PalladiumI'm sure keeping those AM5 mobos very hilariously overpriced will solve that in Q4!

HofnaerrchenMaybe the tech companies should focus even more on highly energy efficient products instead of increasing performance by all means. I am quite dissappointed by the Zen 4 generation so far but - as I am not using my PC for professional applications - this is not a big deal for me: I will defenitely skip this generation and maybe even the next.

Especially in the entertainment sector (average user assumed) it would make more sense to reduce power consumption and increasing performance by just a small margin - a new generation with improved feature set that can handle RT better or has specialized cores that will benefit upscaling technologies/AI (Skynet?!?^^) but does not increase overall power consumption would be enough in my opinion - sure higher fps are a selling point, but just because customers were told over and over again (almost like training an AI). It just needs a turn in the right direction to change that perception. In my experience rasterization performance is already good enough for almost all games on high/very high settings. Higher settings improve image quality only by a small margin but cost alot of performance.

I will not go into further detail but I think the current crisis might also be a major factor that has an impact on sales of "luxury" products like CPUs/GPUs nobody really needs for above mentioned reasons. And raising prices will not improve the situation either.

thegnomeNo wonder with the shortage basically gone, and the new stuff being overpriced. AM5 sales numbers are very low from what I have seen...

RedelZaVednoTBH, you can run Zen4 in eco mode (aka 65W power limit) and get only 3-10% performance hit in games. Zen4 is very efficient, it's the pricing of the whole AM5 platform that sucks big time.

ValantarAnd, of course, every architecture is optimized for efficiency already, as that's how you get higher performance at any given power level. That current architectures are also ballooning in power just demonstrates that both AMD and Intel are currently struggling to increase efficiency sufficiently to stay competitive on that basis alone. Which just shows how there's a fundamental contradiction between a competitive market situation and efficiency, as performance (or, more precisely, an oversimplified game of benchmark one-upmanship) will always be a more compelling selling point unless efficiency can be framed practically (like with battery life in laptops).

HofnaerrchenMaybe the tech companies should focus even more on highly energy efficient products instead of increasing performance by all means. I am quite dissappointed by the Zen 4 generation so far but - as I am not using my PC for professional applications - this is not a big deal for me: I will defenitely skip this generation and maybe even the next.

Especially in the entertainment sector (average user assumed) it would make more sense to reduce power consumption and increasing performance by just a small margin - a new generation with improved feature set that can handle RT better or has specialized cores that will benefit upscaling technologies/AI (Skynet?!?^^) but does not increase overall power consumption would be enough in my opinion - sure higher fps are a selling point, but just because customers were told over and over again (almost like training an AI). It just needs a turn in the right direction to change that perception. In my experience rasterization performance is already good enough for almost all games on high/very high settings. Higher settings improve image quality only by a small margin but cost alot of performance.

I will not go into further detail but I think the current crisis might also be a major factor that has an impact on sales of "luxury" products like CPUs/GPUs nobody really needs for above mentioned reasons. And raising prices will not improve the situation either.

GunShotThose "potential" numbers will be missed... by a lot, so, you're are incredible wrong here. And the bleeding is just getting started for AMD! Oh, BTW, all metrics matters when a company is being evaluated. :laugh:

RedelZaVednoas millions of 2nd hand Amperes flood the market.

R0H1TWhen you're buying a phone do you also look at Samsung/Apple/BBK/Xiaomi's market cap :wtf:

UpgrayeddDown almost 12% at the moment. I still think it's too high. Idk wtf the market was smoking when they sent it to $140 a share.

RandallFlaggThat's something a lot of people don't get. Speaking as an engineer, while efficiency and performance are not the same, they are very closely related and excluding other constraints (like materials ability to handle heat or force) efficiency defines maximum performance. That over-arching thing hasn't changed for eons.

A cave man might be able to make a wheel with a wooden bearing that is not lubricated and turn it at 60 RPM with enough power and the right tree. But add some animal fat to that wheel bearing and it can be turned at that speed with less effort, and last far longer, making it more efficient. It can also be turned much faster, giving it far more performance, for perhaps the same effort. i.e. Performance is more about how you use your efficiency.

GunShotSu was asked ~1Q22, doing the worst scalping/mining frenzy in our history - "how is AMD" - her response: "*outstanding* year for AMD with record annual revenue and profitability." Yeah, she had stated that doing a time for many consumers were being gouged by scalpers, hunted by miners, and/or suffering from COVID lockdowns. But, Su thought it was still all "outstanding" even when she knew that many consumers were struggling and hurting.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.hothardware.com/news/amd-best-year-ever-strong-gains-rdna-2-zen-3-sales

Well, there is a happy ending after all, and Su is now concerned.

Reap what you sow!

ValantarYeah, it's obvious really. If you have 90W of energy to spend, how do you get more performance? By spending those 90W more efficiently. It's literally the what the word means, after all. Of course any specific iteration of a design can be tuned towards being more or less efficient by changing other variables, but that's another question entirely - and where people get sidetracked, as first Intel went to 125W240W TDPs for K-SKU CPUs, and now AMD is following right in their footsteps with 170W230W high X-SKU CPUs - which are still architecturally more efficient than previous generations (for both brands), but are tuned to have higher absolute power consumptions, making their absolute efficiency (perf/W) into a more complicated comparison.

Still, IMO, we need CPU makers to step down to more sensible power levels at stock. 95-125W is fine for the high end, with an easily selectable cTDP-up mode for those wanting more. The performance differences are so small it really doesn't matter, and the power savings are meaningful at scale, while anyone really wanting those extra 5% of performance could get them easily still.

R0H1TLG didn't exit the phone business because of market cap, they weren't making any money there whilst many of their other businesses were doing just fine. But I'm (almost) sure you already knew that?

Your point may have been somewhat valid if they went belly up & didn't honor say warranty on them, but they're still delivering software updates what after 2 years? I know because I have a G8x thinQ & it's doing just fine!

www.gsmarena.com/lg_g8x_thinq-review-2017.php

bonehead123make some, lose some...

surge & purge....

What goes around comes around (and usually bites you in the arse on the return trip !)....

Forget but never forgive......

this is how the market works, Capitalism 101 at it's finest :D

HOWEVER, all the companies that became soooo accustomed overpricing everything during the pandemic at outrageous scapler's prices are now feeling the pain of those decisions....

Pain, when used properly, a wonderful motivator, it is !

cvaldesTomorrow won't be a pretty day for their stock but I expect a partial rebound next week.

RandallFlaggYou and I value different things, but efficiency is still the route to get there. I don't really care about power consumption within reason (600W 4090s are outside of reason IMO).

But all of these systems are tunable within their own power/performance curves to what a knowledgeable end user desires, and their performance limits are pretty close albeit with different strengths/weaknesses is my bet. If you want low power consumption, you can tune to that. If you want absolute performance, you can tune to that too.

ValantarThat's true - but all the more of an argument for the standard configuration to strike more of a balance, especially as performance-hungry enthusiasts are far more likely to know how to tune things than anyone else. And across hundreds of thousands if not millions of CPUs sold to everyone else every year, the difference in overall energy usage would be meaningful, while the performance difference wouldn't be noticeable for most of these users.