# AMD Launches AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors: The Fastest Gaming CPUs in the World



## btarunr (Oct 8, 2020)

Today, AMD (NASDAQ: AMD) introduced the highly anticipated AMD Ryzen 5000 Series desktop processor lineup powered by the new "Zen 3" architecture. Offering up to 16 cores, 32 threads and 72 MB of cache in the top-of-the-line AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, AMD Ryzen 5000 series processors dominate in heavily threaded workloads1 and power efficiency2, while the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X processor offers up to a 26% generational uplift in gaming performance3. With extensive improvements throughout the core including a unified 8-core complex with direct access to 32 MB L3 cache, the new AMD "Zen 3" core architecture delivers a 19% generational increase in instructions per cycle (IPC)4, the largest since the introduction of "Zen" processors in 2017.

"Our commitment with each generation of our Ryzen processors has been to build the best PC processors in the world. The new AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors extend our leadership from IPC4, power efficiency2 to single-core5, multi-core performance1 and gaming6," said Saeid Moshkelani, senior vice president and general manager, client business unit, AMD. "Today, we are extremely proud to deliver what our community and customers have come to expect from Ryzen processors - dominant multi-core1 and single-core performance5 and true gaming leadership6 - all within a broad ecosystem of motherboards and chipsets that are drop-in ready for AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors."






*AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors*
Featuring a remarkable 19% IPC increase4 over the prior generation in PC workloads, the "Zen 3" architecture pushes gaming and content creation performance leadership6,1 to a new level. "Zen 3" architecture reduces latency from accelerated core and cache communication and doubles the directly accessible L3 cache per core while delivering up to 2.8X more performance-per-watt versus the competition2.

The top of the line 16 core AMD Ryzen 9 5950X offers: 
The highest single-thread performance of any desktop gaming processor5
The most multi-core performance of any desktop gaming processor and any desktop processor in a mainstream CPU socket1
The 12 core AMD Ryzen 9 5900X offers the best gaming experience by: 
Average of 7% faster in 1080p gaming across select game titles than the competition7
Average of 26% faster in 1080p gaming across select titles generationally8


 

AMD 500 series motherboards are ready for AMD Ryzen 5000 Series desktop processors with a simple BIOS update. This broad ecosystem support and readiness includes over 100 AMD 500 series motherboards from all major motherboard manufacturers. AMD Ryzen 5000 Series desktop processors announced today are expected to be available for purchase globally on November 5, 2020.

*AMD Ryzen Equipped to Win Game Bundle*
The AMD Ryzen Equipped to Win game bundle program is back with the highly anticipated next chapter in the Far Cry series, Far Cry 6. Customers who purchase an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, or AMD Ryzen 7 5800X processor between November 5th, 2020 and December 31st, 2020 will receive a complimentary copy of Far Cry 6 Standard Edition - PC digital when released10 . Additionally, customers who purchase an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, or AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT processor between October 20th, 2020 and December 31st, 2020 will also receive a free copy of Far Cry 6 Standard Edition - PC digital10.

1 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020. Multi-core performance evaluated with Cinebench R20 nT with a similarly configured Ryzen 9 5950X vs. a Core i9-10900K. Results may vary. R5K-005
2 Testing by AMD Performance Labs as of 09/01/2020 using Cinebench R20 nT versus system wall power during full load CPU test using a Core i9-10900K, Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 9 5900X, Ryzen 9 3950X, and a Ryzen 9 5950X configured with: 2x8GB DDR4-3600, GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, Samsung 860 Pro SSD, Noctua NH-D15s cooler, and an open-air test bench with no additional power draw sources. Results may vary. R5K-007
3 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 measuring gaming performance of a Ryzen 9 5900X desktop processor vs. a Ryzen 9 3900XT in 11 popular titles at 1920x1080, the High image quality preset, and the newest graphics API available for each title (e.g. DirectX 12 or Vulkan or DirectX 11). Results may vary. R5K-009
4 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020. IPC evaluated with a selection of 25 workloads running at a locked 4GHz frequency on 8-core "Zen 2" Ryzen 7 3800XT and "Zen 3" Ryzen 7 5800X desktop processors configured with Windows 10, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (451.77), Samsung 860 Pro SSD, and 2x8GB DDR4-3600. Results may vary. R5K-003
5 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 with a Ryzen 9 5950X processor vs a Core i9-10900K configured with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 2080 Ti graphics, Samsung 860 Pro SSD, 2X8 DDR4-3600, Windows 10 and a Noctua NH-D15s cooler. Single-core performance evaluated with Cinebench R20 1T benchmark. Results may vary. R5K-004
6 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 9/2/2020 based on the average FPS across 40 PC games at 1920x1080 with the High image quality preset using an AMD Ryzen 9 5900X processor vs. Core i9-10900K. Results may vary. R5K-002
7 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 measuring the Gaming performance of a Ryzen 9 5900X vs a Core i9-10900K in 11 popular titles at 1920x1080, the High image quality preset, and the newest graphics API available for each title (e.g. DirectX 12 or Vulkan over DirectX 11, or DirectX 11 over DirectX 9). GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (451.77), 2x8GB DDR4-3600, Noctua NH-D15s, and Windows 10 May 2020 Update (build 2004) used for all titles. Results may vary. R5K-010
8 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 measuring gaming performance of a Ryzen 9 5900X desktop processor vs. a Ryzen 9 3900XT in 11 popular titles at 1920x1080, the High image quality preset, and the newest graphics API available for each title (e.g. DirectX 12 or Vulkan or DirectX 11). Results may vary. R5K-009
9 Max boost for AMD Ryzen Processors is the maximum frequency achievable by a single core on the processor running a bursty single-threaded workload. Max boost will vary based on several factors, including, but not limited to: thermal paste; system cooling; motherboard design and BIOS; the latest AMD chipset driver; and the latest OS updates. GD-150
10 Limited time offer available through participating retailers only. 18+ only. Following purchase, product must be installed on system where coupon code will be redeemed. Void where prohibited. Residency and additional limitations apply. Full offer terms at www.amdrewards.com/terms.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## fynxer (Oct 8, 2020)

Really juicy prices, well, AMD Ryzen 5000 series is now the world leader in gaming performance so if you want the best...

AMD Ryzen 5000 series prices make it possible for Intel to be attractive at fairly high prices. So prices for CPUs will not go down very much any time soon. Intel may lower prices around 15-20% beginning of next year but I think they will keep their current prices levels until xmas at least.

BUT we will probably have some really good 8th and 9th gen Intel CPU deals on Black Friday and also a fire sale on Ryzen 3000 series at the same time.

----------------------------------

*NO NEED TO CANCEL YOUR RTX 3080 ORDERS AND IF YOU HAVE NOT ORDERED YOUR RTX 3080 YET, DO IT NOW, IT WILL BE A HEFTY PRICE HIKE FAIRLY SOON.*

BIG Navi, not so impressive at 88FPS in Modern Warfare Ultra 4K, this is around 3070 or 3070Ti performance.

Checked out the 3080 with i9-10900K, doing well over 100FPS in Modern Warfare Ultra 4K and on top of that 3080 should do even better paired with the Ryzen 5000 series.

It is what it is, with BIG Navi it all comes down to pricing, it will probably hit $499-599 price range depending on memory size and compete with 3070 or 3070Ti.

3080 and 3090 will be the undisputed performance kings in gaming for the foreseeable future and we will probably see an even further price hike of 3080 cards due to no competition in combination with the extreme shortage. The new normal for 3080 partner cards will be around or over the $1000 price tag.

Just too bad BIG Navi wasn't a better performer, now nvidia have no reason to release 3080Ti until Q3 2021

*Once again AMD cannot reach all the way up to the high end GPU segment. At this point I do not think they are interested in the high end segment anymore. They repeatedly said that over 80% of GPU sales are in the mid and low end segment so I think their focus will remain there.*










*ALSO don't forget Intel is entering the GPU gaming market* in the mid and low end segment around Q2 or Q3 2021. To take market share Intel MUST be price aggressive so I think the best is yet to come in 2021 with regards to the GPU market.


----------



## birdie (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> Let me be brutally honest. AMD is no different than Intel in terms of dictating prices when they have the performance crown.
> 
> The pricing for the Ryzen 5000 series:
> 
> ...



To add to my previous post: I hate when people choose companies - you should choose products and root for healthy competition and AMD now has perfectly shown that when competition falters, customers get punished hard. I've been eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 5000 series but now I'm hesitating whether to upgrade from my 3700X. A performance uplift is great but the cost of the upgrade is not palatable at all. There's no way I will be able to sell my 3700X for $330 I bought it for. At most I'll get $200 for it on the secondary market. Paying $250 to get 20% more performance? I don't know.


----------



## Calmmo (Oct 8, 2020)

*_*Stares at 3900x sweating profusely*_*


----------



## damric (Oct 8, 2020)

Looks awesome, but I'll probably wait until next year when prices cool down some.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Oct 8, 2020)

Prices goes UP a bit......


----------



## rawadinozor (Oct 8, 2020)

in the end AMD is a business, if the claims of being fastest in the world in gaming is true then why can't they charge for it the way Intel did for years?


----------



## ahenriquedsj (Oct 8, 2020)

My consumption dream is without a doubt the 5900x


----------



## birdie (Oct 8, 2020)

rawadinozor said:


> in the end AMD is a business, if the claims of being fastest in the world in gaming is true then why can't they charge for it the way Intel did for years?



AMD fans never fail to disappoint with double standards. Intel and NVIDIA have always been "evil" but once AMD does that, suddenly it's perfectly fine because they _just follow suit_.


----------



## CmdrLaw (Oct 8, 2020)

Boost clocks on the 5800X and 3800XT are the same.

Thats a shame.

I get the IPC increase, but a little disappointing.


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Oct 8, 2020)

fynxer said:


> Really juicy prices, well, AMD Ryzen 5000 series is now the world leader in gaming performance so if you want the best...
> 
> BIG Navi, not so impressive 88FPS in Modern Warfare Ultra 4K, this is closer to 3070 or 3070Ti performance.
> 
> ...



Is that with DLSS on ?


----------



## Houd.ini (Oct 8, 2020)

Zyll Goliath said:


> Prices goes UP a bit......
> View attachment 171216


What's up with the cache sizes? 35 vs 36 MB?


----------



## Punkenjoy (Oct 8, 2020)

CmdrLaw said:


> Boost clocks on the 5800X and 3800XT are the same.
> 
> Thats a shame.
> 
> I get the IPC increase, but a little disappointing.





The actual MHz or GHz number do not really matter if performance is there. Or else, you know, old bulldozer or P4 are still well know to be OC to very High GHz



Houd.ini said:


> What's up with the cache sizes? 35 vs 36 MB?




This is L2 + L3

They both have 32 MB of L3 shared to all core. They have 512 kb of L2 per core. So 5600x have 2 less core so 1 MB less.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Oct 8, 2020)

Hmm, no 5700X.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> AMD fans never fail to disappoint with double standards. Intel and NVIDIA have always been "evil" but once AMD does that, suddenly it's perfectly fine because they _just follow suit_.


Your post may have valid if AMD CPUs didn't sell for 30~50% of their launch MSRP, perhaps even lower for some 1st gen Ryzen or TR chips, not to mention (nearly) 4 gens of chips on the same socket. But hey keep *carrying on that cart if it makes you feel any better*! The *latest & greatest in tech always commands a premium*, it's more about what you charge when you kinda don't need to


----------



## Chomiq (Oct 8, 2020)

So yeah, 105W chips won't come with coolers.


----------



## midnightoil (Oct 8, 2020)

RIP Intel.

Pretty sure 5700X or 5800 non-X and a 5600 will launch early next year, once stock of the 3xxx has tapered.


----------



## lemoncarbonate (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> To add to my previous post: I hate when people choose companies - you should choose products and root for healthy competition and AMD now has perfectly shown that when competition falters, customers get punished hard. I've been eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 5000 series but now I'm hesitating whether to upgrade from my 3700X. A performance uplift is great but the cost of the upgrade is not palatable at all. There's no way I will be able to sell my 3700X for $330 I bought it for. At most I'll get $200 for it on the secondary market. Paying $250 to get 20% more performance? I don't know.



Tbh upgrading every 1 generation has never been a good investment. If you're currently running 1st gen like me (1700X) or 2nd gen, it will be a leap upgrade.


----------



## HD64G (Oct 8, 2020)

rawadinozor said:


> in the end AMD is a business, if the claims of being fastest in the world in gaming is true then why can't they charge for it the way Intel did for years?


And they even then didn't. 50$ over the previous gen when they seem to sweep the floor vs the competition is great value. And without increasing the power draw as some baseless rumors said lately.


----------



## Pumper (Oct 8, 2020)

I'd love get a 5900X, but it does not look like it will offer better performance/dollar than a 3900X at current prices, not to mention when Zen2 get's a price drop after Zen3 release.


----------



## lemoncarbonate (Oct 8, 2020)

damric said:


> Looks awesome, but I'll probably wait until next year when prices cool down some.



Ryzen's price drops much faster than intel.. let's just wait.


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 8, 2020)

So this change the choise for my CPU´s plans in my 2 in 1 pc. Had hoped for at 8 core 65 watt part. So for the Mini-ITX pc it will be either 5600X or 3700X as i need to keep TDP down do to cooler size limitation. So yeah i would have liked a 5700X part with 8 cores and 65 watt TDP.

ATX pc will be 5950X for sure.

Now the cons as i se it.
5950X 100 MHz lower base clock than 3950X has, that is a bit dissapointing. Also had hope for that magic 5 GHz single core boost clock.
Still only 3200 MHz memory official clock. So does that mean 3600 MHz is still the sweet spot. Had hornestly hoped for higher clock support like 3600 MHz official and 4000 MHz sweet spot.
No cooler with the chips accept 5600X and higher prices. Yeah that is not what i exspected. Well maybe not for 5950X, but not also for 5800X and 5900X. That will mean an ekstra exspence there.
Higher prices is never a good thing.
It seems AMD stick to X570 and B550 chipsæt. Not that it´s bad, but it also means no new features or more PCIe lanes on the chipsæt part.

Pros
19 %+ better IPC + around 200 MHz higher boost clock.
The new 8 core chiplet desing with out CCX is a good new feature and that all cores now can share all Level 3 cashe.
If the gaming performance claims are true, i am for sure going Zen 3. I will not wait for intel next 14 Nm 11 gen. So intel take this

So it seems my next CPU´s are 5600X/3700X and 5950X. Unless these dam scalpers do, what they dit to nvidia lauch. So soon little I7 980X, you can get a well diserved retirement and Covid-19 dont you dare ruining my plans again for a new PC.


----------



## Nater (Oct 8, 2020)

Let's hope the e-tailers follow EVGA's lead by Nov 5th to sidestep the sneaker bots.


Who's got the pre-order?


----------



## mechtech (Oct 8, 2020)

Hopefully they will have a 5700 for $330


----------



## Zmon (Oct 8, 2020)

fynxer said:


> Really juicy prices, well, AMD Ryzen 5000 series is now the world leader in gaming performance so if you want the best...
> 
> AMD Ryzen 5000 series prices make it possible for Intel to be attractive at fairly high prices. So prices for CPUs will not go down very much any time soon. Intel may lower prices around 15-20% beginning of next year but I think they will keep their current prices levels til xmas.
> 
> ...


What. There's quite a few videos on the web with a 10900k/3080 @ 4k high settings doing ~90 fps. Warzone tends to average around 80 with RTX on, and 85 with it off. Regardless, we won't know how Big Navi performs until the 28th at the earliest, so I wouldn't be tossing out things like that until then.


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Oct 8, 2020)

This is really impressive. Well done AMD. I wouldn't be surprised if that Navi reveal was their lower-tier card to keep nVidia guessing.


----------



## Erazor6000 (Oct 8, 2020)

Excellent performance!
Average of 5 to 10 % better than 10900K.




At least it seems that this time they made "The Fastest Gaming CPU".
5900X gives better performance in DOTA 2 than 10900K, and obviously better than my 10700K, which for me was the best gaming CPU.


----------



## ahenriquedsj (Oct 8, 2020)

The craziest thing is you can slap it in  the old b450 board, it's the same as I would replace 7600k with 10600k


----------



## Bubster (Oct 8, 2020)

Go Get 'em Dr Su ...Fricking Intel and Nvidia have become complacent...Lead the way AMD.


----------



## Selaya (Oct 8, 2020)

holy fucking price hike


----------



## ebivan (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> To add to my previous post: I hate when people choose companies - you should choose products and root for healthy competition and AMD now has perfectly shown that when competition falters, customers get punished hard. I've been eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 5000 series but now I'm hesitating whether to upgrade from my 3700X. A performance uplift is great but the cost of the upgrade is not palatable at all. There's no way I will be able to sell my 3700X for $330 I bought it for. At most I'll get $200 for it on the secondary market. Paying $250 to get 20% more performance? I don't know.



Why on Earth would you upgrade a one year old CPU? Just to say you got the biggest? Oh sorry I meant fastest....
There is absolutely no need to swap out a Ryzen 3xxx for that theoretical (up too) 20% gain in low resolutions...


----------



## birdie (Oct 8, 2020)

ebivan said:


> Why on Earth would you upgrade a one year old CPU? Just to say you got the biggest? Oh sorry I meant fastest....
> There is absolutely no need to swap out a Ryzen 3xxx for that theoretical (up too) 20% gain in low resolutions...



I like compiling and doing video encoding which both should become quite faster with this generation as well. I couldn't care less about normal resolution gaming because I don't have and I don't intend to buy a high refresh rate monitor and my 1660 Ti drives my old 1080p 74Hz monitor just fine.


----------



## fynxer (Oct 8, 2020)

CmdrLaw said:


> Boost clocks on the 5800X and 3800XT are the same.
> 
> Thats a shame.
> 
> I get the IPC increase, but a little disappointing.



Think AMD is playing it save with the clocks since they managed to get up the performance in other ways.

It could also be that here is much more overclocking head room on the 5000 series so you easily can push +5GHz anyways with good cooling.



Zmon said:


> What. There's quite a few videos on the web with a 10900k/3080 @ 4k high settings doing ~90 fps. Warzone tends to average around 80 with RTX on, and 85 with it off. Regardless, we won't know how Big Navi performs until the 28th at the earliest, so I wouldn't be tossing out things like that until then.



They tested BIG Navi with the Ryzen 5000 series and got 88 FPS, you really think it will perform the same with i9-10900K, no, BIG Navi will be 5-10% slower with i9-10900K.


----------



## ebivan (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> I like compiling and doing video encoding which both should become quite faster with this generation as well. I couldn't care less about normal resolution gaming because I don't have and I don't intend to buy a high refresh rate monitor and my 1660 Ti drives my old 1080p 74Hz monitor just fine.


Well, for video encoding you simply should have gotten more cores. 3900x or 3950x, would be bigger upgrades for your 3700 than a 5700x for that workload and are much cheaper (even more if you wait until 5000 comes out and 3000 prices drop


----------



## Dyatlov A (Oct 8, 2020)

What is with x470 motherboards, did she say anything about those?


----------



## Metroid (Oct 8, 2020)

AMD's next objective after zen 2 was always going for the gaming segment and they did, amd did not need to make any miracles because aside from nvidia which they are competing 8nm with their 7nm gpus. On the cpu side of things, their 7nm cpus is competing x a 14nm cpu, so is not apples to apples like amd x nvidia on the gpu side, given every generation from 45nm to 14nm, intel used to give 5 to 10%, so if we think about, intel 7nm will give around 15% ipc which translates to 5% ipc over amd, So all in all is great work from amd.

Letting aside ryzen, her preview of the rx 6xxx series on 4k was that the amd's "top gpu" which I'm assuming is 17% lower than the rtx 3080, not bad, if amd can price it 20% lower than rtx 3080 then we will have a winner here.


----------



## wheresmycar (Oct 8, 2020)

ebivan said:


> Why on Earth would you upgrade a one year old CPU? Just to say you got the biggest? Oh sorry I meant fastest....
> There is absolutely no need to swap out a Ryzen 3xxx for that theoretical (up too) 20% gain in low resolutions...



WHY NOT? 

It's down to user preference. For eg, a colleague of mine was informed to pick up a 3600 for £160 for gaming opposed to a 3700X (he was adamant going 8-cores). Money saved for faster single threaded Zen 3... makes perfect sense. Now he has the opportunity to sell the 3600 for around £150+ (possibly a profit if 3000-series maintains higher asking price during 5000 availability), throw in another £100-£150 and you've got yourself a considerably faster Zen 3 5600X. He's not spending a dime over what he would have paid for a 3700X overkill. 

Regardless of the 3700X comparison.... a 20% mark up for £100-£150... is peanuts compared to what you're paying nowadays for "expensive" graphics cards. 

Another segment of customers who should absolutely consider the upgrade (assuming money isn't a problem) > the 240hz low res bandits! 20% goes a long way for higher refresh rate gaming with lesser compromise of game quality settings.


----------



## DuxCro (Oct 8, 2020)

No reason to upgrade from my R5 3600. Why are they advertising 12 and 16 core CPU's as "gaming" CPU's? Any games out there that know how to use 12 and 16 cores? IF yes, how many of them? A handful?


----------



## okbuddy (Oct 8, 2020)

big navi $50 cheaper than 3080


----------



## Calmmo (Oct 8, 2020)

When the 5900x looks like the best price/perf you know they've gone wrong at some point during their decision making.

OK for me since R9 is the only thing that interests me but for the more budget oriented this launch lineup and pricing is extremely meh.


----------



## birdie (Oct 8, 2020)

It's funny AMD has leaked yet to be announced 5900XT and 5950XT in their own presentation:


----------



## CmdrLaw (Oct 8, 2020)

fynxer said:


> Think AMD is playing it save with the clocks since they managed to get up the performance in other ways.
> 
> It could also be that here is much more overclocking head room on the 5000 series so you easily can push +5GHz anyways with good cooling.



GN Advised that AMD told them the OC Headroom would actually be lower than previous releases.
Its the delicious Cache amounts that are intriguing, I wonder how much is affecting performance.


----------



## Mysteoa (Oct 8, 2020)

Dyatlov A said:


> What is with x470 motherboards, did she say anything about those?



They are working with mother MB vendors expect bioses for 400 series around January.


----------



## CmdrLaw (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> It's funny AMD has leaked yet to be announced 5900XT and 5950XT in their own presentation:



Could be a copy paste error from the preceding 3900XT 3950XT


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 8, 2020)




----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> AMD fans never fail to disappoint with double standards. Intel and NVIDIA have always been "evil" but once AMD does that, suddenly it's perfectly fine because they _just follow suit_.


And you are blind to see there are no 600 series of chipsets rather just BIOS upgrades to existing 500 and 400 chipsets unlike Intel who always launch new chipsets with each "generation" and their CPU launches tend to be paper launches with non existent supply at exhorbitant prices in retail.


----------



## midnightoil (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> It's funny AMD has leaked yet to be announced 5900XT and 5950XT in their own presentation:
> 
> View attachment 171222



They changed nomenclature shortly before launch, and decided to call them the 5900X and 5950X instead.

If Zen 4 stays on target for Q4 next year, I doubt they'll bother with any XT parts.


----------



## Raendor (Oct 8, 2020)

Pff, 10600k is most likely better than 5600x, considering uplift from 3600, over which 10600 had considerable advantage, and jacked up price of zen 3 processors. Disappointing. Rocket lake and alder lake in 21 will likely put amd to shame again.


----------



## Mysteoa (Oct 8, 2020)

fynxer said:


> *NO NEED TO CANCEL YOUR RTX 3080 ORDERS AND IF YOU HAVE NOT ORDERED YOUR RTX 3080 YET, DO IT NOW, IT WILL BE A HEFTY PRICE HIKE FAIRLY SOON.*
> 
> BIG Navi, not so impressive at 88FPS in Modern Warfare Ultra 4K, this is probably around 3070 or 3070Ti performance.
> 
> ...



And you know that from just 3 games that AMD benchmarked and by only comparing in MW? 

If you check Eurogamer review of 3080 - They have Borderlands 3 and Gears 5 running on the max settings on 4k. Borderlands 3 - NV is 65 and AMD is 61. Gears 5- NV is 80 and AMD is 73. That is for average.
If you check Hexus review of 3080 - They have Borderlands 3 and Gears 5 running on the max settings on 4k. Borderlands 3 - NV is 60 and AMD is 61. Gears 5- NV is 77 and AMD is 73. That is for average.

So different configuration aside, we can think of the tested Big Navi at around 3080 performance. What we don't know is this the Biggest NAVI or the step down. How much the 3gen Zen helps at 4k?
With all this I recommend even more to wait and see.


----------



## Searing (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> AMD fans never fail to disappoint with double standards. Intel and NVIDIA have always been "evil" but once AMD does that, suddenly it's perfectly fine because they _just follow suit_.



Except you are missing that Intel hasn't lowered their pricing. If AMD is number one in gaming and 20-30 percent ahead in everything else, I'll buy AMD obviously if Intel is the same price. People were buying AMD because the performance/dollar for the Ryzen 3600 for example is insane compared to Intel.

We'll apply the same standards, if Intel massively lowers their prices, I'd prefer Intel over the overpriced AMD but right now it is high price vs high price, and AMD is ahead.



Raendor said:


> Pff, 10600k is most likely better than 5600x, considering uplift from 3600, over which 10600 had considerable advantage, and jacked up price of zen 3 processors. Disappointing. Rocket lake and alder lake in 21 will likely put amd to shame again.



My 10600k was an absolute dog, couldn't even clock all cores at 5ghz. It consumes more than double the power vs the Ryzen 5600. I think you'll not be disappointed at anything except the price of the 5600. The 10600k is a bad chip. Right now Intel's two best products are the i5-10400f and i7-10700, the 10700 is the 5600's competition.


----------



## Raendor (Oct 8, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> And you are blind to see there are no 600 series of chipsets rather just BIOS upgrades to existing 500 and 400 chipsets unlike Intel who always launch new chipsets with each "generation" and their CPU launches tend to be paper launches with non existent supply at exhorbitant prices in retail.



you had z170 and z270 supporting 2 gens, same for z370 and z390 upping the count to 6/12 and 8/16 respectivel. Now z490 will support rocket lake and z590 will support both 10th and 11th gen.
wtf are you talking about paper launch? I could get 10th gen all the time since launch in Europe for msrp. It was cheaper in summer than now actually. Missed on 10700 for €312, which I regret a bit.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 8, 2020)

CmdrLaw said:


> Boost clocks on the 5800X and 3800XT are the same.
> 
> Thats a shame.
> 
> I get the IPC increase, but a little disappointing.



What in the world. How does boost clocks of two different processors with totally different IPC, design and efficiency have any bearing on you feeling disappointed or not? Strange chap.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 8, 2020)

birdie said:


> To add to my previous post: I hate when people choose companies - you should choose products and root for healthy competition and AMD now has perfectly shown that when competition falters, customers get punished hard. I've been eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 5000 series but now I'm hesitating whether to upgrade from my 3700X. A performance uplift is great but the cost of the upgrade is not palatable at all. There's no way I will be able to sell my 3700X for $330 I bought it for. At most I'll get $200 for it on the secondary market. Paying $250 to get 20% more performance? I don't know.


It's never worth it to upgrade just 1 generation ahead within the same product category. With a 3700X or above, I would skip Zen 3 altogether, but for me the 5950X will be a huge uplift after the Core i7-7700.


----------



## londiste (Oct 8, 2020)

ahenriquedsj said:


> The craziest thing is you can slap it in  the old b450 board, it's the same as I would replace 7600k with 10600k


Yeah, right.
Starting January, in beta, maybe.
But your comparison is actually apt enough, it is almost like 7600K to 10600K at least until end of the year 


Searing said:


> Except you are missing that Intel hasn't lowered their pricing.


Intel 10-series tends to sell under MSRP (or RCP, in their case). Both 10700K and 10900K are ~50 moneys under RCP and have been for a little while. 8c/16t 10700K at $350 might be interesting competition to $299 6c/12t 5600X, for example. 10c/20t 10850K at $430 vs 8c/16t 5800X at $449. Interesting how tables have turned.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 8, 2020)

They didn't go into details of the per-core overclocking feature, which will basically mean 5950X owners have the option to getting that fabled 5Ghz boost clock on one core through overclocks. 5900X will reach 5Ghz too I'd expect.


----------



## AddSub (Oct 8, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Your post may have valid if AMD CPUs didn't sell for 30~50% of their launch MSRP, perhaps even lower for some 1st gen Ryzen or TR chips, not to mention (nearly) 4 gens of chips on the same socket. But hey keep *carrying on that cart if it makes you feel any better*! The *latest & greatest in tech always commands a premium*, it's more about what you charge when you kinda don't need to



So my AM4 Gigabyte X370 Gaming 5 is compatible with these Zen3's, or Zen2, or Zen+ even? Yeah, I thought so. The much vaunted AMD "platform longevity" in action.

...
..
.


----------



## Foxisfire (Oct 8, 2020)

fynxer said:


> Really juicy prices, well, AMD Ryzen 5000 series is now the world leader in gaming performance so if you want the best...
> 
> AMD Ryzen 5000 series prices make it possible for Intel to be attractive at fairly high prices. So prices for CPUs will not go down very much any time soon. Intel may lower prices around 15-20% beginning of next year but I think they will keep their current prices levels til xmas.
> 
> ...



Why would you say that now?  I would almost guarantee that #1 there is a 3080ti coming in the next 6 months, and #2 AMD has a TON of extra money from supplying the SOCs for the XBOX and PS5 so they have time and the R&D money to tweak the 6800XT (Maybe bin it higher)? and release a better preforming card. If I was the CEO of AMD I 100% wouldn't lay out all my cards on the table. I'm personally going to buy the fastest card under $900 next year. That is the smart thing to do. Not freak out and go buy a 3080 because Nvidia might (big might) increase their pricing on the higher end cards.


----------



## JalleR (Oct 8, 2020)

Looks interesting i would say, maybe this year will be the year i buy my first AMD    Looking forward to the TPU tests.


----------



## sergionography (Oct 8, 2020)

Mysteoa said:


> And you know that from just 3 games that AMD benchmarked and by only comparing in MW?
> 
> If you check Eurogamer review of 3080 - They have Borderlands 3 and Gears 5 running on the max settings on 4k. Borderlands 3 - NV is 65 and AMD is 61. Gears 5- NV is 80 and AMD is 73. That is for average.
> If you check Hexus review of 3080 - They have Borderlands 3 and Gears 5 running on the max settings on 4k. Borderlands 3 - NV is 60 and AMD is 61. Gears 5- NV is 77 and AMD is 73. That is for average.
> ...


AMD does not need to beat a 3080 to be a win. 3080 and 3090 are power hogs, so if amd is about 10% slower but can do it at a 250w TDP for example, then that's a huge win. If anything I really hope AMD does not go way above the power performance sweet spot.


----------



## Rhurba (Oct 8, 2020)

I am VERY VERY VERY disappointed on the new pricing. It is clear that without competition, the consumer is fked. I started building a new PC some time ago, buying some parts every month in expectation of the new Ryzen 5000 - I bought the new B550 also - now I'm sorry I did that, seeing the new prices. Indeed Intel sucks for keeping the 14 nm++++ so much but, right now, with the new pricing, AMD has become the new Intel. Sad. Very sad.
Just hope that the RDNA2 GPU will be price accordingly - 400-450$... Sad times, companies sucking money out of consumers like this....


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 8, 2020)

lemoncarbonate said:


> Tbh upgrading every 1 generation has never been a good investment. If you're currently running 1st gen like me (1700X) or 2nd gen, it will be a leap upgrade.


AMD gave you options to make it worthwhile like a progression of 1500X to 2700X to 3800X to 5950X or 2600X 3800X 5950X all big leaps.
I don't really want to spend more on this platform but 8/16 to 16/32 cores with a 26% gain on top, it's got my wallet twitching in fear.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 8, 2020)

midnightoil said:


> RIP Intel.
> 
> Pretty sure 5700X or 5800 non-X and a 5600 will launch early next year, once stock of the 3xxx has tapered.



did intel cancel rocket lake and declare bankruptcy?



DuxCro said:


> No reason to upgrade from my R5 3600. Why are they advertising 12 and 16 core CPU's as "gaming" CPU's? Any games out there that know how to use 12 and 16 cores? IF yes, how many of them? A handful?


plants vs zombies?


----------



## ebivan (Oct 8, 2020)

Rhurba said:


> I am VERY VERY VERY disappointed on the new pricing. It is clear that without competition, the consumer is fked. I started building a new PC some time ago, buying some parts every month in expectation of the new Ryzen 5000 - I bought the new B550 also - now I'm sorry I did that, seeing the new prices. Indeed Intel sucks for keeping the 14 nm++++ so much but, right now, with the new pricing, AMD has become the new Intel. Sad. Very sad.
> Just hope that the RDNA2 GPU will be price accordingly - 400-450$... Sad times, companies sucking money out of consumers like this....


Why would you do that? Save up your money and buy all at once. Hardware only ever gets cheaper, why buy stuff and have it lying around?


----------



## Mysteoa (Oct 8, 2020)

sergionography said:


> AMD does not need to beat a 3080 to be a win. 3080 and 3090 are power hogs, so if amd is about 10% slower but can do it at a 250w TDP for example, then that's a huge win. If anything I really hope AMD does not go way above the power performance sweet spot.



It maybe a win, but people will just move the goalpost and say that power doesn't matter.


----------



## Lionheart (Oct 8, 2020)

AddSub said:


> So my AM4 Gigabyte X370 Gaming 5 is compatible with these Zen3's, or Zen2, or Zen+ even? Yeah, I thought so. The much vaunted AMD "platform longevity" in action.
> 
> ...
> ..
> .



Go cry a river, if it's so bad go Intel.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 8, 2020)

AddSub said:


> So my AM4 Gigabyte X370 Gaming 5 is compatible with these Zen3's, or Zen2, or Zen+ even? Yeah, I thought so. The much vaunted AMD "platform longevity" in action.
> 
> ...
> ..
> .


Seems to work just fine with a 3950X... Zen 3 support was never promised. 








						GA-AX370-Gaming 5 (rev. 1.0) Support | Motherboard - GIGABYTE Global
					

Lasting Quality from GIGABYTE.GIGABYTE Ultra Durable™ motherboards bring together a unique blend of features and technologies that offer users the absolute ...




					www.gigabyte.com


----------



## Toothless (Oct 8, 2020)

Eyyy that's a cool launch and birthday present. Too bad even if I got a 5800x I couldn't use it for three months.


----------



## Dimi (Oct 8, 2020)

Why would I pick a 5800X 8 core if I can buy a 10 core 10850K for the same price? I don't get it.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Oct 8, 2020)

Dimi said:


> Why would I pick a 5800X 8 core if I can buy a 10 core 10850K for the same price? I don't get it.



Because the 5800X 8 core has better single-threaded performance.

Woah, this is... weird for me to say that. I feel like I'm in an upside down world or something...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 8, 2020)

Dimi said:


> Why would I pick a 5800X 8 core if I can buy a 10 core 10850K for the same price? I don't get it.


Why would you buy a 10 core when you can get 16 then?!.
Horses course's.


----------



## Bytales (Oct 8, 2020)

Im more interested in the Threadripper PRO version of the ZEN 3 CPU Core. Any ideas when were going to get that ?


----------



## Searing (Oct 8, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Why would you buy a 10 core when you can get 16 then?!.
> Horses course's.



The Ryzen 5800X will beat the Intel 10 core in productivity results most likely. All core clocks drop considerably with Intel because of high power draw.


----------



## hathoward (Oct 8, 2020)

Upgrading from my 6700k to a 5950x is going to be incredible!


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Oct 8, 2020)

Dimi said:


> Why would I pick a 5800X 8 core if I can buy a 10 core 10850K for the same price? I don't get it.


newer,smaller 7nm die size,faster IPC,less power consumption........


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Oct 8, 2020)

The highlight for me was the 2.8X more performance-per-watt versus the 10900k. That's where the ancient 14nm node hurts Intel.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 8, 2020)

CmdrLaw said:


> Boost clocks on the 5800X and 3800XT are the same.
> 
> Thats a shame.
> 
> I get the IPC increase, but a little disappointing.


The same 7nm is the reason, they're not even using *N7P* & considering that it's a hell of a boost!


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 8, 2020)

More graphs:








						AMD announces Ryzen 5000 series (Zen3) - VideoCardz.com
					

Today AMD introduced its Zen3-based Ryzen 5000 series. The new desktop processors will feature higher clocks and more perforamnce. AMD announces its Ryzen 5000 series AMD focused on showcasing Ryzen 9 5900X processor (which will cost 549 USD) in comparison to Ryzen 9 3900XT. The CPU is expected...




					videocardz.com


----------



## Rob94hawk (Oct 8, 2020)

So AMD has nothing to challenge Intel and Nvidia with 4k gaming. Disappointed.


----------



## Icon Charlie (Oct 8, 2020)

Rhurba said:


> I am VERY VERY VERY disappointed on the new pricing. It is clear that without competition, the consumer is fked. I started building a new PC some time ago, buying some parts every month in expectation of the new Ryzen 5000 - I bought the new B550 also - now I'm sorry I did that, seeing the new prices. Indeed Intel sucks for keeping the 14 nm++++ so much but, right now, with the new pricing, AMD has become the new Intel. Sad. Very sad.
> Just hope that the RDNA2 GPU will be price accordingly - 400-450$... Sad times, companies sucking money out of consumers like this....



I mostly agree with you and I am getting sick and tired of the total BS of market speak trying to push product. I know that the majority of the silicon WILL NOT REACH  the sustained rates stated.  Only the cherry picked silicon will hit those numbers.  So expect those maximum number printed on the packaging to be down a few hundred hertz.... OR has people already forgotten the lies of last generation about their performance speed.

I still have my packaging for my 3600 stating that it will hit 4.3 ghz.... It never went over  4.1 or higher on my rig.  AMD Lied to me about the performance increase of last generation of CPU.  Just remember that a lot of this is just market speak and unless you win the silicon lottery,  your results will vary.


----------



## PooPipeBoy (Oct 8, 2020)

So the cynical folk who predicted that the 5900X would be a power-hungry overheating pile with a 150W TDP that AMD simply overclocked to reach 5.0GHz were.....what's the word.....WRONG.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 8, 2020)

Hm, seems like the shoe might be on the other foot with AMD vs Intel.

Let me see if I can switch my arguments.  

So, is it really worth it to spend an extra $100 on AMD for 1-2 fps?  Intel is good enough and is a better price/performance ratio, nobody will notice those 2 fps.

How am I doing?


----------



## HD64G (Oct 8, 2020)

Rob94hawk said:


> So AMD has nothing to challenge Intel and Nvidia with 4k gaming. Disappointed.


Hasty assumptions. The numbers shown are strong indication of that GPU being very close to 3080. Check that the numbers shown were on ultra 4K.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Oct 8, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Hm, seems like the shoe might be on the other foot with AMD vs Intel.
> 
> Let me see if I can switch my arguments.
> 
> ...



You're not doing it correctly yet.

Start with the proposition that 10-core / 20-threads is going to be superior for productivity at the $450 price point compared to the 8c/16t 5800x. THEN you talk down the gaming FPS numbers.


----------



## Rob94hawk (Oct 8, 2020)

HD64G said:


> Hasty assumptions. The numbers shown are strong indication of that GPU being very close to 3080. Check that the numbers shown were on ultra 4K.



I hope I'm wrong and you are right. Unless AMD is holding their cards close to their chest before launch.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 8, 2020)

Icon Charlie said:


> I mostly agree with you and I am getting sick and tired of the total BS of market speak trying to push product. I know that the majority of the silicon WILL NOT REACH  the sustained rates stated.  Only the cherry picked silicon will hit those numbers.  So expect those maximum number printed on the packaging to be down a few hundred hertz.... OR has people already forgotten the lies of last generation about their performance speed.
> 
> I still have my packaging for my 3600 stating that it will hit 4.3 ghz.... It never went over  4.1 or higher on my rig.  AMD Lied to me about the performance increase of last generation of CPU.  Just remember that a lot of this is just market speak and unless you win the silicon lottery,  your results will vary.


I guess you're not aware that all of that was fixed after about six months worth of UEFI and AGESA updates? Ignorance is bliss...


----------



## mborghi (Oct 8, 2020)

I am planning a complete upgrade for year's end, and hoped there will be a new chipset for Zen 3, likely a x670. Somewhat disappointed about this, but I read somewhere that vendors may release refreshed motherboard models for these new CPUs. Intel seems to be releasing a new one on Q1 2021, but I don't want to wait that much! I will be switching to AMD platform mostly for PCie 4 storage speeds.


----------



## phill (Oct 8, 2020)

I know the way forward for a CPU upgrade.....


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (Oct 8, 2020)

Rhurba said:


> I am VERY VERY VERY disappointed on the new pricing. It is clear that without competition, the consumer is fked. I started building a new PC some time ago, buying some parts every month in expectation of the new Ryzen 5000 - I bought the new B550 also - now I'm sorry I did that, seeing the new prices. Indeed Intel sucks for keeping the 14 nm++++ so much but, right now, with the new pricing, AMD has become the new Intel. Sad. Very sad.
> Just hope that the RDNA2 GPU will be price accordingly - 400-450$... Sad times, companies sucking money out of consumers like this....



Why do so many people expect AMD, and no other company, to be a charity and just give away products?


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Oct 8, 2020)

@phill cryptic , love it.
If anything like my r3 3300x trend wise , all core oc 100mhz above rated core performance boost @ stock cooler, then an r5 5600x might suit the itchy upgrade ocd of mine.


----------



## Fouquin (Oct 8, 2020)

AddSub said:


> So my AM4 Gigabyte X370 Gaming 5 is compatible with these Zen3's, or Zen2, or Zen+ even? Yeah, I thought so. The much vaunted AMD "platform longevity" in action.
> 
> ...
> ..
> .


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Oct 8, 2020)

It’s a shame they couldn’t hit the 5.0ghz barrier. You know the engineers probably wanted to get there in the worst way. I’m guessing these will behave like 3000 series, where they will reach max clocks better on their own boosting algorithm and there won’t be any overclocking. It’s not a bad showing by any means—the design changes and IPC uplift are something to be proud of, and the power consumption sounds like it’s going to be so much better. And all this on the same 7nm node.  I know these aren’t reviews, but I’d be surprised if the benchmarks they posted couldn’t be reproduced. Just makes me wonder what GPU they were using.


----------



## Fleurious (Oct 8, 2020)

Not bad AMD... not bad.


----------



## Animalpak (Oct 8, 2020)

Will they finally supporting XMP from RAM's  ? Because AMD was and is now still is a disaster on XMP memory modules.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 8, 2020)

Animalpak said:


> Will they finally supporting XMP from RAM's  ? Because AMD was and is now still is a disaster on XMP memory modules.


I turn on XMP in my bios, and it works. I'm pretty sure it works for most people.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 8, 2020)

Where is the 5700X tho


----------



## xman2007 (Oct 8, 2020)

Animalpak said:


> Because AMD was and is now still is a disaster on XMP memory modules.


No, no they're not. Yes AMD support a lower overall RAM speed than Intel CPU's but buying a suitable kit when building a PC should be the same as any other expensive purchase you make, you research what you are buying and don't just throw money at it cause "dats the fastest and mostest xpensivvvv/cheapest so it must be de besssssttt"  XMP is an intel technology and whilst it is good and all, if you don't do some basic homework on what parts you're buying and if they're compatible, how is that down to AMD? for AMD there are recommended kits of DDR4 RAM and tested kits for each and every motherboard that you can buy, but as we see with all the "My Ryzen motherboard doesn't run my RAM at their rated speed" threads people don't do that, they buy a CPU and motherboard and any old RAM they feel like throwing in there without doing so much of a smidgeon of googling about compatibility and complain when it doesn't work right. The fact that AMD motherboards support XMP is a plus point, but building a PC is not the same as building a lego set and if you have little experience in doing so but just wanted to try after watching 1 YouTube video on "how easy" it is then you really should stump up the extra $50/$100 bucks to get someone or a company who has the required knowledge and experience to do it for you and then just use your consumer rights to return it and get it sorted instead of wondering why your Corsair LPX 3200 won't run at it's rated speed on your Ryzen build.


----------



## Tartaros (Oct 9, 2020)

So the same discussions about "how x company would hike their prices when the time is right for them" everytime a launch happens. Enterprises are enterprises and in capitalism the bottom line is profit, stop investing sentimentally in companies or justifying them. They are not your friends nor do this for good will, they want your money and put themselves in a position where they can earn more money.


----------



## Metroid (Oct 9, 2020)

ViperXTR said:


> Where is the 5700X tho



I guess amd wanted a large margin this time but I think they made it wrong, it could have a 5700 which would be a 8 core and then a 5800 as 10 core cpu. They lost this opportunity. So would be 5600 6 core, 5700 8 cores, 5800 10 cores and 5900 12 cores and 5950 16 cores.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 9, 2020)

Given these new prices, the most interesting comparisons for typical builds becomes the 5600X vs 10700 (non K), and the 5800X vs the 10900K.  

That will be an interesting comparison.

It seems Intel may not have anything to compete directly with a 5900X, assuming those benchmarks are representative of overall performance.


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 9, 2020)

All of a sudden, gaming matters again for AMD fans. LOL


----------



## Redwoodz (Oct 9, 2020)

Animalpak said:


> Will they finally supporting XMP from RAM's  ? Because AMD was and is now still is a disaster on XMP memory modules.



*Extreme Memory Profile* ( XMP) is a specification serving as an extension to the standard JEDEC SPD specifications developed by *INTEL*. XMP is intended to make overclocking easier and more accessible to new users through profiles and predefined overclocking configurations that are known to be stable. Why would memory specs designed for Intel work the same with AMD?


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 9, 2020)

should i just bite the 5800X or 5600X or still wait™  for the 5700X, ugh ive been itching for a while now, currently searching for some B550 boards now


----------



## Mouth of Sauron (Oct 9, 2020)

Nice to see haters in such a number - guess those are the same "but Intel rules FHD on max details" bunch...

Care (or are able) to remember times when AMD ruled the CPU sees, like in 1GHz race or FX64? For performance crown in virtually every scenario, AMD *asked* for a premium price - and why it shouldn't have? A philanthropic corporation?

On "improvement are underwhelming front", please try to remember endless Sandy Bridge revisions, "5-10% faster in very rare memory operations which are almost never used; 2% overall speed improvement, because we added 100Mhz. Main feature: CPU is now cheaper to produce for us (Intel), yet the price haven't moved a bit for customer". 

Try to remember the Intel core numbers before Zen(1) - 2(4) / 4(4) / 4(8), weren't they? Only after Zen launch, Intel had an epiphany which lead to the first i3 with 4 real cores, I5 with 6... and i9 as a class... and certain models at significantly lower prices than before... Was there Intel desktop CPU with 8 real cores? Or 10? More? Errrr... What were the prices for non-desktop CPUs with mentioned number of cores?

Is the "philanthropic corporation" responsible for this sudden change of heart? Well, no, because AMD works for profit. However, a "competitive corporation" is. Now we have kind of CPU power we could only dream about few years ago in this price range. 

Will I buy Zen3? Hmmmm, reviews first, decision later (thinking about the features inbetween)... Likely not at launch, because the next computer I'm building is midrange... But Zen2 prices will probably drop nicely, so I'll still end with better stuff than I could've before this (pre)launch. If Intel drops prices, then I'll have a privilege of choice, though I doubt I'll take that train out of general principles (486X3 was last Intel CPU I owned, hehehehe - missed the ride on Celeron 300A unfortunately; I don't think about myself as AMD fanboy - I was buying Intel's for a company, but not for myself all this time).

Someone mentioned *Intel GPU *coming, if we haven't forgotten - *how could I ever*? A 25-30 years of constant failures, beaten by companies like Tseng Labs, Trident, not to talk about bigger names... Competition, yeyeye, all the stuff I've said above I still hold true, but I kinda have little faith of it being either good globally, or even at price range. Iris Pro 2, more likely. Knights Sinkhole? No, I'm not exactly fair here, Xeon Phi could've been good stuff...


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 9, 2020)

So there's nothing worthy to upgrade to for those who's bought a Skylake-based processor in the last few years. Even Zen 3 is a side grade at best if you already have 8700k and above. Yikes! Rocketlake better deliver phenomenal gaming performance or x86 as a whole is screwed!


----------



## Jism (Oct 9, 2020)

PooPipeBoy said:


> So the cynical folk who predicted that the 5900X would be a power-hungry overheating pile with a 150W TDP that AMD simply overclocked to reach 5.0GHz were.....what's the word.....WRONG.



Dont listen to these people. 

AMD did a very well job to be honest and solved most gaming related performance by cutting up the latency's and penalty's the previous generation of CPU's had.


----------



## Makaveli (Oct 9, 2020)

Some of the intel fan boys post in this thread are hilarious.


----------



## rvalencia (Oct 9, 2020)

birdie said:


> AMD fans never fail to disappoint with double standards. Intel and NVIDIA have always been "evil" but once AMD does that, suddenly it's perfectly fine because they _just follow suit_.


Unlike Intel and NVIDIA, AMD is just above the break-even. AMD needs to improve its profitability.


----------



## Turmania (Oct 9, 2020)

I'm pretty sure, towards end of the month AMD will issue a statement, saying, we listened to you again as we always do and we lowered the prices by 50 USD! and the fanboyz will go wild again... watch this space!


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 9, 2020)

Turmania said:


> I'm pretty sure, towards end of the month AMD will issue a statement, saying, we listened to you again as we always do and we lowered the prices by 50 USD! and the fanboyz will go wild again... watch this space!


Hope it wont be like the RTX 3080 catastrophe where stocks got low and scalpers everywhere


----------



## sergionography (Oct 9, 2020)

So there's something that has been bothering me that I never paid attention to, and could be a big mess when big navi comes out, and that is Ray Tracing performance. In the techpowerup review for the rtx 3080, ray tracing was disabled for "neutrality purposes". How long will this be the case? I paid little attention to that but I think I'd like to see rtx2000 vs rtx3000 since both support rt. The reason I say this is because when looking at the big navi performance mentioned by AMD, first thing I did was look at actual performance to compare to Nvidia and last gen AMD. For starters, these games mentioned by AMD do not support ray tracing to my knowledge. When I compared the number to a rx 5700 xt, they are about twice the performance, which is what we predicted, but this is purely rasterization. Now what about the RT penalty? What if AMD loses more performance when rt is enabled, but matches Nvidia without it. It's going to be a mess since reviewers have not incorporated ray tracing into their benchmarks yet.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Oct 9, 2020)

Nice job AMD, but a little disappointed in official DRAM support still on Zen2 spec.
I'd have thought 3466MHz would be the new norm.


----------



## renz496 (Oct 9, 2020)

uh i was hoping to see the 8 core 16 thread part to become much more cheaper instead the 6 core 12 thread got price increase because it has faster performance than older 6 core 12 thread part?


----------



## wheresmycar (Oct 9, 2020)

*An honest question....*

I'm somewhat new to the world of PC hardware (3 years or so but a quick learner) and not so much familiar with the historic justifications for brand loyalty. TBH, no matter how hard I try I can't justify anyone's brand-leanings and don't expect to find any valid cause for it. So I'm *not* going to ask "why the favouritism?".... but will ask, "is this something you intend on pursuing, even if the other side delivers something better and more useful?"

Or maybe i'm seeing things the wrong way. Maybe you're open to purchasing from both AMD/INTEL to best accommodate your personal performance requirements/features/budget/etc ....but outwardly favour one brand over the other? (...maybe rooting for the underdog? overclocking margins/enthusiasm? etc?)


----------



## AlwaysHope (Oct 9, 2020)

wheresmycar said:


> *An honest question....*
> 
> I'm somewhat new to the world of PC hardware (3 years or so but a quick learner) and not so much familiar with the historic justifications for brand loyalty. TBH, no matter how hard I try I can't justify anyone's brand-leanings and don't expect to find any valid cause for it. So I'm *not* going to ask "why the favouritism?".... but will ask, "is this something you intend on pursuing, even if the other side delivers something better and more useful?"
> 
> Or maybe i'm seeing things the wrong way. Maybe you're open to purchasing from both AMD/INTEL to best accommodate your personal performance requirements/features/budget/etc ....but outwardly favour one brand over the other? (...maybe rooting for the underdog? overclocking margins/enthusiasm? etc?)


When you consider there are only 2 major x86 cpu manufactures in the world today, there is not much choice for end users. So a 50/50 chance of siding with one or the other. Most users will go by their last experience with a product & in this game, factor in socket compatibility it then becomes clearer as to why an end user will favor one brand over the other. 
An exception here is if an end user has significant disposable income to invest in whole platform upgrades eg. motherboard & cpu etc.. 
In some cases even RAM compatibility can factor in to an end users final choice product.


----------



## Rob94hawk (Oct 9, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> Some of the intel fan boys post in this thread are hilarious.



And who would they be?


----------



## chstamos (Oct 9, 2020)

Rob94hawk said:


> And who would they be?



All I've seen are AMD toxic fanboys attacking anyone and everyone that was not POSITIVELY ENTHUSED by the announcement. But what do I know. The fanboys know for a fact I'm just another intel shill for writing this. How dare anyone not be pissed with joy at the prospect of 300 dollars for the lowest end cpu, they're obviously shilling for intel or spoiled brats demanding free CPUs from amd.


----------



## Zubasa (Oct 9, 2020)

chstamos said:


> All I've seen are AMD toxic fanboys attacking anyone and everyone that was not POSITIVELY ENTHUSED by the announcement. But what do I know. The fanboys know for a fact I'm just another intel shill for writing this. How dare anyone not be pissed with joy at the prospect of 300 dollars for the lowest end cpu, they're obviously shilling for intel or spoiled brats demanding free CPUs from amd.


It is not like the current Zen2 cpus  just all goes poof and gone overnight and are suddenly horrible chips.
Buy Zen2 if you want best value, not like you need that extra few fps gaming on a 2060 or 5600xt anyway.


----------



## chstamos (Oct 9, 2020)

Zubasa said:


> It is not like the current Zen2 cpus  just all goes poof and gone overnight and are suddenly horrible chips.
> Buy Zen2 if you want best value, not like you need that extra few fps gaming on a 2060 or 5600xt anyway.



Yes, your point is perfectly valid, but don't you think it's annoying that the minute anyone passes any kind of judgement on AMD's pricing, they're either intel shills or "entitled"? It's almost as if only intel's prices can be subject to criticism. The 5600X is -in my opinion, and a lot of others', it would seem- a terrible value for money compared to 3600 and noone should be subject to fanboi ad homs for thinking so.


----------



## PooPipeBoy (Oct 9, 2020)

I wonder if the unified cache will mean that the budget quad cores (3300X successor) will have access to the full 32MB of cache. Unless AMD are planning on neutering the cache on the budget chips, I can't see why not.


----------



## Mysteoa (Oct 9, 2020)

sergionography said:


> So there's something that has been bothering me that I never paid attention to, and could be a big mess when big navi comes out, and that is Ray Tracing performance. In the techpowerup review for the rtx 3080, ray tracing was disabled for "neutrality purposes". How long will this be the case? I paid little attention to that but I think I'd like to see rtx2000 vs rtx3000 since both support rt. The reason I say this is because when looking at the big navi performance mentioned by AMD, first thing I did was look at actual performance to compare to Nvidia and last gen AMD. For starters, these games mentioned by AMD do not support ray tracing to my knowledge. When I compared the number to a rx 5700 xt, they are about twice the performance, which is what we predicted, but this is purely rasterization. Now what about the RT penalty? What if AMD loses more performance when rt is enabled, but matches Nvidia without it. It's going to be a mess since reviewers have not incorporated ray tracing into their benchmarks yet.



If benchmarking is not done on equal configuration/settings what is their purpose? 
Ray Tracing will be normal when there are more new games with it than without. Currently, it's like PhysX, not many games have it and it wouldn't be fair comparison if you can't run it on AMD also.


----------



## Rob94hawk (Oct 9, 2020)

chstamos said:


> All I've seen are AMD toxic fanboys attacking anyone and everyone that was not POSITIVELY ENTHUSED by the announcement. But what do I know. The fanboys know for a fact I'm just another intel shill for writing this. How dare anyone not be pissed with joy at the prospect of 300 dollars for the lowest end cpu, they're obviously shilling for intel or spoiled brats demanding free CPUs from amd.



I've build all my high end rigs based on what hardware can handle what I want to play that particular year. This year it's whoever can play my game of choice in 4k with all the bells and whistles wins.


----------



## sepheronx (Oct 9, 2020)

People should be happy about this.  No matter which side you are on.

Forces the opposition to improve themselves, and also possibly lower prices.  Currently I am rocking a 10500 ES and if it wasn't for this processor, I would have just purchased a 5600X.  But now I hope Intel will try to be more competitive by dropping prices on current cpu's.  So I can pick up a 10900 or 10850 for even cheaper to replace this engineering sample.

A few FPS here and there of AMD's top of the line over Intels Top of the line wont make a difference, just like the reverse didn't make much of a difference.  Both are great buys and both serve their purpose and its better to go with the best bang for your buck.

Good show AMD!  Now I am eagerly waiting for the 28th so I can see the RDNA2 performance and if it has fully functional built in support for RT and other little features before I make a decision on a GPU purchase.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 9, 2020)

coming from a 3770K from many years ago, either intel or amd now will be good, just disappointed no hint of 5700X so far.


----------



## Deleted member 190774 (Oct 9, 2020)

chstamos said:


> Yes, your point is perfectly valid, but don't you think it's annoying that the minute anyone passes any kind of judgement on AMD's pricing, they're either intel shills or "entitled"? It's almost as if only intel's prices can be subject to criticism. The 5600X is -in my opinion, and a lot of others', it would seem- a terrible value for money compared to 3600 and noone should be subject to fanboi ad homs for thinking so.


Can't say I've noticed too much, though there are definitely individuals out there who are blatantly antagonistic in both directions, and their postings are frequently predictable.

I actually think AMD is making a mistake to increase prices, and should have waited for the next generation to do so - but whatever; I only buy HEDT and looking at a 32 core Threadripper as my next gaming set up so I'm not really going to notice $50 here or there...

My biggest hope for Zen 3 is that AMD have learned from the terrible press with the boost frequencies. My hope is that when these CPU's finally get plugged in, the number on the box is conservative.


----------



## okbuddy (Oct 9, 2020)

flck hit 2500mhz?


----------



## Zubasa (Oct 9, 2020)

chstamos said:


> Yes, your point is perfectly valid, but don't you think it's annoying that the minute anyone passes any kind of judgement on AMD's pricing, they're either intel shills or "entitled"? It's almost as if only intel's prices can be subject to criticism. The 5600X is -in my opinion, and a lot of others', it would seem- a terrible value for money compared to 3600 and noone should be subject to fanboi ad homs for thinking so.


IMO, people complaints on just about everything in existence on the internet,  I wouldn't stress myself over it.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 9, 2020)

I'm ok with the prices. I think i will change my CPU and I don't worry about the cooler since I got my water already running. 
I will still wait for the benchmarks and reviews. No need to rush the purchase. What AMD did with the new Ryzen is great and if Intel did something similar, we would have had a real competition. 
Your move Intel, show us what you got and don't disappoint.


----------



## Pumper (Oct 9, 2020)

birdie said:


> I like compiling and doing video encoding which both should become quite faster with this generation as well. I couldn't care less about normal resolution gaming because I don't have and I don't intend to buy a high refresh rate monitor and my 1660 Ti drives my old 1080p 74Hz monitor just fine.



No they won't. Look at the slide showing 3950X vs. 5950X. Zen3 is only 5% faster at encoding and 9% at compiling:


----------



## quadibloc (Oct 9, 2020)

Unless the wider floating-point unit of these new chips also means they have AVX-512 support added, I think I'll stick with my 3900X for the time being. I don't see a point in getting rid of a perfectly good CPU just because one slightly better is out. But a few years down the road, no doubt AMD will have something new and exciting. I am happy for AMD achieving the top tier in single-thread performance. Of course, last time, they were already so close to Intel that it hardly mattered, so even at 19% IPC, it's still not as big a jump in some ways then the 3000 series was.
Supposedly, Intel has 10nm available, and it's fixed some initial issues with it. I wonder why they aren't trying harder. Maybe they will now, since they're in the right position to do so. Or will AMD have to outstrip them in sales volume first?


----------



## ratirt (Oct 9, 2020)

quadibloc said:


> Unless the wider floating-point unit of these new chips also means they have AVX-512 support added, I think I'll stick with my 3900X for the time being. I don't see a point in getting rid of a perfectly good CPU just because one slightly better is out. But a few years down the road, no doubt AMD will have something new and exciting. I am happy for AMD achieving the top tier in single-thread performance. Of course, last time, they were already so close to Intel that it hardly mattered, so even at 19% IPC, it's still not as big a jump in some ways then the 3000 series was.
> Supposedly, Intel has 10nm available, and it's fixed some initial issues with it. I wonder why they aren't trying harder. Maybe they will now, since they're in the right position to do so. Or will AMD have to outstrip them in sales volume first?


Yes, in your case the change may not be as significant. In my case with 2700X the bump in performance would be significant if I get 5900X. The coolest thing is, I just need to buy the CPU and nothing more.
That's just great and I hope my 470 Carbon Gaming will do fine with the new gen Ryzen and there will be no significant penalties in performance due to the older gen motherboard.
I'm still waiting to see how things will go with the new Ryzen CPUs. Either way it does look promising though.
With the 10nm Intel, it will probably end up in Mobile segment as the last time. Hopefully I'm wrong.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 9, 2020)

Animalpak said:


> Will they finally supporting XMP from RAM's  ? Because AMD was and is now still is a disaster on XMP memory modules.


You are aware XMP is an Intel specific standard, so why would it work well with AMD CPUs? The timings aren't going to be the same for two entirely different memory controller architectures. Yes, some board makers have made it sort of work, with some RAM, but that's it. XMP was never designed to work with AMD CPUs. It also takes all of two minutes to configure the RAM if you use the Ryzen DRAM calculator.



xman2007 said:


> No, no they're not. Yes AMD support a lower overall RAM speed than Intel CPU's but buying a suitable kit when building a PC should be the same as any other expensive purchase you make, you research what you are buying and don't just throw money at it cause "dats the fastest and mostest xpensivvvv/cheapest so it must be de besssssttt"  XMP is an intel technology and whilst it is good and all, if you don't do some basic homework on what parts you're buying and if they're compatible, how is that down to AMD? for AMD there are recommended kits of DDR4 RAM and tested kits for each and every motherboard that you can buy, but as we see with all the "My Ryzen motherboard doesn't run my RAM at their rated speed" threads people don't do that, they buy a CPU and motherboard and any old RAM they feel like throwing in there without doing so much of a smidgeon of googling about compatibility and complain when it doesn't work right. The fact that AMD motherboards support XMP is a plus point, but building a PC is not the same as building a lego set and if you have little experience in doing so but just wanted to try after watching 1 YouTube video on "how easy" it is then you really should stump up the extra $50/$100 bucks to get someone or a company who has the required knowledge and experience to do it for you and then just use your consumer rights to return it and get it sorted instead of wondering why your Corsair LPX 3200 won't run at it's rated speed on your Ryzen build.


That's not true though, AMD can support just as fast RAM as Intel in most instances, you just don't benefit of going over 3800MHz in 98% of cases. There are benchmarks showing that some games are happy with an AMD CPU running with 4400MHz at 1:2 to the IF, but most other software doesn't benefit from it.
Also, the DDR4 overclocking world record is with an AMD CPU...








						Micron Memory Sets New DDR4 Overclocking World Record
					

Ballistix, Micron's global brand of high-performance gaming memory, has set a new overclocking world record for the fastest DDR4 memory frequency at 6024 MT/s. Leveraging performance-tuned Micron die and the innovation behind the new Ballistix Elite 4000 memory, the ASUS motherboard R&D team set...




					www.techpowerup.com
				



Personally I bought some random RAM and it works really well, better than the spec it was sold at, without being on any QVL. However, XMP doesn't work, but who cares, as it performs better than it was meant to, not using XMP.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 9, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> You are aware XMP is an Intel specific standard, so why would it work well with AMD CPUs? The timings aren't going to be the same for two entirely different memory controller architectures. Yes, some board makers have made it sort of work, with some RAM, but that's it. XMP was never designed to work with AMD CPUs. It also takes all of two minutes to configure the RAM if you use the Ryzen DRAM calculator.


Yeah I read those comments and I'm really surprised that people still consider XMP as something AMD should have. The influence of the Intel's marketing is just outstanding how people perceive the technology now. Just a while back, someone said, AMD should support CUDA cores.  It's a flying circus in their heads with some users though


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 9, 2020)

Pumper said:


> No they won't. Look at the slide showing 3950X vs. 5950X. Zen3 is only 5% faster at encoding and 9% at compiling:



Cleaner slides below:








						AMD announces Ryzen 5000 series (Zen3) - VideoCardz.com
					

Today AMD introduced its Zen3-based Ryzen 5000 series. The new desktop processors will feature higher clocks and more perforamnce. AMD announces its Ryzen 5000 series AMD focused on showcasing Ryzen 9 5900X processor (which will cost 549 USD) in comparison to Ryzen 9 3900XT. The CPU is expected...




					videocardz.com


----------



## ratirt (Oct 9, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Cleaner slides below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The graphs and stuff looks great but I'm still waiting for the reviews. If this turns out to be exactly how the graphs show, it will be a hell of performance bump for me. If my Mobo can pull it off, I'm going 12 core this year


----------



## laszlo (Oct 9, 2020)

rvalencia said:


> Unlike Intel and NVIDIA, AMD is just above the break-even. AMD needs to improve its profitability.



is not all about profit in their case... they had loans/investments when they were on the ground and not forget the R&D which is a fraction of Intel or NV allocated amounts...

we can't expect cpu& gpu at cost prices ....when you are small compared to big dogs you must find a way to please investors and also buyers


----------



## Mouth of Sauron (Oct 9, 2020)

chstamos said:


> All I've seen are AMD toxic fanboys attacking anyone and everyone that was not POSITIVELY ENTHUSED by the announcement. But what do I know. The fanboys know for a fact I'm just another intel shill for writing this. How dare anyone not be pissed with joy at the prospect of 300 dollars for the lowest end cpu, they're obviously shilling for intel or spoiled brats demanding free CPUs from amd.



5600X is not lowest-end CPU, and if we go along the Zen2 6core lineup, there are 3600 (also 6/12, like 50g cheaper and much more popular), 3500X and 3500 (both 6/6), all classified as 'mainstream' by AMD. 

3300x and 3100 4/8 are the "entry level" by AMD on Ryzen brand, and they come pretty cheap - so calling 5600X "lowest end chip" is kinda not right. 

Line-up was simply represented by 4 chips, out of 10 or more - even 5800X was skipped...

Besides, the bunch of 1xxx, 2xxx etc are still live and well and cheap. Guess the same will be true for Zen2 family...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 9, 2020)

ratirt said:


> The graphs and stuff looks great but I'm still waiting for the reviews. If this turns out to be exactly how the graphs show, it will be a hell of performance bump for me. If my Mobo can pull it off, I'm going 12 core this year


I'm sure no-one takes AMD on their word here, I simply wanted to share the easier to read slides, as it was kind of hard to see some of the info from the phone l live stream. There were obviously some additional data provided by AMD that wasn't shown in the live stream.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Oct 9, 2020)

Do I have to wait for AM5 socket? 
I think I am gonna upgrade my current CPU with 5950X. Besides, I also want to commemorate AM4 socket.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 9, 2020)

SIGSEGV said:


> Do I have to wait for AM5 socket?
> I think I am gonna upgrade my current CPU with 5950X. Besides, I also want to commemorate AM4 socket.


Wait for the reviews of the new Ryzens CPUs and then decide. You can wait like a month I guess. You will get review, comparisons and how it works in a different configurations and then you will have a bigger picture what to buy to match your expectations. 
I'm waiting with purchases.


----------



## HD64G (Oct 9, 2020)

AMD has cornered down Intel as hard as ever. Has the best CPUs in both vfm (Zen2) and absolute performance (Zen3). Absolute market dominance for desktop. The same for mobile and server is a matter of time now.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 9, 2020)

HD64G said:


> AMD has cornered down Intel as hard as ever. Has the best CPUs in both vfm (Zen2) and absolute performance (Zen3). Absolute market dominance for desktop. The same for mobile and server is a matter of time now.


Well, I wouldn't give up on Intel yet. I'm sure they have some more tricks up their sleeves to diminish the 5000 series new Ryzen.


----------



## wahdangun (Oct 9, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Hm, seems like the shoe might be on the other foot with AMD vs Intel.
> 
> Let me see if I can switch my arguments.
> 
> ...



good, except this time amd also win in productivity


----------



## londiste (Oct 9, 2020)

ratirt said:


> I'm ok with the prices. I think i will change my CPU and I don't worry about the cooler since I got my water already running.
> I will still wait for the benchmarks and reviews. No need to rush the purchase. What AMD did with the new Ryzen is great and if Intel did something similar, we would have had a real competition.
> Your move Intel, show us what you got and don't disappoint.


Rocket Lake, Q1 2021.
If the rumors are true (expecially the Willow Cove backport part), it actually might be a worthy upgrade for people who do not need 12 or 16 cores.


TheLostSwede said:


> I guess you're not aware that all of that was fixed after about six months worth of UEFI and AGESA updates? Ignorance is bliss...


I guess my personal experience clouds my judgement here. My 3600X never managed to run at over 4.2GHz for anything but a split second and I did not see 4.4GHz even then. UEFI/AGESA updates made negligible difference in that regard. So, YMMV. And while CPUs produced later may have an easier time hitting the intended speeds, that doesn't exactly fix the problem I had.


HD64G said:


> AMD has cornered down Intel as hard as ever. Has the best CPUs in both vfm (Zen2) and absolute performance (Zen3). Absolute market dominance for desktop. The same for mobile and server is a matter of time now.


Have they? 10600K sells for about 250 these days (KF a bit lower), 10700K sells for about 350 (again, KF a bit lower). 5600X in between them is not exactly in a nice spot all things considered. 5900X was 6-7% faster in games on average compared to 10900K, so while it leads that lead is small and depending on eventual prices Intel might be the one with more cores for the same money this time around.


RandallFlagg said:


> It seems Intel may not have anything to compete directly with a 5900X, assuming those benchmarks are representative of overall performance.


Intel did not and does not have anything that would directly compete with 3900X either, much less 3950X.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 9, 2020)

wahdangun said:


> good, except this time amd also win in productivity



How sure are you of that?  On a cost comparison AMD has only displaced the 10900k.  

Zen 3 vs 10th Gen By cost :

$299 6c/12t 5600X vs $310 8c/16t 10700 

$450 8c/16t 5800X vs $450 10c/20t 10850K

I don't know - and seriously doubt - that same cost Zen 3 will win in those price / performance comparisons.  At those prices, you actually get more cores / threads with Intel than with AMD except at the very top.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 9, 2020)

londiste said:


> Rocket Lake, Q1 2021.
> If the rumors are true (expecially the Willow Cove backport part), it actually might be a worthy upgrade for people who do not need 12 or 16 cores.


I could actually use more cores. Considering my two TR 3960's, I could use some more power in my regular desktop. Intel is not an upgrade for me actually. I already have Ryzen and what I will need to upgrade is a CPU only. The 5000 series seems pretty good in any case and switching to Intel now (whatever performance benefit willow cove will bring) is not an upgrade but new system build which I will need to spend a lot for. Considering Intel's new gen new chipset idea, I'm OK with, going Ryzen and now I see it payed off since I don't need anything aside CPU change. Besides, looking at Intel's CPU iterations in the past 3-4 years I'm not convinced the 11th gen CPU will bring anything new in general just some minor changes and still 14++ node with kinda big power consumption.
I will upgrade later this year or at the beginning of the 2021 (my board will need an Bios update for the new Ryzen) so if Intel releases something till then I might reconsider but I seriously doubt anything is going to be released from Intel now or in few months in the desktop department so I'd rather stick to Ryzen.


----------



## Jayp (Oct 9, 2020)

birdie said:


> To add to my previous post: I hate when people choose companies - you should choose products and root for healthy competition and AMD now has perfectly shown that when competition falters, customers get punished hard. I've been eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 5000 series but now I'm hesitating whether to upgrade from my 3700X. A performance uplift is great but the cost of the upgrade is not palatable at all. There's no way I will be able to sell my 3700X for $330 I bought it for. At most I'll get $200 for it on the secondary market. Paying $250 to get 20% more performance? I don't know.



Not sure why everyone feels the need to be on a yearly upgrade cycle. Your 3700X either makes you happy or it doesn't. Why even think about the upgrade unless you need or could benefit from more. You could easily wait a year on the 3700X and grab the following Zen 4 CPU that seems to be likely on DDR5 as well. Zen 3 is a an upgrade over Zen 2 no doubt but it is notably an upgrade for Zen and Zen+ users. Someone on early zen would be seeing significant upgrade.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 9, 2020)

londiste said:


> Rocket Lake, Q1 2021.
> If the rumors are true (expecially the Willow Cove backport part), it actually might be a worthy upgrade for people who do not need 12 or 16 cores.


It's not going to be the same *IPC* increase, that you saw on 10nm, if the same rumors are true of course. Intel will still be relying on their 14nm clock speed advantage to get outright wins.

Efficiency does take a tumble so in the end zen3 will likely be doing better overall perf & certainly much better *perf/W* even at stock.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 9, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> It’s a shame they couldn’t hit the 5.0ghz barrier. You know the engineers probably wanted to get there in the worst way. I’m guessing these will behave like 3000 series, where they will reach max clocks better on their own boosting algorithm and there won’t be any overclocking. It’s not a bad showing by any means—the design changes and IPC uplift are something to be proud of, and the power consumption sounds like it’s going to be so much better. And all this on the same 7nm node.  I know these aren’t reviews, but I’d be surprised if the benchmarks they posted couldn’t be reproduced. Just makes me wonder what GPU they were using.



Threadripper 5000 will obviously come with a 5Ghz boost clock if the 5950X is 4.9Ghz already.

That, or a 5950XT in 6 months if you dont fancy TR.



dicktracy said:


> All of a sudden, gaming matters again for AMD fans. LOL



I think the point is, Ryzen CPUs now beat Intel's equivalents in every single metric you can imagine, aside from AVX workloads 

In some metrics - efficiency - AMD is so far ahead you could say with a straight face: they're two generations ahead of Intel.



HD64G said:


> AMD has cornered down Intel as hard as ever. Has the best CPUs in both vfm (Zen2) and absolute performance (Zen3). Absolute market dominance for desktop. The same for mobile and server is a matter of time now.



Yes, Ryzen 4000U on mobile also completely dominates Intel's best in performance per watt and price.


----------



## sergionography (Oct 9, 2020)

Mysteoa said:


> If benchmarking is not done on equal configuration/settings what is their purpose?
> Ray Tracing will be normal when there are more new games with it than without. Currently, it's like PhysX, not many games have it and it wouldn't be fair comparison if you can't run it on AMD also.


This is why I said rtx3000 vs rtx2000. Cards that have the same features should be compared accordingly. Also it's for scientific purposes. I'm curious as to how much ray tracing improved and how it effects frame rates. How much ray tracing harware is required before it works parallel to rasterization without effecting performance


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 9, 2020)

All I know is im grabbing my popcorn and sitting it out and waiting to see if any XT versions of Zen 3 show their face.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 9, 2020)

JrRacinFan said:


> All I know is im grabbing my popcorn and sitting it out and waiting to see if any XT versions of Zen 3 show their face.


I hope you have a silo of corn stored because even if this is in AMD's plans it wont come any time soon, especially now that they "have" the competition in 99.9% of cases with Intel trying to straight out 10nm.
Maybe in a year... If there is something else ZEN3 related I would expect that it would be lower/mid range SKUs. And that is related directly to present 7nm node yields and seems to be much better than last year's.

I could almost say that 7nm yields are so good now that all 4 ZEN3 SKUs are already the "XT"s. AMD is playing all for all this round. Both CPU and GPU devisions.


----------



## Turmania (Oct 9, 2020)

I bet XT versions will come and at the same price point of when they launch X versions. I do as well believe AMD will lower their asking price of these CPU's before November 5th availability. However, XT version will probably come 6 to 9 months later. Only change is if Intel releases 11th gen sooner than expected.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 9, 2020)

Turmania said:


> I bet XT versions will come and at the same price point of when they launch X versions. I do as well believe AMD will lower their asking price of these CPU's before November 5th availability. However, XT version will probably come 6 to 9 months later. Only change is if Intel releases 11th gen sooner than expected.


I wont argue that.
If the yeilds are good and consistent and launched X versions are something like the 95+% of the working dies then it could require some time for AMD to harvest enough dies for better or even worsts SKUs. (XTs and nonXs).


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 9, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I hope you have a silo of corn stored because even if this is in AMD's plans it wont come any time soon, especially now that they "have" the competition in 99.9% of cases with Intel trying to straight out 10nm.
> Maybe in a year... If there is something else ZEN3 related I would expect that it would be lower/mid range SKUs. And that is related directly to present 7nm node yields and seems to be much better than last year's.
> 
> I could almost say that 7nm yields are so good now that all 4 ZEN3 SKUs are already the "XT"s. AMD is playing all for all this round. Both CPU and GPU devisions.



Now I never said I was expecting them at launch sheesh. It could be a year from now and Id be happy.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 9, 2020)

The popcorn confused me...


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 9, 2020)

Whatever happenned to XFR? Was that supposed to only be a 1st gen thing?


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 9, 2020)

XFR still exists. But we call it PBO now, since ZEN2. If it works and under what circumstances is another story much much complicated.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 9, 2020)

Now we wait for Intel to release Gen 11 so Zen3 lowers prices.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 9, 2020)

GoldenX said:


> Now we wait for Intel to release Gen 11 so Zen3 lowers prices.



That will be a paper launch in 6 months time...


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

GoldenX said:


> Now we wait for Intel to release Gen 11 so Zen3 lowers prices.



Actually I imagine that Intel will lower prices earlier, even if not officially.  You can already get a 10700 for $299 at Microcenter, $319 at Newegg, and $317 at B&H Photo.   Given that the 10700 has a fan with it, this actually makes it cheaper than a 5600X @$299 + $30 fan.

I think the 10850K launch makes a lot more sense now.  Intel probably knew that the 5800X would come in right at $450, which is exactly where the 10c/20t 10850K sits.  

Probably something worth noting.  Intel 14nm, they own the fab, and it's super efficient with high yields.  I don't think AMD/TSMC will win a price war with Intel, I bet Intel could sell the 10850K for $300 and still make more money than AMD can make on a 5800X at $450.  But it sure would be nice if someone would start a price war.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 10, 2020)

I don't think AMD's prices are due to low yields. It seems to be that high only to beat a dead horse and get higher profits.
Intel CPUs are more expensive to make, a monolithic 10 core will always be more expensive than a CPU with separate dies that can be modulated at will.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 10, 2020)

I have a hard time believing that a 10c chip with all 10 cores enabled is so easy to make that Intel's making a boatload money off of it. Unless of course you also believe it's a 12c die harvested part? Intel's margins may still be a bit higher overall but not by much. Chiplets are the future & that's why Intel is so desperate to get their hands on the glue!


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 10, 2020)

See? The Pentium D + FX idea wasn't wrong at all, it was just ahead of its time.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

Uhh, so I made that statement assuming people knew but okay.

Both of them are actually making bank.  Keep in mind these are pecentages and Intel sells a heck of a lot more chips than AMD (like more than 5x more).  

Intel also has its foundries to build and maintain, which AMD doesn't, but AMD has to pay TSMC to fab its chips which means TSMC gets a cut.


----------



## wheresmycar (Oct 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Uhh, so I made that statement assuming people knew but okay.
> 
> Both of them are actually making bank.  Keep in mind these are pecentages and Intel sells a heck of a lot more chips than AMD (like more than 5x more).
> 
> ...


 
2020 not looking fat-healthy but healthy for intel. Is that a "hold my hand" dip or "i'll show you in the 1st Qtr of 2021" wink?

I wander what these charts would look like after subtracting other expenses (net profit)? Question is, is AMD 10% or more economical overall? Randallflag get digging!


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

Well, the dip happened for both Intel and AMD, but much worse for Intel.  That's a Covid dip.

Goes back to AMD isn't the one making the chips, TSMC is.  AMD basically just has a big engineering facility, and employ only 11,000 people.  AMD didn't have to change much, just their schedules for delivery of chips probably slid a bit.  

Manufacturers are affected very differently, Intel had to furlough / shut down manufacturing for a while.  They have many fabs in multiple countries, and employ over 110,000 - literally 10x more people than AMD.


----------



## oobymach (Oct 10, 2020)

Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?


----------



## bencrutz (Oct 10, 2020)

oobymach said:


> Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?


yeah, sure sherlock


----------



## Makaveli (Oct 10, 2020)

oobymach said:


> Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Oct 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Both of them are actually making bank.
> 
> [SNIP...]



Those graphs are gross profits. Aka: how to lie with graphs.

* Revenue -- "Money made"
* Gross Profit: Revenue - COGS, aka used to calculate "margin".
* Net Profit: Revenue - COGS - a whole bunch of other stuff. Also known as "The Bottom Line".

It always bothers me when people talk Gross instead of Net. Just because it has the word "profit" in it doesn't mean its what colloquial people understand as profits. If "profit" is unspecified, there's usually an underlying assumption that you're talking about Net.

--------------





Here's a comparison of Intel's Net profit vs AMD's Net Profit. Very different story, eehhh? That's billions of dollars by the way.


----------



## londiste (Oct 10, 2020)

oobymach said:


> Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?


This was absolutely the right move. They should have CPU and APU lines aligned from now on.
Previously:
- Ryzen 2000 CPUs were Zen+, Ryzen 2000G APUs were Zen.
- Ryzen 3000 CPUs were Zen2, Ryzen 3000G APUs were Zen+
- Ryzen 4000G APUs were Zen2.
Now Ryzen 5000 CPUs are Zen3 and presumably Ryzen 5000G APUs will also be Zen3.
Same applies to mobile, which were and are on the APU side of things.



GoldenX said:


> I don't think AMD's prices are due to low yields. It seems to be that high only to beat a dead horse and get higher profits.
> Intel CPUs are more expensive to make, a monolithic 10 core will always be more expensive than a CPU with separate dies that can be modulated at will.


I really wish we had good sources on how much it costs to manufacture all of this but there is a good chance that 10-core may not be more expensive to manufacture.
- Intel 10-core is 206mm² (as a sidenote, pretty close to Zen/Zen+ dies in size).
- Ryzen 3000 is 75mm² CCD plus 125mm² IO Die. Probably minor additional cost from chiplet packaging (and 5000 is presumably pretty much the same).
Two things that factor in here are yields - which by educated guess are either the same or still better for 14nm than 7nm even with these die sizes - and costs - where 7nm still seems to cost 1.6x what 12/14/16nm costs.
I think overall manufacturing costs come out a wash if not even a slight edge for Intel.

By the way, Intel seems to be using 6-core die (150mm²) in addition to the 10-core one. 10-core die goes into 8 and 10 core SKUs plus 10600K.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 10, 2020)

Zyll Goliath said:


> Prices goes UP a bit......
> View attachment 171217



But so did the performance, a fair bit too. On top of that 12 core 24threads is hella deal for $550 and if it was not for AMD be on a lot less for that price.


----------



## londiste (Oct 10, 2020)

AsRock said:


> But so did the performance, a fair bit too. On top of that 12 core 24threads is hella deal for $550 and if it was not for AMD be on a lot less for that price.


We will have to wait for reviews and see. Intel has been out of this run from get-go and $549 5900X (12c/24t, 3.7/4.8GHz) is going against 3900X (12c/24t, 3.8/4.6GHz) with MSRP of $499 and street prices around $400. Notable big improvements like 8-core CCDs are not likely to have much of an effect on well-threaded productivity performance. Manufacturing process is the same, so limited efficiency boost - and base clock is specced 100MHz lower. This should be interesting 

Edit:
Well, technically 3900X has been succeeded by 3900XT at the same price point and basically identical spec except a 100MHz higher boost clock.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 10, 2020)

3900X $500 ?, don't you mean the 3900XT ?. i got my 3900X 8 month ago for $430 and would not surprised to see it go lower than $400 before EOL.

3900XT is around $70 more and no cooler but the cooler will depend on the user.


----------



## Calmmo (Oct 10, 2020)

Mine was 500 ~3.5 months after launch. That was after actively trying acquire one for the entirety of those first 3 months and not being able to.
(people like to talk about nvidia paper launches these days, but AMD did exact the same thing with their R9 CPUs just last year, wont be surpised if its the same with 5000 again)


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Those graphs are gross profits. Aka: how to lie with graphs.
> 
> * Revenue -- "Money made"
> * Gross Profit: Revenue - COGS, aka used to calculate "margin".
> ...



Gross tells you the* cost to build a chip vs the sale price*, which was the topic.    Net shows you nothing in that regard as it includes capital expenditures like building new plants, developing new products, marketing costs, and various administrative costs.  So in fact, Net is the one that is 'fake' and can be manipulated.  A highly profitable company can invest heavily in capital expenditures and appear to be broke on Net.  This is why for a decade or more Amazon never made a dime, yet look at their revenue and gross margin and you see a different picture.  Looking at a raw profit number like "20B vs 600M" (Net) tells you nothing about this, people who looked at that alone with Amazon would have though Macys was kicking their tail for a decade.. 

Hyperbolic example, using Net -  if I'm selling 10 billion units of something and make $20B Net vs selling 10 units of something and making 600M Net, then the one making 20B can only lower price $20 before profit is zero or negative ($20B / 10B units).  The one selling 10 units can lower price $60M each before profit is zero.  Hence Net is useless in this discussion unless you know quantity across multiple sectors and can break it down in terms of net profit per unit. That type of data is not out there, so gross margin is all we have.

Of course, neither Intel nor AMD can lower their costs such that gross margin is anywhere near zero, else they'd have to cease all marketing, R&D, and so on to break even.  My guess is they both need at least 20% and probably 30% Gross Margin to hit break even on Net Income.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Oct 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Net shows you nothing in that regard as it includes capital expenditures



Ah got it. So you don't know how to read a financial statement.

Spoiler: capex is under cash flow and is not subtracted from net. This is basic stuff. If you buy a $1 billion factory, then it means -$1 billion cash but +$1billion in assets, for a net change of $0.

What is subtracted is *depreciation*. If your $1 billion factory will only last 20 years, then you need to make $50 million / year to counteract it. (Not that AMD really makes factories... but their computers and hardware is tech and inevitably will only last a small period of time: 5 year upgrade cycles or whatever. Especially whatever expensive computers they use for verification). Some Capex can be avoided thanks to cloud compute, but because EDA requires such huge computational resources, I'm pretty sure AMD / Intel / etc. etc. have to constantly buy very expensive FPGAs for their formal verification.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Ah got it.
> 
> So you don't know how to read a financial statement.
> 
> ...




Net Income is the bottom line so it most definitely includes costs associated with R&D.  Maybe you should go look a bit closer before you spout off.










						NOI (Net Operating Income)
					

NOI is a standardized metric that serves as a proxy for cash flow and is used to compare different property types and assess their economic value.




					corporatefinanceinstitute.com
				




"..*net income* is the *last figure obtained after all expenses are subtracted from the total revenue*. The total revenue includes all channels of income, including all operating income, investment income, interest from loans offered, etc. T*he costs deducted include capital expenses*, taxes, and all operating expenses. "

Finance 101 example, note that R&D (capital) is subtracted before you get to the "Bottom Line" Net Income.  

Capital expenditures for physical assets also show up here albeit indirectly.  I'll give you a hint.  Where do you suppose that depreciation line comes from?


----------



## agentnathan009 (Oct 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Actually I imagine that Intel will lower prices earlier, even if not officially.  You can already get a 10700 for $299 at Microcenter, $319 at Newegg, and $317 at B&H Photo.   Given that the 10700 has a fan with it, this actually makes it cheaper than a 5600X @$299 + $30 fan.
> 
> I think the 10850K launch makes a lot more sense now.  Intel probably knew that the 5800X would come in right at $450, which is exactly where the 10c/20t 10850K sits.
> 
> Probably something worth noting.  Intel 14nm, they own the fab, and it's super efficient with high yields.  I don't think AMD/TSMC will win a price war with Intel, I bet Intel could sell the 10850K for $300 and still make more money than AMD can make on a 5800X at $450.  But it sure would be nice if someone would start a price war.



There is already a price war and you fail to understand and comprehend how much money it takes to develop these complex chips nowadays. Go become a chip engineer and find out how hard it is to make this stuff at smaller and smaller nodes let alone TSMC etc having to develop means to make smaller nodes. If you don't like the price buy a cheaper model, sure it is nice to have the best but everyone cannot afford the Ferrari, most of us drive the common brands like Ford, Toyota, etc.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Oct 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Net Income is the bottom line so it most definitely includes costs associated with R&D.



You didn't say R&D earlier. You said CapEx.



> Net shows you nothing in that regard as it includes *capital expenditures like building new plants*, developing new products, marketing costs, and various administrative costs.  So in fact, Net is the one that is 'fake' and can be manipulated.  *A highly profitable company can invest heavily in capital expenditures and appear to be broke on Net.*



Which is just factually wrong entirely. If you spend $10 Billion on a factory, it will show up as a change of $0 on Net.



> Capital expenditures for physical assets also show up here albeit indirectly



CapEx is always a Cash-flow issue. Never on the income statement. Period. Depreciation is depreciation, almost a different concept all together (though financially tied to CapEx).


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> You didn't say R&D earlier. You said CapEx.



Yah, I mentioned R&D and CapEx were not part of Gross Margin original post.  Given that 14nm has been around 5 years, this is just what it costs to make a chip.  Maybe you should go back and re-read the original post, you're making points that I addressed from step 1.



dragontamer5788 said:


> Which is just factually wrong entirely. If you spend $10 Billion on a factory, it will show up as a change of $0 on Net.



I think you missed it, again.  A $10B factory built 5 years ago most definitely shows up on the Net Income statement.  It shows up in the form of depreciation.  If you build 10 $10B factorys, one each year, and depreciate them over 10 years, then on year 10 with the 10th factory your depreciation will be $10B.  To say that it does not show up at all on net income is totally false,  it shows up spread out over time.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 10, 2020)

Calmmo said:


> Mine was 500 ~3.5 months after launch. That was after actively trying acquire one for the entirety of those first 3 months and not being able to.
> (people like to talk about nvidia paper launches these days, but AMD did exact the same thing with their R9 CPUs just last year, wont be surpised if its the same with 5000 again)


That is true though you must also know that the demand for CPUs is much higher than dGPUs, between consoles/HPC/server/desktop/notebooks & other embedded zen2 chips how many do you think AMD's selling vs Ampere (including the full fat A100) in the same period say first 3-4 months? My best guess *at least 10x* & that's a conservative guesstimate by all accounts.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Oct 10, 2020)

Oh my. Here we go with the hype again. You see, I heard exactly the same claims just before getting the 955BE. What a horribly bad CPU it was, completely obliterated by an overclocked i3-540. Turned me off AMD and their false claims for years. They can't produce a GPU which is clearly faster than my 1080ti from almost four years ago, which I don't even use any more. They can't even match Intel's performance in games, all while spewing crazy claims before every launch.
Let's wait and see the actual reviews, not the usual marketing bag of crap. If they are actually as good as claimed than that's great, but we'll see.

(disclaimer: I'm not a millennial, hence I don't see any rationale in streaming games or recording the gameplay. I'm also not a hobbyist "youtube video" maker. I only care for raw performance in day-to-day and real time tasks. For doing important things I have serious work machines at my place of employment).


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 10, 2020)

Some prices of Finland and Portugal:


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

TheUn4seen said:


> Oh my. Here we go with the hype again. You see, I heard exactly the same claims just before getting the 955BE. What a horribly bad CPU it was, completely obliterated by an overclocked i3-540. Turned me off AMD and their false claims for years. They can't produce a GPU which is clearly faster than my 1080ti from almost four years ago, which I don't even use any more. They can't even match Intel's performance in games, all while spewing crazy claims before every launch.
> Let's wait and see the actual reviews, not the usual marketing bag of crap. If they are actually as good as claimed than that's great, but we'll see.
> 
> (disclaimer: I'm not a millennial, hence I don't see any rationale in streaming games or recording the gameplay. I'm also not a hobbyist "youtube video" maker. I only care for raw performance in day-to-day and real time tasks. For doing important things I have serious work machines at my place of employment).




Ya, I went and looked at their claims on release of the 3900X.  It turned out they cherry picked a bit too hard, many of the 3900X claims fell on their face in the real world, However Zen 2 had really good price/performance ratio anyway.  Their claims for the 5900X show a bigger delta vs Intel than the 3900X claims though.   Having said that, with these big price increases If AMD doesn't live up to their claims with Zen 3 they're gonna get roasted.  They no longer have a price / perf ratio to fall back on.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 10, 2020)

That's not an argument when AMD's selling 4 gens of Ryzen, including the upcoming zen3 series. Absolute performance, *perf/$* & *perf/w* is still vastly in their favor!


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 10, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> That's not an argument when AMD's selling 4 gens of Ryzen, including the upcoming zen3 series. Absolute performance, *perf/$* & *perf/w* is still vastly in their favor!


Meh, not really.  By including old gens the price/$ argument begins to unravel.  Intel old gens are also for sale.  What’s resale value of an 8700k vs 1700x?   What was true total cost of ownership?


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 10, 2020)

What's the resale value go to do with anything? What's the price of a 1800x or 2700x & a suitable (cheap) motherboard? Now tell me what a brand new 8700k + z370 costs 

Your argument falls flat on it face when Intel itself kills their old gen instead of making them cheap, not to mention the effin motherboard/chipset mess!


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Oct 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I think you missed it, again.  A $10B factory built 5 years ago most definitely shows up on the Net Income statement.  It shows up in the form of depreciation.  If you build 10 $10B factorys, one each year, and depreciate them over 10 years, then on year 10 with the 10th factory your depreciation will be $10B.  To say that it does not show up at all on net income is totally false,  it shows up spread out over time.



And why do you want to remove this from the accounting? If you have $10 billion in factories (which turns into a $9 billion factory after a year of wear-and-tear), you need to make $1 Billion extra that year before you break even. (Or whatever your depreciation schedule is).

If your factories are breaking down and you're failing to replace them, then your company is spiraling down, out of control and going to die soon. That's why we look at net, especially with companies like AMD where a technology (ex: Zen, or Infinity Fabric) goes obsolete... eventually worthless after a few years. Keeping up-to-date with the latest tech is incredibly important for a company like this, and constitutes a significant amount of spending (upgrading the design to Zen2, or Zen3, etc. etc.)

Or, in the more traditional sense of depreciation, the 10,000 FPGAs that AMD has to run RTL simulations or whatever get more and more worthless as time goes on. If AMD is working with equipment that's too old, then they will lose an engineering advantage over their competitors. Those FPGAs are depreciating assets: losing money over time. AMD must not only make enough margin to make cash... but enough cash to replace their old equipment as well (at least, if AMD wishes to remain in business 5 years from now).

------

In either case: CapEx never is on the income statement. Only depreciation is on the income statement. CapEx is on cash flow. Its important to know the three documents (cash flow, income statement, and asset sheet) if you want to seriously compare different companies against each other. There are also inconsistencies between companies (different companies may qualify different costs as R&D vs CapEx based off the opinion of their management team). So its never an apples-to-apples comparison.

As such, something like gross income is subject to more variance between companies. Net income includes literally everything and is more consistent between different companies.


----------



## Icon Charlie (Oct 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Meh, not really.  By including old gens the price/$ argument begins to unravel.  Intel old gens are also for sale.  What’s resale value of an 8700k vs 1700x?   What was true total cost of ownership?


True value of ownership is person to person.   Normally speaking it is how long you can use the components in question to do the majority of your tasks. 
My 1800X is still valuable and is at times better than my 3600 due to being a 8 core  vs a 6 core.   If my 3600 reached 4.3 as stated on my box I would have been really happy  but it is only as fast as my 1800X which out of the box hit 4.1 hz.  In multiple applications the 8 core still performs better.  

In 2017  it was the first time in 27 years that I made a 2 year build (instead of a 4 year build)  because AMD and the tech industry had the BEST Performance vs Value I ever seen.  16 gigs of high quality Ram. An SSD and a HDD Drive, with a X370 mother board, 1800X, and a 1070 video card... all new for $900 including tax and shipping. 

In DEC 2019  I did the same thing with even more Ram for $990 (900 plus tax and shipping).

If I would have build the same 2019 Rig with all new parts it would cost me $1200+ dollars, because prices went up to100% PSU's (yea companies do talk to each other that is why PSU prices went up because of the video cards... NOT tarrifs and not the cooof), up to 50% on motherboards, up to 200%+ on CPU Coolers,  up to 25% or more Fans, Video cards and so on. 

I  mean come on man... they are pushing 27 inch curved 165hz monitors for the same price and performance on my Pixio PX329 32 inch NON CURVED monitor.  All because of market speak.  

I am not happy with the price of the video cards nor the CPU's  All of this BS about massive performance increase are just marketing lies. 

I am seriously thinking of just not upgrading and going back to my usual every 4 to 5 years for a new rig while making small upgrades along the way.  I've never bought used on important components but now I am thinking of going that route too.  The 3600 is a great deal and the pricing has had actually gone up new (Ebay 185 w cooler) I bought mine for 175 w/cooler new) but because of the LOUSY price vs performance of the 5000 series cpus over  the 3000 series cards... I'm so going to wait for any upgrade.  

2017 was the year of change for the better, for the customer.  2020 is the year of greed as they price gouge the customer base.   

But there are enough Gerbils out there that will continue to buy and make these companies really... happy...


----------



## oobymach (Oct 10, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> View attachment 171364


I'm full of both brilliance and stupidity, so you take what you get.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 11, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> What's the resale value go to do with anything? What's the price of a 1800x or 2700x & a suitable (cheap) motherboard? Now tell me what a brand new 8700k + z370 costs
> 
> Your argument falls flat on it face when Intel itself kills their old gen instead of making them cheap, not to mention the effin motherboard/chipset mess!



I am not the one who introduced comparison with previous gen chip prices on spot markets into this.  As I said, once you do that you need to look at all aspects.  Intel doesn't kill their old gen, they simply stop making them.  You seem to attribute bizarre price fluctuations when supply on something old dries up to the manufacturer.  That's like blaming Ford for the Ford GT costing $500K 10+ years after they sold them new for $137K. 

The same thing is happening in AMD space, the 1600X at Newegg is $245 vs the 3600 at $199.   Using your logic, I guess AMD is price gouging huh?

And if you think Zen 2 (3000) series will maintain availability for long, you might want to re-think that.  It's highly unlikely that AMD will keep manufacturing cheap chips in the expensive and constrained TSMC 7nm pipeline.  Unlike the overhang of supply in Zen 1 and 1+ (2000 series) which were made on relatively cheap GloFlo 14nm and 12nm with some production after Zen 2 7nm was launched, there's no such dual production path for Zen 2 and 3.  Any Zen 2 chips AMD orders made, would be a Zen 3 chip they can't sell.  I would imagine that the Zen 2 3xxx series will dry up very fast.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 11, 2020)

Where on earth you people find those crystal balls?
It’s like you sleep next to Lisa Su...

Amazing!



oobymach said:


> Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?


Because of the mobile ZEN2 4000series?


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Oct 11, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> The same thing is happening in AMD space, the 1600X at Newegg is $245 vs the 3600 at $199.   Using your logic, I guess AMD is price gouging huh?



I waited a long time for AMD to finally release info on the 5000 series. That info came out and I what a big MEH from me. I was holding off on a build due to one of my machines having issues. Well after seeing what AMD is going to offer I bought a 3600 and a B550 motherboard for when AMD comes to their senses and drops their prices or offers something similar to price/performance that the 3600 offered. As I see it right now the Ryzen 5000 series has to compete against the 3600 and is going to sit on lots of 5000 series CPUs until 3600 stock is cleared out. I paid $160 for the 3600 today at Microcenter this morning(Saturday) and at that price why buy anything else or wait for the 5000 series, I do like the 65w tdp on the $299 5600x but I'm not going to pay almost double just because the TDP is low. The Microcenter employee told me they had sold 93 of the 3600 this week and I made the 94th purchase at that store and there's a reason for that. AMD isn't going to see the same sales and most people have done their panic/pandemic builds already. I don't think it's just AMD that is going to see a decline in sales as I think Intel sales will drop as well but I think the 5000 series launch is going to be a dud. Next up is Big Navi, I hope I'm not disappointed with that too, I'm holding onto my 2080ti until I can either get a 3080 or AMD stops pissing around and finally offers a real GPU.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 11, 2020)

Th3pwn3r said:


> I waited a long time for AMD to finally release info on the 5000 series. That info came out and I what a big MEH from me. I was holding off on a build due to one of my machines having issues. Well after seeing what AMD is going to offer I bought a 3600 and a B550 motherboard for when AMD comes to their senses and drops their prices or offers something similar to price/performance that the 3600 offered. As I see it right now the Ryzen 5000 series has to compete against the 3600 and is going to sit on lots of 5000 series CPUs until 3600 stock is cleared out. I paid $160 for the 3600 today at Microcenter this morning(Saturday) and at that price why buy anything else or wait for the 5000 series, I do like the 65w tdp on the $299 5600x but I'm not going to pay almost double just because the TDP is low. The Microcenter employee told me they had sold 93 of the 3600 this week and I made the 94th purchase at that store and there's a reason for that. AMD isn't going to see the same sales and most people have done their panic/pandemic builds already. I don't think it's just AMD that is going to see a decline in sales as I think Intel sales will drop as well but I think the 5000 series launch is going to be a dud. Next up is Big Navi, I hope I'm not disappointed with that too, I'm holding onto my 2080ti until I can either get a 3080 or AMD stops pissing around and finally offers a real GPU.


You have a 1200$ MSRP card and 300$ is too much for a CPU with better gaming performance that 3900XT/3950X?

Ok!


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Oct 11, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> You have a 1200$ MSRP card and 300$ is too much for a CPU with better gaming performance that 3900XT/3950X?
> 
> Ok!



I paid $899 plus tax Ok! And the price is relative, if Intel comes out with a GPU that's $1000 and offers a good performance increase I'd consider that too. Not trying to brag but I have almost $6,000 worth of subwoofers in my living room, however, I have a cheap $100 sub too, it performs as expected. It's about prices being relative.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 11, 2020)

Th3pwn3r said:


> I paid $899 plus tax Ok! And the price is relative, if Intel comes out with a GPU that's $1000 and offers a good performance increase I'd consider that too. Not trying to brag but I have almost $6,000 worth of subwoofers in my living room, however, I have a cheap $100 sub too, it performs as expected. It's about prices being relative.


I'm not arguing with that kind of relativity.
All I'm saying is that a 300$ CPU is better in gaming than a 500~750$ CPUs from previous gen.
And we dont know yet the all core performance...


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 11, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Intel doesn't kill their old gen, they simply stop making them.


No they really kill them, EOL is the term you're looking for. With their chipset BS, if you're on the wrong gen you are locked out of upgrading!


RandallFlagg said:


> You seem to attribute bizarre price fluctuations when supply on something old dries up to the manufacturer.


You seem to be contradicting yourself, aren't you? With post SKL chips they're just rebadging their old stuff & still doing the chipset BS 

Also supply doesn't just dry up, when the manufacturer is adamant they need to rebadge their old stuff &/or lock out users from upgrading that's when this BS needs to be called out.


RandallFlagg said:


> The same thing is happening in AMD space, the 1600X at Newegg is $245 vs the 3600 at $199. Using your logic, I guess AMD is price gouging huh?


And I got a 2700 at roughly $160 including taxes just in the last quarter, your point? Is it AMD price gouging or is it Newegg?


RandallFlagg said:


> And if you think Zen 2 (3000) series will maintain availability for long, you might want to re-think that. It's highly unlikely that AMD will keep manufacturing cheap chips in the expensive and constrained TSMC 7nm pipeline.


That depends on how expensive 5nm is, looking at early reports zen2 is here to stay at least another year if not more!


----------



## Turmania (Oct 11, 2020)

I truly believe, Ryzen has matured now, I have a strong feeling this 5xxx series will exceed expectations. But, on moral grounds their asking prices on both CPU and MB, they lost their foot on that front and can never use that anymore.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 11, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> No they really kill them, EOL is the term you're looking for. With their chipset BS, if you're on the wrong gen you are locked out of upgrading!
> You seem to be contradicting yourself, aren't you? With post SKL chips they're just rebadging their old stuff & still doing the chipset BS
> ...



And this is different from AMD how?  You gonna run Zen 3 on a B350, after all it is an AM4 socket?  For that matter, B450 is a dicey proposition and depends on the motherboard manufacturer.  At least with Intel, you cannot insert the chip into a motherboard with a completely incompatible chipset.


----------



## londiste (Oct 11, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> And this is different from AMD how?  You gonna run Zen 3 on a B350, after all it is an AM4 socket?  For that matter, B450 is a dicey proposition and depends on the motherboard manufacturer.  At least with Intel, you cannot insert the chip into a motherboard with a completely incompatible chipset.


It is completely compatible. Support is an artificial limitation. 300 and 400 series chipsets are almost identical.


----------



## Makaveli (Oct 11, 2020)

londiste said:


> 300 and 400 series chipsets are almost identical.



Except for the size of the bios chips.


----------



## londiste (Oct 11, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> Except for the size of the bios chips.


This entire AM4 BIOS size thing is not as simple as different BIOS chip size. There are a lot of 400-series motherboards with 128Gb/16GB BIOS chips. Hell, there are 500-series boards with 128Gb/16GB BIOS chips (Gigabyte boards mainly if I remember correctly). At Zen2 launch there were some more technical details revealed that claimed issue is with how older AM4 CPUs are able to read only 16GB of BIOS. Workarounds exist but these are not exactly fun.

There are different BIOSes and some (software/firmware) feature differences but 300 and 400 series chipsets themselves are basically identical.

I have a good enough B450 board that I would really like to get a Ryzen 5000 for but I am not holding my breath and January or after does not sound too encouraging.


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 11, 2020)

This is like reading press releases from white house press office ..... 


1.  After weeks of complaining from AMD fans about launches that are not launchers because most vendors are out of stock, now suddenly a product announce,ents is a "release" with NDAs sill in effect and not a single product sold.

2.  When ya read a sentence, all the words count .... 

_Average of 7% faster in 1080p gaming across *****select***** game titles than the competition_

And if we let Intel ***select*** the games, is that going to hold ?

3.   Will the argument still be "bang for the buck".... or what's the value of the $799 5950 CPU versus the $180  10400F ?
I'm gonna wait till the game is played (TPU Reviews) before declaring the winner.


----------



## PowerPC (Oct 11, 2020)

birdie said:


> AMD fans never fail to disappoint with double standards. Intel and NVIDIA have always been "evil" but once AMD does that, suddenly it's perfectly fine because they _just follow suit_.


What are you even talking about? It was never about the pricing. Intel was stifling innovation for years and giving us 5% performance increases with the same 4 cores year after year because they knew they could get away with it. How is this the same as what AMD is doing at the moment? We're seeing core counts literally explode with still good single core performance gains. The price was never the issue with Intel, so don't pull that straw man. It's about how they could never justify the price in any way. AMD is doing literally the opposite right now. I'll take my 12 cores instead of 4, thank you. With just Intel, we would still have 4.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 11, 2020)

I'm waiting for actual independent tests, but considering AMD and Su have been honest about performance, and they literally fixed (if they are to be believed) the latency issue with caches, meaning IPC must increase.


----------



## Caring1 (Oct 11, 2020)

Something I noted is that Boost speed  and core count is inverse compared to the competitors approach of higher core count lower speeds.


----------



## mtcn77 (Oct 11, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> Something I noted is that Boost speed  and core count is inverse compared to the competitors approach of higher core count lower speeds.


They take a higher bin die and that extends the range to which the cpu can stretch its limits within the unit boundaries. Happened with bulldozer, too. 8370e was better than 9590 since it wasn't leaky and all it took for the user was to keep temperatures in check. Higher bins are higher resisting cpus. What is essentially a good iron press isn't necessarily a good soldering iron and visa versa.


----------



## CubanB (Oct 12, 2020)

Predictably, they've increased IPC and reduced latency enough to compete with Intel at their strongest point, gaming at 1080p (or older single core apps).  There might be some exceptions in terms of specific software, there always will be.  Generally, I do trust the benchmark graphs and expect the reviews on launch night to be impressive.  The price is a little high, but one can always wait.  That also helps with getting a better bin.  There won't be much OC headroom but a better bin means lower voltage, lower temps, less fan noise.

I would have preferred they treat the motherboards and BIOS the same way they did Zen 2.  There's no real reason why they couldn't have.  Like some others have hinted above, the whole thing in the last six months has been contrived.  16MB vs 32MB BIOS chips etc.  It's an artificial limitation.  There's plenty ways to make it work and a couple X370 boards that are just as good as X470 boards if not better.  I guess we should be thankful that they are allowing this at all, because Intel wouldn't be.  AMD is still way more on the "pro consumer" side of things, although this is slowly starting to shift now.  All CPU's are still unlocked and all motherboards are unlocked.  Anyways, a lot of it is in the board makers hands, and they all compete with each other (for the best reputations of support).  It's in their best interest, that if one board maker does a good job, they all have to.  So let's see what happens.  The motherboard side of things has been a bit of a mess in the last 18 months.. chipset fans, B550 released 12 months later (and in some cases being better than X570).  Apparently ASUS are releasing a new X570 board (a premium board) without a chipset fan, so there you go.  But the X570 chipset silicon itself is inefficient (idle wattage), and it won't be fixed until the switch to AM5 and DDR5.  As there will be no X670.

Anyways, the good thing is the IO die is the same.  The CPU mostly runs the same, it's only the core chiplets themselves that are new, so in terms of BIOS and overclocking and motherboards and the like.. it should be a pretty smooth transition into a 5000 series CPU.  There's further optimizations in terms of controlling or customizing how the cores behave from the BIOS.  More expensive prices.. but also the best CPU's that AMD have ever made.  Energy effeciency, multi core, single core.. everything.  It's possible that the RAM latency (measured in AIDA) will still be higher than Intel, but the way the cache is now structured.. it seems like it won't make much difference.  And the CPU's will have enough raw performance to compensate for this.  The single core score in Cinebench is super impressive.  The fact that these CPU's have this level of performance with 16 cores is super impressive.  The energy efficiency and power consumption, also very impressive.  The lower clock speeds (vs 5.2 Ghz) are actually an advantage in some ways.. in terms of equal or better performance with less wattage/heat/noise.  I was a little worried that the power consumption would go up (like it did from 1700X to 2700X) but apparently, it's fine.

The prices are a little high for my liking, especially internationally, when you add GST on top of it.. but this is AMD making a statement.  "We are premium now.. we are Intel, we are NVIDIA" etc.  Budget versions like 5700X or 5600 (non X) will be available later on.  And the future is bright as well, the 2nd or 3rd iteration of CPU on the new AM5 platform, once DDR5 has had a chance to be optimized and is a bit cheaper (with high performance speeds).. is going to be super fast.  If the software can catch up.. being coded to take advantage of super fast nvme, plus lots of cores.. and RAM that has VRAM speeds, it's almost like a new world of computing is starting to open up.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 13, 2020)

John Naylor said:


> This is like reading press releases from white house press office .....
> 
> 
> 1.  After weeks of complaining from AMD fans about launches that are not launchers because most vendors are out of stock, now suddenly a product announce,ents is a "release" with NDAs sill in effect and not a single product sold.
> ...


I believe ZEN3 event was a product announcement and not a launch. Nov5 is the launch.
If I misunderstood your statement and you were trying to say something else I’m sorry.

As for the “selected” games a lot of people saying that AMD deliberately picked games (some of them) that “traditionally” was not doing well as opposed to Intel. They even show a loosing-to-Intel one.

The value of these 4 CPUs can be a subjective matter. Don’t forget that these are only the high binned X SKUs. It could be the case that yields are so good now on the mature 7nm node that most of the chiplets are higher binned than previous gen, and so the don’t have enough low binned chips to launch the nonX along with the others. And they still have available ZEN2. Users should wait and not buy them if the don’t see value on them.

On the other hand some others may see value on them.
For instance the 6core/12threaded 300$ 5600X according to IPC claims, speed and performance/watt improvements, will probably be faster in ST/gaming from the higher ZEN2 and faster or equal in all-core loads from the 8core/16threaded 3700X. If that turns out to be the case, the 5600X has more value than the 3700X ever had. And it’s 30$ less MSRP from 3700X with gaming perf higher than a 700$ ZEN2. Is that something or what?


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Oct 13, 2020)

PowerPC said:


> What are you even talking about? It was never about the pricing. Intel was stifling innovation for years and giving us 5% performance increases with the same 4 cores year after year because they knew they could get away with it. How is this the same as what AMD is doing at the moment? We're seeing core counts literally explode with still good single core performance gains. The price was never the issue with Intel, so don't pull that straw man. It's about how they could never justify the price in any way. AMD is doing literally the opposite right now. I'll take my 12 cores instead of 4, thank you. With just Intel, we would still have 4.



The difference is that AMD had no choice. They were struggling to be competitive. AMD is to blame as much as Intel. If your goal is to be the best and you become the best do think you'd just keep getting better and better without any competition whatsoever? I think that's what Intel's thought process was . Their problem was that they got too comfortable and now they're in a bad spot. The story of the tortoise and the hair is a perfect example of what has happened here between Intel and AMD.


----------



## CubanB (Oct 13, 2020)

Intel got themselves into a situation where they continued to milk the cow of their previous success and dominance.. but the problem is.. it sort of set them up for a dead end.  They got stuck.

They continued on the 14nm process.. iteration after iteration, and they refined it REALLY well, but the problem is.. if they go down to a lower nm process 10nm or lower.. the clock speed of the new CPU will be less.  The performance in gaming at 1080p would be less.  You can't release a new CPU if it has LESS performance than the previous CPU.  Right?  They focussed on a priority that would continue to give them an advantage in the short term, but hold them back from moving forward.

If your main advantage is gaming at 1080p?  And your new CPU has LESS performance.  No one would want to buy it.  Especially if you charge high prices.  They had refined the 14nm process so much to the extent that it can clock over 5Ghz.  Any new process (10nm) would clock lower than that on it's first release.  It might take a year or two until you can refine the new node to produce higher clock speeds to compete with the refined node of the previous generation.  But clock speeds are their biggest advantage?  See the problem?

There needed to be better future planning and forethought.  Innovating, rather than complacency.  They left themselves vulnerable, and created a situation where they are better off staying where they are.. in the short term, but in the long term it's a dead end and creates future pain.  There needs to be some short term pain and some refining until they can recover.  They can recover eventually, but there needs to be a change to their approach.  A more thought out approach, thinking less about the past and more about the future.

The competititon has caught them out and exposed them, where as in GPU terms.. NVIDIA is staying ahead of the game and aren't being caught out in the same way.  AMD might catch up to NVIDIA, but they aren't letting them get ahead.. because they are continuing to push forwards.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 13, 2020)

CubanB said:


> Intel got themselves into a situation where they continued to milk the cow of their previous success and dominance.. but the problem is.. it sort of set them up for a dead end.  They got stuck.
> 
> They continued on the 14nm process.. iteration after iteration, and they refined it REALLY well, but the problem is.. if they go down to a lower nm process 10nm or lower.. the clock speed of the new CPU will be less.  The performance in gaming at 1080p would be less.  You can't release a new CPU if it has LESS performance than the previous CPU.  Right?  They focussed on a priority that would continue to give them an advantage in the short term, but hold them back from moving forward.
> 
> ...


I can agree with the general idea or the post, about Intel and nVidia.
One thing though. Yes shrinking nodes does prevent high clocks for starters. But, engineers can do wonders. If they come up with a really nice architecture with a nice uplift of IPC and performance/watt, loosing 200~400MHz of clock would be less significant. Sure, the more they delay the more difficult will be to catch up, and to be honest so far they're not too far behind in performance. In performance/watt its a very different story and thats the node to blame.
They want to think ahead but they cant when stuck on the same node for ages. Probably they were preparing architecture(s) for 10nm but the node gone all wrong and when they realize it, time has passed and they needed to reschedule for 14nm... again. They were preparing 10nm fabs and then they were forced to turn them back to 14nm. Its a mess.
Seems like they will not get out of this any time soon... before 2022-23, and AMD has build up momentum (see 5nm and ZEN4/5).

To be honest, that is not good for us as users. Not good at all!


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 14, 2020)

And so, reality slowly intrudes:









						AMD Ryzen 5000 CPUs Not Supported By ASUS's High-End Crosshair VII HERO (X470), Only Compatible With Crosshair VIII HERO (X570)
					

ASUS seems to be not supporting AMD's next-gen Ryzen 5000 CPUs on its high-end X470 motherboards and rather suggests a X570 or B550 upgrade.




					wccftech.com


----------



## londiste (Oct 14, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> And so, reality slowly intrudes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is probably either ASUS Support guy reading something wrong, wanting to get rid of annoying question or just making things up.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 14, 2020)

Th3pwn3r said:


> The difference is that AMD had no choice. They were struggling to be competitive. AMD is to blame as much as Intel. If your goal is to be the best and you become the best do think you'd just keep getting better and better without any competition whatsoever? I think that's what Intel's thought process was . Their problem was that they got too comfortable and now they're in a bad spot. The story of the tortoise and the hair is a perfect example of what has happened here between Intel and AMD.


Oh the story, what happened between Intel and AMD, reach far into the history my friend than just recent events. If you are a dominant company you want it to stay that way. If you don't innovate and you refurbish old tech you get loads of money. If you think that Intel bring something spectacular to the table then you are mistaken. After AMD hit it hard with the core and close enough performance, Intel started to do something but that doesn't mean you don't need to innovate.
I think you are wrong. The innovation is not about competition but the attitude and/or stand the company has. That is why a lot of people hate Intel for this. Instead of innovating they were selling same refurbished processors over and over just to get money.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 14, 2020)

ratirt said:


> Oh the story, what happened between Intel and AMD, reach far into the history my friend than just recent events. If you are a dominant company you want it to stay that way. If you don't innovate and you refurbish old tech you get loads of money. If you think that Intel bring something spectacular to the table then you are mistaken. After AMD hit it hard with the core and close enough performance, Intel started to do something but that doesn't mean you don't need to innovate.
> I think you are wrong. The innovation is not about competition but the attitude and/or stand the company has. That is why a lot of people hate Intel for this. Instead of innovating they were selling same refurbished processors over and over just to get money.


I agree with the general idea.
Intel kept refurbishing CPUs but that mindset has changed after ZEN era. What happened to Intel is that they failed to refine 10nm node. I don’t know what exactly happened... they were too late to pick up? ...they have internal management issues? or what else...

The bottom line is that they now stuck at 14nm node... The upcoming 11th gen with (at last) new architecture was meant to be on 10nm and they forced to import it back to 14nm. They even had prepared 10nm fabs and then also forced to convert them back to 14nm.

It’s a mess...


----------

