Purported Alder Lake-S slides indicate doubled nT performance

Quote:

---

And single thread performance will be improved by up to 20 per cent.

---

Read more.

Another new socket? Haha! Want a new Intel CPU? You'll need new EVERYTHING. Nearly as bad as Apple for ripping off their customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae85

Another new socket? Haha! Want a new Intel CPU? You'll need new EVERYTHING. Nearly as bad as Apple for ripping off their customers.

---

Long running joke now.... though I do believe that AM5 will be around then as well - but I'm pretty sure that AM5 will be roughly similar to AM4 meaning coolers will be able to work with few modifications

Of course it's going to be "up to double" nT performance, they're doubling the core count from 8 to 16. They can then satisfy that marketing BullCrap by picking a benchmark which both sets of big.LITTLE cores can do at a similar speed.

Stop giving Intel a free pass for this BS marketing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3dcandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae85

Another new socket? Haha! Want a new Intel CPU? You'll need new EVERYTHING. Nearly as bad as Apple for ripping off their customers.

---

Long running joke now.... though I do believe that AM5 will be around then as well - but I'm pretty sure that AM5 will be roughly similar to AM4 meaning coolers will be able to work with few modifications

---

Very appropriate running joke. Knowing AMD they'll make the first gen AM5 motherboards backward compatible with Zen3 CPUs and DDR4! Something Intel would never dream of doing!

Has there ever been a new CPU from Intel that's not claimed double digit performance increases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae85

Another new socket? Haha! Want a new Intel CPU? You'll need new EVERYTHING. Nearly as bad as Apple for ripping off their customers.

---

I'm Not defending Intel (currently running an AMD/NVIDIA setup) but how many people update their entire system annually

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will19565

I'm Not defending Intel (currently running an AMD/NVIDIA setup) but how many people update their entire system annually

---

That's not the right avenue of questioning, it's more "how many people want to upgrade but have to opt for a total system overhaul rather than a drop in upgrade".

YAWN_icious.

Another new Socket LGA 1700. So do we need a new cooling solution for that too?

I'll wait till release but this is really going to be going up against next gen zen 4 so I suspect the 'up to' gains will be pretty comparable on AMD side too, especially if it can fully make use of ddr5 and so I things will probably be fairly similar to now and hopefully we'll have a nice little price war, assuming there's any stock :)

I'm not too worried over the new socket, I'll give them a pass on this due to their new approach with the 'big little' core design, but it would be nice if they had a bit of a longer life like AMD did with AM4.

I thought with Gelsingers appointment, we would see Intel cut out the infantile marketing BS.
Apparently not.
Sad to see the tech press repeat the nonsense verbatim, as if it were a proven fact.

when socket 1700 arrives with DDR5 that's when I'll be interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmaheid

I thought with Gelsingers appointment, we would see Intel cut out the infantile marketing BS.

---

Hasn't he only been in the job for a month or two, i would imagine he's got more pressing concerns than what the marketing dept publish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

Hasn't he only been in the job for a month or two, i would imagine he's got more pressing concerns than what the marketing dept publish.

---

Not sure about priorities and concerns but one of the areas Intel keeps getting flagged is their marketing FUD. Just look at January's conference, they tried to make out that AMD was wholly insecure compared to Intel which was a practically libelious stunt they did with the way they did it. And then we have Ryan Shrout, 'nuff said.

Then we have how they do their performance metrics and benchmarking for marketing which I'm still surprised why the FTC hasn't actually flagged them again for what seems to be obvious violation of their 2009 anti-trust settlement.

I'm sure he has bigger things to deal with like the fact that Intel has a rotten core of staff, blatant issues of employee vs contractor, broken/failed roadmaps for a decent number of their high class products, gradually increasing distrust of Intels market capability (AMDs roundhouse, Apples uppercut) and supply issues. But he is also responsible for the bigger picture, he can't just stick his fingers in his ears and not care. I will remit that marketing will have an initially muted attention but it is still something that needs attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

I will remit that marketing will have an initially muted attention but it is still something that needs attention.

---

For sure but like i said expecting a complete turn around in a couple of months is probably expecting too much, even with Intel money i wouldn't expect to see any changes for a minimum of a year or two, marketing is always going to market things so telling them not to big things up is sort of defeating the reason for having a marketing department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

For sure but like i said expecting a complete turn around in a couple of months is probably expecting too much, even with Intel money i wouldn't expect to see any changes for a minimum of a year or two, marketing is always going to market things so telling them not to big things up is sort of defeating the reason for having a marketing department.

---

It's not about not bigging things up as that is just the nature of marketing, it's about being decent in their guff they put out. Trustful marketing of the benefits of their product, not trying to make out their opposition is garbage through things like Principled Technologies, CTS-Labs, extreme cherry picked and obfuscated information regarding laptop performance and doing whatever they can to diminish the opposition. If you remember the Tiger Lake release that GN stripped to pieces because they mentioned their own product a sum total of 3 times.

Providing benchmarks against your competitor is one thing, being a douchecanoe with your "benchmarks" is totally another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

Not sure about priorities and concerns but one of the areas Intel keeps getting flagged is their marketing FUD. Just look at January's conference, they tried to make out that AMD was wholly insecure compared to Intel which was a practically libelious stunt they did with the way they did it. And then we have Ryan Shrout, 'nuff said.

Then we have how they do their performance metrics and benchmarking for marketing which I'm still surprised why the FTC hasn't actually flagged them again for what seems to be obvious violation of their 2009 anti-trust settlement.

I'm sure he has bigger things to deal with like the fact that Intel has a rotten core of staff, blatant issues of employee vs contractor, broken/failed roadmaps for a decent number of their high class products, gradually increasing distrust of Intels market capability (AMDs roundhouse, Apples uppercut) and supply issues. But he is also responsible for the bigger picture, he can't just stick his fingers in his ears and not care. I will remit that marketing will have an initially muted attention but it is still something that needs attention.

---

My favourite bit of Intel marketing was a chart stating that 'Intel outperforms the competition', the chart consisted of two bars representing the Intel 11900K v Ryzen 5800x and the bars had values of 11900 and 5800 respectively LMAO!

I really hope it was a joke but the way Intel market their products it would not surprise me at all!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

It's not about not bigging things up as that is just the nature of marketing, it's about being decent in their guff they put out. Trustful marketing of the benefits of their product, not trying to make out their opposition is garbage through things like Principled Technologies, CTS-Labs, extreme cherry picked and obfuscated information regarding laptop performance and doing whatever they can to diminish the opposition. If you remember the Tiger Lake release that GN stripped to pieces because they mentioned their own product a sum total of 3 times.

Providing benchmarks against your competitor is one thing, being a douchecanoe with your "benchmarks" is totally another.

---

Well sure, but what your talking about is a nirvana fallacy, we'd all like honest and truthful marketing but that's simply not the case, never has been, it's why we have independent reviews.

In fact i think if a marketing department was 100% honest and truthful they could possibly open themselves up to litigation from shareholders, remember when Gerald Ratner was truthful about their jewellery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

Well sure, but what your talking about is a nirvana fallacy, we'd all like honest and truthful marketing but that's simply not the case, never has been, it's why we have independent reviews.

In fact i think if a marketing department was 100% honest and truthful they could possibly open themselves up to litigation from shareholders, remember when Gerald Ratner was truthful about their jewellery?

---

It's not a nirvana fallacy and is a dangerous cynicism to believe that it's not possible and not a silly naivety on my part. I'm not saying "they must be perfect in their own graphs", what i'm asking for is for Intel to stop being a twazzlebag in the market, especially against AMD when they were literally sued for having very similar actions in the market as they do today.

They need to start being more adult in their benchmarks, not a stupid snotty child whining in the corner of the class.

Nvidia manages this quite well (well, depends on the year, but their RTX3k series was very refreshing), AMD is a hell of a lot better than Intel in decent comparisons and is definitely a lot better with being fruitful with their figures rather than being disingenuous. "they're all as bad as each other!" I hear some people cry constantly. No, they're not, they're all bad but some are considerably worse and I'd rather eat a dog crap muesli bar than a a sloppy spaghetti crapegnese with extra sweetcorny meatballs given the choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae85

Very appropriate running joke. Knowing AMD they'll make the first gen AM5 motherboards backward compatible with Zen3 CPUs and DDR4! Something Intel would never dream of doing!

---

Considering AMD weren't even going to have Zen 3 compatibility for B450 and X470 motherboards until they u-turned due to community backlash (same with Zen 3-only SAM) I wouldn't bank on much backwards compatible charity from AMD now they're actually in a competitive position in the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamest

Considering AMD weren't even going to have Zen 3 compatibility for B450 and X470 motherboards until they u-turned due to community backlash (same with Zen 3-only SAM) I wouldn't bank on much backwards compatible charity from AMD now they're actually in a competitive position in the market.

---

No chance AM5 will be backwards compatible.... different socket completely and I'm fine with that! Whilst I remember all that happened over Zen3 and B450 and X470 it has still helped AMD a lot, Intel ruin that by changing the socket completely - again!

Didn't they do a thing back in the day with RAM thought, when DDR4 came out wasn't there some motherboards (by extension of the memory controller on the CPU) that supported both DDR3 and 4?

Although having said that I'm not sure how it would work if the pin count is different on DDR5, is it different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

Didn't they do a thing back in the day with RAM thought, when DDR4 came out wasn't there some motherboards (by extension of the memory controller on the CPU) that supported both DDR3 and 4?

---

Indeed they did, 2 slots for DDR3 and 2 slots for DDR4. Can't remember who made the board(s) but yes it did happen

Probably ASROCK, they usually do something a bit crazy like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonj1611

Indeed they did, 2 slots for DDR3 and 2 slots for DDR4. Can't remember who made the board(s) but yes it did happen

---

A lot of aftermarket X99 chipsets seem to be possible as both!

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news...tel,40252.html

I'm actually awaiting a dual socket x99 version of this (DDR4 only) to run a home lab and storage gluster for 2x e5-2660v3 processors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonj1611

Indeed they did, 2 slots for DDR3 and 2 slots for DDR4. Can't remember who made the board(s) but yes it did happen

---

I have such a board ;) Jetway made one but it's actually DDR2 and DDR3 on that with an AM3 socket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Probably ASROCK, they usually do something a bit crazy like that.

---

Indeed : https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/B150M%20Combo-G/ :)

Does anyone else get disgusted but curious about using a DDR3 and DDR4 board? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

Does anyone else get disgusted but curious about using a DDR3 and DDR4 board? :P

---

Nope :p I had an ASROCK mobo that supported two types of CPU socket - 939 and AM2 I think :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Nope :p I had an ASROCK mobo that supported two types of CPU socket - 939 and AM2 I think :whip:

---

That's brilliantly nasty, ha ha!

Weren't 939 and AM2 pretty much the same socket almost down to the pin positioning (obviously if you could "dual socket").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

That's brilliantly nasty, ha ha!

Weren't 939 and AM2 pretty much the same socket almost down to the pin positioning (obviously if you could "dual socket").

---

Nope, the AM2 installation used a fresh socket, installed vertically, bit like a daughter board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Nope, the AM2 installation used a fresh socket, installed vertically, bit like a daughter board.

---

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Pentium 2 CPU "Card"?

AM2 was a PGA clamp socket as well as 939 (I had both an Athlon and Athlon X2).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Pentium 2 CPU "Card"?

AM2 was a PGA clamp socket as well as 939 (I had both an Athlon and Athlon X2).

---

No he's right, it was 939 and AM2

Ta-da!!! - https://www.asrock.com/mb/ULi/939Dual-SATA2/index.asp

And here is said CPU board on our very own Hexus : https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/5000...xpansion-card/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonj1611

No he's right, it was 939 and AM2

Ta-da!!! - https://www.asrock.com/mb/ULi/939Dual-SATA2/index.asp

And here is said CPU board on our very own Hexus : https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/5000...xpansion-card/

---

Oh my sweet baby jesus, that's crazy!

Edit: Intel PCIe Computer daughterboard system eat your heart out!

again, if socket 1700 gets released supporting DDR5 from the start then ill buy, otherwise nope.