yea I know, but I am not sure if the old AM5 boards could potentially have a new zen generation supporting CUDIMM, as the pin seems compatible between normal ram and CUDIMM, just that with CPUs not supporting CUDIMM they can't utilize the in built clock generater
JasonovichClone
Prominent
- Mar 4, 2024
- 27
- 16
- 535
I wonder how much the GPU bottleneck would be reduced at the highest resolution when the RTX 5090 is released?
9800X3D + 5090 dream team.
9800X3D + 5090 dream team.
lordmogul
Distinguished
- Jun 14, 2014
- 655
- 77
- 19,840
Pentium 4 to Conroe and Nehalem to Sandy Bridge was like that.
From personal benchmarks, a 2 GHz Core 2-era Celeron easily beats a 3 GHz Prescott while simultaneously running at a third of the power draw. And that is with a low-end chip. 3 GHzCore 2 were availablepretty much from the start.
And I still remember a i5-2500K beating an i7- 980X, but by how much depends on the game.
And let's not forget how it went going from an FX-8350 to a R5 1600. Or rather a FX-9830P to an R5 1500X, considering Excavator was the last design before Zen.
- Feb 21, 2025
- 2
- 0
- 10
" the gaps we're seeing here at 1080p would then extend into the 1440p and even 4K range."
This statement didn't age well. Please do 4K gaming benchmarks in processor reviews. 1080p and even 1440p are resolutions that I haven't cared about for almost a decade now.
This statement didn't age well. Please do 4K gaming benchmarks in processor reviews. 1080p and even 1440p are resolutions that I haven't cared about for almost a decade now.
just because you dont care about those resolutions, doesnt mean others dont. there are probable plenty of people that still use these res's as they may not be able to afford the xx90s to play at 4k...
BTW.,.. for a cpu review 1440 and 1080p are used to take the bottle neck out of the GPU, and put it on the cpu. thats why they are used... its a.... CPU... review, after all not a gpu review
helper800
Judicious
- Aug 12, 2011
- 5,574
- 2,726
- 35,140
As another has said, you are not looking for a CPU review, you are looking at a 5090 GPU review that uses a 9800X3D as its test bed. Here is an extensive review of one such setup for a 5090 and a 9800X3D.
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,313
- 2,804
- 73,440
For AMD to become the nvidia of CPUs they need to reach ~80-90% of market share like nvidia did on GPUs......
Don't worry, intel can keep doing what they are doing and AMD isn't going to reach that for years, like a decade at least.
It doesn't matter how awesome AMD CPUs are if nobody (not enough) buys them.
AMD increased prices because TSMC increased prices, like 3-4 times in the last years.
and with the issues with 13th and 14th?? gen ( i think it was ) crashing and degrading, STILL not known if it has been fixed for sure yet, no one is buying intel either... 5 people i know were looking to upgrade, are not getting intel bases cpus cause of this.. they dont trust intel any more.... and probably wont for 3-4 years now...
point is?
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,313
- 2,804
- 73,440
Point is that both companies give out reports and both yearly reports for 2024 are out, Your 5 people you know isn't the whole world.
you sure love pointing that out, like its the tell all be for how each side is doing... doesnt intel still charge more for less then what amd charges, and gives for the price ? guess what, who has been selling parts of their company off the most ? who used to fab their own chips, but now.. also use TSMC ? who has been stumbling the most since 14nm ??? twist it as you want.. intel.. isnt as good as they used to be, or you believe them to be.
news flash, neither do you... but if 5 people, 2 of which were going to get intel, have switched, and are going amd, then you can be sure, there are others..
intel has lost peoples trust because of the degradation issues, and instability.
but im sure, as always you'll spin it into something positive for intel...
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,313
- 2,804
- 73,440
What are you even trying to say?!
I was responding to somebody that was afraid that AMD is going to be the next nvidia for CPUs.
That can only happen if AMD gets the kind of market share in CPUs that nvidia has in GPUs.
And this is down to sales, it's not my fault that people completely ignore the sales numbers that AMD publishes and make surreal claims about sale numbers that never happened, like what you are doing, you are trying to convince yourself that because a few people you know bought AMD suddenly everybody must have bought AMD, completely ignoring the sales numbers that AMD themselves publish.
Intel being worse than before doesn't make AMD magically be in the position that nvidia is.....
AMD in CPUs is in the same position that AMD is in GPUs, at below 20%
thestryker
Judicious
- Apr 19, 2016
- 5,022
- 3,329
- 36,690
I'm not sure why you, and others like you, think that DIY sales actually matter in the greater scheme of things. Intel sells significantly more CPUs than AMD on a regular basis and it's not even close. The only place where AMD is truly impacting Intel in a meaningful manner is on the server side. This is where AMD is slowly chipping away at Intel's volume, but most importantly they're cutting into margins in a big way to where AMD is making somewhere around a third of revenue despite selling around a quarter units wise.
Intel doing worse doesn't automatically hand AMD a win with regards to actual volume. In the DIY space AMD has absolutely flipped the script and are the primary choice for many people. There's one really obvious example of how little volume this space has: Intel hasn't bothered to compete with the X3D parts. When it comes to gaming AMD absolutely dominates the majority of performance, but that embarrassment hasn't been turned into a competing part. The reason why is simple: it's not worth the money that it would cost for such a part to be made.
and i was responding to you claiming not enough was buying amd...
the same can be said about you.. all you have done on here is constantly tout how great intel is,. and how terrible amd is.. no matter what, in your world, intel is, and always will be king... even when others show you are wrong, with proof, you still claim intel is king. keep accusing me, of doing what you are self do, it just make you look foolish.
quite putting words in my mouth. i was attempting to show you that intels mind share is diminishing, losing trust in it products because of the degradation issues, and not admitting it for what was it, 1.5 years?? again, spinning things around to make intel look better then they are...
just doing the same thing you did...
thestryker:
and that where the sales really matter.. i dont deny that... over all, that hurts intel the most...
i never said that... but it does show, the market is shifting.. does it not ?
as for DIY,
maybe because they cant ? from what i read on good old anandtech with the 1st x3D parts, amd laid the foundation for that when they designed Zen. do intels cpus even support adding cache like amd does with x3D ? it may not by worth it for intel, as their current cpus, dont support it, and it would require a semi redesign, which as you just said, over all,. isnt worth it...
further.. if intel doesn't feel the need to compete with X3D, why havent they really released a product to compete with threadripper ? they used to have a HEDT line... aka x99 and such.... does intel think that market is not worth it as well ?? my boss at work, is also looking at threadripper, as he could use the cores that TR brings, and intels high core count chips, are quite a bit more costly compared to TR...
thestryker
Judicious
- Apr 19, 2016
- 5,022
- 3,329
- 36,690
Intel quite literally bailed on the HEDT market when TR3000 launched. They didn't make volume of the 10th Gen HEDT parts and never made any again. They shifted entirely over to Xeon W which is the competitor for TR, but those are also not being taken seriously. On the server side Intel dumped the SPR quad tile design for a dual tile Raptor Cove based design with EMR. For the workstation parts they refreshed SPR instead of moving forward to EMR. Now on the server side they're on GNR which has P-core parity with AMD (finally) and is the closest they've been in peak performance since AMD launched Rome. There's still no sign of a GNR based workstation part (though there have been some leaks in the form of "they exist") which should give you a clue as to how little emphasis Intel sees in that market compared to trying to maintain server.
Intel could have added cache at any time, but their desktop CPUs until ARL were monolithic so it would have required a specific run to do so. The volume of sales obviously never made sense or else they likely would have done it. As for why there hasn't been something like that with ARL I'd point towards node development and them shifting to TSMC. At the rate things are going I wouldn't expect them to target X3D until 2026 at the earliest (I'd like to be wrong, but I just don't see it).
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,313
- 2,804
- 73,440
And not enough are, and the only proof needed for that, and the only one that is true, is AMDs financial reports.
Quote or it didn't happen.
I didn't make a single comment about either one being great or terrible.
I just showed sales numbers, not even showed, just talked about.
You on the other hand talked about everybody buying amd, these "everybody" being 5 people you know.
Yes that's what you are trying to do, but you can try all you want you can't make AMD financial reports be any different than they are.
Even with the degradation intel sells more than AMD, and even despite the blowing up ryzens AMD still sells CPUs.
Making justified statements with proof instead of ranting and making make belief claims like you?!
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,313
- 2,804
- 73,440
I doubt they will ever segment their products like that, they have been adding more normal cache to their CPUs for years now and they will keep doing that until they reach similar results as x3d but without needing to have separate runs or product lines.
Higher tier skus will have more cache than lower skus and that's the segmentation they really want.
If they where desperate they could have ported cpu max to desktop or scale it down for desktop.
thestryker
Judicious
- Apr 19, 2016
- 5,022
- 3,329
- 36,690
Even if we were to suggest they somehow pulled off a 16P/32E chip that had no additional latency across any of the cores they'd have to increase the L3 per core/cluster by a third over what they've been since ADL just to match AMD. I'm not sure how viable that would be across a product stack since they tend to use the same core design across most of the stack, but it certainly is a possibility. If packaging L3 in the base tile for CWF makes sense cost wise that might be how they'd do it as then the only added cost would be at the packaging level. It'd be an opportunity for Intel to dust off the "Extreme Edition" branding and have a line with extra cache which should cost less than adding to the compute tile.
HBM would never have been a viable solution due to latency if nothing else. It is possible that they could use EMIB to connect a cache tile to a compute tile, but I'm not sure how great of an option that would end up being.
Stop talking up intel their done for now they have nothing!!
More people are buying AMD CPU's and will continue to do so..
Until Intel can compete in both 3d vcache and socket life span they are done !!
Loadedaxe
Distinguished
- Jul 30, 2016
- 273
- 188
- 18,890
And you can stop hyping up AMD without actual facts. Yes, AMD has made progress, but as thestryker pointed out, they would need to sustain this pace for at least a decade to truly shift the landscape.
That’s not going to happen. And... honestly, I’m surprised that some of you actually want it to, because that wouldn’t be good for consumers at all.
Last I read, Intel still holds 76% of the total CPU market not just DIY. Look it up. Educate yourself before dismissing someone else’s post.
Intel is dead the only thing they have going is their gpu market ( which I’m happy about )
It’s going to take years if not bye bye on there cpus..
Want to talk facts look at how many current gen intel cpus sold over AMD ..
This is not me happy that AMD is crushing intel its facts ..
As consumers anyone with half a brain should know we need intel to compete but they can’t and will not for a few gen’s now if at all again
Loadedaxe
Distinguished
- Jul 30, 2016
- 273
- 188
- 18,890
As of the last quarter.
This is public information from various sources including TH, not just me saying "Want to talk facts look at how many current gen intel cpus sold over AMD"
As of the third quarter of 2024, Intel maintains a leading position in the CPU market, although, AMD has been making notable gains across various segments. Here's a detailed breakdown.
Overall x86 CPU Market:
Intel Holds 76% of the market share.
AMD Increased its share to 24%, marking a 2.7 percentage point rise from the previous quarter and a 4.3 point increase year-over-year.
Desktop CPUs:
Intel Retains 71.3% of the market.
AMD Captured 28.7%, a significant 5.7 percentage point increase from the prior quarter and a 9.6 point rise compared to the same period last year.
Laptop (Mobile) CPUs:
Intel: Commands 77.7% of the market.
AMD Holds 22.3%, reflecting a 2 percentage point gain from the previous quarter and a 2.8 point increase year-over-year.
Server CPUs:
Intel: Maintains 75.8% of the market share.
AMD Achieved a 24.2% share, with a modest 0.1 percentage point increase from the prior quarter and a 0.9 point rise year-over-year.
These figures indicate that while Intel continues to lead in overall CPU sales, AMD is progressively narrowing the gap, especially in the desktop and server sectors.
Yes, more people are buying AMD than before, but not more than Intel.
Intel isnt dead, and wont be unless they sit idle, which is not going to happen.
Remember Bulldozer?
thestryker
Judicious
- Apr 19, 2016
- 5,022
- 3,329
- 36,690
So about your "facts" the only publicly available market research says you're way off base. As I said before AMD is good, and I'd be surprised if they weren't dominating DIY, but when it comes to actual volume they're not making a big impact despite a lot of successful launches. The place they're really hurting Intel is in server revenue where they're now making over a third of the market revenue despite a quarter of the volume.
AMD 2024 Unit share:
| Q1: | Q2: | Q3: | Q4: | |
Server: | 23.6% | 24.1% | 24.2% | 25.1% |
Desktop: | 23.9% | 23% | 28.7% | 27.1% |
Laptop: | 19.3% | 20.3% | 20.3% | 23.7% |
Data from Mercury Research and posted quarterly here on Tom's. This is the most recent posting:
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...market-share-in-2024-server-passes-25-percent
stuff and nonesense
Honorable
- Mar 10, 2020
- 690
- 512
- 11,790
Businesses are slow to change, at one time it was IBM. Their markets were eroded and now they are out of PC.
AMD consumer processors really are a no brainer today and have been since 5000 series. Next year, who knows.
AMD have been executing in the CPU space since Zen 1, progressive improvements, some smaller than others but on the whole the improvements have been meaningful. Up to Zen 1 Intel were stagnating, 4 core 8 thread, that isn’t to say there weren’t improvements but there was no need to push against bulldozer. Zen was a wake up call and Intel were slow to react. Whether by management or process Intel were held back, they designed fast processors that need a lot of power to get the performance suggesting process but management decides where the money is spent.
Costs
Intel has a huge fixed cost base in its fabs, they need staffing and maintaining and the production hardware periodically needs replacing. This is expensive. I have no idea about the design side cost of relative to AMD, Nvidia. Where Intel should benefit is at the cross over between capacity/production and sales. At a (nebulous) point the parts hit profit. The profit is intel’s not shared with 3rd party silicon manufacturers. The down side, if they can’t sell enough they lose money. AMD just need to sell what has been made for them.
For AMD to take over the market they need to be able to produce more chips. They need to ensure that they are not supply constrained. Therein lies a risk, if they buy and not sell at a price that makes decent profit or the parts end up stuck in inventory then their progress stalls. If it were to work for them then Intel could die.
AMD don’t need to take 100% of the market. They need to push Intel into a position where the costs of manufacturing their products overwhelms any chance of profit.
AMD consumer processors really are a no brainer today and have been since 5000 series. Next year, who knows.
AMD have been executing in the CPU space since Zen 1, progressive improvements, some smaller than others but on the whole the improvements have been meaningful. Up to Zen 1 Intel were stagnating, 4 core 8 thread, that isn’t to say there weren’t improvements but there was no need to push against bulldozer. Zen was a wake up call and Intel were slow to react. Whether by management or process Intel were held back, they designed fast processors that need a lot of power to get the performance suggesting process but management decides where the money is spent.
Costs
Intel has a huge fixed cost base in its fabs, they need staffing and maintaining and the production hardware periodically needs replacing. This is expensive. I have no idea about the design side cost of relative to AMD, Nvidia. Where Intel should benefit is at the cross over between capacity/production and sales. At a (nebulous) point the parts hit profit. The profit is intel’s not shared with 3rd party silicon manufacturers. The down side, if they can’t sell enough they lose money. AMD just need to sell what has been made for them.
For AMD to take over the market they need to be able to produce more chips. They need to ensure that they are not supply constrained. Therein lies a risk, if they buy and not sell at a price that makes decent profit or the parts end up stuck in inventory then their progress stalls. If it were to work for them then Intel could die.
AMD don’t need to take 100% of the market. They need to push Intel into a position where the costs of manufacturing their products overwhelms any chance of profit.
show me all the percentages and graphs you want AMD are crushing Intel ..
Intel's latest gen CPU's flopped big time ..
AMD's strix point with its IGPU is set to crush Intel's laptop markets handhelds etc etc ..
AMD's server CPU's have been crushing Intel for a few years now ..
At a guess hard core intel fanboys are buying their rubbish or old 13th maybe 14th gen ..
I have a all intel build using the 14600kf ( great little cpu ) but wouldnt use it as my main ive got the 7800x3d !!
Bad socket life, terrible gen to gen uplift , terrible efficiency and no x3d has lead to intel's failing ..
( if feels like they didnt even try to fight back 5800x3d should have been the point where they said whoa hang on this looks like monster we need something )
As of right now AM5 is the better platform and the x3d cpus are better for games and when the 9950x3d releases Intel will respond with what ??
Im sorry but ( and like i said i dont hate intel anyone with even half a brain should know we need health competition between the 2 big CPU makers )
unless Intel can start to compete they are doomed ,,
Liken it to Nvidia and the 90series cards AMD have NOTHING so for that very reason Nvidia can charge upwards of 400usd more between gens and people will still pay it ..
There is simply nothing but Nvidia in that market !!
Same goes for Intel AMD's x3d is crushing them
If intel cant fight back mind share, market share will go to AMD then we will see the Nvidia of the CPU market charging 800-900usd plus for the R7 series or 1300usd plus for the R9s because there is just no competition !!
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram