So happy I chose to go with AM4 board years ago. Was able to go from Zen+ CPU to X3D CPU.
I remember people said back then people usually don't upgrade their CPU, so its not that much a selling point. But, people didn't upgrade because they couldn't due to constant socket changes on the Intel side.
My fps numbers were very happy after the CPU upgrade, and I didn't have to get a new board and new set of ram.
Intel and their last couple of processor generations were a failure. AMD, on the other hand, been consistent. Look at all these tiny AMD APUs that can run C2077 on a 35W computer that fits in the palm of a hand? Valve is about to drop a nuclear bomb on nvidia, intel and microslop with Gabecube.
One can only dream about people fleeing x86-64 and going ARM or, even better, RISC-V.
But no, it's only changing the collar to the dog. But the dog stays the same.
Why though? X Elite lags x86 on battery life, performance and compatibility (and you can't really run Linux on X Elite).
I am not a fan of Intel, AMD, Nvidia, but what's the point of moving to ARM for the sake of moving?
Unlike most, I actually have been running ARM on home server for almost a decade. For that use case it makes sense because it's cheap and well supported.
It would be better to switch to RISC-V because it has no problems with patents and everyone can build a RISC-V CPU, not only 2 companies.
I would be happy to, but it's currently not an option for desktop/laptop.
Would be great for an SBC where the OS and apps are open source and performance is less of an issue.
ARM has all the same drawbacks as x86 and it's not a Deus Ex machina that gives high performance at low power consumption because of magic.
Imagine Europe pushing RISC-V and sharing upgrades with China¹. The power of the flagship would soon reach ARM or even x86-64 in a few years.
¹ China is already using RISC-V as much as they can.
I would support that, but it would require European unity and a strategic decision to make a permanent break with the US.
One thing that may or may not have something to do with people leaving Intel might be related to their relationship with Israel. Not trying to make this political, but it's something I've seen some folks mention before.
I've always thought it's a super weird place for them to have a fab just in general. It's never been the most politically stable part of the world and surely you don't want your several billion dollar infrastructure getting blown up, so why would you put it somewhere where that's more likely?
Imo: Loud minority
Could be, like I said, not making it political. My current setup is running a 12th gen i9 and runs fine. I'm just repeating what I've seen other across Lemmy, Reddit, etc. have said in other places
Last time I got a CPU, I didn't even consider the Intel alternatives because of such. My old CPU was a i7-4790k.
Yep. Intel sat on their asses for a decade pushing quad cores one has to pay extra to even overclock.
Then AMD implements chiplets, comes out with affordable 6, 8, 12, and 16 core desktop processors with unlocked multipliers, hyperthreading built into almost every model, and strong performance. All of this while also not sucking down power like Intel's chips still do.
Intel cached in their lead by not investing in themselves and instead pushing the same tired crap year after year onto consumers.
cached in their lead
There are so many dimensions to this
Don't forget the awfully fast socket changes
And all of the failures that plagued the 13 and 14 gens. That was the main reason I switched to AMD. My 13th gen CPU was borked and had to be kept underclocked.
what was the issue?
It would cause system instability (programs/games crashing) when running normally. I had to underclock it through Intel's XTU to make things stable again.
This was after all the BIOS updates from ASUS and with all BIOS settings set to the safe options.
When I originally got it I did notice that it was getting insanely high scores in benchmarks, then the story broke of how Intel and motherboard manufacturers were letting the CPUs clock as high as possible until they hit the thermal limit. Then mine started to fail I think about a year after I got it.
In the 486 era (90s) there was a not official story about the way Intel marked its CPUs: instead of starting slow and accelerate until failure, start as fast as you can and slow down until it doesn't fail.
They really segmented that market in the worst possible way, 2 cores and 4 cores only, possibility to use vms or overclock, and so on. Add windoze eating up every +5%/year.
Remember buying the 2600(maybe X) and it was soo fast.
The 2600k was exceptionally good and was relevant well past the normal upgrade timeframes.
Really it only got left behind because of its 4C/8T limit as everything started supporting lots of threads instead of just a couple, and just being a 2nd Generation i7.
Yes, that was a beast! I was poor and had to wait and got the generation after, the 3770K and already the segmentation was there, I got overlooking possibilities but not the VM stuff...
All of the exploits against Intel processors didn't help either. Not only is it a bad look, but the fixes reduced the speed of the those processors, making them quite a bit worse deal for the money after all.
Worse product and worse consumer practices (changing sockets every 2 generations) made it an easy choice to go with AMD.
I've been buying AMD since the K6-2, because AMD almost always had the better price/performance ratio (as opposed to outright top performance) and, almost as importantly, because I liked supporting the underdog.
That means it was folks like me who helped keep AMD in business long enough to catch up with and then pass Intel. You're welcome.
It also means I recently bought my first Intel product in decades, an Arc GPU. Weird that it's the underdog now, LOL.
Intel until they realized that other companies made CPUs, too
They also bring a "dying transitor problem we don't feel like fixing" to the party, too
And a constantly changing socket so you have to get a new motherboard every time.
I remember, it was a huge issue for programs. Developers were just not supporting other chipsets because Intel was faster than the competition and mostly cheaper. Then they got more expensive, did some shitty business to MINIX and stayed the same speed wise.
So now we see what actual competition does.
I do want them to stay alive and sort themselves out though. Otherwise in a few years it will be AMD who will start outputting overpriced crap and this time there will be no alternative on the market.
They're already not interested in seriously putting competitive pressure on NVidia's historically high GPU prices.
I switched to AMD because of Intel's chip stability issues. No problems since
Pretty wild to see. Glad to see it though. Hope to see the same thing happen with GPUs against Nvidia as well.
So the editor asked AI to come up with an image for the title "Gamers desert Intel in droves" and so we get a half-baked pic of a CPU in the desert.
Am I close?
Could be worse.
Could have been "gamers dessert Intel in droves"
Now I want to see that one. But, I refuse to use online generative AI.
Looks like bad photoshop more than AI
I know we shouldn't have brand loyalty, but after the near decade of quad core only CPUs from Intel, I can't help but feel absolute hate towards them as a company.
I had a 3770k until AMD released their Ryzen 1000 series and I immediately jumped over, and within the next generation Intel started releasing 8 core desktop cpus with zero issues.
I haven't bought anything Intel since my 3770k and I don't think I ever will going forward.
Just upgraded from an i7-6600k to an RX 7800x3D. Obviously a big upgrade no matter if I went AMD or Intel but I'm loving this new CPU. I had an AMD Athlon XP in the early 2000's that was excellent so I've always had a positive feeling towards AMD.
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules: