Intel Pentium lineup now split into two: Pentium Gold and Pentium Silver...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
Intel's new naming scheme is terrible. Why are they even making dual cores without SMT anymore!? Dual core with SMT is questionable at this point. If it weren't for AMD dragging them forward, they would still be selling us i7 quad cores until the day I die.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
Intel's new naming scheme is terrible. Why are they even making dual cores without SMT anymore!? Dual core with SMT is questionable at this point. If it weren't for AMD dragging them forward, they would still be selling us i7 quad cores until the day I die.
I haven't heard of any 8 series dual core no HT / Celeron chips.
 

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,150
553
146
Intel Kaby Lake 2-core die is continues to be manufactured. So the segment of 2 cores, no Hyper-threading can continue to be supplied without issue (GPU mining).

Rest of Coffee Lake comes throughout 2018 H1. As Core i3 is 4 cores, no Hyper-threading, one can infer Pentium [Gold] is 2 cores, and Celeron is 2 cores, no Hyper-threading.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
4,027
753
126
Intel's new naming scheme is terrible. Why are they even making dual cores without SMT anymore!? Dual core with SMT is questionable at this point. If it weren't for AMD dragging them forward, they would still be selling us i7 quad cores until the day I die.
Because they are cheaper and demand for cheap CPUs for offices and whatnot is always high.
Sure without AMD holding them back so much we would have had way more impressive CPUs long ago but, them's the breaks.
Intel is just forced to not bring out a too obviously and too superior CPU otherwise they might get problems with the anti trust people.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
748
351
136
Intel is just forced to not bring out a too obviously and too superior CPU otherwise they might get problems with the anti trust people.

This is beyond laughable - what color is the sky in your world? Anti-trust laws aren't geared to product superiority, their geared to manufacturer behavior. Having new and super duper superior product isn't breaking any law known to man. Good grief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DooKey

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
4,027
753
126
This is beyond laughable - what color is the sky in your world? Anti-trust laws aren't geared to product superiority, their geared to manufacturer behavior. Having new and super duper superior product isn't breaking any law known to man. Good grief.
Yeah but AMD closing down due to not being able to sell anything anymore,which is what would happen with a clearly too superior product,would make intel a monopoly.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
4,027
753
126
Because up to the end you could find at least some fringe cases(fritzbench for example) where the FX would come close or even be faster then even the fastest desktop i7.
Imagine if intel had released the i7-8700k while amd still only had the FX line...
it would have been a bloody massacre,and it's not like gluing two more cores to a design is anything difficult for intel or any other chip maker.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
Looks like Ivy Bridge i7 handily defeated the FX-8350 in Fritz Chess. Sandy Bridge i7 was about 5% faster than the 8350 in Fritz Chess. Might get a tie with the 9590?

My recollection is that some zip benches where Piledriver/Bulldozer excelled?
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
748
351
136
Yeah but AMD closing down due to not being able to sell anything anymore,which is what would happen with a clearly too superior product,would make intel a monopoly.
Again, it's not against the law to be a monopoly. It's against the law to perform monopolistic behaviors. There's a difference, and that's where Intel's management broke the law in the past.
Intel didn't hold back by giving the market crap upgrades for fear of the law, they did it because that business model generated the largest amount of revenue for them.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
4,027
753
126
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/04/040704.asp
Long-distance competition was introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by 1975, ending Ma Bell's monopoly in that area. Meanwhile, a 1974 antitrust lawsuit brought upon by the Department of Justice was finally settled in 1982, forcing Ma Bell to break up her monopoly completely and divest of her local telephone service providers.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
748
351
136
That has nothing to do with one business making a superior product to another, and thus dominating marketshare. That article has everything to do with a true monopoly that was government controlled, like your electric company, that was recently deregulated and no longer government owned.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
That has nothing to do with one business making a superior product to another, and thus dominating marketshare. That article has everything to do with a true monopoly that was government controlled, like your electric company, that was recently deregulated and no longer government owned.
The fact of the matter is intel wants amd in business, but barely holding on.