Got to love the intel fanboys that can’t see that intel are in deep deep trouble and that AMD will be so far ahead of them next year
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
They released the unpopular overpriced SKUs and then tacked another £50 on for good measure.
So it's really a double price hike at the mid and lower end compared to the 2 high end SKUs.
Are people forgetting that intel has done this for over 10 years and to a much greater extent
Intel are not in "deep trouble", they are in temporary trouble due to a self-inflicted technological slump, until late 2021 or early 2022 when their true next generation products are released. AMD are in the great position of having 12-18 months to gain as much market share and mind share as possible before Intel start piling on the pressure again.
Intel are a behemoth of a corporation with a ton of resources who continue to make record profits year on year, with decades of mindshare to fall back on. They will be back with a vengeance the moment they get their house in order.
They are behind now and AMD has seen first hand what happens when you take your foot off the gas when ahead, i don’t think there is any chance of intel taking the lead for many years to come
Then you are maybe overestimating AMD's advantage and not being so realistic here... because "many years" is a vague and general statement that could be 5-20 years or more.
Intel still sell by the bucketload even despite their loss of performance and technological leadership and the best AMD can hope for is to take some of their maret share before Intel get competitive again and get their architecture up to speed, not to mention their new XE graphics technology which is looking very good in the mobile ultraportable space.
In 2023 things may well be very different again.
Last edited:
Intel still outsell AMD 4-1, they are not in trouble.
Soldato
You called it moaning, so I ran with it.
I agree there is room for a 5700X, quite obviously, but does anyone consider they might not want to sell the 5600X in volume? It costs the same to make as the 5800X, but if the 5600X is seen as bad value for money both being only 6c/12t and $299, yet the 8c/16t 5800X might be 50% more expensive at $449 but almost upsells itself, especially to the one time builder, who might have a new CPU/system every 5+ years where those extra cores will most definitely be of use. What is the cost of the 5 years vs the not yet available 5700X, assume worst case $100, or $20 per year. Or weirdly as I pointed out in a previous post you can get a 3700X for ~£245, or a 3900X for ~£340, so these are also options if you are on a budget.
Or you could just go Intel and buy a 10600K for ~£260, after all this is just as fast (or so people are saying) as the 5600X but cheaper by £20, and you'll still have the option to drop in an 8-core Rocket Lake CPU in the future.
If people currently on a 3xxx CPU are complaining then you have to wonder what they expected, because nothing is guaranteed, they wanted a cheap upgrade? Well it ends up working out like this, if you bought a 3700X last year for £319 at launch, and they brought out the 5700X at the same price, and the 5600 at £189 (same as the 3600) with such big IPC increases, then your 3700X fell from £319 to being worth maybe £150 if you are lucky, and you'd have to spend £319 - £150 = £169 to get the 5700X, so a total spend of £488, but now what you've ended up with is your 3700X is worth £220 (or more on that auction site) meaning a loss of £99, and buying the 5800X at £419 + 99 making a total of £518, a princely sum of £30 more in total vs the previous situation. £30 over how many years, only the person doing it can answer that.
The real problems with Zen 3 are the pricing increase, the lack of low end and the large gap between 5600X and 5800X. Ironically if you have had a 3800X or 3900X your upgrade path is ~£50 more expensive than your existing CPU and that is not horrible to be fair. It's the people on 3700X or lower who are wondering "what about us, what is our upgrade choice". Strangely if you are considering a 5800X at £430 then the best value option is to go for a 5900X. 50% more cores for ~23% more cost makes the 5900X the price/perf choice. Even with the 5600X you could get 100% more cores for 83% more cost but obviously you go way out of your price range making it a pointless consideration.
AMDs Zen 3 product stack has been reduced which leaves many existing Zen 2 with no real perceived upgrade path. Going from a 3700X to a 5600X is a core cut, while considering a 5800X means a large price jump for ~25% better performance almost 50% price increase.
I believe AMD needed a more complete product stack for Zen 3 release.
AMDs Zen 3 product stack has been reduced which leaves many existing Zen 2 with no real perceived upgrade path. Going from a 3700X to a 5600X is a core cut, while considering a 5800X means a large price jump for ~25% better performance almost 50% price increase.
I believe AMD needed a more complete product stack for Zen 3 release.
Yea, Intel can come back with a bang and they will, the 8+8 core looks interesting, we will see how it performs.
At least they trying something new now.
That is another issue as you're actually getting a multicore performance regression for the price when buying Zen 3.
Zen 3 is just a fixed Zen which should have been so from the very beginning in 2017.
8-core CCX with shared L3 cache should have been the first iteration of Zen.
Whatever......
AMD leaves the door wide open for Intel with these only 4 SKUs.
It should have been a richer lineup consisting of the following:
6-core SKUs for $110-$150
8-core SKUs for $190-$220
12-core SKUs for $250-$340
16-core SKUs for $470-$550
AMD should have tried to pull ahead as far away as possible - but no, let's over price the lineup and give minimum performance improvement.
Soldato
I'm glad that is all you took away from my post. FYI last year when the 3xxx series launched a few months down the line the 2700X was ~£135-140 in a few places, was that regression as well? Or is just that the prices dropped due to new parts coming out? You can't have it both ways, if the 3700X drops to £199 would you still be steaming at AMD since you personally can't get what you want, exactly when you want it, for the price you want it at?
I've built shed loads of 2600/2700X based systems this year, as the 3xxx parts were too expensive for part of that time, it wasn't until the 3600 hit ~£145 you could almost justify it above the 2600, but even the the 2600 was ~£105-110, so that extra £35 was getting folks an upgrade from a GTX 1650 to a GTX 1660 or and extra 8GB of RAM etc. I look forward to building lots more systems this year, with either 3xxx or 5xxx, as to be honest unless you are buying £500+ GPU's and only playing games it makes no difference to most people.
The guy wants tech companies to stifle innovation and drip feed their consumers over long periods of time and in the end cost the conumser more money....oh wait...it’s what Intel have been doing for the last 14 years...
I would assume that 8 'Big' cores and 8 'little' cores would be quite a bit faster than 8 cores & 8 SMT threads, just by virtue of the fact that they're real, physical cores.
Doesn't really hurt AMD - if Intel counters if they have the ability to they can drop price then.
In reality I'm 99% sure these prices are due to the costs of 7nm and AMD simply doesn't have the luxury as well as their own stated goal of shifting perception away from AMD being the budget brand.
As I've mentioned in the GPU section though - with the current state of the world all AMD has to do really is bring a competitive product and not **** it up - there are a lot of people sitting around at home without a lot else to do with their money at the moment especially in IT, etc. where more are working from home than ever.
Dunno - HT brings a fair range of performance to the table - last lot of benchmarks in general application usage it is around a 40% performance increase on average so there are limits to what you'd gain without small cores which were actually quite big - given all the additional circuitry, etc. you'd probably be better off with say 6 real full size cores and 12 threads than 8 big and 8 small overall.
Last edited:
How will AMD convince the OEMs to start shipping AMD systems for the office corporations where Intel dominates with over 80% market share?
AMD has 20% market share in the desktop x86-64 segment but that includes the heavy domination in sites like Mindfactory de and other DIY retailers.
The guys a bit strange, it’s like he can’t fathom in his head that AMD are ahead of his beloved intel
- Status