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

[BabaGanuche]

57 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

If it costs more it’s not better in every way.

I really did not want to reply as any argument would not change your mind, but in a discussion about how much to charge for a product for it features, you know damn well I was not taking about price of it but the features. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

uess these new CPUs will appeal to gamers who run their games at 720p with an RTX 3090 GPU... Because in pretty much every other scenario the older 3000 series will be able to keep up and not be a bottleneck for even the highest end GPUs.

Doesn't 1080 also bottle neck a shitton?

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

I really did not want to reply as any argument would not change your mind, but in a discussion about how much to charge for a product for it features, you know damn well I was not taking about price of it but the features. 

But that’s the thing: for some the price IS a feature.  This is the whole difference between price/performance and raw performance. I think AMD is actually doing a clever thing pricing their chips high because they already have the price/performance crown with another chip. So they go for raw performance as well. No matter which chip you buy the money goes to the same place. If they priced the chip low they would put raw performance and price performance in the same chip and probably sell a whack ton of them.  They’d have to be able to make a whack ton though.  Maybe they can’t.

[Parideboy]

AMD had to cash out at some point, no surprise there. Non x variants will probably have a better price/performance ratio.

[StDragon]

AMD just graduated to another level. They're no longer value.. They're clinching the gold cup, flaunting it, and frankly the victory lap is well deserved. The've finally passed that threshold to where they can charge more than Intel as THE premium product; at least for now.... Also, they will need more money to pay off that presumed purchase of Xilinx for 30 Billion! When you buy AMD, you'll be funding that acquisition 

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What isn't very objective is how much you value single thread performance, which depends on your workload.

If your workload depends on that, yes, it is worth the money compared to Intel.

Yes, price to performance may be worse than previous gen, but does it really matter? RTX sold very poorly and now are limited by supply.

Maybe they're also limited by supply (everyone knows that is the case) and decided that cranking up the price to reduce demand was worth the shot (probably is).

 

You literally confirmed it isn't for you (at least for now) because you value more price to performance than other factors, which might not be the case for other people.

“Bad” is a pretty vague term. “Expensive” might be better.  Price/performance and raw performance are different things. 

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is wrong. Incredibly wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong.

No it is very much correct since 10 series and on, because let me remind you the original MSRP of the 1080 was $599 and there was actually a time you could buy around that. Late 10 series and onwards pricing went up A LOT, performance per dollar went way the hell down. Exactly how many and for how long could you buy GTX 2070's for $599? And this is only talking about matching performance per dollar not bettering it. So like I said 30 series is first since 10 series to do it.

 

For Intel if, like most of this forum, you care only about gaming performance then you will also find performance per dollar has not gone up and has actually gone down a few times i.e. 8700K vs 9900K. Or only went up a long time later after new games utilized more threads, performance per dollar isn't actually such a static thing.

 

Things have not been as rosy as you seem to be thinking, hardware pricing has been terrible for ages. Intel CPU shortages, GPU shortages, fab capacity shortages, high priced used market. There really hasn't been anything until recently that has contributed to improving performance per dollar, raw performance has been going up though.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you think that then you don't understand what I am saying in my posts. Go read them again please.

No I have understood just fine. You are complaining the announced products for November are worse performance per dollar than the previous generation, literally exactly like Geforce 20 series and that includes the super refresh. Geforce 30 series is a significant improvement in performance per dollar, for the first time since 2015(2016?). 4-5 years of performance per dollar not getting better for high end GPUs.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Every generation the performance per dollar has gone up. 

No it has not, but that also depends on which products you are look at too. Too many it depends to be honest.

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There can be a billion reasons why AMD raised the prices for the 5000 series but none of that should matter to you or me. The only time that matters is to investors, and if you are invested in AMD then you are clearly biased and can not be trusted to make fair and accurate judgements when it comes to AMD products, and should therefore stay out of discussions regarding them.

(Not directly pointed at you leadeater, but at everyone who talks about these things in general).

No that's just a terrible and a little ignorant way to look at it, so I don't think I should discuss it more. Sometimes cost has to go up, no matter how much you protest it and disagree it needed to or any other number of reasons. Things like this can be perfectly well explained, but only if you are prepared to listen to the explanation and with the above mindset that makes such a thing impossible.

 

And the reasons and factors for why prices change very much matter to me and have literally nothing to do with investment or company finances. I care to know about these things, I like to know what is going on in the market and why. Outside of just wanting to obtain this knowledge, because that's the major reason why, is it informs me of when or if I should be making hardware purchases or not.

 

The only problem I've seen with your posts in this topic basically comes down to you are actually saying more than you simply do not wish to buy for example a 5600X or more generally that you don't like value reduction, it sounds an awful lot like you are saying it shouldn't have happened but then are unprepared to consider why. If you don't want to consider the why then it's not a very fair thing to be arguing.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

If it costs more it’s not better in every way.

Technically right.

 

In theory, a product has no reason to stay at a fixed price forever because even under optimistic growth scenarios, prices increase 1.5-3% per year.

 

Many things exceed a 2% inflation rate (eg food and rent) because underlying factors force it (like property taxes and energy costs.)

 

Like a $50 increase on a $500 chip is a bit of a jump, but's not an unreasonable increase when the product they are offering surpasses the competition and the competition doesn't tend to decrease their own prices (probably because they can't.)

[GoodBytes]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Technically right.

 

In theory, a product has no reason to stay at a fixed price forever because even under optimistic growth scenarios, prices increase 1.5-3% per year.

 

 

Many things exceed a 2% inflation rate (eg food and rent) because underlying factors force it (like property taxes and energy costs.)

 

Like a $50 increase on a $500 chip is a bit of a jump, but's not an unreasonable increase when the product they are offering surpasses the competition and the competition doesn't tend to decrease their own prices (probably because they can't.)

Actually it is worse... 2% inflation rate the way the government calculates it excludes a lot of stuff.

The reality, is around 4%.

[Fatih19]

39 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Many things exceed a 2% inflation rate (eg food and rent) because underlying factors force it (like property taxes and energy costs.)

Printing money also affects that too, especially in these times.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Fatih19 said:

Printing money also affects that too, especially in these times.

Well, I expect a rather large spike for 2020, across the globe. Suffice it to say, all fiat money (eg not pegged to some physical material like gold, silver, etc) can be printed indefinitely, and that is reflected in interest rates.

 

[Fatih19]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't agree.

The 3600 and the 3600X is more than enough for any game you throw at it today, or in the near future.

 

I guess these new CPUs will appeal to gamers who run their games at 720p with an RTX 3090 GPU... Because in pretty much every other scenario the older 3000 series will be able to keep up and not be a bottleneck for even the highest end GPUs.

If you don't believe me just look at these benchmarks from Gamers Nexus. The 3600 is within margin of error from the best performing CPU (the 9900K) for 1% low and 0.1% low. That means throwing more CPU performance won't actually give you better performance. And that's when they were running the games at lower settings (to remove GPU bottlenecks) with an overclocked 2080 Ti as the GPU.

AKA, in the absolute worst case scenario for the CPU, even the 200 dollar Ryzen 3600 is more than capable of not being a bottleneck for the (at the time) highest end GPU when gaming.

I'm not trying to excuse AMD's price hikes by simply pointing finger at Intel, but there are still people buying Intel's 10th gen, which is ever so slightly better in gaming for a premium. There will be people that will swallow the price whole, and they won't be me or you. They're probably going to still sell the 3000 series in parallel so people who don't think the wee bit more performance is worth the price increase could still have an option.

[spartaman64]

buildzoid makes some good points

-they are probably not going to have a ton of stock of the cpus at launch. ofc its not going to be like rtx 3080 but they are probably not going to just sit in storage.

-theres no reason to buy a intel cpu so why would they still price it like intel cpus are better at anything other than niche stuff

intel: super pi is a real world benchmark

-even if you have a application with 100% scaling the performance will still be very close between for example a 6 core 5000 cpu and a 8 core 3000 cpu because of the improved per thread performance

[PineyCreek]

Slightly-related yet tangential question...have AMD display drivers become better since the early Radeon days?  I had a Radeon card once (HD 5870 I think?) but the drivers were just non-stop annoying hassle.  Went to an nvidia 770 shortly after and haven't bought an AMD GPU since.

[Nanners]

10 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

Slightly-related yet tangential question...have AMD display drivers become better since the early Radeon days?  I had a Radeon card once (HD 5870 I think?) but the drivers were just non-stop annoying hassle.  Went to an nvidia 770 shortly after and haven't bought an AMD GPU since.

In the beginning it had issues and took a while to become decent.

However in general early adaptors in general will find issues no matter if it's amd Nvidia or intel.

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

Slightly-related yet tangential question...have AMD display drivers become better since the early Radeon days?  I had a Radeon card once (HD 5870 I think?) but the drivers were just non-stop annoying hassle.  Went to an nvidia 770 shortly after and haven't bought an AMD GPU since.

They were really solid and consistent from 7000 series through to 500 series (not sure about Fury though) then kind of fell off the rails again a bit.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Doesn't 1080 also bottle neck a shitton?

Not sure what you mean. They lowered the resolution and image quality to reduce the GPU bottleneck. 

 

 

9 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What isn't very objective is how much you value single thread performance, which depends on your workload.

If your workload depends on that, yes, it is worth the money compared to Intel.

Yes, price to performance may be worse than previous gen, but does it really matter? RTX sold very poorly and now are limited by supply.

Of course price to performance matters. That's pretty much the only thing that should matter to 90% of all customers. 

That's why people loved Ryzen so much. It had good enough single core performance but way better multi-core performance for the price. 

If people start going "oh but single core performance is more important than price or multi-core performance" then I'll call them out as the hypocrites and fanboys they are if they have recommended any Ryzen CPU before this. 

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

No it is very much correct since 10 series and on, because let me remind you the original MSRP of the 1080 was $599 and there was actually a time you could buy around that. Late 10 series and onwards pricing went up A LOT, performance per dollar went way the hell down. Exactly how many and for how long could you buy GTX 2070's for $599? And this is only talking about matching performance per dollar not bettering it. So like I said 30 series is first since 10 series to do it.

That's a very clever way of typing "it happened once". The Nvidia 20 generation. But even that is at best a partial lie because some GPUs in the 20 generation did offer better price to performance than the 10 series. The 2060 for example had better performance per dollar than the 1060 had (although very slightly). The Super models also offered better price to performance than the no super models. 

 

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

For Intel if, like most of this forum, you care only about gaming performance then you will also find performance per dollar has not gone up and has actually gone down a few times i.e. 8700K vs 9900K. Or only went up a long time later after new games utilized more threads, performance per dollar isn't actually such a static thing.

1) stop limiting your comparisons to one specific thing (gaming) and you will see that this statement is untrue. We did get better price to performance. Gaming might have taken a small hit but nobody cared because the other performance metrics got a big boost. 

If people actually only cared about gaming performance then people would not have recommended Ryzen CPUs. But if you go through this forum you will see that it was basically only AMD CPU recommendations (including from me, and for good reasons). 

 

2) CPU is pretty much irrelevant for gaming so it's barely worth mentioning. Like I showed earlier, even a 200 dollar CPU is more than enough to keep up with a 1000 dollar GPU for gaming. If you are going to game on your pc then you do not want to buy an expensive CPU. The Ryzen 5000 series is way worse for gaming than the 3000 series because of the price being higher and the cheaper 3000 chips being more than enough for gaming. Your money is better spent on GPU than CPU if you only care about gaming. 

 

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Things have not been as rosy as you seem to be thinking, hardware pricing has been terrible for ages. Intel CPU shortages, GPU shortages, fab capacity shortages, high priced used market. There really hasn't been anything until recently that has contributed to improving performance per dollar, raw performance has been going up though.

Thinga haven't been good because of things like supply issues and mining. That's a very different reasons than companies like AMD just raising prices of products. 

If products were sold at the msrp (what companies like Nvidia and AMD want them to sell for) then price to performance would have gone up, except in this case with the Ryzen 5000 series where it went way down. 

 

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

No I have understood just fine. You are complaining the announced products for November are worse performance per dollar than the previous generation, literally exactly like Geforce 20 series and that includes the super refresh. Geforce 30 series is a significant improvement in performance per dollar, for the first time since 2015(2016?). 4-5 years of performance per dollar not getting better for high end GPUs.

1) The 20 series got a lot of shit (rightfully so) for the prices. For some reason AMD isn't getting it for "doing the same thing" though. 

2) in some tiers the 20 series did increase the price to performance. Like I said earlier, the 1060 to 2060 was one example of this. 

3) If we count the super refresh as a new generation then that increased price to performance cross the board. 

4) In most cases where the 30 series did not increase price to performance it at least matched it. With this Ryzen 5000 launch the price to performance has gone way down (if AMD's benchmarks are accurate). 

[Bombastinator]

They’re not getting shit for “doing the same thing” because they’re still selling 3700xes.  Currently you can get one for under $300.  They stop doing that and your argument gains a lot more weight. 

[Fatih19]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

They’re not getting shit for “doing the same thing” because they’re still selling 3700xes.  Currently you can get one for under $300.  They stop doing that and your argument gains a lot more weight. 

Yes, like I mentioned before @LAwLz, AMD will continue producing and selling the 3000 series, so for people who value price to performance, they can get that instead.

[LAwLz]

41 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

They’re not getting shit for “doing the same thing” because they’re still selling 3700xes.  Currently you can get one for under $300.  They stop doing that and your argument gains a lot more weight. 

Fair point. 

 

33 minutes ago, Fatih19 said:

Yes, like I mentioned before @LAwLz, AMD will continue producing and selling the 3000 series, so for people who value price to performance, they can get that instead.

Do we know that or is it speculation? Several people in this thread have said they will stop making the 3000 series since that is eating up capacity for the 5000 series. 

[Fatih19]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Do we know that or is it speculation? Several people in this thread have said they will stop making the 3000 series since that is eating up capacity for the 5000 series. 

Hmmm, I just speculated about that, actually. They continued selling Ryzen 2000 series after 3000 launched so I made that speculation, granted they weren't on the same node so things could change.

[RejZoR]

There is always some stock left and some production in parallel. Eventually 5000 series will replace 3000 entirely. Prices might drop a bit with time too.

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Fair point. 

 

Do we know that or is it speculation? Several people in this thread have said they will stop making the 3000 series since that is eating up capacity for the 5000 series. 

If they do it would be very foolish of them.  The 3700x has a different part of the market.  It would turn something else into the price/performance leader.  Something they might not make.  The whole point seems to be finding market share.  Why would they just give up the section of market share they strive so hard for and gained so much with?   They’ve done foolish things before though.