When did the decline of Intel begin?
>>108937393when they stopped caring and let amd make processors that were competitive.
>>108937393when AMD bought out all the techtubers
>>108937393intel never lost
>>108937393When AMD64 defeated IA64.
>>10893739314th Gen
>>108937393It was 10nm and designs being fixed to specific processes. They tried aggressive quad patterning, couldn't get it to work and fell behind. Usually that is impossible to recover from.This torpedoed their entire roadmap across all segments and even their first attempts at foundry work for external customers.
>>108937393
>>108937393After Sandy Bridge
>>108937673this, ultimately intel has not made a CPU truly worth owning since the pentium 3. Every single AMD offering since the K7 has been cheaper while being decent enough or outright better performing.
>>1089373931979
>>108937939what are you talking about?Sandy Bridge was excellentI would never have used AMD during 2012-2016
>>108937393bully me all you want, but i actually really do like and enjoy my 270k plus.
>>108937645This. Before that AMD was just basically a side manufacturer for Intel to satisfy market demand.
>>108937393When they stopped making real CPUs and started giving everything "efficiency cores". Realistically, it happened before then though. Intel died after Skylake.
When x64 became a thing (amd)
I use both. AMD for gayming setups. Intel for home servers as for 1 example their igpus are good and are getting even more useful for the upcoming next generation.
>>108939167Intel iGPU still beats China's best homegrown GPU startup. Kind of funny.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqXrIqJJEFQ
>>108937393My gaming PC has a Skylake i7-6700K. Just checked, tomorrow is 10 year anniversary of when I bought it. That PC still plays all the modern games just fine at 60fps, most on ultra settings.
>>108937393It didn't, Intel mogs AMD in non-gaming+non-server use cases. The perception of AMD being superior comes entirely from gamers.
>>108939692>non-gaming>non-serverSuch as browsing your Mom's Facebook?
When they introduced the big little shit. I think it was 12gen.
>>108939897just because you don't like it doesn't mean its bad. 12th gen is regarded as their last good generation that was actually competitive. p/e cores does bring power down but its very difficult to manufacture, they're the only reason Intel could keep up with amd even with their struggles to shrink their dies especially on laptops
>>108939775No, performing desktop tasks, like developing software, producing music, drawing, etc.
Works on my machine!
>>108937393When are the 14600K and 14700K chips going back in stock along with D4 mobos that can run them?
>>108937393imo most sharply when the israeli backdoors leaked and so all processors took a permanent 10% performance hit to patch the termite holes that were intentionally created vnr
>>108937393When they deliberately decided to engineer chips that rust themselves to shit.
>>108940199https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_ProcessorAmd have Israeli backdoors too though, Amd PSP is identical to Intel ME. Do you really think they would backdoor only some but not all computers? Really defeats the whole purpose. Intel ME only has a way to soft disable it because government computers used Intel CPUs and people found it but good luck disabling Amd PSP
>>108937393around 2019. theyve been crushing amd for too long and got complacent. ryzen ate their lunch>>108937709nah amd were putting out dogshit in this period and a few years after
>>108940176depending on the workload you might unironically be better off trying to get 5800x3d for ddr4. in current year when ddr5 actually gets utilized, 12-14gen intels get pretty fucked by DDR4. to the point where if i wanted to upgrade from my 12600k DDR4 without spending on RAM, getting new board and 5800x3d (if it existed) is a genuinely viable option compared to getting only14700k. and if you're paying for board either way, AM4 will be way cheaper compared to any worthwhile 1700 board.
>>108937393when did they put in the estrogen cores? it all went to shit after that, peen cores poped up, processors being kill do to oxidization, vulnerabilities and shit, removed hyper threading...
>>108939136>>108939897>>108940408Eventually AMD will do the same btw, they've been holding on but they won't last
>>108937645>>108939123their worst years were long after AMD64
>>108937393IIRC Zen3-Zen4 was pretty tough for Intel, first time they lost or were equalled in gaming performance in ages. However ironically Intel is now a much better value for MT workloads since the introduction of e-cores unless you're going for the highest end. Their mobile CPUs have caught up or exceeded AMD as well. I really hope AMD has something big to offer soon or it's not looking good.
>>108940852That seems pretty pointless unless you're talking about chips for laptops or phones. I guess they could use the same die for all.
each processor has had id since Pentium 4 some motherboards allow to hide this id
>>108937393Back in the skylake days.
why don't amd and Intel only make 3 cpus and then use the rest of the silicone for ram? do they really need like 50 cpus
>>108941289>what's binningis this bait or are you seriously this retarded?
>>108937393When Intel bet the farm on 10nm node being a smooth transition while snubbing at adopting EUV and chiplets. Apple decided to fund TSMC's gamble on EUV. TSMC's gamble bear fruit, while Intel fumbled hard on 10nm node for years. Delaying other portions of their business. AMD simply got windfall from this. Ryzen turn out to be very solid as well as getting hold on chiplets. The rest is history.
>>108939692>Intel mogs AMD in non-gaming+non-server use cases.Nah, it really doesn't. Intel only has budget and ultra-portables to fall back on. Server/workstation market is a hot mess for Intel.
from what i've heard after their process node plateaued so around 2015
>>108941342Single-thread performance + lower power consumption
>>108941385its the only reason amd rape them because they can't figure out how to shrink their nodes and tsmc can
>>108941500>Single-thread performance Negative>lower power consumptionOnly matters in uitraportables and this is due to platform difference not because of CPU architecture. (monolithic versus chiplets)
>>108937393During the George W. Bush era
>>108940852Epyc and APUs already have models with c cores, just not normal desktop. Pic related is Strix Point 12-core flagship, 4 Zen 5 cores + 8 Zen5c cores. All its cores have SMT, so 4+8 cores / 24 threads. Unlike what you see on Intel, Zen5 and Zen5c are the same micro-architecture, the c cores are just smoler and weaker.
>>108940861Anon asked when it BEGAN.
>>108941907AMD64 had nothing to do with their more recent failures, literally one of their most prosperous time was a whole decade after AMD64.
>>108941952Decline began when AMD started to innovate. Sure things like 3DNow! were already a thing but mostly AMD was just making x86 chips to help supply demand.That's literally why Intel sold them the license for x86. Because they couldn't saturate the market alone.
>>108941986@grok is this true?
>>108941986Why would Intel help their competition?
>>108942007Like why Microsoft bailed out Apple from bankruptcy once?
>>108941553>NegativeEvery single source I've looked at online says Intel Performance cores mog AMD cores in single-thread performance (and Intel P-cores in turn get mogged by Apple P-cores, not that it matters since macOS gay)
After I stopped buying their stuff.
>>108937393In the quad core stagnation era I'd say. They haven't really properly recovered since. They first rested on their laurels and only made new CPUs with like 3% perf boost for a while, giving AMD time to work on Ryzen.When Ryzen came out and was competitive, Intel was hit with the double whammy of their then-upcoming process node failing to deliver, which meant their CPU designs which relied on it couldn't be made. They compensated with eternal 14nm+++++++ revisions and increased core counts and clocks at the cost of extreme heat, while AMD actually improved their Ryzen lineup and overcame them while maintaining efficiency too. Then X3D came which was a major hit for the home market (where the main performance-intensive use case is running video games) and Intel has never really managed to catch up.Basically they gave AMD time to make a competitive product by releasing generations of trash and then fucked up on their own manufacturing on top of that.
>>108941342Actually Intel is kinda killing it in servers.AMD Epyc has always been flawed in that the IO die and Infinity fabric takes a significant portion of the chips power budget.This is fine in either compute bound workloads or IO bound workloads but workloads that use both compute and IO makes the CPU power starved and performance is constrained.The effective PCIe bandwidth on AMD when all cores are active becomes less than Intel and Intel becomes better for AI workloads despite less lanes and cores on paper
>>108940199it is possible to edit grub options mitigations off
>>108940861Perhaps, but the ascendance of AMD64 is the moment Intel became AMD's bitch. A lot of anons probably don't even realize this because it happened before their time. Intel makes AMD-compatible chips, not the other way around.
>>108942744You're buying into AMD propaganda. CPUs don't need more cores when the GPU does the most of the work. We need stronger cores what Intel always gave but now it's "muh cores".
>>108943473no one even says AMD64, everyone knows it as x86-64. If you want to be pedantic, AMD is making Intel-compatible chips by supporting the x86 instruction set.
