Too Good to be True, A Recap of The Lead-up to Zen 2

Pieter3dnow said:
Wow I never seen so much bullshit from people on this forum. AdoredTV clearly says he has different sources clearly says take this with a grain of salt. Then you still debate stuff that was wrong as opposed to it not matter any more.

It is called speculation if it is not called speculation it would be designated as guessing , guess how many people think that it was guessing only the people with an agenda.
Click to expand...

The problem is that people here kept bringing up this crap like it was fact for six months. It's why some people were so disappointment with both Ryzen and Navi pricing. Because Adored told them it would be half the price and they wanted to believe.

IIRC you were one of the believers. Arguing with this nonsense as your "source", that AMD would going into a price war to crush Intel and/or NVidia. :rolleyes:

If you don't want guessing go visit these guys from hardware unboxed/techspot you certainly deserve them..
Click to expand...

Why would attack the HWUB guys,they do very good reviews, and they cautioned reason.


If you get 20% right on speculation that is pretty good.
Click to expand...

If you speculate on coin tosses like this and get 20% you somehow managed to get worse than random guessing (50%).

As I pointed out to you before, anyone speculating after AMDs Rome Reveal back in November could have, and should have done better than this. I was about 90% vs the 20% here.

I was 100% on pricing and core counts, and much closer on clock speed. All you had to do was look at what Rome offered and extrapolate on Ryzen 2000 series and AMD actually being a business run by competent management to get most of it correct.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Yet you have to provide any other sources that disprove (no one did)
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

If a random person makes a claim, the burden of proof is on that person.

The burden of proof is not on someone else to disprove the claim.

Pieter3dnow said:
(even Kyle Bennett said on this forum that what he saw on AdoredTV video was close to what he heard himself) any of this when those videos were out the only thing you keep doing is taking a dump under a different [H] login on AdoredTV.
Click to expand...

You want to post a link to that?

Somehow, I doubt that that is what he said.

Pieter3dnow said:
The hardware unboxed and Extreme tech you linked had opinion on prices nothing else.
Click to expand...

...and?

Pieter3dnow said:
If you get 20% right on speculation that is pretty good. It is not fortune telling it is not guessing it is what your sources tell you, you don't even know it is true and you go out on a limb and make an ass of yourself on youtube because what you post might be completely wrong. And in no way is an examination the same thing as speculation.
Click to expand...

...except Adored did not said that it was his own speculations (his guesses), but rather, "leaks".

If he said, "this is my guesses as to 3rd gen Ryzen lineup would look like" and got them wrong, there is nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
TheRookie said:
blah blah blah
Click to expand...
Normal rational people heard speculation and preliminary leaked info about unreleased products. If anyone thought that the information, details, specs, etc were more than just speculation, leaks, thought, rumor, plucked out of thin air, then that's on them. Maybe you were drawn in because you wanted it to be true, and felt embarrassed that you had been taken in so hard?

What is your motivation for wasting so much of your own time hating on a random guy on YouTube, that you don't even know...

Get a grip guy. I came to the AMD subforum to discuss Zen2 products, and instead I see you in many threads crying about how some YouTuber may or may not have been right or wrong about stuff half a year ago. Let it go already.
 
Calavaro said:
What is your motivation for wasting so much of your own time hating on a random guy on YouTube, that you don't even know....
Click to expand...

What is your motivation for wasting time, defending the guy, to the point of apparently making up your own fake chart, trying to make him look better?
 
Snowdog said:
What is your motivation for wasting time, defending the guy, to the point of apparently making up your own fake chart, trying to make him look better?
Click to expand...
I am not defending anyone. And the chart I made for myself when the announcement was made. And Im not trying to make anyone look better or worse.
I replying to these types of posts here to see if there is a chance to reduce the negativity about a single person, polluting a forum thats not about him and instead get it all back on topic about the fantastic CPUs AMD has put together for us to purchase for nickels on a dollar compared to Intels equivalents.

tl;dr: Stop ragging on a single guy with an opinion and start focusing on the marvelous tech AMD has brought us with the Ryzen line of CPU's.
 
Calavaro said:
I am not defending anyone. And the chart I made for myself when the announcement was made. And Im not trying to make anyone look better or worse.
I replying to these types of posts here to see if there is a chance to reduce the negativity about a single person, polluting a forum thats not about him and instead get it all back on topic about the fantastic CPUs AMD has put together for us to purchase for nickels on a dollar compared to Intels equivalents.

tl;dr: Stop ragging on a single guy with an opinion and start focusing on the marvelous tech AMD has brought us with the Ryzen line of CPU's.
Click to expand...

What polluted the forum was the belief in these BS claims. We couldn't have a reasonable discussion about what was coming from AMD, without someone trotting out this nonsense like it was going to happen.

A post mortem on how wrong this was, could hopefully elevate general skepticism about outlandish rumor in the future, so it doesn't pollute future discussions as badly.
 
Snowdog said:
What polluted the forum was the belief in these BS claims. We couldn't have a reasonable discussion about what was coming from AMD, without someone trotting out this nonsense like it was going to happen.

A post mortem on how wrong this was, could hopefully elevate general skepticism about outlandish rumor in the future, so it doesn't pollute future discussions as badly.
Click to expand...

Please people trot out nonsense all the time, rumor mills are always part of the fun and irritation sometimes. It's mostly pro Intel and Nvidia people that try to pollute the discussion or say it's over hyped when no one has over hyped it. people thought flying cars were around the corner in the late 50's and into the 60's and here we are in 2019 and still waiting, talk about over hyped. I looked over the forums and found plenty of reasonable discussions after we learned the actual specs from AMD themselves, just like always.
 
Calavaro said:
I am not defending anyone. And the chart I made for myself when the announcement was made.
Click to expand...

I made one too!


20qgmzn.png
 
Said it in the other thread too: speculation is fun. We have this discussion every time. Some people will say "don't speculate because blah blah someone might get expectations, or think it's fact, or whatever..." It someone takes it as fact, that's their own problem.

But that gets annoying too. "zOMG [a product] is gonna be so awesome, it's gonna beat everybody and be 92017630 times as fast and..." No. We're just spitballing. Chill.
 
I don't know why people keep bashing the AdoredTV chart. It's like Game of Thrones...It's over...find a new show.

And FWIW, I remember Kyle posting that the numbers were similar to what he heard (don't remember the exact verbage he used). The only ones that are way off is the 16C/32T guesstimates (and pricing obviously). I would guess that those were based off internal numbers to counter Intel. In the meantime, we don't have anything compelling from Intel, so they adjusted the price to profit more from their new CPUs. And the base/boost clocks were also guesstimates from early ES chips.

I think that if AMD could release an uber flagship at 5.1Ghz boost at 135W, they would have. They probably found that they couldn't based on current 7nm tech but the 105W and lower clocks was easier to replicate with retail chips.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
This is AMD catching up to Intel; Intel will leapfrog AMD in a year or two, if this is all AMD has.
Click to expand...
AMD is going to get F'ing murdered if this is the best they could do with Ryzen 2. Whatever market share they grab here, they had best dump that money into R&D for Ryzen 3 and make it rock or Intel will be smacking the shit out of them in two years.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
AMD is going to get F'ing murdered if this is the best they could do with Ryzen 2. Whatever market share they grab here, they had best dump that money into R&D for Ryzen 3 and make it rock or Intel will be smacking the shit out of them in two years.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to believe that AMD is dumping money into R&D. Can't know for sure, but it'd be the only thing that makes sense. They need to put it into their GPUs too though.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'd prefer to believe that AMD is dumping money into R&D. Can't know for sure, but it'd be the only thing that makes sense. They need to put it into their GPUs too though.
Click to expand...

AMD has repeatedly proven over the years that they really aren't good at doing more than one thing at a time with any level of proficiency. When their flash memory business was extremely profitable, everything else was down. When GPU's are doing well, CPU's are in the toilet. When CPU's are doing well, AMD's graphics division struggles to match two year old NVIDIA hardware.
 
Dan_D said:
AMD has repeatedly proven over the years that they really aren't good at doing more than one thing at a time with any level of proficiency. When their flash memory business was extremely profitable, everything else was down. When GPU's are doing well, CPU's are in the toilet. When CPU's are doing well, AMD's graphics division struggles to match two year old NVIDIA hardware.
Click to expand...
Can we blame them with their relatively puny budget?
 
Dan_D said:
AMD has repeatedly proven over the years that they really aren't good at doing more than one thing at a time with any level of proficiency. When their flash memory business was extremely profitable, everything else was down. When GPU's are doing well, CPU's are in the toilet. When CPU's are doing well, AMD's graphics division struggles to match two year old NVIDIA hardware.
Click to expand...

That's about right.
 
Verado said:
View attachment 167335
Click to expand...
Yes some of the values were close, however the chart leaves of the parts that were way off.

I don’t mind speculating, but it’s the passing it off as special information from sources that he very likely does not have that bothers the heck out of me.

AMD is not selling higher clocked parts because the yields and binning do not support higher clocked parts.

It’s pretty clear based on the TDP difference between the 3700X and 3800X were the sweet spot is currently.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Getting there once is a misstep.

Getting there repeatedly is a business failure.

So yes, we can blame AMD for their mistakes.
Click to expand...

I 50% agree/disagree with this.

That AMD is competitive at the high end in one market, and merely the mid-range in other markets, is by itself not a big problem from a business perspective. The problem is that AMD couldn't seem to decide where it wished to compete. It would be competitive in CPUs, but not other markets, then shift to GPUs... and so on and so forth.

They need consistency. If they decide they want to compete in the high-end market for CPUs, the midrange for GPUs, and the midrange for other products, that's fine. And that seems to be what they are doing right now, though there's still too much marketing spin around what are, in essence, midrange GPU products. A little less pretense that these are performance products would be nice.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Getting there once is a misstep.

Getting there repeatedly is a business failure.

So yes, we can blame AMD for their mistakes.
Click to expand...

Arguably in the last decade, AMD weren't as far behind in GPUs as they were in CPUs with Dozer derivatives, and indeed a smaller budget does provide a sound reason why AMD was lagging it's counterparts.

It's reasonable that they might never catch a competitor with a much larger R&D budget without any incompetence.

Also note that AMD has had two great CPU successes. Athlon family (esp Athlon 64) and Ryzen. Both happened while Intel was shooting itself in the foot for quite a while(Pentium 4 and 10nm failures).

NVidia doesn't tend to have prolonged enough failures for AMD to really take that kind of advantage.

All that said, Navi appears competitive (minus RT HW).
 
Verado said:
For those that actually need help realizing that the "leaks" were fabricated clickbait so some youtuber could make a living.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, was it Jayznocents? I am really getting sick of all the drama with youtube content creators. PC hardware and games. They are out there for one reason, and one reason only. To make money.

All the greedy little youtubers sit at home and think up of stupid shit that will get the maximum views, without any care of the truth, or other people. Gotta make a buck yo...
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Getting there once is a misstep.

Getting there repeatedly is a business failure.

So yes, we can blame AMD for their mistakes.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. I'm trying to figure out who at AMD released the FX/Bulldozer Architecture when the Phenom II was vastly superior (and the Phenom was never really heralded as anything other than following a generation or two behind Intel in performance). My Phenom II x6 2.7 GhZ part beat the shit out of the Vishera (IIRC) 8 Core 3.1 Ghz part I picked up on AMD marketing fluff. I think that was the last time I bought an AMD, anything, on blind faith.

The Ryzen 2 looks like it's faster than 7th/8th/9th Gen Intel at lower clocks. It can't hit higher frequencies (maybe) that it needs to really outshine Intel. This generation, however, will be the one you don't buy Intel processors. You buy AMD, because even with the price hikes they represent a vastly superior price and performance value (with some speed wins in Single Thread and lots in MT).

Next Gen, Ryzen 3 is going to have to take Ryzen 2 and make it 15% better or more to remain competitive with Intel if 10nm is to be believed at their 18% performance gain.

Sounds like AMD may be sitting on their assess on the next gen stuff, as they say they will be using 7nm+ and TSMC is trying to get them to use 6nm (which is still compatible and better than 7nm+). Hell, I want to see AMD move directly 5nm or lower, crank efficiency, core counts and (likely can't do higher clocks with node shrinks) keep kicking ass in what they are proven good at: beating Intel at efficiency per clock cycle
 
Last edited:
I picked up a Core 2 E6400 (dual-core) when those released to replace an X2 of some sort. That was the point where AMD really lost the per-core performance race; I'm still waiting for them to catch up, though they're certainly close enough for most enthusiast applications.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I picked up a Core 2 E6400 (dual-core) when those released to replace an X2 of some sort. That was the point where AMD really lost the per-core performance race; I'm still waiting for them to catch up, though they're certainly close enough for most enthusiast applications.
Click to expand...
Yes, I kicked myself in the ass for a while for not migrating to Intel sooner at that point. Single thread performance has been where all the action has been for years now. AMD was way ahead of their time pushing multiple cores. They just needed to really iterate on one architecture and keep enhancing it and maintaining market share. I suppose the one thing you can say about AMD that was interesting is that they would bet big on emerging techs and while they paid dearly for it the past several years, they continued to innovate and were able to polish that turd they had created and push it into many areas I never thought we would see it go. I was firmly of the belief that the Dozer/Vishera/Pile/Excavator era would see the death of the company, yet they managed to crawl out of debt and even turn the occasional profit.

There are some people saying that AMD as dethroned Intel and that Intel is dead.... Drawing the parallel to what happened to IBM. That's bullshit, Intel has made enough money and knows enough about processors that they can and will come back to brutalize AMD. I don't care who is on top, I only care that competition remains to push innovation.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
There are some people saying that AMD as dethroned Intel and that Intel is dead....
Click to expand...

I recommend avoiding fanboy talk. Neither company is going anywhere for the foreseeable future; Intel is a juggernaut not just in the CPU market, and in the CPU market, they need AMD to survive or they risk being broken up by regulators. These companies' successes are tied together.

Legendary Gamer said:
I was firmly of the belief that the Dozer/Vishera/Pile/Excavator era would see the death of the company, yet they managed to crawl out of debt and even turn the occasional profit.
Click to expand...

I still believe that AMD didn't get the 'idea' wrong, so much as they borked the implementation. I saw Dozer as a form of 'hard' SMT versus Intel's 'soft' SMT with Hyper-Threading and perhaps superior in concept. While it did represent AMD's most recent 'Netburst moment', it really wasn't as bad as the Pentium IV was at its worst points. For most uses it was pretty decent, it just didn't do FPU stuff as well as the Core parts and gaming and content creation subsequently suffered, killing enthusiast interest pretty quick.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I recommend avoiding fanboy talk. Neither company is going anywhere for the foreseeable future; Intel is a juggernaut not just in the CPU market, and in the CPU market, they need AMD to survive or they risk being broken up by regulators. These companies' successes are tied together.



I still believe that AMD didn't get the 'idea' wrong, so much as they borked the implementation. I saw Dozer as a form of 'hard' SMT versus Intel's 'soft' SMT with Hyper-Threading and perhaps superior in concept. While it did represent AMD's most recent 'Netburst moment', it really wasn't as bad as the Pentium IV was at its worst points. For most uses it was pretty decent, it just didn't do FPU stuff as well as the Core parts and gaming and content creation subsequently suffered, killing enthusiast interest pretty quick.
Click to expand...

I agree, fanboy talk is never productive. I hope both these companies keep trading blows over the next several years. I'm also looking forward to see what the heck Intel is doing with their dedicated GPUs.

When Dozer works, it rocks. Most of the time it just chokes tho. Borked is a good way to put it. AMD has had some good ideas. Looking forward to seeing what AMD and Intel do moving forward and if we will actually see 2-3 threads per logical core in future AMD iterations.

FYI TY for the chat. I miss this forum pretty damn badly. I wish it would experience a renaissance or something and come back. It was always my first stop for everything... God knows I owe the people that built this site a lot for all the great hardware advice I got out of it
 
Legendary Gamer said:
I agree, fanboy talk is never productive. I hope both these companies keep trading blows over the next several years. I'm also looking forward to see what the heck Intel is doing with their dedicated GPUs.

When Dozer works, it rocks. Most of the time it just chokes tho. Borked is a good way to put it. AMD has had some good ideas. Looking forward to seeing what AMD and Intel do moving forward and if we will actually see 2-3 threads per logical core in future AMD iterations.

FYI TY for the chat. I miss this forum pretty damn badly. I wish it would experience a renaissance or something and come back. It was always my first stop for everything... God knows I owe the people that built this site a lot for all the great hardware advice I got out of it
Click to expand...


Intel has zero chance to correct their declining fortunes until they get rid of the monolithic die. They have to go chiplet also unless AMD has a patent for all chiplet designs.
 
os2wiz said:
Intel has zero chance to correct their declining fortunes until they get rid of the monolithic die.
Click to expand...

Eh, don't count them out, at least in the consumer market. AMD wouldn't have been able to put so many cores in a consumer socket using TSMC (or really, anyone else) without breaking up the dies, but Intel is an entirely different beast- their processes are tuned specifically for the products they make, and vice-versa, more so than contract fabs ever can just as a function of logistics.

Still they'll probably do chiplets.

os2wiz said:
They have to go chiplet also unless AMD has a patent for all chiplet designs.
Click to expand...

If there's a patent, literally everyone's had a license to it for over a decade.
 
Intel has shown chiplet/3D stacked prototypes. This is the only real way to go forward as process shrinks become more and more hard-won.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Eh, don't count them out, at least in the consumer market. AMD wouldn't have been able to put so many cores in a consumer socket using TSMC (or really, anyone else) without breaking up the dies, but Intel is an entirely different beast- their processes are tuned specifically for the products they make, and vice-versa, more so than contract fabs ever can just as a function of logistics.

Still they'll probably do chiplets.



If there's a patent, literally everyone's had a license to it for over a decade.
Click to expand...
They will probably do chip[lets because monolithic dies on cpus with many cores is a slippery and costly slope for any foundry. Working a 10nm or 7nm process on those huge beats leads to higher failure rates and lower return per wafer. You can bury your head in the sand, but Intel must go chiplet for the long haul. I just hope that AMD holds those patents and will get a hefty royalty on each chiplet Intel manufactures.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Still they'll probably do chiplets.
Click to expand...
os2wiz said:
You can bury your head in the sand
Click to expand...
Please read the post that you are quoting.

os2wiz said:
Working a 10nm or 7nm process on those huge beats leads to higher failure rates and lower return per wafer.
Click to expand...
This depends entirely on the specific products and processes used. Intel is still competitive using their old 14nm process with AMDs products using TSMCs "7nm" process. Intel is also shipping massive dies on 14nm- who is to say outside of Intel whether they'll be able to put 64 cores on a single 7nm die? They're also putting two dies in a socket, now, to build a 56-core product.

os2wiz said:
I just hope that AMD holds those patents and will get a hefty royalty on each chiplet Intel manufactures.
Click to expand...

If you're going to continue to pretend that AMD holds some patent on chiplets, produce said patent and prove that licensing deals have taken place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top