AMD Outs Ryzen 5000XT Processors for Socket AM4, an 8-year Old Socket

[wolf]

Like I said

That's why

I'm still hearing zero reasons as to why AMD's slides aren't misleading and a net negative to their image.

It's, all their other videos do this, nobody cares, singling me out on one platform, HUB are xyz, seems like deflections, platitudes and anything but directly acknowledging the issue and leaving it at that.

 

[AusWolf]

People like it when youtubers roast intel and nvidia. Not my words, lots of content creators have said it themselves. When they roast amd - people have had to delete their reddit threads because they were getting down voted into oblivion, death threats, have been called names non stop in the comment section. To the point that they have to hide all the troubles they are getting with amd hardware. Again, not my words, lots of big content creators have said this.

That's why you see so much pro amd content. It sells.

Divisive content sells, no matter who you roast. That's why I think twice before I give an "AMD/Intel/Nvidia sucks" video any credit, regardless of who it's coming from.

I'm still hearing zero reasons as to why AMD's slides aren't misleading and a net negative to their image.

It's, all their other videos do this, nobody cares, singling me out on one platform, HUB are xyz, seems like deflections, platitudes and anything but directly acknowledging the issue and leaving it at that.

I've acknowledged the issue - what I don't acknowledge is the importance you attribute to it. It's nothing, blown up by a few Youtube sensationalists. The CPUs are the CPUs that they are. No slide can change that.

 

[wolf]

I've acknowledged the issue - what I don't acknowledge is the importance you attribute to it. It's nothing, blown up by a few Youtube sensationalists. The CPUs are the CPUs that they are. No slide can change that.

Well you barely have, and from my perspective, after a strained 'acknowledgement' you've sought to excuse or diminish it in some fahsion, rather than condemn the action as harmful to anyone that consumes it, leaving it at that, and not actively seek other ways to downplay it or attack anyone's genuine reaction to it.

I feel the way I feel about it, are you going to continue to tell me I shouldn't?

 

[fevgatos]

I'm still hearing zero reasons as to why AMD's slides aren't misleading and a net negative to their image.

It's, all their other videos do this, nobody cares, singling me out on one platform, HUB are xyz, seems like deflections, platitudes and anything but directly acknowledging the issue and leaving it at that.

I'm not saying AMD's slides aren't misleading. Of course they are.

I'm giving them a pass cause usually their CPU marketing is pretty spot on, it's the GPU department that usually drops the ball. HARD.

 

[wolf]

I'm not saying AMD's slides aren't misleading. Of course they are.

I'm giving them a pass cause usually their CPU marketing is pretty spot on, it's the GPU department that usually drops the ball. HARD.

Well that's something, but imo nobody deserves a pass, ever really. Prior (perceived) standing doesn't counteract wrongdoing.

Calling them out is what makes them do better, they improve, they learn it won't stand. Giving them a pass teaches the opposite.

 

[R0H1T]

It's more likely that anyone with an AM4 will have a 6600 class GPU when upgrading to another AM4 chip this late in it's lifecycle, in that sense the results are not misleading nor are they "not" inexcusable! Showing their chips in ultra positive light for edge cases ~ that's wrong IMO albeit maybe on technicality.

 

[wolf]

It's more likely that anyone with an AM4 will have a 6600 class GPU when upgrading to another AM4 chip this late in it's lifecycle, in that sense the results are not misleading nor are they "not" inexcusable! Showing their chips in ultra positive light for edge cases ~ that's wrong IMO albeit maybe on technicality.

Testing a CPU in a situation where it bears little to no factor on how the benchmark goes at all, isn't misleading?

In the same situation, an i3 12100 is the same 'performance' as a 7800X3D. Yet we know there's a colossal divide in CPU performance between the two.

Showing a CPU benchmark / promo material when the test isn't a CPU test at all, is misleading, and I can not be convinced otherwise.

 

[R0H1T]

When the target market is likely to have (low) level GPU, then no not 100% although it would've been better if they added other similar GPU's in the mix as well. But they did have an agenda & they kinda delivered on it. I know for a fact that I can't find new reviews on lower/mid range parts with old/previous gen CPU or GPU, I'm on AM4 & for me that's a relevant data point same goes for at least a million other AM4 users.

 

[wolf]

When the target market is likely to have (low) level GPU, then no not 100% although it would've been better if they added other similar GPU's in the mix as well. But they did have an agenda & they kinda delivered on it. I know for a fact that I can't find new reviews on lower/mid range parts with old/previous gen CPU or GPU, I'm on AM4 & for me that's a relevant data point same goes for at least a million other AM4 users.

All of this reads like excuses, excuses for a company publishing a CPU benchmark, a CPU benchmark that took the CPU out of the equation entirely.

How does that help anyone make an informed choice as to a potential upgrade? If they did so based on this, they thoroughly got mislead as to the gaming potential of that CPU.

 

[AusWolf]

Well you barely have, and from my perspective, after a strained 'acknowledgement' you've sought to excuse or diminish it in some fahsion, rather than condemn the action as harmful to anyone that consumes it, leaving it at that, and not actively seek other ways to downplay it or attack anyone's genuine reaction to it.

I feel the way I feel about it, are you going to continue to tell me I shouldn't?

I'm not diminishing an issue. I'm stating that nobody cares about the marketing slides except for a few Youtube sensationalists looking to make a quick buck, and their follower keyboard warriors.

If you think it's an issue, that's your choice. You feel about it however you want to, and so do I. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

Edit: Out of the quadrillions of people complaining (I only see you so far), show me one who has any intention of buying any of these CPUs and was misled by the marketing slides.

 

[R0H1T]

If & that's a big if, I doubt anyone buying "new" CPU's looks at the brand's marketing materials as be all & end all in their decisions nor should they! To that end if you are gullible enough to just rely on some billion dollar company's word then sure burn AMD at the proverbial stake.

If they did so based on this, they thoroughly got mislead as to the gaming potential of that CPU.

And "if" they had the same GPU with no plans of an immediate upgrade then?

 

[wolf]

If & that's a big if, I doubt anyone buying "new" CPU's looks at the brand's marketing materials as be all & end all in their decisions nor should they! To that end if you are gullible enough to just rely on some billion dollar company's word then sure burn AMD at the proverbial stake.

You can doubt it all you want, clearly it's happening, and actively trying to be diminished by you and users like you. To what end, I dunno.

And "if" they had the same GPU with no plans of an immediate upgrade then?

Were they still not mislead as to the outright gaming performance of this CPU?

Did they invesitage the small print, the one not included in these slides and this article at all? Unlikely, based on what you're saying, all the more reason to have informed users bring it to light.

The benchmarks misrepresent the true gaming performance of the CPUs, you're 'but what if' arguments don't alter that at all.

 

[R0H1T]

Like I said unless the results are wrong it's not 100% misleading, next you'll tell me what if the user had 4000MHz working on their system & they had to downgrade to "3600MHz" with this new chip? We can do a gazillions what ifs but it's till a valid data point, so long a the results are accurate.

The benchmarks misrepresent the true gaming performance of the CPUs, you're 'but what if' arguments don't alter that at all.

The gaming performance depends not just on your CPU or "GPU" surely someone as knowledgeable as you must know that? People in the real world dial down settings/IQ to run games at playable frame rates & the vast majority are still on 1080p, not everyone does 8k 240fps like on TPU

 

[fevgatos]

When the target market is likely to have (low) level GPU, then no not 100% although it would've been better if they added other similar GPU's in the mix as well. But they did have an agenda & they kinda delivered on it. I know for a fact that I can't find new reviews on lower/mid range parts with old/previous gen CPU or GPU, I'm on AM4 & for me that's a relevant data point same goes for at least a million other AM4 users.

When the target market has a 6600 then show me how much faster your 5900xt is over the 3700x that they might have. Probably not any faster at all, that's why they didn't do that.

I'm not diminishing an issue. I'm stating that nobody cares about the marketing slides except for a few Youtube sensationalists looking to make a quick buck, and their follower keyboard warriors.

If you think it's an issue, that's your choice. You feel about it however you want to, and so do I. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

Edit: Out of the quadrillions of people complaining (I only see you so far), show me one who has any intention of buying any of these CPUs and was misled by the marketing slides.

Now that doesn't make sense. If you are saying NOBODY will look at the graphs and buy accordingly, why do they even exist? Obviously someone is gonna buy based on those else amd wouldn't even make them

 

[AusWolf]

Now that doesn't make sense. If you are saying NOBODY will look at the graphs and buy accordingly, why do they even exist? Obviously someone is gonna buy based on those else amd wouldn't even make them

For tech sites and tech enthusiasts, who coincidentally, already know that the presented data is meaningless. That's why it's a non-issue.

Are you implying that Regular Joe walking into a Microcenter will look at AMD's marketing presentation before buying a CPU? I highly doubt it.

 

[fevgatos]

For tech sites and tech enthusiasts, who coincidentally, already know that the presented data is meaningless. That's why it's a non-issue.

Are you implying that Regular Joe walking into a Microcenter will look at AMD's marketing presentation before buying a CPU? I highly doubt it.

I'm saying someone will see amds marketing presentation, that's why they bother doing it right?

 

[AusWolf]

I'm saying someone will see amds marketing presentation, that's why they bother doing it right?

And who's going to consider buying these CPUs purely based on these slides? No one.

 

[kapone32]

It is interesting that some people have formed a firm opinion on these CPUs, even though we have not had any context provided. At the end of the day (as I have said before) this is just more choices for the consumer. If you don't want to get it, there are other choices on the market. I also love the comments about AMD GPUs being so weak that the latest 7900XTX review shows how good AMD cards are at price/performance.

 

[fevgatos]

It is interesting that some people have formed a firm opinion on these CPUs, even though we have not had any context provided. At the end of the day (as I have said before) this is just more choices for the consumer. If you don't want to get it, there are other choices on the market. I also love the comments about AMD GPUs being so weak that the latest 7900XTX review shows how good AMD cards are at price/performance.

Yeah, the GPU department is amd's strong point, you can tell by the market share going up and up, lol

 

[kapone32]

Yeah, the GPU department is amd's strong point, you can tell by the market share going up and up, lol

Yep and then you look at pricing and laugh. Used 3080s are now $300

 

[freeagent]

I don't even care about the slides. I just want a cheap 16 core that I can overclock to roughly the same levels that I am used to with my 12 core.

 

[kapone32]

I don't even care about the slides. I just want a cheap 16 core that I can overclock to roughly the same levels that I am used to with my 12 core.

Maybe it is refined and can do 5 Ghz on all cores too. We will see.

 

[freeagent]

Maybe it is refined and can do 5 Ghz on all cores too. We will see.

This is my first run 5900X, 4 years old beaten and battered.. she loves it still.

 

[wolf]

Edit: Out of the quadrillions of people complaining (I only see you so far), show me one who has any intention of buying any of these CPUs and was misled by the marketing slides

I have 3 AM4 boards with varying CPUs on them, one is a ryzen 1700 and could benefit from an upgrade, these slides appeared to suggest these new products are a match for 13th gen which occurred to me as an interesting proposition until I looked into it further and found it absolutely wasn't the case. So personally, AMD tried to mislead me, and for those less savvy, it's well worth making a point that the slides are misleading.

Of course you'll only see me complaining if you ignore all the others, and use just this thread as your single source of evidence, that's not really news. Maybe try other forums and social media? I already mentioned a regular person is who asked and put it on HUB'S radar to even make content about. I doubt you will because you're happy to stick to the narrative you've chosen where you think I'm the only one calling AMD out for this shitty business practise, without trying to find other ways to excuse, diminish or minimise it.

 

[Melvis]

Lol, that gaming benchmark is pretty nitpicked and misleading just like 3900x being as fast as 9900k back then according to their slides. 13700k is demolishing a 5950X in the majority of games, it is a generational difference. Pathetic. 13700k is even 10% faster than 5800x3D. AMD pulled an Nvidia and Intel marketing.