you really not realize how things in the past can affect things in the future? They spent years forcing large market share in the laptop space, which led to years of both consumers knowing the Intel name better and thinking Intel is automatically better and laptop OEMs continuing to use what they've always used, because it's what consumers know and "want" and it's what they've been working with and designing around for years. Not to mention that it cost AMD market share then, which cost them money then, which impaired their ability to do R&D and slowed their progress, resulting in a vicious cycle. If you can't understand that, I can't help. And by the way, I'm in no way saying others, including AMD, don't do anti-competitive stuff, too, but Intel is one of the bigger offenders and they basically handicapped AMD for a long time. Between that and them spending years, multiple times, dragging their feet and only making major leaps when AMD offered significant competition, we are years behind where we should be technologically. They stagnated CPU development in the 90s and early 00s and again early last decade, something they were able to do largely because of holding AMD down so they wouldn't have to compete against them.

[StDragon]

Intel is grading their CPUs like diamonds in the binning process.

It's the 4C's all over again.

Diamond = Cut, Color, Clarity, and Carat

Intel = Core, Clock, Cache, and Capabilities

 

Don't blame me when the two merge to become Debeers Intel.

[Arika]

2 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

Do you really not realize how things in the past can affect things in the future? They spent years forcing large market share in the laptop space, which led to years of both consumers knowing the Intel name better and thinking Intel is automatically better and laptop OEMs continuing to use what they've always used, because it's what consumers know and "want"

Sorry, but you can't say this and also say that AMD naming their platform VERY similar to intel so consumers can see that they are competing in the same breath.

[NumLock21]

9 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

As I mentioned above, IMO ultra would be at least below max. But while we don't know yet what their exact plans are, it could very well be they are using it for the exact reason you mention, which is that a Celeron Ultra is still garbage, but people may see the "Ultra" and think it's really good.

It'll be misleading to the consumers who aren't knowledgeable enough when it comes to PC part. I went to take a look and the latest Celeron is actually 12th gen. Has 5 cores 1P+4E, supports DDR5 and DDR4, with a base clock of 1.1GHz and no Turbo boost.

[leadeater]

53 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

I went to take a look and the latest Celeron is actually 12th gen. Has 5 cores 1P+4E, supports DDR5 and DDR4, with a base clock of 1.1GHz and no Turbo boost.

eeehh, yuck. That is horrible.

 

5 hours ago, divito said:

Speaking of Ultra, Intel should just partner with Dragonball and use Saiyan levels for their products.....introducing Intel Ultra Instinct!

Just use Power Levels, that's always been accurate and scaled proportionally in the Dragon Ball universe.

 

Also rename Turbo Boost to Kaio-ken 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because I can see from the "86" part number the '6' in that chip is a 6-core chip, where as I can't see anything meaningful in '700' telling me that it has 8P cores without looking it up.

But it doesn't actually remove the problem you said in regards to mobile vs desktop. Only the suffix lets you know, if you know, which is the same for both. While it's nice to see and know the core count in the product model name it's not actually that helpful. Number of cores isn't everything, especially now that we have P and E cores.

 

But we have Xeons with higher model number with less cores than lower model numbers because they were optimized in a different way but do perform better, for what they were optimized for and they also cost more.

 

When it comes down to it so long as the model number is accurately enough portraying which is better with the least confusion the better. 13700 vs 13900 does this more than sufficiently, the problems start with the suffixes and the non wider distinction of desktop vs mobile vs low power mobile. Non specific numbering however is not the problem.

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

So that Mobile and Server version of the Xeon, "bigger number better" is easy to see.

This is true for desktop, mobile and low power mobile. Bigger number is faster, always. The problem is comparing XYZ mobile product verses ZYX low power mobile product without knowing this is the situation and without knowing this product class means it's totally different in basically every way.

 

The solution is accurately portraying this different, like the difference between a tablet and a laptop. If you can make it easy and clear enough you avoid the confusion.

 

And if you think the suffixes on desktop or laptop is confusing then you haven't seen much of the Xeon ones lol

 

Good bloody luck actually understanding what these actually do tangibly. Xeon product naming is a hell scape that is forever changing, it's also not consistent across Xeon product families.

[Brooksie359]

8 hours ago, MageTank said:

Putting the burden on consumers is a very poor way of thinking about this, especially if its your job to market to said consumers. Not all consumers are tech savvy and some simply don't have the time to do research on socket compatibility. They simply want to be told "You are trying to do this? Buy this". The easier companies can make this on consumers, the better.

 

I googled "Why does Intel have a higher market share in laptops" but nothing anti-competitive came up. If you are making this claim, at least cite a source so I can educate myself.

Who is making this claim that AMD is superior to Intel in the mobile segment? Last I checked (with the exception of iGPU performance), Intel mobile chips are still very competitive in multi-threading and outright better in single threaded performance, albeit at the cost of weaker power efficiency.

This video shows the exact same laptop with the only differences being the platform and processors. Intel is consistently on top in 95% of the benchmarking. How exactly does that equate to AMD being regarded by "most" as superior? The market share itself begs to differ: https://wccftech.com/intel-claws-back-notebook-and-desktop-pc-market-share-from-amd-in-latest-mercury-research-report/

 

If your claims are true and most people are regarding AMD as the superior option, why is the market not reflecting that? Is this the anti-competitive stuff you are referring to? If so, what exactly are they doing? AMD themselves have acknowledged that all current antitrust issues with Intel are resolved: https://www.amd.com/en/legal/notices/antitrust-ruling.html

While I do agree that putting the burden on the customer isn't ideal that doesn't mean companies can be expected to make building a pc idiot proof. Most motherboards say what cpus they support in their description so it not like companies aren't trying to inform buyers it's just buyers not looking at the information on the product. Also Personally if you can't even do enough research to get basic compatibility right you really should just buy a prebuilt as you sorta need to know what you are doing to some extent to build a pc. I mean it's not hard to build a pc but it also isn't completely intuitive enough to where you could build one without looking up some info online to help. 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

But it doesn't actually remove the problem you said in regards to mobile vs desktop. Only the suffix lets you know, if you know, which is the same for both. While it's nice to see and know the core count in the product model name it's not actually that helpful. Number of cores isn't everything, especially now that we have P and E cores.

 

Well yeah, the P/E cores basically threw that idea out the window.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

But we have Xeons with higher model number with less cores than lower model numbers because they were optimized in a different way but do perform better, for what they were optimized for and they also cost more.

That's why I explicitly pointed to the Xeon E which is just the desktop CPU with ECC support essentially.

 

The product marketing is the closest to being understood there because the only letter you run into is 'G', and the M is the laptop part. So the first two digits being the "generation" and the last digit being the number of cores is easier to understand over the desktop's lack of anything A 12th and 13th 700 is only better than the previous 700, but no idea if it's part is actually better than the i5 of the current.

 

See the problem? The assumption would be that if you have an Core 2700K and a 3700K comes out, you should be able to just swap the part and stay in the same performance and TDP. But that's not what happens. Now you have throw out your entire setup if you want to use any chips with "9"'s in them if coming from anything below a 7.

 

it still pisses me off that I had this absolutely monster computer chassis intended for external water cooling, and it wouldn't fit the 10-series nvidia GPU's. The writing was on the wall that I'd have to throw stuff out again when the CPU TDP effectively doubled since that.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

When it comes down to it so long as the model number is accurately enough portraying which is better with the least confusion the better. 13700 vs 13900 does this more than sufficiently, the problems start with the suffixes and the non wider distinction of desktop vs mobile vs low power mobile. Non specific numbering however is not the problem.

There is no distinction between a 13700 and a 13900 type of chip to even know if the cooling headroom needed for the i9 is viable. If it's not then buying a 13900 will just thermally be throttled to the speed of the 13700... as GN noticed with the 12th gen in the Dell system.

Spend more money, get 0% benefit over the immediate lower tier.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

This is true for desktop, mobile and low power mobile. Bigger number is faster, always. The problem is comparing XYZ mobile product verses ZYX low power mobile product without knowing this is the situation and without knowing this product class means it's totally different in basically every way.

I'd rather Intel just not share the brand between the desktop and the mobile parts at all.

 

Call the desktop "Core Premium" and call the mobile parts "Corium" for all I care. Just remove the conflation that a laptop with "13700" in it is some how exactly equal to the desktop 13700.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

The solution is accurately portraying this different, like the difference between a tablet and a laptop. If you can make it easy and clear enough you avoid the confusion.

I'd argue that re-opens the entire "a tablet is not a PC" debate that we dropped in the "Mac M2" thread. A PC has keyboard-driven input, a tablet has touch-driven input. If the tablet works like it is supposed to, you should not even need the soft keyboard at any point. Login with your face/finger print, tab the apps, navigate them entirely with your fingers. A PC requires you to have a keyboard to do basic functionality, but doesn't require a mouse "technically". They have fat UI's for inaccurate finger usage, and input language designed for their respective intended uses.

 

What makes a tablet clear is that the keyboard is not shown as a feature of the device, the marketing always draws your attention to using everything with the touch screen. You know how to spot a bad website? When the website is simply their mobile app. All the banks have switched from desktop-intuitive to desktop-hostile user experiences so that they can design one site that works on the app and "works good enough" on the desktop that you'll hopefully quit using the desktop browser with it. Use the App, be locked-in and tracked.

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And if you think the suffixes on desktop or laptop is confusing then you haven't seen much of the Xeon ones lol

 

 

Good bloody luck actually understanding what these actually do tangibly. Xeon product naming is a hell scape that is forever changing, it's also not consistent across Xeon product families.

Ick what a mess, and your average person isn't making a purchasing decision based on that anyway.

 

Like the problem that is getting away here is that "average user" being able to understand it, and enterprises have tech people to understand the product numbers... usually. (don't get me started on being outsourced and having the person trying to get you to do things, seemingly not understand the scale of a problem, because they aren't actually there.)

 

 

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

While I do agree that putting the burden on the customer isn't ideal that doesn't mean companies can be expected to make building a pc idiot proof. Most motherboards say what cpus they support in their description 

That only helps because CPU's have thus far not been soldered to motherboards. And the only reason for that is Intel having multiple product SKU's. Could you imagine of GPU's were this versatile? Where you could buy a separate chip and "VRAM+Ports" board and cooler?

 

No instead for this to be the way forward, all the CPU's start getting soldered to their motherboards, which means that your "budget" systems stop existing. Now if you want a full featured board, you're paying $2000 USD. No mixing and matching chipsets. You'll have ASUS over-engineering their boards and MSU under-engineering their boards, and then who do you blame when it dies? 

 

Like I feel the reason we haven't seen this happen has a lot more to do with Intel wanting to be able to bin the parts and no other reason. If they sold parts to be soldered, there would only be 4 parts from every vendor, the 'i9', 'i7', 'i5', and 'i3' parts of which the i5 and i3 will be the cheapest part they can get away with that branding, which is what we've seen with laptops, and it'll just be manufactured, like their laptops.

 

And maybe that's the goal. The i9 and i7 parts with unlocked clocks continue to be socketed, and everything beneath is soldered with a fixed cooler as with GPU's.

 

Honestly there was nothing wrong the existing naming scheme except for what I assume is an inability to sell to china products with a '4' in them. Which a 14th gen chip would be. 

 

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, Kisai said:

A 12th and 13th 700 is only better than the previous 700, but no idea if it's part is actually better than the i5 of the current.

You do have an idea to a degree, and the Xeon E naming doesn't fix that either. Like I pointed to the E-2186G will be slower than say a E-2356G for most things so your ideal doesn't actually help at all.

 

There isn't any difference here, E-2186G = i9-9900 & W-2356G = i7-11700 (not actually but you get the point). Like so what the Xeon E's have the core count in the name you still have generation versus generation issue so it hasn't resolved that stated problem.

 

39 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Now you have throw out your entire setup if you want to use any chips with "9"'s in them if coming from anything below a 7.

No you don't, if we're talking upgrade within same chipset and socket support. Both the motherboard and cooling solution would be able to handle both an i5 and an i9, the TDP being higher doesn't mean it won't. That's not how systems are designed and it's also not how basically every cooler works either. You'll be very hard pressed to find a system with a 95W TDP CPU in it with a cooler that can't handle a 125W TDP CPU.

 

Any examples are extremely few and far between and most often the i7 can't fully boost and not be thermally restricted anyway so this isn't a real problem between i7's and i9's and TDP changing over generations.

 

There will always be a bad system out there, that's got nothing to do with Intel product naming or TDP changing. You also don't find large TDP changes within the same chipset/socket anyway further making this not a problem.

 

39 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I'd argue that re-opens the entire "a tablet is not a PC" debate that we dropped in the "Mac M2" thread.

No it doesn't LOL!. Look I'm not going in to that again but a PC is everything and all. A laptop is a type of PC, a tablet is a type of PC, I'll die on this hill and I'll fight that to the death since it's defending the widely held and widely supported absolute truth. They're all damn PCs, end of my discussion on that. Don't bring it up again. It's ludicrously stupid, I can't actually believe it needed debating.

 

P.S. Xeon E is essentially dead, it's not been updated since 2021. Xeon W is the current, even if slightly different product family equivilent options exist within it.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

You do have an idea to a degree, and the Xeon E naming doesn't fix that either. Like I pointed to the E-2186G will be slower than say a E-2356G for most things so your ideal doesn't actually help at all.

 

Really the problem there is '23' and '21' need to be considered independently of '86' and '56' which isn't possible there, and is even less possible with 13600 and 12700

 

The fact Intel even needs to state this:

Tells you the problem of sharing those numbers.

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

P.S. Xeon E is essentially dead, it's not been updated since 2021. Xeon W is the current, even if slightly different product family equivalent options exist within it.

 

Which seems to have adopted some crazypants part numbering that no connection to anything at all.

 

vs

 

 

Intel's desktop parts list going back to Haswell is here: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/processors/Intel-Core-Desktop-Boxed-Processors-Comparison-Chart.pdf

 

So is "Ultra" going to be this "brand modifier" like how Xeon's had them (and I'd argue made no sense at all when you see a 70-part list on dell's site) or is it going to be a modifier of the Brand itself? So it's "Intel (R) Core(R) Ultra(R)" instead of "Intel (R) Core (R)"

 

I don't know, at this point I just want them to stop making it gigantic pain in the ass to figure out part equivalency generation to generation.

 

To me, I'd rather see Pcores-Ecores-PCIeLanes make up the part "number", and the "nth generation" make up the brand, so you end up with something like 13|16-08-20 for the existing 13700 desktop and a 13|08-08-20 mobile. You can put them on top of each other on paper see that one part has bigger significant digits than the other. The 3/5/7/9 "brand" has always been incredibly unhelpful, and if they're just changing it to be "Core Ultra 5" instead of i5... that does nothing to fix the rest of the mess.

 

A desktop and laptop user should only be concerned with the P-core/E-core numbers, and users who need to know that something is a "workstation part" will care about the last number. Where something like a ThreadRipper Pro 3995WX would be  3|064-000-128 while a Ryzen 9 3900 would be 3|012-000-016. But this is AMD here, and trying to align AMD's "generation" number with Intel's is insanity. But at least you're not confused that a 8-P core intel somehow is better than a 12 core AMD one when you can clearly see the core count.

 

"threads" itself is not a useful number when hyperthreading never adds the performance of an additional core. PCIe lanes are relevant when comparing like-for-like use cases, such as a workstation/HEDT/desktop, but a laptop might have 20 PCIe lanes but they're unusable. Thus incentivizing laptop manufacturers to have the dGPU or make those lanes available as additional TB ports.

 

 

[WolframaticAlpha]

12 hours ago, Arika S said:

Which happened in 2009... that was 14 years ago. So tell me why that means Intel still has some unfair power that means they get to have the largest market share in 2023? I highly doubt a lot of laptops that exist out there are from before 2009.

Also AMD has a larger market cap than intel for the past 2 years... and has more profits.

 

The reason why intel is in more laptops is because intel can make more chips, unlike AMD. Asus has time and again come out with great laptops with AMD, only to be hamstrung by AMDs low availability. 

[WolframaticAlpha]

12 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

They stagnated CPU development in the 90s and early 00s and again early last decade,

What are you talking about? Intel released Pentium and Xeon in the 90s. And, Intel didn't really compete with AMD in the 90s. IBM and SPARC were the real danger to them.

 

12 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

Not to mention that it cost AMD market share then, which cost them money then, which impaired their ability to do R&D and slowed their progress, resulting in a vicious cycle.

AMD lost more money, because they fucked up their ATI deal(massive writeoffs in the middle on a global financial crisis), burnt cash on fabs they didn't need(see: Real men have fabs | WIRED) and fucked up their datacenter products with barcelona. By the time the FX fiasco started, AMD was already in hot water and needed a home run of a product to compete with Intel, of which they did the opposite. They also had somehow allowed Nvidia to widen the technological gap so far that even under their new improved leadership, they haven't managed to catch up.

 

"Intel paid off the laptop manufacturers in 2009 and that's why AMD isn't winning" is copium swallowed by AMD fans because they don't want to accept that their favourite company fucked up repeatedly post 2005-15(when they were winning hard) by a series of shit management decisions and by releasing absolutely uncompetitive products when their rival was releasing some of their best.

[LAwLz]

50 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Also AMD has a larger market cap than intel for the past 2 years... and has more profits.

 

The reason why intel is in more laptops is because intel can make more chips, unlike AMD. Asus has time and again come out with great laptops with AMD, only to be hamstrung by AMDs low availability. 

You also have to consider that laptops are more complicated than just selling single CPUs to end customers.

Building a laptop, at least a good one, often requires cooperation with several brands including the CPU maker to get power profiles right, to get the cooling right and so on. Chances are Intel has stronger relationships with laptop manufacturers and as a result end up getting more designs out (in addition to the availability issue). It's not a coincidence that AMD partnered up with MediaTek and rebranded some Wi-Fi modules. It's because OEMs find it easier to get everything from a single partner rather than having to get the CPU from one company, the Wi-Fi module from another one, the chip to handle docking (Thunderbolt perhaps) from a third and so on.

 

It's not just about having the best chip, which I am not even sure AMD has.

 

 

It's getting kind of tiring hearing AMD fans constantly bring up something that happened like 14 years ago and have, according to AMD, been completely solved already, as reasons for why AMD isn't being used everywhere and why AMD isn't the best at everything.

Hell, I am not even sure that the things listed such as power efficiency and performance are even valid. Last time I checked, the idea that AMD has higher performance at lower power usage was only true for some specific SKUs, mainly the really high-end ones. In the other tiers such as the i5 vs the R5 or R7, Intel pulled ahead (again, from what I saw) in both performance and power consumption.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Really the problem there is '23' and '21' need to be considered independently of '86' and '56' which isn't possible there, and is even less possible with 13600 and 12700

It's literally no more or less possible. 21 and 23 are just numbers, 12 and 13 are just numbers. 86 and 56 are just numbers, 600 and 700 are just numbers. So exactly why do you think its less possible?

 

All 4 model numbers are coded with product generation and sku number, you look and decipher them the same way. I see nothing different about them nor how any is better than the other. 

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Which seems to have adopted some crazypants part numbering that no connection to anything at all.

It's not that different to Xeon E. First number is SKU level (i.e. 4 channel vs 8 channel), second is generation and the last are SKU number.

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

I don't know, at this point I just want them to stop making it gigantic pain in the ass to figure out part equivalency generation to generation.

And that is basically never going to be possible ever. The more generations apart something is the more different it's going to be and there isn't really any system that is going to account for that. The simple fact is if a product is a generation newer the expectation should be that anything older could potentially be slower against any newer SKU from bottom to top.

 

A 12100 could be faster than a 11900k for some workloads (CB 1n they are nearly identical). In gaming it almost was, it's close in many cases and that should tell you everything you need to know that the generation part of the model does actually matter a lot, sometimes more than any other part of it.

[WolframaticAlpha]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

A 12100 could be faster than a 11900k for some workloads (CB 1n they are nearly identical). In gaming it almost was, it's close in many cases and that should tell you everything you need to know that the generation part of the model does actually matter a lot, sometimes more than any other part of it.

The fun thing is that when that actually happened(Performance Rating - Wikipedia), it was roundly criticized by everyone.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

The reason why intel is in more laptops is because intel can make more chips, unlike AMD. Asus has time and again come out with great laptops with AMD, only to be hamstrung by AMDs low availability. 

Not just availability and volume. Simple fact is lifecycles tend to be 5 years and unless there is an AMD option in the same product as before the likelihood is a business is just going to buy the same thing again.

 

It actually takes a long time to build confidence with manufacturers and then following that customers, especially in a device like a laptop where you have to be more concerned with thermals, battery life and reliability. Desktop systems are seen as "less risky" so there isn't the same reluctance with those.

 

The only reason my work laptop is a Ryzen was because I asked for that HP model. Now the standard 13" model is an Intel, 15" AMD, 16" AMD, 16" workstation laptop Intel. The AMD options are only there because I prompted them to be looked at and evaluated.

 

Personally it takes about 8 years in my opinion to see any long lasting significant market change which means a company like AMD has to be highly competitive broadly across many different product families for 8 years. It however only takes 1 or 2 years to entirely reset that if you do badly enough.

[MageTank]

14 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

Except I see it as a help, not a burden, to the consumer, because they can look at it and say these two parts are directly competitive and roughly comparable (granted that's not always the case). You could also say it's a burden for them to have to try and compare two brands when they are significantly different in their naming. Nobody seems to take issue with i-3/5/7/9 and R-3/5/7/9 or RTX 4080 vs RX 7800 despite them being so similar, because it allows a more-or-less direct comparison.

This still does not address the issue of AMD intentionally confusing customers with their similar chipset naming conventions to Intel. The only thing that separates AMD and Intel is a single letter/digit and customers may forget which one is which. The easier solution would be using I and A for Intel vs AMD designation on chipsets. I370 vs A370. Still separated by a single letter change, but you can simply tell customers "Look for I if you need an Intel board, look for A if you need an AMD board". You can use additional numbers or letters at the very end of the chipset to designate different performance tiers.

 

14 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

Most reviews I've read over the past few years have generally been in favor of AMD over Intel, including with otherwise similar models. AMD has almost as much single-core performance while having better multi-core performance, lower power usage, better efficiency (yes, those are two separate things), better iGPUs, and lower cost. There will of course always be exceptions, but in both professional reviews and in forums, I've seen a lot more praise of and recommendations for AMD than Intel in the past few years. And market share does not equal superiority. As I mentioned, AMD has suffered in laptop market share for years due to Intel's practices, and even despite that their share has increased dramatically over the past few years, because they are so good compared to Intel. As for benchmarking, I really hope you aren't referring to userbenchmark.

Most reviews are simply click bait when the new hardware launches. Every time Intel launches a new product, the title is always "AMD is DEAD!!!!" or "Intel is BACK". When AMD launches a new product, it's the exact same thing in reverse. It's okay to be a fan of AMD, but it's not okay to ignore objective facts and substitute them with personal opinions.

 

14 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

Regarding the anticompetitive stuff, I don't need to provide anything, because, despite your claims that you couldn't find anything, you provided a link that says it all. Why would Intel have paid AMD $1.25B and agreed to abide by a set of ground rules and entered into a consent degree with the FTC if they weren't engaged in anti-competitive behavior? And that link also details said behavior, with the very first point being the main one I read about years ago and the primary reason Intel has the market share you believe is due to better performance.

No, it really doesn't. The very last antitrust ruling was back in 2010. Nothing has come ever since. Are you telling me Intel violating antitrust back in 2010 is hurting AMD's laptop sales now? You realize back in 2010, AMD's laptops were objectively awful, right? The best mobile AMD processor back in 2010 was the Phenom II X920 BE which had to compete against the i7 940XM (clarksdale). This was not a fair fight at all. The 940XM had twice the threads, significantly higher clock speeds, better IPC and nearly 4x the cache. Even without antitrust violations, it would not have been hard to market against AMD with performance numbers like that backing your product up. AMD hasn't been legitimately competitive in the mobile segment until Ryzen launched.

 

Are you claiming that antitrust violations from 13 years ago are still hurting AMD now, do you have any evidence to back that claim up? At the very least, cite a single source as I've been kind enough to do so for you when making claims.

 

13 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

Do you really not realize how things in the past can affect things in the future? They spent years forcing large market share in the laptop space, which led to years of both consumers knowing the Intel name better and thinking Intel is automatically better and laptop OEMs continuing to use what they've always used, because it's what consumers know and "want" and it's what they've been working with and designing around for years. Not to mention that it cost AMD market share then, which cost them money then, which impaired their ability to do R&D and slowed their progress, resulting in a vicious cycle.

I need a source for this claim too. Let's look at AMDs own roadmap back in 2010:

"Increase both notebook performance and battery life by at least 25%". What do we know about Bulldozers launch? Well... It certainly wasn't a 25% performance boost: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/10/can-amd-survive-bulldozers-disappointing-debut/. One could argue it was a regression in performance. Did Intel's antitrust practices cause this? Or was it AMD intentionally straying from Jim Keller's design in the hopes that software development would follow suite? They made a bad gamble on Bulldozer and marketed it deceptively themselves: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14804/amd-settlement

 

Intel did not hurt AMD. What hurt AMD back then was trying to complete in two very competitive markets simultaneously. They acquired ATI back in 06, rebranded it to AMD in 2010 (heavy push on GPU market) and subsequently put their eggs in that basket while their CPU market suffered. Was this Intel's fault too? Did they tell AMD it was a good deal to buy ATI and put their money towards marketing that instead?

 

13 hours ago, vertigo220 said:

And by the way, I'm in no way saying others, including AMD, don't do anti-competitive stuff, too, but Intel is one of the bigger offenders and they basically handicapped AMD for a long time. Between that and them spending years, multiple times, dragging their feet and only making major leaps when AMD offered significant competition, we are years behind where we should be technologically. They stagnated CPU development in the 90s and early 00s and again early last decade, something they were able to do largely because of holding AMD down so they wouldn't have to compete against them.

I am going to join you in suspending logic here. Let's say you are right here (ignoring AMD violating Intel's copyright in their processors several times and also violating the X86-64 license agreement a few times throughout the mid-90's early 2000's), that means AMD was awarded damages for the impact Intel's antitrust violations had, right? Said damages should cover the R&D cost and should allow AMD to return to prominence in the market, right? How come in the last 13 years, that has not happened? You've never answered the question as to why your history lessons matter in the present (again, ignoring the misinformation). You keep ignoring evidence and are instead supplementing your opinion as fact. When having a disagreement with someone, it's best to supplement your claims with proof so others can actually adjust their view on the subject. Start doing that.

 

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

While I do agree that putting the burden on the customer isn't ideal that doesn't mean companies can be expected to make building a pc idiot proof. Most motherboards say what cpus they support in their description so it not like companies aren't trying to inform buyers it's just buyers not looking at the information on the product. Also Personally if you can't even do enough research to get basic compatibility right you really should just buy a prebuilt as you sorta need to know what you are doing to some extent to build a pc. I mean it's not hard to build a pc but it also isn't completely intuitive enough to where you could build one without looking up some info online to help. 

Oh, I wouldn't want them to attempt to make PC building idiot proof. The problem with attempting to make something idiot proof is that they end up building a better idiot, it's an exercise in futility. I am simply asking that they do not go out of their way to make it more difficult for the consumers, such as the chipset naming conventions currently used between AMD and Intel.

 

It's not just about PC building either. Let's say you do research online and learn that you need a B650 platform because it has certain features you need and fits your budget. You go to the store and speak to a salesperson, only to forget the exact name of the chipset. You say "oh, it was B something" and they say "B660?" and you say "Yeah! That was it", not realizing B650 and B660, while sounding the same, are not the same. You leave with a B660 system and it's missing a feature you were intentionally looking for. Can't blame that on the consumer when a slight difference in name could completely resolve that confusion without hurting the products in any way.

 

BTW, that was a hypothetical. Please do not research the differences between the B650 and B660 chipsets and roast me for it, lol.

[vertigo220]

10 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

It'll be misleading to the consumers who aren't knowledgeable enough when it comes to PC part. I went to take a look and the latest Celeron is actually 12th gen. Has 5 cores 1P+4E, supports DDR5 and DDR4, with a base clock of 1.1GHz and no Turbo boost.

That was my point. Putting Ultra in the name may be a way to intentionally mislead customers into thinking something is much better than it is.

 

2 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

What are you talking about? Intel released Pentium and Xeon in the 90s. And, Intel didn't really compete with AMD in the 90s. IBM and SPARC were the real danger to them.

 

AMD lost more money, because they fucked up their ATI deal(massive writeoffs in the middle on a global financial crisis), burnt cash on fabs they didn't need(see: Real men have fabs | WIRED) and fucked up their datacenter products with barcelona. By the time the FX fiasco started, AMD was already in hot water and needed a home run of a product to compete with Intel, of which they did the opposite. They also had somehow allowed Nvidia to widen the technological gap so far that even under their new improved leadership, they haven't managed to catch up.

 

"Intel paid off the laptop manufacturers in 2009 and that's why AMD isn't winning" is copium swallowed by AMD fans because they don't want to accept that their favourite company fucked up repeatedly post 2005-15(when they were winning hard) by a series of shit management decisions and by releasing absolutely uncompetitive products when their rival was releasing some of their best.

Yes. They released Pentium in the early 90s, and then didn't do much for the next decade, essentially making incremental improvements and eventually releasing the Pentium D, which was pretty bad. Whether or not they were competing with AMD or not at the time is irrelevant, and I never said they were. They didn't have sufficient competition to push them along, so they were complacent. Only when AMD released the Athlon64 and then the Athlon 64 x2 (which is what pushed Intel to go multi-core as well) did Intel get their act together and release the Core 2 Duo, etc, followed by the i-series chips. Then early last decade, they stagnated again, with multiple generations being only single-digit improvements over the last, then once AMD came out with Ryzen, which was a substantial improvement and started offering real competition, Intel started making bigger improvements again with larger IPC increases, better iGPUs, etc.

 

I don't deny, and never said, there aren't other reasons for AMD's struggles. Also, Intel didn't do what they did in 2009, they did it for years and agreed to stop in 2009. So while yes, AMD did make mistakes of their own, it absolutely hurt them by being hamstrung, again for years, causing a loss of profits AND market share, both of which have long-lasting detrimental effects. And I don't know exact timelines or their financials, so this is conjecture, but it certainly seems possible the loss of income from Intel's anti-competitive dominance in the laptop market contributed to their lackluster products you mentioned, as they had less money for R&D and to take the time necessary to produce good products. People don't seem to understand the domino effect revenue (or lack thereof) has for a company. As for video cards, I don't follow them as closely, but my impression was that ATi was behind Nvidia when they were acquired by AMD, so it's not that AMD mishandled things and caused Nvidia to pull ahead, but that they started already behind and just haven't managed to catch up (though they're getting close save for ray-tracing). I could be wrong on that, though.

 

And I do prefer AMD over Intel, but I can still recognize facts and timelines and the effects of various things. In fact, the main reason I prefer AMD isn't due to performance, but because I dislike Intel specifically due to their actions and complacency. Even so, I used Intel on my last desktop build because it was better suited for what I was doing. I don't play favorites; I look at the facts and choose the best and most deserving, whether in computer parts, politics, or whatever.

 

As for fabs, I'm curious why you'd think they shouldn't have invested in them and didn't/don't need them. One of AMD's biggest problems now is that they can't get their processors out in large enough numbers, which if they had their own fabs may not be (as much of) an issue. Then again, perhaps they would have had to spend enormous amounts of money keeping them updated, and I'd wonder if it makes sense for them to have their own, but Intel is working on building their own right now, so it seems to make just as much sense for AMD.