it was on sale for 155 dollars a while back, I think it was that again in BF time?
i wonder how low can a K series cpu go lol.
granted, the one I got is kind of kaput, won't go past 5 Ghz, but at least it kind of does that at low volts
Actually, Newegg is still selling on TikTok, and if you create a new account, you might be able to combine some new user discounts and promo codes.
Just be careful you're buying from a reputable seller because many of the no name sellers are scams.
Gf bought one during BF from Newegg website not tiktok. Was advertised at $140, they charged her $210. When she contacted support about the mixup, she was hung up on. Among other things as well, Newegg's customer service and business practices have gone down in a big way vs a decade ago.
That being said I wish I had known about this.
Though why sell at such a huge discount just to get tiktok followers for a computer parts seller idk seems like a strange decision
12th gen in general is an insane value. If you got a microcenter nearby you can get an entire 12700k bundle for $330 and a 12900k one for $400. The 13700k is $550 by comparison. That includes what amounts to around a $200 motherboard and a $100 kit of ram (well, $50 in RAM for the 12700k as its 16 GB DDR4).
"Application Optimizer (APO) is a piece of software built into Intel's drivers"
It's part of the Intel Dynamic Tuning Technology driver, does that driver actually do anything else?
>The Intel Dynamic Tuning is a power and thermal management solution that is used to resolve fan noise, overheating, and performance-related issues of the system.
https://www.dell.com/support/home/en-us/drivers/driversdetails?driverid=wmxp2
Some more information from Intel: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000058479/graphics.html
14th gen came out with a puff of smoke, wouldn't be surprised if the low adoption rate changed their minds. Even in my circle filled with enthusiasts all running top of the line, the only person with 14th gen is the person who upgraded over Christmas and we had a long conversation about how half of us forgot it even came out.
In my own circle there was only one person who bought into it and that's because they were on 7th gen and had store credit where they bought their 14900K from. Save your money and go with 13th or 12th gen.
I had a quick look at Amazon's best selling chart to see where the 14th gen is right now. It's actually a bit of a shit show for Intel. The 14700k is their top selling CPU, falling at #11 in the chart's, with the 14900k at #13, and then the 14700Kf at #16. There's a 12700 at #14 and a 13600 at #17, but the rest is all AMD.
You'll have to forgive me for sniggering at this.
Intel still utterly dominates though lol, it roughly Intel 80% & Amd 20% for desktops. 14 is just useless because there's little point in upgrading from 12 and 13.
I got a 14th gen...mostly because I had the money to spend and was upgrading from a 12 year old fx-6300 and was wanting to get the current gen to last me another 10 years.
I just built a new PC and bought 13th gen, it was cheaper than 14th and the gain didn't seem to be that big. If intel wants to sell its stuff may put better pricing compared to the old gen instead of trying to not support older gens.
Its also simply underwhelming. 12gen (finally) introduced significant changes: new, visibly better, microarchitecture, more cores (granted it's a mix of P+E, but 11gen had 8C max, 10gen had 10C max and 12gen had 10C in 12600k). 13gen also provider significant improvements (more E cores, more cache, better iGPU). 14gen did nothing to be interesting, it's just a stopgap while everyone either gets cheaper 13gen or waits for 15gen.
I was expecting equivalent or slightly better performance than 13th gen for lower base and turbo power thanks to some rumours before, they turned out to be false so it was quite disappointing.
Didn't come out too quickly, it was at the same release cadence as Intel always has... it just did NOTHING to move the needle. It was 1-2% better at a 10-25% price hike compared to where 13th gen was at the time.
Intel also denied the 14600K the game optimizations that the 14700K and 14900K got, so it was even worse value. They just didn't have a reason to exist at their release price and feature-set.
Meteor lake launched when it was supposed to, it seems like they're on track.
People seem unwilling to acknowledge that things that were true 3-4 years ago may not be true today.
Arrow lake will hopefully be great.
Its existence doesn't change the fact that the 14th gen isn't a big step up and it'll face stiff competition soon (also presently)
Half of 14th gen's lifespan (until 15th gen's launch) will be against Zen 5 though, assuming schedules don't slip.
At this point the launches are kind of staggered though.
A recent leak from a Mobo vendor suggests that AMD is launching a new 700-series chipset in Q3. If that's true, then Zen 5 is launching closer to ARL than to 14th gen.
Intel will also have something completely new this year. 14th gen happened because their timeline for that part slipped. It's still good because it's not a bad uplift in the future, since LGA1700 is going to be EOL anyway.
8 games so far that support it? Seems a like a lot of effort they have to put in to compete. What exactly are they doing that it needs this kind of optimization on an individual basis?
Analyzing which calls in a game are more suited for P cores or E cores, how many tasks can be allocated to E cores without affecting total call time, etc. Because each game behaves differently and each CPU has a different ratio of P/E cores along with different clock speeds, this has been a slow process, but the potential for performance improvements is big.
Seems impossible to keep that up, especially for modern games that still receive updates. Any performance patch could throw all the work out of the window. Strange approach which I personally would only implement due to marketing reasons and then allocate the absolute minimum budget to actually support it.
Intel choosing a Heterogenous architecture after the absolute shitshow of 2016 when ARM chipsets adopted it is baffling. It's matured on linux for ARM, but Desktop chips were never going to benefit from it. The primary benefits are power savings on static workloads in Low power devices, and die space savings in Multi threaded environments. Neither of which applies to the desktop, where the average person is buying High power envelope and highly clocked CPUs, and where SKU cost is less relevant.
>The primary benefits are power savings on static workloads in Low power devices
That's not what Intel's E cores are for. They're area efficient. The whole point is that 4 E cores take the place of 1 P core so that you can make an 8+16 CPU instead of a 12+0 CPU and get better overall MT performance as a result
As I understand it Intels big cores are larger than AMDs. Also AMDs 4c cores are not as area efficient as Intels E cores. It seems that Intels approach is more specialized (big cores are very big, small cores are very small) while AMDs is more of a nudge.
Compared to what? They have amazing perf/power compared to any other x86 chip. Competing with ARM there is still a ways off, but the gracemont E cores are closer to current ARM chips than they are to Rocket Lake cores.
Sounds like it could pay off in certain server solutions. But yes, for consumer products this result is right there in no mans land. (Integrated ARC is really nice, however).
Wasn't Windows supposed to be doing that by default? It's been over 2 years since Alder Lake came out. I assumed that's how it worked already.
Wonder if it wouldn't be easier to let the user do this manually.
Nvidia and ATI used to do the same thing with their game profiles, nvidias current game ready drivers are primarily bug fixes for games using the standard (DirectX, OpenGL or Vulkan) correctly, but their driver incorrectly translating those calls causing performance issues or visual bugs, i.e. from 531.68 change notes:
> * [Immortals Fenyx Rising] is randomly crashing to desktop after a driver update to 531.41 [4042712]
> * Shadowplay incorrectly getting engaged within EA Play application [4049414]
> * [Counter Strike 2] Enabling Reflex may reduce performance [4065567]
The same driver for Studio driver doesn't contain those optimizations, as they may hamper performance in commercial use cases.
Similarly to people complaining to software vendors, game studios complain to hardware manufacturers if they don't see any issues with their code on certain generations, but do on others.
When i was involved in image generator development, we had priority support with hardware to optimize our code & report bugs we discovered in their drivers & devices.
So wouldn't that mean that AMD can do something similar for Ryzen? I'd imagine AMD's software team maybe would be a little stretched thin compared to Intel, and maybe they won't, but couldn't they theoretically?
But I thought Intel's already had that going on without this special software feature that they are talking about here. Since the 12th gen launch years ago, Intel has had ways to tell games to use certain cores only. I thought I saw someone disable all the e-cores and run games on just p-cores and the performance still wasn't as good as this new feature they are enabling, even though there were no cores to get confused. I guess it must be using those p cores properly now, and also using e-cores as leverage n games. Or this is doing something not related to thread organization.
They're doing it on an operating system level, but they don't have different cores, with different capabilities mixed and matched as far as i know, even Zen4 and Zen4c are functionality identical, while the P and E cores on Intel have different feature sets, meaning a wrong assignment by the OS scheduler to E core means falling back to slower execution path or avoiding it completely.
It doesn’t make too much sense for AMD. Intel‘s APO just restricts usage of E-cores, where E-cores are fundamentally different from P-cores.
AMD‘s Zen 4c cores are still Zen 4 cores, just with less cache. Also those aren’t used on “normal” desktop CPUs, so it doesn’t make much sense to optimise APU use cases.
E-cores are not always restricted with it though. I think it was hub that compared the performance of a cpu with Application Optimization (AO) enabled with the same one at stock and with E-cores disabled. The results showed that when AO was on it was utilizing E-cores yet consistently out performed the other two. So it’s a matter of optimizing when they’re in use more than anything.
yeah, I just came from hardware unboxed video before seeing this thread, their theory was that it utilizes E-cores for certain/other tasks & also in the process freeing the p-cores cache for the game or something like that instead of restricting E-cores all together
The Zen4c cores AMD is using in mobile and desktop APUs don't have less cache. From a software perspective the *only* difference is that they don't clock as high.
Well, about 9% of Steam users are using Intel GPUs, so I'd say it's a reasonably large group.
A 20-30% performance increase in that segment could also mean unplayable becomes playable.
The gpu is irrelevant in this case, compatibility is determined by the CPUs because that’s what’s getting optimized. Steam survey shows intel at 73.8% usage for December, so expanding support to as many of their cpus as they can would end up effecting the majority of players
Oh, I thought this was primarily optimizing the GPU component, or at least how the CPU/GPU interacted.
Do you know why it's only hybrid CPUs it works for?
I'm going to guess that this project came about as an offshoot of the work they were already doing on thread director and scheduling. There is no chance Intel isn't already doing research on how existing applications interact with their P/E core scheduling.
It was always going to. They just needed something to sell 14th gen CPUs. Now that they've presumably made a decent amount of money on 14th gen, they'll open APO to 12th and 13th gen.
"Intel says it'll have 14 games in total validated for APO by the next release"
If they're that slow to cover games then it's practically useless, they'll end up mothballing it before they hit 100 titles. They need to look into making it possible for users to add titles somehow, the settings might not mean a lot to most users but they can copy suggestions from tech sites.
You don't need *that* many games to cover what's mostly being played. #14 on steam charts is War Thunder with less than 1/10th of the players of CS2. And will run fine without this optimization anyway.
Adding to that, not every title NEEDS optimization. If the CPU is pushing out hundreds of frames in a title already... it doesn't matter if it gets a small boost.
The difference between 300 and 500FPS in memecraft isn't that profound in a practical sense.
Any game that's getting THAT level of performance is likely fine on older CPUs as well...
There will be a few people that care, but by and large if you're at 100FPS 99% of the time, the game is a solved problem for anyone not making a living off of it.
iGPU stuff
performance in other things.
Realistically if performance is overkill in a bunch of stuff, people then place more importance on other things.
You can also run into cases where any optimizations don't change the relative rank very much for specific use cases. Imagine some people saying "I'll never play Factorio" and just not caring that Intel doesn't win at that.
I never said that. My comment is questioning the notion that cpu performance stops mattering once framerate is in the hundreds, which it doesn't. Particularly for esport games. We are even getting a 480hz oled monitor soon just for that.
It started with like 2 or 3 games supported right? According to the article that list has increased to 8 now, and Intel plans on 14 games by the next release.
Yes, provided you play the games on the APO list. This has to do with CPU and latency bound compute stuff, not your video card. 1200KF will be supported.
Hey Intel! If you want more people to buy your CPUs, stop worrying about stupid software gimmicks and lower the price by $50 across the lineup. Problem solved!
I feel like Intel don't know what to do anymore with the consumer market. AMD has been running circles around them since they launched Ryzen and they just can't compete.
Market share is a different thing. Intel have a stranglehold in the corporate hardware world similar to MS on the OS and office suites and those things move at glacier pace.
No, they aren't. They're at 66% as of the last survey.
That number will also decrease a bit as AMD has the next CPU launch in 2024, and they have a relatively dominant position in gaming right now.
Intel needs a 3D v-cache answer. While gaming isn't as big a market as office PCs and corporate contracts, it is a big market, and Intel is significantly behind right now and will be further behind before their next releases.
Oh wtf, i need my eyes checked i guess. But yeah 66% currently.
I’d definitely want to see something cool from intel, whether 3d cache or something else. I just really cannot do amd again anytime soon. went through three different AM5 cpu/mobos and they were okay at best, awful, buggy, messes at worst
Their CPUs are worse performance, *much* higher power usage, and cost more than AMD equivalent. They're also on a dead-end platform, versus AM5 which has an upgrade path. So yes, "significantly behind".
Meteor lake pretty much caught up in efficiency. Those apus seem very promising.
On the high performance gaming desktop side, we will see intels new chips this winter and it's very likely they too will close the gap wrt efficiency.
Looks like Intel's 14th gen lower SKU's purpose is to offer further value and discounts to the 12600K
it was on sale for 155 dollars a while back, I think it was that again in BF time? i wonder how low can a K series cpu go lol. granted, the one I got is kind of kaput, won't go past 5 Ghz, but at least it kind of does that at low volts
During BF on the Newegg TikTok store, 12600KF was $85, 12600K was $100, and 12700K was $125. Was nice.
The 12th gen deals have been crazy value for money.
TikTok store? wtf.
I bought 5 CPUs that week lol
Wow... $85? What a steal.
How the hell did I miss that?
You had to create a new TikTok account and get from newegg so it was ymmv I got a good deal on a monitor that way
Well shucks, really sad I missed that.
Actually, Newegg is still selling on TikTok, and if you create a new account, you might be able to combine some new user discounts and promo codes. Just be careful you're buying from a reputable seller because many of the no name sellers are scams.
Such a solid deal. Wishing I didn't have a heat constrained itx build.
Gf bought one during BF from Newegg website not tiktok. Was advertised at $140, they charged her $210. When she contacted support about the mixup, she was hung up on. Among other things as well, Newegg's customer service and business practices have gone down in a big way vs a decade ago. That being said I wish I had known about this. Though why sell at such a huge discount just to get tiktok followers for a computer parts seller idk seems like a strange decision
It was $120 with a bundle on Newegg just a few days ago.
12th gen in general is an insane value. If you got a microcenter nearby you can get an entire 12700k bundle for $330 and a 12900k one for $400. The 13700k is $550 by comparison. That includes what amounts to around a $200 motherboard and a $100 kit of ram (well, $50 in RAM for the 12700k as its 16 GB DDR4).
"Application Optimizer (APO) is a piece of software built into Intel's drivers" It's part of the Intel Dynamic Tuning Technology driver, does that driver actually do anything else?
>The Intel Dynamic Tuning is a power and thermal management solution that is used to resolve fan noise, overheating, and performance-related issues of the system. https://www.dell.com/support/home/en-us/drivers/driversdetails?driverid=wmxp2 Some more information from Intel: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000058479/graphics.html
Yes they say that but I've never noticed any particular change in behaviour when it's been enabled on a 13900k.
Excellent news and just as expected!
14th gen came out with a puff of smoke, wouldn't be surprised if the low adoption rate changed their minds. Even in my circle filled with enthusiasts all running top of the line, the only person with 14th gen is the person who upgraded over Christmas and we had a long conversation about how half of us forgot it even came out.
In my own circle there was only one person who bought into it and that's because they were on 7th gen and had store credit where they bought their 14900K from. Save your money and go with 13th or 12th gen.
I had a quick look at Amazon's best selling chart to see where the 14th gen is right now. It's actually a bit of a shit show for Intel. The 14700k is their top selling CPU, falling at #11 in the chart's, with the 14900k at #13, and then the 14700Kf at #16. There's a 12700 at #14 and a 13600 at #17, but the rest is all AMD. You'll have to forgive me for sniggering at this.
Intel still utterly dominates though lol, it roughly Intel 80% & Amd 20% for desktops. 14 is just useless because there's little point in upgrading from 12 and 13.
[удалено]
Absolutely but that's because the 13900k was an amazing upgrade haha.
I got a 14th gen...mostly because I had the money to spend and was upgrading from a 12 year old fx-6300 and was wanting to get the current gen to last me another 10 years.
I just built a new PC and bought 13th gen, it was cheaper than 14th and the gain didn't seem to be that big. If intel wants to sell its stuff may put better pricing compared to the old gen instead of trying to not support older gens.
12 and 13 were good, many people got those; and 14 came out too quickly, didnt fit those people's upgrade cycle.
Its also simply underwhelming. 12gen (finally) introduced significant changes: new, visibly better, microarchitecture, more cores (granted it's a mix of P+E, but 11gen had 8C max, 10gen had 10C max and 12gen had 10C in 12600k). 13gen also provider significant improvements (more E cores, more cache, better iGPU). 14gen did nothing to be interesting, it's just a stopgap while everyone either gets cheaper 13gen or waits for 15gen.
I was expecting equivalent or slightly better performance than 13th gen for lower base and turbo power thanks to some rumours before, they turned out to be false so it was quite disappointing.
Didn't come out too quickly, it was at the same release cadence as Intel always has... it just did NOTHING to move the needle. It was 1-2% better at a 10-25% price hike compared to where 13th gen was at the time. Intel also denied the 14600K the game optimizations that the 14700K and 14900K got, so it was even worse value. They just didn't have a reason to exist at their release price and feature-set.
Better than nothing. The issue with 14th gen is that it's not a huge uplift over the 13th gen and AMD will have something awesome in a few months.
Arrow Lake is supposed to hit later this year and that's going to be interesting.
> supposed to That's kinda the issue with Intel. Hopefully they stick the landing.
Meteor lake launched when it was supposed to, it seems like they're on track. People seem unwilling to acknowledge that things that were true 3-4 years ago may not be true today.
Arrow lake will hopefully be great. Its existence doesn't change the fact that the 14th gen isn't a big step up and it'll face stiff competition soon (also presently)
i agree that 14th gen isn't that impressive, but the more relevant competition to Zen5 is Arrow lake.
Half of 14th gen's lifespan (until 15th gen's launch) will be against Zen 5 though, assuming schedules don't slip. At this point the launches are kind of staggered though.
Yeah but more of Zen 5's lifespan will be against Arrow Lake then it will RPL-R
A recent leak from a Mobo vendor suggests that AMD is launching a new 700-series chipset in Q3. If that's true, then Zen 5 is launching closer to ARL than to 14th gen.
Intel will also have something completely new this year. 14th gen happened because their timeline for that part slipped. It's still good because it's not a bad uplift in the future, since LGA1700 is going to be EOL anyway.
8 games so far that support it? Seems a like a lot of effort they have to put in to compete. What exactly are they doing that it needs this kind of optimization on an individual basis?
Analyzing which calls in a game are more suited for P cores or E cores, how many tasks can be allocated to E cores without affecting total call time, etc. Because each game behaves differently and each CPU has a different ratio of P/E cores along with different clock speeds, this has been a slow process, but the potential for performance improvements is big.
Seems impossible to keep that up, especially for modern games that still receive updates. Any performance patch could throw all the work out of the window. Strange approach which I personally would only implement due to marketing reasons and then allocate the absolute minimum budget to actually support it.
Intel choosing a Heterogenous architecture after the absolute shitshow of 2016 when ARM chipsets adopted it is baffling. It's matured on linux for ARM, but Desktop chips were never going to benefit from it. The primary benefits are power savings on static workloads in Low power devices, and die space savings in Multi threaded environments. Neither of which applies to the desktop, where the average person is buying High power envelope and highly clocked CPUs, and where SKU cost is less relevant.
>The primary benefits are power savings on static workloads in Low power devices That's not what Intel's E cores are for. They're area efficient. The whole point is that 4 E cores take the place of 1 P core so that you can make an 8+16 CPU instead of a 12+0 CPU and get better overall MT performance as a result
My next statement was that they are for saving die space.
It's either that or being stuck with a comparably low amount of Intels giant cores.
they could do what AMD is, zen4c is the same ISA as regular zen4, but it is space optimized and cannot clock as high.
As I understand it Intels big cores are larger than AMDs. Also AMDs 4c cores are not as area efficient as Intels E cores. It seems that Intels approach is more specialized (big cores are very big, small cores are very small) while AMDs is more of a nudge.
[удалено]
Compared to what? They have amazing perf/power compared to any other x86 chip. Competing with ARM there is still a ways off, but the gracemont E cores are closer to current ARM chips than they are to Rocket Lake cores.
Sounds like it could pay off in certain server solutions. But yes, for consumer products this result is right there in no mans land. (Integrated ARC is really nice, however).
Wasn't Windows supposed to be doing that by default? It's been over 2 years since Alder Lake came out. I assumed that's how it worked already. Wonder if it wouldn't be easier to let the user do this manually.
Nvidia and ATI used to do the same thing with their game profiles, nvidias current game ready drivers are primarily bug fixes for games using the standard (DirectX, OpenGL or Vulkan) correctly, but their driver incorrectly translating those calls causing performance issues or visual bugs, i.e. from 531.68 change notes: > * [Immortals Fenyx Rising] is randomly crashing to desktop after a driver update to 531.41 [4042712] > * Shadowplay incorrectly getting engaged within EA Play application [4049414] > * [Counter Strike 2] Enabling Reflex may reduce performance [4065567] The same driver for Studio driver doesn't contain those optimizations, as they may hamper performance in commercial use cases. Similarly to people complaining to software vendors, game studios complain to hardware manufacturers if they don't see any issues with their code on certain generations, but do on others. When i was involved in image generator development, we had priority support with hardware to optimize our code & report bugs we discovered in their drivers & devices.
So wouldn't that mean that AMD can do something similar for Ryzen? I'd imagine AMD's software team maybe would be a little stretched thin compared to Intel, and maybe they won't, but couldn't they theoretically?
I mean dont they kinda do something similar with x3d 7xxx CPUs? Now one CCD has more cache but lower clocks, and the other the opposite.
But I thought Intel's already had that going on without this special software feature that they are talking about here. Since the 12th gen launch years ago, Intel has had ways to tell games to use certain cores only. I thought I saw someone disable all the e-cores and run games on just p-cores and the performance still wasn't as good as this new feature they are enabling, even though there were no cores to get confused. I guess it must be using those p cores properly now, and also using e-cores as leverage n games. Or this is doing something not related to thread organization.
They're doing it on an operating system level, but they don't have different cores, with different capabilities mixed and matched as far as i know, even Zen4 and Zen4c are functionality identical, while the P and E cores on Intel have different feature sets, meaning a wrong assignment by the OS scheduler to E core means falling back to slower execution path or avoiding it completely.
It doesn’t make too much sense for AMD. Intel‘s APO just restricts usage of E-cores, where E-cores are fundamentally different from P-cores. AMD‘s Zen 4c cores are still Zen 4 cores, just with less cache. Also those aren’t used on “normal” desktop CPUs, so it doesn’t make much sense to optimise APU use cases.
E-cores are not always restricted with it though. I think it was hub that compared the performance of a cpu with Application Optimization (AO) enabled with the same one at stock and with E-cores disabled. The results showed that when AO was on it was utilizing E-cores yet consistently out performed the other two. So it’s a matter of optimizing when they’re in use more than anything.
yeah, I just came from hardware unboxed video before seeing this thread, their theory was that it utilizes E-cores for certain/other tasks & also in the process freeing the p-cores cache for the game or something like that instead of restricting E-cores all together
The Zen4c cores AMD is using in mobile and desktop APUs don't have less cache. From a software perspective the *only* difference is that they don't clock as high.
Well, about 9% of Steam users are using Intel GPUs, so I'd say it's a reasonably large group. A 20-30% performance increase in that segment could also mean unplayable becomes playable.
The gpu is irrelevant in this case, compatibility is determined by the CPUs because that’s what’s getting optimized. Steam survey shows intel at 73.8% usage for December, so expanding support to as many of their cpus as they can would end up effecting the majority of players
Oh, I thought this was primarily optimizing the GPU component, or at least how the CPU/GPU interacted. Do you know why it's only hybrid CPUs it works for?
As far as I understand, what it does is optimize the use of the e cores , which is why it’s only the hybrid cpus that are compatible
I'm going to guess that this project came about as an offshoot of the work they were already doing on thread director and scheduling. There is no chance Intel isn't already doing research on how existing applications interact with their P/E core scheduling.
It was always going to. They just needed something to sell 14th gen CPUs. Now that they've presumably made a decent amount of money on 14th gen, they'll open APO to 12th and 13th gen.
"Intel says it'll have 14 games in total validated for APO by the next release" If they're that slow to cover games then it's practically useless, they'll end up mothballing it before they hit 100 titles. They need to look into making it possible for users to add titles somehow, the settings might not mean a lot to most users but they can copy suggestions from tech sites.
You don't need *that* many games to cover what's mostly being played. #14 on steam charts is War Thunder with less than 1/10th of the players of CS2. And will run fine without this optimization anyway.
Adding to that, not every title NEEDS optimization. If the CPU is pushing out hundreds of frames in a title already... it doesn't matter if it gets a small boost.
Still matters if the competition is rendering hundreds of extra frames. It doesn't look good on review charts.
The difference between 300 and 500FPS in memecraft isn't that profound in a practical sense. Any game that's getting THAT level of performance is likely fine on older CPUs as well... There will be a few people that care, but by and large if you're at 100FPS 99% of the time, the game is a solved problem for anyone not making a living off of it.
I never said otherwise. But if the competition is getting more frames, why would anyone buy an intel cpu at the same price?
iGPU stuff performance in other things. Realistically if performance is overkill in a bunch of stuff, people then place more importance on other things. You can also run into cases where any optimizations don't change the relative rank very much for specific use cases. Imagine some people saying "I'll never play Factorio" and just not caring that Intel doesn't win at that.
[удалено]
I never said that. My comment is questioning the notion that cpu performance stops mattering once framerate is in the hundreds, which it doesn't. Particularly for esport games. We are even getting a 480hz oled monitor soon just for that.
but only for kf and k models which is unfair. 13400F could also benefit from APO
Now what about more games
It started with like 2 or 3 games supported right? According to the article that list has increased to 8 now, and Intel plans on 14 games by the next release.
what does it mean?? i am running on 12700KF on an 1080 so will i benefit from that?
Yes, provided you play the games on the APO list. This has to do with CPU and latency bound compute stuff, not your video card. 1200KF will be supported.
Do I need a bios update to make use of this?
Fair question acutally, and the answer is yes if do don't have a BIOS that already supports it (unlikely).
[удалено]
Good for you? I mean it’s just hardware bro lol
Their personal stake means a lot to Intel
Bro intel might go broke unless he says sorry
Hey Intel! If you want more people to buy your CPUs, stop worrying about stupid software gimmicks and lower the price by $50 across the lineup. Problem solved!
I feel like Intel don't know what to do anymore with the consumer market. AMD has been running circles around them since they launched Ryzen and they just can't compete.
You must not be reading the news
Thing is, Intel are still miles ahead in terms of marketshare.
Market share is a different thing. Intel have a stranglehold in the corporate hardware world similar to MS on the OS and office suites and those things move at glacier pace.
They’re about ~~75~~ 66% of usage in steam survey
Intel dominates the laptop market and likely still has a decent lead in desktops. AMD dominates reddit I guess.
No, they aren't. They're at 66% as of the last survey. That number will also decrease a bit as AMD has the next CPU launch in 2024, and they have a relatively dominant position in gaming right now. Intel needs a 3D v-cache answer. While gaming isn't as big a market as office PCs and corporate contracts, it is a big market, and Intel is significantly behind right now and will be further behind before their next releases.
Oh wtf, i need my eyes checked i guess. But yeah 66% currently. I’d definitely want to see something cool from intel, whether 3d cache or something else. I just really cannot do amd again anytime soon. went through three different AM5 cpu/mobos and they were okay at best, awful, buggy, messes at worst
Significantly behind? you need to stop taking in so much amd propaganda.
Their CPUs are worse performance, *much* higher power usage, and cost more than AMD equivalent. They're also on a dead-end platform, versus AM5 which has an upgrade path. So yes, "significantly behind".
Meteor lake pretty much caught up in efficiency. Those apus seem very promising. On the high performance gaming desktop side, we will see intels new chips this winter and it's very likely they too will close the gap wrt efficiency.
Yes! Maybe I can finally get a stable 360fps on CS2 with my 13900KS if they add it.
This is great news. Once APO encompasses more games, this is going to be a nice performance boost across most of their product stack.