• @Buffalox
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    You make some good points. But I do want to make some comments.

    non-gaming workloads, they’re basically sitting on par or better

    The testing I’ve seen, the CPU does deliver decent performance numbers for productivity. but it does that at too high TDP, using above the MAX rate of 250 Watt, and despite the better node, it still has worse PPW.
    The reviews I’ve seen rate the CPU from flop to meh, with some saying it’s released to early, because the platform is simply buggy.
    So the Ultra 9 285K delivers slightly better in productivity than the Ryzen 9950X, but it does that at higher power consumption, despite the better TSMC 3nm production node. Where AMD is made on 4nm.

    So it does have some wins, but I’ll maintain Intel doesn’t beat Ryzen overall, and Intel is only achieving this on the back of outside higher end production than AMD is using.

    Intel’s problem isn’t an inability to design CPUs that are competitive, it’s an inability to create production-ready processes that are competitive with TSMC.

    I’ll still say Intel is a bit behind on the design side, but yes manufacturing is where Intels future will probably be decided.
    In the past, Intel always had the advantage of superior production, and could always power through squeezing out a bit extra from both design and process technology.
    But with Arrow Lake, they fail to surpass AMD despite e newer gen process.

    I agree 100% regarding the pricing, but from Intels viewpoint, they are selling the Ultra 9 285K CPU similar in productivity performance to Ryzen 9950X at about the same price. At least here in Denmark in retail they are very close with Ryzen being $30 cheaper. Other markets may have different prices. But for gaming the price is absolutely horrific 50% more expensive than the 7800X3D!!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 hours ago

      too high TDP, using above the MAX rate of 250 Watt

      Agreed. Intel’s design philosophy seems to be ‘space heater that does math’ for some reason. That’s been true since at least 10th gen, if not before then. I don’t know if it’s just chasing benchmark wins at any cost, or if they’re firmly of the opinion that hot and loud is fine as long as it’s fast and no customers will care - which I don’t really think is true anymore - or what, but they’ve certainly invested heavily in CPUs that push the literal limits of physics while trying to cool them.

      Intel always had the advantage of superior production

      That really stopped being true in the Skylake era when TSMC leapfrogged them and Intel was doing their 14nm++++++++ dance. I mean they did a shockingly good job of keeping that node relevant and competitive, but the were really only relevant and competitive on it until AMD caught up and exceeded their IPC with Ryzen 3000.

      about the same price

      Yeah, if gaming is your use case there’s exactly zero Intel products you should even be considering. There’s nothing that’s remotely competitive with a 7800x3d, and hell, for most people and games, even a 5800x3d is overkill.

      And of course, those are both last-gen parts, so that’s about to get even worse with the 9800x3d.

      For productivity, I guess if you’re mandated to use Intel or Intel cpus are the only validated ones it’s a choice. But ‘at the same price’ is the problem: there’s no case where I’d want to buy Intel over AMD if they cost the same and perform similarly, if for no other reason than I won’t need something stupid like a 360mm AIO to cool the damn thing.