Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZealotKi11er 
Lol. Intel taking it easy cause no competition.
No, there's not enough demand so Intel is artificially lowering 14nm production capacity to help ensure 22nm chips have been all bought, do you think Intel really wants warehouses full of Haswell chips while Broadwell is out? It has nothing to do with AMD but with consumers buying less parts.
Besides, Intel have great reasons to push forward fab technology, their main competition has been ARMs LP chips for a while now and they'll definitely want to keep their lead on process technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akheton Quote:
Originally Posted by
xd_1771
...Everyone's blaming AMD.
Everyone's blaming AMD when Intel clearly stated that this is as a result of "slow-down in demand." A slow-down that applies to all x86 processor manufacturers for laptops/desktops/tablets, which I don' tthink necessarily has anything to do with performance.
...and everyone's blaming AMD.
Where is ARM in this?
AMD is a significant factor in this. Yes, Intel is slowing down the introduction of 14nm because since the demand isn't high enough for them to follow their initial roadmap they would cannibalize their 22nm products if they went ahead as scheduled. However, that line of thinking is only valid if their 22nm products are dominating the market, which is the case. If AMD came out with a processor lineup that took away a significant percentage of Intel's sales, then they would have to release their 12nm products asap in order to gain back market share.
Demand is only half the story when it comes to deciding when to release a new product. Competition is the other half, which is why AMD's ineptitude is significant.
Intel's main competition is ARM, and even if AMD was ahead they'd still delay it, people aren't buying as many consumer electronics as they were which means that Intel, AMD, IBM, etc all aren't selling as many chips as they were, it has absolutely nothing to do with demand..even AMD is feeling the pressure from this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erunion Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akheton
Yes, Intel is slowing down the introduction of 14nm .
That was never a premise of the article. Did you read it?
22nm launched with 3 fabs and had 4th came later. Due to good yields intel has way more 22nm capacity than they need. Delaying 14nm on one fab doesn't mean they are delaying it on all fabs.
Exactly, all this means is Intel doesn't want to over-estimate how many 14nm chips they need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mushroomboy
It's not about AMD at all. Very few games, or game styles I should say, are CPU intense. What, Starcraft II? Sure it's CPU limited, part of that is because they didn't bother to write the engine so that it handles 4 cores. *gasp*! Don't get me started on Skyrim either, as MANY people know they used some pretty crap decisions in their game code too. When you've got companies like Crytek showing us what we can do on current hardware, without it being CPU limied, it sends a message. I can run any game out there, the only limiting factor I have at the moment is my 460 and solid HDD. My PHII X4 currently plays any game at an extremely acceptable resolution and quality.
You have to remember, the majority of people who use computers aren't gamers. As far as general use goes, we've got both CPU/GPU power coming out of our ears (spin off from Carmack). Hell, even as far as gaming power is concerned. We've got more power than we know what to do with, on both sides. I know the BD release was a letdown but the real gain Intel has only shines in the non-consumer market. Most people don't use that power, though currently if PD shapes up AMD will have something strong all around. Sure, it's not the most powerful but they have a very good thing going. Brand new design, something Intel hasn't really done. Do they need too? Not really, we could probably survive with this current gen of hardware for another 5 years or more.
Well, I don't plan on upgrading my CPU at least for 3 years. Also, Steam for linux will make current hardware run quite a bit smoother. Check out the Nvidia B310 drivers, increases of up to 40FPS in some areas. Once more games get ported I'm going to guess you'll see a huge performance boost all around, on both Intel/AMD based machines (unsure how Radeon stuff will fly). So what do we honestly need this for? Most of this new stuff coming out is so you can get on a soap box and go "look at me". Current consoles may not be amazing, but what they have squeezed out of hardware that old is pretty good. Think of what we would do if developers actually focused on x86 optimizations across the board, if next gen consoles go that route (rumors no?) we might see the PC world get some of that innovation. There is a lot we can still do with this hardware, a crap ton.
To date the only game I've noticed the difference between AMD and Intel (As I have both an i5 and a FX-4170 in the same room) is MInecraft; hardware speed has been increasing much faster than software can use it..honestly, the PC market could use some slowing down for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZealotKi11er
Intel can create demand buy making much faster CPU not 5% increase increments.
Not really, 95% of consumers couldn't care less about speed right now and don't want to spend the extra money on machines they won't see the difference on, you can go on Facebook on a Pentium G850 or a 3930K and not notice the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
adridu59 Quote:
Originally Posted by
mushroomboy
It's not about AMD at all. Very few games, or game styles I should say, are CPU intense. What, Starcraft II? Sure it's CPU limited, part of that is because they didn't bother to write the engine so that it handles 4 cores. *gasp*! Don't get me started on Skyrim either, as MANY people know they used some pretty crap decisions in their game code too. When you've got companies like Crytek showing us what we can do on current hardware, without it being CPU limied, it sends a message. I can run any game out there, the only limiting factor I have at the moment is my 460 and solid HDD. My PHII X4 currently plays any game at an extremely acceptable resolution and quality.
Well ok but that doesn't change the fact that Intel is better right now, but AMD is on the right track to compete.
It depends what you do, for me an FX-8320 beats everything in the same price-range that Intel has to offer because it either matches a 3770k (Video encoding), a 3570k (Most other things I do) or is behind but in an unnoticeable way (Gaming), as someone who has used an i5 3570k and FX-4170 the difference in gaming is nothing without fraps open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BizzareRide
Its not a huge slowdown though probably like 2%. Seems like they should slowdown current shipments instead of delaying futures.
I blame tablets for the slowdown and Intel's lack of presence there. Now that Windows 8 is out, that should seriously change.
The slowdown was more economic reasons, if I recall correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cesaro Summability Quote:
Originally Posted by
xd_1771
...Everyone's blaming AMD.
Everyone's blaming AMD when Intel clearly stated that this is as a result of "slow-down in demand." A slow-down that applies to all x86 processor manufacturers for laptops/desktops/tablets, which I don't think necessarily has anything to do with performance.
...and everyone's blaming AMD.
Where is ARM in this?
Do you think a company would say, "we are not doing this because frankly we control the market and see no reason to innovate?"
So what is ARM? Don't they exist? That's Intels main competition and is pushing them to reduce power consumption while increasing performance.
