Not to care about the current rant, one thing is always to remember.
Ryzen competition, is the thing that saved humanity from 4 core monoply conglomerate (intel)
Its all about money and who pumps more.
Coffee lake released with 6/12 core/thread with A CHEAPER pricing than the months old old 7th gen though developing those cores cost them money...
They would also ran away with 12++++nm prehistoric arch.. Cause in-house fab. Makes them tons of savings....
7nm (and 5 or less of course soon costs a massive premium and is part

Let's just wait for the "independent" (if that's possible) reviews and benchmarks. 

I'm highly suspicious of Intel's refusal to allow independent reviews prior to product launch (almost like they need to create the hype and pre-sales pipeline before the facts get out).

In most markets the new intel CPU's are more expensive than their existing AMD counterparts. I suspect the reason for the review embargo is that there might be a slight performance advantage like for like (in non-gaming applications) but not enough to take back a large part of the market especially when considering the high power consumption and what might turn out to be very difficult CPU's to keep cool at the same performance level.

Anyway I'm speculating like everyone else - let's hope my suspicions are incorrect and pressure is put back on AMD to respond which would be good for everyone - Intel and AMD fans alike.

Intel fudged another set of benchmarks. Color me surprised.

Quote from: Dabi on November 03, 2021, 19:15:43
There was nothing misleading about it. First, they mentioned it was a pre-patch build. Blame Microsoft or AMD for not catching the problem, not Intel here. Second, the performance hit on Ryzen CPUs is meaningless, 3% max. Hardware unboxed proved it to be a not a big deal in a recent video.

Yes, let's blame AMD for the issue causing an up to 15% performance hit with Windows 11, an OS which was developed specifically to coincide with and support Intel Alder Lake.

Well, we will get the full story tomorrow.

There was nothing misleading about it. First, they mentioned it was a pre-patch build. Blame Microsoft or AMD for not catching the problem, not Intel here. Second, the performance hit on Ryzen CPUs is meaningless, 3% max. Hardware unboxed proved it to be a not a big deal in a recent video.

Intel lied, people died.

The faulty Windows build is a bigger problem than the power consumption. If AMD is so efficient, they should ramp up their clocks as well. And they probably will with 170W Zen 4 chips.

Quote from: dalekee on November 03, 2021, 12:11:03
Given how dirty Intel plays, there is 99.99999999% change that the are indeed astroturfing

These are Intel benchmarks we're talking about here, so let's be reaslistic - it's at least 119.99999% astroturf.

Higher TDP
Windows 11 bug for AMD
DDR5 vs DDR4

And intels Q4 2021 vs AMDs Q4 2019

If they have to cheat to beat AMDs 2 year old CPU they are in worse shape then I thought.

Quote from: Rob Stan on November 03, 2021, 00:21:04
To the point I'm wondering sometimes if Intel isn't astroturfing. It wouldn't be the first (or the last) time corporations do this.

Given how dirty Intel plays, there is 99.99999999% change that the are indeed astroturfing

If you were in the computer industry in the 90s, you'd know that not telling the whole truth is and always has been intel's MO. they might make good chips but the company itself is sheer garbage.

Sooo many Intel fan boys coming out to spit on the article and AMD. Processor density does not provide a good measure of performance as not all density is created equal. TSMC does have the lead on Intel in both density and performance, however this is mostly due to EUV. When Intel brings EUV we will be comparing Apples to Apples, until then none of the BS trade names 7 verses 7nm means jack s%^t.

Imagine Intel IP on EUV or EUV NA...

I'm just glad both sides are competing...but the more then double the power for minimal performance gains...tells me team red has the true lead yet.  Give that 5950x some cooling and 240 watts and I'm sure it would also perform a bit faster

Quote from: Harvard on November 02, 2021, 23:16:47
lol what a biased article, new intel 7 is basically the same as TSMC's shitty fake 7nm and more due to transistor count is more dense on Intel's manufacturing process. What make you think Intel's CPU is worse off than AMD's TSMC copycat CPU?

News flash, they are all "fake", Intels included. TSMC isn't true 7nm, just like Intels 10nm or 14nm aren't true either, the last true process node was 90nm.... Dummy

Intel have a long history of cherry picking benchmarks and other shady practices such as directly paying their developers or 3rd parties. It seems to me the only reason they are not continually pulled up on unrepresentative claims and missing disclosures because regulators seem not to have any interest any more in policing their various streams of misleading advertising. Whether it's well known ones from history or recent ones, the "principled technologies" fiasco, userbenchmark suddenly changing their algorithm to greatly benefit Intel, previous adverse regulatory findings that required disclosures on every slide purporting to be a comparison, or a couple years ago when they extrapolated data (IMO) secretly harvested without end user permission from laptops to claim that barely anybody on desktops uses tools such as cinebench (back from their "real world benchmarks" push a few years ago when they were well behind Zen in synthetics).

Simply, if you place any belief in a benchmark provided by Intel of an Intel product compared with the competition, you are an idiot. Wait for post release tests of retail products by trusted competent independent reviewers.

Haha, the Intel fanboys are out in full force defending yet another corporation that doesn't give a flying turd if they live or die. To the point I'm wondering sometimes if Intel isn't astroturfing. It wouldn't be the first (or the last) time corporations do this.

Just to point out the ignorance and moral cowardice of these posts:

How convenient none of them are addressing how Intel intentionally limited the 5950X (which technically isn't even the fastest Zen3 SKU in gaming) to 105W (as they say, PL1 locked), where as they use their little bit of nonsense logic where for ADL PL1=PL2 now, so they basically run the 12900K at a almost unlocked power mode of PL1=PL2=241W.

Instead they just focus on defending the "using a broken Windows 11 for Zen" angle. As if a trillion dollar corporation such as Intel can't redo ONE SLIDE in a matter of hours if not less, considering the last updates came out ALMOST A WEEK BEFORE THOSE SLIDES WHERE PRESENTED. Intel knew very well what it was doing. And they also know many reviewers might not bench very carefully come review day.

Intel gets a custom Windows made for their CPUs and AMD gets the middle finger from Microsoft's lousy QA teams... by resurrecting issues that haven't existed for Zen since 2017-2018.

And let's not address the other elephant in the room, where basically 7 out of the 9 games in the slides are sponsored by Intel (some explicitly state they're black box optimized for Intel, such as TW: Troy, Hitman 3 and GRID 2019).

Or that they benched DDR5 vs DDR4... when they clearly also had the option to bench DDR4 vs DDR4, strongly implying that ADL relies on DDR5 quite a bit to actually shine. And also obviously misleading potential buyers who will go for DDR4 ADL build (for budget reasons or otherwise).

Or the fact that on the Rocket Lake launch slides, Intel was touting it's faster than 5900X in gaming (we know how that turned out), where as now, in the Alder Lake launch slides, 11900K is clearly slower than 5900X's slightly slower brother (strictly in gaming) 5950X (and yes, I know they're different games, but let's not kid ourselves, if anything, because these are way more Intel-favorable titles, 11900K should measure up as even faster than it's launch gaming slides insinuated, seeing as the games there where actually more varied/neutral).

Intel takes cherry picking and manipulating results to a new level with each launch.