AMD delays CPU next gen, why, why not, it will be out soon so it's not verry...

Intel plans planning right now are about money, bc 13th 14th failure will/does cost an arm (or a leg)

x3d is intended for gaming (that's THE console CPU for PC, now way/need to tell more about it), somebody that do serious work on his PC will not not want that chip, or only if he doesn't care, but not enterprises for sure

I think the delay for AMD is like killing two birds with one stone.
Public will see they care for quality checks and don't pull Intel on them and prepare the stock availability in a manner to satisfy more customers on the day of release.
PR is important and this maneuver will serve both.

They are selling CPU a lot since two days, so yes they need stock

ratirtNobody says these are faulty. It was said, how I understand, the CPUs have not gone through the entire check up process or a QC test and AMD wants them back so they go through the entire process. Nobody said these are faulty. They are not but it is better to be safe than sorry. And if it happens that some of these are faulty, AMD will pull a paper saying they have been checked and they have passed the QC check.

I guess I misunderstood the article on first read. You're right.

ratirtAdding more ecores not regular cores. These are not the same. No one said it is bad to add cores but put a stamp on the CPU just by adding 4 mediocre ecores to the mix is not revolutionary.

I think mixing two different architectures on desktop is revolutionary, even if it isn't what I'm looking for in a CPU. Fortunately, I still have AMD (and potentially Intel with Bartlett Lake) to give me what I want - traditional oldschool homogenous gaming performance with no thread scheduling bullshit.

oxrufiioxosome did say 2023 on the ihs though

The year on the IHS is not the manufacturing date of the CPU itself. Never has been.

jesdalsDoes this mean delay of reviews to?

Of course it will.

sLowEndThe X3D parts tend to be quite a bit more expensive than their vanilla counterparts, and not everything revolves around gaming. Users who are okay with the level of performance the 9700X offers can save money by going for it instead of a future X3D chip.

Must be a very specific workload that benefits from 8, instead of 6 cores but does not benefit from X3D cache. I my opinion the x900 parts where always the most pointless. Moving to dual-CCD has downsides for gaming and games dont really use much past 8 cores anyway. Meanwhile the price is such that if multi-core performance is important then moving straight to x950 makes more sense. Also x900 comprises of two CCD's that are essentially two x600 parts and thus have lower performance.

kondamincan't wait for the failed ones to somehow reach the market somehow

There were pictures of some sold 9700X boxes but if they were real and not fake, then i have not seen any proper testing on them. Only one ES sample has been put trough what i can call proper testing.

SteevoWho wants to guess TIM between the IHS and die, or is it some bad soldering/wiring on the fiberglass substrate.
Maybe IHSs that are warped?

There is not TIM between the IHS and die. I dont think any of the Zen series non-APU models have used TIM. They are soldered designs. Only the desktop APU models were/are? using TIM. IHS warping is a nonissue on AM5 as the IHS is fairly thick and does not warp like Intel LGA1700 does.

oxrufiioxoIt's been almost 2 years since a cpu generation released from them and they still can't launch somthing without issues it's concerning at a minimum.

Every company has some issue at launch.

oxrufiioxoRecall all the golden samples we sent reviewers lol

There has been no documented case of any of the big RGB sending golden samples to reviewers for many generations now. And with silicon already pushed to the edge from the factory there is really no headroom to really produce a golden sample anyway. Not like back in the day where a user could get extra 1Ghz OC on air with ease. It would be only a percent faster at best but it would be quickly discovered and the PR backlash is not worth it. Besides golden sample or binned can be categorized as different things: lower than average voltages to achieve advertised frequency, higher clocks at average voltage, lower than average temperatures, better IMC that tolerates higher memory frequency etc. It's not a single metric and often a CPU that is better than average on one of these metrics may be below the average in another. That is also why XOC uses different chips for memory and frequency records.

oxrufiioxoThey want to launch something around the time of Arrow Lake most likely. I wouldn't be surprised if it drops like a week or two before.

Arrow Lake is reportedly coming in October-November. Zen 5 will not wait that long. More likely AMD will introduce Zen 5 X3D by the time of Arrow Lake's launch or shortly after.

fevgatos9600x vs 13600k and 9700x vs 13700k, yeah, doesn't look good for amd. With or without the intel fixes.

Based on what exactly?
There are no reviews and no official prices but you already declare that Zen 5 "doesn't look good for amd" against 13th gen (?) for some reason?

AusWolfHow do you do QA on units that have already shipped out? Weird.

Current units should be mostly at the hands of OEM's and system integrators. Not public or reviewers.

fevgatosMaybe they don't, they just had to delay for other reasons and used this reasoning to show they are better than Intel. It's a nice marketing win without having to directly attack Intel, it's genius. Maybe the GPU department at amd should be taking notes.

It's a marketing win for sure. Not every day we can say that about a product delay.

fevgatosBut how would they know AFTER shipping?

OEM's do have internet in their labs i presume...

fevgatosWell what competition are the 9600x and 9700x going to be beating? They are still 6 and 8 core parts. They are going to be slower than the 13600k and the 13700k,and not by a small margin

I ask again - based on what data? That these are "only" 6 and 8 core parts? They do have SMT that has always been more performant than Intel's HT.

fevgatosuntil amd decides to move to 12core single ccds with 3d on top, or intel increases their pcore count.

What is the workload that benefits from 12 cores (or held back with 8 core) on single CCD with X3D on top?
All i can think of are latency sensitive workloads that need to have all their cores on a single die but usually these dont require 12 or more cores at once.

Sure i too would like a CCD that houses more than 8 cores but ultimately introducing more cores is pointless if those cores are bottlenecked by other thinks like memory speeds or lack of cache. If i could design Ryzen myself i would eliminate the weak iGPU (like it was pre-Zen 4). Put both the IO die and X3D (double with 128-256MB) on top of the 8 core CCD and IHS that has better heat transfer (breaking backward compatibility in terms of height) and none of those cutouts for capacitors on the sides. This wil never happen but it's fun to dream. Adding more cores is pretty low on my list.

TomorrowI ask again - based on what data? That these are "only" 6 and 8 core parts? They do have SMT that has always been more performant than Intel's HT.

So you predict the 9600x will be faster than the 13600k and the 9700x faster than the 13700k? Okay, let's wait and see, only 2 weeks left.

the delay is only around 2weeks instead a month or two
and imo 2 weeks is short, if we consider the shipping time it need from factory->distributors/supplier->retailer (including custom clearance etc.)

if they want, they can keep silent, and just do small quantity "emergency" replacement shipment
so those can be ready at launch date albeit very limited amount
nowdays when even smartphone like iphone do preorders to catch up with demand on launch, so its not uncommon for new product have limited availability

so either the batch really have some QC issue or not, i am guessing probably amd annoucing this for more benefit

AusWolfI think mixing two different architectures on desktop is revolutionary, even if it isn't what I'm looking for in a CPU. Fortunately, I still have AMD (and potentially Intel with Bartlett Lake) to give me what I want - traditional oldschool homogenous gaming performance with no thread scheduling bullshit.

I think the hyper threading was revolutionary in terms of added performance, when it hit the market. it did boost performance exponentially. Could call that revolutionary. Now it is bullshit but ecore vs pcore scheduling is revolutionary?
Mixing 2 cores (not architectures) is revolutionary? Is it though? These ecores are literally cut down older cores Intel used previously in a product. I'm sorry, but that is not revolutionary to me. What would have been revolutionary if you put x86 arch cores and Arm arch cores together. That could've been revolutionary.

fevgatosBut how would they know AFTER shipping?

Because people like us game programmers have been reporting back issues with some of the the high core count CPUS not functioning correctly. Like I said the 6-8 cores are functioning correctly but are being recalled to be sure.

fevgatosBecause besides the 9950x which is obviously going to the be the fastest full stop the bulk of the sales which are the midrange are kinda lacking. 9600x vs 13600k and 9700x vs 13700k, yeah, doesn't look good for amd. With or without the intel fixes.

Why shouldn't the 9600X/9700X be the top sellers? Even among enthusiasts there are very few who need more than 8 cores.
If anything, "value buyers" will pick up the old models at discount for a while.

DarkholmLooks like AMD cannot have smooth Zen CPU line-up launch, except Zen+ :D
Zen1 - MBO OEM BIOS issues + RAM incompatibility
<snip>

You're forgetting the most significant; timing issues with uop cache for Zen1.

I'm not wishing any of them any harm, I hope every launch is as smooth as possible, pushing performance gains as far as they can. That is ultimately the best for the end users, even if it means one or the other has a lead from time to time. The current environment with fanboys battling it out in the forums with a good mix of facts and FUD isn't beneficial for anyone.

efikkanYou're forgetting the most significant; timing issues with uop cache for Zen1.

I'm not wishing any of them any harm, I hope every launch is as smooth as possible, pushing performance gains as far as they can. That is ultimately the best for the end users, even if it means one or the other has a lead from time to time. The current environment with fanboys battling it out in the forums with a good mix of facts and FUD isn't beneficial for anyone.

Yes, I forgot it, it was 7 1/2 years ago :D tnx.
With the rest of your post I agree.

fevgatosSo you predict the 9600x will be faster than the 13600k and the 9700x faster than the 13700k? Okay, let's wait and see, only 2 weeks left.

Of course i predict that a product released nearly two years later will be faster. And unlike those mentioned products hopefully not degrade itself with high voltages, oxidation and whatnot.

14700K is about 20% faster than 7700X according to TPU's review.
13700K is about 15% faster.
In gaming 14700K is 9% faster than 7700X.

The performance uplift from 5700X to 7700X was 23% in applications and about 18% in games.

If 9700X even matches the same 23% and 18% then it will be 3% faster than 14700K in applications (8% compared to 13700K) and 9% faster in games.
But all this is speculation from both of us.

Delayed to the same date Intel is supposed to release a microcode update to stop their processors from crashing, by decreasing voltage, clocks and consequently performance. Never mind 13th gen suffering from oxidation.

Speaking of rubbing salt into the wound, right?!

TomorrowOf course i predict that a product released nearly two years later will be faster. And unlike those mentioned products hopefully not degrade itself with high voltages, oxidation and whatnot.

14700K is about 20% faster than 7700X according to TPU's review.
13700K is about 15% faster.
In gaming 14700K is 9% faster than 7700X.

The performance uplift from 5700X to 7700X was 23% in applications and about 18% in games.

If 9700X even matches the same 23% and 18% then it will be 3% faster than 14700K in applications (8% compared to 13700K) and 9% faster in games.
But all this is speculation from both of us.

Was talking about Mt performance but sure let's wait for the reviews.

fevgatosWas talking about Mt performance but sure let's wait for the reviews.

TPU Application benchmarks = MT performance.
Nitpicking i would say everything these days is MT performance unless there's a benchmark that runs on a single core.
Tho it is more widely understood that MT performance these days refers to applications that use 24 or more threads.

TomorrowTPU Application benchmarks = MT performance.

No, not really. They include the ST tests as well.

If the delay could last for years and Intel's too, well it'd make dev work better and make things that work as well on current gen that on three next gen (1 by year, tf)

i don´t know if this was posted before but from computerbaase:

We appreciate the excitement around Ryzen 9000 series processors. During final checks, we found the initial production units that were shipped to our channel partners did not meet our full quality expectations.  Out of an abundance of caution and to maintain the highest quality experiences for every Ryzen user, we are working with our channel partners to replace the initial production units with fresh units.


As a result, there will be a short delay in retail availability. The Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X processors will now go on sale on August 8th and the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X processors will go on sale on August 15th. We pride ourselves in providing a high-quality experience for every Ryzen user, and we look forward to our fans having a great experience with the new Ryzen 9000 series.

fevgatosNo, not really. They include the ST tests as well.

I agree with you. It's very unlikely that the 9600X will beat the 13600K or the 9700X will beat the 13700K in multithreaded applications. The gap is too great to be overcome by a 16% increase in IPC without an increase in clock speeds.

unlikely but but but it´s without E-cores

sorry had to

AnotherReaderI agree with you. It's very unlikely that the 9600X will beat the 13600K or the 9700X will beat the 13700K in multithreaded applications. The gap is too great to be overcome by a 16% increase in IPC without an increase in clock speeds.

That's why it seems weird to me that they launching those 2 first. Usually you start with the big guns like nvidia does with the 4090.

phanbueythey're waiting for intel patches to not YOLO 2 cores at 6.2Ghz and 1.6v so that they can get that single core win.

You're not finding quality issues 7 days before launch, on the same day that your competitor announces a patch in 'mid august' - that you can magically address in 15 additional days.

At this point all the pallets are shrinkwrapped and ready to go. They had to sail those dies from Taiwan, nothing is happening in 15 days - you couldn't fix a typo on the box in that time.

There is even palettes in retailers ready for orders. I dont like to speculate, but the time frame just seems so short and really coincidental with the schedule for Intel's new microcode.

R0H1TStill think it's all smoke & mirrors!

The world is full of conspiracy theories... you don't need to add more to it.

jesdalsDoes this mean delay of reviews to?

A day before launch.

phanbueythey're waiting for intel patches to not YOLO 2 cores at 6.2Ghz and 1.6v so that they can get that single core win.

You're not finding quality issues 7 days before launch, on the same day that your competitor announces a patch in 'mid august' - that you can magically address in 15 additional days.

At this point all the pallets are shrinkwrapped and ready to go. They had to sail those dies from Taiwan, nothing is happening in 15 days - you couldn't fix a typo on the box in that time.

I believe this is a big part of it.

Apparently everything is being recalled, including OEM CPUs sent to system integrators that may already be sat in motherboards in prebuilt systems already. Presumably 15 days is how long it'll take for AMD to send a new batch of more-carefully-tested CPUs by boat out to "the channel" and any extra delays are going to impact the retailers and system integrators - so it'll be more of a paper-launch than usual as the launched products might still be in transit, or at least won't be ready for sale in a prebuilt until the system integrator's had a chance to install the replacement CPUs and re-run their pre-ship tests again.

It's awfully convenient for AMD that this is after Microsoft's microcode that's backing off the ridiculous factory overclocks on the 14th Gen. It's highly likely that AMD were on the fence about delaying and this mis-step by Intel was an opportunity AMD couldn't resist as a win-win scenario that may well hand them a bigger benchmark victory and make AMD look like the more careful, trustworthy, reputable CPU vendor.