Intel Core i9 Skylake - E clocks no higher than Broadwell - E

[Valentyn]

1 minute ago, porina said:

This has been the tricky part when doing comparisons. A single thread on a single core still favours Intel right now, but two threads on a single core (with HT, SMT) already can swing towards Ryzen. While I don't doubt there will be improvements, the question is under which scenarios? I'd also hope they do some changes to allow somewhat higher clocks to be more easily attained, in a similar way to Kaby Lake compared to Skylake. Get turbo clocks well up into the 4+ GHz range and that would be sweet.

 

What I find fascinating is there is a Threadripper model with a 4.1Ghz boost clock. 

It's clear there's not thermal issues with the architecture, and it's process related then.

 

14nm+ will help a little, but AMD is also still making gains via BIOS and Memory updates/support. 
So who knows how much they'll be able to squeeze out. One thing is for sure, if they can up the Infinity Fabric bandwidth on Zen+ before even 7nm, that'll help performance as well. As it'll be that little bid less reliant on faster memory off the bat.

[MageTank]

Just now, rn8686 said:

I was referring to the Skylake i9s. 

Oh, my bad. Just woke up and conveniently ignored half the context, lol. In that regard, I'd say the gap is indeed fairly small. Especially when compared it to Haswell-E, which had just as much issues with ram compatibility (even with a quad channel advantage, it's latency has always been garbage). 

 

I imagine Ryzen will see a surge in adoption once those AGESA updates launch across the board partners. Those unlocked memory registers might offer some serious tangible performance gains, given how that infinity fabric works.

[Valentyn]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

If all you do is strictly gaming, and nothing else, a highly clocked 7700k with highly clocked ram, is untouchable at the moment. Not trying to bring Ryzen down, only being honest here.

 

Sums it up rather well really. Although, I do believe even that is becoming a niché slowly. More and more "gamers" are doing more than simply closing all applications and gaming.

 

One thing I'm hopeful for is that developers will ramp up development to use more cores from next year on, especially with Intel moving the mainstream to 6c/6t and 6c/12t with Coffee Lake. Once the market leader starts moving towards that, it's likely more developers will follow suit.

 

[Valentyn]

10 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Oh, my bad. Just woke up and conveniently ignored half the context, lol. In that regard, I'd say the gap is indeed fairly small. Especially when compared it to Haswell-E, which had just as much issues with ram compatibility (even with a quad channel advantage, it's latency has always been garbage). 

 

I imagine Ryzen will see a surge in adoption once those AGESA updates launch across the board partners. Those unlocked memory registers might offer some serious tangible performance gains, given how that infinity fabric works.

 

It seems motherboard partners are taking AMD far more seriously as well. The new Asus Strix B350-F board is offering better overall performance than their Crosshair 6 for cheaper.
So add in the AGESA updates coming soon and Ryzen is slowly creeping up.

https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/06/02/asus-rog-strix-b350-f-gaming-review/1

 

What partners should do is wait the extra week or two for the new AGESA update to be baseline in the new motherboard BIOSs before launching. It'll look far better on the launch day reviews for them.

[PLME888]

So, same performance at a lower cost? I'm down for it!

[MoonSpot]

7 hours ago, Valentyn said:

By the time that happens AMD will be out of debt, and will have the cash for R&D to match or beat intel most likely.

Alright, put the kool-aid down and step away from the crystal ball.  Take a nap, wax out a few techgasms and reconnect with realistic expectations.

[Simon771]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 

I'd be surprised if the 14nm+ process gets more than 4.3 Ghz, honestly. I'd expect some % of IPC uplift just because they know much more about the architecture in practice. 

 

Zen 2 will be on 7 nm. Apparently the first Tapeout is later in the year, so it should be around for 2019.

In that case I can just hope that 7nm will acchive those numbers, and will fit on current B350 motherboards

[TidaLWaveZ]

I'm saying this now so I can come back and quote this.

 

I won't try to figure it out exactly what they are trying to do on my own, but intel knows exactly what they are doing. They are not fumbling around, they are not scared, they are not taking a hit.

 

I understand positive thinking in terms of competition bringing prices down for us, but you have to be realistic. Intel is literally 15x bigger than AMD in terms of net worth.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'm saying this now so I can come back and quote this.

 

I won't try to figure it out exactly what they are trying to do on my own, but intel knows exactly what they are doing. They are not fumbling around, they are not scared, they are not taking a hit.

 

I understand positive thinking in terms of competition bringing prices down for us, but you have to be realistic. Intel is literally 15x bigger than AMD in terms of net worth.

Well I very much agree Intel isn't worried but there is a ton of evidence backing the notion they never planned to have 18c parts on X299. Other than that it sounds like most of the other big issue items with X299 were planned as is so no difference TR or not.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, MoonSpot said:

Alright, put the kool-aid down and step away from the crystal ball.  Take a nap, wax out techgasms and reconnect with realistiv expectations.

Haha yea, if it was really that easy to surpass Intel then Intel would have done it to themselves already.

[TidaLWaveZ]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well I very much agree Intel isn't worried but there is a ton of evidence backing the notion they never planned to have 18c parts on X299. Other than that it sounds like most of the other big issue items with X299 were planned as is so no difference TR or not.

And your comment is totally reasonable and I agree with you provided the information currently available. My comment was really in response to seeing about 15 "Wow, intel is really screwed" comments within the first couple of threads I saw this morning.

 

I don't hate AMD or particularly love intel(even though I've grown to love the sweet deals I've gotten on Intel processors at Microcenter) BUT whatever intel is up to is not in response to AMD's new lineup. If they release something that's not up to expectation it's because they will make more money from it. 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, Valentyn said:

 

Sums it up rather well really. Although, I do believe even that is becoming a niché slowly. More and more "gamers" are doing more than simply closing all applications and gaming.

 

One thing I'm hopeful for is that developers will ramp up development to use more cores from next year on, especially with Intel moving the mainstream to 6c/6t and 6c/12t with Coffee Lake. Once the market leader starts moving towards that, it's likely more developers will follow suit.

 

*If* you're getting a 1080 or 1080 Ti and buying a Z-series board, then you have to buy a 7700k to get the benefit.  That's the situation under which the 7700k is any appreciable difference ahead.  The 6c & 8c Ryzens, because no games use the other threads, perform the same.   That's how badly AMD has disrupted the consumer CPU market. If you're paying 1.5k USD for a system, then go Intel.  Or if you're buying a sub-100 USD CPU, then go Intel.  Otherwise, Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 7 1700 are your targets.

 

The big, glaring problem in Gaming: there's been almost no uplift since Sandy Bridge.  https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide

 

I really should write a guide: "For Tech Reviewers: how not to make your conclusion Trash-Tier because your data doesn't let you make those judgments". Good chunk of tests, and unless you're running a Crossfire setup, the 2600k, R7 1700 and 7700k (all high OC'd) are functionally the same.  Except one or two spots in 1 or 2 older games that might be more of a Memory call issue more than anything else.  If you could clock the 2600k's memory higher, it'd pretty much perform the same as a faster OC'd 7700k.  (In gaming, I'm starting to think Skylake/Kaby Lake are almost downgrades in IPC. Anyone seen a same-clock test?)

 

Oh, last related point: most of the 7700k's performance difference in the early reviews were because everyone was running around 3200 RAM on Intel, but, obviously, almost no one could get above 2666 RAM on Ryzen at the beginning.  In gaming, both platforms scale about as well with faster RAM. 

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'm saying this now so I can come back and quote this.

 

I won't try to figure it out exactly what they are trying to do on my own, but intel knows exactly what they are doing. They are not fumbling around, they are not scared, they are not taking a hit.

 

I understand positive thinking in terms of competition bringing prices down for us, but you have to be realistic. Intel is literally 15x bigger than AMD in terms of net worth.

 

Intel "knows" what they're doing, but they're in a bad spot with X299. They didn't know Threadripper was coming, and it could have made their entire Workstation platform obsolete. (Though everything most programs are still tuned & compiled for Intel's architecture.) As it stands, it still looks like AMD will be selling *better* CPUs than Intel in the HEDT market for a good number of months, possibly through the end of the year. (I wonder if we're getting a Kaby Lake-X refresh for X299 in the >4c CPUs next year, now.)

[Valentyn]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Oh, last related point: most of the 7700k's performance difference in the early reviews were because everyone was running around 3200 RAM on Intel, but, obviously, almost no one could get above 2666 RAM on Ryzen at the beginning.  In gaming, both platforms scale about as well with faster RAM. 

 

Spot on post. The difference was also down to severe outliers where Ryzen performed strangely low. Such as Rise of the Tomb Raider, Ashes of the Singularity, Far Cry Primal.

Two of those have both received significant increases via developer patches alone; ignoring the large difference the RAM made.

 

When Toms made their blunderous "Best CPU" guide, they argued that the 1600X wasn't worth including because it was 15% slower than the 7600K. 

When in fact their own data disputed that (showing a 2.6% difference stock vs stock), and the only time there was such a difference was comparing overclocked 7600K vs stock 1600X.

That difference shrunk to 8.8% overall, and thanks to the latest Tomb Raider patch, Ryzen saw an 15% performance increase. Thereby largely eliminating the difference, and actually putting Ryzen ahead overall now in that comparison.

 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

 

Spot on post. The difference was also down to severe outliers where Ryzen performed strangely low. Such as Rise of the Tomb Raider, Ashes of the Singularity, Far Cry Primal.

Two of those have both received significant increases via developer patches alone; ignoring the large difference the RAM made.

 

When Toms made their blunderous "Best CPU" guide, they argued that the 1600X wasn't worth including because it was 15% slower than the 7600K. 

When in fact their own data disputed that (showing a 2.6% difference stock vs stock), and the only time there was such a difference was comparing overclocked 7600K vs stock 1600X.

That difference shrunk to 8.8% overall, and thanks to the latest Tomb Raider patch, Ryzen saw an 15% performance increase. Thereby largely eliminating the difference, and actually putting Ryzen ahead overall now in that comparison.

 

 

I really should write the "How not to be trash-tier" Guide.  LTT came out pretty good from their Ryzen release review because they caveated properly and didn't overextend from what little information they actually had.  Of course, Mind Blank with his 3600 Mhz RAM and 1070 had Ryzen completely flat with Intel, haha.

 

The real issue is that no one in the space actually has a clue how to do real Research or Analysis. They're pretty good benchmarkers, but, until people start putting in Standard Deviations or keep some baseline performance metric to compare scaling against (something like Handbrake or some other super-well threaded, real-world application), any conclusion is statistical worthless. 

 

What is clear, though, from looking at all of the benchmarking done is that the 7600k & 7700k can peg themselves out to nearly 100% and kept the 1080 & 1080 Ti class cards feed with data.  Nvidia's DX11 driver is 6 threads, which is why the 7600k -> 7700k uplift isn't quite as much as it should be.  But this also happens at nearly full-time >90% load. All of the load testing has Ryzen with 1 core pegged near 100% and the rest generally below 50% on the same high-end card.  If Vulkan + DX12 take off, those extra cores suddenly become useful and things change.  Which is probably why Coffee Lake's top SKU will be a 6c12t part.

 

Lastly, I've yet to see a single gaming Benchmark done with 20 tabs in Chrome on a 2nd monitor. Until then, those ain't "real world" testing.

[TidaLWaveZ]

39 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

-snip

I'm subscribed to the notion that corporate espionage is severely prevalent. Yes, it's an assumption but I believe that Intel has known AMD's plans and likely vise versa, just depends on what level of detail.

 

I don't disagree that from what we know at the moment, X299 doesn't sound too hot BUT it's quite early. It really doesn't mean much for AMDs processors to be top dog for a month-year, don't forget that Intel's had an HEDT monopoly for the past 5+ years. My only real point is that Intel, even if we're just going off the desktop CPU division, is not in chaos because AMD has finally released some good competitors. Honestly the entire X299 platform could be scrapped right now and Intel would barely flinch.

 

That last part is kind of an exaggeration, people would get fired and things but net worth wouldn't be drastically affected. 

[ESPImperium]

My thoughts on the Intel mess at the moment are that the marketing guys are being pushed to react to AMD and push the engineering team to push a product that may or may not exist into a area they may or may not be possible yet. The entire thing is a mess from their product structure on the mainstream and enthusiast sides and their chipset side of things. AMD have stolen the X399 designation for Threadripper and have started to move in on the x50 and x70 designations on the mainstream

 

If i was Intel id have renamed the X299 boards as X170 for Skylake-X and X270 for Kayblake-X, have separate motherboards for either not both. Have Quad channel X170 boards for Skylake-X and Dual Channel Kabylake-X boards. As for the mainstream chipsets, it would be:

 

Bx10 for a (Basic) board with a couple of SATA connections and 4 USB 2.0 and two USB 3.0 and a Intel NIC, these boards would only support Atom, Celeron or Pentium CPUs. These boards are also designed for service machines like coffee machines.

Hx50 for a (Home) board with more functionality, like WiFi and USB Type C and such. 

Px50 for a (Premium) board with all the bells and whistles for gaming minus overclocking and M.2 support and up to 4 SATA ports, and Raid 0 or 5 support, id support BLK overclocking on these boards.

Zx70 for a (Need a name to be honest here) overclocking class board with Multi M.2 support, Dual NICs, more USB and U.2 with Full Raid support and support for 28 PCIe lanes on the top of the line i7 CPUs.

Xx70 boards would be for the (Extreme) class LGA 2066 CPUs with 28 PCIe lanes from the lowest class CPUs, but expandable up to 40 PCIe on the highest end CPUs.

 

As for Intel CPU line up, the mainstream needs to have ideally 15-18 CPUs on the mainstream, with only a few having a mobile variant as i think that some of the mobile variants muddy the waters with some. Id have it as this:

 

115x Atom (Ideal for SFF PCs that run services like coffee machines) (8 PCIe Lanes):

Ax100 = 2.0ghz Dual core, 2mb Cache, HD 610 Graphics, supports up to 4GB Ram, 25w TDP

Ax400 = 2.7ghz Dual core, 3.5mb Cache, HD 610 Graphics, supports up to 4GB Ram, 35w TDP

 

115x Celeron (12 PCIe Lanes)

Cx200 = 2.5Ghz Dual Core, 4 MB Cache, HD 630 Graphics, Supports 8GB Ram, 35W TDP

Cx350 = 3.2Ghz Dual Core, 6MB Cache, HD 630 Graphics, Supports 8GB Ram, 35W TDP

 

115x Pentium (16 PCIe Lanes)

Px450 = 3.5ghz Dual Core, 4 MB Cache, HD 650 Iris Graphics, Supports 16GB Ram, 50W TDP

Px500T = 3.5ghz Dual Core, Turbo to 4.1ghz 4 MB Cache, HD 650 Iris Graphics, Supports 16GB Ram, 50W TDP

 

115x Core i3 (16 PCIe Lanes)

x100 = 3.8ghz Dual Core Hyper Threaded, 6 MB Cache, HD 650 Iris Graphics, Supports 16GB Ram, 50W TDP

x300 = 4.1ghz Dual Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 4.5ghz, 6 MB Cache, HD 650 Iris Graphics, Supports 16GB Ram, 50W TDP

x350 = As above, but unlocked and overclockable, minus IGPU but runs at 65W

 

115x Core i5 (16 PCIe Lanes)

x500 = 3.6ghz Quad Core Hyper Threaded, 8 MB Cache, HD 650 Iris Graphics, Supports 32GB Ram, 65W TDP

x600 = 4.0ghz Quad Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 4.6ghz, 8 MB Cache, HD 650 Iris Graphics, Supports 32GB Ram, 65W TDP

x600K = As above, but unlocked and overclockable, minus IGPU but runs at 95W

 

115x Core i7 (22 PCIe Lanes)

x700 = 4.3ghz Quad Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 4.8ghz, 12 MB Cache, HD 650 Iris Graphics, Supports 64GB Ram, 75W TDP

x700K = As above, but unlocked and overclockable, minus IGPU but runs at 95W

x750K = 3.5ghz Hex Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 3.9ghz, 16 MB Cache, Supports 64GB Ram, 115W TDP

 

2066 Extreme i9 (All overclocable, but all have Intel 610 graphics onboard if the thing needs debugging)

x800 = 3.7ghz Hex Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 4.1ghz, 28 PCIe Lanes, 22 MB Cache, Supports 64GB Ram, 115W TDP

x850 = 3.5ghz Eight Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 3.9ghz, 28 PCIe Lanes 22 MB Cache, Supports 64GB Ram, 115W TDP

x890 = 3.3ghz Ten Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 3.7ghz, 28 PCIe Lanes 22 MB Cache, Supports 128GB Ram, 140W TDP

x920 = 3.5ghz Twelve Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 3.9ghz, 40 PCIe Lanes 22 MB Cache, Supports 128GB Ram, 140W TDP

x950 = 3.3ghz  Sixteen Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 3.7ghz, 40 PCIe Lanes 24 MB Cache, Supports 128GB Ram, 165W TDP

x990X = 3.4ghz Eighteen Core Hyper Threaded, Turbo up to 3.8ghz, 44 PCIe Lanes 28 MB Cache, Supports 128GB Ram, 165W TDP

 

Then there the would be the Xeon range, but ill leave it there. It would give the Consumer, Enthusiast and Pro-Sumer/Pro-Thast 21 CPUs, with a handful of mobile variants, so probably around 30 CPUs to choose from, then about 5 different motherboard types. Intel need to clean up their chipsets, clean up their CPU line and basically change their game, otherwise AMD and their smart plan for having a tight concise and simple to assess line of CPUs and chipsets will allow them to win the battle. Intel need to change their game and change it fast otherwise they will be left behind in the next couple of generations of chips. Its clear that the Marketing department is pandering to the executives and as the Tech Team let the 18C/36T out of the bag, its clear that the Marketing team took it as red it can be done, and told the Executives who are looking at their bonuses and pride over what could/is theoretically possible at the moment.

 

At the moment, AMD Ryzen is the most compelling thing on the market.

[The Benjamins]

10 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

STUFF

 

Lastly, I've yet to see a single gaming Benchmark done with 20 tabs in Chrome on a 2nd monitor. Until then, those ain't "real world" testing.

I agree to this, the 7700k seems better in perfect scenarios in those test but I always have more then 50+ tabs open in chrome and will have a things running in the background (teamspeak, Discord, Remote desktop, plex, ect.)

 

Thats why I want my next CPU to be 8+ cores. (would like a TR build)

[Valentyn]

15 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Lastly, I've yet to see a single gaming Benchmark done with 20 tabs in Chrome on a 2nd monitor. Until then, those ain't "real world" testing.

My system never "only" has a game playing on a single monitor. I think a 7700K would start chugging and die if it tried my normal workload.

 

I often do Mythic Raiding in WoW some nights, while encoding a project in Premiere Pro, and recording the WoW raid at the same time as having a crap loads of chrome tabs open, and discord for voice.

 

I have 36% CPU, and 36% memory usage ( out of 32GB ) right now, simply with WoW open and chrome.

 

And WoW is one of the lightest games to run there is. I can't imagine playing Overwatch, or Battlefield 1 multiplayer on my system while encoding and all those chrome tabs.

 

I don't personally know a single person that when they play games closes down everything, and kills processes to only have the game open.

 

[cj09beira]

4 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I really should write the "How not to be trash-tier" Guide.  LTT came out pretty good from their Ryzen release review because they caveated properly and didn't overextend from what little information they actually had.  Of course, Mind Blank with his 3600 Mhz RAM and 1070 had Ryzen completely flat with Intel, haha.

 

The real issue is that no one in the space actually has a clue how to do real Research or Analysis. They're pretty good benchmarkers, but, until people start putting in Standard Deviations or keep some baseline performance metric to compare scaling against (something like Handbrake or some other super-well threaded, real-world application), any conclusion is statistical worthless. 

 

What is clear, though, from looking at all of the benchmarking done is that the 7600k & 7700k can peg themselves out to nearly 100% and kept the 1080 & 1080 Ti class cards feed with data.  Nvidia's DX11 driver is 6 threads, which is why the 7600k -> 7700k uplift isn't quite as much as it should be.  But this also happens at nearly full-time >90% load. All of the load testing has Ryzen with 1 core pegged near 100% and the rest generally below 50% on the same high-end card.  If Vulkan + DX12 take off, those extra cores suddenly become useful and things change.  Which is probably why Coffee Lake's top SKU will be a 6c12t part.

 

Lastly, I've yet to see a single gaming Benchmark done with 20 tabs in Chrome on a 2nd monitor. Until then, those ain't "real world" testing.

as a fellow multitasker, chrome a game and the gpu also mining, i support the idea that we the people need this kind of test !

[Sauron]

Not surprising, the ipc is supposed to be better though

[cj09beira]

4 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'm subscribed to the notion that corporate espionage is severely prevalent. Yes, it's an assumption but I believe that Intel has known AMD's plans and likely vise versa, just depends on what level of detail.

 

I don't disagree that from what we know at the moment, X299 doesn't sound too hot BUT it's quite early. It really doesn't mean much for AMDs processors to be top dog for a month-year, don't forget that Intel's had an HEDT monopoly for the past 5+ years. My only real point is that Intel, even if we're just going off the desktop CPU division, is not in chaos because AMD has finally released some good competitors. Honestly the entire X299 platform could be scrapped right now and Intel would barely flinch.

 

That last part is kind of an exaggeration, people would get fired and things but net worth wouldn't be drastically affected. 

unless you remember that amd is going strait to the server market as well, with something intel can't compete with: 128 lanes of IO, meaning if you want a server for: storage, accelerators of any kind, or pci-e devices in general, the amd server will be more power efficient (because it doesn't need 2 sockets to get that amount of IO), cheaper, and allow for denser storage/ GPU servers.

Next is the laptop market where intels 2 core i7's will be rekt by 4 core chips with smt, while also having much better graphics, for powerful laptops the 1700 is great.

 if you look closely amd is in an all out attack with no mercy, and intel chips are getting thrown into smaller niches 

[The Benjamins]

11 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

as a fellow multitasker, chrome a game and the gpu also mining, i support the idea that we the people need this kind of test !

Let me tell you, I get some FPS stutters when I have more then 120+ tabs open. multiple of them are idle youtube videos.

[TidaLWaveZ]

13 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

unless you remember that amd is going strait to the server market as well, with something intel can't compete with: 128 lanes of IO, meaning if you want a server for: storage, accelerators of any kind, or pci-e devices in general, the amd server will be more power efficient (because it doesn't need 2 sockets to get that amount of IO), cheaper, and allow for denser storage/ GPU servers.

Next is the laptop market where intels 2 core i7's will be rekt by 4 core chips with smt, while also having much better graphics, for powerful laptops the 1700 is great.

 if you look closely amd is in an all out attack with no mercy, and intel chips are getting thrown into smaller niches 

 

I don't know if you're refuting my only point (Intel knows what they're doing, won't suffer regardless of X299's success) or if you wanted to just list AMD's current winning forecast in the rare opportunity it presents itself, but just to add some perspective without repeating myself Intel just spent more than half of AMD's whole net worth just on a 7nm process plant in Arizona.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

I don't know if you're refuting my only point (Intel knows what they're doing, won't suffer regardless) or if you wanted to just list AMD's current forecast but just to add some perspective without repeating myself, Intel just spent more than half of AMD's whole net worth just on a 7nm process plant in Arizona.

how would they not suffer when a competitor brings excellent price to perf to the market, keep in mind that Ai and MI are growing like crazy and having that amount of IO on a server with only one cpu is a really good selling point

yes they are huge but as they say the taller you are the bigger the fall.

Intel from what they are showing they are underestimating their opponent, something no one should ever do.

also this:

 

[TidaLWaveZ]

18 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

snip

 

 

They won't suffer because even if X299 is a complete failure and every penny put into it were lost, Intel would only have lost a small percentage of total worth, and that small percentage to Intel is probably AMD's total net worth.

 

I am however glad that you used the example you did, because in 1997 Apple was going to go bankrupt but they were bailed out by a $150 million investment from another competing company you may have heard of.