• 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 Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

ben90 said:
My other question is if AMD, in the future, gain a hold of the market, how will they handle it? Will they become the new Intel?
Click to expand...
LePhuronn said:
I don't think they'll be quite as bad as Intel because there's always been a tangible difference in mentality
Click to expand...

if you factor in inflation i think you will find one of if not the most expensive Desktop CPU was an AMD chip.
people have short memory's when AMD was in front that had no problem pumping the prices. AMD is a business with shareholders dont think for one second that if they get on top it wont be the same because it will.
 
humbug said:
I'll just leave this here for all the old gits like me who should get this reference.


giphy.gif
Click to expand...

That made me think of the corrupt leadership of Mars holding back the air = Intel holding back cores. But the AMD rebels are unleashing the cores, yay!
 
MaXxBoulton said:
if you factor in inflation i think you will find one of if not the most expensive Desktop CPU was an AMD chip.
people have short memory's when AMD was in front that had no problem pumping the prices. AMD is a business with shareholders dont think for one second that if they get on top it wont be the same because it will.
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm saying. There is a difference between charging high prices because the product can command such a price, and fleecing your customers because there is no alternative or drop-feeding minor incremental updates for disproportionate prices. I don't see AMD doing the latter anywhere near as badly as Intel have.

You can still be a shareholder-driver corporation without being driven purely to increase your bank balance. And even if you are, you can increase said bank balance by offering compelling products, not railroading purchasing choice.
 
viathinair said:
That made me think of the corrupt leadership of Mars holding back the air = Intel holding back cores. But the AMD rebels are unleashing the cores, yay!
Click to expand...
Get your ass to Mars Taipei.

Although I really don't want the image of a whole 2nd person hiding under Lisa Su's jacket...
 
beany_bot said:
Is anyone like me, I'm kinda excited, but also a little bit sad re the future of gaming.
It looks like we are going to get yet more cores from AMD. Which obviously I am happy about. But in truth won't make a massive difference in gaming. Not nearly as much as if they were releasing say a 6ghz 2700x.

It just looks like the industry (intel included) is now heading for a industry of increasing core counts. (Zen 3 rumours about 4 threads per core) Alas this doesn't actually really help game FPS at all.
Click to expand...
Current materials simply don't clock much higher and smaller nodes aren't going to help in that.
Actually non-extreme overclocking speeds have long been in relatively same level.
Neither is increase of transistor budget giving any automatic continuous major IPC boosts like 15+ years ago.

So utilizing higher number of cores is only real way for games to do new things/move forward.


LePhuronn said:
So yeah, AMD will take advantage of a dominant market position, but I don't see them abusing it.
Click to expand...
I don't see AMD gaining any such long term market dominating position which would enable them to start leeching people.
Unless Intel keeps bungling...
Instead of maximizing quarternary profits AMD needs to maintain their positive image.
And if they push prices too high there's again that "Why not Intel then?" problem, unless AMD can really crush Intel in performance.
 
EsaT said:
Instead of maximizing quarternary profits AMD needs to maintain their positive image.
And if they push prices too high there's again that "Why not Intel then?" problem, unless AMD can really crush Intel in performance.
Click to expand...
This is precisely what I've been saying whenever it's posted here "if an 8c/16t Ryzen 3000 can beat the 9900K then AMD will charge 9900K money for it". They won't. They can't.

Now if Intel really do continue to bungle by the time Zen 4 rolls around and every customer segment is jumping aboard the AMD train en masse, then AMD assume a position which could be abused. It ain't happening until then, if ever.
 
matt1 said:
For this reason I'm thinking the 3600x would be better due to it generating less heat on an all core overclock, especially on air cooling. Who knows though... Can safely bet it will be better value for money than the 3700x for gamers (all I use my desktop for, I don't stream etc).
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no doubt 3600X is the one to buy if what you want is value, the same as that the 2600X is the better chip vs 2700X performs to 95-99% of a 2700X in games. There is a decent price difference between the 2 chips. 3600X will be easier to cool as well. So the extra cooling requirements of the bigger chips will also be added cost.
 
matt1 said:
If the 3600x offers the best value for money as a purely gaming CPU, that might be my preferred option.
If cores become more useful over 8 in the future then you could buy a second hand 3800x, or the next revision when required. I don't think overspending now as future proofing on a socket that has potential it necessarily the best option for everyone.
Click to expand...

We already know that when we have users upgrading ryzen every gen since launch :) End of the day people will just upgrade when they need to and the future is unpredictable. So yeah I agree with you.

I just cannot see 8/16 been a bottleneck for a while 4/8 (recent gens) and 6/6 can still play games absolutely fine, the next gen consoles will be optimised for either 6/12 or 7/14. Plus desktop parts will be clocked higher.

There will be ryzen 4 before we even start seeing any proper number of ps5 ports as well, given ps5 is at least a year away and it takes time to make games.
 
Yeah, I have the same feeling.

If the 3700X or 3600X is close to the 3700 or 3600, I'll get the X version.
However, if a big difference, then the non X version will be mine.
 
Don't want to damp down anyone's bonfire here, but the X versions are X for a reason. I was a very early adopter with a 1700, assuming it would clock manually higher than an 1800X. It never did, in fact it's maximum stable all core clock was 3.8Ghz. The 2700X that replaced it, does an all core clock of 4.25Ghz just using PBO and Level 4 on my CH6.
AMD are that good at binning parts now, if you want the best CPU, i think the reality is you simply just have to buy the best one. I think a lot of peeps will be disappointed if they think they can clock a lower binned part the same as a higher binned part, those days are long gone i think.
 
kitfit1 said:
AMD are that good at binning parts now, if you want the best CPU, i think the reality is you simply just have to buy the best one. I think a lot of peeps will be disappointed if they think they can clock a lower binned part the same as a higher binned part, those days are long gone i think.
Click to expand...

I think it completely depends on how close to the edge they are pushing the chips, and the number of quality CPU chiplets being produced. If there is headroom left in the process and design then there is certainly a chance they will not be pushing this generation to the very maximum, and if the yields and quality of the silcon are good then you have another possible edge. You also have to counter in down binning once production ramps up, it's pretty obvious the the highest demand CPU is going to be the mid-range variant, so maybe 8c/16t chips will end up better than you think in order to supply the demand. Lots of if's, and's and could's but you get the picture.
 
I fully get where your coming from @Journey and i hope you are right. My experience with my journey with Ryzen so far though tells me that AMD got the binning process right with the original Ryzen release. They also got it right with Ryzen+, i can't see them getting it wrong with Ryzen 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom