this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)
Intel
24 readers
1 users here now
Rules
-
Be civil. Uncivil language, slurs, and insults will result in a ban. If you can't say something respectfully, don't say it at all.
-
No Unoriginal Sources, Referral links or Paywalled Articles.
-
All posts must be related to Intel or Intel products.
-
Give competitors' recommendations only where appropriate. If a user asks for Intel only (i.e. i5-12600k vs i5-13400?) recommendations, do not reply with non-Intel recommendations. Commenting on a build pic saying they should have gone AMD/Nvidia is also inappropriate, don't be rude. Let people enjoy things.
-
CPU Cooling problems: Just like 95C is normal for Ryzen, 100C is normal for Intel CPUs in many workloads. If you're worried about CPU temperatures, please look at reviews for the laptop or CPU cooler you're using.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bad take. I am an AMD fan and arguably Intel has improved extraordinarily on this front. Gone are the days of the Extreme Edition and even their consumer flagships are finally priced very competitively against AMD. I would replace the Intel Inside head with NGREEDIA, quite honestly!
imo people are over exaggerating. let's take the 4070 ti as an example. an $800 gpu that can be compared to a 3090 ti. that is overpriced to you? an $800 gpu that fast? let's compare to the gtx 1080 ti, or the best nvidia gpu. the 1080ti launched at $700 around 6 years ago. 4070 ti at $800 in 2023. for those $100 more in 6 years you get the performance of an enthusiast gpu in 2023, and you still complain? over double the performance that's limited by physical factors like not being able to forever decrease transistor size without increasing cost, silicon shortage and thermals is not enough? the 12gb of vram for really heavy workloads like video editing is still just fine if you're working at a reasonable resolution, and for games, the devs should stop increasing texture size to get an unnoticeable increase in graphics quality.
also i don't think anything over a 4060 ti/4070 should be used purely for gaming, like bro you're spending over $1000 on a toy, if you have something faster at least use it to make money or learn a new skill (like work in 3d software, ai training, video editing etc). any gpu over $600 should be mainly targeted at creative people, for who the price tag isn't a problem since they can easily repay it using exactly the gpu they invested in
$800 is a lot if you have a family to feed.
or if you live outside the US.
And to what? Have some shinier and more reflective visuals in games a few hours per week?
And also considering amd has better performance at that price, really no reason to buy nvidia only if you want a 4090 or rtx
To be honest though, AMD is really trying either. They just undercut Nvidia by 5-10% and call it a day. Gone are the days where they would undercut by 30-50% and force Nvidia to up their game. Both companies used to target a flagship price point of $699 and now we routinely have GPUs in the $1000-$2000 price range.
Where I come from, that's called overpriced. 'Not trying' is giving AMD kiddie gloves while dumping the blame entirely on Nvidia