Intel's Core Ultra 7 265K and 265KF CPUs Dip Below $250

[dgianstefani]

Exactly! There's nothing to oppose here.

The only "but" could be added, is that the market changes should start within the rival companies and their strategies. No amount of pressure by consumers/outside of corporate core, will make any impact on the market condition. In this case it should start inside AMD, and their (positive) pressure, and lasting impression on their image among customers. AMD have to make "tectonic shifts", in order to gain favourable and healthy feedback.

Companies do it to themselves both good and bad, and no amount of fanboying on one side or other will change that, considering DIY gaming on PC is what, 5% of their bottom line? Lol. Incredible the mental gymnastics people come up with to defend their favourite megacorpo (unaware of their existence), or to attack the devil (the other megacorpo also unaware of their existence).
The sheer arrogance of thinking teams of engineers/businesspeople, whose entire job is understanding systems/how to make profit, simply "hurr durr, AMD bad NVIDIA good" or whatever as the basis of their decisionmaking.

 

[Tek-Check]

Point out the "falsehood".

Ok, let's quote entire sentence, to remind you of the context in which you mentioned excellent Linux support. This is what you said:
"AFAIK Intel has excellent Linux support, so not sure about that point either. It performs better in Linux than in Windows, where benches are already very close and the 265K competition is essentially the 9900X in perf, and the 9700X in price, though obviously it's cheaper now."

You mentioned Intel and AMD, you got the comparison graph between Intel and AMD. In Linux, as you can see on the graph, even 285K is not able to beat 9900X. Therefore, 265K will not be able to do it either, no matter how much faster Arrows are on their own in Linux than in Windows. You have nothing to argue here about. Numbers speak for themselves.

The problem with your original statement was that you tried to mix up two different things:
1. "It [Intel] performs better in Linux than in Windows..." - yes it does, you are right here. Intel is ~6% faster in Linux than in Windows; so far so good, without Zen CPUs for relative comparison. You forgot to say that AMD CPUs are also faster in Linux, more so than Intel CPUs are. Then you went:

2. "...in Windows, where benches are already very close and the 265K competition is essentially the 9900X in perf" - you suggested here that Intel might be faster than AMD in Linux because it is faster in Linux on it own than in Windows, and in Windows those two CPUs are already very close. Well..., no. This is how your statement came across, as a falsehood.

"One set of benchmarks" is the world's most comprehensive and trustworthy testing suite by Phoronix. In this case, it's 360 tests. Nobody else in the world carries out as many tests.

I can go on, but I'd rather respond to someone actually understanding the statements I made, rather than replying to a straw man they dreamt up.

It is you who need to remember what you actually said and craft sentences more carefully, so that you are not chased for the accuracy of statements and claims by other members. Had you done this in the example above, I would have agreed with you and would have never challenged the statement.

 

[Random_User]

Companies do it to themselves both good and bad, and no amount of fanboying on one side or other will change that, considering DIY gaming on PC is what, 5% of their bottom line? Lol. Incredible the mental gymnastics people come up with to defend their favourite megacorpo (unaware of their existence), or to attack the devil (the other megacorpo also unaware of their existence).
The sheer arrogance of thinking teams of engineers/businesspeople, whose entire job is understanding systems/how to make profit, simply "hurr durr, AMD bad NVIDIA good" or whatever as the basis of their decisionmaking.

I'm not defending any company. I'm only for an equal support and diversity for all HW and SW, regardless of the brand, or age. I've mentioned AMD, just because it's part of duopoly on x86-64 market. And in order to make any movements, favorable to the end-user, the companies must begin to do so. However that is unlikely.

 

[dgianstefani]

Ok, let's quote entire sentence, to remind you of the context in which you mentioned excellent Linux support. This is what you said:
"AFAIK Intel has excellent Linux support, so not sure about that point either. It performs better in Linux than in Windows, where benches are already very close and the 265K competition is essentially the 9900X in perf, and the 9700X in price, though obviously it's cheaper now."

You mentioned Intel and AMD, you got the comparison graph between Intel and AMD. In Linux, as you can see on the graph, even 285K is not able to beat 9900X. Therefore, 265K will not be able to do it either, no matter how much faster Arrows are on their own in Linux than in Windows. You have nothing to argue here about. Numbers speak for themselves.

In Linux using specific HPC and Linux workloads 285K doesn't beat 9900X.
Never did argue the point you're stating, again, your own straw man.

1. "It [Intel] performs better in Linux than in Windows..." - yes it does, you are right here. Intel is ~6% faster in Linux than in Windows; so far so good, without Zen CPUs for relative comparison. You forgot to say that AMD CPUs are also faster in Linux, more so than Intel CPUs are.

Ohhh nooo, I forgot to mention AMD in a thread discussing Intel, specifically the 265K, whatever will we do?

2. "...in Windows, where benches are already very close and the 265K competition is essentially the 9900X in perf" - you suggested here that Intel might be faster than AMD in Linux because it is faster in Linux on it own than in Windows, and in Windows those two CPUs are already very close. Well..., no. This is how your statement came across, as a falsehood.

I did not suggest that Intel would be faster than AMD in Linux, I suggested Intel would be faster in Linux—which it is—due to someone other person going on about poor Linux support or smth, which is not the case. Check your reading comprehension, and don't try to put words in my mouth or you'll be publically corrected, like what is happening right now.

It's good to have a powerful imagination, but I'd advise against trying to turn that into an argument when a public record is available of what has been said.

I'm not defending any company. I'm only for an equal support and diversity for all HW and SW, regardless of the brand, or age. I've mentioned AMD, just because it's part of duopoly on x86-64 market. And in order to make any movements, favorable to the end-user, the companies must begin to do so. However that is unlikely.

You implied, strongly, that AMD was unpopular due to "bias" and "corporate influence", and that clients are "uneducated and know nothing", and the "more stable" fact (due to validation) was a "fairy tale", despite "AMD's Superiority".

Very different to what I wrote, about the market being dominated due to the biggest players having, undoubtably, the best products that are a result of years of correct decision making at the corporate, R&D, and engineering focus level. You acknowledge that AMD screwed up with their software in the past, essentially ignoring or making pathetic half-assed attempts at "support" while their competition nailed advance and industry standard and broke new ground year after year. The current situation is a reflection of that. Not of uneducated clients, corporate bias and companies choosing to ignore "superior" products, lmao.

As rarely, as I agree with dgianstefani, he has the point here. This is unpopular by you, and other TPU users, experienced enough, to make a viable, wise choice as a DIY user. But the thing is, that these CPUs being sold en masse, by Intel to OEMs/SI. This has never changed, and won't change any time soon, as AMD is still a niche in the consumer market (and is limited mostly by DIY customers of US and EU), as almost all their supply goes to EPYC and MI.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not preaching for either company. There are just the products and their strong and weak points.

There are areas, where Intel CPUs were and are the dominant. These are the embedded, industrial, and other manufacturing fields, where the CPUs being bought in droves, AMD has basically zero availability. And also, those who used to buy Intel for their lifetime, will continue to do so. And these price-cuts, are aimed excactly at them. And this is the basis of all CPU sales.
At this point, the Intel CPUs, unless they have serious manufacturing silicon/die defects, are pretty much great deal. As much as I dislike Intel, I must confess, that entire x86 computing, and software is turning around them. This is basically plug&play experience.

That's why most companies are lazy, or cautionous to try "new" endeavours. And also, their bias being fueled by wintel-nvidia lobbies, that exist here, after all these years, like AMD's Athlon and Ryzen never happened. You guys don't have a clue to what extent...

The another factor are the uneducated clients, that know nothing about the IT and CPU market, but "being told", heard the "claims", that Intel is "more stable", and other fairy tales, that dominates the market and companies's decisions on the upper level, due to Intel's corporate influence.
Both companies and their clients just see the "more cores" labels, and buy that (more cores is an old own AMD's game, at which Intel have completely outplayed them), having no clue about potential heterohenous core issues.

And they still don't know, that Ryzen has their five solid generations and several refreshes, that had their issues mostly ironed out. Not to mention EPYC, which simply wipes the floor with Xeon, for a good half-decade.

Another factor, is that despite the AMD's superiority, in many areas, their products are simultaneously more expensive. And there's simply no competition at the ently-level/low end, where the entire 12600K/B660 rig can be bought for just below $500. Go try the same with AMD "alternatives". There's simply no competition, and AMD ends up more expensive about $50-$100 more at every level. At least here.

You may say this is just one small local market, but this is exactly what Intel relies on, the each particular market, outside the US and EU, where they can sold their products in bulk, to OEM, or simply biased suppliers. The markets, that never happen in "big" outlets, and finacial reports.

Unless AMD will begin to treat themself "worthy" and reliable, solid rival, there's nothing consumers can do. No amount of tantrums about AMD's superiority, will help when the Intel's "inferior" SKUs dominate the mindshare and market sales globally. AMD must invest into consumer software and HW support and validation.

​

 

[Random_User]

You implied, strongly, that AMD was unpopular due to "bias" and "corporate influence", and that clients are "uneducated and know nothing", and the "more stable" fact (due to validation) was a "fairy tale", despite "AMD's Superiority".

Very different to what I wrote, about the market being dominated due to the biggest players having, undoubtably, the best products that are a result of years of correct decision making at the corporate, R&D, and engineering focus level. You acknowledge that AMD screwed up with their software in the past, essentially ignoring or making pathetic half-assed attempts at "support" while their competition nailed advance and industry standard and broke new ground year after year. The current situation is a reflection of that. Not of uneducated clients, corporate bias and companies choosing to ignore "superior" products, lmao.

That doesn't invalidate the point.

I'm not arguing that intel has superiority and gained the favour unjustifiably. They indeed put a colossal amount of efforts, to make their products and solutions hassle-free. Be it validation for HW, SW, codecs superiority, overal ATX, and other standards certification. There'sno doubts. Intel was and is an "easy" P&P solution. Even the RTL 13th and 14 gen fiasco, did barely any indent to Intel's reputation, outside DIY market.

But that doesn't mean, the current AMD CPUs are bad. Yes, their marketing is complete garbage, their validation and software support is lacking. But this is another topic.

My point is, that as a consumer, buyer, I want for each product to be represented equally, without any corporate trickery. If some SKU is bad, it's bad, and no amount of advertizement should help.

Still, that's just wishful thinking. Because market is riddled by old myths and prejustices, that hurt every participant, and customer.

 

[evernessince]

Another factor, is that despite the AMD's superiority, in many areas, their products are simultaneously more expensive. And there's simply no competition at the ently-level/low end, where the entire 12600K/B660 rig can be bought for just below $500. Go try the same with "alternatives" by AMD. There's simply no competition, and AMD ends up more expensive about $50-$100 more at every level. At least here.

The days of the 12th gen being better value are gone. That was years ago and isn't the case anymore. For example, let's compare the price of a 5800 XT rig to a 12600K rig (which provide identical performance):

12600K: https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-126...lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Ryzen 5800 XT: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-...t-am4-desktop-cpu-processor/p/N82E16819113846

Both are the same price and have extremely similar application and gaming performance figures, only the AMD CPU comes with a CPU cooler and 16GB of memory for free.

AM4 motherboards also appear to be cheaper on average as well: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625 601292786

vs LGA 1700: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=lga+1700+motherboards

You have a lot more selection with AM4 too.

Although unless one absolutely cannot spend more, for $20 extra a person can grab a Ryzen 7600X or $28 for a Ryzen 9600X. They get the extra performance but most importantly a very good upgrade path. The Ryzen 5600 is also good value at $118 if one is on a strict budget.

Very different to what I wrote, about the market being dominated due to the biggest players having, undoubtably, the best products that are a result of years of correct decision making at the corporate, R&D, and engineering focus level. You acknowledge that AMD screwed up with their software in the past, essentially ignoring or making pathetic half-assed attempts at "support" while their competition nailed advance and industry standard and broke new ground year after year. The current situation is a reflection of that. Not of uneducated clients, corporate bias and companies choosing to ignore "superior" products, lmao.

You are implying as if the markets have achieved some sort of meritocracy where the best are always at the top but anyone who knows how corporations operate realize that those at the top are often simply the most sleazy. One need take a look at leaders in various sectors: Amazon, Meta, Google, Golden Sachs, Wells Fargo, Nvidia, Boeing, DuPont, Bell Systems (past although the pieces have been recombining), Charter / Verizon, etc. This list could go on, the correlation between scummy and market leading is very strong.

The argument that the sleaziest company gets to the top if FAR stronger than any meritocracy argument. You can even see AMD become more anti-consumer as their marketshare increases.

Mind you, it's public knowledge that Intel bribed OEMs to not buy AMD. Yeah, Intel had better products but that's easy when you deny your competitor revenue through unsavory means. The quality of everything is going to be degraded when you cannot afford the personal and equipment.

The examples of Intel putting their best foot forwards are long in the past as well. 13th and 14th gen topped out at 50% failure rates and contrary to what Intel used to say, no TIM is not better than solder and more than 4 cores is not some herculean lift. Intel was just made lazy by it's monopoly.

Don't get me wrong, I want Intel to come back fighting but let's not pretend as if they earned their place 100%. It's 20% actual effort and 80% scumbaggery.


It's very nice that Intel is finally lowering the price on it's latest processors but as others have pointed out, they should have done this a long time ago. They need to do the same for their mobile chips as well, because on average getting a 200 series mobile laptop / mini-pc is $50 - $100 more and I don't see the point in paying a premium for Intel.

 

[Tek-Check]

In Linux using specific HPC and Linux workloads 285K doesn't beat 9900X.
Never did argue the point you're stating, again, your own straw man.

This was not under consideration. Interpretation of the quoted statement was.

Ohhh nooo, I forgot to mention AMD in a thread discussing Intel, specifically the 265K, whatever will we do?

It was convenient to mention AMD in Windows comparison context, but it was not convenient to mention the same in Linux context. Got it.

I did not suggest that Intel would be faster than AMD in Linux, I suggested Intel would be faster in Linux—which it is—due to someone other person going on about poor Linux support or smth, which is not the case. Check your reading comprehension, and don't try to put words in my mouth or you'll be publically corrected, like what is happening right now. It's good to have a powerful imagination, but I'd advise against trying to turn that into an argument when a public record is available of what has been said.

Yes, the public record is available, indeed. Nobody is putting any words into your mouth. Nonsense. Your statement was interpreted as to how it came across and what it implied. Take the feedback from members, or ignore it. And please, refrain from relating to my personal traits such as imagination and reading comprehension. My person is not a topic here and that's not the place where you go if you disagree with someone.

 

[JustBenching]

The days of the 12th gen being better value are gone. That was years ago and isn't the case anymore. For example, let's compare the price of a 5800 XT rig to a 12600K rig (which provide identical performance):

12600K: https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-126...lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Ryzen 5800 XT: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-...t-am4-desktop-cpu-processor/p/N82E16819113846

Both are the same price and have extremely similar application and gaming performance figures, only the AMD CPU comes with a CPU cooler and 16GB of memory for free.

AM4 motherboards also appear to be cheaper on average as well: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625 601292786

vs LGA 1700: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=lga+1700+motherboards

You have a lot more selection with AM4 as too.

Although unless one absolutely cannot spend more, for $20 extra a person can grab a Ryzen 7600X or $28 for a Ryzen 9600X. They get the extra performance but most importantly a very good upgrade path. The Ryzen 5600 is also good value at $118 if one is on a strict budget.

And since the 12600k has way better upgradability paths it's obvious a better choice than the 5800xt, right?

13th and 14th gen topped out at 50% failure rates

Extraordinary claim. Please cite the data. The only actual data I've seen have the 13th and 14th gen being a LOT more reliable than any zen cpu - but less reliable than 12th gen.

 

[Random_User]

The days of the 12th gen being better value are gone. That was years ago and isn't the case anymore. For example, let's compare the price of a 5800 XT rig to a 12600K rig (which provide identical performance):

12600K: https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-126...lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Ryzen 5800 XT: https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-...t-am4-desktop-cpu-processor/p/N82E16819113846

Both are the same price and have extremely similar application and gaming performance figures, only the AMD CPU comes with a CPU cooler and 16GB of memory for free.

AM4 motherboards also appear to be cheaper on average as well: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625 601292786

vs LGA 1700: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=lga+1700+motherboards

You have a lot more selection with AM4 as too.

Although unless one absolutely cannot spend more, for $20 extra a person can grab a Ryzen 7600X or $28 for a Ryzen 9600X. They get the extra performance but most importantly a very good upgrade path. The Ryzen 5600 is also good value at $118 if one is on a strict budget.

Agree! However I purposedly mentioned, outside of US and EU. These deals are fine and present only in there. The SKU variety and diversity is either the privilege of those regions.
If not the backbone, Intel at least is still reliant on the markets, which are still free of, or at least have low marketshare by AMD. And these are the low-income, thrird world countriies, with the old bias, that only Intel can do the CPU.

The 5800 and all AM4 CPUs are dead end, since the DRAM cartel already announced to cease any DDR4 production soon. This means the platform is EOL. The Vega based APUs, are also have no support left. And AM5 motherboards (here) are still more expencive overall.

Now the picture for at local market is grim. The X3D prices, are based on the hype and advertisement, and got out of hand, completely. Because, everything "gamer" is inevitably adding more "value" regardless of the MSRP. The stores reserve to themselves the right to scam people as much as they want, because obviously nobody except them can buy from the supplier. Often there are 20-50 stores and all of them having the exactly same price.

Same goes for Radeons. This is rarer, more expensive, but still "second grade" offerings.

You are implying as if the markets have achieved some sort of meritocracy where the best are always at the top but anyone who knows how corporations operate realize that those at the top are often simply the most sleazy. One need take a look at leaders in various sectors: Amazon, Meta, Google, Golden Sachs, Wells Fargo, Nvidia, Boeing, DuPont, Bell Systems (past although the pieces have been recombining), Charter / Verizon, etc. This list could go on, the correlation between scummy and market leading is very strong.

The argument that the sleaziest company gets to the top if FAR stronger than any meritocracy argument. You can even see AMD become more anti-consumer as their marketshare increases.

Mind you, it's public knowledge that Intel bribed OEMs to not buy AMD. Yeah, Intel had better products but that's easy when you deny your competitor revenue through unsavory means. The quality of everything is going to be degraded when you cannot afford the personal and equipment.

The examples of Intel putting their best foot forwards are long in the past as well. 13th and 14th gen topped out at 50% failure rates and contrary to what Intel used to say, no TIM is not better than solder and more than 4 cores is not some herculean lift. Intel was just made lazy by it's monopoly.

Don't get me wrong, I want Intel to come back fighting but let's not pretend as if they earned their place 100%. It's 20% actual effort and 80% scumbaggery.


It's very nice that Intel is finally lowering the price on it's latest processors but as others have pointed out, they should have done this a long time ago. They need to do the same for their mobile chips as well, because on average getting a 200 series mobile laptop / mini-pc is $50 - $100 more and I don't see the point in paying a premium for Intel.

And this is exactly what hurts both AMD and Intel. This actually makes a disservice to the later, because the products being sold by deals, neglecting the real architecture advantages and features. And here, no one is comparing the rival CPU/GPU differences, benefits etc. Because the choise is obvious. Thus making less known/popular alternative to be even less available, reserving the marketshare for a single participant. Thus leading to consumers become even lazier and dumber.

The only solution for people to become more aware, and as the result for companies, to begin the healthy competition. Everyone needs for Intel and AMD being busy with R&D and not the slimey trickery behind the curtains.

Intel doesn't understand, how muchthey would benefit from the clear, fair marketing strategy. And AMD fallen for the same scummy behaviour, as soon as they got their shares fatter.

 

[ARF]

And since the 12600k has way better upgradability paths it's obvious a better choice than the 5800xt, right?

No. The Ryzen 7 5800 XT can be upgraded up to a 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X3D.

 

[dgianstefani]

Don't get me wrong, I want Intel to come back fighting but let's not pretend as if they earned their place 100%. It's 20% actual effort and 80% scumbaggery.

So glad there's randos on the internet to give reliable, factual numbers on these topics. Is the source behind related by any chance? Of course, the nature of forums encourages this behavior, it's not academia, there's no obligation to actually, you know, prove anything you state. Regardless, I'm sure the teams of hundreds of thousands of current and retired engineers, researchers and technicians, backed by the world's scientists who gave their life's work to the hundreds of fields that contribute to microprocessor technology are so glad you're here to... so eloquently define their cumulative achievements over the decades, specifically when it relates to Intel. Although credit where it's due! You did mention "even" AMD, because they're of course on their own pedestal right?

The sheer arrogance. Talking about perhaps the most complicated, technically multifaceted, difficult industry on the planet, as if it's 80% boardroom fights by toddlers. Sad.

This was not under consideration. Interpretation of the quoted statement was.

It was convenient to mention AMD in Windows comparison context, but it was not convenient to mention the same in Linux context. Got it.

Yes, the public record is available, indeed. Nobody is putting any words into your mouth. Nonsense. Your statement was interpreted as to how it came across and what it implied. Take the feedback from members, or ignore it. And please, refrain from relating to my personal traits such as imagination and reading comprehension. My person is not a topic here and that's not the place where you go if you disagree with someone.

Of course, I need to mention AMD at a specific frequency, or it's immediately implied I've forgotten they exist. My mistake.
Have fun in whatever... imagined meaning... you choose to type about, where simple statements within obvious context I made apparently have so much leeway to be "interpreted" in unrelated and unprovable ways, instead of the factual and clear meanings obvious to everyone besides the emotionally invested. I'm just glad that the actual text is not as flexible to less... creative... individuals, for the record.

No. The Ryzen 7 5800 XT can be upgraded up to a 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X3D.

5950X3D huh? Wow. Imaginations truly running wild today.

Could you kindly point me to a listing of said chip so I can acquire one?

 

[Tek-Check]

Have fun in whatever... imagined meaning... you choose to type about, where simple statements within obvious context I made apparently have so much leeway to be "interpreted" in unrelated and unprovable ways, instead of the factual and clear meanings obvious to everyone besides the emotionally invested. I'm just glad that the actual text is not as flexible to less... creative... individuals, for the record.

You are still trying with personal references in a form of low provocation lingo such as "emotionally invested". It's not going to work with me.

It's enough to be humble and admit that your statement was not straight-forward enough because it's meaning was not obvious, hence it was unpicked. If you make such statements, expect to be challenged by some members. It is on you to make posts as clear as possible, so that there is no doubt as to what they mean. Also, you received a direct challenge, so defensiveness is not surprising. Next time, I will first ask you to clarify what exactly it is that you mean by a statement, so that you have more space to explain yourself.

 

[dgianstefani]

You are still trying with personal references in a form of low provocation lingo such as "emotionally invested". It's not going to work with me.

It's enough to be humble and admit that your statement was not straight-forward enough because it's meaning was not obvious, hence it was unpicked. If you make such statements, expect to be challenged by some members. It is on you to make posts as clear as possible, so that there is no doubt as to what they mean. Also, you received a direct challenge, so defensiveness is not surprising. Next time, I will first ask you to clarify what exactly it is that you mean by a statement, so that you have more space to explain yourself.

I notice you're still unable to tell us all exactly what was a "falsehood". Remaining vague.

Easier to write stories lacking details or anything that can be answered with a simple yes/no instead. That way you can keep pretending you ever had a point beyond the unfounded accusations I've already rebutted with clear, simple and easy to follow direct quotes.

Point out the "falsehood".

1) AFAIK Intel has excellent Linux support.
2) It (Arrow Lake) performs better in Linux than in Windows.

So far you've noted that "the difference in performance (between AMD/Intel current gen consumer CPUs) is more pronounced than in Windows". So? This means that Linux is well optimized for hardware. This does not mean that Intel Chips do not perform better in Linux than in Windows. Your deep and nuanced statement of—but AMD is still faster in Linux according to one set of benchmarks—also doesn't mean that Intel does not have "excellent linux support", which it does. In fact Intel code commits are consistent, high quality and ahead of schedule, often patching Linux kernel literal years before products are even released. The Intel Clear Linux distro is not only generally the fastest general purpose release for Intel computers, but ironically enough, also for AMD computers.

I can go on, but I'd rather respond to someone actually understanding the statements I made, rather than replying to a straw man they dreamt up.

Unless you have something concrete with direct quotes and straightforward language, with meaning that isn't intentionally twisted out of context or a separate matter entirely that you invented, please don't waste my time with more notifications to this thread.

 

[Dr. Dro]

No. The Ryzen 7 5800 XT can be upgraded up to a 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X3D.

Man, stop posting under the influence. That processor doesn't exist, or I would have never sold my socket AM4 rig to begin with. There is no evidence that AMD will ever release one either, Zen 3 is now five years old and it's not getting any younger. It's only around as a viable budget option for low income segments and markets, otherwise it's as good as historical hardware at this point.

 

[ARF]

5950X3D huh?

AMD shows off unreleased Ryzen 9 5950X3D CPU with 192MB of 3D V-Cache - VideoCardz.com

AMD showcases prototypes of unreleased Ryzen CPUs with 3D V-Cache The company has invited the team from Gamers Nexus for a tour of their secret Ryzen labs. The latest video from Gamers Nexus sheds light on AMD’s journey of returning into a competitive CPU space with the first Ryzen CPUs. It was...

videocardz.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/14bufmj/amd_shows_off_original_ryzen_9_5950x3d_vcache

 

[JustBenching]

No. The Ryzen 7 5800 XT can be upgraded up to a 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X3D.

Yeah, upgrading to a CPU that has half a decades old ST performance, completely outdated MT performance and...doesn't even exist is a great deal.

 

[Dr. Dro]

AMD shows off unreleased Ryzen 9 5950X3D CPU with 192MB of 3D V-Cache - VideoCardz.com

AMD showcases prototypes of unreleased Ryzen CPUs with 3D V-Cache The company has invited the team from Gamers Nexus for a tour of their secret Ryzen labs. The latest video from Gamers Nexus sheds light on AMD’s journey of returning into a competitive CPU space with the first Ryzen CPUs. It was...

videocardz.com

View attachment 404848

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/14bufmj/amd_shows_off_original_ryzen_9_5950x3d_vcache

We are aware of the existence of this lab prototype with two X3D CCDs that they refused to release on the allegation that "it didn't matter to gamers". The 7950X3D and 9950X3D still don't have 2 X3D CCDs, in other words, you're dreaming. This processor never entered production and AMD has historically had several reasons not to release it, above all, protecting the revenue of their server and workstation segments.

This product is a what-if scenario, it does not exist in the real world and attempting to justify an upgrade path upon it is... insanity. It's the only word that fits.

 

[ARF]

Yeah, upgrading to a CPU that has half a decades old ST performance, completely outdated MT performance and...

AM5 with its broken pins and super high TDP is much worse. .

doesn't even exist is a great deal.

I can buy it.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I can buy it.

No, you literally can't mate, stop making things up. Don't give false information to people, the 5950X3D was never released and trust me, we would all love to have one.

 

[dgianstefani]

No, you literally can't mate, stop making things up

Maybe he's got a line to one of the couple prototypes made lmao.

Regardless, completely irrelevant to talk about unreleased prototypes as if that's a meaningful upgrade path in the context of the discussion.

 

[Tek-Check]

Unless you have something concrete with direct quotes and straightforward language, with meaning that isn't intentionally twisted out of context or a separate matter entirely that you invented, please don't waste my time with more notifications to this thread.

Let try again. I will highlight it in your statement:
"AFAIK Intel has excellent Linux support, so not sure about that point either. It performs better in Linux than in Windows, where benches are already very close and the 265K competition is essentially the 9900X in perf, and the 9700X in price, though obviously it's cheaper now."

Questions:
1. As Intel "performs better in Linux than in Windows, where benches are already very close and the 265K competition is essentially the 9900X in perf", does this mean that better performance of 265K in Linux also makes it a better competitor in Linux against 9900X than it is the case in Windows?

2. If you only wanted to say that 265K is faster in Linux than in Windows, then why mention at all its competition with 9900X in Windows? Who cares about 9900X if you only want to say that 265K is faster in Linux than in Windows?

3. What is the logic behind reasoning that cheetah is faster on grass than on road, where the race between cheetah and gazelles is essentially the same? Why mention gazelles at all if you only want to point out the speed of cheetah on grass? What is the role of gazelle in this logic?

You would not have had any issues with the statement, had you not mentioned 9900X. That's all to it.

I can buy it.

Sure, if it comes up on eBay or elsewhere, like 3080Ti 20GB. A collector's item.

This processor never entered production and AMD has historically had several reasons not to release it, above all, protecting the revenue of their server and workstation segments.

Let's not be conspiratorial about reasons not to release such product. Revenues in server and workstation are separate from desktop and one extra 3D cache die on desktop chip would not change anything in revenue structure in other segments, as desktop chips are limited to two memory channels. The benefits of having one extra 3D cache die are limited by inter-die communication, as Infinity Fabric is much slower than L3 cache hit. This has been explained several times. Gamers Nexus has a nice video about it.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Let's not be conspiratorial about reasons not to release such product. Revenues in server and workstation are separate from desktop and one extra 3D cache die on desktop chip would not change anything in revenue structure in other segments, as desktop chips are limited to two memory channels. The benefits of having one extra 3D cache die are limited by inter-die communication, as Infinity Fabric is much slower than L3 cache hit. This has been explained several times. Gamers Nexus has a nice video about it.

It's a business decision, they could very well have built that processor and sold it. There's a market for it, even today. It's pretty safe to say that we all knew it was never going to be as fast as 2 5800X3Ds, but then again, neither is a 5950X compared to the 5800X. It's less about "maximum efficiency at a technical level" and more of "we could sell the same thing as an Epyc-X for 10x the cost", same as why Zen 3 Threadrippers got pretty much entirely canned and the TRX40 platform aborted mid-way through its lifecycle.

 

[Tek-Check]

It's a business decision, they could very well have built that processor and sold it. There's a market for it, even today. It's pretty safe to say that we all knew it was never going to be as fast as 2 5800X3Ds, but then again, neither is a 5950X compared to the 5800X. It's less about "maximum efficiency at a technical level" and more of "we could sell the same thing as an Epyc-X for 10x the cost", same as why Zen 3 Threadrippers got pretty much entirely canned and the TRX40 platform aborted mid-way through its lifecycle.

I would not make such far-fetched assumptions without any evidence. They sold millions of 5800X3D, so capacity was not an issue. Unreleased top SKU had more technical issues. We all know that 7950X3D had several issues to be ironed out when it was released in 2023. This is with one V-cache die. Imagine even more problems with two dies. These things take time, and one year before that the situation was even less mature on Zen3. They were making baby steps into this technology. You can equally ask why waste V-cache silicon on 5800X3D at all if they could put it in EPYCs and earn 10x more. This logic does not make sense. At all. Besides, Milan-X was a specialized CPU sold in smaller quantities to specific customers. The same applies to Genoa-X. They never continued with this SKU on Turin, as it's niche in use.

But hey, let's leave it there. This is about 265K.

 

[Visible Noise]

AMD shows off unreleased Ryzen 9 5950X3D CPU with 192MB of 3D V-Cache - VideoCardz.com

AMD showcases prototypes of unreleased Ryzen CPUs with 3D V-Cache The company has invited the team from Gamers Nexus for a tour of their secret Ryzen labs. The latest video from Gamers Nexus sheds light on AMD’s journey of returning into a competitive CPU space with the first Ryzen CPUs. It was...

videocardz.com

View attachment 404848

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/14bufmj/amd_shows_off_original_ryzen_9_5950x3d_vcache

Generally it’s a good idea to read past the headline if you are going to use an article to support your argument:

Furthermore, the company was even working on a 16-core version called Ryzen 9 5950X3D.

You understand past tense, yes? That’s what “was” means. As in work not completed. Product doesn’t exist.

“I was going to make a sandwich, but changed my mind”. Sandwich doesn’t exist.

5950X3D doesn’t exist.

Get it?

I can buy it.

Isn’t knowingly posting false information against the forum rules?

 

[Totally]

I'm not sure the "future proof" AM5 platform argument is relevant when there's just one more gen around the corner with Zen 6, seems like ARL is getting a refresh too anyway.

People were saying the same thing about AM4 in the three years leading up to AM5, and here we are 3 years after with AM4 still seeing an occasional release. People just need to buy what available and is in their budget.