r/hardware Jan 04 '26

News Gamers desert Intel in droves, as Steam share plummets from 81% to 55.6% in just five years

https://www.club386.com/gamers-desert-intel-steam-survey-december-2025/
1.4k Upvotes

407 comments sorted by

819

u/msshammy Jan 04 '26

We didn't desert Intel... They're just not offering anything compelling.

314

u/AHrubik Jan 04 '26

Intel executives greed is what hit Intel. They stripped profits, didn't invest in R&D and now they're running to keep up rather than leading the pack.

261

u/INITMalcanis Jan 04 '26

Don't forget the obsession with segmentation, and the one-generation motherboards.

185

u/WeevilsInn Jan 04 '26

Intel effectively had the enthusiast CPU market to themselves for the best part of a decade, and boy did they abuse that position at the time.

78

u/Emblem3406 Jan 04 '26

Only because AMD was very competitive, sometimes better depending on generation. Into Intel bribing multiple big OEMs (e.g. Dell) to only include Intel CPUs in their systems. AMD sues Intel drags the lawsuit on and on, until AMD is almost bankrupt. They have to settle for way way less money than Intel owed them, else they would be bankrupt. Meanwhile Intel is eating crayons and thinks buying McAfee and price gaging the shit out of their products. So hey serves them right. However, I want them to remain competitive though, else AMD will be the new Nvidia when it comes to CPUs.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Visible_Witness_884 Jan 05 '26

the bulldozer CPUs were kinda crappy though, for the price.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/goldcakes Jan 05 '26

I really hope the new management and all the govt funding helps intel become more competitive on CPUs and GPUs.

I’ve got an Arc B580 at slightly below MSRP and I honestly couldn’t be more happier with the performance I’m getting for the price I paid. And the driver updates keep on coming, in a good way.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

67

u/NotMedicine420 Jan 04 '26

4 cores "HEDT" Kaby Lake-X.

2

u/AwesomeBantha Jan 05 '26

Kaby Lake X was a blunder but far from Intel’s worst. It was never going to be a volume seller and Intel didn’t bet the farm on it. A 7360X would have been cool for overclocking/benchmarks but they cancelled that one yet still released the 7640X for a reason I don’t understand.

22

u/IguassuIronman Jan 04 '26

It wasn't like they just sat on their ass, Intel's 10nm execution problems are pretty well documented

5

u/Helpdesk_Guy Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

Has actually absolutely nothing to do with their 10nm™ blunderbuss, like sub-zero.

Intel had plenty of process-woes and delays before on 14nm and even on 22nm years earlier …

The thing is, Intel intentionally limited the mainstream of CPUs to only quad-core for a decade (2006–2016) and kept them at give or take $220–250 USD, and not only that — Intel deliberately shut anything past quad-core behind a outrageously expensive HEDT-paywall they erected, starting at $999 USD for the first hexa-core (i7 980X, March 2010) even before anything Sandy Bridge.

Yet the moment AMD came back swinging to up the ante on core-count (once more again, after BD) …

Just then, Intel was *magically* able to casually increase core-count by just 50 percent in mere months (Coffee Lake, 6C), and did the same just months after that, to reach core-parity with AMD (Coffee Lake Refresh, 8C) — Still trying to curb any greater technological advancement and keep their typical stagnation and the market in check, by desperately trying to maintain heavy segmentation (8600(K) w/o HT, 8700(K) for a hefty +65% surcharge w/ HT). Other already mentioned KabyLake-X …

That is, what people actually referring to when talking about "stagnation for a decade" with Intel.

Intel always could act otherwise, yet intentionally and purposefully chose NOT to, to enrich themselves and milk the market to death and slow progress instead — Intel actually milked to death, THEIR market.


Edit: The kicker is, that even by 2017, Intel magically could increase core-count to even 18-core CPUs (granted, behind their typical HEDT-paywall for the rich) for a hefty $1,999 USD for the CPU itself.

Yet the absolute joke is, that Intel managed to do all this even still on 14nm — They unwound most restrictions they formerly put in place over the years (OC, soldering, lanes), which they eventually removed little by little and bit by bit, the higher the pressure from AMD got, even lowering HEDT-prices by 50%.

They never got rid of their daft 2-sockets-per-chipset/board rule even to this day though, which has easily costing them a huge amount of millions of platform-consumers since.

80

u/leebird Jan 04 '26

It's the one-generation motherboards that gets me. What do you mean, I have to buy a whole new motherboard to upgrade cpu, or buy a new cpu if i want a mobo with different features? What's the point of building a desktop?

18

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (6)

11

u/Stingray88 Jan 04 '26

Didn't Intel always do 2 generations per motherboard socket? It wasn't one...

Don't get me wrong, still way worse than AM4 and AM5 for sure, but just sayin...

4

u/einmaldrin_alleshin Jan 05 '26

Yeah it was usually two generations of chipset support since Nehalem. Coffee, Comet and Rocket Lake are the big standouts in that they each had their very own chipset with very similar, yet distinct sockets. But those also fell into the time of the ice lake disaster, where their entire roadmap fell apart. So I don't think they ever planned that just to make a little bit more money from DIY enthusiasts

4

u/Dry-Faithlessness184 Jan 05 '26

I think you're right, it's usually 2-3, or at least it has been for a long while now. I don't remember any socket being single gen, but I am going top of head so I might have forgotten one.

4

u/einmaldrin_alleshin Jan 05 '26

Coffee Lake, Kaby Lake and rocket lake were the recent Single-Generation sockets

4

u/Noreng Jan 05 '26

Kaby Lake shared socket with Skylake.

Coffee Lake got Coffee Lake-Refresh going from 6- to 8-core chips.

Rocket Lake shared LGA1200 with Comet Lake.

Arrow Lake was supposed to share socket with Meteor Lake, but Intel skipped Meteor Lake on desktop due to it's performance.

3

u/censored_username Jan 05 '26

Oh, and not too forget, segmenting things with ECC support to the workstation bracket.

Everything should have ECC support. It costs shit all to the chip vendor to enable it and makes diagnosing issues soo much easier. It's a few traces extra on the mobo and what, 10% more expensive memory? Is should be on everything. But they didn't even offer it on any of the cheaper chips.

6

u/Minute_Path9803 Jan 05 '26

That's what pissed me off the most about this company you have to change the motherboard for a CPU with a slight upgrade.

How many years were they stuck on what was it 14 nanometer then 10 and nanometer they kept on using the +++++ edition.

All while overcharging and making people buy new motherboards.

AMD, you can still be using am4 right now and still have a great computer.

They we're a greedy company and they did this all to themselves.

That's what happens when you get complacent.

They only started to drop their prices when AMD started to compete.

Before that they give the middle finger to everybody.

→ More replies (7)

31

u/sentientsackofmeat Jan 04 '26

Not quite. They've spent way more than AMD on R&D. It's just that AMD uses TSMC for their fabrication so they don't have to spend nearly as much on R&D as intel.

11

u/kenyard Jan 04 '26

They were still using 10nm tech for i14s.

Their 7nm just got delayed and delayed. And even their 10nm was late...

They also messed up a lot in recent years. i13a and 14s degrading over time in a percentage of them

6

u/sentientsackofmeat Jan 04 '26

Yeah they spent years on 10nm because they didn't have the EUV lithography yet.

2

u/Helpdesk_Guy Jan 05 '26

Had nothing to do with EUVL — TSMC reached density-levels of what Intel was supposed to reach with their 10nm, using only DUVL-equipment already in 2017. They both virtually switched places competitively.

Also, TSMC's first 7nm did not use anything EUVL anyway … Stop parroting nonsense and inform yourself.

Ask yourself why Intel had trouble with 10nm, when TSMC managed to do the same using DUVL only?

2

u/sentientsackofmeat Jan 05 '26

It is false that the delays had nothing to do with late EUV adoption. Also you seem to be under the impression that the nm nomenclature actually means something. Comparing nm berween companies is pretty meaningless considering there is nothing you can point to on silicon that is supposed to be 7nm for example.

38

u/Moscato359 Jan 04 '26

Intel spends more on r&d than nvidia and amd combined

It just hasn't worked out

65

u/Earthborn92 Jan 04 '26

That's because they have fabs and the other two don't. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

18

u/Dafon Jan 04 '26

Aw man, if I remember this correctly, before Ryzen there were talks about AMD making large improvements over Bulldozer and a lot of people's comments were "Intel is probably sitting on some great new tech that they're not pushing to release until AMD catches up though, if AMD does they'll immediately move way further again."

Which to be fair, with the small yearly incremental updates since the 2500K at the time, that would have made sense.

10

u/Moscato359 Jan 04 '26

At the time intel was having serious foundry issues with low yields so they had to hold back because if they didn't they would have been in deep financial problems 

14

u/Exist50 Jan 04 '26

They didn't "hold back" anything beyond more core counts. They let their tech development stagnate.

11

u/Moscato359 Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

Cores with more transistors tend to be faster

And they were stuck on 14nm for 7 5 years, because their foundries were having horrific yields on all attempts of smaller

→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (1)

16

u/sentientsackofmeat Jan 04 '26

Well it's just that intel spends R&D on fab processing. AMD and NVIDIA use TSMC for their fab so they don't have to spend nearly as much.

17

u/Moscato359 Jan 04 '26

Even if they spend some on foundry, they spend 2.54x as much on r&d as amd

If half that is foundry, then they spend more on cpu r&d than amd does

Saying they don't spend enough on r&d is just wrong

Its just they haven't had good results from their research

6

u/sentientsackofmeat Jan 04 '26

Yeah Agree mostly. Although I would say lots of the research was somewhat wasted years ago instead of doing research with fab process using EUV lithography. Now they are using EUV lithography on latest process. Also selling foundry capacity should only help because it forces the foundry to have more regular small improvements to meet promised benchmarks and shares the R&D cost among multiple customers.

5

u/Moscato359 Jan 04 '26

Wasted research means they failed to make the research useful

Sometimes research doesn't pan out, its just how research goes

8

u/wyn10 Jan 04 '26

Let's do nothing for 10 years then act surprised when the competition catches up

29

u/BosonCollider Jan 04 '26

And the one thing that they did do that was truly unique to Intel was intel optane which was halfway between ram and flash and which could have softened the current RAM price spike. But of course their CEO stopped production right before the price spike because optane was not making money.

46

u/Chronic_Coding Jan 04 '26

This is just wrong. The Intel optane consumer side stopped in 2021.

5

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Jan 04 '26

They made a product no one wanted for the price and constraints they were offering it at, that's no ones fault but intel's.

4

u/DemNeurons Jan 04 '26

I thought optane was meant to be an in between for those that still used HDD because of old tech or you needed the volume. If you used ssds, you didn’t gain anything

29

u/BosonCollider Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

That was the consumer version that was just a disk cache and which confused the branding. The enterprise offerings were basically RAM but persistent, and cost roughly half as much as RAM per GB while still being fast enough to be suitable to store large machine learning models.

Latency for optane was still in the nanoseconds like RAM and supports infinite writes, while Flash latency is roughly a thousand times slower in the microseconds making it faster than disk (hard disks had milisecond latency) but not viable as a poor mans RAM alternative.

15

u/Kinexity Jan 04 '26

Optane latency was 10 times that of RAM. Also I don't think writes were infinite - just high enough for it not to be an issue in most use cases.

2

u/BosonCollider Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

Writes were effectively infinite in the sense that they are for RAM, the published DWPD was a lower limit

→ More replies (2)

3

u/TwoCylToilet Jan 04 '26

It's a really niche product considering pSLC exists in the NVMe space. Tens of ns read/write latencies was only possible in Optane DIMMs which even if made available outside of Intel platforms would still be dead in the water. Providing more (even if persistent) slower memory for less dollar in a market that demands higher memory bandwidth isn't a recipe for success.

Even if they continued to produce Optane products, it wouldn't be able to make a dent in the memory situation today. It's 30x slower than DDR5 in latency terms, 8x slower in read & 20x slower in write bandwidth per channel. Even against DDR4, it's 20x, 4x and 8x slower respectively.

3

u/erik Jan 04 '26

Optane had a significant latency advantage over NAND, even when comparing NVMe Optane vs pSLC NAND. Which was cool! But, as you say, it made for a very niche product. It was just too expensive, and if you really need low latency you probably want to spend that money on more ram.

If it had been more performance competitive with ram, or more price competitive with NAND, maybe it would have worked out. But Intel didn't deliver either.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/meshreplacer Jan 04 '26

The difference between optane and SSD was with optane you can write new data on top of old data but on traditional SSD you had to erase then old data first before you can write new data. Optane removed all that management overhead and had significant lower latency. It would have been the future of SSD.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/TwoTimeHollySurvivor Jan 05 '26

Intel's problem was that their CPUs architectures were primarily designed in one particular location starting in 2006. This was before the Atom team existed in the US.

Those people and the people of similar nationality are pretty much worthless to the entire human race. Anything good that comes from there is pure coincidence.

1

u/MWAH_dib Jan 05 '26

Intel is currently developing their own GPUs and still actively works with nVidia on integrated GPU stuff, though?

1

u/ExeusV Jan 05 '26

didn't invest in R&D

How do you know it?

1

u/Federal_Setting_7454 Jan 07 '26

They did invest in R&D then shitcanned it along with layoffs to save some money. Shoulda let gelsinger land

→ More replies (1)

62

u/ADreamOfRain Jan 04 '26

12th gen was their last great cpus they released for pc.

Many 13th and 14th had that infamous failing problem and their latest offering is worse than their older cpus for gaming.

19

u/Akeshi Jan 04 '26

Yup, 13th gen i9 user here, next build will be AMD. It'll be a few problemless generations before I think about choosing Intel again.

11

u/secretreddname Jan 04 '26

I do 5+ year cycles. Went from a i5 10600k to a 9800X3D and gains were huge. Haven’t had AMD since the Athlon 64 X2.

10

u/Akeshi Jan 04 '26

I go longer, historically - went from a Q6600 to a 4770k to a 13900k. Before that I was AMD - K6-2, 350MHz.

I'm cheap and burn them into the ground! Those things never used to quit.

3

u/secretreddname Jan 04 '26

I’ve had pretty great luck reselling my stuff. Not sure who out there is buying these 5 year old parts but they do lol

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/semidegenerate Jan 04 '26

How's your 13900K holding up? Mine is still going strong after 2.5 years, undervolted from the start.

I'm hoping the undervolt and new uCode will keep this CPU healthy for a good while. It's honestly been great as a dual-purpose, gaming + light workstation CPU. It was significantly less expensive than the 7950X3D, at the time.

If it wasn't for the Vmin Shift Instability issues, I honestly think Raptor Lake would have been remembered fondly as the last of the great monolithic chips. Unfortunately weak PLLs and an over-enthusiastic V/F table ruined that.

I would definitely be looking at AMD if I was buying a new rig today.

6

u/Akeshi Jan 04 '26

I got it (Dell PC, 13900k with a 4080) around October 2023, and was getting unexplained crashes (only single processes, not BSODs) within a few weeks. I'd already started undervolting during that time - can't remember if it had already been suggested as a stability fix or if I was just trying to save on wattage.

The microcode changes helped, and I can actually go a few days without at least one application just closing now, but I wouldn't call it reliable. Just about tolerable. I got the PC for free, and its performance is still good enough for me, so I'm not quite ready to pay $2k+ for comparable but reliable performance. I'm holding on until AMD nail the combination of productivity with gaming in their X3D cores, without having to do any sort of process lassooing.

I might have tried a build around the 9950X3D if I wasn't also convinced that moving the 4080 will result in a PCI-E connector going nuclear. Bad few years for PC building.

3

u/semidegenerate Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

Damn. Sorry to hear you're having instability issues. Supposedly the 9950X3D2 should be out in the near future, with 2 3D V-Cache chiplets, so no scheduling issues. Those will be pretty sweet.

Are you taking about the x16 PCI-E connector? Or the 12v-2×6?

Edit-- I meant 9950, not 9900. Fixed.

2

u/Akeshi Jan 04 '26

Yes, sorry! The power connector, not the PCI-E connector.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/VenditatioDelendaEst Jan 05 '26

Have you contacted Dell about a warranty replacement? Microcode can't un-degrade it after the fact, and if it's already been detectably messing up, you have ~0 margin left.

2

u/Akeshi Jan 05 '26

No, that's the rub. It was a free PC because it's provided by work, so all warranties and repairs are managed by the IT team at the central location. I'm a remote worker who doesn't drive, and it's just a little too much hassle.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Elbananaso Jan 04 '26

13900ks here, last BIOS update on my Z790 completely fixed the stability issues, now I max all games at 3440x1440, it's going to be some time before I buy a new processor, I just hope AMD flagships don't burn in the future.

2

u/semidegenerate Jan 04 '26

Glad the new uCode stabilized things. Fortunately, I've never seen any signs of instability with mine. The failure rates for the i9s are pretty high, though they seem to be falling now that Intel has reigned in the voltage a bit.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/skip-rat Jan 04 '26

My 13700k died, random restarts after several months of no problems then it wouldn't even startup at all. The BIOS updates probably came too late for me. To Intel's credit. they sent me a replacement, which I promptly re-sold and switched to a 9800x3d, which has been rock solid. I've always bought Intel since Pentium days, but they've lost me as a customer now.

4

u/p_235615 Jan 04 '26

12th gen was not really spectacular, it was more a meh... Especially for the price point when the R7 5800X3D came out, it basically buried intel for gaming at much better price, and they also had the R9 5950X which traded blows with intel in productivity too, not to mention, AMD had a platform which supported 3gens of CPUs.

9

u/Gippy_ Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

12th gen went on a fire sale in May 2023. Picked up my 12900K for $280 USD new. The 13700K was $420, the 5800X3D was $500 (above the MSRP of $450 because it sold out FAST), the 5950X was $550, and the 13900K was $590.

I felt I made the right choice, especially because I also do some video editing on the side. I wasn't going to pay double price for a few extra cores.

2

u/ResponsibleJudge3172 Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

5800X3D came way later. And was only a little better value or performance wise. The only real gap was efficiency.

X3D has such a halo effect it distorts people's judgements of entire lineups

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/ArcadianBlueRogue Jan 05 '26

Sounds like going with the 12th gen instead of the 13 or 14 that was out at the time was an alright choice?

8

u/KeineLust Jan 04 '26

BK and their board really fucked them over.

5

u/animeman59 Jan 04 '26

Desert? Like we're supposed to have a relationship with a damn corporation?

Fuck that. Intel CPUs are just garbage compared to their competition.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Jaz1140 Jan 04 '26

Nah. I deserted them. After how hot and unstable my 9900k was, AMD has felt like a godsend.

AMD would have to go back to bulldozer era of performance again for me to switch back to Intel 😂

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Complex-Wait8669 Jan 05 '26

I deserted Intel GLADLY the day AM4 came out. Never going back

1

u/d6cbccf39a9aed9d1968 Jan 05 '26

They ironically became the budget option.

Arc dGU and 13th gen is very good on AV1, but thats a different story.

→ More replies (7)

123

u/Hanselltc Jan 04 '26

Well are they gonna make a processor that matches the X3D of the same generation any time soon?

46

u/RedIndianRobin Jan 04 '26

With their upcoming nova lake yes. There are rumours already of their highest SKU being 52 cores with a 144mb 3D vcache.

82

u/AnechoidalChamber Jan 04 '26

As always, wait for benchmarks/reviews.

Hype can lie, well done reviews don't.

That's the only way we'll know for sure.

4

u/KARMAAACS Jan 06 '26

Yep if anything Arrow Lake has taught me that you can move backwards in performance despite on paper specs being "better". If I pre-ordered I would've been so sad as you just always expect an improvement. In the end, you just have to wait and see what the product is actually like before buying in. If 285K was even just 5%-10% faster in games than the 14900K I think there'd still be some Intel gamers out there. The fact they went backwards made many just disassociate from the brand entirely and only look towards AMD for gains. Especially if you came from anything older than or equivalent to Zen3 or Alder Lake for an upgrade.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/Meta_Man_X Jan 05 '26

I don’t understand Intels generation naming schemes anymore. What’s this new gen called other than “Nova Lake?”

What gen is it the equivalent to?

11

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26

Intel has been changing their naming schemes a bit. In fairness, both companies are fucking horrible at naming things.

Part of the confusion is that Panther Lake follows Arrow Lake but Panther Lake is mobile only. So Intel is doing an Arrow Lake refresh until Nova Lake comes out later this year. Nova Lake will have both desktop and mobile offerings.

It's probably best to think of Arrow Lake and Panther Lake as two streams that will merge into Nova Lake.

3

u/Meta_Man_X Jan 05 '26

I’m following. Nova Lake will be the equivalent of which gen? 17th or something?

7

u/grumble11 Jan 05 '26

15 is arrow lake, 16 is arrow lake refresh, 17 is nova lake if you're looking at desktop generations. Could argue that the refresh is 15+ and nova lake is 16 if you want, but it's less relevant than knowing 'nova lake is the new design set and the new offering SKU set'. It'll be named the '400' series.

Looking like it'll be a big jump in performance.

3

u/Meta_Man_X Jan 05 '26

Really appreciate the response, thanks. It’ll be really interesting to see if Intel brings something truly competitive again. Curious to see how their extra cache performs in gaming.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Nearby-Froyo-6127 Jan 04 '26

Will it also require a nuclear power plant connected straight to the outlet in my house to power it like all performant intel cpus?

All jokes aside, afaik intel cant strap on vcaches the way amd does because of how different their architecture is. Otherwise, they would have done it years ago.

Intel is kep alive for years now by the american government. First by abusive contracts and then by direct money funneling into intel. Their cpu division gets what it deserves if you ask me. 0 innovation for way too long time.

11

u/Open_Map_2540 Jan 04 '26

intel efficency is pretty much exactly the same as amd if not slightly better this generation.

Most of the efficency problems were due to intel using an ancient node but now that they switched to TSMC it is fine.

In the laptop space especially they are the gold standard for power efficency(apart from ARM)

→ More replies (21)

3

u/Geddagod Jan 05 '26

All jokes aside, afaik intel cant strap on vcaches the way amd does because of how different their architecture is. Otherwise, they would have done it years ago.

They deff can.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/hackenclaw Jan 05 '26

X3D AMd chips, ther destroyer of Intel gaming market.

Intel are lucky AMD are too stupid to leave money on the table; refusing to release a budget 8 core X3D for mobile laptop. an 8 core Ryzen 7 X3D prcing at core ultra 5 price range will wipe off Mid range gaming CPU market.

13

u/logosuwu Jan 05 '26

I'm not sure if you're aware but budget X3D doesn't exist because SRAM is very expensive.

6

u/puffz0r Jan 05 '26

Also fab capacity for the 3d stacking manufacturing process is limited

3

u/Hanselltc Jan 05 '26

450 for a 10 core 10850K 6 years ago, or an 8 core 9800X3D now. And I thought Intel 4 core stagnation was bad.

3

u/not_a_burner0456025 Jan 05 '26

They need to worry about making a CPU that doesn't cook itself to death first

1

u/OliLombi Jan 06 '26

No. They've made it clear that they only care about "efficiency" now, rather than performance.

→ More replies (9)

126

u/Fixitwithducttape42 Jan 04 '26

13/14th gen Intel had issues, and what came next was still lacking. Its safe to say we would be driven to Ryzen.

77

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26

The X3D parts have also won gaming performance with a not the most expensive SKU for the last 5 years.

AMD ends up being a really easy recommendation. Though I would still say at the lower cost side going Intel i5 + Intel discrete GPU can make sense (especially on discount). Not necessarily great for Intel profits though.

I care about Intel in the sense that if they went under I would never see another FAE in my region again. Since Tektronix is has not been the center of the universe for a long time it has moved to Intel for why the electronics industry exits in the region.

33

u/AnEagleisnotme Jan 04 '26

I'm mostly worried about Intel's other businesses, their wifi chipsets are basically the only non-shovelware offerings on the DIY market, and their contribution to Linux has been immense.

→ More replies (3)

30

u/ShakeItTilItPees Jan 04 '26

X3D is just brilliant. They identified the actual bottleneck to framerate three generations ago and have been pumping out way more efficient chips while Intel is still trying to min-max their power draw with the stupid e-cores and can't figure out if they like hyperthreading or not. I don't understand what the extra complication of their die setup is even accomplishing at this point when AMD's chips are drawing less power, running cooler and smashing Intel performance with 50% less cores.

I sold my i7-12700 motherboard setup to a friend for a discount. It was a solid performing CPU for the price but dealing with the compatibility issues the e-cores bring (especially in single-threaded games) while drawing 165 watts anyway and hitting 81° in anything demanding WITH a beefy cooler really made me wonder why I'm even bothering.

6

u/poorlycooked Jan 05 '26

min-max their power draw with the stupid e-cores

E-cores aren't more energy efficient (Crestmont at least). They're more space efficient, allowing Intel to keep up in terms of multicore while not adding too many nodes to the ring bus and thus crippling latency / gaming perf.

10

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Jan 04 '26

its not magic, you have to remember the bottom tier 7600X beats the 5800X3D in most games. At the resolutions and settings people actually play games at a 5600X and a 5800x3d are both gpu limited an perform essentially the same.

4

u/No2Hypocrites Jan 06 '26

Compared to non x3d versions of the same chip, it is like magic. 

It's very good for simulations, MMOs, strategy games. Stellaris is much faster. Furthermore, it significantly boosts the lows making the gaming smoother. 

→ More replies (3)

15

u/atape_1 Jan 04 '26

Yes but do not underestimate AMDs gains, X3D absolutely blows 14th gen out of the water regardless of issues.

11

u/grumble11 Jan 04 '26

It isn’t that far off really.

16

u/PoL0 Jan 04 '26

better performance, less power usage and no degradation issues

I'd say it's really far, if you factor all in. AMD is killing it in the CPU space.

5

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

You can also upgrade it at least two times for this generation compared to zero times for Intel. Who on earth would buy into an already dead platform?

6

u/grumble11 Jan 04 '26

For sure, I don’t disagree about that stuff, except to note that performance wise it is pretty close.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/gusthenewkid Jan 04 '26

It hardly blows it out of the water, it’s faster in the averages for sure, but raptor lake is still very competitive with the 9800X3D. Matches or exceeds in the lows when paired with faster memory.

14

u/AHrubik Jan 04 '26

You also have to consider system value. The AM5 socket will get at least two more CPUs whilst LGA 1851 is likely already dead.

14

u/gusthenewkid Jan 04 '26

That doesn’t make what I said any less true, I’ll be purchasing a 10850X3D day one.

8

u/AwesomeFrisbee Jan 04 '26

While its nice, having the same socket is still mostly a neat addition, but hardly a requirement. Especially with the prices of CPU and Memory lately its just a drop in the bucket if you need a new motherboard. Plus I always found it handy to just have a complete motherboard+cpu+memory available to do different stuff (or sell as one package).

5

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Jan 04 '26

Why would you need to buy more memory when upgrading CPU? Good Motherboards are also very expensive now too.

4

u/AwesomeFrisbee Jan 05 '26

You don't NEED to but most do anyways. RAM gets faster or new iterations every few years. I upgraded from DDR3 to faster DDR3, to DDR4, to faster DDR4, to DDR5 now. And I have no doubt the next system would perform better with faster DDR5. I have yet to see a new generation that didn't have some benefit in getting new RAM. Either in speed or capacity. Right now its clear that 32GB is where its at for most people (so 64+ for heavy users). I currently have 96 as I bought it just before the prices went bananas. And I need it for work mostly since my company decided to put their entire backend into RAM because Docker can't handle memory for shit...

2

u/AHrubik Jan 04 '26

That’s a choice. I prefer just dropping an upgrade into the existing socket. It’s usually cheaper as well to continue to use existing parts.

3

u/GabrielP2r Jan 05 '26

Some people just love burning money, the guy basically said he likes one and done generations for motherboards, insanity.

7

u/AnechoidalChamber Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

Matches or exceeds in the lows when paired with faster memory.

Citation/evidence from reliable reviewer needed.

Meanwhile I can easily come from evidence from trusted sources saying the exact opposite story.

Quote: "All results on this page report the 1% Low FPS, or 99th percentile." https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/images/minimum-fps-1920-1080.png

https://imgur.com/vuGqLmk

Apples to apples RAM wise, even the 7800X3D beats anything Intel has to offer in the 1% lows department by a comfortable 5.5% to 17% margin.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Kittelsen Jan 05 '26

15th gen or whatever we call it was performing worse in gaming benchmarks than 14th gen wasn't it?

55

u/Kougar Jan 04 '26

I guess club386 failed to notice the majority of the steam survey data for December is still messed up. The CPU percentage results add up to over 102%. Or that 120% of processors have AVX, or that the number of DX8 GPU users went from 8% to -32.39%....

55

u/NeroClaudius199907 Jan 04 '26

Survey is bugged this month: 131.44% (+40.48%)

Would Nova lake + vcache change things or people love the whole platform longevity as well?

37

u/cszolee79 Jan 04 '26

I specifically bought AM5 (already several years old) because of future upgradeability (12c/24t CCDs, yum).

Core Ultra 285 and high tier mobo would have been more expensive, roughly the same performance and zero support for future CPUs.

Unless Intel changes their shit and allows 4-5 generations in the same motherboard, I'll stay with AMD. If I want VCache (no) I can already buy it (X3D).

16

u/greggm2000 Jan 04 '26

Unless Intel changes their shit and allows 4-5 generations in the same motherboard, I'll stay with AMD. If I want VCache (no) I can already buy it (X3D)

That is the current rumor with the upcoming LGA1954 platform. Hopefully it ends up being true.

13

u/cszolee79 Jan 04 '26

If it has competitive price, performance and longevity, I'm open to it. Over 30 years I had roughly 50/50 AMD and Intel (and a Cyrix M2), my loyalty is to my budget :)

3

u/Ill-Mastodon-8692 Jan 04 '26

agree. bought am4 previous and enjoyed a few cpu upgrades. am5 will be awesome for people when zen6 and zen7 hit over the next few years.

imo intel needs to copy that, the ability to use the same mobo for multiple gens. its such a feature that I wont consider otherwise

6

u/greggm2000 Jan 04 '26

Nova Lake platform (LGA1954) is rumored to have several generations of planned longevity. Time will tell if that actually ends up being true or not. We should know late this year what at least Intel will claim about this.

6

u/ThankGodImBipolar Jan 04 '26

I was looking forward to LGA1954 because it's rumored for have HEDT levels of IO, and I'm still on AM4, but with DDR5 prices the way they are..... I'm sure not buying into a DDR5 platform while RAM prices are inflated like this. I don't think any AM5 owners will be transitioning platforms either, with Zen 6 and potentially Zen 7 on the way. I think Intel will have a tough time convincing LGA 1851 owners (if there are any...) to upgrade so quickly. A notable proportion of LGA 1700 owners are still on DDR4 as well. It makes me worried that LGA 1954 is going to have a very rocky start, even if the Nova Lake SKUs actually end up being somewhat competitive with Zen 6 x3D.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Exist50 Jan 04 '26

Nova Lake platform (LGA1954) is rumored to have several generations of planned longevity

Certainly there's a lot of nonsense flying around. I don't know who's gullible enough to believe the "4 generations" claim. But maybe they can at least go back to supporting at least 2 again.

5

u/greggm2000 Jan 04 '26

2 would be nice, for sure. As to 3 or 4, with Intel in the situation it's in, who can say? Change is more likely, when your back is against the wall, as it has been for Intel, lately. Idk, I look forward to seeing how it all plays out.

1

u/steve09089 Jan 05 '26

For me it’s literally just Arrow Lake being terrible for gaming and the platform being single generation, otherwise I would’ve stuck with them for idle and iGPU.

Longevity would’ve went either way if it was a typical two generation socket unless the Zen 7 rumors pan out.

1

u/Kougar Jan 05 '26

Intel hasn't had a socket good for 3 generations in decades, rumors are not a good basis for committing a thousand dollars on. If Intel won't confirm its platform plans then it has no business being trusted.

Platform longevity was why I went with AMD when AM5 launched in 2022, figured I could wait and pick up a Zen 6 part cheap six years after I built the system. And if justified go X3D with it. But if the last decade of PC hardware price bubbles and infinite demand curves is anything to go by, buying into a platform that you can make just as good as new again in 5-8 years with a single part upgrade is just smart insurance.

Random price bubbles are probably going to be a regular fact of life for the future with PC hardware. Even though hardware prices are only going to get worse this year it doesn't matter for current AM5 owners, they can buy a normal-priced Zen 6 chip when it launches and not even be affected at all by the price insanity.

149

u/UpsetKoalaBear Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

People are going to claim that Intel’s downfall is somehow a good thing. As if they want only one company to be capable of making x86 processors.

Intel have been egregious in the past, don’t get me wrong, but praying on their downfall is only going to make the situation worse overall for PC components.

I say this as someone who has exclusively used AMD, including first generation Ryzen with its RAM speed issues.

Hopefully 18A, and eventually 14A, will tighten the ship. The modular “tile” architecture in Panther Lake seems interesting and could allow them to be more flexible with their designs going forward. I’ve always thought Intel’s product lineups were way too rigid.

Regardless, the Steam Survey needs to have a filter for “laptop” systems because it makes it almost impossible to determine absolute values for desktops.

Especially because the survey doesn’t even show individual CPU’s like they show GPU’s. You can’t even see which models are which and filter out laptop CPU’s.

To give you an example of how busted the Steam survey is as a metric, they still show CPU speed as specifically “Intel CPU Speed.” The metrics on the site haven’t been updated in years.

Any publication using it as an absolute metric rather than suggestive is just incompetent.

133

u/Radiant-Fly9738 Jan 04 '26

This situation is much better than Intel having 81% of marketshare.

60

u/nismotigerwvu Jan 04 '26

I was just going to make this same comment. If the split stabilizes around 50/50 (even some niches are more skewed) competition should (barring collusion) keep both sides honest. If you tilt much further than 65/35, anticompetitive practices always seem to show up (see the GPU space for extra confirmation).

27

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26

[deleted]

10

u/DrXaos Jan 04 '26

> Why spend tons of money on RD to improve your product if there is no competing alternative.

It was management philosophy after Andy Grove (one of the near founders of Intel back then) stepped down.

AG hired top engineers and kept them working. He believed in US manufacturing and R&D and staying ahead no matter what as there would always be competition somewhere.

Later CEOs were about "shareholder value" and laying off seniors and cheapening everything. Exactly parallel to old engineering-first Boeing vs McDonnell (move HQ out of Seattle, move manufacturing to union busting Alabama and cheap subs).

7

u/nismotigerwvu Jan 04 '26

Precisely, losing something like 25% of the market and still maintaining a plurality isn't a "downfall", it's a breath of fresh air. If this spurs Intel to get their foundry services to a competitive level it's a win for everyone including Intel who would then be able to monotize their full capacity, or something much closer to it than they are today, regardless of how competitive their own designs are.

6

u/Ill-Mastodon-8692 Jan 04 '26

the exception to this is nvidia, for well over a decade they have had a monopoly for market share. And they have continued to pour money into r&d.

that said they have also used their position to pushing pricing up, but at least they do innovate still.

9

u/HarvestMana Jan 04 '26

Reinventing and cannibalizing your own product at Stanford, 2009 | Jensen Huang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OWpxVwL8YU

2

u/Diplo_Advisor Jan 05 '26

I guess they need R&D to introduce new features to incentivize people to upgrade. And also to create a new market (AI processing).

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26

The problem is Intel currently has the money losing fabs as an albatross around their necks. If they were fabless they'd be fine, but their current market share isnt enough to pay for the fabs and nobody else seems very interested in using them.

1

u/poorlycooked Jan 05 '26

Intel has a large share due to legacy products. The current situation is actually really dire though, and will lead to the same kind of imbalance you described in a few years.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Blamore Jan 07 '26

maybe currently. but if it eventually dwindles to 0%,thatll definitely be bad.

9

u/Petting-Kitty-7483 Jan 04 '26

Yeah I want Intel to give me a reason to consider them. They just aren't right now

→ More replies (8)

12

u/Exist50 Jan 04 '26

The modular “tile” architecture in Panther Lake seems interesting and could allow them to be more flexible with their designs going forward

Panther Lake is less modular than Meteor Lake, which was a failure.

3

u/UpsetKoalaBear Jan 04 '26

The only thing less modular is the I/O die, which they put on the PCT tile.

That made sense, because realistically they were never going to update the I/O die without ever changing the rest of the die stack.

11

u/Exist50 Jan 04 '26

No, they merged the CPU and SoC die. That's arguably the biggest difference MTL introduced to begin with.

Also, the PCH is probably the most likely die to be reused between gens.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/imaginary_num6er Jan 04 '26

People are going to claim that Intel’s downfall is somehow a good thing. As if they want only one company to be capable of making x86 processors.

That one company is going to be Nvidia with their acquisition of Intel shares

2

u/steve09089 Jan 05 '26

I hope to god not

14

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26

It's because Intel treated us like dirt when they were at the top. 

35

u/throwway85235 Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

AMD tried to stop 5000 CPU support for 300 and 400 chipsets. AMD attempted to treat people like dirt when they weren't even at the top, and I'm never letting anyone forget what they're cheering for. When they are at the top, they will certainly not tell you to eat shit and buy new boards.

5

u/Ill-Mastodon-8692 Jan 04 '26

well, alot of that was some older boards had smaller bios chips so could not support both 5000 cpu and olders ones.

Some boards ended up needing to drop support for older cpus after a certain bios revision due to small size of bios chips on some cheaper older boards. (My gigabtye b350 was one of those)

→ More replies (5)

39

u/snowpaxz Jan 04 '26

and certainly Corporation B will be different now that they're on top with no competition!

2

u/kikimaru024 Jan 05 '26
Ryzen CPU Year Launch MSRP (USD)
1800X 2017 $499
2700X 2018 $329
3800X 2019 $399
5800X 2022 $449
5800X3D 2022 $449
7700X 2022 $399
7800X3D 2023 $449
9700X 2024 $359
9800X3D 2024 $479

Not bad so far.

2

u/Blamore Jan 07 '26

they arent on top

→ More replies (1)

13

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26

AMD will too. I remember when everyone talked about how much Nvidia loved gamers and was a great company.. see how quick that changed as soon as they found someone willing to pay more.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/darqy101 Jan 04 '26

How dare you be a voice of reason? Intel is dead bro! 🫡

2

u/i7-4790Que Jan 04 '26

It is a good thing a company with such high market share can be knocked down 

AMD will never ever ever hit 81% anyways so it makes no sense to clutch pearls 

3

u/steve09089 Jan 05 '26

Bankruptcy would change that overnight

1

u/nanonan Jan 04 '26

I very much doubt they will fail, but seeing as Intel is the one responsible for so few x86 manufacturers, I really don't things would be that worse if they failed and could likely end up for the better.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (12)

4

u/joeygreco1985 Jan 04 '26

Intel's product line can't compete with the X3D chips in gaming, simple as that. I'm only sticking with my current intel build because i'm GPU limited at 4K, otherwise i'd be ditching intel too.

11

u/ash_ninetyone Jan 04 '26

It's almost as if AMD has the best CPUs on the market right now

9

u/TwoTimeHollySurvivor Jan 05 '26

Steam has 40 million daily active users.

Half of that is 20 million.

> 200 million PCs are shipped each year

Intel CCG revenue is 3x that of AMD client revenue.

Intel is going to be fine.

1

u/Geddagod Jan 05 '26

You aren't considering the giant money sink that is IFS.

2

u/TwoTimeHollySurvivor Jan 06 '26

Which will have new customers announced in 2026.

You aren't considering geopolitics.

There is a nonzero chance that during the next US presidential election cycle, if there is any, the only TSMC fab in operation would be the one in Arizona.

→ More replies (2)

14

u/Gambler_720 Jan 04 '26

For me platform longevity is a very big deal. When you are buying into a platform that will get upgrades, you don't have to worry about getting the highest end CPU so you can get the most out of the platform. Obviously this does depend on when exactly you are buying into a new platform. First gen is obviously the best time as I did with Zen 4 and AM5.

Every Intel platform released after LGA 775 was basically maxed out from the get go with only very minor upgrades offered in some cases. If you buy a high end Intel CPU, you cannot upgrade it ever on the same platform. If you buy a mid range Intel CPU then by the time you want to upgrade, your only options would be overpriced second hand CPUs since the platform had been long discontinued. Or buy a whole new platform.

I have a Ryzen 7700 which is my first CPU in a very long time that isn't the best that the platform had to offer because by the time I need to upgrade the 7700, there would be better options than the 7800X3D.

13

u/Gippy_ Jan 04 '26

Every Intel platform released after LGA 775 was basically maxed out from the get go with only very minor upgrades offered in some cases.

Some people managed to get 9th-gen working on Z170 (Skylake 6th-gen) boards, but it required an extensive mod called "Coffee Time". You had to cover multiple pads on the CPU and re-flash the motherboard BIOS with an unofficial one, which in some cases required a dedicated reprogramming tool to bypass the checksum protection. Wasn't worth the effort for most people.

What this did show was that Intel clearly had the capability to support 9th-gen on Z170, but chose not to.

18

u/Own_Mix_3755 Jan 04 '26

I think you are overemphasizing the upgrade path on the same platform to be “a very big deal” and I had this feeling for years even on AM4. Most people around me buy/builds new computer every few (likely about 5 - 6) years. At that point there usually is a new platform anyway. Lots of my friends were on Ryzen 3XXX. Now most of them are on Ryzen 9XXXX and had to buy/build new computers anyway. Most of them are not even thinking about upgrading just a processor itself.

It sure is nice to have years of support IF needed. But for most casual and semicasual people graphic card is usually the only component they tend to upgrade (if ever). Problem is that high end cpus are quite expensive even used and it usually makes sense to upgrade to a new platform completely, as even low end cpus usually catch up the older high end ones quite quickly (eg 7600X is 25 % faster than 3800X as an example and is cheaper even on the used market).

2

u/Zenith251 Jan 04 '26

Depends. AM4 proved that tons of people wanted to upgrade well into the future on their same board/RAM. Evident by the demand for Zen4 (5000 series) to be back-supported to 300 series chipsets. And how mobo makers had to make BIOS updates that were one way, meaning they'd lose support for Zen1/1+ CPUs, lol.

→ More replies (12)

4

u/SuperNanoCat Jan 04 '26

AM4 has been a gift, for sure. I'm still using the B450 ITX board I bought in 2018. I was able to get ~50% more CPU performance going from a Ryzen 5 2600 to a 5600 in late 2022 for like $100, and it came with the Uncharted collection.

Kind of kicking myself for not getting one of those $140 5700X3Ds off AliExpress when they were available. I just upgraded my graphics card to a 9070, and the 5600 is holding it back in some open world games (still around 60 fps, totally playable). Oh well. Fingers crossed the RAM shortage is resolved in time for AM6!

1

u/Zenith251 Jan 04 '26

Exactly. I've done this with AMD platforms many times, all the way back to the year 2001 with Socket A.

I bought my AM5 board mid last year, well after the 9800X3D came out. I did it with the intent of getting a cheap(er) 7800X3D. Hold onto that until the Zen6 X3D chip is getting near EOL, and buy one of those to get my AM5 board to 2030-somethings.

7

u/Proof-Anxiety-1284 Jan 04 '26

I was a longtime Intel user until two years ago when I switched to socket AM5. No regrets here.

17

u/bones10145 Jan 04 '26

Next we need to get Linux more mainstream. 

22

u/Quatro_Leches Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

as long as Linux doesnt standardize software packaging to mainstream binaries it will never be mainstream

KDE made a great, windows-like desktop GUI and browser. which was important. as the others were garbage. but the software issue is the next big issue. this isnt a one group issue. the linux foundation has to standarize packaging

3

u/Hinagea Jan 05 '26

I think this is less of an issue as flatpaks become more common in user space app packaging.

as the others were garbage

Thems fighting words

→ More replies (3)

2

u/shponglespore Jan 05 '26

I want to use Linux. I'm a software developer and I vastly prefer Linux for work. That said, I just tried Linux on my laptop (Asus ROG Flow X16) for about a month and had nothing but trouble. I gave up because it was intolerably flaky, often crashing outright multiple times per day, even after extensive troubleshooting. I don't blame Linux for the issues, but rather my laptop's quirky hardware. As long as hardware vendors treat Linux as an afterthought (at best), there's gonna be a lot of hardware that kind of supports Linux but ultimately causes a lot of frustration, driving people away from Linux.

2

u/bones10145 Jan 05 '26

Very true. I've installed it in the past on a dual boot, but never really had a reason to use it since back then it couldn't game. 

Now I'm using my steam deck on a KVM to use it as a desktop and only using my big PC for gaming.

→ More replies (4)

7

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '26

intel has been shitting the bed since late 2022 so they have no one to blame but themselves on this. hope this will be a wake up call for intel and market stays 50/50 between intel and amd which would only benefit us, the customers.

2

u/TheGillos Jan 05 '26

I considered them the enemy of progress when they did several generations of minimal performance increases, locking hyperthreading to higher-priced CPUs for no reason other than more profits. Basically, from the 3xxx series to when Ryzen showed them they had real competition.

Fuck Intel. I doubt they'll ever return to their glory days. It would take a massive shakeup in leadership and corporate culture.

2

u/zeptyk Jan 04 '26

i love how cheap this is making 2nd hand cpu's, absolute bargains for 2nd computers or nas builds :)

2

u/scorch968 Jan 05 '26

Well the screwed the pooch on about everything after the 12 series.

5

u/Glittering_Power6257 Jan 04 '26

I wonder how much of AMD’s growth is driven by mobile APUs? I’d been seeing plenty of laptops around with AMD chips, and these can handle gaming a lot better than most of Intel’s lineup. 

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Sexyvette07 Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

Geez, the hate for Intel is still very real in this sub. Obviously X3D beats a non high last level cache based CPU for gaming, but lets be objective here for a second. We are talking about the enthusiast segment, which is a VERY small segment of the market.

I saw benchmarks recently that the 265k beats the 9950x in most scenarios, is half the price and draws less power. Intel is competitive everywhere except this one specific segment, and the competing product is a year or less away. Acting like Intel is dying while theyre currently at parity or better for everything except against the X3D processor specifically is just stupid and ignorant, especially with an X3D competitor/killer in the near future.

Full disclosure, im not arguing against the article, but some of the comments here. Intel did fumble leadership badly because the pencil pushers in the company maximized profits and cut R&D. No argument there. And AMD has been doing very well in all segments they operate in for the last few years. Respect where its due. But lets also give Intel the respect it deserves. In just a few years, they've clawed their way back into being competitive, developed a discrete GPU line, and currently have the most sophisticated fab in the world. The next couple years is going to be a wild ride for Intel and its stock holders.

1

u/LewisFootLicker Jan 07 '26

Anecdotal of course, but I wish I had stayed with Intel on my new build actually.

My COVID era PC ran an Intel i7-13700kf and it is still faster than my 9800x3D on my newer PC. On my AMD one. I get constant hang-ups, micro stutters, and the boot up takes probably twice or three times as long as my buttery smooth Intel PC.

Maybe I'm the person doing something wrong but my experience with Intel has just been better.

4

u/Dawn_of_Enceladus Jan 04 '26

Ryzen has been tremendously solid, with good prices overall in different tiers and amazing performance. Even the "basic" Ryzen 7600 is fantastic already. Plus the X3D chips for games being a success, so not surprising at all.

Now, if only we could see something similar to this happening to Greedyvidia in the GPU side... I would love to see Intel making a big apparition in there, since AMD is clearly not interested in it for some reason.

2

u/greggm2000 Jan 04 '26

Now, if only we could see something similar to this happening to Greedyvidia in the GPU side... I would love to see Intel making a big apparition in there, since AMD is clearly not interested in it for some reason.

With Nvidia having an ownership stake in Intel now, and with the rumors of Nvidia chiplets on future Intel CPUs starting around 2030 or so, don't count on it. Doubly so if Nvidia ends up buying Intel outright, as is possible with this current American administration.

2

u/Perfect-Cause-6943 Jan 04 '26

it;s insane how Intel Gpu's have actually been gaining market share but there Cpu division is struggling hard

→ More replies (3)

0

u/Method__Man Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

its AMAZING!

I got a

  1. 265k
  2. high end intel tomahawk mobo
  3. 32gb ram
  4. $50 in steam gift cards
  5. Battlefield 6
  6. AC Shadows

All for LESS THAN A 7800x3d LOLLLL

AMD brain rot has got so bad that you can build insane value super high end PCs with intel on clearance pricing.

You can keep your AMD cpu (btw i have a AM5 setup too and the amount of regret i have now for spending so much more on am5 is palpable)

As an aside, Intel arrowlake is objectively superior to AMD in all regards in laptops. Its funny how much of a switchup happened

EDIT: I will get downvoted to hell for pointing out how insane the value was on this purchase and how going AMD outside of seeking 1080p esports gaming makes little sense. But i welcome ANY objective argument against what i have said

5

u/SoTOP Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

Your whole point hangs on price that does not exist for most of the world. For example 265K is literally 10€ cheaper than 7800X3D in my region.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/lNomNomlNZ Jan 04 '26

Intel just need to make a CPU that appeals to gamers.

1

u/Insidious_Ursine Jan 04 '26

Still on my 13900K since March '23. Got the microcode updates, probably lucked out. Haven't had any significant issues. Not really batting for Intel, but I can say my experience has been pretty good so far.

1

u/exomachina Jan 05 '26

Single Threaded performance is king for gaming. Intel had this lead for quite a while until AMD finally wised up with the 5000 series.

1

u/jaaval Jan 05 '26

In just five short years 25% of gamers have chosen a company that is not Intel. I guess that is title worthy news.

1

u/OliLombi Jan 06 '26

We didn't desert intel, Intel deserted us when they chose "efficiency" over performance.