AMD Confirms All Ryzen CPUs are Overclockable + Not Just Octacore Available at Launch

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, grimreeper132 said:

I know that but well I just don't have faith in AMD as a despite having been big players in high end GPU and CPU markets they seam to shrunk down to the value end rather than performance end and I just feel like that there track record isn't great so I have little faith in them, same with intel to be honest after kaby lake

At least they are genuinely trying. Have a look at AMD's revenue and profit margins over the last 10 years, now compare that to Nvidia's and Intel's. Simply put AMD does not have the money/assets to actually be able to fairly compete, not only are they are tiny fraction of Nvidia's and Intel's they are competing with both simultaneously.

 

Nvidia basically makes as much profit in a single quarter than AMD does over 10 years and Intel is so huge in comparison to both it's almost laughable to even compare them, Intel has a yearly revenue of 55 billion dollars and net profits around 1-4 billion dollars a quarter.

 

AMD on the other hand barely breaks even, often running at a loss and gaining that back with a single good quarter which is few and far between,

 

If you look back pre 2000's and up until around 2006 ATI (now AMD/RTG) actually had the superior technology, still does in my opinion, than what Nvidia did. ATI was always first to node shrink and their die sizes were much smaller yet were able to not just compete but beat the competing product. The GPU race back then was very fair and was see-sawing between both companies, but Nvidia was making tons more money than AMD.

 

The issue was the general consumer was not buying ATI, didn't know they were a viable or better option and brought genuinely worse performing products for a higher cost. Technology enthusiasts brought the best performing product at the time and switched often between both companies, they did their research and knew the market well but alas they/us are the minority in GPU sales.

 

The market sales have never reflected the true situation between ATI/AMD and Nvidia and was unsustainable, hence the ATI and AMD merger.

 

Back to the point I mentioned above about ATI/AMD having superior technology, just remember this doesn't mean performance. Having superior technology does not mean superior performance and the same goes in the other direction.

 

What I have written pretty clearly looks anti-Nvidia but honestly I have nothing against them. They do an excellent job and provide high quality products, products which I have brought.

 

It's also a fairly similar story with AMD and Intel. AMD first to dual core die, 64bit, better IPC (back then), more efficient L1/L2 cache. To cut a similar long story short read above and find/replace Nvidia with Intel and GPU with CPU.

 

TL;DR The AMD/ATI situation is a shining example of the faults with the free market. But it is what it is and I wouldn't want to have a non free market.

[grimreeper132]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

At least they are genuinely trying. Have a look at AMD's revenue and profit margins over the last 10 years, now compare that to Nvidia's and Intel's. Simply put AMD does not have the money/assets to actually be able to fairly compete, not only are they are tiny fraction of Nvidia's and Intel's they are competing with both simultaneously.

 

Nvidia basically makes as much profit in a single quarter than AMD does over 10 years and Intel is so huge in comparison to both it's almost laughable to even compare them, Intel has a yearly revenue of 55 billion dollars and net profits around 1-4 billion dollars a quarter.

 

AMD on the other hand barely breaks even, often running at a loss and gaining that back with a single good quarter which is few and far between,

 

If you look back pre 2000's and up until around 2006 ATI (now AMD/RTG) actually had the superior technology, still does in my opinion, than what Nvidia did. ATI was always first to node shrink and their die sizes were much smaller yet were able to not just compete but beat the competing product. The GPU race back then was very fair and was see-sawing between both companies, but Nvidia was making tons more money than AMD.

 

The issue was the general consumer was not buying ATI, didn't know they were a viable or better option and brought genuinely worse performing products for a higher cost. Technology enthusiasts brought the best performing product at the time and switched often between both companies, they did their research and knew the market well but alas they/us are the minority in GPU sales.

 

The market sales have never reflected the true situation between ATI/AMD and Nvidia and was unsustainable, hence the ATI and AMD merger.

 

Back to the point I mentioned above about ATI/AMD having superior technology, just remember this doesn't mean performance. Having superior technology does not mean superior performance and the same goes in the other direction.

 

What I have written pretty clearly looks anti-Nvidia but honestly I have nothing against them. They do an excellent job and provide high quality products, products which I have brought.

 

It's also a fairly similar story with AMD and Intel. AMD first to dual core die, 64bit, better IPC (back then), more efficient L1/L2 cache. To cut a similar long story short read above and find/replace Nvidia with Intel and GPU with CPU.

 

TL;DR The AMD/ATI situation is a shining example of the faults with the free market. But it is what it is and I wouldn't want to have a non free market.

no I'm fucking glad that they are trying I just don't completely trust them to no make a mess of it somehow, don't get me wrong I don't want them to, I would love it if they could have a CPU launch with out a hitch and be a serious competition to intel and Nvidea (they still have some comptition from AMD mind you in the low end GPU market) and I know they are barely breaking even, which is why I'm hoping this saves them and lets the make money to compete further into the future. And yes I would be happy for AMD if they became a big shot again in the CPU and GPU markets. and I understand with the superior technology, and if you believe AMD they have superior technology again, and like you many of the post here might sound anti AMD or anti intel  at times, but I just want the best product for my money and with intel new line up which in my eyes is skylake with a slight overclocked. I am hoping AMD can deliver in order to compete with intel. and yea I know about the 64 bit and the dual core, and I just feel that it's a shame that despite all their contributions in the past that they are where they are. But the way I want it is for AMD to become competitive so either they and intel can innovate further, as intel isn't really doing that again.

[AnonymousGuy]

On 1/8/2017 at 6:36 AM, grimreeper132 said:

I'm not skeptical, I just don't have 100% faith in AMD, and still feel like they can screw up and make a mess to it somehow, pricing for example, so yea, I can see they are good cpus, but I can still see it going badly somehow

I'm betting AMD will fuck it up in at least one way.  They're on a shittier process technology that they have no direct control over.   And just in terms of budgets Intel can spend more on marketing than AMD makes revenue.  There's no way Ryzen is going to live up to the hype that's been built for it.  It's going to be a paper launch, poor overclocking, only-good-in-some-workload chip.

 

Not to mention AMD has been so dead in the game that even if they put something out that's good, they aren't going to be able to get any OEM sales.  Dell HP Lenovo everyone all are used to working with Intel, tehy're not going to waste resources designing around AMD when there's really no point.

[grimreeper132]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I'm betting AMD will fuck it up in at least one way.  They're on a shittier process technology that they have no direct control over.   And just in terms of budgets Intel can spend more on marketing than AMD makes revenue.  There's no way Ryzen is going to live up to the hype that's been built for it.  It's going to be a paper launch, poor overclocking, only-good-in-some-workload chip.

 

Not to mention AMD has been so dead in the game that even if they put something out that's good, they aren't going to be able to get any OEM sales.  Dell HP Lenovo everyone all are used to working with Intel, tehy're not going to waste resources designing around AMD when there's really no point.

I can see that happening, but I hope it doesn't. But I can still see it happening, the thing is though if they do live up to everything they say they will do then I think that it will go brilliantly, but I feel something might just go wrong, I just hope nothing does

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, grimreeper132 said:

I can see that happening, but I hope it doesn't. But I can still see it happening, the thing is though if they do live up to everything they say they will do then I think that it will go brilliantly, but I feel something might just go wrong, I just hope nothing does

I still think it's not even an issue of whether or not it's a good product, it can be better and cheaper and still suffer the same fate as before. People actually have to buy the products which history has shown doesn't happen even when they were just as good.

 

AMD is now defined by just one CPU architecture generation, as proven by the post above yours and many others. It doesn't matter about the many previous ones that were very good, those are old and most people in the PC market now weren't even alive to have seen them, the only thing about AMD they know is Bulldozer onward and maybe some details of late K10.

 

Totally not serious but if people want PC technology to truly progress again if you buy a 1070/1080 also buy a RX460/RX470 and just throw it in the bin. If everyone did that you'd be better off in 3 years time, options wise of what is then on the market. Same goes for Intel CPUs, if you buy a $380+ Intel CPU also buy the cheapest and worst AMD CPU and throw that in the bin. Again not actually seriously as that is immensely wasteful and harmful to the environment but it would stimulate the industry and you'll be better off even if you still prefer and use Intel/Nvidia products.

[LoE Ferret]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I still think it's not even an issue of whether or not it's a good product, it can be better and cheaper and still suffer the same fate as before. People actually have to buy the products which history has shown doesn't happen even when they were just as good.

 

AMD is now defined by just one CPU architecture generation, as proven by the post above yours and many others. It doesn't matter about the many previous ones that were very good, those are old and most people in the PC market now weren't even alive to have seen them, the only thing about AMD they know is Bulldozer onward and maybe some details of late K10.

 

Totally not serious but if people want PC technology to truly progress again if you buy a 1070/1080 also buy a RX460/RX470 and just throw it in the bin. If everyone did that you'd be better off in 3 years time, options wise of what is then on the market. Same goes for Intel CPUs, if you buy a $380+ Intel CPU also buy the cheapest and worst AMD CPU and throw that in the bin. Again not actually seriously as that is immensely wasteful and harmful to the environment but it would stimulate the industry and you'll be better off even if you still prefer and use Intel/Nvidia products.

OR maybe AMD get their house in order and compete without charity.

 

When the solution relies on charity, the outcome is already known. If AMD can not compete (whatever the field) then they deserve to die off. Yes thank you for your contributions to the IT industry, here is your participation award and there is the door. 

 

Whether your comment was serious or not, the very fact that we are in this position is entirely the fault of AMD. Everyone goes on about Nvidia's 680GTX being a hot plate (it was) but to blast AMD for the wreck of a CPU is suddenly out of bounds? EVGA will live with people asking "Do they provide enough pads" and then others ckecking EVERY SINGLE CARD in every single review for years.

 

Don't cry for AMD for their own failure. The FineWine bullcrap and other nonsense only makes the matter worse.

 

If AMD can produce a chip I would use, I would buy it. I don't do charity. Make something good or I will not buy it, otherwise sell it at the Reject Shop.

[leadeater]

59 minutes ago, LoE Ferret said:

OR maybe AMD get their house in order and compete without charity.

 

When the solution relies on charity, the outcome is already known. If AMD can not compete (whatever the field) then they deserve to die off. Yes thank you for your contributions to the IT industry, here is your participation award and there is the door. 

 

Whether your comment was serious or not, the very fact that we are in this position is entirely the fault of AMD. Everyone goes on about Nvidia's 680GTX being a hot plate (it was) but to blast AMD for the wreck of a CPU is suddenly out of bounds? EVGA will live with people asking "Do they provide enough pads" and then others ckecking EVERY SINGLE CARD in every single review for years.

 

Don't cry for AMD for their own failure. The FineWine bullcrap and other nonsense only makes the matter worse.

 

If AMD can produce a chip I would use, I would buy it. I don't do charity. Make something good or I will not buy it, otherwise sell it at the Reject Shop.

Well you did just miss the point, AMD had their house in order long ago but there were multiple reasons for why their business did not continue to succeed.

• People didn't buy from them even when they were better, consumer ignorance
• Above point can be partly blamed on AMD for bad marketing but,
• Intel's multiple cases of antitrust violations that they have been found guilty of, creating deals with partners to exclude AMD products from their ranges

59 minutes ago, LoE Ferret said:

the very fact that we are in this position is entirely the fault of AMD.

No this is simply not true. If I was to challenge you to a 100m race but tied a brick to your leg who is going to win?

 

It's not about charity at all, you would actually be directly better off (next AMD generation) if everyone brought from them. Competition breeds innovation, something seen previously in the CPU market but funnily enough not so much now. You should never advocate for a single vendor market, you might as well throw your computer away if you support that.

 

59 minutes ago, LoE Ferret said:

The FineWine bullcrap and other nonsense only makes the matter worse.

No AMD products were actually better in the past, look it up. And I mean better in every way not edge cases, they were superior.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1517/9

 

I'm more than happy to criticize AMD products, Bulldozer and on-wards were not good at all which is something I alluded to already. Reason I didn't go in to it is that this is well known and not about the topic I was discussing. There is very clear evidence of AMD and ATI making higher performing products yet being massively, orders of magnitude, outsold by their competitors which goes directly against how the free market is advocated to work.

 

Edit:

Quote

What the cancelation of Intel's 4GHz Pentium 4 does say however is that Prescott was a waste. Intel would have done a much better job of competing had 90nm been simply a die shrink and done without the architectural "enhancements" of Prescott designed to ramp up clock speeds. Granted hindsight is 20-20 and we can't blame Intel for not having that knowledge of the future, but we can say that once again, it looks like AMD made the right bet, this time with reference to their 90nm strategy. We would strongly recommend any of AMD's 90nm parts thanks to their significantly lower power consumption, competitive price as well as their performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1517/17

[LoE Ferret]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well you did just miss the point, AMD had their house in order long ago but there were multiple reasons for why their business did not continue to succeed.

• People didn't buy from them even when they were better, consumer ignorance
• Above point can be partly blamed on AMD for bad marketing but,
• Intel's multiple cases of antitrust violations that they have been found guilty of, creating deals with partners to exclude AMD products from their ranges

 

Brand recognition, advertising your achievements, proving superior product is what you need to do to get noticed. What did AMD do? Basically nothing.

 

I have been following this game for decades, my first PC was a 100Mhz 486 (I don't count my trusty C64 though otherwise it would be the first). I got unlucky with the cheap fake chipsets where if you put too much RAM in the Mobo would give up the ghost. 

 

You know something I nearly never saw, AMD makes it presence known. I saw Intel and IBM flapping their gums all they could. AMD was near silent.

 

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No this is simply not true. If I was to challenge you to a 100m race but tied a brick to your leg who is going to win?

 

It's not about charity at all, you would actually be directly better off (next AMD generation) if everyone brought from them. Competition breeds innovation, something seen previously in the CPU market but funnily enough not so much now. You should never advocate for a single vendor market, you might as well throw your computer away if you support that.

And when it was exposed, what did AMD do? It had a perfect opportunity to muscle its way into the market heavily on the back of this. It was a perfect opportunity for the company to really push some deals whilst the winds were favourable. What did they do? Nothing.

 

Even before this event AMD was not really on the radar for market share. This reads like the your usual Standard Oil tale. But they forgot that Standard Oil was loosing its monopoly at the breakup point (from 90% in 1880 to around 60% in 1910). 

 

AMD has never hit the radar due to a combination of things. I know of the antitrust events well, but you have to give AMD massive criticism that outside of this AMD has done NOTHING to advance its position. It is always a victim tale for them.

 

Look at their recent CES presentation, if they stopped trying to bag their competitor and instead FOCUSSED on their products they might get more traction than fanboys and a subreddit dedicated to them.

 

46 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No AMD products were actually better in the past, look it up. And I mean better in every way not edge cases, they were superior.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1517/9

Oh god, always back to the Athlon era. Yes, I had an Athlon as well. They were great. No challenge there. If they could bring out an Athlon level event again I would buy them without a single concern. But when you cast your line back a decade to provide an example you are only shooting yourself in the foot. What has AMD done since?

 

Bulldozer...

 

For a industry of innovation, if you are riding on your success a decade ago with nothing to show after that, you are struggling or dead in water.

 

Also you are only looking at one aspect of the free market. AMD previously was doing NOTHING to advertise his superior product. Now it seems to have worked that part out but stumbles with every release. "overclocker's dream", the PCIE issue with Pascal, maintaining Bulldozer despite it being an anchor. Madness. AMD made historically great products then sat on them with next to no attempts to push itself out there.

 

Basically lets say I could beat the 100m WR with the brick on my shoe, but I never enter races, never run in front of others and when I do run in front of otherI lie that I can do the time with three bricks, then try and fail. It doesn't matter whether I can really do it if no ones knows because I don't sell it.

 

Hell Nvidia sprang from them and is now slaughtering them. If that is a sign of massive mismanagement I don't know what else to say. AMD plays the victim and hopes that is enough.

 

Come on, stop blaming others and start AMD to get a bit wiser in the game. 

 

[HalGameGuru]

4 minutes ago, LoE Ferret said:

-snip-

 

Athlon included a half dozen or so architectures, including die shrinks, and went on as Athlon II, and lead to Phenom/Phenom II, and their K6- and K6-II processors were also highly competitive. And that is well over a decade of being competitive. You can have a competitive, or even superior product and still fail. There is little utile difference between GM or Ford, McDonalds or Burger King, Samsung or LG. They all provide products that are nigh indistinguishable in a utilitarian context. But, details, consumer fickleness, and simple aesthetics can skew entire markets.

[LoE Ferret]

2 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Athlon included a half dozen or so architectures, including die shrinks, and went on as Athlon II, and lead to Phenom/Phenom II, and their K6- and K6-II processors were also highly competitive. And that is well over a decade of being competitive. You can have a competitive, or even superior product and still fail. There is little utile difference between GM or Ford, McDonalds or Burger King, Samsung or LG. They all provide products that are nigh indistinguishable in a utilitarian context. But, details, consumer fickleness, and simple aesthetics can skew entire markets.

Exactly. Athlon was fantastic, but in the end it's day in the sun ended.

 

Also I agree, there is more to the story than superior product. Look at Apple...

[Clanscorpia]

Who could have guessed? /s It was pretty obvious when Intel was releasing an OCable i3 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LoE Ferret said:

-snip-

I do agree with your point but you are dismissing an entire company over a single architecture generation. By your very same point earlier Intel should have left the market due to the Pentium 3 & 4.

 

As for AMD getting back in the market that is not so easy, proving Intel was doing improper business practices is only the first step. You then have to forge deals with the very same vendors still entrenched with Intel, and by the time it was truly exposed AMD didn't have competitive products or the assets to fix it's architecture due to the previous mentioned lack of sales. It's lovely to say that it is madness to continue to maintain Bulldozer+ but a ground up rebuild requires money, money AMD is very tight on compared to Nvidia or Intel.

 

Advertising also costs money, lots of it, which Nvidia and Intel puts tons in to.

 

Also Nvidia didn't spring from them, they were always miles ahead. The public revenue reports clearly shows this, ATI was never selling the same or close to the number of units ever in history.

 

If you go back to my original post on the matter I did not blame Nvidia or Intel at all, I was describing the actual situation and how that lead to AMD not being able to compete. It is extremely wishful thinking that a company in that situation can stay competitive. Computer component industry isn't like others, you can't corner out a special niche market you are either performance competitive or not. CPUs and GPUs aren't the same as phones or laptops and have no visual trend appeal at all.

 

We are both over simplifying a complex issue, frankly one I'm not that interested in continuing. I provided context to the CPU market so people are better informed, few people realize AMD was ever a leading CPU company and just how much of a funding difference there is between the companies. This information is interesting and important to know if you are going to make proper commentary on the CPU market. Claiming that I or AMD keep playing the victim card is something you are inferring on us when we are not, or at least I'm not and have no interest in doing.

 

P.S. Nvidia bags AMD just as much during their presentations, this is nothing new for any technology company who is competing with others. It just looks more pathetic from AMD than it does from Nvidia.

[grimreeper132]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

I still think it's not even an issue of whether or not it's a good product, it can be better and cheaper and still suffer the same fate as before. People actually have to buy the products which history has shown doesn't happen even when they were just as good.

 

AMD is now defined by just one CPU architecture generation, as proven by the post above yours and many others. It doesn't matter about the many previous ones that were very good, those are old and most people in the PC market now weren't even alive to have seen them, the only thing about AMD they know is Bulldozer onward and maybe some details of late K10.

 

Totally not serious but if people want PC technology to truly progress again if you buy a 1070/1080 also buy a RX460/RX470 and just throw it in the bin. If everyone did that you'd be better off in 3 years time, options wise of what is then on the market. Same goes for Intel CPUs, if you buy a $380+ Intel CPU also buy the cheapest and worst AMD CPU and throw that in the bin. Again not actually seriously as that is immensely wasteful and harmful to the environment but it would stimulate the industry and you'll be better off even if you still prefer and use Intel/Nvidia products.

you make a good point again, and yes intel has a better line up, but in order for AMD to squeeze into the market, they need both a good advertising campaign as well as a good product, because although it's not always the best product that sells the most, it  helps to have a very good product to sell, to try and sell the most as otherwise, the price to performance will be low, but on the whole, the biggest requirement for them is to advertise the CPUs well after in order to try and get large numbers of sales.

[anotherriddle]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

I still think it's not even an issue of whether or not it's a good product, it can be better and cheaper and still suffer the same fate as before. People actually have to buy the products which history has shown doesn't happen even when they were just as good.

 

AMD is now defined by just one CPU architecture generation, as proven by the post above yours and many others. It doesn't matter about the many previous ones that were very good, those are old and most people in the PC market now weren't even alive to have seen them, the only thing about AMD they know is Bulldozer onward and maybe some details of late K10.

 

Totally not serious but if people want PC technology to truly progress again if you buy a 1070/1080 also buy a RX460/RX470 and just throw it in the bin. If everyone did that you'd be better off in 3 years time, options wise of what is then on the market. Same goes for Intel CPUs, if you buy a $380+ Intel CPU also buy the cheapest and worst AMD CPU and throw that in the bin. Again not actually seriously as that is immensely wasteful and harmful to the environment but it would stimulate the industry and you'll be better off even if you still prefer and use Intel/Nvidia products.

My plan for my next PC build is similar to the approach you suggest. First of all I don't expect AMD to live up to the hype around Ryzen, there will be a catch somewhere. But, regardless what happens, I will build a AMD-platform PC even if it has a bit lower clockspeed and lower IPC than Intel. I would even do it if the price per performance advantage is not huge and with the risk of a completely new architecture in mind. I am just one person but if more people try to balance out their purchases from competing companies it would be better for everyone in the long run.

 

Also, I prefer AMDs approach regarding overclocking and no socket change for the forseeable future. I won't throw a board away just because I want to upgrade my CPU. This is the reason I didn't upgrade my main PC for quite some time now (I just bought a higher end chip (used) whithin the same generation). But I would prefer to buy a good board and be able to upgrade my CPU (and CPU generation) if the need arises.

 

The workloads I have now take advantage of every additional core and with a similar energy efficiency compared to Intel and a better price to performance ratio I will most likely be better regardless of what happens.