- May 19, 2011
- 21,230
- 16,451
- 136
I'm surprised that Intel haven't taken a page from AMD's book, being "when they go high, you go low" (and vice versa). Yes, Intel are in trouble with regard to their higher-end products (though I don't think I've heard anything about their Xeon lines being affected by their Raptor Lake problems), but what I really don't get is that when I look at their low-end processors, it's like they've got their priorities all out of whack. I understand that low-end CPUs aren't going to fix Intel's problems, but when AMD was being trounced by Intel (ie. in AMD's FX + FMx socket era), they put a load of processors out that were very cheap and at least *sold for something*.
In my average user PC builds in recent years I've been going for for processors like the 2200G/3200G/4300G (even if lower end AM4 APUs were available). In years past, I would have expected to see Athlons, Celerons, Pentiums and i3s all competing at the same time, but for some reason this is all I can see from Intel:
Intel Core i3-12100F (4c 8t no integrated graphics so it's a total non-starter in a basic usage system given the price of GPUs): £66.99
Intel Core i3-14100F (4c 8t no igpu, slightly cheaper than the 4300G): £83.99
AMD Ryzen 3 4300G (4c 8t): £88.99
Intel Processor 300 (2c 4t, nearly a tenner more expensive than the 4300G): £95.99
(edited this because my supplier lists it as 2c 2t but Intel and TPU list it as 2c 4t)
... some more Intel cpus with no igpu ...
AMD Ryzen 7 5700G (8c 16t): £139.99
Intel i3-12100 (finally! 4c 8t with igpu): £140.99
Another supplier's cheapest Intel CPU + iGPU is:
Intel Core i5-12600K: £169.26
If it wasn't for the "Intel Processor 300", then I would have assumed that both AMD and Intel have completely abandoned their Celeron / Pentium / Athlon product lines because there's just no money in it any more (understandable given that most average people probably think a laptop/tablet is a better choice). Perhaps the 300 is just sitting there with tonnes of unused inventory, but surely Intel would have slashed the price by now?
I just don't understand why Intel basically abandoned competing with AMD at product points that clearly are profitable for AMD to produce something at, and there are plenty of people/companies out there who would buy an Intel CPU even if the Ryzen equivalent is *a bit* better, all Intel has to do is show up? Let alone bringing a 2c/2t to a 4c/8t gunfight or 4c/8t to an 8c/16t gunfight.
When I was mainly building Intel iGPU basic PCs, the Pentium for a good long time was my minimum recommendation just because it could do the job tolerably and was a good bit cheaper than the i3. These days I think it's utter madness to go for anything less than 4c (ignoring atom-type stuff) on a new PC what with Win11's needs, but my overall point is there used to be some choice, practically speaking!
In my average user PC builds in recent years I've been going for for processors like the 2200G/3200G/4300G (even if lower end AM4 APUs were available). In years past, I would have expected to see Athlons, Celerons, Pentiums and i3s all competing at the same time, but for some reason this is all I can see from Intel:
Intel Core i3-12100F (4c 8t no integrated graphics so it's a total non-starter in a basic usage system given the price of GPUs): £66.99
Intel Core i3-14100F (4c 8t no igpu, slightly cheaper than the 4300G): £83.99
AMD Ryzen 3 4300G (4c 8t): £88.99
Intel Processor 300 (2c 4t, nearly a tenner more expensive than the 4300G): £95.99
(edited this because my supplier lists it as 2c 2t but Intel and TPU list it as 2c 4t)
... some more Intel cpus with no igpu ...
AMD Ryzen 7 5700G (8c 16t): £139.99
Intel i3-12100 (finally! 4c 8t with igpu): £140.99
Another supplier's cheapest Intel CPU + iGPU is:
Intel Core i5-12600K: £169.26
If it wasn't for the "Intel Processor 300", then I would have assumed that both AMD and Intel have completely abandoned their Celeron / Pentium / Athlon product lines because there's just no money in it any more (understandable given that most average people probably think a laptop/tablet is a better choice). Perhaps the 300 is just sitting there with tonnes of unused inventory, but surely Intel would have slashed the price by now?
I just don't understand why Intel basically abandoned competing with AMD at product points that clearly are profitable for AMD to produce something at, and there are plenty of people/companies out there who would buy an Intel CPU even if the Ryzen equivalent is *a bit* better, all Intel has to do is show up? Let alone bringing a 2c/2t to a 4c/8t gunfight or 4c/8t to an 8c/16t gunfight.
When I was mainly building Intel iGPU basic PCs, the Pentium for a good long time was my minimum recommendation just because it could do the job tolerably and was a good bit cheaper than the i3. These days I think it's utter madness to go for anything less than 4c (ignoring atom-type stuff) on a new PC what with Win11's needs, but my overall point is there used to be some choice, practically speaking!
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter