2nd Gen Ryzen Vaulted AMD Over Intel In CPU Sales Again

[IrshaadH]

Just upgraded to a 2600x and purchased a laptop with a 2500u.  I'm definitely glad to be part of this market shift!

[Jito463]

22 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

This may be a major reason of why inexperienced people stick to Nvidia and Intel

16 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

If I am hating on anything, it is on fanboys that claim everything is 100% fine and every little issue is out of [insert company x] responsibility.

Ironic, considering your earlier statement.

On 9/2/2018 at 12:02 PM, Rattenmann said:

People stuck to Intel, even with (much) higher prices, because people trust Intel to work well and fast.

AMD isn't perfect, and I don't think anyone here would make that claim,  However, Intel has deluded people into believing that their products have no flaws, and that they "just work"; yet with AMD, any flaws are perceived as being caused by AMD.  My boss, for example, absolutely doesn't like to carry AMD laptops for sale, because his wife had issues with them overheating in the past.  It's true that early models lacked overheat protections and could damage themselves if the ventilation was blocked, the fact that it's changed since then doesn't factor into the equation for him.  He still perceives AMD laptops as running hot.

 

It's that mentality of Intel "just working" that causes many to avoid AMD products, even if they may be the better choice for the user.

[Humbug]

18 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

There is no AMD hate to be had from me.

If I am hating on anything, it is on fanboys that claim everything is 100% fine and every little issue is out of [insert company x] responsibility. No matter if it is AMD, Intel or Nvidia. They all screw up stuff and I call them out for that if I believe it is warranted.

I have had this topic come up at least a dozen times in the past 3 months, when I suggested someone to use an AMD CPU for their new build.

 

And I can't win either. The people I suggest it to call me a fanboy, instantly. Because, you know... who else would suggest AMD?! And if I talk about anything that is not 100% optimal for AMD, I get marked as a hater. There is no in between and that's annoying.

On the CPU side, it is the avid "fans" that ruin it for AMD, not AMD themselves.

 

Hell, this topic is about a minor victory for AMD. And I was only pointing out that I hope the issues people experienced got resolved, so the minor victory can become bigger down the road. And BAM I am a hater. This is annoying, honestly. So hard to stay neutral with these blind fanboy comments left, right and center.

You made claims of instability and unpredictability. But AMD has been making semi-conductor products for 50 years and x86 CPUs for 30 years and what you claimed was not in line with the reputation that they have or the experiences people have had with them. So people expected you to back it up with facts.

 

Most people would agree with you that Intel has in recent years had faster, higher performance CPUs until Ryzen, and Intel dominates the market. But that's a different claim from saying that AMD is unstable/unpredictable.

 

When you want to criticize an AMD product it would be easier for you if you stick to facts.

 

Example 1

Fact- When Ryzen launched DDR4 memory compatibility was a weakness.

 

Example 2

Fact- IGP-enabled acceleration in adobe Premiere video editing allows Intel mainstream parts to surpass AMD mainstream parts.

 

Example 3

Fact- AMD GPUs lack of CUDA support is a disadvantage in the professional market.

 

Not so difficult...

 

[GoldenLag]

13 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

*AMD

 

WX is an AMD thing.

Again, I think you're confusing AMD for Nvidia.

He has it the right way around as far as i see. The wx is a AMD thing, but one of the issues arent caused by AMD, but Nvidia and drivers not playing well with the wx series. 

 

Or at least that is how i understand it. I wasnt aware of this and im a bit sceptical, but it could be a thing. I just havent seen the numbers to back it up

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

You made claims of instability and unpredictability. But AMD has been making semi-conductor products for 50 years and x86 CPUs for 30 years and what you claimed was not in line with the reputation that they have or the experiences people have had with them. So people expected you to back it up with facts.

 

Most people would agree with you that Intel has in recent years had faster, higher performance CPUs until Ryzen, and Intel dominates the market. But that's a different claim from saying that AMD is unstable/unpredictable.

 

You must be forgetting how buggy the Ryzen launch was with buggy unstable BIOS, and still lacks in being able to use almost any cheaper DDR4 ram to get the same performance,meanwhile Intel stuff works out of the box. Intel has their reputation from making faster products that usually have fewer bugs or not having to wait for software optimization, but Intel is doing a great job at tarnishing it with security holes i'm actually more excited for the next Zen cpu than an Intel 8 core.

Anyway on topic this really isn't news, one retailer doesn't account for AMD outselling Intel.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

When Ryzen launched DDR3

3? 

[Humbug]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

3? 

thank you, fixed

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

You must be forgetting how buggy the Ryzen launch was with buggy unstable BIOS, and still lacks in being able to use almost any cheaper DDR4 ram to get the same performance,meanwhile Intel stuff works out of the box.

While correct with the above any old DDR4 would work with Ryzen under JDEC spec so unless you are looking for the performance differences or need it Intel or AMD "just works". If you tinker then one might work more easily than the other but if you tinker then you also should know there is optimized Ryzen RAM. Having only one buying option just made people lazy.

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It's that mentality of Intel "just working" that causes many to avoid AMD products, even if they may be the better choice for the user.

 

I don't like it either, but that is how it goes.

Once you build that trust, you can do more shitty things and get away with it. Until the trust vanishes again.

 

AMD is building their trust right now, but they are not there yet. Even if a product is better for the consumer, the trust in Intel may be stronger. Hard position to be in, but a common position to be in when you are either new to the game, or in AMDs case "took a vacation for a little while". They will overcome it if they can remove the little flaws that annoy people. Meanwhile, Intel can ignore the same flaws, due to trust still being there. No one said it was easy to catch up. Just doing a good product on paper is not enough. Not after so many years.

[Clanscorpia]

While of course its good that AMD is finally catching up in the enthusiast market, this really isnt a great example for the overall scheme of things. If you counted all CPUs (including the ones in prebuilts and laptops) Intel would still be on top by a huge margin

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

You made claims of instability and unpredictability.

 

Kind of. I claimed that I have hopes that those issues mentioned by others are resolved by now. I never claimed that those issues where valid, because how would I know? It is the stuff others say about Ryzen, not my personal experience. I won't be in the market for a new CPU in the next 2 years, so all I notice is random bits and pieces flying around. I don't dig any deeper.

 

Does that make my hopes invalid? Well, so be it. Then I will stop hoping that if it makes it any better i guess?

 

The key claim or idea behind this is that perceived quality and trust need to build up. And right now, if you don't dig deep into CPUs, you simply hear some random facts and those include the bad stuff, without any reasoning or fixes. You would only get reasons if you actually dig deeper, which most people simply don't unless they are in the market for something new at that moment. But the negative point, no matter what it was, will stick anyways. And honestly, there are a lot of issues Ryzen had at launch, like those you mentioned yourself. Do you think anyone outside the tech community would double check if they are fixed by now? The truth is that most people just collect those random things they hear and buy by gut feeling.

 

(All this is vendor agnostic btw, also works for Intel etc. so don't pretend I said that)

[GoldenLag]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

You must be forgetting how buggy the Ryzen launch was with buggy unstable BIOS, and still lacks in being able to use almost any cheaper DDR4 ram to get the same performance,meanwhile Intel stuff works out of the box. Intel has their reputation from making faster products that usually have fewer bugs or not having to wait for software optimization, but Intel is doing a great job at tarnishing it with security holes i'm actually more excited for the next Zen cpu than an Intel 8 core.

Anyway on topic this really isn't news, one retailer doesn't account for AMD outselling Intel.

never heard of unstable BIOS. if you have any source or event to tie it to, please enlighten me

 

yes the memmory compatibility wasnt great, but mostly solved through BIOS updates. Ryzen 1 is still a little bit picky about memmory, but its pretty much gone with ryzen 2. above 3200mhz is a bit iffy, but above 3200mhz is very expencive for what it is. the cost of the ram module had nothing to do with it. 

 

intel hasnt had an architecture change in years, it is still the same Ringbus/meshbus setup. any new architecture comes with issues, this goes for everyone. this is one reason GCN GPUs have been "relativly stable", they havent changed the underlying architecture much

[Taf the Ghost]

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

never heard of unstable BIOS. if you have any source or event to tie it to, please enlighten me

 

yes the memmory compatibility wasnt great, but mostly solved through BIOS updates. Ryzen 1 is still a little bit picky about memmory, but its pretty much gone with ryzen 2. above 3200mhz is a bit iffy, but above 3200mhz is very expencive for what it is. the cost of the ram module had nothing to do with it. 

 

intel hasnt had an architecture change in years, it is still the same Ringbus/meshbus setup. any new architecture comes with issues, this goes for everyone. this is one reason GCN GPUs have been "relativly stable", they havent changed the underlying architecture much

I believe some of the MSI B350 boards are still considered to have cancerous BIOS issues, but they were fairly vendor specific. Minus one or two wonky BIOS upgrades. Classic "new platform" problems.

 

As for the memory, it was disappointing you needed B-Dies to hit >3000 in the first few months, but AMD only assured JEDEC 2666, which they delivered. (And Kaby Lake, minus the Z-series, only went up to 2400 at the time.) And there was really only an issue if you had a 1080 or 1080 Ti, as there was a little more performance available at 1080p. (Notably, memory tuning also helps high-end Intel parts, as well, with high-end GPUs. This has been true since Sandy Bridge.) 

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

You must be forgetting how buggy the Ryzen launch was

You must have forgotten how buggy X99 was at launch and partly still is. See above, the System Integrator I talked to said that X99 was way way worse than AMD.

Or have you forgotten the Heatsink Issue with Skylake that lead to dead CPUs??

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Luftkuehlung-Hardware-217993/News/Skylakegate-Kuehler-zerstoeren-Sockel-1151-CPUs-1179237/

 

Though AMD doesn't have the Dominance and the Fans that downplay everything...

If you look closely at Intel, they aren't any better at all, its just that people either don't talk about it or they get flamed if they do.

 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Intel stuff works out of the box.

No, that's not true. Because Intel demands on some Plattforms that you use the Memory in a specific order.

If you put it in the wrong slot of the channel -> No POST. 

And you also forget that the Plattforms Intel did in the past 10 years aren't that much different, its more like an evolution of the Nehalem again, wich was the last real new thing that Intel did. Everything that came after 2008 was an evolution of Nehalem. 

In that time, AMD did two completely new architectures that had nothing to do with each other, though they messed one of those up with backwards compatibility and the crappy K10 Northbridge, where the new cores were attached to...

Yeah, no. Intel isn't much better and some things are really frustrating with Intel Plattforms. 

Its just that people forget the Issues Intel has, downplaying it and uplaying the Issues AMD might or might not have.

Just look at that Ryzenfall bullcrap. It was only theorized, there wasn't a proof of concept shown and to use this imaginary exploit you need to either have access to the Hardware physically or Admin rights. Yeah, no, that's bullshit.

How about "RAIDFALL", where you can flash a custom BIOS on the RAID Controller and own the System with that?

 

That's just one example where people go around with some non-issues on AMD Systems and claim that AMD has to be worse because someone said so...

 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Intel has their reputation from making faster products that usually have fewer bugs

No, Intel has their Reputation from being the Market Leader and having a ton of fans behind them, that downplay the issues you have on Intel.

 

And because "the others" make their products so that they go around the Bugs Intel has.

 

As for Fewer Bugs:
Didn't one of the last Intel CPUs have a similar TLB Issue to the Bulldozer?

And what's about the P67 Chipset where the S-ATA Port stopped working?

 

And what about the Intel Managment Exploit? 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/20/intel_flags_firmware_flaws/

That's some serious shit. And you seem to have forgotten this issue as well it seems...

 

And right now you could also mention Spectre and Meltdown.

So the "fewer bugs" is also not true... 

 

The truth is that "the others" are the ones that modify their products so that they ship around the Intel Bugs.

 

And I could also go way back to the "FDIV" Bug back in the 90s, where Intel was forced to replace the CPUs...

 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

or not having to wait for software optimization,

...because Intel hasn't done a new Architecture in 10 years and everything we have right now is an evolution of Nehalem.

Yeah, of course you don't need Software Optimizations for that.

 

If you do something new and different, you need software Optimizations because it is different. If its just the same, you don't need to...

 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

but Intel is doing a great job at tarnishing it with security holes

...wich the people can't deny as it is mentioned in every publication, even the Mainstream non-Tech Media talked about.

Though people are still claiming that some things have to apply to others as well, without a proof of concept...

 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Anyway on topic this really isn't news, one retailer doesn't account for AMD outselling Intel.

it shows that Intel has a Problem and that, if the people are not hellbent on buying Intel at all cost, they have some serious Problems as every AMD Chip bought is one Intel Chip not bought.

And with parity at least in Germany at the Consumer Level, it shows the preassure on Intel...

 

The Problem ar

 

[Jito463]

7 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

You must be forgetting how buggy the Ryzen launch was with buggy unstable BIOS, and still lacks in being able to use almost any cheaper DDR4 ram to get the same performance,meanwhile Intel stuff works out of the box. Intel has their reputation from making faster products that usually have fewer bugs

The X99 launch had issues.  So did the first Core i series launch on the 1366 socket.  Any brand new platform launch is going to have issues.  And as @Stefan Payne has pointed out, there were even various issues with more recent launch products from Intel.  I remember how long it took for me to be able to run my 3000 MHz RAM at the correct speeds.  At first, the best I could do was manually clocking it at 2666 MHz (I couldn't even use a profile setting for it).  It was probably 4-5 months before I was able to get a BIOS update that allowed me to run it at 2933 MHz, and my RAM was on the compatibility list for my motherboard.  I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, just your implication that it's somehow polar opposite of Intel.

 

I'm not trying to make this a "see how bad Intel is" post, I'm just trying to point out that the mentality of Intel "just works" is flawed.  It's based on a misguided mindset, that requires willful ignorance to maintain.  Any new product launch will be buggy, guaranteed.

6 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

never heard of unstable BIOS. if you have any source or event to tie it to, please enlighten me

Gigabyte, with my previous 'x370 Gaming K7' board (which was not a cheap board at over $200), released a BIOS that could actually fry the CPU by overvolting it.  They quickly pulled it, but I'm glad I never got around to installing that one.  Of course, that wasn't a launch BIOS issue, but it was still an example.

4 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Just look at that Ryzenfall bullcrap. It was only theorized, there wasn't a proof of concept shown and to use this imaginary exploit you need to either have access to the Hardware physically or Admin rights.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the RyzenFall exploit was confirmed by AMD, it was just the way CTS announced it that was most assuredly trolling.  You are correct about needing physical access, though (which kind of mitigates the usefulness at that point).

Edited September 4, 2018 by Jito463
Correction of board name

[GoldenLag]

32 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Gigabyte, with my previous 'x370 Gaming 7' board (which was not a cheap board at over $200), released a BIOS that could actually fry the CPU by overvolting it.  They quickly pulled it, but I'm glad I never got around to installing that one.  Of course, that wasn't a launch BIOS issue, but it was still an example.

thanks, didnt know about that one. good thing they pulled the BIOS. 

 

still not specifically an "unstable BIOS" but one that kills hardware instead. not the most comforting thing

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Kind of. I claimed that I have hopes that those issues mentioned by others are resolved by now. I never claimed that those issues where valid, because how would I know? It is the stuff others say about Ryzen, not my personal experience. I won't be in the market for a new CPU in the next 2 years, so all I notice is random bits and pieces flying around. I don't dig any deeper.

 

Does that make my hopes invalid? Well, so be it. Then I will stop hoping that if it makes it any better i guess?

 

The key claim or idea behind this is that perceived quality and trust need to build up. And right now, if you don't dig deep into CPUs, you simply hear some random facts and those include the bad stuff, without any reasoning or fixes. You would only get reasons if you actually dig deeper, which most people simply don't unless they are in the market for something new at that moment. But the negative point, no matter what it was, will stick anyways. And honestly, there are a lot of issues Ryzen had at launch, like those you mentioned yourself. Do you think anyone outside the tech community would double check if they are fixed by now? The truth is that most people just collect those random things they hear and buy by gut feeling.

 

(All this is vendor agnostic btw, also works for Intel etc. so don't pretend I said that)

As someone who bought the r7 1700 at launch and later upgraded to the 2700x i can easily say the platform has improved tremendously over time. The second gen ryzen cpus work just fine out of the box and don't have the same issues the first gen had. Even the first gen fixed the majority of its issues after 4 to 6 months. I did experience some odd issues within the first 2 months but those were gone with later bios updates. Honestly i wouldn't have recommended buying the first gen ryzen at launch for your average consumer but at this point it is quite stable and I have no issue recommending it for your average user. 

[Tech Enthusiast]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

As someone who bought the r7 1700 at launch and later upgraded to the 2700x i can easily say the platform has improved tremendously over time. The second gen ryzen cpus work just fine out of the box and don't have the same issues the first gen had. Even the first gen fixed the majority of its issues after 4 to 6 months. I did experience some odd issues within the first 2 months but those were gone with later bios updates. Honestly i wouldn't have recommended buying the first gen ryzen at launch for your average consumer but at this point it is quite stable and I have no issue recommending it for your average user. 

Great to hear!

[Gdog]

16 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

As someone who bought the r7 1700 at launch and later upgraded to the 2700x i can easily say the platform has improved tremendously over time. The second gen ryzen cpus work just fine out of the box and don't have the same issues the first gen had. Even the first gen fixed the majority of its issues after 4 to 6 months. I did experience some odd issues within the first 2 months but those were gone with later bios updates. Honestly i wouldn't have recommended buying the first gen ryzen at launch for your average consumer but at this point it is quite stable and I have no issue recommending it for your average user. 

I bought a 1700x too. All I had to do was update the mobo bios and it was basically the same experience as Intel. I get confused with all this fuss about the platform, maybe in the first few months but I missed that so..

[JoostinOnline]

27 minutes ago, Gdog said:

I bought a 1700x too. All I had to do was update the mobo bios and it was basically the same experience as Intel. I get confused with all this fuss about the platform, maybe in the first few months but I missed that so..

The first few months were pretty rough. You had to be careful about your pairings. People quickly realized that RAM speed had a big effect on Ryzen. Unfortunately, high frequency memory support was really bad at the start. You had to buy from the motherboard's QVL if you wanted it to work. The general consensus was that AMD didn't give manufacturers enough time before releasing it.

[Brooksie359]

47 minutes ago, Gdog said:

I bought a 1700x too. All I had to do was update the mobo bios and it was basically the same experience as Intel. I get confused with all this fuss about the platform, maybe in the first few months but I missed that so..

Yeah the first few months were kinda weird with various small bugs but that was kinda expected. The important thing is that they fixed them relatively quickly.