AMDisappointed

[Doug_Dangger]

What's going on with AMD?

They were doing well being the performance per dollar on cpus until the middle of last year when their prices went up and Intel's 10th actually becoming the performance per dollar champs.  Selling for far better prices than Ryzen cpus.  Yeah yeah if you're a streamer good for you.  But majority of the market could care less about streaming or running Cinebench and Blender.

 

Then there's the Radeon division.  Nvidia is sold out everywhere.  3000 series was an absolute beast and gamers wouldn't be able to buy it.  All AMD had to do was make their 6000 series available and people would buy it.  I've been an Nvidia buyer for over 10 years.  Had the 6000 series Radeon been available, I'd kick Nvidia to the curb.  During AMD's press release, they said that the 6000 series was going to be available en mass.  That was a lie.  They actually produced less than Nvidia.  This is quite disappointing.

[Grabhanem]

It's almost like there's some common factor causing GPUs to be hard to find and CPUs to be expensive to produce...

[Mark Kaine]

what are you talking about? people bought 3000 cpus en mass... do you mean they are not available anymore? then that is false, but probably true in the foreseeable future. 

(edit:in case you're talking about gpus, you completely lost me I thought this about AMD, there is no 3000 AMD gpus...) 

 

And 6000 is just a money grab, if you already have a 6 or 8 core cpu you likely don't need it. 

 

 

and Intel? is doing great as of late! on par with AMD, better overclocking capabilites it would seem at similar prices, on 14nm... who cares, at least it's a matured platform. 

 

I'd go Intel right now - actually I might, I'm not sure why but I want to build a second PC, probably for streaming... 

 

9 minutes ago, Grabhanem said:

It's almost like there's some common factor causing GPUs to be hard to find and CPUs to be expensive to produce...

if this is actually about AMD gpus... OP has a point... they're basically none existent, which is kinda funny after their release conference, but not unsurprisingly, AMD's fortune isn't gpus and never will be, that was ATi. 

[minibois]

It's just this year people are starting to wake up to the fact that AMD is not our friend, but just another company who wants to sell us products and make money.

In the past I've been guilty of thinking highly of AMD, but that trust went away during the release of Ryzen 3000, when they didn't increase the core amounts. At that time it was clear to me they just wanted to "one up" the competition when they saw fit.

 

It's important as a consumer to stay objective and look at what is actually the best option for you, regardless of the manufacturer name on the packaging.

We still see Intel also not trying to be our friend, by locking memory overclocking to Z-series chipsets, even though it's possible to turn on a memory OC profile on budget AMD boards.

 

As far graphics cards, I am still just disappointed that the driver support still doesn't seem great, even after the debacle that was RX 5000 and Navi.

At least I can say I've held an Nvidia 3000 box in hand, haven't seen an RX 6000 box yet  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Doug_Dangger]

1 minute ago, Grabhanem said:

It's almost like there's some common factor causing GPUs to be hard to find and CPUs to be expensive to produce...

The demand has nothing to do with AMD producing less gpus than they promised.  It was a clear paper launch.

[papajo]

9 minutes ago, Doug_Dangger said:

Selling for far better prices than Ryzen cpus

Than ryzen 5000 series (zen3 ) CPUs

 

Also intel doesnt sell at better prices, it sells at ridiculous high prices that are cheaper than zen3 prices though that's a huge difference.

 

9 minutes ago, Doug_Dangger said:

Yeah yeah if you're a streamer good for you.  But majority of the market could care less about streaming or running Cinebench and Blender.

These are point cases comparisons because it is better at those benchmarks doesn't mean that the performance increase is limited in said benchmarks or applications, whenever you have a high load multicore scenario (and single core if we are talking about 5000) ryzens are going to be better

 

 

having said that I agree on your AMDissapoitment seems that they have gone to the darkside along with nvidia who calls it home for a decade or so now along with Intel 

 

[papajo]

7 minutes ago, minibois said:

t's just this year people are starting to wake up to the fact that AMD is not our friend, but just another company who wants to sell us products and make money.

Probably they are having people scouting webcommunities/socialmedia and see how easily people just want to protect their brand and have apologetics than actually realizing they are getting the short sitck and complain about it hence since we dont care they also dont care they profit out of it. 

 

If "scalpers" "miners" (and anybody that doesnt agree with that) are to blame and "we" (amd,intel,nvidia) make tons of extra money then who cares? 

[Grabhanem]

5 minutes ago, Doug_Dangger said:

The demand has nothing to do with AMD producing less gpus than they promised.  It was a clear paper launch.

I was talking about the combination of reduced production and more difficult distribution due to COVID, increased load on TSMC from ALL segments, not just PC gaming, the coincidence of console and PC hardware launches, and the increased number of people stuck at home and wanting to build PCs. AMD not putting enough GPUs on the shelf is a symptom of all of those issues.

 

7 minutes ago, minibois said:

...that trust went away during the release of Ryzen 3000, when they didn't increase the core amounts. At that time it was clear to me they just wanted to "one up" the competition when they saw fit...

wait what?

 

With Ryzen 3000, AMD literally doubled the core count available on a consumer socket *again*, caused Intel to halve the price of an entire product stack, and *still* produced a CPU twice as fast as anything else on the market at any price. They could have priced the 3950X at $1500 and the 3990X at $15000, and they would still be a better value than anything that came before them.

[tishous]

16 minutes ago, minibois said:

It's just this year people are starting to wake up to the fact that AMD is not our friend, but just another company who wants to sell us products and make money.

In the past I've been guilty of thinking highly of AMD, but that trust went away during the release of Ryzen 3000, when they didn't increase the core amounts. At that time it was clear to me they just wanted to "one up" the competition when they saw fit.

 

It's important as a consumer to stay objective and look at what is actually the best option for you, regardless of the manufacturer name on the packaging.

We still see Intel also not trying to be our friend, by locking memory overclocking to Z-series chipsets, even though it's possible to turn on a memory OC profile on budget AMD boards.

 

As far graphics cards, I am still just disappointed that the driver support still doesn't seem great, even after the debacle that was RX 5000 and Navi.

At least I can say I've held an Nvidia 3000 box in hand, haven't seen an RX 6000 box yet  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"They didn't increase the core amounts" is easier said than done. The IPC improvements from Zen+ to Zen 3 have been almost +40%. Far far larger performance increase than Intel in the same time frame. Intel gives us 10% max IPC improvement per generation and until 10600k, you couldn't even get hyperthreading on the i5-x600 chip. There are even talks about them decreasing their core count from 10 to 8 with their flagship 11th gen CPU.

 

AMD has been far more consumer friendly than Intel in pretty much every way. For example, overclocking available to everyone except those on the cheapest boards (whose VRMs wouldn't be able to take it anyway). They have never voided warranty for enabling XMP just as two examples.

 

As for drivers, they're far better than last gen. In fact NVIDIA were arguably worse this generation than AMD with the whole cards crashing mess that was blamed on capacitors but ended up being fixed with drivers.

 

I would agree with the fact that a 10600k, for instance, gives far better price to performance than the Ryzen 5 5600x and the 10400f is better than the Ryzen 5 3600, so I'm not some AMD fanboy.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

everyone who replied to this thread: 

 

 

 

[The Blackhat]

31 minutes ago, Doug_Dangger said:

The demand has nothing to do with AMD producing less gpus than they promised.  It was a clear paper launch.

lol

[minibois]

3 minutes ago, Grabhanem said:

wait what?

With Ryzen 3000, AMD literally doubled the core count available on a consumer socket *again*,

Intel has increased core (or thread) counts across their product stacks. Just zooming in one Intel 9th gen to 10th gen for example, an i5 9th gen has 6c6t, 10th gen has 6c12t.

A Ryzen 5 from the 1000, 2000, 3000 or 5000 series (ignoring the APU's, 1400/1500X) has 6c12t. That has stayed consistent.

 

Sure, AMD has introduced Ryzen 9 with more cores and Ryzen Threadripper have increased their core counts, but within a certain Ryzen 'class' (Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7), they have stayed rather consistent.

Well, except for Ryzen 3, going from 4c4t in the 1000 series, to 4c8t in the 3000 series.

 

The most purchased series - Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 - has stayed consistent in their 6c12t and 8c16t parts respectively. That was what I was referring to.

 

Mind you, this is what people had been complaining about Intel for the longest time. Them not increasing core counts throughout Intel 1st to 7th gen at all, relegating increased core counts to higher priced SKUs (mainly the Extreme editions).

10 minutes ago, tishous said:

"They didn't increase the core amounts" is easier said than done. The IPC improvements from Zen+ to Zen 3 have been almost +40%. Far far larger performance increase than Intel in the same time frame. Intel gives us 10% max IPC improvement per generation and until 10600k, you couldn't even get hyperthreading on the i5-x600 chip. There are even talks about them decreasing their core count from 10 to 8 with their flagship 11th gen CPU.

Keep in mind I am not attacked or defending AMD, just pointing out how people's main "hurray!" with the first gens of Ryzen was "they have more cores than Intel". That sadly has not kept up, as such Intel has mostly equivalent core counts compared to AMD (notable exception being the Ryzen 9 chips having more cores than Intel i9 chips).

 

At the same time, I am also appreciating it's difficult to just "put more cores" in the chips.

It's just that a lot of people are still using the "get Ryzen if you need more cores" argument, without thinking about the fact that Intel now has equivalent cores counts and AMD hasn't responded with "moar cores!".

 

The only thing I'm saying is: people might be 'disappointed' in AMD for the wrong reasons; they were expecting too much from someone who's now not an underdog anymore, just another competitor.

 

TL;DR: let's all try to be objective and look out for our own interests, which is getting a good product for a good price, no matter the brand stamped on the box.

being disappointed is fine, in the sense that you expected or wanted more, but not in a "they owe us!!" way.

[tishous]

10 minutes ago, minibois said:

he most purchased series - Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 - has stayed consistent in their 6c12t and 8c16t parts respectively. That was what I was referring to.

Yes I see where you're coming from. But why does a budget gaming CPU like a Ryzen 5 need more than 6 cores? Why does a gaming/light productivity CPU like a Ryzen 7 need more than 8 cores? Adding more cores onto a budget chip would just mean those chips aren't budget anymore. If they increased core count by 2 each generation then by now we would have a 12 core Ryzen 5, which would be really expensive. Not to mention, in order to keep their Ryzen 9s worth buying, they'd end up having a 24 core Ryzen 9, then what is the point of getting a threadripper? Do you see the problem?

 

I think maybe 2 more cores on the Ryzen 5 would be a good place to stay for the next few launches because PS5/Xbox series X have an 8 core CPU in both of them. 

[Middcore]

AMD was only interested in competing on value while they had to because they couldn't advertise themselves as the outright performance leader. Once they went from steadily gaining on Intel or nipping at Intel's heels to actually surpassing Intel, they hiked their prices. This was as predictable as the sun coming up. 

 

Meanwhile, Intel's CPU's are a more attractive value than before because they find themselves having to compete on value for the first time in a long time, and the laws of supply and demand dictate that prices for items fewer people want tend to be lower.

 

As for GPU's, I'm sure AMD would like to make more 6000 series available, but they are limited by the capacity of TSMC, and their first priority is supplying graphics hardware for the new Xbox and PlayStation. I hate to break it to my fellow PC gamers but if you made AMD choose whether to give up selling GPU's to us or give up their contracts with Sony and Microsoft, they will choose the console market 100 times out of 100. You make it sound as if they didn't make more 6000 series cards just because they didn't feel like it. 

 

AMD is not your friend, and more than any other corporation. On the other hand, they also aren't irrational or lazy. They play to what they perceive to be their strengths and do what they think will make them the most money. 

[minibois]

3 minutes ago, tishous said:

why does a budget gaming CPU like a Ryzen 5 need more than 6 cores? Why does a gaming/light productivity CPU like a Ryzen 7 need more than 8 cores?

People hated Intel for not increasing core counts within their product SKUs for 7 generations, people loved AMD for increasing core counts, AMD has now had the same core counts [except Ryzen 3/Threadripper and adding Ryzen 9] for 5 generations.

People - mainly in hindsight - are praising AMD for making Intel increase core counts and are shaming Intel for being 'stuck' on a certain core count for so many years.

 

I am not saying AMD should increase core counts at this point, but we as consumers also shouldn't be surprised AMD is doing what Intel had been doing for years prior - reap the benefit of being the market leader, by increasing incremental product upgrades in the form of more single-threaded performance and releasing newer higher end products.

 

We have - as consumers - set the precedent that we think 7 generations of no increased core counts, is apparently too much, so it would be logical to judge AMD the same way.

 

To be well and truly clear, I would still consider myself to be more of an AMD than Intel fan, but that doesn't take away the fact that I want to look at things objectively.

With the main point/question of this thread being: 

59 minutes ago, Doug_Dangger said:

They were doing well being the performance per dollar on cpus until the middle of last year when their prices went up and Intel's 10th actually becoming the performance per dollar champs.

I am merely saying we should not be surprised to see AMD do the same things Intel did, just a short few years ago.

With the definition of "disappointment" being:

Quote

sad or displeased because someone or something has failed to fulfil one's hopes or expectations.

should we be displeased by the market right now, based on the expectation that AMD is a business, where looking out for their own is the number one priority?

Disappointed implies a level of expectance and I think everyone should have a fair expectation of what the company should be doing.

 

Should we expect AMD to be the core king all the time? Maybe not.

Should we see AMD as the budget or bang for buck option? Maybe not.

 

With those expectations in mind, I think we as consumers can start to look more objectively at what these companies are presenting to us.

[tishous]

12 minutes ago, minibois said:

People - mainly in hindsight - are praising AMD for making Intel increase core counts and are shaming Intel for being 'stuck' on a certain core count for so many years.

AMD have gotten to a point where more cores aren't needed right now. Why should they invest more money into things that aren't necessary?

 

13 minutes ago, minibois said:

I am not saying AMD should increase core counts at this point, but we as consumers also shouldn't be surprised AMD is doing what Intel had been doing for years prior - reap the benefit of being the market leader, by increasing incremental product upgrades in the form of more single-threaded performance and releasing newer higher end products.

Why shouldn't they? They have led the way for more cores in consumer processors for non-extortionate prices. They have invested billions into this, so why shouldn't they reap the rewards? The only thing lacking that was keeping them behind Intel in anything was single-threaded performance and IPC. They improved that, and if rumours are anything to go by, their Zen 4 is going to give as much improvement as Zen 3. We'll just have to wait and see on that though.

 

17 minutes ago, minibois said:

We have - as consumers - set the precedent that we think 7 generations of no increased core counts, is apparently too much, so it would be logical to judge AMD the same way.

Yes, but it isn't the lack of increase in core count that most people are against. They're against Intel making shabby improvements generation after generation and charging $340 for a 4 core 8 thread chip when AMD had a 6 core 12 thread chip for below $200. AMD made Intel innovate again and only when AMD were touching Intel's heels did they even release hyperthreading for anything under $300.

 

AMD's Ryzen has only had 4 generations so far, so if they have still not increased cores by their 7th, I will criticize them as well.

[papajo]

38 minutes ago, minibois said:

People hated Intel for not increasing core counts within their product SKUs for 7 generations

My first personal CPU  was an Intel Pentium and  before that  I fiddled with computers much older than that. 

 

I never remember that being the case in fact I remember people praising AMD for introducing the first dual core processor and dont remember anyone giving the shits to intel for having multicore CPUs on the contrary they were very popular (there was though a debate of if it would be a better choice to get a higher clocked  single/dual core CPU for gaming in comparison to a quad-core since most games back then didnt support more than 1 maybe 2 threads ) 

 

The only somewhat flames I remember is the absence of HT in the first multicore CPUs (well some extreme editions had it but they were way more expensive ) 

 

 

I remember though (and was actively participating in) giving intel shit for their refreshes and lack of innovation while maintaining high pricetags both in CPUs and in motherboards (while needing for no technical reason to change motherboard if you would like to get the new refresh CPU)since from and after ivy bridge 

[Elisis]

14 minutes ago, tishous said:

AMD have gotten to a point where more cores aren't needed right now. Why should they invest more money into things that aren't necessary?

"Intel had gotten to a point where more than 4 cores aren't needed right now"

- People in 2014

There is either a double standard present here or you just don't know you're mimicking Intel fanboys. 

[minibois]

11 minutes ago, tishous said:

AMD have gotten to a point where more cores aren't needed right now.

Keep in mind this is exactly what was being said during Intel reign, that "quad core i5's is all you need for games". Now 6c12t is the standard most gaming PC's adhere to, which is something that became the standard relatively soon after Ryzen 1000 (and 2000) launched.

4c4t was plenty, until more was available for a good price, at which point it wasn't.

 

Still, I am not advocating AMD to add more cores, I just think we should hold them to the same standard we did Intel years ago, which is "incremental improvements in IPC/Ghz become 'not enough' after certain years". That was just the entire tech industry during 4th gen - 7th gen of Intel, because people were just very bored of the incremental generations.

15 minutes ago, tishous said:

why shouldn't they reap the rewards?

I'm not saying they shouldn't, they are a business and making money is their number one priority, as I mentioned before.

If we accept that is their number one objective, we should also accept that we have to have tame expectations of their products. If our expectations have to be based on them wanting to make money, should we be 'disappointed' when they do exactly that? That is what I'm challenging here. 

17 minutes ago, tishous said:

AMD's Ryzen has only had 4 generations so far, so if they have still not increased cores by their 7th, I will criticize them as well.

But what if "more cores aren't needed" 7 generations in?

It seems weird to set that as the limit, when you first above base wanting more cores on what is needed.

 

 

[WhitetailAni]

1 hour ago, Doug_Dangger said:

The demand has nothing to do with AMD producing less gpus than they promised.  It was a clear paper launch.

Wait, what?

Can you explain your reasoning?

Sure, there isn't much stock, but people can get these cards if they try hard enough.

  

3 minutes ago, minibois said:

But what if "more cores aren't needed" 7 generations in?

It seems weird to set that as the limit, when you first above base wanting more cores on what is needed.

Kinda like what happened with Intel setting a 4-core limit, until AMD came along and said "8 cores!" with FX, except they weren't 8 cores (and they sucked)...

[papajo]

23 minutes ago, Elisis said:

"Intel had gotten to a point where more than 4 cores aren't needed right now"

- People in 2014

There is either a double standard present here or you just don't know you're mimicking Intel fanboys. 

firtst gen zen CPUs had up to 16 cores and all had smt (so 32 threads max for the biggest threadripper) 

 

Then the 2nd Gen had up to 32 cores (64 threads) (with an IPC boost)

 

Then the 3rd gen had up to 64 core (128 threads) (with an IPC boost) 

 

So I dont believe that there was an absence of core count. 

 

Yes the AM4 variants of 1st and second gen ryzen CPUs stayed the same (8c/16T) but lets not forget a) they kept backwards compatibility with the mobos b) we are talking about 1 year lifespan here between those gens 3) that the 3rd gen (so 2 years lifespan) they added 16c/32t to the AM4 variants while still maintaining(mostly) backwards compatibility

 

I think this is not a case of "they think more cores are not needed " nor is it comparable with 4 cores (in for most years 4 threads since the early ones didnt support HT) so I think 128 threads (within 3 years)vs 4 or even 8 threads(within like a decade almost)  are not the same for being able to say "we dont need more cores" 

 

Now the 4rth gen (3rd gen zen in terms of architecture) did not increase as of now the core count (having in mind that it still maintains AM4 compatibility backwards to a certain degree which is a handicap )  but with a significant increase in IPC surpassing any intel offerings. 

 

And we have yet to see what the new threadripper lineup will be in terms of cores and performance. 

 

 

Their issue for being a disappointment is their current policy in terms of MSRP and availability of the ryzen 5000 series not that they dont innovate or serve refreshes for years (as intel did,not to mention that they dont treat overclockability as a commodity locking in certain SKUs to increase pricetags as intel does)  and if they dont fix that soon then yes AMD has gone to the darksite and will deserve any molecule of shit thrown towards them   

[tishous]

22 minutes ago, Elisis said:

"Intel had gotten to a point where more than 4 cores aren't needed right now"

- People in 2014

There is either a double standard present here or you just don't know you're mimicking Intel fanboys. 

In 2014 that was the case. Not in 2017 when Intel were charging $340 for a 4C8T CPU that was barely any better than the previous flagship. My point is that Intel were barely making 10% performance increases generation on generation (sometimes not even that) yet charging more. AMD have given at least 25% more performance each generation since the launch of Ryzen. The Ryzen 5 1600x and Ryzen 5 5600x are in two completely separate tiers in terms of performance. With that happening, more cores isn't needed. Intel chose to both not increase number of cores and performance in general which is plain greedy, and they are now paying the price for it.

 

14 minutes ago, minibois said:

Still, I am not advocating AMD to add more cores, I just think we should hold them to the same standard we did Intel years ago, which is "incremental improvements in IPC/Ghz become 'not enough' after certain years". That was just the entire tech industry during 4th gen - 7th gen of Intel, because people were just very bored of the incremental generations.

Right, and so far Ryzen have more than delivered. As stated when replying to the other reply, Ryzen's performance has near doubled in 4 generations despite not adding more cores to their Ryzen 5 chip. That is nothing like Intel's greedy goal of giving tiny improvements in performance.

 

14 minutes ago, minibois said:

we should also accept that we have to have tame expectations of their products. If our expectations have to be based on them wanting to make money, should we be 'disappointed' when they do exactly that?

I don't agree. We shouldn't have low expectations of AMD because they're a business and now they're number one. We should still have high expectations and if they disappoint us, then we as consumers can show our disappointment by not buying their products.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, Doug_Dangger said:

All AMD had to do was make their 6000 series available and people would buy it. 

Other than the fact neither AMD or Nvidia own FAB's. What does that mean? They rely on 3rd party companies to produce their GPU's. Companies like TSMC who make both CPU and GPU's for AMD are pretty much tapped out on what they can do. TSMC is also responsible for Apple's CPU's as well. Thats what people like you dont understand. AMD cant do shit to make more GPU's because they dont actually produce them in house. What do you expect TSMC to do? Tell Apple to fuck off? Last I checked Apple is worth 2 Trillion dollars, I dont think any company has the balls to tell Apple no at this point. 

[papajo]

17 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

They rely on 3rd party companies to produce their GPU's. Companies like TSMC

During 2010-2012 nvidia produced at least double the amount of GPUs compared to what they produce the past few years 

(note that the production points are split in quarters so for the entire year you add the quarters up) 

Note that these numbers are for the entire year 

(source: https://www.techquila.co.in/nvidia-market-share-vs-amd-market-share-graphics/)

 

And since 2010 TSMC has gotten more nodes and became more efficient in production

 

There isnt an issue of not being able to produce, they just dont (probably because they saw that with pricegauging their profits skyrocket without the need of big production and since nobody gives them shit for that and in contrast protects them if anybody tries to shit on them like you do  they just keep at it and are laughing at us )

 

 

P.S That's your hard earned dollar bills they are holding while laughing  

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, minibois said:

"hurray!" with the first gens of Ryzen was "they have more cores than Intel". That sadly has not kept up,

I get your impression about this, but it's also a perspective thing... looking at the earlier ryzens the differences between 6 and 8 cores never seemed relevant to me - and you're also missing the point why Ryzen was really popular from the get go, that was "slightly better than Intel at *much cheaper prices*..." 

 

And they had to be cheap otherwise people wouldn't have made the jump en mass. 

 

This is now over with the "3rd" gen, very disappointing gains, sorry I don't really care about some techno mumbo jumbo of density gains or whatever, I'm seeing disappointing performance jump and ludicrous price increases - they're now actually pulling an Intel, whereas intel is pulling an AMD recently (except the die sizes, but that's obviously going to change soon) AMD gotta prepare themselves when that happens...