Three times the charm - New AMD CPU announcement + big Navi Teaser

[porina]

16 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

• R&D of the Zen 3 seems to be minimal. No groundbreaking advancements. We all knew the possible improvement since Zen2 was released, and we aren't CPU engineers. So it doesn't justify the price increase. It didn't cost more to make either. TSMC got better yields.

We don't have the low down architecture info yet. Ian Cutress of Anandtech has hinted he's got more info, but presumably it's under embargo until the review lift I think at the same time as open sales. He did suggest that the changes are not a minor iteration to Zen 2, and it was more substantial than that.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

We don't have the low down architecture info yet. Ian Cutress of Anandtech has hinted he's got more info, but presumably it's under embargo until the review lift I think at the same time as open sales. He did suggest that the changes are not a minor iteration to Zen 2, and it was more substantial than that.

We should get that information before release date, like we did before. AMD have an architecture day where they release all this information, it's reviews that will be on the day or the day before.

[Spotty]

53 minutes ago, lllKUNG_FUlll said:

why does AMD's 5900X get the most discussion?

Probably because if it's anything like the 3950X AMD are only making twelve 5950X CPUs and you'll have less chance getting one than an RTX 3080.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Then you're going to act as if the 3600X doesn't exist?

I don't pretend like the 3600X doesn't exist. But since people aren't really buying the 3600X I don't see why we should compare the 4600X vs the 3600X.

If AMD had made the 3600X a 600 dollar CPU would you be going "oh look at how great value the 5600X is! The old one was 600 dollars so this is great!"?

 

By the way, the 3600X costs 210 dollars, so even IF we for some God knows why reason were to compare the 5600X to only the 3600X and pretended like the 3600 didn't exist, it would still be 210 vs 300 dollars, which is a 43% price increase for ~20% performance increase. Aka, a bad deal that should not be recommended.

 

Let me repeat that. I am not the one acting like some particular product doesn't exist. You are. You are the one ignoring the 3600 which is the most highly recommended and frequently bought product from AMD. You're the one pretending like it doesn't exist and choosing to only compare the 5600X vs the 3600X because "it has an X in the name so therefore it is the only fair comparison".

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

I don't see the correlation here.

 

You're saying the 5600X can only be compared against the 3600X and we should pretend like the 3600 doesn't exist because "we can only compare products which has X in their names or else its unfair".

I tried to make an analogy by saying "we can only compare an i7 with products that also have i7 in their names when determining if they are good value or not".

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Then you're going to act as if the 3600X doesn't exist?

I don't agree in this particular segment of the market.

The 3600 is already more than enough for what pretty much everyone needs. You don't actually need more performance than that except in very rare scenarios. In those scenarios where you are willing to sacrifice price to performance for overall higher performance beyond what most people need, then I think it is better to just get a higher tier product like an 8 core CPU.

 

You can get a 3700X for the same price as the 5600X.

For the same money you get 2 extra cores.

 

Want even more performance? Get the 3900X. It has 12 cores and is cheaper than the 8 core Ryzen 5800X.

 

The Ryzen 5000 products announced are simply bad in terms of price to performance. You're paying a hefty price premium for higher IPC when you can get more than enough single core performance but better multicore performance for less money by going with Ryzen 3000.

Does that sound familiar by the way? Expensive single core performance vs cheaper and better multicore performance? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

I agree most people will think it's unusual that AMD is the more expensive option, now that AMD might be the faster option with more features over Intel I could only see AMD lowering prices if they realize Zen 3 isn't selling well.

Here is what I think will happen:

1) Zen 3 sells well despite Zen 2 being a better buy for like 90% of all people, and AMD keeps their expensive prices.

2) Zen 3 doesn't sell well because people just keep buying Zen 2 products. If that happens I think AMD will just stop making Zen 2 products and force everyone to buy Zen 3 products.

3) Intel makes a miraculous and very unlikely comeback and forces prices to go down in the same way AMD did with Zen 1.

 

My best is on option 2, sadly.

[Loote]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Here is what I think will happen:

1) Zen 3 sells well despite Zen 2 being a better buy for like 90% of all people, and AMD keeps their expensive prices.

2) Zen 3 doesn't sell well because people just keep buying Zen 2 products. If that happens I think AMD will just stop making Zen 2 products and force everyone to buy Zen 3 products.

3) Intel makes a miraculous and very unlikely comeback and forces prices to go down in the same way AMD did with Zen 1.

 

My best is on option 2, sadly.

I am in the boat of wanting to get a new 8/16 CPU but with those prices I'm afraid 3700X and 10700K aren't going to drop much, I was hoping I'd either get a Zen 3, or Zen 2 will become significantly cheaper. It's the calculation mentioned above, I don't want to pay 60% extra for 20% performance. Might buy a used/discounted 2700x and 5800x(maybe 5700x, if it ever appears) a year or two from now, even without selling old parts it will most likely be cheaper than getting a 5800x n December and my needs aren't that high.

[porina]

29 minutes ago, leadeater said:

We should get that information before release date, like we did before. AMD have an architecture day where they release all this information, it's reviews that will be on the day or the day before.

Whenever it happens, I'm looking forward to it.

 

I dug out what I saw, was this thread:

 

[Rauten]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

2) Zen 3 doesn't sell well because people just keep buying Zen 2 products. If that happens I think AMD will just stop making Zen 2 products and force everyone to buy Zen 3 products.

I think Zen2 being EOL is pretty much a given, regardless of how well Zen3 sells. TSMC fab capacity is limited, there's no point in using their limited allocation on older and less profitable parts (specifically talking about desktop Zen2, of course).

1 minute ago, Loote said:

I am in the boat of wanting to get a new 8/16 CPU but with those prices I'm afraid 3700X and 10700K aren't going to drop much, I was hoping I'd either get a Zen 3, or Zen 2 will become significantly cheaper. It's the calculation mentioned above, I don't want to pay 60% extra for 20% performance. Might buy a used/discounted 2700x and 5800x(maybe 5700x, if it ever appears) a year or two from now, even without selling old parts it will most likely be cheaper than getting a 5800x n December and my needs aren't that high.

First hand? unlikely. Second hand? Might be able to grab some decent deals... I can see 3900X for under 400€ already, after the 5900X and 5950X hit market they might end up close to 300€.

[Dabombinable]

20 hours ago, porina said:

I haven't got a clue what it is, hence asking. I'm only guessing, could it be two single channel memory controllers, instead of the current single dual channel one? Actually, this isn't about the cores, it would be something for the IOD. New revision?

 

IMO Zen 2 is held back from scaling to bigger workloads by the lack of ram and infinity fabric bandwidth, so anything that may alleviate that would be welcome. Making the CCX bigger is one part helping that.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) Zen 3 uses the same I/O die as Zen 2. So the memory controller is the same.

[Citadelen]

19 hours ago, AlfaProto said:

Watched the entire Premiere, yeah, no, AMD just went full Intel being greedy and stagnating. Looks like I'll be holding on to my 6700K until either I saved up for 10/11th gen Intel, or AMD surprised me with a 12-core APU for US$350.

 

how is a 19% IPC boost stagnating?

[Taf the Ghost]

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Everyone comparing prices and just straight up ignoring big IPC uplift entirely... Yeah, it costs more. Because I performs better. Why do I keep seeing such idiocy only in AMD threads where everyone just expects AMD to literally give shit away for free, but when Intel asks more money for their stuff, I never see anyone whining for god damn 50€ difference. :rolleyes:

Well, AMD was basically selling two of the best CPU deals of all-time in succession (2600 and 3600), so there's going to be griping when prices normalize & it isn't the "best deal ever" because its literally replacing the "best deal ever". That said, while the response isn't unexpected, there's definitely some piling-on that looks suspicious. Intel really doesn't want to have to drop prices, even if they really should.

 

Also, we're going to get non-X models. Zen2 & Zen3 share the same wafer supply, so AMD will need to move everything over to Zen3 fairly quickly. AMD CPUs also drop 15-20% off MSRP in 6 months. So there's a very definite "but I want it NOW!" vibe to some of the complaints.

[ewitte]

I was thinking of dropping down to a 5700x but seeing its only offering 5800x at that price sticking with 12 core makes more sense.

[spartaman64]

7 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

Yep it's stupid. If it had a core increase on the entire stack then yeah. But this is just stupid pricing.

 

if they dont increase pricing and profit they are just going to get run over when intel wakes up. intel's r&d budget is more than amd's equity

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Of course. But then let's also stop treating AMD like they are everyone's best bro and only looking out for the people.

They are a mega corporation that want as much money as possible. Of course they will raise prices if they can. But let's stop with all the mental gymnastics to someone try and make these new products look better than they are.

 

Also, let's stop going "well it's just good business" when one company try to make more money, while at the same time going "company X and Y are so greedy! They are bad companies!" when someone else does it.

they are my best bro right now because they are disrupting the market and forcing intel to be more competitive. if not for them we might still be paying 400 dollars for a 4 core cpu

[lllKUNG_FUlll]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

Probably because if it's anything like the 3950X AMD are only making twelve 5950X CPUs and you'll have less chance getting one than an RTX 3080.

Highly unlikely. This is 2020 not 1820. If there's more interest and market researchers know (as they do) they make the supply for the demand. Will there be at first? Look, there are no companies involved in which this is their first rodeo. 

 

What we've seen from every company over the years are paper launches, soft launches, supply that can't meet demand. We see what just happened with NVIDIA's 3000 series GPU. 

 

This doesn't seem to be one of those instances.

 

Someone else mentioned simply due to the economic pressure of spending top end dollars on a CPU. I understand that point and while I disagree that should be cause for not touting the fastest CPU in the lineup first and loudest, I guess it's somewhat easier to comprehend when their 2nd fastest also take Intel and bends 'em over like dogs.

[RejZoR]

5700X is a good deal coz all 8 cores are on single CCX from what I could gather so zero infinity fabric communication there. Unless they plan on using 2x CCX for lower tiers as cost saving measure. Beyond that, I want the 5900X. When I buy my systems I buy them long term and that especially applies for platform as I don't change it for next 5-6 years. I mean, I have my old 5820K on X99 platform since 2014 and it's still powering everything at what I consider excellent performance. But I just want something new to fiddle with. And I definitely want something AMD after almost 2 decades of being on Intel. My last AMD was Athlon 2400+. So yeah, very long time ago.

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, porina said:

We don't have the low down architecture info yet. Ian Cutress of Anandtech has hinted he's got more info, but presumably it's under embargo until the review lift I think at the same time as open sales. He did suggest that the changes are not a minor iteration to Zen 2, and it was more substantial than that.

Hope you are right

[ewitte]

36 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

if they dont increase pricing and profit they are just going to get run over when intel wakes up. intel's r&d budget is more than amd's equity

they are my best bro right now because they are disrupting the market and forcing intel to be more competitive. if not for them we might still be paying 400 dollars for a 4 core cpu

Should have at least been at Intel's price its an advantage for Intel with AMD being more expensive now.

[LAwLz]

38 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

they are my best bro right now because they are disrupting the market and forcing intel to be more competitive. if not for them we might still be paying 400 dollars for a 4 core cpu

Then I strongly advice you to stop thinking of them as your bro. It will cloud your vision and turn you into a fanboy if you keep thinking of AMD as anything but the soulless and greedy company they are.

 

I completely agree that it was great that AMD released Zen and changed the entire market (for the better). But I also understand that AMD do not give 2 fucks about me and all their decisions are entirely based on trying to extract as much money from me as possible.

 

 

  

1 minute ago, ewitte said:

Should have at least been at Intel's price its an advantage for Intel with AMD being more expensive now.

Seems to me like AMD is still the better option even at the lower prices. I fact, I'd say buying anything but a Ryzen 3000 series CPU (including Intel or AMD 5000 series) is stupid, unless you find some special deal for either one of them.

[spartaman64]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Then I strongly advice you to stop thinking of them as your bro. It will cloud your vision and turn you into a fanboy if you keep thinking of AMD as anything but the soulless and greedy company they are.

 

I completely agree that it was great that AMD released Zen and changed the entire market (for the better). But I also understand that AMD do not give 2 fucks about me and all their decisions are entirely based on trying to extract as much money from me as possible.

i root for whichever company is on the bottom if in 40 years amd is the 240 billion dollar company and intel is the 6 billion dollar company then i root for intel.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i root for whichever company is on the bottom if in 40 years amd is the 240 billion dollar company and intel is the 6 billion dollar company then i root for intel.

That's stupid. Why should you or I as consumers care about what the companies are worth? The only thing that should matter to us is price, performance and features. Whichever logo is on the box should be irrelevant.

 

Also, right now Intel is in the bottom as far as CPUs goes. AMD are absolutely crushing them. So shouldn't you be rooting for Intel?

Or how about VIA? Pretty sure they are worth even less than AMD, so shouldn't you be rooting for them?

[hollyh88]

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

5700X is a good deal coz all 8 cores are on single CCX from what I could gather so zero infinity fabric communication there. Unless they plan on using 2x CCX for lower tiers as cost saving measure. Beyond that, I want the 5900X. When I buy my systems I buy them long term and that especially applies for platform as I don't change it for next 5-6 years. I mean, I have my old 5820K on X99 platform since 2014 and it's still powering everything at what I consider excellent performance. But I just want something new to fiddle with. And I definitely want something AMD after almost 2 decades of being on Intel. My last AMD was Athlon 2400+. So yeah, very long time ago.

Still not a good deal. 450 for an 8 core is pretty bad. Ridiculously high pricing. 150 more for 2 cores and 4 threads?? It would be a 'good" deal if it was around 320-350 bucks. And the 5600x 250-270.  But it ain't. 

 

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's stupid. Why should you or I as consumers care about what the companies are worth? The only thing that should matter to us is price, performance and features. Whichever logo is on the box should be irrelevant.

 

Also, right now Intel is in the bottom as far as CPUs goes. AMD are absolutely crushing them. So shouldn't you be rooting for Intel?

because if they go out of business or become uncompetitive thats when we get screwed. intel's r&d budget is more than the entire worth of amd. amd has an advantage right now because of TSMC being ahead but how long will that last? thats why I think them increasing their revenue here is the right move or else they will get crushed when intel fixes their problems

 

we cant just think short term we need to think about long term competitiveness 

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

because if they go out of business or become uncompetitive thats when we get screwed. intel's r&d budget is more than the entire worth of amd. amd has an advantage right now because of TSMC being ahead but how long will that last? thats why I think them increasing their revenue here is the right move or else they will get crushed when intel fixes their problems

 

we cant just think short term we need to think about long term competitiveness 

The CPU market isn't a charity. You shouldn't be basing your purchases on "which company needs my money the most".

You as a consumer should only be looking at performance, features and price when determining which product to buy. From there it's survival of the fittest.  

 

Besides, you seem very selective when applying this logic.

Why not use VIA instead of AMD if you believe that you should let the logo on the box dictate which product to buy?

Why aren't you using an AMD GPU?

How come you're using a Logitech mouse instead of a smaller mouse company?

Why do you use Windows instead of GNU/Linux or some other OS?

I assume you don't use an Android or iOS device and instead use something like a FirefoxOS phone, right?

The list goes on...

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, porina said:

80 series was the first for Haswell so that makes sense. As was often the case with Intel, they did two chipset and CPU generations that inter-operate with each other. If you got the first of the two you had one generation forward.

 

BTW please don't quote the entire post when it is long, just cut it to the relevant bit you're replying to.

There are issues both ways.  Editing makes it complicated for one.  I could see hiding a quoted post but at least half the time someone cuts a post to reply there are problems.   There are several forms of house rule requirements demanded of others by various users that  could be implemented in the forum if they were popular enough, but aren’t.   It becomes a question of following all of them or none of them. 

[spartaman64]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The CPU market isn't a charity. You shouldn't be basing your purchases on "which company needs my money the most".

You as a consumer should only be looking at performance, features and price when determining which product to buy. From there it's survival of the fittest.  

 

Besides, you seem very selective when applying this logic.

Why not use VIA instead of AMD if you believe that you should let the logo on the box dictate which product to buy?

Why aren't you using an AMD GPU?

How come you're using a Logitech mouse instead of a smaller mouse company?

Why do you use Windows instead of GNU/Linux or some other OS?

I assume you don't use an Android or iOS device and instead use something like a FirefoxOS phone, right?

The list goes on...

you completely misunderstood what im saying. rooting for/hoping they do well != donating money to them. im hoping amd destroys intel and nvidia for a while so they can build up some budget to better compete in the long term or else they are just always going to be competitive for a few years and then get crushed and intel and nvidia goes back to being complacent and the cycle continues. this is why im not upset that they raised prices it would be better for consumers in the long term if they can compete in the long term. people need to stop seeking instant gratification and being short sighted 

 

also thats an apples to oranges comparison. amd has products that are competitive with intel right now

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

you completely misunderstood what im saying. rooting for/hoping they do well != donating money to them. im hoping amd destroys intel and nvidia for a while so they can build up some budget to better compete in the long term or else they are just always going to be competitive for a few years and then get crushed and intel and nvidia goes back to being complacent and the cycle continues.

Or maybe you should do what non-fanboys do and think "I sure hope both companies can be competitive".

I strongly recommend you go back to your previous posts and read what you are saying, because you really sound like a fanboy. Here are some things you have said:

1) You think of AMD as your friend.

2) You hope AMD crushes Intel and Nvidia.

3) You are rooting for AMD because they aren't worth as much as Intel.

4) You are glad that AMD products are now more expensive so that they make more money (despite this going against your interest as a consumer).

 

Why not wish that both companies could do well and constantly one-up each other?

 

And again, I really don't understand why I as a consumer should give two craps about how much money the company I buy products from is worth, or why that should affect my purchasing decisions. Again, once you start thinking that way, and do things like you and think of one company as your friend, then objectivity goes out the window.

 

 

  

13 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

also thats an apples to oranges comparison. amd has products that are competitive with intel right now

I think you're arguing against yourself right now.

When it's a company you like, like AMD, then all of a sudden you think people should be buying from the little (AMD) guy because they "need the money".

But when I point out that you don't always buy from the "little guy" you get defensive and start justifying your purchases by talking about features, performance and price, which is exactly what I said should dictate your purchases.