Intel 300 is the name of the processor that Intel chose to denote what until recently was sold under the Pentium brand. Intel 300 and Pentium G7400 are actually the same, just with 200 MHz on top. Two cores of the same architecture, the same process, complemented by the same integrated graphics. But the Pentium G7400 is not Raptor Lake a Intel 300 Raptor Lake-refresh. The Pentium G7400 was already released with a generation Alder Lake and left unchanged in the menu. Even in the Alder Lake generation, however, it was an outdated concept, as the Pentium had two cores even in the (then) last generation, the generation before that, the generation before that, and so on.
Let us recall that the Pentium has had two cores since 2006, when the Pentium Dual-Core generation was released Conroe, i.e. 18 years. In 2010, the dual-core Pentium reached a clock speed of 3.33 GHz. Another 12 years passed until the release of the 3.7GHz Pentia G7400. However, it cannot be denied that Intel, in response to AMD’s strengthening offer in 2018, proceeded with the Pentium G5400 to enable HT (2 threads per core), which the Pentium G4400 was not yet able to do.
However, there has been no development since then. While in the high-end, Intel moved from 4 large cores to 8 large + 16 small and the processor frequency increased by 55%, in the low-end the number of cores does not move and the frequency by ~15%. However, it is not easy to quantify, with the generations increasing the IPC, Intel reduced the clocks of the Pentium, perhaps to make room for refreshes that only increase the clocks. So the values have fluctuated considerably over time.
However, the strangeness of Pentium development does not end there either, Intel managed to pull off a hussar piece just between the release of the last Pentium G7400 and the current Intel 300. The Pentium G7400 went on the market with a “$64” sticker. However, Intel 300 carries “$82”. While the high-end, where performance increases, keeps Intel at plus or minus the same prices, the low-end, where development is not happening and costs nothing, has become more expensive by almost 30% (performance moved by 1.4% according to CineBench, see below).
Lack of competition
This degradation of the low-end is the result of nothing more than the absence of competition in the lowest price segment. AMD, with the transition to TSMC and its more expensive processes, does not have the right combination of production processes and available capacities for this low-end. GlobalFoundries’ old 14/12nm process doesn’t fit new processor architectures, and TSMC’s processes are usually too expensive for AMD to afford to use instead of making more expensive low-end products. Since the release of the Athlon 3000G (the last low-end manufactured by GlobalFoundries, currently from $49 including the cooler), AMD has not updated it, because it has nothing, and since then Intel has not pushed anything to improve the offer in the price range under $100.
However, it would be more correct to add that I am talking about hardware improvement. In terms of marketing, Intel continues to improve the position of dual cores. Which is probably the most interesting point of the entire PCWatch review. You may remember that a few weeks ago we wrote about the CrossMark benchmark, the latest work of BAPCo, a non-profit institution sponsored by Intel. Intel provides BAPCo resources, BAPCo publishes benchmarks tailored to Intel processors.
Intel 300 v CrossMark (PCWatch)
It is worth noting how the dual-core Intel 300 performs in the CrossMark test compared to the twenty-four-core Core i9-14900K: The performance of the Intel 300 is half. Half the performance for 7x less price, that would be great!
Intel 300 v Handbrake a CineBench (PCWatch)
The problem is that in tests that have nothing to do with Intel, such as Handbrake or CineBench, the performance of the Intel 300 is 10x lower than that of the (only) 7x more expensive Core i9-14900K. The low-end therefore has a significantly worse price/performance ratio than the latest high-end top-model.
Hope for the future?
It would be good to balance the not very optimistic situation with some positive outlook. However, it is difficult to find a cause that could change something in this segment. On the contrary, it seems that Intel tends to cut products rather than improve them. He didn’t replace the Celeron series (de facto the same as Pentium, only without HT) with anything, it simply ended.
So the stimulus would have to come from the competition. The only potential hope may lie in the generation Zen 6, which is expected to increase the number of cores. Purely hypothetical: If AMD came out with 24-core processors, there could be a segmentation shift. 16-24 cores could be Ryzen 9, 12 cores Ryzen 7, 8 cores Ryzen 5, 6 cores Ryzen 3. Current small Phoenix (Phoenix 2) cut down to 4 cores and manufactured on a 6nm process, the price of which will surely drop further in the future, could thus become the new Athlon and introduce 4 cores as standard in the complete low-end. To a generation Zen 6 but there are almost 2 years left in which a lot can change.
2024-01-19 06:42:14
#Intel #test #Pentia #Golds #burial #resembles #degradation #lowend
