AMD unleashes Zen 3 and reckons it's faster for gaming than Core i9

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3dcandy

Lol they are a company, they exist to make profit, they have shareholders etc. to keep happy...

If the price doesn't suit you - don't buy them. Prices HAVE risen - you may not think so but inflation in the UK is quite high right now and is higher overall in the whole of the world. Having a global pandemic is a great reason for increased prices...

These are new products, prices will adjust and probably down. You are getting the best and latest and even possibly greatest. NV showed how not to do it perhaps higher prices might mean that stock is actually available for these products. You cannot expect big ipc gains of around 19% in the same power envelope and cheaper prices and stock.... something somewhere has got to give

---

I don't give two flying figs about shareholders. Only modern enthusiasts on tech forums are worried about "poor companies". If you use the same logic,then you should offer to drop your pay,as lower pay means higher margins.

I also suspect you don't think about margins if you try and negotiate a lower price on a house,etc. In the end nobody really cares about excuse making for companies.

Global pandemic also means millions are out of work too.

The prices only went up for you. This is why I did two builds for mates,with a £325 Ryzen 9 3900 non-X recently. The Ryzen 9 3900s are cheaper this year than last year. RAM is much cheaper - 32GB 3200MHZ kits for as low as £80,SSDs are cheaper. Plus if supply problems were that bad,it would not explain the Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 3900X prices being lower now,than 10 months ago.

The only reason prices are going up is because enthusiasts on forums excuse make all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liquidflower

only 19% more IPC

still no 5ghz base clock speed

no build in hardware acceleration for common gaming tasks like saving screenshots to png format or real time video encoding for recording while you game

I'm not impressed and will probably skip this generation of cpus

---

Hardware accelerated screenshots? They're showing off straight up 15% performance uplift in CB20 and your response is this?

'Only' 19% increase in IPC, christ.

re pricing: we'll see when it lands, if the intent is to keep the Zen2 parts in the market at ~current price, that's disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

I don't give two flying figs about shareholders. Only modern enthusiasts on tech forums are worried about "poor companies". If you use the same logic,then you should offer to drop your pay,as lower pay means higher margins.

I also suspect you don't think about margins if you try and negotiate a lower price on a house,etc. In the end nobody really cares about excuse making for companies.

Global pandemic also means millions are out of work too.

The prices only went up for you. This is why I did two builds for mates,with a £325 Ryzen 9 3900 non-X recently. The Ryzen 9 3900s are cheaper this year than last year. RAM is much cheaper - 32GB 3200MHZ kits for as low as £80,SSDs are cheaper.

The only reason prices are going up is because enthusiasts on forums excuse make all the time.

---

Woah - don't lose it. I'm generalising. You are having a right pop at this for no reason. Chill mate. A new processor launch isn't to your liking and you have a go at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Plus if supply problems were that bad,it would not explain the Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 3900X prices being lower now,than 10 months ago.

---

Those are starting to look like quite good deals. The 3600 on Amazon is up to a nice round £190.00, give it a week at this rate and it will be back to full RRP.

Edit: that almost makes the 3600XT look decent value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3dcandy

Woah - don't lose it. I'm generalising. You are having a right pop at this for no reason. Chill mate. A new processor launch isn't to your liking and you have a go at me.

---

I don't like the fact you are defending what they did. Rollo back in the day tried the same arguments and people mocked him on here. Then a few years later,Nvidia tried the same tactics and people defended it,and we saw where it all went.

They literally rebadged the Ryzen 5 3600 replacement as a Ryzen 5 5600X and increased the price by 50% and even bundled the same Wraith Spire cooler with it. The 65W TDP Ryzen 7 3700X was only $30 more and came with the RGB Wraith Prism.

The cheaper Ryzen 5 3600X came with the RGB Wraith Spire. They literally downgraded the cooler by a few tiers. If people keep defending this,then no one has right to call out what Intel did in the past at all. So many AMD fans mocked Intel for doing stuff like this. It was like with the whole PCI-E 4.0 artificial lockout on B450/X470,and AMD locking out B450/X470 from newer CPUs. Intel did similar things and they got called out,AMD did it and people defended them.

It seems people haven't learnt one bit about defending these tactics. It affects every gamer,whether they are at the top or bottom,and massively increased new prices,also increases secondhand pricing too. So everybody losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

Those are starting to look like quite good deals. The 3600 on Amazon is up to a nice round £190.00, give it a week at this rate and it will be back to full RRP.

Edit: that almost makes the 3600XT look decent value.

---

They are doing a Turing,so jack prices up to keep current generation prices higher. When Zen2 runs out,expect prices to stay at the higher point for months,until Intel responds.

Its why we need Intel to have competitive products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

... I don't give two flying figs about shareholders. ...

---

You might not, CAT, but US *law* does. AMD are legally required to make profit for their shareholders. If they claim a new processor is better than an old processor - particularly one they only launched a year ago - they need to price it higher. If they claim to be better than a competitor, they need to price higher than them.

For the 5600X specifically, the direct competitor from Intel - the 10600K - has a list price of $263. If they claim the 5600X is better than that processor, they need to price it higher.

And yes, it sucks for the consumer. But you can't start legal action because you think AMD priced a product too high, whereas shareholders probably could start legal action if they think AMD priced it too low. They've priced based on being better - and therefore worth more money - than Intel's equivalent processors. It's now up to the market to see how it plays out.

Frankly, I'm happy that AMD finally have a product they think is worth charging > Intel prices for. For all Ryzen 1 through 3 were good, they were still largely having to rely on 'value' as their main selling point - they gave you almost Intel performance for a lower price.

Let's not forget that AMD used to charge $999 for the privilege of buying their fastest dual core processor, just because it also happened to be the fastest consumer processor money could buy. AMD charging top dollar for their processors isn't new - they just haven't had a range of processors they could justify it on for about 15 years. Now they have. I ain't gonna complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

You might not, CAT, but US *law* does. AMD are legally required to make profit for their shareholders. If they claim a new processor is better than an old processor - particularly one they only launched a year ago - they need to price it higher. If they claim to be better than a competitor, they need to price higher than them.

For the 5600X specifically, the direct competitor from Intel - the 10600K - has a list price of $263. If they claim the 5600X is better than that processor, they need to price it higher.

And yes, it sucks for the consumer. But you can't start legal action because you think AMD priced a product too high, whereas shareholders probably could start legal action if they think AMD priced it too low. They've priced based on being better - and therefore worth more money - than Intel's equivalent processors. It's now up to the market to see how it plays out.

Frankly, I'm happy that AMD finally have a product they think is worth charging > Intel prices for. For all Ryzen 1 through 3 were good, they were still largely having to rely on 'value' as their main selling point - they gave you almost Intel performance for a lower price.

Let's not forget that AMD used to charge $999 for the privilege of buying their fastest dual core processor, just because it also happened to be the fastest consumer processor money could buy. AMD charging top dollar for their processors isn't new - they just haven't had a range of processors they could justify it on for about 15 years. Now they have. I ain't gonna complain.

---

That's funny because ATI and AMD had faster products than their competitors,and were cheaper. There is no law saying you need to jack up prices - that is an internet myth pushed by enthusiasts. Its about making sure they are profitable.

If that was the case Intel wouldn't have used contra revenue to drop pricing massively on OEM sales. It was worth billions of USD.

AMD and Intel have given away free CPUs to OEMs. Again no money made there - seriously do we really want to start listing situations where they have dropped margins to make more sales??

But again,I don't give two flying damns about it. Using absurd logic,that means companies should also cut your pay massively because they need to maximise profits. Also last time I checked,I am in the UK....we are not the US...yet.

The fact is some of you sound exactly like Rollo did....and Rollo was mocked on here and he was an astroturfer. Companies are not charities,they need to make money,etc.

It just shows over a decade of astroturfing has twisted what enthusiasts think.

Edit!!

It also shows a lack of understanding of how US retail works. Lots of computer parts have lots of rebate deals,unlike the UK to the extent they are much cheaper than retail. These are supported by companies,who drop margins if you use the rebate.

Corsair prices in the US were significantly lower than the UK for years due to huge rebates. These were funded by the companies themselves. So again zero indication,that prices need to go up by massive amounts each year.

Also its just typical. When Intel and Nvidia jacked up prices everyone was mocking them. Remember the Turing threads with all the memes?? The moment AMD does the same,people run in and excuse make.

The same went when AMD tried its various lockouts with the B450/X470 series - people were defending them on forums,yet berated Intel for doing similar. Its hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

That's funny because ATI and AMD had faster products than their competitors, and were cheaper.

---

https://techreport.com/review/8482/a...-57-processor/
FX 57 - single core processor - $1031. More than the Pentium XE 840. More than AMD's own X2 4800+.

But that was back in 2005, when they did have the fastest CPUs, and could demand the highest prices.

The processors down the stack were not stupidly expensive, but they've *always* charged top dollar when they thought they had the best processor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

... last time I checked,I am in the UK....we are not the US...yet.

---

But AMD are in the US. They're US based. They're US traded. They have to adhere to US law. And that - sadly - puts shareholders before consumers. No-one says you have to like that, but it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

https://techreport.com/review/8482/a...-57-processor/
FX 57 - single core processor - $1031. More than the Pentium XE 840. More than AMD's own X2 4800+.

But that was back in 2005, when they did have the fastest CPUs, and could demand the highest prices.

The processors down the stack were not stupidly expensive, but they've *always* charged top dollar when they thought they had the best processor.



But AMD are in the US. They're US based. They're US traded. They have to adhere to US law. And that - sadly - puts shareholders before consumers. No-one says you have to like that, but it is what it is.

---

Again not relevant to the end consumer,and yes I am aware of them trying the same tricks during the Athlon 64 era. Also following US law,Intel spent billions on contra-revenue. AMD and Intel have given away 10000s of free CPUs before. Nvidia subsidised Tegra,and even in many years,they were sold at a loss.

In many US retail channels,there are huge rebates available unlike in the UK. Companies such as Corsair were rebaiting PSUs,to such a level,some were half the UK price.

As you said:

They're US based. They're US traded. They have to adhere to US law. And that - sadly - puts shareholders before consumers. No-one says you have to like that, but it is what it is. That includes lowering prices,and giving OEMs free products.

Edit!!

In 2015,Intel's mobile group lost over $4 billion:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/287...worth-the-cost

In 2014 they lost over $3 billion in the first 9 months:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-...-of-subsidies/

Quote:

---

For the nine months ended Sept. 27, Intel's mobile chip unit lost $3.1 billion on revenue of $208 million.

---

That was mostly down to contra revenue. Totally acceptable under US law.

You can sell under cost,you can sell at lower margins. Nothing illegal under US law.

Second Edit!!

Also what happened after the Athlon 64?? Oh,yes the Core2. AMD got a bit beyond themselves,and should have pushed Intel down as much as possible. Instead they relaxed and gave Intel some breathing space. They put less investment into 65NM,and pushed back the Phenom as they though Intel wouldn't compete.

But I suppose rebadging the Ryzen 5 3600 successor as the Ryzen 5 5600XT,pushing up the price by 50% and using the same crap cooler,is all OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

You might not, CAT, but US *law* does. AMD are legally required to make profit for their shareholders.

---

They're required to act in shareholders' best interests, which isn't always the same thing as maximising profit in any given reporting period.

Quote:

---

As for the processors announced today, November 5th is the date to put in your diary. On this date, reviews will go live, details about the microarchitecture will be revealed, and processors will be available. We’re already pre-testing a LOT of hardware for our review. Let us know what comparisons matter most to you.

---

From Anandtech's coverage.

A bit pants reviews go live same day as sales as you'd think the reviews would get out early given their confidence.

Lets look at some of the AMD figures then.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej0nUt0V...jpg&name=small

The Ryzen 7 5800X is $449,which translate to a UK price of at least £420,and it could easily be closer to £450. It also needs a cooler too like the Intel CPUs.

The Core i7 10700K is available on Amazon right now for £344.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej0nWRlU...jpg&name=small

So the Ryzen 5 5600X is $300,so at least £280,but could be closer to £300. The Wraith Stealth is not that great.

The Core i5 10600K is under £250. It also is relatively underclocked too,ie,with overclocking can hit Core i7/Core i9 level performance.

Another thing,Zen CPUs don't gain much as much from overclocking either.

Its nice that they are faster,but the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 prices are not really even that great compared to the current Intel CPUs.

AMD is acting like Zen2 was much closer in gaming to Intel,etc than it actually is. The performance improvement have pushed them to level pegging with Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

... Using absurd logic,that means companies should also cut your pay massively because they need to maximise profits. ...

---

Missed this in my previous reply, but yes, that's exactly what a lot of US companies do. Employment law in the US is horrendous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

... Intel spent billions on contra-revenue. AMD and Intel have given away 10000s of free CPUs before. Nvidia subsidised Tegra,and even in some years,they were sold at a loss. ...

---

I'm pretty sure that was all done because they weren't selling at retail price. The same with the rebates etc. you mention. If products aren't selling, then it's better to make some money on them than no money. Or to create goodwill in the marketplace. Or to try to tie people into a longer deal with a bargain up-front ("the first taste's free"). But those are all tactics that you go to when things aren't selling through the normal channels. You don't create a new product just to give it away or deep discount it, or use it as a loss-leader. That's what you do with old or bulk products.

I love your passion CAT, I really do, but you've got a very fixed viewpoint on these things. You rarely look at the business decisions that people have to make.

AMD have been the [i]bargain[i] CPU-vendor of the last 15 years. They were what you bought because you couldn't afford Intel. And if they never increase their prices they'll never break that perception. Believe me, from a business point of view being the "cheap but good enough" option isn't what anyone wants; AMD want to be the go-to provider of x86 CPUs. They need to break the perception that you only buy AMD if you can't afford Intel. They need people to believe that AMD products are the best, full stop. They need people to think of AMD as being expensive but worth it. Sadly, they can't do that without being expensive.

I'm pretty sure you've followed AMD's ups and downs for as long as I have, but perhaps you've had more of a tech and consumer eye on them. I've been watching them - particularly since roughly the Phenom 2 days - with a business eye. And this is the first time in over a decade that I sense they're not having their business hand forced by their technology being inferior. It absolutely sucks for consumers - in the short term, at least. But for long term competitiveness, they're doing exactly the right thing.

I would like to say, that even with a extremely massive lotto win i dont think i would go right ahead and build the ultimate gaming computer.
At least i hope not, cuz then like many times before i would have to say idiot when i see myself in the mirror.

So i stick to something where i can look myself in the eye, same go for that lotto win and a new car / cars,,,,, mainly they will all be unlike what anyone else buy for a car with their lotto money.
My dream car / vehicle is 12 - 20 tonnes and can barely do 100 kmh.
I might also pick up something more normal for a sunny day, but this will then be veteran cars in original or slightly modified state, cuz none of today's stuff really do it for me.

I am on threadripper now, my last AMD CPU before that was the Opteron 165 i think it was called, ( codename Denmark ) hit that sucker up with a massive OC and it served me very well for a few years of rather high end online FPS gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Its why we need Intel to have competitive products.

---

I'm quite happy for Intel to not have competitive products right now, it keeps their pricing in check. I just swapped out my 9700K for a 9900KF for a lot less than the launch pricing (less than my 9700K cost 1 1/2 years ago). Sure it's "last gen", but honestly it's cheaper than buying a whole new platform when the performance gains are not as large as I'd want for that type of money.