On October 24, 2024, Intel officially launched its latest line of processors, codenamed Arrow Lake. The new chips feature interesting changes, such as ditching hyper-threading, moving to TSMC, LGA1851, new platform design, different naming schemes (Core Ultra), etc. However, the reviews mostly did not favor the latest Intel processors, receiving mixed to negative results. Some even claimed high power consumption, but that seems rather an error in their testing because the new CPUs are highly efficient. Crmaris (HWBusters), TechPower Up, and Gamers Nexus, among others, noticed improved power consumption, which seems to be the case.
The negative reviews had a negative sales impact in some countries, such as Germany, where its largest retailer, MindFactory, claims that the Arrow Lake line of processors hasn’t sold a single chip after almost a week of their launch. That seems to be bad news for Team Blue. Following the previous generation processors’ fiasco, things are even more challenging for the once-CPU titan. But are the new processors so bad? Do they deserve such negativity?
After watching and reading the reviews of all major sites (including Aris’s Core Ultra 9 285K review, which was one of the most objective), I came to believe there is too much negativity because that’s what the audience wanted. Many reviewers focused on the negative side because that’s what the viewers wanted to hear instead of focusing on what matters. The 13-14th Gen Fiasco didn’t help either. People wanted “blood.” Give them “blood.” Intel is bad; Intel was a tyrant; Intel that; Intel this.
Yes, Intel is not an angel; yes, it is responsible for many of the accusations. If AMD hadn’t shaken things back in the day, we might still have 4 cores/8 threads chips. When AMD tried to innovate, Intel was stuck in a loop. The same loop that every large, successful company sticks to. It is afraid to innovate. And when the future knocked on its door, it wasn’t prepared for it. It tried to catch up with it, but it trailed it behind. Nobody can deny this. Look where AMD is now and what Intel is called to deal with. However, we should focus objectively on the new processors and their key performance.
- The new processors are not the top gaming performers, true. But they excel in productivity, beating the competition. And who would buy a high-end chip without pairing it with a powerful graphics card or sticking to 1080p? And their gaming performance wasn’t bad at all. There are reviews with optimal pairings that show even better results.
- Intel managed to offer such good results while improving its processors’ efficiency. Even the competition wasn’t a menace in this category.
- A decent air-cooler will manage the new chips adequately.
- Hyper-threading is absent, but the performance is solid. Hyper-threading is a controversial topic these days. Back in the day, it might have been a solid option, but is it still?
- P and E Cores are a topic of discussion. Need improvement to be properly adopted.
- Intel turned to TSMC. That might be a good move, but it strengthened TSMC’s monopoly, which, as you may know, is never a good thing.
- The NPU is rather not great (13 TOPS). Microsoft recommends at least 40 TOPS.
- There are reports of games crashing and similar issues, but they seem to be software and premature platform-related.
- In general, there wasn’t something to justify such a negative stance. Yes, they weren’t a game-changing release, but let’s be honest. Were you satisfied with AMD’s 9000 series launch and pricing? AMD, as Aris noted, seems to increase the power consumption with the latest BIOSes, probably for better results.
- I should probably add other keynotes, too, but I think these are adequate for this article.
Let’s forget about the whole Intel thing (it seems too large to be sustained) and what games are in the background. Let’s forget the rumors about Qualcomm, Apple, and Samsung. We should ignore the AMD stance and fanboyism. We should ignore the 13/14th Gen fiasco. Let’s focus only on the new chips and their results. Are the new Intel processors so bad? Should they have been better? Well, I think so. But they are not bad in any case. So, what are you trying to say, Jim?
I believe that the new chips are a bit too late and pricey for what they are. Moreover, there is no reason for the 13/14th Gen CPU owners to upgrade except to avoid the controversial fiasco. AMD didn’t impress me, either. I feel that the new chips from both companies should be skipped because they are not what they promised. Before AMD starts to be Intel. We should send a message to these companies in this way. Offer good products worth our buck. Things should change for the better.
The case with the new Intel chips is that they are a bit late on arrival. They would make much more sense if they were LGA1700 compatible. This way, they might be worth the upgrade. The new chips are what their predecessors should have been. However, I think that investing in the new platform is better for someone who builds a new system. It does make more sense at the moment. We should leave our fanboyism and whatever reason behind and see things how they are. The new chips are not bad but should have been better. For me, they are paving the way for better Intel CPUs in the future. I might believe we should skip the current line of processors (AMD and Intel), but the future seems more promising. Only the future could tell, though. JimCKD out.
