AMD is not done with the bullshit. (Unconfirmed)

[Orange1]

14 hours ago, SavageNeo said:

probably because they know that they will be good and beat any intel offerings in gaming and workloads.

they are not fking up anything. Average customer should do his research before buying. it is not AMDs fault. it is customers fault

It is not that much more money to spend when getting a new pc. Just spend your free government covid money on the price difference.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

AMD attempt 1: "OK, we're resetting our naming scheme, signifying our fresh start with Zen. We can name them anything they want, so this is your chance to leave your mark"

 

Spoiler

AMD CPU team: "...Ryzen 3, 5, and 7?"

 

 

AMD atempt 2: "OK, let's see, we've made a mess with the whole mobile and APU thing, but whatever, we moved the Zen 3 CPUs straight to 5000, so there's nothing else in that naming scheme. Now just go and give names to the Zen 2 and 3 APUs. You surely can't miss this time!"

Spoiler

AMD APU team:

 

[Vishera]

13 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

 How could one assume that something else would not occur?

The answer is simple: By being naive

[thechinchinsong]

23 hours ago, MageTank said:

I don't think AMD had to name it that similarly to Intel though. They could have called their chipset the AMD X300 back when Intel had the Z270. 300 is still a larger number than 270, if that was their plan the entire time. X399 vs X299 was by far the biggest slap in the face seeing as both had the same starting letter as well, but luckily that was comparing two enthusiast platforms and I'd hope that enthusiasts were harder to confuse.

Eh, I still think the chipset naming was and still is perfectly fine. If your point is that AMD could have made it X300 where 300>270, then the same point stands with X370 where 370>270. The first letter is different too. However, the reason they chose specifically something with the X_70 moniker was because it already had consumer recognition. My point is that it makes sense for a market entering company to follow the established example of the market dominant one. I could have seen x399 being a real problem, but considering there are only 3 chipsets total with that naming scheme (x99, x299, x399) along with what you said about its intended audience, I can't really see anyone making a mistake with those platforms. AMD also recently switched away from the X___ naming scheme with their enthusiast platforms to (s)TRX.

[thechinchinsong]

18 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

AMD attempt 1: "OK, we're resetting our naming scheme, signifying our fresh start with Zen. We can name them anything they want, so this is your chance to leave your mark"

 

  Reveal hidden contents

AMD CPU team: "...Ryzen 3, 5, and 7?"

 

 

Am I too stupid to get the first one?

[MageTank]

58 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

Eh, I still think the chipset naming was and still is perfectly fine. If your point is that AMD could have made it X300 where 300>270, then the same point stands with X370 where 370>270. The first letter is different too. However, the reason they chose specifically something with the X_70 moniker was because it already had consumer recognition. My point is that it makes sense for a market entering company to follow the established example of the market dominant one. I could have seen x399 being a real problem, but considering there are only 3 chipsets total with that naming scheme (x99, x299, x399) along with what you said about its intended audience, I can't really see anyone making a mistake with those platforms. AMD also recently switched away from the X___ naming scheme with their enthusiast platforms to (s)TRX.

Nobody is arguing that it's bad from a business decision perspective, if AMD wants to game the system to make a buck and it is legal for them to do so, I say go for it. My only point is that their intent behind doing so can be seen as potentially predatory/misleading for consumers as it is designed to intentionally confuse them based on how extremely similar the naming conventions are. I am not faulting AMD here as the sole party responsible for these practices as plenty of companies do it world wide, not just in the tech industry either. It's just my opinion that AMD's track record is the worst in this particular industry for the reasons highlighted in my previous posts.

 

I am also sure this is bound to change given enough time, as Nvidia has been trying their absolute best to take this crown lately, and Intel's Ice Lake naming convention hasn't been kind to my eyes either. Still, as long as AMD holds the crown, long live the king, lol.

[aisle9]

On 10/19/2020 at 4:53 AM, Vishera said:

The manufacturers in mobile market are extremely deceptive,unproportional prices and HUGE profit margins.

 

Apple = selling $200 worth of hardware for $1000 (Did you really think the manufacturing costs are that much higher than the desktop market?!)

And don't forget that they used to sell dual-cores for $1000 especially in 2018!

 

AMD = All of their offerings in the lase decade were either weak crap,or extremely over-priced stuff.

I mean silicon is silicon,It doesn't make any sense that the 3700X significantly outperforms anything on the mobile market yet it's significantly cheaper!

 

Intel = Calling some-dual cores "i7" is not OK,and it has the same price problem as AMD.

 

Nvidia = When a $700 GTX 1660 desktop system beats a $2000 RTX 2070 mobile laptop,no further explanation needed.

 

Most laptop manufacturers = fans barely work,and temperatures get high,Why did you install fans in the first place if you don't use them?!

Also they design their products to be disposable...

 

There are many more problems with the laptop industry,it's very cancerous and anti-consumer preying on the lack of care of Gen Z (most of them don't care).

1. If it costs you $200 to build something, but there's such demand for it that you can charge $1,000, are you really going to say, "Know what, fair citizens of Earth? You deserve a break. Have these phones at $350!"? Hell no you're not. You're taking that $1,000, and don't even pretend that you wouldn't.

 

2. Mobile CPUs/APUs have to work with bad cooling in a thermally-limited and power-limited environment. The 3700X, on the other hand, can be dialed up as high as the end user's heart desires in an environment with much better cooling and power limited only by the PSU and the VRM. Of course mobile CPUs are weaker.

 

3. IIRC, the dual-core i7-U thing stopped several years ago, and all mobile i7 CPUs are quads or better. Even then, I didn't see a problem with a 2/4 i7. It was a low-power SKU, not anything marketed as a gaming chip by any means, and 2/4 was about the best blend of power and battery life available. And it's not like there were no other differences--the i7 CPUs had higher clock speeds and more cache. Was it annoying to see an i7 sticker on a laptop and realize that "i7" meant 5600U? Sure. Did any average consumer ever go home and say, "Aw man, my i7's a dual core?! Lame."? Possibly, and if they did, shame on them for not doing five minutes' worth of research on the laptop they had just spent hundreds of dollars on.

 

4. Again, thermal and design limitation. Is the Max-Q line BS? Yes. Very yes. If you need an RTX 2070 in your ultrabook, you need to reevaluate which of those two things you really need. But then again, laptops with a Max-Q card can still game. You keep going with this apples to oranges comparison of desktop parts and laptop parts. They do not occupy space in the same ballpark. They barely occupy space on the same continent. They are designed for very different tolerances, performance expectations, use cases, and did I mention tolerances? Yes, a GTX 1660 stands a good chance of beating a Max-Q chip of a higher SKU. But that 1660 is running inside of a big, open tower with lots of fans, ample airflow and a 500W power supply. The Max-Q is...well...let's just say it's facing a few more limitations on its performance, but it's not like it can't do what it was advertised to do. It can still game. And maybe you'd be saddened when the ultrabook that you apparently did zero research on proves itself to be unable to beat your $800 desktop setup, but again, if you were to do a split second of research into things you're about to spend hundreds (or more) of dollars on, you'd see warnings about Max-Q being severely limited.

 

5. Planned obsolescence goes back decades. One great example: the automobile. In the 1970's, manufacturers started moving away from steel block engines entirely. They said this was to improve weight and economy, but really it's because steel block engines were running literally forever, and new car sales were hurting as a result. So they switched to aluminum block and, quite literally, boom. New car sales have rarely been an issue since. Hate it if you want--and I do--but planned obsolescence is not the brainchild of mobile device manufacturers.

 

On 10/19/2020 at 5:13 AM, Vishera said:

Even with LTE we get amazing speeds,who the hell needs 1Gb for a phone?!

Nope,you are wrong.

Explain to me how a cheap-ass laptop motherboard with cheap VRMs costs more to manufacturer than a high-end desktop motherboard?

Or the cheap RAM,or DRAMless SSDs they put there?

And a cheap laptop LCD doesn't cost as much as a gaming monitor.

Or the GPUs that use the same silicon as the desktop (as matter of fact they use the inferior quality silicon for laptops).

The same TU104 is sold for 700$ on the desktop,but on laptops the lower quality and power limited TU104 is part of a $2200 laptop?!

First off, I'd like to remind you of something some guy you might have heard of once said:

"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need in a computer."

 

1. Mobile parts are not the same as desktop parts. Stop trying to equate the two. A desktop motherboard is printed to one of three near-universal specifications, with components that are more or less universally in the same place, and there's zero customization required beyond that if the OEM doesn't want to do any. A laptop motherboard is custom-designed and built to fit the chassis, which means that components are squeezed in where they fit instead of into standardized locations. It's the nature of the beast. The more specialized you want something to be, the more it's going to cost.

 

2. Cheap RAM and SSDs are you shitting me? Have you ever bothered to open up a modern prebuilt desktop and take a look at the cheapo SSDs they use, the motherboards holding an i7-10700 surrounded by a bare VRM, the single 8GB green stick of DDR4-2133 left over from the Optiplex assembly line and the power supply that has 500W printed in huge letters then, "Do not exceed 380W" in tiny print below it? Are you comparing laptop RAM and SSDs to those high-quality parts found in desktops, then?

 

3 (and 4, and 5). Again, apples to f**king oranges. You're trying to equate a mobile display to a screen that sits on a desk. You're comparing a laptop to a desktop again. The whole point, the point that seems to elude you, is that not everyone who needs a laptop would be fine with a desktop. If someone is buying a laptop to sit at home and play Fortnite on, then yeah, why bother with a laptop? Get a desktop. But if someone needs to be on the go constantly, well, have fun setting up that "gaming monitor" on the airplane seat's tray table.

 

On 10/19/2020 at 10:59 AM, Sorenson said:

First off this thread should be about AMD’s upcoming CPUs. But while we’re at it, why is everyone crying about this? A USB C to A adapter is like $6. Most people already have the cable to charge their phone, if they don’t then they add on $20 to the cost of an $800 device. Big who cares. 

Primarily because Apple loves to jump up and down, whine, and cry about how anything but a genuine Apple part is going to void your warranty and set your phone on fire. To point A, I mean, good luck proving that someone used a third-party charger. To point B, this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility, actually, but despite the best efforts of Amazon Basics, it's still very rare. Just stick to known brands, even known Chinese brands, that have been around for a while and have consistent good reviews, and you're fine. But Apple doesn't want you to know that. They'd rather you buy 2 wall chargers and a mobile charger from them directly.

 

22 hours ago, whm1974 said:

How many actual Gamers even brought GT 1030 based video cards? The only people who brought them are those who needed something better then whatever iGPU they had...

If you're upgrading something like an Optiplex SFF, the GT 1030 is a very attractive option. If you've got one of those annoying SFFs that places the x16 slot directly above the PSU, it's about your only option unless you want to start getting into weird, expensive FirePro territory.

 

21 hours ago, soldier_ph said:

AMD becoming what they swore to Destroy: Intel. 

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

[whm1974]

Those who hunt Monsters should be lest they become one...

[steelo]

On 10/19/2020 at 3:10 AM, TOMPPIX said:

 

With Ryzen 5000 for Desktop now in line with the mobile part numbering, You'd think the mobile 5000 series will be based on ZEN3 as well but, as it turns out, that might not be the case.

 

 

i hope this is false, because AMD just increased the price on the zen 3 cpus and now they are fking up the 5000 series mobile cpu, the average customer is not gonna know the difference between zen 2 and zen 3. 

  Reveal hidden contents

i wouldn't be surprised if the zen 3 non x desktop cpus had a locked multiplier or just limited to a lower frequency than the x versions, like they did with the rx 5600 xt, for those who don't know. the 5600 xt is locked to 1820mhz otherwise it would cannibalize the rx 5700.

 

Sources

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5000-cezanne-luceinne-zen-3-zen-2-ryzen-7-5800u-5700u-ryzen-5-5600u-5500u-apus-detailed/

https://twitter.com/ExecuFix/status/1317362239125524480

https://twitter.com/ExecuFix/status/1316116576844820481

https://twitter.com/ExecuFix

This is why it is important to research a CPU instead of basing it on their naming convention. A reasonable person isn't going to purchase a corolla 'S' thinking it's going to be a high performance 'sport' car based on the 'S' designation.

 

But I do agree, like Intel, I think they intentionally create confusion with their product designations.

 

 

[Vishera]

41 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

1. If it costs you $200 to build something, but there's such demand for it that you can charge $1,000, are you really going to say, "Know what, fair citizens of Earth? You deserve a break. Have these phones at $350!"? Hell no you're not. You're taking that $1,000, and don't even pretend that you wouldn't.

True,but scummy.

41 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

2. Mobile CPUs/APUs have to work with bad cooling in a thermally-limited and power-limited environment. The 3700X, on the other hand, can be dialed up as high as the end user's heart desires in an environment with much better cooling and power limited only by the PSU and the VRM. Of course mobile CPUs are weaker.

 

They are just downclocked and power limited,there is almost no cost in doing that.

41 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

I didn't see a problem with a 2/4 i7.

It's misleading,especially when you already have 2/4 Core i3 and Core i5 CPUs in your lineup:

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/71465/intel-core-i3-3120m-processor-3m-cache-2-50-ghz.html

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/72164/intel-core-i5-3230m-processor-3m-cache-up-to-3-20-ghz-rpga.html

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64893/intel-core-i7-3520m-processor-4m-cache-up-to-3-60-ghz.html

 

They are all dual cores!!!!

41 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

But then again, laptops with a Max-Q card can still game.

My old R9 380 can still game as well,doesn't mean i should use that.

And ironically,My old R9 380 performs as well as a mobile 1660 Ti...

45 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Planned obsolescence

is illegal

46 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

A desktop motherboard is printed to one of three near-universal specifications,

It doesn't change the fact that each motherboard has a different design,and every generation new ones are released and with more expensive components than mobile...

49 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

2. Cheap RAM and SSDs are you shitting me? Have you ever bothered to open up a modern prebuilt desktop and take a look at the cheapo SSDs they use, the motherboards holding an i7-10700 surrounded by a bare VRM, the single 8GB green stick of DDR4-2133 left over from the Optiplex assembly line and the power supply that has 500W printed in huge letters then, "Do not exceed 380W" in tiny print below it? Are you comparing laptop RAM and SSDs to those high-quality parts found in desktops, then?

I will give you a pass on that one,even though with the prices they charge it's not OK.

50 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Again, apples to f**king oranges.

Both are computers that can run the same programs and do the same tasks,one of them is just a rip off.

[Blademaster91]

On 10/19/2020 at 7:46 AM, MageTank said:

I'll be bold enough to say we can go ahead and remove the "might" from your statement and double down on them absolutely being worse with their naming conventions. AMD is intentional with their naming. They do it on purpose with the intent to confuse the consumers into believing their product is superior (Which is weird, because all signs are pointing to this being true without the shenanigans being required). Intel releases Z270, AMD releases X370. Intel releases X299, AMD releases X399. I can't imagine how many poor retail workers had to deal with explaining the difference between X370 and Z370 and why they were different motherboards for different processors. 

 

AMD also has no problem confusing their own customers within their own product stacks, as evidenced by their APU's. You have the 2200G/2400G based on the original Zen architecture despite sharing the same name as the Zen+ CPU's, the 3200G/3400G based on the Zen+ architectures despite sharing the same nomenclature as the Zen 2 CPU's and you have the 4000 series APU's that were based on Zen 2, which the average consumer would assume was automatically better than the desktop 3000 series just because of the logic of "bigger number = better".

 

My favorite quote on this subject came from @Rohith_Kumar_Sp

Every company will mislead their customer into thinking bigger number = better. I agree the AMD chipsets were confusing, they had to compete with Intel although I'm not sure they needed to copy their chipset naming, but AMD sorted that out with X570.

On 10/19/2020 at 7:46 AM, MageTank said:

Now this isn't to say Intel isn't bad at naming things (We almost had the 9900KFC and a man can still dream), or that Nvidia isn't bad either (RTX 3080 Ti Super Max Q Titan X Quadro Tesla X2 6GB Edition), but AMD is still the king and has been for quite some time now, both in CPU and GPU markets. We went from the RX 500 series to the Vega 56/64 to the Radeon VII to the 6000 series. If someone could explain this to me, I am all ears, lol.

AMD GPU naming is way more confusing than CPU's, maybe they didn't want to use RX 600 and have people think it wouldn't be significantly different than RX500 series, other than that it makes no sense lol.

On 10/19/2020 at 7:46 AM, MageTank said:

You trying to make us feel old? That was just a few years ago, lol.

Yeah i7's being quad cores was just a few years ago, but even on mobile I think quad core should be an i5.

[thechinchinsong]

10 hours ago, MageTank said:

Nobody is arguing that it's bad from a business decision perspective, if AMD wants to game the system to make a buck and it is legal for them to do so, I say go for it. My only point is that their intent behind doing so can be seen as potentially predatory/misleading for consumers as it is designed to intentionally confuse them based on how extremely similar the naming conventions are. I am not faulting AMD here as the sole party responsible for these practices as plenty of companies do it world wide, not just in the tech industry either. It's just my opinion that AMD's track record is the worst in this particular industry for the reasons highlighted in my previous posts.

I think what I'm also trying to say is that the point for AMD wasn't to mislead consumers into thinking "this X370 motherboard must be an Intel motherboard" or vice-versa, but rather by associating their naming scheme with Intel's, it provides context as in: "Oh, this X370 motherboard must be the same or higher tier as this Z270 motherboard. This B350 motherboard must be the same or higher tier as the B250 motherboard", just like how in the CPU space, AMD's naming scheme was meant to evoke "this R7 CPU must be the same tier as this I7 CPU. This R5 CPU must the same tier as this I5 CPU." I honestly don't see how any consumer is going to be buying a motherboard and think that X370 -> Intel, especially since I expect the DiY audience to be better informed than the average consumer that just buys a prebuilt.

[thechinchinsong]

8 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yeah i7's being quad cores was just a few years ago, but even on mobile I think quad core should be an i5.

Intel's releasing Tiger Lake 4 cores as i7's right now too.