BillyRazOrUS governments and other corporations wants Intel to continue manufacturing chips by their own fabs because of TSMC were already dominated countless companies like Apple, AMD, Nvidia etc., and even Google were recently joined it as Samsung fabs got issues of overheating on chips. Do you think Intel would easily going bankrupt? I don't think so.

All rosy and wonderful on paper, but the sad story is that even Intel is producing its compute tiles at TSMC.

The government wants what it wants, but that's not necessarily what works best for the company in the long run.

I don't believe in Intel going bankrupt either, but it is bleeding cash very rapidly, laying thousands off and loosing market share by the minute, and there's nothing the beloved government can do about it, other than throwing taxpayer money at a private company and wishing it catches up.

ThomasKAll rosy and wonderful on paper, but the sad story is that even Intel is producing its compute tiles at TSMC.

The government wants what it wants, but that's not necessarily what works best for the company in the long run.

I don't believe in Intel going bankrupt either, but it is bleeding cash very rapidly, laying thousands off and loosing market share by the minute, and there's nothing the beloved government can do about it, other than throwing taxpayer money at a private company.

The sad reality for large corporations is that even a 25% drop in business can lead to bankruptcy. Some here might think that revenues have to drop to zero dollars before declaring bankruptcy. A large corporation goes out of business without ever coming close to zero revenue.

So like you said, Intel’s large contracts will not save them. Bankruptcy is a real possibility for Intel but I personally agree with you that they won’t go bankrupt. I think they will split or get bought out before that ever happens.

I think the govvy has a major hard on for them, and wont let them fail. But they will let them suffer and languish until big poppa has to step in and fix it.

Hecate91Intel being Intel, I'd expect them to only put 3D cache on the high end core 7 and core 9, and charge a massive premium for it.
I've never had any stuttering issues on my AMD system though, sounds like a stability issue.

If they do this itll be because they either absolutely destroy AMD or best it by 3% .
Apart from the 285k the 265k and 245k are amazing buys for 4K.

Regarding stuttering on X3D you maybe a minority or at the very very least dont notice it. Simply type in stuttering cpu reddit in google and the threads you will get are regarding X3D CPUs. Hell I typed in Intel CPU stuttering and the first result was 9800x3d stutters . Its there, the major annoyance I have from it, is that people defend it for no clear reason and say its because you didnt enable C-States or some setting that you would never even need to know about on an Intel platform.

I vowed never to listen to the internet again, Intel's latest current platform while not dishing out the bigger numbers I felt was overall more sophisticated, it even supports CUDIMMS. It just worked with everything such as streaming, video recording (which amd has issues with atm idk why), overclocking was actually fun, it ran cooler believe it or not since its not trying to boost itself to maximum thermals all the time, absolutely 0 stuttering and lets be honest theres no difference in games at 4K so my switch over to AMD got me a hotter CPU and lower benchmark scores .

Intel’s architecture doesn’t take advantage of additional cache as effectively as AMD’s does.
It will only make the CPU more expensive.

DenverIntel’s architecture doesn’t take advantage of additional cache as effectively as AMD’s does.
It will only make the CPU more expensive.

Why? Do you have insider knowledge about Lunar Lake? Even eDRAM made Broadwell (die-shrunk Haswell) pretty potent for gaming. Years later, Broadwell is still better than Skylake in games. That seems especially relevant now that Intel has latency issues to deal with.

dyonoctisWhy? Do you have insider knowledge about Lunar Lake? Even eDRAM made Broadwell (die-shrunk Haswell) pretty potent for gaming. Years later, Broadwell is still better than Skylake in games. That seems especially relevant now that Intel has latency issues to deal with.

There was an engineer that came out and said it - he was on a podcast talking about why adamantium cache got axed, and it was because in the simulation the performance benefit was max 5%.

He went on to say that he still thought it was a mistake to axe it and that it should have been on the flagship arl product.

I personally agree with you - the latency issues with ARL would have been greatly alleviated.

freeagentGood, I think V-Cache is a terrible way to segment CPU's, always have.

I hope Intel gives it to AMD over this one.

Did you read the article.

Intel is basically adopting V-Cache under a different name.......

phanbueyThere was an engineer that came out and said it - he was on a podcast talking about why adamantium cache got axed, and it was because in the simulation the performance benefit was max 5%.

He went on to say that he still thought it was a mistake to axe it and that it should have been on the flagship arl product.

I personally agree with you - the latency issues with ARL would have been greatly alleviated.

AMD was blindsided by V-cache's performance boost to gaming. AMD people said when it first came out that their simulations said it wouldn't help in games, but they tried it anyway and that's when the discovery was made. It might've helped that the V-cache server dies were compatible with the desktop platform; AMD just had to package one and try it in desktop workloads to make the discovery.

But apparently simulations are good enough for Intel.

SquaredAMD was blindsided by V-cache's performance boost to gaming. AMD people said when it first came out that their simulations said it wouldn't help in games, but they tried it anyway and that's when the discovery was made. It might've helped that the V-cache server dies were compatible with the desktop platform; AMD just had to package one and try it in desktop workloads to make the discovery.

But apparently simulations are good enough for Intel

Exactly - I cant imagine simulations do a great job simulating a crappy UE5 game with 50% cache miss rate.

freeagentI didn't mean the entire line up.. I guess I should have been a little more concise.

To me the ones that count are mid and higher, low end means nothing to me.

Yeah but then how is it any different - is it the fact they will still push a half dozen E-cores alongside it on the same chip?

I do wonder how those actually perform relative to the addition of this cache...
I mean honestly, Intel's chip setup right now is extremely messy. At least with X3Ds there's some system to the development madness. Yes, its wired to a CCD. Bla bla bla. But there's some logic to it. With Intel? Its like whatever the fuck ever. The E-cores got fused on there just alleviate multitasking loads from P cores so they didn't run out of power budget. Now there's cache on top of it all to make sure they have highly responsive ST performance to match X3Ds... its not like we can discover any kind of meaningful Intel development here, they're just glueing on whatever works. And this is supposed to lead to a highly performant, competitive, AND power efficient product?! That's... a pretty special conclusion to be making out of all this imho. I think the better half of this development is made 'competitive' in Intel's mind because its paid by US citizens in the end. It has no business whatsoever in the real world or market. But then again, that's Intel's MO isn't it, as it has been for a few decades.

All I see here is Intel being, contrary to what it has been talking about in terms of change and readjustment, unable to help itself change its company culture and development cadence, but a big fat pause button is really what they need to rediscover how to make a truly good chip again. Right now? They're still floating their Core legacy that has been kicked to the curb a half dozen times already, and keep telling us how great it really is. They still think they can give you a reignited ol' quadcore derivative to extract money from you - but oh oh they added so many things on top of that cake, surely its nice now? Come on.

Intel needs a hard reset. A completely new, grounds up design that can actually scale linearly again and stand the test of time, and has a reliable socket that nobody can deny will last half a decade or more. Until then? They're dead in the water. I don't even care what they reinvent. Its all been done and it makes no sense to do it again, or re-release it as yet another Lake. They need a chiplet based design on their basic CPU core complex. Even with their recent releases they still haven't really achieved what AMD has done and made them successful. Yes, they fused chiplets together. But its far from a scalable, continuously developed floorplan.

Can confirm broadwell is an awesome CPU
I still have a 5775c system with 2133 ram. If fact I even put my 5090 in it.......and it works just fine at 4k it also works fine with my 4090 and 5070Ti

DenverIntel’s architecture doesn’t take advantage of additional cache as effectively as AMD’s does.
It will only make the CPU more expensive.

At this point of it's existence Intel should declare bankruptcy by closing it's eyes fallig asleep on it's bed for ever.
You can't revive what is already dead.

Ok the 52 Core is my next upgrade, but for now i am happy with my i9-12900KS @5.3 all P-Cores 4.2 all E-Cores i was going to by the 13900 or14900 during the time was just reveled they had issues so i bought the 12900KS and i love it. i even had tried 14700 and returned it.

matarOk the 52 Core is my next upgrade

Why?

PizderkoWhy?

The answer to why is in the article :).

Soo why not? Lets hear it from your crystal ball of negativity Lol.

Panther_SeraphinDid you read the article.

Intel is basically adopting V-Cache under a different name.......

I didn't read this one, but this isn't breaking news, it has been mentioned before.

FrizzThe answer to why is in the article :).

Soo why not? Lets hear it from your crystal ball of negativity Lol.

If you like doing charity, then you're absolutely free to give your money to Intel, otherwise I can't see the reason why someone mentally sane should buy Nova lake crap.
Just because of 52 core?
Ha Ha!

PizderkoI can't see the reason why someone mentally sane should buy Nova lake crap.
Just because of 52 core?
Ha Ha!

The thing hasn't even been released, I expected more from your crystal ball or troll attempt :laugh: .

Chrispy_I'm just looking at the dumpster-fire that is the Arrow Lake gaming benchmarks

the dumpster fire you're referring to are those YTubers who don't know anything..I am using one right now and I just got off a Ryzen 9 9950X3D+Crosshair X870E Hero combo 2 weeks ago, my experience on that platform is unsatisfactory..the game "feel" is inconsistent, YES X3D really leverages on the max FPS, but when it dips, it dips hard..lol..also the 8000MT's RAM on AMD feels like 7000MT's on Intel..lol..its really getting under my skin..lol

the Intel (ARL) lows are 2x the lows of the X3D chip (ARL, I haven't plugged back my RPL platform back yet, coz ARL is fun to tinker with, specially memory OC)

phanbueybut of course amd will have 12 cores with vcache

This is fake, and was scrapped out recently by MLID..

Even the Nova Lake BLLC thing is "Take it with a grain of salt, its merely scrapped" according to the leaker..

Dyatlov AAs long as they keep E cores, Intel stays sucker

That's a very bad statement. Not sure what is with all this hate against the E-cores. They are perfect for their purpose. Or do you think you need super strong performance cores to run the OS's background processes, web browsing sessions, watching movies or listening to music?
Yeah, even for all of the same time, the E-Cores are perfect for their purpose, if they can keep the power consumption at very low levels.

Dyatlov AAs long as they keep E cores, Intel stays sucker

The problem is :
Unfortunately you cant squeeze till the last drop of calculating power on such cpus till Intel won't put Rentable Units to replace Hyperthreading on heterogeneous architectures like this, .

SOAREVERSORWe are in the same situation as when it was Athalon 64. It dominated in servers and dual socket workstations when it came to corporations but for desktops it was all Pentium 4 and for laptops it was all Pentium M.

That's not true. Everybody I knew back then had an Athlon XP or later Athlon 64 and Athlon X2. Only from Core 2 Duo/Quad, Intel regained their crown. Problem with AMD was the crappy marketing and even crappier logistics. But those are nothing compared to Intel's anticompetitive practices back then, briberies and anti-consumer practices, that "forced" the companies to use their crap CPUs instead of the way better AMD's one.
I guess Karma is a beech...

Good. Intel joining x3d game. Lets hope it will be priced well and have a potential to rival AMD :].