• 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.

drunkenmaster said:
They didn't give out the pci-e 4 spec in 2011, they finalised the spec and gave it out in mid 2017 and it's coming to market well, actually in products like Radeon VII around 18 months later. In 2011 they just announced they were working on it and the planned performance, etc. It wasn't anywhere near finalised. It's like AMD announcing Zen project starting in like 2012/2013... the intentions were announced but they actually had to do it.

PCI-e 5 was finalised a month or two back and as such I'd expect products end of 2020 to mid 2021. For a gpu for instance it's far easier to add pci-e 5 compatibility than it is to add it to a full platform. So maybe gpus late in 2020 or early 2021 to have pci-e 5 support while motherboards/cpus that also support it to be mid to late 2021.
Click to expand...

i only said they gave the specifcations in 2011 not that it was finalised then but when pci express 3 come out i could be wrong on this but i belive msi was the first motherboard to comeout with it g85 i belive it was BUt the forums i was on they all keeped saying That pci express 3 was pointless no gpu at the time could fully use the extra speed and that pci express 4 was also around the corner etc

I think your predictions are right about pci express 5 being about 2021 But i do think the ssd chip makers and controllers will push for it a lot more then previous revisions so they can keep pushing forward with the speed of the ssd :)
 
willhub said:
So is Ryzen 3000 turning to be a flop or something?
Click to expand...

Typical AMD to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

i7-8700K was launched on 5th October 2017.
640 days later (almost 2 years later !) AMD launches Ryzen 5 3600X which manages to show almost identical performance. And they want to charge $250 for it, plus as much for a new board.

I think at AMD an experiment with our patience is going on. I have no other explanation.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Typical AMD to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

i7-8700K was launched on 5th October 2017.
640 days later (almost 2 years later !) AMD launches Ryzen 5 3600X which manages to show almost identical performance. And they want to charge $250 for it, plus as much for a new board.

I think at AMD an experiment with our patience is going on. I have no other explanation.
Click to expand...
Wait... So a midrange new part (3600x) beats a high end part from 2 years ago.


Yup. That sounds like the way tech has been for about 50 years!
 
Higher IPC ^^^^

4K8KW10 said:
Typical AMD to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

i7-8700K was launched on 5th October 2017.
640 days later (almost 2 years later !) AMD launches Ryzen 5 3600X which manages to show almost identical performance. And they want to charge $250 for it, plus as much for a new board.

I think at AMD an experiment with our patience is going on. I have no other explanation.
Click to expand...


The 9700K, 8700K replacement, is sometimes slower.
 
You know what it is, he's seen that German game review leak, taken it as absolute gospel and now think's AMD are doomed, despite just 48 hours after that we will have official reviews.

PCHardware did the same for every Ryzen launch, leaked game benchmarks early with absolutely horrible performance for Ryzen that turned out to be way off when official reviews hit.

They are click baiting. $$$$
 
humbug said:
You know what it is, he's seen that German game review leak, taken it as absolute gospel and now think's AMD are doomed, despite just 48 hours after that we will have official reviews.

PCHardware did the same for every Ryzen launch, leaked game benchmarks early with absolutely horrible performance for Ryzen that turned out to be way off when official reviews hit.

They are click baiting. $$$$
Click to expand...
There's already been a few people here and elsewhere jumping on the "it's a disaster" train because they saw just one of the gaming benchmarks from that German site. I mean honestly people, at least look at all of the results from one review before planting your flag, let alone many different reviews!
 
Last edited:
Clov!s said:
£513 for the 3900x.
Click to expand...

One 7nm 300mm (12") wafer costs 5000$.
One chiplet is ~75 sq.mm.

This means one wafer can produce 793 chiplets. If the yield is *only* 80%, the chiplets become 634 CPW. https://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/

Which equals to $7.89 per chiplet.

If the one-chiplet 3700X is £330, then AMD put profit margin of the staggering £183 for the second active chiplet for a working 9-3900X.

This is a margin of hundreds %! :eek:
 
4K8KW10 said:
One 7nm 300mm (12") wafer costs 5000$.
One chiplet is ~75 sq.mm.

This means one wafer can produce 793 chiplets. If the yield is *only* 80%, the chiplets become 634 CPW. https://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/

Which equals to $7.89 per chiplet.

If the one-chiplet 3700X is £330, then AMD put profit margin of the staggering £183 for the second active chiplet for a working 9-3900X.

This is a margin of hundreds %! :eek:
Click to expand...
Yes, they'll be making the most money on the 12 and 16 core parts but will sell more of the 6 and 8 core parts. For the end user, the 6 core actually remains the best bang-for-buck this generation (for multi-core workloads), with the 8 and 12 core being basically the same value:

R5 3600 = $33 per core
R7 3700X = $41 per core
R9 3900X = $42 per core
R9 3950X = $47 per core
 
DragonQ said:
Yes, they'll be making the most money on the 12 and 16 core parts but will sell more of the 6 and 8 core parts. For the end user, the 6 core actually remains the best bang-for-buck this generation (for multi-core workloads), with the 8 and 12 core being basically the same value:

R5 3600 = $33 per core
R7 3700X = $41 per core
R9 3900X = $42 per core
R9 3950X = $47 per core
Click to expand...

Normally, the more one buys, the cheaper a single unit of the purchased things becomes.
The best-for-buck is and will be the 8-core Ryzen 7 2700.

The last time, when we poured a lot of money into AMD in the days of the Athlon 64, they only managed to R&D the Bulldozer, which we all know led them to almost bankruptcy.
So, I will be very careful with that excitement to pour more money now in AMD.

Just ask them for discounts across the lineup.
Also, there was no problem for them to release a 12-core part with price tag of 33$ per core, for 396$.
 
4K8KW10 said:
$7.89 per chiplet
Click to expand...

Well no because AMD spent millions and millions designing the chiplet. You need to take labour costs into consideration. A CPU costs an absolute fortune.

If a painter spends 2 weeks on a painting, he/she doesn't charge 10p for the paper and 50p for the paint. He/she needs to charge hundreds of pounds to cover wages for the time spent + overheads + profit.

By your reasoning, games, movies and music should cost 20p to cover the cost of the disk.[/QUOTE]
 
4K8KW10 said:
Typical AMD to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

i7-8700K was launched on 5th October 2017.
640 days later (almost 2 years later !) AMD launches Ryzen 5 3600X which manages to show almost identical performance. And they want to charge $250 for it, plus as much for a new board.

I think at AMD an experiment with our patience is going on. I have no other explanation.
Click to expand...
Despite being 2 yrs old the i7-8700k still needs to drop down to #250
 
So, 7-3700X is on par with i9-9900K.

RavenXXX2 said:
3900X stomps all over the 9900K, uses less power and is close enough in gaming to not matter.
Click to expand...

The power consumption is bad considering that 7nm is supposed to lower it, not to increase it..

2ugfgjk.jpg



https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/18.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom