Soldato
Um, the chart above shows the 7700K at stock getting beaten and the 7700K clocked to 5.1GHz matched
-
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
How many people run the 7700k at stock though or the 9900k.
Associate
Some quotes from Gamersnexus:
"AMD gotten what it deserved and it's fans got a bit of wake-up call".
"AMD has a history of obtuse marketing which plays to the cheap seats".
"AMD is now a big boy company and it's fans need to realise it's one".
"AMD knew lack of compatibility would cause issues".
"AMD wanted to announce the 500 chipset news around Zen3 support and the lack of 450 and 470 Zen3 support before the Zen3 CPU launch because AMD wanted to pre-empt that launch and AMD did not want all of this to overshadow a new CPU launch and wanted to give a chance for people to sit and simmer or sit and stew depending on the news".
"After talking to people familar with the matter, AMD didn't expect the backlash to be this bad".
"AMD should have spent all this time building up it's own products instead of making a self righteous post about how Intel is repugnant for not supporting its CPUs past a single socket".
Not sure AMD will want to send him any review parts after that!
It also shows AMD definitely knew for a longtime that B450 would not work,they knew not making B450/X470 incompatible would cause a problem,and didn't give a damn about what people thought,so decided to keep quiet until it suited them,ie, to not affect the Zen3 launch.
So,in the end no better than Intel NOW really.
Main part i took away from the GN opinion statements is that AMD is so focussed on the lowest common denominator for sales and the whole industry is in a race to the bottom. Hence all solutions to issues have to be 100% effective and can't cost any money to the consumer. Like that method has ever worked.
The 'solution' AMD came out with to 'solve' the bios compatibility issue (sending out compatible CPUs) AMD created was just another level of hassle even though it addressed the problem and of course it was probably unsustainable from a cost perspective nevermind a customer satisfaction one. GN seems to suggest these support CPUs now finding their way onto the Chinese retail market is a good reason why old CPU support can't be deprecated
AMD's biggest mistake here was making a family of CPUs (they all have the same name, socket, pincount, RAM compatibility) so mutually exclusive they do not even post on a board without a specific AGESA. Amateur hour execution.
They will still need to do that with X570 and B550 if the board has not been pre updated.
A 32mb bios chip and or bios flashback is the minimum I expect before I buy into AM5 after this debacle.
Also I think AM5 will now come under more scrutiny with people wanting to know where they stand on future upgrades before buying into the platform and AMD will have to be more clear now as the trust is gone.
Last edited:
Soldato
Irrelevant.
Permabanned
So what is everyone doing? Waiting for i5-10600KF or sticking with Ryzen 5's and 7's
Soldato
Sp you're suggesting that AMD should've switched up their CPUs every generation so they're physically incompatible with previous generation boards? Funny how everybody is decrying AMD for "doing an Intel", yet you're saying AMD should've "done an Intel" from the very beginning.
But then when Intel have done multi-generation support you still needed a BIOS update. 60 series boards wouldn't boot Ivy Bridge without a BIOS update, 80 series boards wouldn't always boot Devil's Canyon, same with 100 series boards and Kaby Lake. Pretty sure Rocket Lake isn't just going to drop into 400 series boards and run without intervention.
Atleast if they had of changed sockets then people would have been clear what they were buying into. AMD kept quiet so they could sell a bunch of B450 boards then make the same people buy a B550 if they want next gen.
Soldato
Lol, this thread is getting hilarious.
"AMD has done an Intel! Pitchforks!!!"
has suddenly become
"AMD amateur hour! If they'd changed sockets every time like Intel then they'd never be accused of doing an Intel!"
AMD marketing is amateur. like it or not atleast with Intel you know where you stand.
Associate
All AMD need to do is have a core part of the AM5 AGESA able to boot any AM5 CPU with limited common functionality and features to allow usage of the CPU so the bios can be updated. The problem to be solved here is the CPU will not boot in a board that is allegedly compatible. AMD needs to SOLVE THAT instead of fiddling with process/procedures around the manin issue that they caused and is theirs to solve. It constantly puzzles me why the human condition is to treat the symptom and not the cause. This whole thing has been a perfect example of it.
In fact, try it out on AM4 to make this whole sorry mess die down and at least make something good come out of it as a preparation for AM5.
I agree bios flashback is great but it is part of the board and still relies on board partner implementation. AMD needs a technical solution that they can supply that is universal and independent of board partners. AMD needs a CPU/bios solution.
If AM5 sees AMD go Intel for platform compatibility (which is what GN seems to suggest they do) then whatever benefit AMD got out of consumers buying CPUs willy-nilly will go away and they will have a net-loss in one area (know existing buyer behaviours) that will have to be set against their perceived net gain of lower support costs and better generational compatibility. AMD must have had a benefit from this platform compatibility message or they wouldn't have kept pushing it all this time so that's something they'll need to understand the effect of and be willing to give up either fully or a reasonable percentage of. AMD has had an USP they clearly didn't recognise the value of and seemed all set to just throw it away.
I won't be buying future 3000G 'support' CPUs or 1600AF 'just to have a play' CPU, or suggest people buy a mid-upper range CPU now and then upgrade to the top CPU 6-9 months later of the platform compatibility isn't there. It will be buy a platform once and then sweat it. I'll probably not even be on the bleeding edge as a willing alpha/beta tester so AMD will lose margin too. I'll be able to buy a better turbo more often then.
I agree that AM5 will come under more scrutiny and i also think AMD in general is now under more scrutiny.
one of the truest statements i seen on here. said this many times. AMD you have no idea what your getting or where your going. Intel atleast put it out you know where you stand. this is a big thing as well and why many just choose intel like nvidia for their products.
its absolutely comical to see the new amd chips wont be supported on previous boards yet many here sang and cried about evil intel developing dead end sockets.
on the new AMD cpus i think these will be what most actually wanted from what we have now and being absolutely brilliant cant wait to see what they can do. bring em on.
Soldato
Saving my money and sticking with my 3700x on my X370 motherboard.
I did contemplate upgrading to the 4000 series CPU if they showed a decent uplift in performance, provided I could just drop it in my existing motherboard with just a BIOS update. However it looks like that wont be the case now, so it's basically made my decision not to upgrade now as I'm not forking out for a motherboard for just one more CPU generation.
They lost the sale of the 4900x I had planned to drop in at xmas so now that £500 will probably go to nvidia as I will likely get the 3080ti as opposed to the 3070 or 3080.
Caporegime
7700K @ 5.1Ghz 244 FPS.
3300X @ 4.4Ghz 241 FPS.
I don't call that a win for the 7700K, they are both 4 core 8 thread CPU's, yes the 7700K is 1% faster, at 5.1Ghz. that's an IPC difference of 15% to the 3300X, the difference between 4.4Ghz and 5.1Ghz is 16%, take off 1% for the 1% higher frame rates, did the 7700K really beat the 3300X?
one of the truest statements i seen on here. said this many times. AMD you have no idea what your getting or where your going. Intel atleast put it out you know where you stand. this is a big thing as well and why many just choose intel like nvidia for their products.
its absolutely comical to see the new amd chips wont be supported on previous boards yet many here sang and cried about evil intel developing dead end sockets.
on the new AMD cpus i think these will be what most actually wanted from what we have now and being absolutely brilliant cant wait to see what they can do. bring em on.
I'm impressed, you managed to find the Caps lock key occasionally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
Are Intel fanboys seriously arguing over 1%? Intel has a 30 year history of needing high frequencies to make up for their low IPC.
Caporegime
You know what, @Joxeon does this make the 3300X a better CPU that the 9900KS?
No, of course it doesn't, in a far more highly threaded game the 9900KS will jump up and down on the 3300X.
What we are doing is measuring the per core per Ghz performance, the 7700K is the best fit for that even today as the 9900K is just an 8 core 7700K, infact the the 7700K may even have a higher IPC given it doesn't have the security mitigations the 9900K has. which may explain why the 3300X beats the 9900KS here....
No, of course it doesn't, in a far more highly threaded game the 9900KS will jump up and down on the 3300X.
What we are doing is measuring the per core per Ghz performance, the 7700K is the best fit for that even today as the 9900K is just an 8 core 7700K, infact the the 7700K may even have a higher IPC given it doesn't have the security mitigations the 9900K has. which may explain why the 3300X beats the 9900KS here....
Last edited:
The fanboys would argue over the colour of *****, i love this mentality that when you buy a component you're somehow inducted into some window licking cult always on the lookout for negative comments that need to be leaped on. Childish at best.
Associate
I didn't suggest it at all. That is YOUR summation of the solution. 'so what your saying is......' has no place in a debate.
Please quote me back where i wrote AMD should have been switching sockets.
I have suggested more than once AMD should have thought about this more and created a TECHNICAL solution that didn't require complex processes and support to enable their intention.
The expansion on your reply even suggests Intel needs a better compatibility solution even where CPUs are supposed to be a drop-in solution WHILE not retaining multi-generation CPU support. The CPU manufacturers will never address these half-assed implementations while the consumer just puts up and keeps quiet about it.
- Status