AMD on the road to recovery.

[humbug]

AMD are starting to make some traction in OEM's.
Although there's still confusion internally in these OEM's.

We had a sales guy of a company state that AMD are coming back in a big way, only for the next session at said OEM state "We don't really do much AMD, but we could".

Kind of wish I'd gambled my house deposit on AMD shares .

I'd be living my dream home at 25.
Oh well, more debt and 30 it'll have to be.

I have no doubt the boards will now cost the same as Intel, they are at least as good if not better than Z390 and with PCIe 4 they have something Z390 doesn't.

As for the CPU's, we know the price of those from AMD themselves.

9600K, 6 cores 6 threads: £260
3600, 6 cores 12 threads: £200
3600X, 6 cores 12 threads: £250

9700K, 8 cores 8 threads: £340

9900K, 8 cores 16 threads: £500
3700X, 8 cores 16 threads: £330
3800X, 8 cores 16 threads: £400

3900X, 12 cores 24 threads: £500

Anyway.... this isn't going to make you feel any better

 

[humbug]

Thanks ^^^

AMD must not start the milk cow procedure when their market share is less than 3% in servers, around 12-13% in mobiles and slightly more in DIY PCs...
This would be a fundamental strategic mistake.

I think its going to be very difficult for AMD to sell the X570 board for less than Z390 given the quality of them, you've seen them, they are top notch.

The CPU's aren't actually any more expensive than previous generations, at least at launch the 6 core Ryzen was always £200 and £250, the 2700X was £330 but the 1800X was £400, they started to come down in price after a few months when Intel reacted with their own 6 and then 8 core CPU's.

I don't think that's going to happen this time, at least not to the extent that it has, i mean my 1600 was £210 at launch, about 8 months later i got it for £160.

AMD are still offering more for less than Intel, to the same extent they have since Ryzen only this time it looks like AMD are going to be matching Intel in gaming and all Intel can do is what AMD did back in 2013 when they launched the FX-9590 to keep pace with the far more efficient 3770K.

AMD are not at this point getting too cocky, look at the table you quoted. Motherboards, i think we are just going to have to accept that if we want the Z390 quality we will have to pay Z390 money, there's always B450 and X470 if we don't need or want 10 to 14 phase VRM's and PCIe 4.

 

[humbug]

The problem is from an OEM POV is the lack of IGP.

So, we can't spec 2600's for example because we then need a GPU.
So we'd either have to go for an APU and current offerings are 4C/4T or 4C/8T from AMD. You can get an i5 around the same price with IGP.

For the absolute base units AMD 2200G systems are the cheapest build we can go, it's cheaper than the i3's and just as good.

That's a good point, tho they have just refreshed Zen+ for Laptops and i'm sure the G and U series Zen 2's are on the way.

 

[humbug]

Why on a 9900K would YOU care about crap Integrated Graphic's? ^^^^
--------------

MSI B450 Pro Carbon. £120 , That's a very good board.

+ 8 core 16 thread 3700X, £120 + £330 = £450 (£160 cheaper)

Or if for whatever reason you would want to go for the more expensive 3800X

£400 + £120 = £520 (£90 cheaper)

 

[humbug]

One whole year later? Why wait 1 year to only equal and offer the same pricing? On the smaller, finer and supposedly what's meant to be a cheaper process?
AMD got greedy. Fact.

If you think "AMD GOT greedy" why are you only complaining about that now?

The 3700X is £330, the 2700X was £330, the 1800X was £400, the 3800X is £400.

WTF is going on with you and that?

 

[humbug]

In fairness, what you've posted price wise you'd complain for if it was Intel for 2 over 2 years difference.
However the prices you've posted are incorrect.

The 3900X is the same price as the 1800X was for example.

The 1600 was similar in performance to the i7 5820K which was selling for £380, the 1600 was £210 at its most expensive.

If we reasonably assume the Ryzen 3600 overclocks to 4.4Ghz all core (+13%), add the IPC to it (+15%) i'm gaining 28% performance for £40 more than i paid for the 1600. if it clocks higher than 4.4Ghz i'm looking at over a 30% jump.

At no point (at least in the past decade +) can we say that about per core performance with Intel skipping one generation.

He can argue AMD's CPU's are expensive, compared with the alternative they ain't and this is a far bigger performance jump than Intel's Coffeelake to Coffeelake+, AMD with a 0 or very minimal price change from that previous Zen+ generation, they are still the same price they have been on Zen back in 2016. if he thinks they are expensive why complain now?

 

[humbug]

AMD got greedy, hope it does not bite them in the ass.

I'll give 4K8KW10 this, at least he's attempted to add a little context to his proposition.

If you think AMD got greedy, there is an alternative

 

[humbug]

IMO with a small minority we have the same problem that we do with GPU's.

some people are just strangely chained to nVidia, in this case Intel and only want AMD to exists so they can keep their, for lack of a better word 'preferred' brand in check, so if AMD do anything other that practically give their CPU's away that's not going to make Intel budge on price and that's what makes them angry.

In any case, its like a religion, Its not that Intel are milking their consumer base, its always that AMD are not doing enough, Intel can do no wrong, AMD can't do right.

 

[humbug]

It was, but also there was the 7 1700 that was nearly half the price offering the same after overclock. Now, there is no second and third 12-core offers at the 7 1700 prices.

So with a generation skip 16 threads with +30% or more performance has got £100 cheaper.

Also think back to 2016, Intel's competing part was £800 and no better.

 

[humbug]

intel hasn't dropped pricing because their market share is still 80-90% and beyond, and there isn't a need to.

While the overall PC shipments in the last quarter continue to fall.

And while AMD and intel don't offer more threads, games and software become ever more demanding. Look at the game WoW, look at how the new titles demand at least 8 threads.

You are talking about retail here, how long do you think this will last? And whose the one with controlling influence on pricing, AMD or Intel?

Just answer that. without the mental gymnastics just use simple logic.

Mindfactory Report May 2019

Sales are basically the same as in April for AMD at Mindfactory but it will be very interesting too see what happens once AMD's new Ryzen 3000 series arrives.

 

[humbug]

See all the people buying loads of £500 Core i9 9900K CPUs,£400 8C/8T CPUs and £250 6C/6T Intel CPUs have told AMD AMD charging £500 for 12C/24T,£300 to £400 for 8C/16T and £200 to £250 for 6C/12T is fine since in the latter case Intel is charging more money anyway.

In all cases AMD is undercutting Intel in per core performance and in the mainstream offers double the threads for less money.

Right, Intel have the controlling influence on Pricing, it really doesn't matter what AMD do because there is a large proportion of people who doggedly stick to Intel no mater what.

AMD can and are collecting up all if not most of the rest but if you want cheaper high end Intel CPU's you're wasting you're time and energy looking to AMD to be the great savior, AMD have very limited influence on Intel's fanboys.

 

[humbug]

The thing is AMD is undercutting Intel in several areas(look at post 672) and people still are moaning at them. How much more can they undercut Intel,when they are offering 50% to 100% more threads for a similar thread. Intel is still segmenting SMT FFS. Intel stops you using older 100 and 200 series boards for CFL,etc and AMD is at least trying to keep some degree of compatibility with the older motherboards.

Then the same lot will moan if AMD suddenly can't compete with the next Intel core or next Nvidia GPU,since AMD has had no R and D money to develope new stuff.

I would love a new Zen 2 8C/16T CPU for £200 but when Intel is still selling 6C/6T CPUs for £250 after three generations of Ryzen starting at £200 for 6C/12T CPUs,then anyone who wants value would be looking at AMD anyway. A 6C/12T Core i7 8700K is £350 and a 8C/8T Core i7 9700K is nearly £400. So if you want over 6 threads with an Intel CPU you have to spend £150 than a Ryzen 5 3600 at least,or even more compared to a cut price which launched at the same price last year as the Ryzen 5 3600.

I know, i have explained AMD are about to offer more for less than they did with Ryzen 1000, they can't win.

TBH i don't care about those who doggedly stick to Intel, i don't care how high there prices are, i'm happy to use either or, whatever offers me the best performance for my pounds.

I also want AMD to remain competitive, for that they need R&D to keep up the good work they started, their CPU's are priced high enough i think to make enough money to continue along this path while still being significantly cheaper than the competition, so i'll be paying a bit more for my next Ryzen, but i'll be getting a lot more too, the price difference is less than what i'm going to gain.

I just can't bring my self to complain about that, i would feel like an idiot.

 

[humbug]

Plus you know what?? People can wait until pricing settles down,especially if Intel does eventually respond with price cuts or new models. People are so impatient nowadays. Stick to your budget and what level of performance you want and wait it out then!! I bought a Core i3 2100 back in 2011 when I moved over to Sandy Bridge since a Core i7 2600 was more than what I wanted to spend at the time(and there was not so much benefit for me either for what games and applications I was running),I then upgraded to an Ivy Bridge Xeon E3 1230 V2 and had the system until last year. It was cheaper for me to go that route than buy a Core i7 2600 at launch. I didn't upgrade until then since it was not worth the cost. I got a nice doubling of performance in some stuff I run which I am pleased with.

Yeah, it didn't hurt me to keep my 1600 for 18 months, i may even keep my current motherboard and wait to see the B550's.

Tho i am happy to pay more to buy early this time round, its good to have choices eh?

 

[humbug]

when do we see actual benchmarks ?

Wrong thread?

 

[humbug]

Higher IPC ^^^^

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.

The 9700K, 8700K replacement, is sometimes slower.

 

[humbug]

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]

crickey

 

[humbug]

Intel's losses are AMD's gains....

Lynx Equity Research analysts are hearing "rumblings" that Google (GOOG,GOOGL) is dissatisfied with Intel's (NASDAQ:INTC) server platform.

The firm's field research into the hardware supply chain suggested Google-specific server boards are being made with AMD's (NASDAQ:AMD) Epyc CPU, which would mark a huge gain for AMD and loss for Intel.

The Google news comes in a note discussing AMD's competitive advantage with the firm seeing management focusing on multi-year market share gains. Lynx notes that TSMC's recent 7nm capex increase is positive for AMD with Intel's 10nm server CPU at least a year from its production ramp.

Lynx: "We see AMD headed up for the $40 level by year end and INTC headed down for the $45 level."

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3483411-google-data-center-switching-amd#email_link

 

[humbug]

AMD Captures 23% Of The Cell Phone Market In One Deal

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4288448-amd-captures-23-percent-cell-phone-market-one-deal

 

[humbug]

It is either or... Either intel is stupid to allow their sales at an all-time low, or there is some type of agreedment between the corps helping AMD to support its operations through lack of competition.

Look at the 'Rain Forest' best sellers list, if their CPU's are not good and good value, people ain't going to buy them, AMD are rapidly gaining Desktop Retail market share, even on the Steam Hardware Survey, AMD are at 19.4% vs 80.6% for Intel, AMD haven't been that high in many years.