After ruling the world’s computer microprocessor market for well over a decade with virtually no serious competition to deal with, it was almost natural to expect Intel to get lazy and reduce their scope for innovation. And why wouldn’t they? With long-standing archrival AMD wallowing in the aftermath following the release of one disastrous product after another, it appeared that Intel did not have a great deal to worry about, as long as its products were better than those of its rivals.
INTEL’S COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AFTER A VERY LONG TIME
However, it didn’t take very long for Intel’s stagnation to creep into general consumer markets, where they remained stuck with their Core i3-i5-i7 range of CPUs for many years, only releasing periodical refreshes across generations of CPUs, slightly increasing processing power, or moving to more efficient and elegant manufacturing processes. However, one thing didn’t change much – the number of cores on the Core CPUs.
Aside from a small number of absurdly overpriced ‘Extreme Edition’ i7 CPUs (targeted only at enthusiasts who would be able to afford them, not the general computer buyer demographic), it became a constant that a Core i3 would have only two cores (albeit backed by a performance-enhancing technique called Hyperthreading, which allows the cores to handle two processing threads simultaneously in each processing cycle instead of just one), a Core i5 would have four cores, and a Core i7 would have four cores armed with Hyper-threading technology.
This would not have been a problem in general cases, as most regular computer programs don’t require more than two or four cores to provide a satisfactory experience. However, it should be noted that most productivity software, particularly those which specialize in crunching massive loads of numerical data, rendering videos, special effects and 2D/3D graphics, employ performance scaling proportionally to the number of available processing cores and threads. Any professional who needed a machine with more than four cores was therefore faced with the ‘option’ of buying a prohibitively expensive processor from Intel’s Extreme Edition range or Xeon range of server-grade CPUs. It didn’t help much that these CPUs were much slower than the mainstream Core CPUs, despite the increased number of cores, and only the Extreme Edition systems could be overclocked (forced to operate at speeds faster than their original specifications, possibly challenging stability in the process if not done properly) to some extent to cover for this deficiency.
It was in 2017 that the tables finally began to turn when AMD announced a new range of consumer-grade CPUs – initially known only by the codename Zen, and eventually given the marketing moniker Ryzen. The firstborn of the Ryzen range, namely the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 series boasted 6 and 8 cores respectively, each capable of simultaneously processing 2 threads per clock cycle. Furthermore, all the Ryzen CPUs came unlocked out of the box, meaning that they were expected to be extremely overclockable, even when equipped with mid-range air coolers instead of elaborate liquid-based cooling solutions. In layman’s terms, the Ryzen range consisted of immensely powerful CPUs that were equally good at handling routine tasks and workstation duties (thanks to their plethora of cores and threads), was capable of operating at speeds considerably beyond their official limits, at prices that were almost shockingly affordable. For example, AMD’s 8-core Ryzen 7 1700 promised to be a hundred dollars cheaper and much less power-hungry than Intel’s 6-core i7-6800K processor while delivering noticeably greater performance.
AMD’s claims were bold and initially taken with a pinch of salt by reviewers, fans and skeptics alike. After all, this was not AMD’s first foray into this territory. AMD had attempted to bring 8-core CPUs to the masses in the past with its FX series of processors, but they were widely unpopular because of their abysmal thermal performance (which made the processors and motherboards hot enough to melt individual components on them) and extreme power draw. However, when the first Ryzen CPUs were provided to the public, they made critics sit up and take notice.
Despite a few glitches present in early Ryzen systems (later amended with subsequent software updates), they delivered every promised bit of performance, and then some. Intel’s regular line of processors got summarily demolished in benchmarks by the Ryzen family, and only the most expensive members of their Extreme Edition series managed to best the Ryzens, although it wasn’t much of a victory, as their prices pretty much negated any performance advantages. The processors delivered a tad less performance in video games compared to their Intel counterparts, but not enough to make a sizable difference. The message from AMD to Intel was a clear one – the Ryzens are real workhorse processors for everybody, ranging from gamers to professionals, and they were thoroughly going to destroy Intel’s four-cores-are-enough-for-most-people philosophy.
AFTER RULING THE WORLD’S COMPUTER MICROPROCESSOR MARKET FOR WELL OVER A DECADE WITH VIRTUALLY NO SERIOUS COMPETITION TO DEAL WITH, IT WAS ALMOST NATURAL TO EXPECT INTEL TO GET LAZY AND REDUCE THEIR SCOPE FOR INNOVATION.
In the meantime, what had Intel been up to? Their sixth-generation Skylake CPUs did not pose great performance benefits over their fourth-generation Haswell range, despite moving to a superior manufacturing process that helped make them more efficient in terms of thermal output. But it was with the seventh-generation Kaby Lake series that Intel really fumbled the ball, making virtually no improvements upon the Skylake range, leading many reviewers to scoff that it was merely a basic rehash and rebranding of Skylake.
It was evident that Intel had become far too comfortable in the market leader’s throne, and they had not been expecting such a resurgence from AMD after a decade of virtually no proper competition, and Ryzen’s success caught them quite unawares. With massive support from third-party manufacturers of motherboards, GPUs, system memory and other components, AMD was on a journey to regain their long-lost market share, and Intel did not have a lot of time to do something about it. And most importantly, AMD had managed to create a seismic impact in the market by giving software developers more processing power to work with, in the form of more cores and threads, letting them optimize their software to take advantage of it all. This, combined with all forms of support from a myriad of hardware OEMs, was instrumental in making AMD a formidable force in the market once again.
Intel made a grave mistake right then, by hurriedly announcing a new range of CPUs – the Core i9 series, which promised to do all the things that Ryzen had managed to nail – and messed up the pricing again. The top-of-the-range Core i9 was exactly twice the price of its Ryzen equivalent, thus negating the performance advantage yet again while managing to remain far away from most people’s buying capabilities still. Furthermore, the Core i9 CPUs offered very little room for overclocking due to their rushed-together nature and emitted horrifying amounts of heat. It was astounding to see Intel CPUs being mentioned in the punchlines of CPU heat-related jokes for a change on social media – a position which had been held by AMD for a very long time.
It remains to be seen what Intel would do to recover from this fumble, which is very much likely to cost them dearly, as AMD is rolling out a lower-end Ryzen 3 and a gigantic 16-core/32-thread CPU called the Ryzen Threadripper to capture the low and high ends of the market respectively. Unless Intel returns to the tradition of innovating, AMD is likely to close the competition gap even further over the next few years. However, this is indeed a very good time to be a consumer, because the CPU market is once again home to fierce competition, and this is how progress is truly made. No matter who ends up on top, be it AMD or Intel, the customer wins.
