Smells an awful lot like Bulldozer/Piledriver.
This is just embarrassing. If they keep this up, AMD is going to end up becoming stagnant like Intel was in the 2010’s.
1 Like
supposedly the new CPUs are designed to better address the server market where “AI” can better drive E cores as opposed to using HT. That said the server market definitely has higher margins than desktop. Does it suck for desktop users? Yep
Without competition why push performance when you can sandbag performance for higher margins. Not only will AMD sandbag in CPUs but without AMD & Intel pushing Nvidia, expect sandbagging in Nvidia upper performance GPUs. This is why I always say regardless if you like brand A, B, or C you should hope for performance from all of them as a better Intel CPU makes for a better AMD CPU. A better AMD GPU makes for a better Nvidia GPU. With competition, the consumer wins since the market dictates price & value. Without competition, the business get to dictate price and value and the consumer loses.
2 Likes
It’s already started with AMD - the lukewarm reception for 9k series CPUs, and resulting inventory reduction of their previous generation, are great examples.
1 Like
oh my
TPU has written reviews up just now
1 Like
seems consistent
still performing worse than 13th and 14th gen
edit: although, the new i5 seems ok if pricing is right
does in great in AI, pretty good in certain software development and rendering tests
for real life desktop and gaming, you are basically getting Zen 4 type performance & power use for a premium price. It’s an easy pass for most desktop people, they would get more value from the 7600/x, 7700/x, and 7800X3D.
i’d wager most desktop users want stability above all else, and probably gaming comes next.
People who do a lot of video editing and those types of tasks, most seem to just start the task and wander off to do something else. They’re probably more interested in efficiency than a slightly shorter render time. A minute or two here or there probably not influencing many purchasing decisions, but feeling uncomfortable in your own office might.
1 Like
right now in MC I can get
Ultra 265 for $320
AMD 9700x for $310, better in gaming than above and better in MS office. Worse in more demanding software apps most people wont use
AMD 7700x for $260, slightly better in gaming & MS office than the Ultra Worse in more demanding software apps most people wont use.
Intel 12900k, mobo & RAM for $399 - same in gaming as the ultra, better in MS office, worse in more demanding software apps most people wont use. Larger power demands.
It’s a tough sell on the Ultra and tough to beat the 7700x. MS will push the AI part and certain game engines will be able to take advantage of it down the road but there will be better CPUs out there by that time. This is a swing and a miss for Intel towards desktop & gaming owners.
1 Like
they do have good temps, pretty good at encoding, pretty good at rendering (not for in game) and excellent in AI. Like I said above, server market & workstations. Sure, you don’t need AIO coolers now for the flagship CPUs. They did all that at the expense of real world desktop performance for most at hone users. AMD attempted a similar thing with bulldozer/pile driver. Intel did a slightly better job here but from a gaming perspective I think most users will look at this line as something to avoid or get at a significant discount from current prices.
12900k bundle is a huge deal and has been for some time.
got that bundle (or the MSI version) last year and she’s satisfied with it. Intel for budget gaming is worthwhile. They are just totally dead in high end gaming.
1 Like
These aren’t exactly server CPUs anyway. I believe AMD’s EPYC chips are dominating that market right now, especially compounded by Intel’s magnificent failure rate.
On the consumer side for productivity, the 7950X3D is pretty incredible value, and the new 9000X chips ended up being decent productivity chips, but were only comparable to existing 7000-series for performance. AMD sort of saturated their own consumer market by this point, since having AM4 so good at gaming, and AM5 having some great productivity chips, the Zen5% meme was inevitable with the general lack of gaming uplift to pair with it.
I really wish the 7600X3D (and the presumed 9000 version) would be a mass market product instead of an MC exclusive.
The speculation is that 7600X3Ds are just poorly binned 7800X3Ds. They don’t perform far off from their superior counterpart.
Additional speculation is that the end of the 5800X3D and 5600X3D is to keep stock for the V-cache available for newer chips. It makes sense, but is a bummer for people not gunning for the latest and greatest hardware, or specifically want to build a solid budget rig for their needs.
I exist on the high end, but even I will be awaiting benchmarks on the 9800X3D before consideration. While I’ll tout AMD as the king for CPUs right now, their marketing is still extremely dubious and doesn’t warrant any brand loyalty. …Not that anyone should exercise brand loyalty in tech.
Intel has reopened their chip plants in Ohio but it’s big long term investment. When in a few years that kicks off and they’re potentially making industry leading breakthroughs again with smaller transisters and whatever else that will be probably what helps them do better. AMD relies on TSMC like everyone else so far and so Intel doing it’s own chips and what not could be a massive boon.
That competition could be what also pushes CPU tech to the next level as I read it stagnated for quite awhile. But again it’ll prob be a few years out we start noticing.
i’m all for bringing fabrication back home again, so i suppose I should be looking at the bigger picture.
1 Like
don’t forget Intel will easily sell twice as many Ultra 9 as AMD does 9900X or 9800 X3D. I know that sounds outrageous and blasphemous but if you are HP, DELL, Lenovo, Asus, etc., and you buy desktop & laptop chips by the tens of thousands what does AMD offer you outside of your gaming division which makes up little in sales volume compared to your more basic lines? If I’m Dell, I can’t put any AMD chip into my Inspirons outside of their APUs which offer pretty good graphics but mediocre CPU performance.
The more you look at it, it’s almost like Intel wanted to compete with Apple’s chips then they did AMDs and just kind of said you can have that DIY build sector to AMD. Kind of like what AMD said to Nvidia on the high end GPU sector.
Intel has a vicegrip on the prebuilt and server market. Most companies won’t buy anything unless it has an Intel CPU in it. In the server market, I’ve never purchased an AMD machine. The closest I’ve been was buying actual workstations for things like CAD or work in labs… and even then I lost my fight and ended up having to buy Xeon based systems.
My own parents just bought new laptops and sent me a couple models they were looking at. They noted one was AMD and asked if would be ok “even though it didnt have an intel” <— their words. Spec for spec the AMD based system was better… but they still went with Intel.
I should say specifically as it pertains to gamers, Intel is doing poorly.
Government and large corporations often tend to make little sense.
Yep. The X3d chips will go down in history as some of the best gaming cpus ever. Same vein as the Celeron 300A, Core 2 Duo e6300, AMD 64 Athlon +3000 (and X2 variants later), Intel Q6600, Intel i5 2500k, and Ryzen 7 1700.
1 Like