Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

Multicore has been 'for the masses' for a decade or more by now, even in mobile phones. What is different here than with other chips made by Intel or AMD that makes you say that?

View on HN

Intel's offerings with more than 4 cores have been segregated into an "enthusiast"/HEDT platform (X99) with more expensive mainboards and the CPUs have been overpriced too.

Ryzen is reasonably priced & has one socket for the 4, 8 and 6 core CPUs.

4 cores still is multicore though.

But ok, I see what you mean: anything with more than 4 cores that is affordable.

If anything Intel quad-cores have been regressing in the market over the past few years. The quad-cores have gotten more expensive (in laptops), and Intel has started naming dual-core chips "Core i7", as another trick to charge almost the same prices it charges for quad-cores.

Intel has been putting die space into integrated graphics instead of more cores. Higher core machines have been available only at very high prices.

Which has been a bad move in the desktop market. Who want's to pay for integrated graphics when they are just going to put one or more discreet GPUs in their system?

The only reason LGA 1151 has been so successful is that most of the market consists of "gamers" who are convinced that they need higher clock speed and IPC.

AM4 should only be compared to LGA 2011v3, which has a very inflated price.

Intel's multicore CPUs (hexa-core and octa-core chips) have been available for for Intel's socket B/R systems, which are the HEDT grade. These systems came with a price premium, which isn't exactly the case for R5 and even R7 builds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com