-
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 on the road to recovery.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
They also never really improved on what they offered, a decade of $300 to $350 pricing, sure, during a decade of single digit performance improvements.
Yes the 5820K was a good CPU at a good price, but that's not the whole story, it was on an expensive HEDT platform, so still quite unaffordable.
I'm not for a moment going to suggest that AMD was ever "cheap" the first Ryzen, the 1800X was $500, that's a lot of money, but that was a good 8 core CPU at the time. It was comparable to a much more expensive 8 core HEDT CPU from Intel.
But its $500 price is also why i just don't agree with people who say "AMD GOT greedy with pricing later on" no they were always pretty expensive, even the entry level Ryzen 1600 was $200, its just that what you got for that money was quite a lot at the time. that 12 thread 1600 was priced about $20 more than the 4 thread Core i5 7600K. Really a lot more CPU for around the same money, but that money was not cheap.
As you know i paid £440 for an 8 core Ryzen 5800X, again that's expensive, but a better CPU than the 10900K, in every conceivable way and cheaper.
Yes the 5820K was a good CPU at a good price, but that's not the whole story, it was on an expensive HEDT platform, so still quite unaffordable.
I'm not for a moment going to suggest that AMD was ever "cheap" the first Ryzen, the 1800X was $500, that's a lot of money, but that was a good 8 core CPU at the time. It was comparable to a much more expensive 8 core HEDT CPU from Intel.
But its $500 price is also why i just don't agree with people who say "AMD GOT greedy with pricing later on" no they were always pretty expensive, even the entry level Ryzen 1600 was $200, its just that what you got for that money was quite a lot at the time. that 12 thread 1600 was priced about $20 more than the 4 thread Core i5 7600K. Really a lot more CPU for around the same money, but that money was not cheap.
As you know i paid £440 for an 8 core Ryzen 5800X, again that's expensive, but a better CPU than the 10900K, in every conceivable way and cheaper.
Last edited:
2017 to 2023, 6 years.
R23
1800X: 9,314
7950X: 38,657 (+415%)
2011 to 2017, 6 years.
i7 2700K: 4,434
i7 7700K: 6,055 (+37%)
Nope....
Last edited:
You moved the goal posts and contrived it to suit your argument better after realising you've been a fool.
Worst CPU from 2011 to the best CPU in 2017. Ok....
AM4 to AM5 platform, none of these CPU's are AM3 compatible.
2017 to 2023.
R20
Athlon 200E: 720
Ryzen 7950X: 15,120 (+2,100%)
Last edited:
You compared the i3 2100 to the i7 6700K.
The i3 2100 launched at $120, the 6700K was $350, what are you talking about.....
Funny thing cause I bought a 3700 back in 2019 for 320$. You know how much a mt performance jump would I get by spending the same amount of money in 2020 for an amd cpu? -10%
3700X: 12,355
7700: 19,540 (+58%)
The Ryzen 1800X was the best AMD CPU you could by in 2017, the 7950X was the best CPU you can buy in 2023, the latter is 415% faster.
the i7 2700K was the best Intel CPU you could buy in 2011, the i7 7700K was the best you could buy in 2017, it was 37% faster.
Intel performance progression in those 6 years was 37%, AMD's was 415%, that was the argument. You said Intel progressed more in those years than AMD did with Ryzen.
I quote:
Nope, not by a very very long way. Intel progressed 37% between 2011 and 2017, AMD progressed 415% between 2017 and 2023.
YOU DID, you cared, you made the argument and you were so wrong its not even funny, now you keep moving the goal posts to try and regain some dignity, good grief.
Mate we've been through all of this......
2017 to 2023, 6 years.
R23
1800X: 9,314
7950X: 38,657 (+415%)
2011 to 2017, 6 years.
i7 2700K: 4,434
i7 7700K: 6,055 (+37%)
Nope....
Its so easy to prove how wrong his statement there is, he should check what he says before he posts, and when you prove him wrong he changes what he said and tries again.
Like that forever round and round and round, its like a war of attrition, he just keeps saying stupid #### and then says new stupid ####, keeps doing that until you give in.
Last edited:
Last edited:
That's not what you said, i can read, its in print in your post, it does not lie, i quoted it, directly.
The jump per generation, you never said anything about similar pricing, not until after i proved your stament of fact wrong, you claimed to have said something you never did. again, its in print.
Graphs, graphs everywhere. 3.5 years, 27% performance increase. GO amd
There was such a thing as the 5600 none X which was $100 cheaper at $199.
Holly #### lol....
Arguing with him is a joke, seriously, i like a good debate and with this guy you have to watch everything he says carefully, never take anything he says as read because #### me.....
It really is, I hate Intel, i like a lot of their products but as a company, while none of them are good, they are all pretty much bad but i have a particular destain for Intel.
I'd still buy their products tho if they make sense to me, and have...
None of them are your friend, the 1800X was not a cheap CPU, $500, that's an expensive CPU, especially at the time.
Same.... the 2000 series was a waste of sand, barely any better than the ones it replaced.
i skipped that one...
Last edited:
Its their anti competitive behaviour, their bullying tactics that did it for me, i detest that sort of thing, i really really do.
Once they won they did this to us:
2700K to 7700K +37%, not even 40% in 5 generations, the sort of people who do that ^ so they can then go on to do < that are narcissist.
Last edited:
Ryzen 1800X: 9,314
Ryzen 2700X: 9,971 (+7%) meh
Ryzen 3950X: 24,050 (+141%, +158%)
Ryzen 5950X: 28,577 (+19%, +200%)
Ryzen 7950X: 38,657 (+35%, +315%)
I made a mistake earlier, i counted the pre decimal 4 as the whole of the equation, like an idiot.
So we don't leave Intel out of this because they have made huge strides during the same period, competition, right?
7700K: 6,055
8700K: 8,960 (+48%)
9900K: 12,450 (+39%, +106%)
10900K: 15,945 (+28%, +163%)
12900K: 27,472 (+72%, +354%)
13900K: 39,652 (+44%, +554%)
Ryzen 2700X: 9,971 (+7%) meh
Ryzen 3950X: 24,050 (+141%, +158%)
Ryzen 5950X: 28,577 (+19%, +200%)
Ryzen 7950X: 38,657 (+35%, +315%)
I made a mistake earlier, i counted the pre decimal 4 as the whole of the equation, like an idiot.
So we don't leave Intel out of this because they have made huge strides during the same period, competition, right?
7700K: 6,055
8700K: 8,960 (+48%)
9900K: 12,450 (+39%, +106%)
10900K: 15,945 (+28%, +163%)
12900K: 27,472 (+72%, +354%)
13900K: 39,652 (+44%, +554%)
Last edited:
Deliberately, lets do that...
I think they thought they could put AMD back in their box by having these massive cores for low threaded IPC and then tag on a bunch of little cores for MT scores.
Its a good idea, a good strategy, but again its a big CPU with high power consumption, all AMD did was up the IPC and clocks, while the core chips are actually smaller than Zen 3, 81mm vs 73mm.
And they will do it again with Zen 5, up the IPC and clocks, the core chips might be even smaller again while Intel add another 8 half cores on and increase the power consumption.
I imagine its frustrating for Intel, they must be thinking no matter what we do we can't win. But them scraping like this is good for us.