AMD dind't stagnate anything, they were inferior and couldn't create better because of resources and money, Intel is the one that stangated industry because they were leader, they could create better, they could create more cores and IPC, and after AMD got back on its feet we saw improvement from Intel, they woke up, and now you got the chance to buy ADL and soon RPL which is huge IPC and threads jump from skylake. Without AMD they wouldn't spent so much money on new architecture and software optimizations to create successful product like ADL, it is very costly.
-
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 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
If AMD dind't pushed Intel it would be dark CPU era, Intel would milk us badly for 4+ cores, anyhing more than 4 core would be HEDT, let's hope we won't watch this again.
Everyone blames Intel for the quad core stagnation but to be fair they were trying to move to 10nm back in 2015 so it's not like they were intentionally standing still but if anything they were over ambitious, imagine if things had gone to plan and we had got golden cove like quads back in 2015 then the need for more than 4-6 cores wouldn't have been necessary as the current chips would likely have been pushing 100% more IPC than we have today.
I will say again, if AMD dind't push them, you wouldn't get ADL, it would be fine for them to keep release skylake and quad cores, maybe later they would increase IPC by 3-5% and release it as something new. But let's accept your scenario, if they spend billions on completely new architecture, and without a competition, you can be damn sure it would be pricey, very pricey, Intel could offer same prices with skylake because it is same architecture, and they earn profit from requiring new motherboard every year (dirty tactic). Without competition you don't have pressure to improve so much, you can be relaxed and maximing profit because you are the only one. Thx to AMD you can buy ADL now and move from skylake, judging by your behavior i think you would accept Intel monopoly scenario, i remember some guy in my local forum that was trying to explain us why Intel as only option would be better for consumers, and he really believed in that, LOL.
All this talk assumes that there are no other players in town.
If both AMD and Intel hadn’t of woken up, I’d expect there would be more than just Apple running their full desktop OS on ARM.
I’m fairly sure we will soon see the mainstream diversify away from X86 to other architectures if Microsoft can get their act together and fix Windows. At the moment it’s a bit chicken and egg, no one wants to product similar silicone to Apple without the software to run on it. Microsoft probably don’t want to fix Windows without the hardware to run it on.
If both AMD and Intel hadn’t of woken up, I’d expect there would be more than just Apple running their full desktop OS on ARM.
I’m fairly sure we will soon see the mainstream diversify away from X86 to other architectures if Microsoft can get their act together and fix Windows. At the moment it’s a bit chicken and egg, no one wants to product similar silicone to Apple without the software to run on it. Microsoft probably don’t want to fix Windows without the hardware to run it on.
I think you forget it goes both ways and AMD would be no different to Intel if they had a monopoly. £300 for 6 zen 3 cores is now £150 thanks to Intel etc.
I dind't forgot anything, we talk about Intel and their skylake monopoly era, once AMD gain monopoly we will talk about AMD and their monopoly position, i'm glad Intel have so many (3) lawyers on this forum.
Well tbf it didn't even take a monopoly for AMD put up their prices by 50% so I would hate to see the prices if they did have one.
There was arguments on here for years over if a cheeper 4 core 4 thread was ok over a 4 core 8 thread HT and the CPU's with HT and HEDT stuff was pretty much for the muh productivity crowd and epeen.
AMD didnt give us more cores out of the kindness of their hearts with Zen 1 they kinda had no other choice as had Zen 1 came to market with the same core counts as Intel things would have been a lot more harder for them.
Talking of stagnation in regards to core counts I think we have had the close to the same amount now for the same amount of generations of Intel and AMD.
AMD didnt give us more cores out of the kindness of their hearts with Zen 1 they kinda had no other choice as had Zen 1 came to market with the same core counts as Intel things would have been a lot more harder for them.
Talking of stagnation in regards to core counts I think we have had the close to the same amount now for the same amount of generations of Intel and AMD.
Last edited:
Soldato
I thought outright trolling was supposed to be a strike on these forums? I mean, you could argue this point, but you'd be completely wrong and subject to ridicule if you did.
Soldato
No, they didn't. How many times do you and your ilk need to be told the 5600X is the direct replacement for the 3600X? Skewing your argument to compare with the 3600 does not mean you win, it just makes you look like a fool. And even if your inaccurate comparison is considered, literally 1 SKU was raised by 50%, not the entire product stack, so you're intentionally distorting the situation to suit your own narrative.
And yet, now that there is a 5600 you have a fair and accurate comparison. Oh look, the 5600 launched at the same $199 as the 3600.
Last edited:
Caporegime
WHAT? go back and check those reviews, the 1800X was about equal to an i7 6900K, which at the time was an £800 8 core CPU.
He keeps ignoring that important part, tell him how much 12 core Intel cost before Zen 1, or even better, 16 core.
Caporegime
He also keeps ignoring the 10700K which at the time of 5600X launch was $379, the 5600X matched that in MT productivity, beat it in ST and was at least equal to a 10900K in gaming.
It was the bargain of its generation "BuT it wAs More eXpeNsiVe than ThE 36o0"
Last edited:
Soldato
The issue you have is some people are very bitter about any price rises, even if they only brings them in line with the competition in the market place. No one wants price to increase unnecessarily, but being angry at a faceless corporation for wanting to make money while they can is laughable. Even more so when you buy the very products you are criticising.
Zen3 has been a massive success for AMD, both in the server space and consumer and OEM space, through dinner of the toughest most unpredictable times in recent history, it's now in its outgoing phase, and things are still somewhat up in the air but at least the outcome is a good one
Zen3 has been a massive success for AMD, both in the server space and consumer and OEM space, through dinner of the toughest most unpredictable times in recent history, it's now in its outgoing phase, and things are still somewhat up in the air but at least the outcome is a good one
I guess this is why your not a mod.
The 1800X wasn't pre Zen.
Caporegime
Before Zen AMD wasn't even in this game, so Intel took full advantage, what's your point?
But it is AMD fault Intel dind't offer more than 4 cores in mainstream, while charging 800$+ for 8 core cpu
.Which was my point that had AMD brought some competition then Intel would have had to up core counts earlier so AMD certainly played their part in the stagnation era.
Permabanned
400 odd pages, 25 useful, the rest arguing about any old toss vaguely related to CPU's
- Status