• 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 6 rumours

FredFlint said:
In multithreaded applications, 265K is massively faster((Cinebench 23 MC)35700 vs 23120). In gaming most would not notice the difference between 265K/9700X.
Click to expand...

I would still buy the 9700X over the 265K because buying in this range gaming performance and price are all that matter to me, lower power consumption is also a bonus.

If i was the sort of person where MT productivity matters, perhaps even that and gaming i would buy a higher end CPU with more cores, in which case the 9950X is just as good in MT productivity and better at gaming than the 285K, also again more power efficient.

There really is no such thing as a "low or midrange productivity CPU" this is kind of a segment that Intel seems to be making up to justify E-Cores, AMD know people buying in this range don't care about CB scores, they care about Frames Per-second.
 
Last edited:
These Zen 6 rumors are getting pretty outlandish like the Zen releases in the past peddled by AdoredTV/MLID and the like... and the the 7ghz rumour is coming from MLID.... :cry:
 
humbug said:
There really is no such thing as a "low or midrange productivity CPU" this is kind of a segment that Intel seems to be making up to justify E-Cores, AMD know people buying in this range don't care about CB scores, they care about Frames Per-second.
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong. People that use the PC for work and play care about productivity and AMD's low-mid range suck ass for value. I got the 7950X as it was the best value chip, did not really need 16 cores but better to have them. I would not get an 265K or a 9700X. I would get a 9950X as it offers the best value for my workloads..
 
Retail sales <> Total Sales however.

We still buy exclusively Intel PC's at work (the current favourite still being i5-14500T based mini PCs).

This is simply because AMD based PCs from HP/Dell/Lenovo hardly exist (although that looks to slowly be changing), and the models that we have had previously (HP 805 G6 Mini) were shocking compared to even older Intel equivalents (Felt cheaper in terms of build quality, and poorer components e.g. Realtek Lan / bluetooth / wifi etc)
 
FredFlint said:
I think you are wrong. People that use the PC for work and play care about productivity and AMD's low-mid range suck ass for value. I got the 7950X as it was the best value chip, did not really need 16 cores but better to have them. I would not get an 265K or a 9700X. I would get a 9950X as it offers the best value for my workloads..
Click to expand...

The sales numbers don't agree with this. as per post #162.

9700X: 640 Units
265K: 10 Units.

Armageus said:
Retail sales <> Total Sales however.

We still buy exclusively Intel PC's at work (the current favourite still being i5-14500T based mini PCs).

This is simply because AMD based PCs from HP/Dell/Lenovo hardly exist (although that looks to slowly be changing), and the models that we have had previously (HP 805 G6 Mini) were shocking compared to even older Intel equivalents (Felt cheaper in terms of build quality, and poorer components e.g. Realtek Lan / bluetooth / wifi etc)
Click to expand...

True, Intel do dominate in that space, but this is due to a lack of availability of AMD in this space, I still don't think it would make a huge difference in this space with more AMD availability, i think there people just buy whatever, they don't even think about it or even know what is AMD or Intel, its just a box, does this box do Excel?, is it cheap? Yes? i'll take 400.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I multithreaded applications yes because they have a bunch of E-Cores, in gaming, no, the Ryzen 9700X is faster than the 265K and £20 cheaper.

The problem Intel have is they don't really have any gaming CPU's that are worth their money, because they do a little better in MT productivity apps they think they are worth more than AMD's CPU's, they aren't....
Click to expand...
Thanks, as I thought.
 
G J said:
These Zen 6 rumors are getting pretty outlandish like the Zen releases in the past peddled by AdoredTV/MLID and the like... and the the 7ghz rumour is coming from MLID.... :cry:
Click to expand...

Yeah thats definitely not happening, every year we see crazy rumours and each year when the actual chips release they are not really near the rumours in terms of uplift
 
  • Like
Reactions: G J
G J said:
These Zen 6 rumors are getting pretty outlandish like the Zen releases in the past peddled by AdoredTV/MLID and the like... and the the 7ghz rumour is coming from MLID.... :cry:
Click to expand...
I think a safe-ish bet would be 10-20% per core IPC + a small (100-300)Mhz boost. 4 extra cores per CCD and 2 low power cores in the IO die. I hope we don't see £300 6 core chips again, that would suck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G J
Armageus said:
Retail sales <> Total Sales however.

We still buy exclusively Intel PC's at work (the current favourite still being i5-14500T based mini PCs).

This is simply because AMD based PCs from HP/Dell/Lenovo hardly exist (although that looks to slowly be changing), and the models that we have had previously (HP 805 G6 Mini) were shocking compared to even older Intel equivalents (Felt cheaper in terms of build quality, and poorer components e.g. Realtek Lan / bluetooth / wifi etc)
Click to expand...
Intel is still getting plenty of sales in the corporate market, the issue is they're not making much money from it. OEMs like Dell and Lenovo overwhelmingly sell low and mid range systems, i3s, i5s and Core Ultra 225s and similar. In the past Intel made enough margin on those for it to be lucrative business given the huge volumes involved. But Intel's financial results suggest the OEMs know they have Intel over a barrel now and can drive a hard bargain.

If Dell was to announce it was moving to a 50/50 split between Intel and AMD in its product stack, that would be a disaster for Intel. Investors would dump their shares like they were radioactive. So Intel will sacrifice margin to avoid that. I don't know the exact numbers involved, but I would not be shocked if Intel has to sell Dell, HP, etc, around 20 or 30 i3s to make as much as AMD does selling a 9800X3D to a gamer.
 
DrBombcrater said:
Intel is still getting plenty of sales in the corporate market, the issue is they're not making much money from it. OEMs like Dell and Lenovo overwhelmingly sell low and mid range systems, i3s, i5s and Core Ultra 225s and similar. In the past Intel made enough margin on those for it to be lucrative business given the huge volumes involved. But Intel's financial results suggest the OEMs know they have Intel over a barrel now and can drive a hard bargain.

If Dell was to announce it was moving to a 50/50 split between Intel and AMD in its product stack, that would be a disaster for Intel. Investors would dump their shares like they were radioactive. So Intel will sacrifice margin to avoid that. I don't know the exact numbers involved, but I would not be shocked if Intel has to sell Dell, HP, etc, around 20 or 30 i3s to make as much as AMD does selling a 9800X3D to a gamer.
Click to expand...

I think its still also the case that Intel are trying to keep AMD out of OEM markets, like practically giving these chips away for very low or zero margins.

End of 2020 Intel had $23.9 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $36 Billion
End of 2024 they had $7.1 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $50 Billion

And this is with them getting Billions in corporate welfare from the Biden government, where has it all gone?

End of 2020 AMD had $2.29 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $0.39 Billion
End of 2024 they had $5.32 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $1.71 Billion

When Tan said Intel are no longer in the top 10 for semiconductor companies he isn't kidding.

By Market Cap Intel rank 17'th with $99.45 Billion

The Top 10 are as follows:

#1 Nvidia: $4.219 Trillion (some little GPU company or something)
#2 Broadcom: $1.347 Trillion (big in all sorts of datacentre stuffs)
#3 TSMC: $$1.273 Trillion (They make all our chips)
#4 Samsung: $317 Billion (I like their phones)
#5 ASML: $293 Billion (They make the UV machines critical for the latest nodes TSMC use)
#6 AMD: $260 Billion (no idea who these guys are)
#7 Texas Instruments: $196 Billion (quite a lot of chips that aren't CPU's or GPU's, that's these guys)
#8 Qualcomm: $168 Billion (Microsoft thinks these guys will free them from the X86 tyranny by emulating X86)
#9 ARM Holdings: $166 Billion (every Smart Phone has one, Qualcomm would not exist without them)
#10 Applied Materials: $154 Billion ( ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
 
Last edited:
Our company bought 257 Dell XPS laptops this year so far, and they don't even come with a Ryzen CPU option, it's Intel or bust

I don't know what more amd needs to do to get into the OEM market

And I don't like the Intel Ultra CPUs in these things, they somehow feel slower than the older Intel stuff
 
Last edited:
@Bumhug

Also, interesting name :D I have been called that online as a funny quip...

Grim5 said:
Our company bought 257 Dell XPS laptops this year so far, and they don't even come with a Ryzen CPU option, it's Intel or bust
Click to expand...

Yeah Dell....

"Dell are the best friend money can buy"
-Paul Otellini. Intel CEO 2002 to 2005
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I think its still also the case that Intel are trying to keep AMD out of OEM markets, like practically giving these chips away for very low or zero margins.

End of 2020 Intel had $23.9 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $36 Billion
End of 2024 they had $7.1 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $50 Billion

And this is with them getting Billions in corporate welfare from the Biden government, where has it all gone?

End of 2020 AMD had $2.29 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $0.39 Billion
End of 2024 they had $5.32 Billion in cash and cash equivalents with long term debt of $1.71 Billion

When Tan said Intel are no longer in the top 10 for semiconductor companies he isn't kidding.

By Market Cap Intel rank 17'th with $99.45 Billion

The Top 10 are as follows:

#1 Nvidia: $4.219 Trillion (some little GPU company or something)
#2 Broadcom: $1.347 Trillion (big in all sorts of datacentre stuffs)
#3 TSMC: $$1.273 Trillion (They make all our chips)
#4 Samsung: $317 Billion (I like their phones)
#5 ASML: $293 Billion (They make the UV machines critical for the latest nodes TSMC use)
#6 AMD: $260 Billion (no idea who these guys are)
#7 Texas Instruments: $196 Billion (quite a lot of chips that aren't CPU's or GPU's, that's these guys)
#8 Qualcomm: $168 Billion (Microsoft thinks these guys will free them from the X86 tyranny by emulating X86)
#9 ARM Holdings: $166 Billion (every Smart Phone has one, Qualcomm would not exist without them)
#10 Applied Materials: $154 Billion ( ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
Click to expand...
Its actually crazy to think about compared to how far they've fallen vs even 5 years ago
 
humbug said:
#1 Nvidia: $4.219 Trillion (some little GPU company or something)
#2 Broadcom: $1.347 Trillion (big in all sorts of datacentre stuffs)
#3 TSMC: $$1.273 Trillion (They make all our chips)
#4 Samsung: $317 Billion (I like their phones)
#5 ASML: $293 Billion (They make the UV machines critical for the latest nodes TSMC use)
#6 AMD: $260 Billion (no idea who these guys are)
#7 Texas Instruments: $196 Billion (quite a lot of chips that aren't CPU's or GPU's, that's these guys)
#8 Qualcomm: $168 Billion (Microsoft thinks these guys will free them from the X86 tyranny by emulating X86)
#9 ARM Holdings: $166 Billion (every Smart Phone has one, Qualcomm would not exist without them)
#10 Applied Materials: $154 Billion ( ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
Click to expand...
Huh?

What about that tiny fruit company with a market cap of $3.15T?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom