Intel getting completely destroyed on Twitter

alxlwson said:
You really think that Intel is going to enter this space haphazardly?
Click to expand...

There’s a big gap between haphazardly and destroy two companies that have been building HIGH and GPUs for decades. To think they are going to destroy their competition on their first attempt is nothing short of retarded.

Oh and lookup Larrabee. They’ve tried once before and failed before it even started.

Let’s also not forget they’re been doing integrated on-die for years and they aren’t as good as APUs from AMD. What makes
You think they’ll destroy discrete graphics when they haven’t been able to destroy the APU?
 
Hopefully Intel comes back really strong with better CPUs then we all win. Their pricing still sucks and will be worst once Ryzen 3 hits the streets. The market may force them to reduce pricing once they start having inventory build up which may take awhile. I am not sure AMD will be able to have enough CPU's produced to saturate the market with TSMC, make headway is about it.

GPU wise, Intel with a clean slat, learn from all the previous GPU designs, not limited by having to be backwards compatible, sufficient R&D funds and add in some rather nice talent => Does indeed improve of the odds for a very innovative design. They can also extend the cross-licensing with AMD with GPU technology which AMD could also benefit from the R&D money spent by Intel to create a GPU, also previous Nvidia Patents that they may have patents that Intel has a license to use. Maybe an interesting read:
​
 
alxlwson said:
Really wouldn't surprise me if the Intel GPU destroys nVidia and AMD
Click to expand...

Why would you think that? Intel does have deep pockets and a serious desire to get into that market. Those are all things in its favor. However, Intel lacks the experience in this area and it will take time to develop an architecture that's competitive. Intel isn't building a GPU that can beat today's Radeon 5700XT or NVIDIA's RTX 2080 Ti. They are trying to build a GPU that beats whatever its competition has in two to three years from now. Nothing about that sounds remotely easy.

viivo said:
Intel should only let people familiar with sentence structure and grammar write their tweets.

My 8700k is just fine for what I do and will continue to be for at least the next couple of years.

I regret two CPU purchases in my life: an AMD K6-2 and that damn Slot 1 Celeron. My Opty was the only processor I ever truly loved.
Click to expand...

Honestly, my Core i7 920 C0 was the only CPU I think I might have regretted purchasing. My dual QX9775's @ 4.0GHz were doing very nicely. We were still largely GPU dependent even then and despite the D5400XS's dependence on slow FB-DIMMs, I didn't really get much out of the "upgrade." I wanted the newer platform, and on paper it sounded better. PCI-Express 2.0, faster DDR3 RAM, etc. just didn't do anything for me in the real world at the time. What was even worse is that my Core i7 920 C0 actually clocked better than my later D0. So I suppose I really regret buying the latter, given that I sold the former to finance the purchase. The follow up Core i7 980X on the other hand was a processor that I very much felt good about purchasing. I got a deal on it at Microcenter. I think I paid about $799.99 for it. Microcenter was slashing prices because the Core i7 990X just hit and the 100MHz clock speed increase wasn't worth the extra cost to me. My 980X was also a stellar overclocker.

nEo717 said:
-------
It won't surprise me a bit if we see Intel enter the gaming market much like AMD talks about Navi - its new and brings with it new features to gaming, just the beginning to what's to come, etc, etc, etc...

nVidia has to be loving some of the pressure being off them and on Intel, AMD - Let's see where nVidia takes 7nm, let's see if the competition remains so weak they only need to do minor refreshes with better clocks and price adjustments... My opinion, nVidia is NOT Intel, if pushed, they have a deep development cycle from which they could respond (and perhaps are very ready to do so be it Intel or AMD that releases something more directly competitive performance and feature wise at the upper most ends).
Click to expand...

NVIDIA's success is largely due to the fact that the company never rests on its laurels. They've always got something in the works and are rarely caught off guard. ATi and later AMD have had a very hard time competing due to NVIDIA's aggressive development cycles. If you believe all the tinfoil hat crap about NVIDIA, they are even further ahead than we think they are and they drop better cards out only when they feel they need to. But they are a good generation or two ahead of where we think they are. I don't know if I believe that, but it does seem like they release something but always have more in reserve just in case they feel threatened.

alxlwson said:
You really think that Intel is going to enter this space haphazardly?
Click to expand...

No, but they have before. Intel has made two attempts at the GPU market before. The first one failed miserably. Larrabee never even saw the light of day.

RamonGTP said:
There’s a big gap between haphazardly and destroy two companies that have been building HIGH and GPUs for decades. To think they are going to destroy their competition on their first attempt is nothing short of retarded.

Oh and lookup Larrabee. They’ve tried once before and failed before it even started.

Let’s also not forget they’re been doing integrated on-die for years and they aren’t as good as APUs from AMD. What makes
You think they’ll destroy discrete graphics when they haven’t been able to destroy the APU?
Click to expand...

Don't forget about Intel's i740 graphics cards. Those were a dismal failure. I agree with you. Again, Intel's got to compete with future AMD and NVIDIA products. That's not easily done. I expect Intel will release something that's probably a good mid-range card or better which can succeed if priced right. I expect it will be at least a generation or two after that before it truly competes. I think Intel really has the desire to get into the gaming industry in this way, which will eventually lead to some success at least, but its not going to be easy. This is a very long term strategy that still might not pay off for them.
 
Dan_D said:
NVIDIA's success is largely due to the fact that the company never rests on its laurels. They've always got something in the works and are rarely caught off guard. ATi and later AMD have had a very hard time competing due to NVIDIA's aggressive development cycles.
Click to expand...
Underhanded tactics and bullying didn't hurt, either.
 
Dan_D said:
Don't forget about Intel's i740 graphics cards. Those were a dismal failure.
Click to expand...

The project did result in their iGPU line, which now dominates the market ;)

Dan_D said:
I think Intel really has the desire to get into the gaming industry in this way, which will eventually lead to some success at least, but its not going to be easy.
Click to expand...

Sunny cove is the big question mark. It's new IGP IP, and they're upping the resources available too, to the point that if AMD were able to actually scale Ryzen APUs down to compete at 15w without devouring batteries, they'd still likely be slower across the board. Of course, we're talking about APUs build on what is now old tech so it isn't a totally fair comparison- but we also haven't seen a hint of an announcement from AMD as to when APUs will be coming to 7nm, and what advancements they plan to bring.

In the discrete space, I wholly agree that Intel is going to have an uphill battle. As refined as Intel's CPUs are in the mobile space (and we can't really say that they're unrefned elsewhere, just facing real competition), Nvidia's GPU IP is really more refined. Whatever Intel brings, I expect Nvidia to have a solution ready that surpasses it across the board, and given that this is Intel that they're competing with and not AMD, they might price aggressively too.

What it's going to come down to I think is Intel's ability to manufacture mid-range parts at a pace and cost that compares or exceeds what TSMC and Samsung are able to do for AMD and Nvidia.
 
In the world of chess , I would say Intel will be as Area 51 R&D Black OP's for more APU / GPU projects for AMD as what it really needs and Intel needs new blood for it's veins as common ground as a way of pushing Intel up to speed as they agree on .
 
If we see game benchmarks people actually care about like BF/COD/Apex/Fortnite/etc swing to "meh" after this weekend then all the hype dies down.

You want a no brainier content creation, CAD, Dev, or other box then AMD has too much churn when you have to think about supporting 25+ seats.
 
crazycrave said:
In the world of chess , I would say Intel will be as Area 51 R&D Black OP's for more APU / GPU projects for AMD as what it really needs and Intel needs new blood for it's veins as common ground as a way of pushing Intel up to speed as they agree on .
Click to expand...

Did you write this by mashing the middle auto-complete button!?
 
It's not like they are starting on the GPU thing from scratch. They have working game support on their iGPU, it's just slow. Scaling up GPUs while not simple, is not the same as starting from scratch. And they've hired a lot of engineers and architects, including people responsible for high end GPU designs elsewhere. There is also no longer a direction within the company saying "use x86 cores for a GPU" seriously hampering the outcomes.

While it's not a given, I do think that this upcoming intel GPU could be decent within a generation or two. They also have some unique IP that the other two do not that could help in the GPU space, I'm hoping for a really innovative design that pushes the SOTA forward, whether its the fastest GPU out the gate or not.
 
Nice to see Intel sweating again. Competition is awesome. The only people that lose are you fan boys.
 
Dan_D said:
NVIDIA's success is largely due to the fact that the company never rests on its laurels. They've always got something in the works and are rarely caught off guard. ATi and later AMD have had a very hard time competing due to NVIDIA's aggressive development cycles. If you believe all the tinfoil hat crap about NVIDIA, they are even further ahead than we think they are and they drop better cards out only when they feel they need to. But they are a good generation or two ahead of where we think they are. I don't know if I believe that, but it does seem like they release something but always have more in reserve just in case they feel threatened.
Click to expand...
O rly?

8W94HlP.png
 
noko said:
Hopefully Intel comes back really strong with better CPUs then we all win. Their pricing still sucks and will be worst once Ryzen 3 hits the streets. The market may force them to reduce pricing once they start having inventory build up which may take awhile. I am not sure AMD will be able to have enough CPU's produced to saturate the market with TSMC, make headway is about it.

GPU wise, Intel with a clean slat, learn from all the previous GPU designs, not limited by having to be backwards compatible, sufficient R&D funds and add in some rather nice talent => Does indeed improve of the odds for a very innovative design. They can also extend the cross-licensing with AMD with GPU technology which AMD could also benefit from the R&D money spent by Intel to create a GPU, also previous Nvidia Patents that they may have patents that Intel has a license to use. Maybe an interesting read:
​
Click to expand...
You do realize Intel has been making GPUs for a really long time and sell crap tons right? They are built into almost every Intel cpu sold for the last many years. If they didn't have any ip their uhd series igpu wouldn't be a thing. They are in for an uphill battle but it's not as if they don't have a starting point. Oh, I know this response was some time later,. It Intel is planning to enter the $200 so they will only be competing low end, which makes sense.
 
Intel sells more GPUs than nVidia or AMD. They own over 80% of the market. However that is integrated GPUs not discrete cards.
 
Dan_D said:
NVIDIA's success is largely due to the fact that the company never rests on its laurels. They've always got something in the works and are rarely caught off guard. ATi and later AMD have had a very hard time competing due to NVIDIA's aggressive development cycles. If you believe all the tinfoil hat crap about NVIDIA, they are even further ahead than we think they are and they drop better cards out only when they feel they need to. But they are a good generation or two ahead of where we think they are. I don't know if I believe that, but it does seem like they release something but always have more in reserve just in case they feel threatened.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that and things like GPP, locking people into specific things, pressure on partners to not do business with AMD, etc. They have had the better products for a while now, but these games are what turned me away. They had the dominant position and better products, but still wanted to play these games to stifle any chance of AMD competing so they could push prices up higher and higher. Now they have reviewers with forced contracts that they can no longer report on those actions. Kyle was probably the only one to refuse it, so now we're left with whatever Nvidia wants us to hear. I was an Nvidia fan for a while, still got my gtx 470 chilling, but their business practices have caused me to abandon them for the foreseeable future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
alxlwson said:
Now, I only have a Twitter for social media contests. I was looking through Intel today, and well....

Click to expand...
If it's not working out, move the goalposts. First frequency was king while the p4's sucked, then it was frequency doesn't matter, same old games, but they seem to work for a lot of uninformed people. We laugh at their statements while others take it to heart.
 
Last edited:
Wonders of having a real competition again, huh? 9900k was going Amazon briefly for £404.

Thumbs up!
 
What the hell does this even mean, "...stability and compatibility...".

I cant remember a time in my entire life where I bounced from either Intel or AMD and had ANY issues with compatibility for ANYTHING except absolute crap Creative sound drivers. Since when did "compatibility" become a factor in ones purchasing decision for a processor? Ive seen it mentioned twice in this thread.

All I ever looked at was who delivered the best performance for the most reasonable amount of money... Intel never fit that bill until AMD dropped the ball and didnt deliver anything genuinely competitive until Ryzen. My next system will undoubtedly be Ryzen based.
 
Even when AMD was good years ago, their biggest problem has always been mobos and chipsets. I went through many boards. I bought a new 939 cpu to play with one weekend, and that cpu cost me two mobos lol. An Abit and an Asus. That was around the time Conroe came out, and that same weekend I bought my first new intel system, and never looked back until recently. But again its mentioned that their boards are still junk. That's too bad. I will be building new again soon, and was thinking maybe AMD this time. But probably not.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I've bounced from AMD due to stability. To be fair, that's largely a product of the motherboards and chipsets available, but it's not like you couldn't use them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I had a few nice boards in the past with AMD (Abit and Epox come to mind). Funny thing is I had better luck with the Nforce boards over other offerings at the time, but that was before they purchased ATI.
 
Wow, this thread got derailed fast in all possible directions. Ah, who cares!

The thing with Intel's Twitter post from late May this year is that someone was enthusiastic in their marketing department. Looking to advance their carrier while justifying their current paycheck and existence at Intel, that person just stepped into a pile of dog shit. Like every major corporation, there are plenty of incompetent people at Intel who will lick their bosses ass to keep a job. Sometimes it's a good idea to fire them and get some new blood with fresh ideas.

When it comes to platform maturity, Intel has always been king, and always will be. No matter how decent X399 for example, I still see occasional issues with my 1950X like memory compatibility, and I have tried several memory kits. I have two systems with that CPU, one with Gigabyte motherboard and one with ASUS. I might go for a 9900K. Sure, the 3900X is the new trendy CPU to get, but 7nm I not mature yet, and I feel that AMD is pushing the envelope trying to be more competitive. Good for them. I hope they succeed.

Whoever said that Intel was keeping back core count, well, it's true. They got complacent for many reasons, not just lack of competition. Intel predicted a declining PC market, and so it started investing in other areas like AI, self-driving car technology and other BS, instead of focusing on their core business. Even at 7nm, AMD has a tough time competing against Intel's CPUs.

The problem for Intel is that this time around they will need to adjust pricing. But not by much. AMD doesn't want to bring prices down either as they like healthy margins. What AMD does well now sells you the illusion that you are getting more for less. Well, in some use cases you are getting more for less, like for example, Intel has nothing to compete against the 2970WX and 2990WX at those price points if you have applications that can take advantage of those many cores.

Intel needed a spanking like that because they did overprice the CPU market and created the $2000 consumer CPU. And there is no coming back from that. Also, in what world do mainstream CPUs cost $500 to $750? The upcoming 3950X will be $750? And why do mainstream motherboards cost $700??? Some X570 mobos cost that much.

So before you go pointing fingers at Intel, please realize that AMD is doing the cash grab thing as well. And they are quick to capitalize on their success, even if based on pure perception with real-world performance being about the same.
 
Last edited:
Not really or anytime soon...that delid is gonna hold on air for awhile longer. Just get both I don't know...just when a get another Asus board something goes wrong with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top