AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 9 5900X

[Iota]

People need to be wary of saying AMD is the "good guy" because AMD can literally become like Intel and Nvidia,if they know they could get away with the same stuff. Intel and Nvidia did what they did because the community just accepted it.

The AMD now is not the same AMD even 10 years ago. So don't think when you strip away all the marketing and PR,they don't have the same end goals as other companies once they are at the top. AMD itself is far more corporate focussed unlike in the past,and this is EXACTLY why Nvidia and Intel acted the way they did.

I don't think it was ever really accepted by the community in terms of the whole Intel segmentation and pricing thing, you only have to look at how AMD capitalised on their product segmentation when they released the Zen architecture (both Ryzen as well as Threadripper / Epyc). They offered far more than Intel did in terms of unlocked CPUs, more PCIe lanes, more cores for the same money etc. Successful iterations of those designs and solid execution have put them to where they currently stand. Initially the pricing was set competitively due to the lack in IPC, which for gamers counted, it also meant that content creators had more options for a more reasonable platform choice, which helps build an ecosystem moving forward. Everything AMD have been doing has been very forward looking at longer term goals, with excellent execution.

We saw something similar with Intel and the "tick / tock", up until they stumbled with Fab processes (oddly where AMD have exited, so it's no longer a potential stumbling block moving forward).

Both AMD and Intel are very similar, I'd expect to see product segmentation from AMD moving forward, we already have some with the non-X, X, Pro, Threadripper. However the difference is most people root for the "underdog" so there is still solid competition. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel and AMD doing a role reversal, perhaps with Intel moving away from their own Fab business longer term (we've already seen them offload certain parts of the business).

Something similar for AMD and Nvidia is also likely to happen moving forward, AMD have the advantage in terms of console hardware, which is a massive market that publishers and developers will want to be a part of. Game engines will likely be updated and skewed more towards that type of architecture, so how than pans out for Nvidia and all of their proprietary software stacks remains to be seen. Considering AMD haven't really focused too much on the GPU side of things yet, I get the sense that when they do, they'll execute in a similar manner to the CPU side of things.

There are no "nice guys" between Intel / Nvidia / AMD, there will always be underdogs though.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I don't think it was ever really accepted by the community in terms of the whole Intel segmentation and pricing thing, you only have to look at how AMD capitalised on their product segmentation when they released the Zen architecture (both Ryzen as well as Threadripper / Epyc). They offered far more than Intel did in terms of unlocked CPUs, more PCIe lanes, more cores for the same money etc. Successful iterations of those designs and solid execution have put them to where they currently stand. Initially the pricing was set competitively due to the lack in IPC, which for gamers counted, it also meant that content creators had more options for a more reasonable platform choice, which helps build an ecosystem moving forward. Everything AMD have been doing has been very forward looking at longer term goals, with excellent execution.

We saw something similar with Intel and the "tick / tock", up until they stumbled with Fab processes (oddly where AMD have exited, so it's no longer a potential stumbling block moving forward).

Both AMD and Intel are very similar, I'd expect to see product segmentation from AMD moving forward, we already have some with the non-X, X, Pro, Threadripper. However the difference is most people root for the "underdog" so there is still solid competition. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel and AMD doing a role reversal, perhaps with Intel moving away from their own Fab business longer term (we've already seen them offload certain parts of the business).

Something similar for AMD and Nvidia is also likely to happen moving forward, AMD have the advantage in terms of console hardware, which is a massive market that publishers and developers will want to be a part of. Game engines will likely be updated and skewed more towards that type of architecture, so how than pans out for Nvidia and all of their proprietary software stacks remains to be seen. Considering AMD haven't really focused too much on the GPU side of things yet, I get the sense that when they do, they'll execute in a similar manner to the CPU side of things.

There are no "nice guys" between Intel / Nvidia / AMD, there will always be underdogs though.

You say the community didn't accept it,but I remember when Intel locked out overclocking to the K series nearly 10 years ago,and blocked overclocking on B/H series motherboards,quite a number didn't care even on forums. The same goes with the whole Nvidia pushing prices,up a number defended it on forums. Only now after years of seeing the effects did people realise what they had lost. The same with microtransactions - people seem to miss gradual changes and wonder WTF happens after a few years. You saw what happened with the Athlon 64 - before AMD was the underdog good guy,etc until they weren't.

So I can see Intel now having to offer cheaper products,and a role reversal of sorts. But you see that is the problem,I have seen plenty of people saying Intel is not even worth it when cheaper. It reminds me of the Bulldozer era,when any AMD CPU product was not worth it,but Intel isn't as badly placed as that(still). I am not sure what these people want - just to discount every non-AMD CPU?? We saw what happened with that mindset with Intel and Nvidia,they just saw the market as captive and raised prices even more.

Plus plenty of people when it comes to AMD,really did put a foot on Nvidia and Intel and their practices. Even AMD PR has actively done the same - Gamernexus made a piece about it a few months ago on how they capitalise on the underdog good guy meme,as a way to market against their competitors.

They did as they were behind,so wait another generation of being ahead and see where it goes. It happened with the Athlon 64 until Intel of all people realigned the market with the Core2.

What people have to realise what is best for the consumer,in a duality is too-ing and froy-ing in performance leads.

The issue,is now we see double standards. People have fully acknowledged Intel and Nvidia do these kinds of things. The moment AMD does it instead of calling it out,people are wheeling out the same excuses,that people defended Intel and Nvidia with. In fact some of the arguments I have see were literally similar to what Rollo was saying 10 years ago on here. If you forget what Rollo was part off:
https://forums.hexus.net/general-dis...real-name.html

So realistically its not what these companies are doing,just WHO is doing it. Same with Apple,with some people criticising their tactics with high pricing,etc until Samsung,etc did it and they were OK with it.

The fact is they all have the same end goals,and people really shouldn't give leeway to any of them IMHO,but they do. Chancers the lot of them. Shrugs.

[Iota]

I have seen plenty of people saying Intel is not even worth it when cheaper.

Intel is though, especially if you dig down into the benchmarks and pricing. Those CPUs don't suddenly become slower, just because something comes along and is faster by small margins. Certainly it depends on usage scenarios, but in terms of gaming performance, AMD hasn't suddenly pulled out a massive lead in every single title, especially once you become GPU bound at higher resolutions.

There is a point to be made here as well, if someone is forking out £500+ for a CPU, why on earth would they still be gaming at 1080p? 240hz? Competitive gaming? How many people are really in that category, where they play in sponsored teams for prize money? Certainly the Steam Hardware Survey supports that most gamers have a primary monitor running at 1080p, but it doesn't specify at what speed those monitors work at, I'd wager a large amount are 60hz still. It really doesn't seem like a balanced way to build a system if you're not going to making full use of it.

I definitely agree on the whole double standards part, Intel and Nvidia do these things already in terms of product segregation and pricing inflation (read: increasing margins for more profit), yet AMD seem to be getting a free pass somewhat, especially in the tech press. Hexus included, cons should definitely have included the pricing, so why didn't they? Or do these CPUs really represent value for money? The answer is muddied by the Cinebench bang for buck, not so high this time around compared to prior generations. Heck even a i9 9900K comes out better in that regards than the Ryzen 9 5950X, that's definitely saying something.

What I'd really like to see is some form of weighted Gaming bang for buck, taking in an aggregate of gaming performance at different resolutions - that would be highly relevant for gamers, Cinebench? Not so much.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel is though, especially if you dig down into the benchmarks and pricing. Those CPUs don't suddenly become slower, just because something comes along and is faster by small margins. Certainly it depends on usage scenarios, but in terms of gaming performance, AMD hasn't suddenly pulled out a massive lead in every single title, especially once you become GPU bound at higher resolutions.

There is a point to be made here as well, if someone is forking out £500+ for a CPU, why on earth would they still be gaming at 1080p? 240hz? Competitive gaming? How many people are really in that category, where they play in sponsored teams for prize money? Certainly the Steam Hardware Survey supports that most gamers have a primary monitor running at 1080p, but it doesn't specify at what speed those monitors work at, I'd wager a large amount are 60hz still. It really doesn't seem like a balanced way to build a system if you're not going to making full use of it.

I definitely agree on the whole double standards part, Intel and Nvidia do these things already in terms of product segregation and pricing inflation (read: increasing margins for more profit), yet AMD seem to be getting a free pass somewhat, especially in the tech press. Hexus included, cons should definitely have included the pricing, so why didn't they? Or do these CPUs really represent value for money? The answer is muddied by the Cinebench bang for buck, not so high this time around compared to prior generations. Heck even a i9 9900K comes out better in that regards than the Ryzen 9 5950X, that's definitely saying something.

What I'd really like to see is some form of weighted Gaming bang for buck, taking in an aggregate of gaming performance at different resolutions - that would be highly relevant for gamers, Cinebench? Not so much.

Well its like the scenario with Zen2 vs CFL. CFL had less but faster cores for gaming,but many people went with AMD because it was cheaper,had more cores. Intel wasn't "worth" the premium. Now the tables are flipped it seems,the same doesn't apply to Intel and AMD is worth the "premium". The problem is not that AMD has raised prices but its raised beyond Intel. The AMD lead over Intel isn't even as big in some titles which are very CPU limited too(and I mean in terms of actual poor FPS) - I was even reading a comment by a person over on OcUK forums who has a Ryzen 5 3600 with an RTX3080. They upgraded to a Ryzen 5 5600X and saw the same minimums in Fallout 4,and this is a game which still runs significantly faster on Intel CPUs. So its hard to say whether all those years of Intel optimisations,etc will mean Zen3 is consistently faster in many less benchmarked titles. Then there is the question of Nvidia and its driver optimisations whether they still favour Intel in various titles,but that is really on Nvidia though. Hopefully with better AMD GPUs,review sites do use them too,so we can make sure its not some Nvidia driver problem.

Also you entirely correct with this concentration on high FPS at 1080p. I have said it many times,there are truly CPU limited titles,which manifests itself in poor or inconsistent minimums.

Whereas on one level I am happy AMD have gotten a full lead now,I also do hope Intel does have a decent response in the next 12~18 months. No doubt its great for AMD if Intel keeps mistepping,but its not so great for consumers,because they might feel the need to make Zen3+ or Zen4 even more expensive per core. If Intel has even more problems,there is nothing stopping AMD dragging out AM4 and Zen3 for even longer than normal,and pushing Zen4,5NM and DDR5 in other areas. After all it would be more cost effective to do so,ie,better returns. Then we are back to the same scenario of 6 cores becoming the new 4 cores,and mainstream stagnates in that area.

People also have to consider the purchase of Xilinx. Basically Xillinx shareholders get paid with AMD stocks,and those investors no doubt want a return. The console SOCs are not going to be sold at very high margins either,and all those APUs sold to laptop OEMs will be also at reduced margins as AMD wants to gain more marketshare. So what do people think is going to happen,especially with so much revenue still derived from consumer sales?? AMD will try its best to jack prices up in our area,and segment more if they can get away with.

This partly why Intel and Nvidia started doing what they did in our area. Intel spent billions of USD on subsidising cheap Atom tablets/netbooks,and Nvidia spent a ton of money for propping up Tegra. So people keep justifying the higher prices don't seem to realise,they are only subsidising consoles,tablets and other devices outside of PC gaming. Companies are looking at PC gaming as a high growth/high margin area like servers are. Its not the same attitude they had 10 years ago IMHO.

[mauimauer]

My last AMD CPU was out of the Phenom series. It's time to go back.

Can anyone explain the differences between the various chipsets that support the new CPUs. I hear Ryzen likes
high freq RAM, any recommendations wether to go for 2 or 4 modules?

[Iota]

Companies are looking at PC gaming as a high growth/high margin area like servers are.

It isn't a high growth, high margin area though. Well, maybe it's becoming more high margin with price creep. How long would that really last though? Servers are a completely different kettle of fish and have a different function entirely, part of the cost includes a certain service level. So unless all of a sudden PC gaming is going to be provided some level of service on top of the hardware itself? I just can't see that happening at the price points we're currently at.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It isn't a high growth, high margin area though. Well, maybe it's becoming more high margin with price creep. How long would that really last though? Servers are a completely different kettle of fish and have a different function entirely, part of the cost includes a certain service level. So unless all of a sudden PC gaming is going to be provided some level of service on top of the hardware itself? I just can't see that happening at the price points we're currently at.

Well look at the percentage price rises,with a lot of stuff and then look at the retiering of many items. Its obvious accountants have gotten involved and are trying their best to push pricing up as high as possible,as quick as possible. Plus the gaming market now is much bigger than it was 10 years ago,because there are much more PC gamers now.

Look at a number of games publishers and the kind of income they are getting,margins,etc compared to 10 years ago.

The hardware companies are wanting a part of that,and they will find more and more creative ways of taking the mickey. Even JHH joked at one launch(IIRC) about paying in monthly installments!

Moreover,look at Nvidia,until late last year,they had 2/3 of their revenue from gaming and their margins were more than Intel,profits have been steadily increasing and increasing to ridiculous levels. You only have to hear what some of these companies are saying during their revenue calls WRT to the gaming market,because its bucking the trend WRT to normal computer sales,which are slowing down for the most part. The PC gaming hardware market(so everything) is apparently worth $40 billion and has increased by 10% this year alone!! Considering that 75% of gaming revenue is not from PC,it does show how much money is being made on hardware sales.

[kompukare]

But CAT your arguments about bad behaviour from Intel and Nvidia are all about segmentation, price creep and so on.
My main problem with either wasn't never solely about prices (if something is too expensive I just don't buy - which is why I'm still on this IB i5 which was the most expensive CPU I ever bought having been a Semptron / Celeron / Pentium person back when a £50 CPU and £40 mobo could overclock like crazy - something like the Intel Pentium E5300 could cheaply overclock 50% and certain Core2 Celerons even 100%).
No, my problem with Intel and Nvidia were their real dirty tactics going back decades:

• For Intel that's things like bribing Dell and HP to not take AMD Athlon CPUs and similar strong-arm tactics, etc.
• For Nvidia it's things like tessellation, stealth marketing (focus groups, aka shills), their driver cheats back when they started out , premium image which didn't stand over their solder bump failures etc.

Obviously, cheap prices are nice but they are not my only criteria. And while the 60%+ which Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm enjoy probably excessive, the 30% where AMD often were are also not sustainable. RDNA2 like the original GCN had probably a lot of the R&D paid for my MS and Sony which is great but I don't want to have to wait until the next console generation for AMD's next GPU architecture. Those low margins and their near bankruptcy (and pouring every last cent into Zen1 development) is a major reason why there has been so little GPU competition the last few years.
(As an aside, with AMD I do often question why go through all the expense of designing a product, releasing it and trying to sell it at high margins but way too low volume just to satisfy some stockmarket obsession with margin when a lower margin and higher volume would yield higher profits and force the opposition to respond?)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

But CAT your arguments about bad behaviour from Intel and Nvidia are all about segmentation, price creep and so on.
My main problem with either wasn't never solely about prices (if something is too expensive I just don't buy - which is why I'm still on this IB i5 which was the most expensive CPU I ever bought having been a Semptron / Celeron / Pentium person back when a £50 CPU and £40 mobo could overclock like crazy - something like the Intel Pentium E5300 could cheaply overclock 50% and certain Core2 Celerons even 100%).
No, my problem with Intel and Nvidia were their real dirty tactics going back decades:

• For Intel that's things like bribing Dell and HP to not take AMD Athlon CPUs and similar strong-arm tactics, etc.
• For Nvidia it's things like tessellation, stealth marketing (focus groups, aka shills), their driver cheats back when they started out , premium image which didn't stand over their solder bump failures etc.

Obviously, cheap prices are nice but they are not my only criteria. And while the 60%+ which Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm enjoy probably excessive, the 30% where AMD often were are also not sustainable. RDNA2 like the original GCN had probably a lot of the R&D paid for my MS and Sony which is great but I don't want to have to wait until the next console generation for AMD's next GPU architecture. Those low margins and their near bankruptcy (and pouring every last cent into Zen1 development) is a major reason why there has been so little GPU competition the last few years.
(As an aside, with AMD I do often question why go through all the expense of designing a product, releasing it and trying to sell it at high margins but way too low volume just to satisfy some stockmarket obsession with margin when a lower margin and higher volume would yield higher profits and force the opposition to respond?)

That is all fine,but I don't exist to prop up companies either. Companies are not charities but neither am I,and enthusiasts on forums need to defending the large price increases in the market. Yes I agree Intel and Nvidia have done crap things,and it does kind of slightly factor into purchases,but still measurements,utility and price/performance are more important for me.

If you want activism to be part of your purchases,buy more of their products,but I am not going to defend massive percentage price rises that AMD,Intel and Nvidia want to do,to maintain the overpriced status quo,especially when we are heading into a massive global recession.

Hardly anyone seems to care about propping up our local companies,so why should I care about some other foreign company? People react with glee when certain UK based companies go tits up even on here. If I was paying more for something as a form of activism,then it would be to help our local jobs market.

In the end the Nvidia people defended Nvidia jacking up prices and margins,and so did the Intel people for the CPUs,because of the whole margins,R and D and all that stuff. Rollo did the same thing when he shilled for Nvidia on here. Yet Nvidia and Intel seemed perfectly fine with their lower margins before.

Its bascially a Stockholm syndrome where enthusiasts and gamers have admitted defeat as consumers,and are willing to take any rogering these tech companies delivers to them! If you can't beat them,join them mentality!

Yet Intel and Nvidia wasted billions of USD on propping up Atom,Tegra and numerous acquisitions. AMD wasted billions on ATI,and there was accusations of inside trading by Hector Ruiz WRT to the ATI purchase. He also delayed investments into 65NM IIRC,since 90NM was profitable and they thought Intel had no answer to the Athlon 64. By the time they realised what Intel was up to,it all went to crap.

AMD/ATI have to shoulder a percentage of the blame for screwing up too. It was not all Intel's fault but poor decision making after Saunders left,and Saunders had to deal with much worse.

AMD is pricing their CPUs more per core than Intel,so the same criticisms Intel got for overpricing their CPUs do apply. So what happens when Intel has a faster 6 core,it gets priced well over £300?? Zen4 6 core is even faster,so is over £350. That is what happened with GPUs.

The same goes with GPUs,if they start pricing them the same or higher than Nvidia. ATM,they are not so I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

If AMD want to ape Intel and Nvidia in their pricing,etc then they get treated exactly the same,because they have decided to do the same as them. They are contributing to a warped market,and bit by bit people will start to get pushed out.

They already tried to cheat people out of an upgrade path whilst implying B450/X470 would get Zen3,they forced removal of PCI-E 4.0 BIOSes,etc. AMD made pot shots at their competitors regarding this and then changed tact very quickly. If the community hadn't pushed back nothing would have changed. This year they have done plenty of dicey things,when they sensed victory. This is exactly the same movements we saw Intel and Nvidia start to slowly do,when they changed tact. So when they finally do win,I like to see how they then act when they know the competition can't touch them!

I remember what they did during the Athlon 64 era. They marooned people on socket 754,QuadFX and AM2,and jacked up pricing. I remember even how it was implied AM3 might work with BD,but then they released AM3+ and so on.

As I said to you in a market just because there are two sets of a-holes,and one is the lesser a-hole,it still makes them both a-holes.

This is not the same AMD back 10 years ago or so,they have progressively hired people from various companies such as Apple,Dell,Intel,Nvidia,so expect more of those kind of crappy moves towards consumers.

AMD ATM,are at 45% before the new releases. So its not 30% and that is with current pricing which seems generally OK.

So if they are now pushing up per core pricing higher than Intel,and with RDNA2 looking close to Nvidia pricing(but still looking better luckily),expect that march to 60% to be sooner rather than later. They paid $30 billion for Xilinix in shares,and the new AMD shareholders will want returns on their investment. The reason why Intel and Nvidia did all that rubbish is because they were doing ther very same things,and people just accepted it.

In the end I choose AMD because they are better price/performance,and the fact they seem slightly less worse than the others. I am not interested in all that "premium branding" which is frankly for idiots. But if they want to be like the others WRT to pricing and segmentation and going all premium,trying to start lying and holding back stuff,then I will be certainly voting with whoever gives me the best deal when I chose to buy something. If not I will be actively contributing to AMD turning into another Nvidia/Intel.

Because in the end the hardware I buy is a tool to perform a job,not a means to an end in its own way. Personally I have pushed more than enough business AMD's way with the 100s of builds I have helped people out with,so I have no issue buying an Intel or Nvidia product if they suit my needs WRT to price/performance and needs. I have done enough defence of AMD when I think people have been unfair on them,but I can't sit here and criticise Intel and Nvidia for certain things and give AMD a free pass,if they intend to start doing similar things. I will call it out the same way I did it for other companies.

In the end the tech industry like many,is increasingly obssessed with short term gains,ie,the accountants. Most of them will find creative ways not to pay taxes,like Nvidia not paying any state taxes in the US in 2018(apparently). Many of those CEOs and senior people give themselves eyewatering salary increases every year,etc.Fantastic for them,as they increase their own margins.

They want to increase their margins,so do I. If they align to a mutually acceptable level great,if not they can keep their new products! I can spend my money on my other hobbies,which increasingly I have been doing.

[Iota]

In the end the tech industry like many,is increasingly obssessed with short term gains,ie,the accountants.

That's purely to maintain investment levels in the business, especially through shareholders (or more to the point, quality shareholders who stay put and don't move). If you dig down into company filings, you'll occasionally find some reasoning behind requiring those short term gains, like the requirement on AMD to purchase wafers from Global Foundries until 2024 etc. There are also a ton of caveats that could have a material effect on the business (including Intel and Nvidia business practices).

The increase in average selling price was primarily driven by a richer mix of client processors from higher sales of our Ryzen processors which have a higher average selling price, partially offset by lower average selling price for our Radeon products due to product cycle timing.

It also seems that Ryzen and Epyc are helping to sustain the Radeon side of the business, no doubt the crypto currency period helped to support the CPU side of the business. AMD are aiming for 45% profit margins currently, they've achieved 44% for the last reporting period. It's also worth noting that they acknowledge pricing as one of the factors that could potentially hinder them, we'll see if it does have a material impact I guess. Down to how consumers react to the pricing increases.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That's purely to maintain investment levels in the business, especially through shareholders (or more to the point, quality shareholders who stay put and don't move). If you dig down into company filings, you'll occasionally find some reasoning behind requiring those short term gains, like the requirement on AMD to purchase wafers from Global Foundries until 2024 etc. There are also a ton of caveats that could have a material effect on the business (including Intel and Nvidia business practices).

They keep saying that,but its like with Apple,who actually spends a relatively low amount of its income on R and D,but justifies higher and higher pricing. The issue is longer term it leads to boom and bust as it can't be maintained forever.

You saw that with the 1929 stock crash - the market is overspeculating on future profits way too much,and expecting way too much IMHO. Not only does it leaves room for alternate competitors and technologies to replace legacy ones,it also leaves the door open for another tech crash like 20 years ago. The difference is these companies would be profitable,just not able to increase profits and margins at the rate the financial analysts want. The same lot who speculated on bad debts(Sub Prime crisis),and when the Chickens came home to roost,it all fell apart.

The thing is you have seen companies cut long-term R and D,etc to make those short term gains look better,so the obsession with short termism is actually affecting long term development now. It wouldn't surprise me one bit Intel did stuff like that to shore up shorter term gains,and AMD did a bit of it too back in the Athlon 64 era(pushed back 65NM since 90NM was profitable).Companies would rather have less sales at higher margins,than more sales at lower margins. There are so many instances of companies even in the tech world just ignoring "lower margin" markets,and are essentially leaving money at the table.

You see this with all the panic regarding Huawei. Not only were they willing to take lower margins and tap those markets,they were willing to spend more on R and D than many competitors such as Apple. Because their goals are not so short term and are driven by nationalistic factors(even simple things as keeping as many of their citizens in employment as possible). In other parts of the world,where nationalistic factors come into play,you are seeing increasing focus on longer term projects,and countries exploiting areas where our companies have just left wide open because of margins. It was one of the reasons why Japan and South Korea manage to catch up,and overtake a number of our industries,because they looked longer term.

Luckily now its starting to slowly dawn on industry figures,a longer term outlook is important,and this obsession with the short term,is actually starting to hinder things:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...inking/511874/

It also seems that Ryzen and Epyc are helping to sustain the Radeon side of the business, no doubt the crypto currency period helped to support the CPU side of the business. AMD are aiming for 45% profit margins currently, they've achieved 44% for the last reporting period. It's also worth noting that they acknowledge pricing as one of the factors that could potentially hinder them, we'll see if it does have a material impact I guess. Down to how consumers react to the pricing increases.

More importantly AMD net margins are up,so they have found ways to reduce costs it appears(or certain costs are now lower).

WRT to AMD the issue now is AMD has traded a ton of its shares for Xilinx shares,so they will want their payday too. Don't you think the timing of the price rises seems.well, a little too convenient?

So there is greater pressure for them to push prices up and maintain higher and higher margins. So they might think loosing some sales is OK if that margin increase year on year is sustained,and somehow compensates.

[DanceswithUnix]

WRT to AMD the issue now is AMD has traded a ton of its shares for Xilinx shares,so they will want their payday too.

The real worry with things like that is the pain of company integration means a company can go rudderless for a while and lose momentum on their existing products. That can be far more damaging than any up front cost.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The real worry with things like that is the pain of company integration means a company can go rudderless for a while and lose momentum on their existing products. That can be far more damaging than any up front cost.

True,as we saw with ATI. Maybe they could run it as a separate concern and slowly integrate it bit by bit?? I just hope AMD hasn't panic bought Xilinx because Nvidia is eyeing ARM? There is no guarentee that won't get caught up in some regulatory hurdles. I originally thought it was because Intel bought Altera,but that was 5 years ago.

[Iota]

The real worry with things like that is the pain of company integration means a company can go rudderless for a while and lose momentum on their existing products. That can be far more damaging than any up front cost.

True,as we saw with ATI. Maybe they could run it as a separate concern and slowly integrate it bit by bit?? I just hope AMD hasn't panic bought Xilinx because Nvidia is eyeing ARM? There is no guarentee that won't get caught up in some regulatory hurdles. I originally thought it was because Intel bought Altera,but that was 5 years ago.

As far as I'm aware, they're integrating Xilinx into a sub, not directly into AMD itself per se. Both the sub and Xilinx have complimentary businesses so there is no doubt scope for longer term cost efficiencies.

On the point about a tech crash on the stock market, there both is and isn't a distinct possibility of this happening, especially when you consider that according to analysis of company fundamentals, Nvidia stock is currently overvalued (about $400), AMD stock is overvalued (about $20). What interesting is that Intel is currently undervalued (by about $30). Certainly if you look at the wider picture of tech and semiconductors there are a lot of companies vulnerable to a stock crash, even if you look at the most recent in history (2008). There are however protections in place such a halting trading or general circuit breakers which the SEC brought in (LULD), which work both ways if required.

I doubt we'll see a tech crash in a one day decline like 2001, but a decline over a longer period of time is definitely possible.

[3dcandy]

My last AMD CPU was out of the Phenom series. It's time to go back.

Can anyone explain the differences between the various chipsets that support the new CPUs. I hear Ryzen likes
high freq RAM, any recommendations wether to go for 2 or 4 modules?

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...450-x470-zen-3

2 channels is often said to run faster but I've never really messed around. More interested in stock these days and just kinda working

[3dcandy]

My last AMD CPU was out of the Phenom series. It's time to go back.

Can anyone explain the differences between the various chipsets that support the new CPUs. I hear Ryzen likes
high freq RAM, any recommendations wether to go for 2 or 4 modules?

This video might help....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGux0pANft0