• 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.

Alder Lake-S leaks

cliffy said:
No one is defending price hikes but the hikes were negligible to non existent on every model accept the 5600x, even then the degree of the hike is dependant on if you call it a a 3600 or 3600x successor. No one seems to be mentioning the fact that the Intel motherboards are overpriced with Z690 Gigabyte Master been approx £150 more than its X570 equivalent . AS wit anything prices were simple, if you wanted the newest and greatest you paid the price set by the manufacturer if not you bought the discunted previous Gen or the under performing competitor alternative. Do not for one second think Intel would not of hiked the prices even further if roles were reversed, history has proven this with Intel charging crazy money for virtual the same chip for the majority of the last decade
Click to expand...
In the 8 core segment the 5800X was released at $450 dollars vs the 3700X at $330 dollars and also lost the wraith prism cooler, ok you can argue that the 5800X is the replacement for the 3800X but by AMD not releasing a 5700X it still amounted to a substantial price increase for an 8 core CPU over the previous gen.

The difference here is choice as no one is forcing you to buy a high end Z690 like the aorus master, you can drop a K chip into a basic Z690 or B series board and get largely the same stock performance.

Intel rightly got called out during the stagnation era which is why I and many others decided to go with AMD but that doesn't mean AMD get a free pass.
 
Joxeon said:
Yields were around 70% when zen 2 went into production and now we're up into the 90s and that's accounting for the larger die so that would make quite a bit a difference.

In terms of price rise by TSMC, these dies cost like $20 to produce so a 20% increase is only $4 not the $100 we saw.

Again it's disappointing to see consumers defending price rises.
Click to expand...

As low as 70% when Zen 2 started? That's surprising as they launched around a year after Apple and Apple's A12 is slightly larger than the Zen 2 chiplets.

As you pointed out those chiplets cost around $20 for fully functional (in theory 5600X could come from dies which fail as 5800X although the relative numbers suggest that otherwise good dies are being used to supply 6 core too).

Which isn't very much at all. Since AMD's margins are lower than Intel's and way lower than Nvidia's, I keep saying that consoles are not only taking up most wafers, they are also pushing down the margins.As even at $200 a 5600X would have far far more than 45% margins. Ergo desktop CPU buyers are subsidising consoles! (And OEM deals for CPUs and APUs, sweet deals to get EPYC shifted etc.)

Anyway, trying to figure out how things are as the are doesn't mean justifying or condoning them. Which is something were you and perhaps CAT get confused.

The most expensive CPU I have every bought is my current i5-3570K from which I still haven't upgraded. 8 core Zen 3 tempts me with performance but I have no intention of spending twice of my previous max CPU budget on it.

My main thing with how things are, has really been about so many wafers going to console, how or why console manufacturers have such a good deal, and why AMD have little motivation to decreases Zen 3 allocations to make more RDNA2 GPUs

That plus while AMD are clearly raking it in compared to their historic margins etc., truly healthy long-term competition requires them to be healthy enough to afford a few mistakes as Intel are/were so that they too could afford a P4 mistake and be able to come back with a secondary design like what Intel did with they Pentium M /Core Duo.
 
Last edited:
4K8KW10 said:
Pff, Puget Systems is only one retailer, in the same way Mindfactory in Germany sells over 78% Ryzens but that doesn't change the other statistics that show 80% for Intel CPUs.
In the overall market.
Click to expand...

I doubt Intel have 80% now, even if you included the markets that AMD don’t currently operate in, AMD are just miles better.

It’s worth keeping in mind the difference in scale between AMD and Intel. AMD are growing rapidly and will continue to do so, but Intel are a massive company. I believe they have just invested $20 billion in its Ireland plant as part of a $95 billion in the EU to capture the car maker market. AMD are maybe 5% the size of Intel.
 
Last edited:
KompuKare said:
As low as 70% when Zen 2 started? That's surprising as they launched around a year after Apple and Apple's A12 is slightly larger than the Zen 2 chiplets.

As you pointed out those chiplets cost around $20 for fully functional (in theory 5600X could come from dies which fail as 5800X although the relative numbers suggest that otherwise good dies are being used to supply 6 core too).

Which isn't very much at all. Since AMD's margins are lower than Intel's and way lower than Nvidia's, I keep saying that consoles are not only taking up most wafers, they are also pushing down the margins.As even at $200 a 5600X would have far far more than 45% margins. Ergo desktop CPU buyers are subsidising consoles! (And OEM deals for CPUs and APUs, sweet deals to get EPYC shifted etc.)

Anyway, trying to figure out how things are as the are doesn't mean justifying or condoning them. Which is something were you and perhaps CAT get confused.

The most expensive CPU I have every bought is my current i5-3570K from which I still haven't upgraded. 8 core Zen 3 tempts me with performance but I have no intention of spending twice of my previous max CPU budget on it.

My main thing with how things are, has really been about so many wafers going to console, how or why console manufacturers have such a good deal, and why AMD have little motivation to decreases Zen 3 allocations to make more RDNA2 GPUs
Click to expand...

The discrete graphics card market is boom and bust and require a lot of silicon. The console market is more like a partnership, but AMD seem to have been able to keep the graphics card supply moving. It’s the consoles that are struggling to meet demand so I don’t see what increasing RDNA2 production would achieve.
 
jigger said:
I doubt Intel have 80% now, even if you included the markets that AMD don’t currently operate in, AMD are just miles better.

It’s worth keeping in mind the difference in scale between AMD and Intel. AMD are growing rapidly and will continue to do so, but Intel are a massive company. I believe they have just invested $20 billion in its Ireland plant as part of a $95 billion in the EU to capture the car maker market. AMD are maybe 5% the size of Intel.
Click to expand...

AMD is still the underdog.

Read this post to see that it's still 80% market share for Intel, and 88% market share for the servers.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35032056/
 
4K8KW10 said:
AMD is still the underdog.

Read this post to see that it's still 80% market share for Intel, and 88% market share for the servers.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35032056/
Click to expand...

But that is your own post and nearly 12 months out of date. The data source is even further out of date.

You seem to have quoted yet completely ignored what I said. AMD are maybe 5% the size of Intel. It’s literally as you have your own secret definitions for words that need to be translated :p
 
jigger said:
But that is your own post and nearly 12 months out of date. The data source is even further out of date.

You seem to have quoted yet completely ignored what I said. AMD are maybe 5% the size of Intel. It’s literally as you have your own secret definitions for words that need to be translated :p
Click to expand...

My point is that AMD does nothing enough to enlarge itself and to be the size of Intel.
With these pricing policies, forget it.

12 months out-of-date?
Look for the new stats in Google to see, maybe it's now worse for AMD!
 
4K8KW10 said:
My point is that AMD does nothing enough to enlarge itself and to be the size of Intel.
With these pricing policies, forget it.

12 months out-of-date?
Look for the new stats in Google to see, maybe it's now worse for AMD!
Click to expand...
AMD are more then competitive with Intel in pricing for Epyc and Threadripper. For that part there desktop range is competitive with Intel considering performance and core gains of Intel
 
cliffy said:
AMD are more then competitive with Intel in pricing for Epyc and Threadripper. For that part there desktop range is competitive with Intel considering performance and core gains of Intel
Click to expand...

It is your freedom to believe so.

But the reality says the opposite.

Imagine the positions were reverse and Intel offered EPYC and Threadripper.
How many sales would AMD get in that case?!

I will tell you. 0. 0.


Can you imagine that my first job was back in 2011 and I still haven't seen a single AMD-based work computer on any of my desks, wherever they have been?!
 
4K8KW10 said:
My point is that AMD does nothing enough to enlarge itself and to be the size of Intel.
With these pricing policies, forget it.

12 months out-of-date?
Look for the new stats in Google to see, maybe it's now worse for AMD!
Click to expand...

AMD will probably never reach the size of Intel as they don't compete in all the markets Intel operate in. Again, you need to keep the difference in scale of the firms in mind, but AMD are growing rapidly. Hence why so many people have become nervous about AMD entering new markets.
 
4K8KW10 said:
It is your freedom to believe so.

But the reality says the opposite.

Imagine the positions were reverse and Intel offered EPYC and Threadripper.
How many sales would AMD get in that case?!

I will tell you. 0. 0.


Can you imagine that my first job was back in 2011 and I still haven't seen a single AMD-based work computer on any of my desks, wherever they have been?!
Click to expand...
My comment was referring to performance and price which i stated.

The comment about if Intel released Threadripper and Epyc makes no sense because

If Intel released threadripper and Epuc they would have cost 3 times as much and Intel didn't release them so moot point
 
Last edited:
Yes, very advanced engine that was never used to its full potential...
Like I said, better wait for a more trustworthy source.
 
4K8KW10 said:
:eek:

AMD is in a rush to slash the prices of its crappy lineup in half :D

:cry:

I told ya, but no one listened :D
Click to expand...
Nobody listened because you never say anything of worth. AMD "slashing" the price of its "crappy" lineup follows the pattern they've followed with all previous Ryzen products.

But don't worry, AMD will put the 3D stacked refresh in the existing price point so you'll still have something to incessantly cry about until Zen 4 shows up.
 
Nobody listened because you never say anything of worth. AMD "slashing" the price of its "crappy" lineup follows the pattern they've followed with all previous Ryzen products.

But don't worry, AMD will put the 3D stacked refresh in the existing price point so you'll still have something to incessantly cry about until Zen 4 shows up.
Click to expand...

It's never good when a troll such as you is so arrogantly confident in the nonsense they speak.
AMD has never slashed its Ryzen prices in half.
There hasn't been any need to do so. Except when that lineup was already EOLed and replaced by something newer.

Except that now, if that 40%+ performance is true, neither a "magic" 3D cache, not Zen 4 would save AMD's fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom