yet Zen3 has been AMD's most successful cpu when Intel has such bigger market share ? how did they manage to trick so many people
-
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
Caporegime
@Bencher You're ignoring me.
You're not as stupid as what you write would suggest, you can see where my line of questioning is going, so humour me, i'm just going to conclude it anyway...
You're not as stupid as what you write would suggest, you can see where my line of questioning is going, so humour me, i'm just going to conclude it anyway...
Soldato
No, I wouldn't blame amd cause I don't think Intel stagnated in the first place. For example 2011 to 2015 (the era everyone thinks intel stagnated) we have a 47% performance increase between the 2600k and the 6700k. That's more yearly performance increase than AMD gave us the last 5 years at the 350 and below price points, so if Intel stagnated back then, AMD does stagnate more today. I don't believe either is true.
Soldato
That I don't know, zen 3 was their worst showing performance to price wise, I bought every other zen CPU except zen 3. Zen 3 was freaking disgusting. Of course im talking about their lower end CPUs, the 5900x and the 5950x were absolutely great. The lower product stack was laughable at those prices.yet Zen3 has been AMD's most successful cpu when Intel has such bigger market share ? how did they manage to trick so many people
Caporegime
I'd call 47% in 5 yours stagnation, if it was GPU's you would call that stagnation, since 2017 (Zen 1) AMD increased their performance 3 fold.
AMD are not a charity, they will make a calculated choice about how to price their products, they calculated the 5600X was better overall than a 10700K, because the 10700K was priced so high, $379, they also calculated they could undercut that CPU while still taking a larger profit than they had previously.
That's exactly what they did, because they were dead right, they were more right about that than even they thought they might have been.
Soldato
No they haven't. See this is the problem, the amd crowd keeps making *** up. We just said 3 posts ago that the R5 3600 to the R5 5600 (same pricepoint) has a 20% performance difference. In 3 years thats less than 7% a year. Intel gave us 12% a year in their so called stagnated era. The R7 1700 to the R5 5600x has a performance difference of around 35%. The only decent CPU's amd makes are the high end 5900x / 5950x. The lower product stack, which is what the vast majority of people buy is absolutely disgusting. Lower performance increases than the intel stagnated years.
Soldato
Okay then, and that's exactly what Intel did when they "stagnated". They made a calculated move and realised that they could only offer 12% performance increase yearly to make even more money than they did before. How is one being stagnant while the other one is doing perfectly okay? That's just double standards.
Funny facts: Zen 3 is the most sucessful Zen series, despite "high" price it outsold Intel in every major IT retailer, and it is first Zen product that beat Intel both in ST and MT, complete victory in every metric, and also most hated Zen series by Intel fanboys which is ofcourse logical because their beloved Intel is destroyed. So if Zen 3 really had the high and unfair price then customers are the one should be blamed, they were buying Zen 3 like hotcakes despite Intel offering very good performance/price ratio (comedy lake). Zen 3 is the product that dealt Intel such a blow that Intel fanboys will never recover, and they are only one that critis Zen 3 prices from the start so... the best thing for AMD would be to go back to bulldozer era like Dave predicted, then AMD will be beloved company by Intel fanboys.
Caporegime
I accepted your argument, why complicate it? You're hacking away at your own arguments looking for ways to win.
Most of Intel's performance increase 2600K vs 6700K comes from DDR4 vs DDR3, you see that? Why was that even necessary?
Now i'm going to mention the fact that the gaming performance difference between the Ryzen 3600 and 5600X was up to 50%, but i shouldn't have to, because it doesn't matter, AMD are not competing with themselves, they are competing with Intel and they had a better product they could sell for a higher margin they had previously while still undercutting Intel's competing product.
So you see after all that my simple point stands.
Soldato
It doesn't really matter where the performance increase comes from. We can compare the 6700k to the 8700k, they both user ddr4, there is a humongous performance increase in those 2 year without an upgrade in ram.
I agree that AMD priced what they could get away with, that doesn't change the fact that they stagnated more than intel did in their stagnated era. That's just a fact that you will never accept. Performance to price graphs show exactly that, AMD gives us less performance increases at same pricepoints than intel did. I mean you are applying different metrics when it comes to AMD. Intel wasn't competing against themselves either, they were competing with AMD and they were crushing them more and more every gen back in their stagnated era. So if Intel stagnated back then, AMD is doing it now.
Im not buying amd anyways ever again, so for your sake let's hope they don't continue the trend with zen 4.
funny you should mention that, at the time when I was building system it was either 5900x or 10900k and AMD was the better option, it was pretty much the same price 12 cores vs 10 cores, faster in single and multi core did it use less power cant remember ? also better board options with GEN 4 compatibility
If I had to build system today I would opt for Intel
Caporegime
Whataboutism, if we were arguing about AMD's stagnation during their Bulldozer era there wouldn't be an argument because i would agree with you, that's not what this is about, this is about AMD's pricing of the Ryzen 5600X, you and @Joxeon think it was too high.
I didn't like the $299 price tag either, but i didn't think it made AMD evil, they still priced a better product lower than their competitor, perhaps focus your frustrations where its useful.
Zen 3 is actually priced really well now but that's only down to Intel, had ADL not arrived I'm pretty sure AMD would not have released CPUs like the 5600/5700X and prices would still have be double what they currently are.
I also think this is why the IPC of zen 4 is quite low since AMD didn't expect such big gains from ADL so were not pushing as hard on development and thought they could probably get away with giving up less performance, it's probably why they have been forced to push clocks and power for the gains similar to what Intel were doing.
I also think this is why the IPC of zen 4 is quite low since AMD didn't expect such big gains from ADL so were not pushing as hard on development and thought they could probably get away with giving up less performance, it's probably why they have been forced to push clocks and power for the gains similar to what Intel were doing.
Caporegime
Soldato
Intel gave us a 12% on average performance increase during their stagnation era at their 350 euros and below cpus. Amd gives us less than 12% on average a year at that same pricepoint. Therefore amd is stagnating more than intel did. That's the argument you keep deflecting
Caporegime
Permabanned
Think we should have a royal rumble, AMD fanboys vs Intel trolls. Please submit pictures with your war faces to the thread so we can start running a book on the fight.
Soldato
Is it though? I mean imagine being the owner of a 3700x ( I am btw), having bought it 3 years ago for 300. Then 3 years later amd releases a cpu that is barely 20% faster for the same money (the 5700x). That's a worse performance increase than back on 2015 when someone decided to upgrade from a 2600k to a 6700k. Sure he had to buy a new motherboard, but at least he got 2.5 times more performance increase than amd offers today. But intel stagnated and amd doesnt
Soldato
No, im talking about the zen 3 era. Thet 5700x is 20% faster than the 3 year old 3700x. The 5600 is 20% faster than the 3 years old 3600. That's less than 7% a year. Welcome to the amd stagnation era
AMD Zen era is the best thing we as customers could get, cpu is interesting topic now, and thx to AMD we don't have to watch skylake and quad core anymore, and AMD today have Xilinx and Pensando which are biggest acqusition in the history so battle will continue to be interesting, and Intel cannot afford to be sloppy and stagnating again, AMD will sweat them every year.
- Status