AMD has clawed back a hefty 10% market share in the desktop x86 CPU segment over the last year. And that has us wondering, could those crashing 13th and 14th Gen CPUs be hurting Intel’s sales?
I mean that’s a pretty obvious yes. Even if the 285k had been a decent product I still wouldn’t have considered it after seeing that Intel knew about oxidation issues and tried to hide it. Then you have the poor thermals and high power draw of previous 2 gens on top of the cpu problems. I’d already made up my mind to upgrade to AM5 before the 9800x3d was released and reviewed.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
I mean that’s a pretty obvious yes. Even if the 285k had been a decent product I still wouldn’t have considered it after seeing that Intel knew about oxidation issues and tried to hide it. Then you have the poor thermals and high power draw of previous 2 gens on top of the cpu problems. I’d already made up my mind to upgrade to AM5 before the 9800x3d was released and reviewed.
Make a Core Ultra 9 and a Core Ultra 7 without any E-cores and people will buy. And not disabled e-cores but no physical e-cores on the die.