I misunderstood your post. My apologies.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why did YOU choose AMD for your processor?
- Thread starter bretaincrab3
- Start date
I misunderstood your post. My apologies.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
No, in my opinion, AMD does not charge just as much or more, for "equivalent" products. I stand by what I said, that Intel would charge two times what AMD is charging for the same level of product.
Last edited:
kennyluu87
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 107
+1 for price/performance.
Introduction
I think you are misunderstanding the idea of equivalency as well as Intel's pricing strategy. Simply put, there is no evidence to support your claim and quite a lot of evidence that your statement isn't true. Intel has a reputation for being greedy, which is largely deserved. I think that's clouding people's view of the company. AMD being the "underdog" for most of the last two decades and some good will its built with the DIY enthusiast community by not changing CPU sockets so often has the inverse effect in coloring perceptions of that company. It's perceived in a much more positive light than Intel as a result.
Intel sets the standard, AMD responds to it.
But is any of this true? The short answer is no. If you think AMD giving you more performance for the same money, or even charging less at times is sign the company is less greedy than Intel, you are being naive. Everything these companies do boils down to them making as much money as possible for their products. They do this in two important ways: By reducing operating costs and by charging as much as they can for their respective products. Who charges more for what simply comes down to which company has the most market share or which one has the performance advantage. Over the last three decades, Intel has been the dominant company in the market between the two. Generally speaking, Intel has offered better processors. Being the company that has produced the better performing parts and selling the most units has made it the leader. As a result, Intel sets the market prices. AMD responds to those prices.
Intel isn't as greedy as you think it is.
Naturally, it's easy to think of Intel as being greedy as some of its processors are quite expensive. Obviously, there is plenty of evidence to show that it has a history of being greedy, but it's still not as greedy as you think it is. Intel used to charge more for their processors than they do today. Intel's mainstream market offerings used to include $1,000 Extreme Edition CPU's. Those were found in every OEM's product line and often in models that weren't necessarily built around gaming. When the average price spent on computers was higher than it is today, having an ultra-high end CPU in a fairly mundane system wasn't as uncommon as you would think. Intel's mainstream segment today is capped at half the price it used to be. Adjusting for inflation, it's far less than that. A $1,000 Pentium IV Extreme Edition in the late 90's or early 2000's is much more expensive than today's Core i9 10980XE at $1,000. Intel has also generally kept the mainstream segments offerings at virtually the same levels for several years despite annual inflation being a good enough reason to increase prices year over year. It does not always do so. Generally, a CPU like the 2700K took the same price point as it's immediate predecessor. In this case, the 2600K and the 3770K took the price point of the 2700K and so on.
A brief history lesson.
For many years, AMD sold reverse engineered copies of Intel CPU's with just enough changes to keep them from being sued into oblivion. Of course, that didn't stop Intel from trying anyway. AMD had been relegated to creating CPU's which were perceived as "knock offs" of Intel CPU's. This went on for years and years. As a result of worse performance in benchmarks and software compatibility problems, AMD was forced to sell its products at prices far less than that of its competitors. That all changed when AMD bought NextGen Systems and hired the engineers behind the DEC Alpha CPU's. Then came the venerable K7 and K8 CPU's. At long last, AMD was able to not only compete with Intel on even footing, but even surpass them in some areas. Despite its success, AMD was never able to quite get away with charging as much as Intel could for it's CPU's until the FX-51 came out. It's successors all held the same price point, but it was with the FX series that AMD was finally able to charge the same amount of money Intel did for it's Extreme Edition CPU's.
Brand recognition and market appeal.
Right there, we have the first instance of AMD charging just as much as Intel was for it's product. AMD had the faster product, sure. You have to understand that Intel has far more brand recognition than AMD does. As enthusiasts, we often forget that we keep up with trends and different brands, but not everyone does that. AMD has never been in the public consciousness the way Intel has. The only scenario where AMD can charge as much as Intel does, is when AMD has a significant performance advantage over its rival. AMD isn't giving you more performance for the money because it's generous. It does so because it simply doesn't have a choice. If these processors are equal, people will opt for Intel because its what they know. It's what they trust. It doesn't matter how right or wrong this is, that's simply how it is.
I'm sure all of us have gone to the store to buy some product only to find that product is sold out. If there is another brand that's just as good, then it doesn't matter if they cost the same. However, if there is some off brand product there from a company you've never heard of, will you be willing to pay the same price for it? It's doubtful unless the item is so cheap that taking that chance is essentially risk free. However, if that product is substantially cheaper, then you are going to be more inclined to give it a chance based on the fact that it's cheaper. Alternatively, if you hear something's supposed to be better than something else, you might still be wary of it. It's a hard sell at the same price in a lot of cases. However, if you hear something's 50% faster or whatever, then it starts to sound like it might be worth the risk depending on the application.
Simply put, that, in a nutshell is the relationship between price, performance, and AMD vs. Intel. Intel has set the standard for a very long time. AMD can only charge what Intel does when it has a significant performance advantage. Often, only a significant advantage will do. AMD can't simply charge $500 for an 8c/16t Ryzen 3800X. It's faster than Intel at somethings, but not decisively so. Certainly not enough to justify paying the same money for it. At $500, AMD has to give you a 12c/24t CPU that decisively beats Intel's Core i9 9900K in order to sell people on it. Sure, some of us would choose AMD anyway or not care if the prices were close enough, but for that sale to be as enticing as possible, AMD needs the CPU to be a lot better. Not just a bit better some of the time.
Equivalency comes in multiple forms.
You also need to understand, there are two kinds of equivalencies. Like for like and price point. You could certainly make the argument that the Ryzen 7 3800X is an 8c/16t CPU just like the Core i9 9900K is and that AMD charges less for it. Two a degree, this si a like for like comparison. However, AMD doesn't fare all that favorably in this case. While the 3800X matches or even beats Intel's Core i9 9900K at times, the vast majority of the time, the 9900K is going to be faster. It's not decisive in AMD's favor. Again, AMD has to charge less than Intel does for the 9900K or people would just opt for Core i9 9900K's. I play Destiny 2 with a lot of people who aren't "computer enthusiasts." They all build 9900K's because Intel is what they recognize and that's what they know. It doesn't matter to them that the Core i9 9900K is only 5-6% faster on average than AMD's 3800X is. Nor does it matter that the 3800X is cheaper. All they hear is that the 9900K is faster for gaming. Where like for like equivalency goes, there are other factors at play such as brand recognition. Again, AMD is charging less for the 3800X because they probably wouldn't sell very many of them if they weren't cheaper than the 9900K.
The second type of equivalency is price point. At the time the 3900X launched, the price point topped out for the mainstream segment at $500. The Core i9 9900K was actually dropped ever so slightly to $450 at that time, but this was a knee jerk reaction to the obviously superior 3900X coming out. The 3900X was priced the same. Both CPU's represented the absolute top end of each companies offerings in that market segment. Therefore, they are equivalent. Yes, AMD's is faster. Yes, AMD gives you more cores for the money, but they have no choice if they want to compete. Succeeding in business is about more than having a better product. AMD has to overcome years of market dominance from Intel. To do that, it must offer more than it's rival. If Intel is held to a certain standard, than AMD can't just meet that standard. It has to exceed it, or they will not succeed. It isn't generosity, altruism, benevolence, or anything of the sort that leads AMD to give you a faster performing part than Intel for a given amount of money. It's necessity. It certainly isn't a lack of greed and that's my point.
Examples of AMD charging more for its products and extending the price range of market segments.
To further this point, Intel set the standards for price points and AMD exceeded them with a 3950X at $750 in the mainstream segment and $4,000 in the HEDT segment. The 3970X launched at the same price point formerly occupied by Intel's Core i9 7980XE and later, the 9980XE. Intel had to respond by cutting their prices in half because it had no choice in the face of AMD's superior performance. However, Intel upped the ante with it's Xeon W-3175X. This CPU cost a whopping $2,999. AMD came along and dropped a Threadripper 3990X at $4,000. So there. we have more examples of AMD charging as much in a given point of the product stack as well as extending the price range of each segment. That is to say that AMD is now charging more at the top of the stack than Intel is. Where the desktop is concerned, it is AMD that is now setting the standard. That standard is now charging more than Intel does for it's top offerings in each desktop segment. Out performing Intel is a given as it has no choice if it wants to try and sell a $4,000 CPU for desktops.
Example of AMD's Greed.
Now, AMD is cheap as hell in the server market with Epyc compared to Intel's Xeon Scalable offerings. Intel still rules that market, albeit for different reasons. AMD can't set the prices there, nor can they charge as much as Intel does because it has even less market share in the enterprise segment than it had in the desktop segment when the first generation Zen CPU's dropped.
Let's put this another way. Given Intel's still using monolithic dies and 14nm yields become considerably worse when trying to increase core counts and clock speeds, it stands to reason that AMD's modular 7nm approach is more efficient at this point. A CPU like the Core i9 10980XE probably has razor thin margins compared to AMD's 3960X and 3970X CPU's. Yet, AMD charges more for them. Taking this further, Intel's Xeon W-3175X is a 28c/56t monster that costs a fortune. It's almost certainly more expensive to produce than any 32c/64t AMD CPU to date. I'd almost bet my house on AMD's margins being far better on it's 32c parts than Intel's are on something with 28 cores. Doesn't it stand to reason that AMD is simply being greedy when it could be charging less for a given product? Or does that thinking only apply to Intel? Yes, it's true that they perform better and offer more cores and threads. However, more performance is expected as products are iterative. If performance didn't improve, then the life cycles of these products would gradually get longer with CPU's holding their values better on the used market. If I buy a Camaro SS in 2020, I expect it to out perform my 2001 Camaro SS in virtually every imaginable scenario.
AMD's socket longevity isn't because AMD is being nice.
AMD's reputation for socket longevity is misunderstood. While it has some consumer benefits, AMD's choice to hold onto sockets comes down to reducing its R&D costs. It has little to do with being good to the consumer. AMD would stand to make more money from us if it sold us more products. However, developing sockets, chipsets and new motherboard platforms carries with it a lot in terms of costs. AMD has dropped out of and re-entered the chipset market more times than Bernie Sanders and Ross Perot have dropped out of the Presidential race combined. Making it's CPU's compatible with existing motherboards and chipsets has always been a practical solution for AMD.
At the time Socket A came around, Intel's LGA 775 had a very long service life. Intel's switched chipsets and sockets more than it needed to and shame on them for that. However, AMD's not doing this came down to not wanting to invest the capital in research and development for newer platforms and chipsets for processors that weren't selling well in the market place. Since the introduction of Core 2 Duo, until the Ryzen came out, Intel dominated AMD completely. It couldn't invest the money into a new platform for upgraded Bulldozer CPU's. Late in Bulldozer's life cycle, when its products were languishing in obsolescence, AMD's offerings were only bought to upgrade existing systems or as bargain basement options to build cheap systems for various purposes. By in large, for budget systems, having the latest I/O features isn't a priority. It was more of the same during Phenom's life cycle. AMD did spend money on developing chipsets for its APU line which is something that ultimately didn't pay off for them.
To give you an idea, AMD designed X570 in house and it's expensive as a result. The chipset itself is derived from the I/O die of the Ryzen CPU's themselves. It costs motherboard manufacturers more than AMD chipsets ever have. In fact, I've been told it costs more than Z390 for motherboard manufacturers to buy. The chipset is actually quite good, but rather than continue to work on it and scale it down to the lower price points reports are that AMD outsourced B550 to ASMedia. AMD has more often than not, outsourced chipsets to third parties and has been doing so off and on since the Athlon days.
Basically, AMD keeping sockets for really long times comes down to the costs of developing chipsets and platforms for their CPU's being so high. AMD doesn't have Intel's resources for doing this. AMD talked about the great cost of keeping the Ryzen 3000 series compatible with existing AM4 motherboards being expensive, and to some extent it is. However, there are lots of costs that factor into developing a chipset and platform for a CPU that AMD rarely wants any part of. There is an added bonus of the community applauding the backwards compatibility, even when its actually problematic from a platform perspective.
Last edited:
By AMD keeping the same socket longer allows more people to upgrade their CPUs without having to buy motherboards (OS), rebuild etc. -> AMD gets to sell more CPUs which would probably outweigh any chipset profit.
Motherboard makers don't have to worry as much on an obsolete motherboard since even the first generation is usable way after production stops so any inventory can be sold. So producing larger numbers of motherboards is less of a risk. Better motherboard R&D and investment since a longer term investment.
Why I chose AMD over Intel mostly because better perf/$ or just a better deal. Now not only a better deal but also a significant better performer in general. I can stick a Ryzen 3950x in my x370 motherboard or even my B450 motherboard and have CPU performance beating anything Intel has and virtually all Intel HDET CPUs Intel has ever launched.
Motherboard makers don't have to worry as much on an obsolete motherboard since even the first generation is usable way after production stops so any inventory can be sold. So producing larger numbers of motherboards is less of a risk. Better motherboard R&D and investment since a longer term investment.
Why I chose AMD over Intel mostly because better perf/$ or just a better deal. Now not only a better deal but also a significant better performer in general. I can stick a Ryzen 3950x in my x370 motherboard or even my B450 motherboard and have CPU performance beating anything Intel has and virtually all Intel HDET CPUs Intel has ever launched.
thesmokingman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
Geesus H christ it must be soapbox time?
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
I have no idea what you are talking about.
This isn't actually true. While I'm sure there are some people who only upgrade because of the ease and simplicity of doing so, the vast majority of PC sales are by OEM's. Enthusiasts like ourselves only make up a small portion of the market. By in large, CPU upgrades to existing systems are relatively rare outside of enthusiast circles. AMD would benefit more from being able to sell new chipsets with new CPU's to OEM's as Intel does. It does garner AMD some positive press with the enthusiast crowd, so there is a benefit to that. Again, this is more about reducing development costs as AMD doesn't have the R&D budget Intel does.
And even among enthusiasts, a lot of the time new boards are purchased with CPU's and the old CPU's and boards are sold off. Enthusiasts want the latest and greatest. When you have legacy boards that may not enable all the features of new CPU's or overclock them as well, its enough incentive to get people like myself to ditch their existing boards regardless of cost. This means that its only an even smaller subset of enthusiasts who want to keep legacy boards and only upgrade the CPU. Typically, this is on the lower end of the price spectrum, not the high end.
I never said that they did. However, when it comes to motherboard sales things don't work like that. R&D for motherboard design isn't necessarily as expensive as you think. Most of that is shouldered by the CPU manufacturers and whomever develops the chipsets. Not the motherboard manufacturers. The motherboard makers are given design guidelines which basically tells them what to do. Much of their tools are automated as well. It doesn't take as long to make a motherboard from start to finish as you might expect. Furthermore, there is a great deal of risk from motherboard manufacturers but it's not from R&D. If they produce inventory that can't be sold because no one wants a particular processor, they are left in a lurch. The difference is Intel can force a motherboard manufacturer's hand into buying chipsets they don't want while AMD can't.
This was the reason why there were so few X399 models initially. Motherboard makers knew Threadripper was good, but they didn't know if it would sell well given Intel's market dominance. This is why you only got one or two X399 models from each major brand initially. More followed later after the 1st generation Threadrippers were so successful. But, initially, they didn't take the risk of designing and building the same broad spectrum of models they usually do for a given CPU and chipset. The motherboard makers weren't "all in" on Threadripper until after it proved successful. I've literally discussed this at length with motherboard manufacturers.
AMD does offer more performance for the money right now. However, there are some caveats to using a 3950X in an older motherboard using an older chipset. Not all lower end B350 and B450 motherboards are well suited to them due to their VRM implementations. Furthermore, the upper end Core i9's such as the 9980XE and 10980XE are actually faster than anything AMD has ever produced for the desktop or HEDT markets short of the third generation Threadripper CPU's. 1st and 2nd generation Threadrippers are faster than Intel's HEDT offerings in some multi-threaded applications due to higher core counts, but those 1st and 2nd generation Threadrippers have a lot of weaknesses with other applications. Gaming is one such example of this. The lead grows tremendously when overclocked. I personally tested the 10980XE against the 3950X and it was faster more often than not. It is also more expensive, so I'll grant that the price/performance ratio still favors the 3950X, but it doesn't beat it in terms of raw performance. So, the last part of your statement isn't entirely true.
For a hardware reviewer, you really have to justify all of this? Who the hell cares. These are for profit companies. This post just shows your bias against AMD which I knew for quite a while. That's why I never read or recommend your reviews. "Oh I own an 3950x because the 10980XE isn't available" What ever man. I just buy what I like, I don't care what brand it is but you really had to spend a good hour to write some lame rebuke over your hate for AMD or some shit. Keep it coming.
You sound like my father in law with his profound love for Chevy trucks.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
2500k setup failed, so I was forced to update.
AMD?
Prie, performance, availability, upgradeability and cheap but well featured platforms. 2 NVMe slots on an MATX board for 100$ is great.
AMD?
Prie, performance, availability, upgradeability and cheap but well featured platforms. 2 NVMe slots on an MATX board for 100$ is great.
thesmokingman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
Not only that but there's a lot of BS with his post, especially in regards to the crap history.
https://www.techspot.com/article/599-amd-rise-and-fall/
And it's not like Intel never reverse engineered anything either.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/56018-analyst-intel-reverseengineered-amd64
Anyone remember how craptastic Intel's x64 was???
I'm so biased against AMD, that I'm running a 3950X in my own machine that I paid for with my own money. Try again.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
Maybe it's one of those love hate relationships?
What exactly did I say that was inaccurate?
I never said they didn't.
Yes, I do. IA-64 was pretty much DOA.
I basically said that both companies are for profit and I'm simply pointing out that AMD is more or less as bad as Intel. Not quite, but you get the idea. Well, you don't. Or you wouldn't have written that. Had you read any of my reviews you'd also know that I've been recommending AMD CPU's since Ryzen 3000 came out. I wouldn't do so if I hated them. I sure as shit wouldn't have bought one, second choice or not. I also contemplated a Threadripper 3960X and would have gone that route if I hadn't already had an X299 and an X570 board on hand.
So weird for someone who supposedly hates AMD. (BTW, I also ran more than my share of them back in the Athlon 64 / Opteron days.)
Last edited:
Revenant_Knight
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2011
- Messages
- 696
I got the Ryzen 2600 in my family room PC because it was dirt cheap, the mainboard allowed upgrades for the future, and it works well the L9A cooler.
Bonus: I got my Athlon 750 because it was the fastest CPU on the market and overclocked to 800mhz like it was nothing.
Bonus: I got my Athlon 750 because it was the fastest CPU on the market and overclocked to 800mhz like it was nothing.
thesmokingman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
Imo, most of what you posted is BS, straight up. One has to really be opinionated to come to the conclusions you do and twist facts to suit that ridiculous POV. Most of what you wrote is horseshit, from the reverse engineering BS to the pricing etc etc.
When you have to compare a 3990x at $4K to a 3175 at $3k your are shilling. In reality the 3175 already loses to the 3970x which is priced at $2k The fact that you bring the 3990x into the equation is pure fabrication. The 3990x doesn't compete directly with any product.
I'm replying to these ridiculous claims so others can use it as a PSA.
Your opinions are not balanced, they are slanted and you can't see it through your posts. Maybe AMD would send you a 3960x sample if you were FAIR, or just keep it up and Intel will give you a 10980XE because they like to pay people that think like you. Like I said, I don't read your reviews. I look elsewhere, your bias in this forum shows and is what I base it off.
You really need to cut it out.
I agree with TSM 100% as well which I know he has a long standing reputation on many communities. I am glad I am not the only one willing to call out this BS.
Last edited:
Umm. AMD did reverse engineer Intel CPU's back in the day. This is fact. AMD charged just as much as Intel did for the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition for it's Athlon FX-51, 53 and FX-55 processors. This is fact. And yes, the Xeon W-3175 does lose to the 3970X, but it didn't exist when the Xeon W-3175 launched. Again, the 3990X is in the HEDT market segment and AMD's extended that price point well past the Xeon W-3175, which is my point. It will charge more than Intel has when it can. Agree, or disagree, but that's my opinion.
And I fail to see how this is "unfair" or biased against AMD. I've been recommending AMD processors since the Ryzen's came out. I wouldn't do that if I didn't like them or didn't think they were good. AMD's providing an incredible value right now and I've said as much. Intel only makes one CPU worth a shit right now and it's insanely expensive and you can't even by them. I'm not really recommending 9900K's or anything like that. My only point here is that AMD will charge just as much as Intel does when it can get away with it. That's how I see it and so far, history has shown this to be the case.
Fair enough. Forced transitions like Z270 to Z370 were basically horseshit.
That is why Intel did not get my money for two more processors.
AMD was not that big in OEMs, maybe now that has changed which would be good. Doesn't matter, if the OEM is buying AMD, the motherboard and CPU will come with it even if it is the same chipset/socket. I really don't see any relevance to making more money by changing chipsets/sockets by OEMs -> AMD will sell more CPU's if more motherboards that people own/buy will support those CPU's then if AMD constantly switched chipsets and sockets like Intel was my point. Once Intel switch the chipset/socket, that the new CPU can only run on -> That means less people can buy that new CPU and use it. When Intel was making motherboards for OEMs I can see some profit Intel could have made but Intel no longer make motherboards and just sells chipsets to 3rd party to make Intel motherboards.
gerardfraser
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,366
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,778
the athlon x2's were also super pricey, so much so I ended up getting an 805d for really cheap and overclocking it on water. I've always been an AMD guy but the x2's were priced out of my budget at the time.
Most of what you say is accurate though I do disagree about AMD moving up the price bracket for the 3950x and 3990x, imo it's a new market segment.
The X2 3800+ was the last AMD processor I did a build with, they were really pushing pricing upward with the X2 4800+ at that time and until they released the Manchesters it made no sense not to go with a Pentium D based on pricing alone.
Intel quit making motherboards because it wasn't selling any. OEM's like HP and Dell build and design their own. Intel didn't understand the DIY enthusiast market either. It thought you could throw a skull on a standard motherboard and it would appeal to gamers. They never understood what features or design elements appealed to gamers and enthusiasts.
You could make an argument for the 3990X being a new market segment. I'll concede that point. It's at a price point we've never seen before and honestly, the only thing it has to do with HEDT versus the high end workstation segment is that it shares the same motherboard as the rest of AMD's HEDT parts. However, the 3950X certainly isn't. The mainstream segment in the past has had $1,000 CPU's in it from both companies. Perhaps extending the segment was the wrong word. It's more like AMD has placed something in it at a price point we haven't seen in recent years.
Last edited:
NamelessPFG
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
- Messages
- 893
All of my recent builds are Intel, but that's because AMD had lost their performance advantage both times I had built a brand new computer, late 2007 and late 2013.
I still remember a time when no gamer in their right mind would've bought Intel, because NetBurst (Pentium 4/D) just plain sucked compared to Athlon 64. AMD really brought the Hammer down on an unsuspecting Intel just as the original Athlon (XP) architecture was falling behind, and the FX-51 mentioned earlier was a whopping $1,000 - because AMD knew that gamers with fat wallets would totally pay that. They even loved rubbing it in with savage advertising, like the Prescott Survival Kit. (Makes you wonder what a Tejas Survival Kit would've looked like, if Intel wasn't wise enough to can it.)
It's actually because of that that Intel brought out the Pentium 4 Emergency - er, Extreme Edition at the same price point, though I can't really see anyone favoring P4EE over an FX-51 at the time. In fact, the only reason I even have a P4EE build is because it was dirt cheap to do so over a decade later, and I needed something with ISA DMA support for a retrogaming build, which limited me to whatever ran on 875P - but if I were going for a no-holds-barred 2004 build, it'd be Athlon 64 FX, no question.
However, when Intel finally came back swinging with Conroe/Core 2, AMD faltered hard with the original Phenom architecture, down to a cache bug that required a bodge fix that killed performance. Between that and the legendary Core 2 Quad Q6600 (which was still in active use until very recently, and only because certain games require SSE4), it was a no-brainer which to pick in late 2007, right when Crysis had just dropped and everyone was itching to build something that could run it maxed.
Phenom II closed the gap and caught up to Core 2 - right as Intel was bringing out Nehalem/Westmere/1st-gen Core i7, putting them behind yet again. I still built a Phenom II X3 720 BE build for a client on a budget, though, and it worked pretty well.
The problem was after that - AMD's own NetBurst moment, the Bulldozer/FX architecture. You know it's bad when it had worse single-threaded performance than Phenom II, and this was also right around the time Intel brought out the Mendocino Celeron 300A of the 21st century in the form of Sandy Bridge.
Intel basically ran unchallenged from Sandy Bridge to roughly Skylake or Kaby Lake, roughly 6 or 7 years of CPU architectural improvements while AMD was stuck with FX, and it was around the time Haswell was out in 2013 that I realized the Q6600 wasn't cutting it in certain CPU-limited games anymore, so I built myself a 4770K system after six years on the Q6600, because going FX would've been even more foolish for gaming than picking Pentium 4 over Athlon 64 back in the 2000s.
Now that 4770K system, while serviceable, is getting a bit long in the tooth (I built it in late 2003), and I'm fixing to buy something newer with more cores and a more up-to-date platform with things like bootable M.2 NVMe slots that I don't get on Z87 - but Intel got complacent in that span of time, really complacent. You could see it in their HEDT platforms with all the artificial market segmentation going on, especially all that "UP TO" nonsense with X299 that Linus rightfully ripped them a new one for.
And right when Intel got cocky, AMD drops the new Zen architecture, which doesn't quite take the single-threaded crown, but is close enough at a far lower price point that I'd be hard-pressed not to take the multi-threaded advantage, and more recently, PCIe 4.0. Even at the high end, Threadripper curbstomps that X299 joke that Intel's been offering, with far more PCIe lanes and CPU cores on tap, and you're guaranteed that every single one of those PCIe lanes will be usable regardless of what CPU you buy.
Unless Intel finally stops iterating on Skylake and actually brings out something competitive later this year or the next, I will be going AMD with my next build - the only question being whether I go mainstream Ryzen for more single-threaded performance and substantially lower pricing, or Threadripper for PCIe lanes (don't really need more than 8 cores, just want more than 16 PCIe lanes off the CPU, which is also why the i9-9900K is so lousy to me for its price tag).
With all that said, having seen what sort of pricing AMD got away with in the Athlon 64 FX days and what they're doing now with 3rd-gen Threadripper, I'm under no illusions that they'd charge as much as Intel if they could get away with it, so Intel has to stay competitive too in order to keep both sides in check. It's just that all Intel's doing right now is flaunting their single-threaded gaming performance crown, because that's the only thing they have left over AMD right now when AMD is ThreadRIPPING AND TEARING into their HEDT marketshare with a superior platform and more scalability.
I still remember a time when no gamer in their right mind would've bought Intel, because NetBurst (Pentium 4/D) just plain sucked compared to Athlon 64. AMD really brought the Hammer down on an unsuspecting Intel just as the original Athlon (XP) architecture was falling behind, and the FX-51 mentioned earlier was a whopping $1,000 - because AMD knew that gamers with fat wallets would totally pay that. They even loved rubbing it in with savage advertising, like the Prescott Survival Kit. (Makes you wonder what a Tejas Survival Kit would've looked like, if Intel wasn't wise enough to can it.)
It's actually because of that that Intel brought out the Pentium 4 Emergency - er, Extreme Edition at the same price point, though I can't really see anyone favoring P4EE over an FX-51 at the time. In fact, the only reason I even have a P4EE build is because it was dirt cheap to do so over a decade later, and I needed something with ISA DMA support for a retrogaming build, which limited me to whatever ran on 875P - but if I were going for a no-holds-barred 2004 build, it'd be Athlon 64 FX, no question.
However, when Intel finally came back swinging with Conroe/Core 2, AMD faltered hard with the original Phenom architecture, down to a cache bug that required a bodge fix that killed performance. Between that and the legendary Core 2 Quad Q6600 (which was still in active use until very recently, and only because certain games require SSE4), it was a no-brainer which to pick in late 2007, right when Crysis had just dropped and everyone was itching to build something that could run it maxed.
Phenom II closed the gap and caught up to Core 2 - right as Intel was bringing out Nehalem/Westmere/1st-gen Core i7, putting them behind yet again. I still built a Phenom II X3 720 BE build for a client on a budget, though, and it worked pretty well.
The problem was after that - AMD's own NetBurst moment, the Bulldozer/FX architecture. You know it's bad when it had worse single-threaded performance than Phenom II, and this was also right around the time Intel brought out the Mendocino Celeron 300A of the 21st century in the form of Sandy Bridge.
Intel basically ran unchallenged from Sandy Bridge to roughly Skylake or Kaby Lake, roughly 6 or 7 years of CPU architectural improvements while AMD was stuck with FX, and it was around the time Haswell was out in 2013 that I realized the Q6600 wasn't cutting it in certain CPU-limited games anymore, so I built myself a 4770K system after six years on the Q6600, because going FX would've been even more foolish for gaming than picking Pentium 4 over Athlon 64 back in the 2000s.
Now that 4770K system, while serviceable, is getting a bit long in the tooth (I built it in late 2003), and I'm fixing to buy something newer with more cores and a more up-to-date platform with things like bootable M.2 NVMe slots that I don't get on Z87 - but Intel got complacent in that span of time, really complacent. You could see it in their HEDT platforms with all the artificial market segmentation going on, especially all that "UP TO" nonsense with X299 that Linus rightfully ripped them a new one for.
And right when Intel got cocky, AMD drops the new Zen architecture, which doesn't quite take the single-threaded crown, but is close enough at a far lower price point that I'd be hard-pressed not to take the multi-threaded advantage, and more recently, PCIe 4.0. Even at the high end, Threadripper curbstomps that X299 joke that Intel's been offering, with far more PCIe lanes and CPU cores on tap, and you're guaranteed that every single one of those PCIe lanes will be usable regardless of what CPU you buy.
Unless Intel finally stops iterating on Skylake and actually brings out something competitive later this year or the next, I will be going AMD with my next build - the only question being whether I go mainstream Ryzen for more single-threaded performance and substantially lower pricing, or Threadripper for PCIe lanes (don't really need more than 8 cores, just want more than 16 PCIe lanes off the CPU, which is also why the i9-9900K is so lousy to me for its price tag).
With all that said, having seen what sort of pricing AMD got away with in the Athlon 64 FX days and what they're doing now with 3rd-gen Threadripper, I'm under no illusions that they'd charge as much as Intel if they could get away with it, so Intel has to stay competitive too in order to keep both sides in check. It's just that all Intel's doing right now is flaunting their single-threaded gaming performance crown, because that's the only thing they have left over AMD right now when AMD is ThreadRIPPING AND TEARING into their HEDT marketshare with a superior platform and more scalability.
cjcox
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,946
I don't know.. when you look at the thread about SSD performance issues on Ryzen vs Intel, I'm still wondering if there are some kinks that still need to worked out. I've always said there's more to an architecture than merely the CPU. Everything has to work, work well and be very stable.
With that said, I do realize that sometimes it's the "few" that complain, so Ryzen might be rock solid with just a few detractors...
With that said, I do realize that sometimes it's the "few" that complain, so Ryzen might be rock solid with just a few detractors...
TheSlySyl
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 30, 2018
- Messages
- 2,704
I have particular workloads where multi-thread is very useful to me. I was still running a Phenom II X4 940BE when Ryzen came out, Curiosity and Hype convinced me to go for an 8C/16T CPU. I was also thinking that I could upgrade my CPU in the future, and there's still a damn good chance that I'll be putting a Ryzen 3000 series into this motherboard before its done.
Any modern CPU would have been an upgrade over that Phenom II, but i'm pretty happy with my choice, although there were some launch issues.
Any modern CPU would have been an upgrade over that Phenom II, but i'm pretty happy with my choice, although there were some launch issues.
Bees
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,208
Put the cash down for a complete new system tonight, including a 3700X and B450 board.
Reasonings:
1) Currently on that Skylake chipset which Intel is beating into the ground. No worthwhile offerings from team blue for what looks like some time.
2) Realized since putting that original build together, I've doubled pixel output. Sure, that's more GPU dependent, but I wanted to raise those 1% and 0.1% frame rates.
3) I've got a friend who will buy my leftovers locally.
4) New chips in September? Sign me up! Edit - welp.
Reasonings:
1) Currently on that Skylake chipset which Intel is beating into the ground. No worthwhile offerings from team blue for what looks like some time.
2) Realized since putting that original build together, I've doubled pixel output. Sure, that's more GPU dependent, but I wanted to raise those 1% and 0.1% frame rates.
3) I've got a friend who will buy my leftovers locally.
Last edited:
I just went for my THIRD Ryzen build. Why? Intel and their mobo.
I posted elsewhere about this: my i7-6700k/z170 combo has a failure that is slowing all internet speeds to a crawl. I am convinced I have a failed motherboard component.
Last night, after a radio station could not stream without repeated buffering, I ordered the first of the parts to replace the 6700k with a 3700x.
Having already just put together a 3700x/570x to replace an i7-4790k/z87, I am -very- happy with the 3700x/570x. (To be fair to intel, that i7-4790k/z87 is STILL a good combo. It's sitting in my closet. I'm not sure what to do with it, atm.)
Between the two 3700x's and the 2700x I have, I am certainly gambling (hoping?) that the AM4 socket will be usable for another generation or two.
The price, the performance, the motherboard longevity, the futureproofing: that's why I went with AMD.
I posted elsewhere about this: my i7-6700k/z170 combo has a failure that is slowing all internet speeds to a crawl. I am convinced I have a failed motherboard component.
Last night, after a radio station could not stream without repeated buffering, I ordered the first of the parts to replace the 6700k with a 3700x.
Having already just put together a 3700x/570x to replace an i7-4790k/z87, I am -very- happy with the 3700x/570x. (To be fair to intel, that i7-4790k/z87 is STILL a good combo. It's sitting in my closet. I'm not sure what to do with it, atm.)
Between the two 3700x's and the 2700x I have, I am certainly gambling (hoping?) that the AM4 socket will be usable for another generation or two.
The price, the performance, the motherboard longevity, the futureproofing: that's why I went with AMD.
The have pretty much confirmed the next generation will be compatible, and if you have an x570 you're pretty safe to assume it'll get a bios upgrade. If you're rocking a B350 I don't know if they would bother. All arrows point to the chips coming out this year being the last of the AM4/backward compatible for this platform, but lets be honest, AM4 lasted a really long time considering (not so much for my sylake/kabylake Intel builds).
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
It mostly depends on if the bios has enough memory. My Asrock B350 pro4 has been updated to a 3950x, but I have not seen the new series. The bios has 128mb.
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
we'll have to see if there's any changes to VRM requirements for the new chips.. but i could see some of the b350 boards not supporting all the zen 3 chips. some of them already had super sketchy VRM configurations to begin with.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
If the TDP is the same, then they should be fine with a newer version? They could just get an update but not support the 12/16 version?(or whatever they tested as safe)
Yes, it's possible you can put a 4600x for example but not work with a 4950x due to TDP/VRM limits. I can't make any promises for what a motherboard manufacturer may or may not do though!!! Also, remember a lot of B350's where already EEPROM constrained for the 3xxx series. This won't be better for the 4xxx series. Also, a lot of B350's are already over 3 years old, not sure how much more effort the manufacturers are going to put time/effort/resources into them. How many updates do you hear about for a B250 from Intel? Those came out within 1 month apart... the fact that you still see B350's rocking and people still buying them is impressive in it's own right, but I probably wouldn't go buying one and hoping for future support. I have a B450 and am hopeful but wouldn't be that upset if I had to upgrade to a B550 when they come out. It takes microcode updates to support a new CPU (or cpu series), so it is dependent on the Mfg adding the support and the bios having enough space to fit more code.