AMD on the road to recovery.

[humbug]

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.

 

[Bencher]

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.

We've been through that multiple times and it doesn't seem like facts are going to change your opinion so I feel this is futile. The jump per generation between 2010 and 2015 on the Intel parts was as big as the jump we have now with Ryzen. I'm not even joking. Compare the R7 1700 to the R5 5600x, similar price, 35% increase in performance in 4 years. That's less than 10% a year, lol, that's the same performance jump intel gave us during their worst years. That's just a fact man

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.

No it's not, lol

 

[Bencher]

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.

Not true either, the 1600 was around 200€ (215 on launch),, the 7600k was 260 to 280€. The 6core amd part was much cheaper while offering a lot more threads, a complete 180 compared to what we get nowadays.

 

[humbug]

We've been through that multiple times and it doesn't seem like facts are going to change your opinion so I feel this is futile. The jump per generation between 2010 and 2015 on the Intel parts was as bug as the jump we have now with Ryzen. I'm not even joking. Compare the R7 1700 to the R5 5600x, similar price, 35% increase in performance in 4 years. That's less than 10% a year, lol, that's the same performance jump intel gave us during their worst years. That's just a fact man

No it's not, lol

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....

 

[Bencher]

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....

You are comparing a cheaper cpu to a more expensie one, lol

Here, let me try your method as well

i3 2100 1500
i7 6700k 5500 (336%) in just 4 years instead of 6.

As ive said no amount of facts will change your mind due to too much AMD sympathy. All I know is, the R5 7600x (2022) is barely 45% faster than the R7 1700 (2017). Same price, 6 freaking years, that's less than 8% per year. LOL

 

[humbug]

You are comparing a cheaper cpu to a more expensie one, lol

Here, let me try your method as well

i3 2100 1500
i7 6700k 5500 (336%) in just 4 years instead of 6.

As ive said no amount of facts will change your mind due to too much AMD sympathy. All I know is, the R5 7600x (2022) is barely 45% faster than the R7 1700 (2017). Same price, 6 freaking years, that's less than 8% per year. LOL

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%)

 

[Bencher]

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.

AM4 to AM5 platform, none of these CPU's are AM3 compatible. Ok....

2017 to 2023.

R20

Athlon 200E: 720
Ryzen 7950X: 15,120 (+2,100%)

I didn't move any goalposts, you are the one moving them. Im comparing CPUs with similar prices. So the R7 1700 to the R5 7600x, 6 years - 45% performance increase.

You on the other hand are comparing a 100€ cpu from 2017 to a 900€ from 2022, lol.

As I've said, this is futile, you won't admit what's in front of you. Numbers don't lie pal. R7 1700 to 7600x is single digit performance gains for 6 years straight at similar pricepoints. PERIOD. That's a fact. Now go on, move the goalposts again.

 

[humbug]

I didn't move any goalposts, you are the one moving them. Im comparing CPUs with similar prices. So the R7 1700 to the R5 7600x, 6 years - 45% performance increase.

You on the other hand are comparing a 100€ cpu from 2017 to a 900€ from 2022, lol.

As I've said, this is futile, you won't admit what's in front of you. Numbers don't lie pal. R7 1700 to 7600x is single digit performance gains for 6 years straight at similar pricepoints. PERIOD. That's a fact. Now go on, move the goalposts again.

You compared the i3 2100 to the i7 6700K.

The i3 2100 launched at $120, the 6700K was $350, what are you talking about.....

 

[Bencher]

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%

 

[Bencher]

You compared the i3 2100 to the i7 6700K.

The i3 2100 launched at $120, the 6700K was $350, what are you talking about.....

Because that's what you did by comparing the 1800x to the 7950x?

Same prices, amd is giving us single digit performance jumps year after year, sometimes they even give us a negative performance increase (3700x to 5600x). Those are the facts.

 

[humbug]

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%)

Because that's what you did by comparing the 1800x to the 7950x?

Same prices, amd is giving us single digit performance jumps year after year, sometimes they even give us a negative performance increase (3700x to 5600x). Those are the facts.

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:

We've been through that multiple times and it doesn't seem like facts are going to change your opinion so I feel this is futile. The jump per generation between 2010 and 2015 on the Intel parts was as bug as the jump we have now with Ryzen.

Nope, not by a very very long way. Intel progressed 37% between 2011 and 2017, AMD progressed 415% between 2017 and 2023.

 

[Bencher]

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.

Who cares about "the best CPU". What matters is price and performance. The 7700k wasn't the best CPU you could buy either, the 8700k came out in 2017,, lol, and that wasn't the best either.

Intel progressed 35% from 2011 to 2015 (i7 2700k to i7 6700k) at similar prices. AMD progressed by 35% from 2017 to 2020 (R7 1700 to R5 5600x) at similar prices. Intel bad, AMD good. Gotcha.


EG1. You realize the 6950x came out in 2016 and was 4-5 times faster than the i7 2700k, yes?

 

[humbug]

Who cares about "the best CPU". What matters is price and performance. The 7700k wasn't the best CPU you could buy either, the 8700k came out in 2017,, lol, and that wasn't the best either.

Intel progressed 35% from 2011 to 2015 (i7 2700k to i7 6700k) at similar prices. AMD progressed by 35% from 2017 to 2020 (R7 1700 to R5 5600x) at similar prices. Intel bad, AMD good. Gotcha.

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.

 

[Bencher]

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.

Yes, im comparing CPUs that came out at similar price points. AMD gives us the same amount of progress as Intel did in their worst years. If price is not a concern then youll realize that the 6950x came out in 2016 and was 4-5 times faster than the 2700k. But of course price matters, that's what progress is, to get better performance year after year at similar prices. In which case, AMD is tied with Intel's worst years.

Again, for the last time Intel progressed 35% from 2011 to 2015 (i7 2700k to i7 6700k) at similar prices. AMD progressed by 35% from 2017 to 2020 (R7 1700 to R5 5600x) at similar prices. Intel bad, AMD good. Gotcha.

 

[jigger]

(Fantastic Spam from Walter Mitty land)

Intel’s desktop offerings went to 4 cores. If you needed 8 cores the price was the thick end of £2000.

Sandy to Ivybridge was barley a couple of percent performance. Haswell to DC a few from clockspeed, Skylake a little more and Kaby lake was a reduction.

Between Sandy and Coffe lake Intel offered very little. We actually seen performance regress by a few percent between parts. Intel’s idea of update at that time was the same chip, but using 2p worth solder instead of 1p of thermal paste.

The reality is, Intel offered as little as possibly for as long as they could away with it. This isn’t surprising considering the people running Intel moved from accounting and marketing.

So yeah, accounting bad, engineering good.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Intel’s desktop offerings went to 4 cores. If you needed 8 cores the price was the thick end of £2000.

Yeah I was going to say from memory they offered some expensive cpu's certainly not amazing value as being portrayed. Depends on how your interpretation of high end translates.

 

[Bencher]

Intel’s desktop offerings went to 4 cores. If you needed 8 cores the price was the thick end of £2000.

I know that facts aren't that important to you but ill just throw it out there, neither the 6900k or the 5960x were 2000. You made a slight price error of 100%.

I know I know, it doesn't matter, we are all here to lie for AMD, but just in case someone needs to know what's the actual truth, im just leaving it here.

 

[Bencher]

The reality is, Intel offered as little as possibly for as long as they could away with it. This isn’t surprising considering the people running Intel moved from accounting and marketing.

On that, I agree, Intel offered on average 10% mt performance increase per year with constant prices. That's terrible, almost as bad as what AMD is doing the last 6 years on that same 300-350€ price point.

 

[humbug]

Intel’s desktop offerings went to 4 cores. If you needed 8 cores the price was the thick end of £2000.

Sandy to Ivybridge was barley a couple of percent performance. Haswell to DC a few from clockspeed, Skylake a little more and Kaby lake was a reduction.

Between Sandy and Coffe lake Intel offered very little. We actually seen performance regress by a few percent between parts. Intel’s idea of update at that time was the same chip, but using 2p worth solder instead of 1p of thermal paste.

The reality is, Intel offered as little as possibly for as long as they could away with it. This isn’t surprising considering the people running Intel moved from accounting and marketing.

So yeah, accounting bad, engineering good.

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....

 

[jigger]

I know that facts aren't that important to you but ill just throw it out there, neither the 6900k or the 5960x were 2000. You made a slight price error of 100%.

I know I know, it doesn't matter, we are all here to lie for AMD, but just in case someone needs to know what's the actual truth, im just leaving it here.

Lol, Bencher pulling me on facts. That’s funny.

CPU, motherboard and RAM. You gota pay for the Intel chipset… but yeah, some Intel CPU’s did cost close to £2000 alone. Intel was trying to get away with that too.