hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,226 +3,077
Cool story. What you described is revenue. aka, not what I was talking about. Read comments a couple more times before replying just in case this mistake happens again.
AMD says Ryzen was a "worst case scenario," Threadripper built by engineers in their spare...
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
Cool story. What you described is revenue. aka, not what I was talking about. Read comments a couple more times before replying just in case this mistake happens again.
J
Jibberish18
Good for you AMD. Truly happy for these guys.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
I have no idea how you pick the 1/8, perhaps from somewhere the sun does shine. Real fact what does you basic i3 Kabylake run at? Noneven the unlocked K version See:
https://ark.intel.com/products/97455/Intel-Core-i3-7100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_90-GHz
3.9 GHZ. So basically 100% of the (non lower/medium power)desktop Kabylakes can clock over 3.8Ghz. And what you consider the small fraction more than matches the entire market share of Ryzen, and there is no ryzen lower power mobile edition yet to date.
Yep cherry picking.... Looks like you are the one doing it. And in the same article you see lots of charts like this:
Ignore gaming all you want. But this won't sell to gamers. BTW I got my 7700K for $280, and I don't need to spend extra $100 per 16GB for that super high speed DDR4-3600 stuff. And my mini-itx z270 mobo was only $140, because there are very few options for mini-itx no AM4 mini-itx back in March or if that situation has even changed for AM4. There is no reason get $250 mobo every other year. My old i5-2500K z68 is 6 years old and still good enough for backup duty and it can do rendering just fine while I sleep, or game or doing whatever else.
It is good you got Ryzen for your rendering farm. But just because Intel is the king of overpricing, with $1000 extreme ripoff edition, it does NOT let AMD of the hook for overpricing either. Being less overpriced is still overpriced.
And in simple terms Ryzen doesn't got game. Maybe ryzen 2 will may be not, that is TBD, therefore the worse case scenario has NOT even been visited yet.
"I have no idea how you pick the 1/8, perhaps from somewhere the sun does shine. Real fact what does you basic i3 Kabylake run at?"
Yep, because everyone has the latest kabby lake processors Oh wait, they don't. Yes, I'm sure people are raring to spend $130 on that i3 when you can buy a hyper-threaded Ryzen 1300X at 3.7 GHz with hyper-threading that beats it in gaming and everything else. Let's not even forget the better cooler that comes with the 1300X. What ever happened to your "value" argument?
"Yep cherry picking.... Looks like you are the one doing it. And in the same article you see lots of charts like this:"
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
Exactly what you are doing by linking to a single image where in contrast I linked to an entire review. How can someone be so slow as to accuse others of doing something while doing just that in the same sentence?
"Ignore gaming all you want. But this won't sell to gamers."
I must have missed the last few months where it's driven my 144 Hz monitor perfectly. Or the many many reviews that obviously prove that it can game. You do realize that the only lead Intel has in gaming is the 7700k right? The lower clocked Intel processors don't have a performance lead and cost more than their AMD counter parts. I think you meant to say "AMD won't sell to elitist Intel gamers more fool than fit". How about we take a look at the bulk of the market eh? The lower end i3 and Ryzen 3
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11658/the-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-ryzen-3-1200-cpu-review/10
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-cpu,5149-3.html
Oh that's right, the i3 gets spanked in gaming and productivity. This isn't even considering that you can overclock those Ryzen processors but you can't on the Intel.
"BTW I got my 7700K for $280, and I don't need to spend extra $100 per 16GB for that super high speed DDR4-3600 stuff"
Ha! Another bit of proof you have no clue. TechSpot has already had multiple articles that have come to the conclusion that RAM speed is equally important for Ryzen as it is for Intel.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html
The only thing you managed to do is doop yourself into thinking you are getting more performance, because your not. All these reviews are done with high speed RAM to eliminate bottlenecks. So congrats, your poke at AMD was an epic fail.
"And my mini-itx z270 mobo was only $140, because there are very few options for mini-itx no AM4 mini-itx back in March or if that situation has even changed for AM4"
Why did you even bother stating this? A quick google search would have given you the answer that there are AM4 mobo's. No ****, AM4 didn't have ITX right out the gate. Are you going to criticize intel for not having ITX when Skylake first release? I'm guessing you didn't, because you obviously have double standards.
"There is no reason get $250 mobo every other year."
When you do professional work like I do, you get the best board with the best power delivery and feature set. If you're on Intel you have no choice to get the latest boards if you want the latest proc.
"My old i5-2500K z68 is 6 years old and still good enough for backup duty and it can do rendering just fine while I sleep, or game or doing whatever else. "
The 2500K is one of the worst CPUs you could use for rendering, you'd be 100x better buying an higher core count xeon. I can get a dual socket 12 core system for the same price and get more than 3x the performance thanks to hyper threading.
"It is good you got Ryzen for your rendering farm. But just because Intel is the king of overpricing, with $1000 extreme ripoff edition, it does NOT let AMD of the hook for overpricing either. Being less overpriced is still overpriced."
Um, that $1000 by far is not the most egregious example. I'm guessing you haven't seen their server processor pricing pre-threadripper. But of course, you are somehow shifting the blame to AMD. Overpricing? You are the only person I have ever heard call Ryzen overpriced. A historic drop in CPU prices and you call AMD overpriced, LOL.
"And in simple terms Ryzen doesn't got game. Maybe ryzen 2 will may be not, that is TBD, therefore the worse case scenario has NOT even been visited yet."
You are the only one claiming this, literally every review on the internet contradicts your opinion. Just because Ryzen gets 145 FPS and Intel get 165 doesn't mean AMD can't game, not at all.
I don't enjoy spending time correcting your egregiously incorrect opinion and we are all stupider for having read it.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
lol, your comment
"Worst case scenario and it shows.
Wake me when AMD releases a chip for the 80% instead of the 20% Ryzen caters to.
Also wake me when AMD gets out of the graphics business and sells it to someone that can actually put money and focus into it."
You never stated revenue, in fact you never state what % it was referring to at all.
/fail @ RDcomp on your own comments.
Your always a good laugh, just like your name implies. Ah, the internet troll who makes assumptions in his initial comment and can't take them back.
F
Flebbert
Nothing you said provides a valid argument and based on your logic you wouldn't buy and Intel CPU actually I don't think you can buy any products in the computing world.
Nothing is perfect in this industry regardless of how much time you spend testing, on release having tens of thousands of people using your products cannot be replicated before launch.
I think the more important thing is the response the company has when you find issues
Goal post status: Moved
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
So I see you're going with the "I can't put up an actual argument so I might as well troll" comment. Keep it coming, your salty tears sustain me.
Sometimes you really have to wonder. Based on what a lot of people say, these Ryzens must be shittier than all the Celerons for gaming or anything using 1-4 cores.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,226 +3,077
I know I didn't, because I I thought it was obvious. And you didn't even bother to ask before replying.
And you accused ME of making assumptions. Have a good day, sir.
The i5 is not being burned to ground no matter how much you like to repeat you hyperbole. In fact this what the benches typically show for the i5, here is an example:
referene: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4
The i5 biggest problem is that you can get Ryzen 3 for $100 and is much better for bang-for-the-buck than both i5 and R5. When the 1600x is priced linearly compared to R3, so $50 for two more cores so R5 1600x $150, then your Ryzen 5 is not overpriced.
Fact of the matter is the Ryzen as whole has been overpriced. Barely 6 months in since the march launch and the Ryzen 1800x has dropped $150 from the release price of $500. Recall:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-zen-release-date-specs-prices-rumours/#price
"The eight-core, 16-thread R7 1800X has a suggested retail price of $499, the slightly slower R7 1700X is $399 and the bottom R7 1700 is $329. "
And now on the market for $350 see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/476003/Ryzen_7_1800X_36_GHz_8_Core_AM4_Boxed_Processor
If this is not evidence of being overpriced, then is not much left to argue about. Some once said:
“It is much easier to believe lies than the truth."
The market price for Ryzen has all been on a downward trend and all had to adjusted down. This is a fact. This means AMD's pricing from the get go was overpriced. AMD prices them high to maximize the donations from their worshippers, they do this to Ryzen and then again to Vega. This is all very obvious, and when that has dried up, the prices have only one direction to go, that is down.
Tell us where you got those percentages from? I didn't know that the 7700k caters to 80% of the market and that the CPUs at the i3 and i5 range, where AMD currently has better CPUs even for gaming, accounts for only 20% of the market.
Last edited:
oh look, someone else who thinks that the majority of gamers have the money for an i7 7700k and because this is a better gaming CPU then all Intel CPUs are better. I also like how you are cherry picking results. Even in the BF chart you took from an old benchmark shows just how bad the i5 can get when a game can properly use more than 4 threads.I have no idea how you pick the 1/8, perhaps from somewhere the sun does shine. Real fact what does you basic i3 Kabylake run at? Noneven the unlocked K version See:
https://ark.intel.com/products/97455/Intel-Core-i3-7100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_90-GHz
3.9 GHZ. So basically 100% of the (non lower/medium power)desktop Kabylakes can clock over 3.8Ghz. And what you consider the small fraction more than matches the entire market share of Ryzen, and there is no ryzen lower power mobile edition yet to date.
Yep cherry picking.... Looks like you are the one doing it. And in the same article you see lots of charts like this:
Ignore gaming all you want. But this won't sell to gamers. BTW I got my 7700K for $280, and I don't need to spend extra $100 per 16GB for that super high speed DDR4-3600 stuff. And my mini-itx z270 mobo was only $140, because there are very few options for mini-itx no AM4 mini-itx back in March or if that situation has even changed for AM4. There is no reason get $250 mobo every other year. My old i5-2500K z68 is 6 years old and still good enough for backup duty and it can do rendering just fine while I sleep, or game or doing whatever else.
It is good you got Ryzen for your rendering farm. But just because Intel is the king of overpricing, with $1000 extreme ripoff edition, it does NOT let AMD of the hook for overpricing either. Being less overpriced is still overpriced.
And in simple terms Ryzen doesn't got game. Maybe ryzen 2 will may be not, that is TBD, therefore the worse case scenario has NOT even been visited yet.
here dude, this is how it looks today:
You've also been told many many times by many ppl that AMD didn't overprice their CPUs, they actually offer much better value than Intel. You inability to see that is concerning and even more concerning is the fact that you think gaming is the only metric CPUs should be price around.
Last edited:
.... this is how it looks today:
Where is i5 on this chart? The R5 is not top on this chart either. And since the i5 here has already been established to be within a percent or 2 of the 7700K see:
Reference: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4
It means even today the R5 is not doing better than the i5 across the board for gaming. Being on par or adequate is the not the same as "burning down" like the exaggeration some people like to make.
Keep telling yourself that. The market has a different idea. We are not the "poorly educated" that is so easily fooled. The market pricing trends are only downward for Ryzen. And AMD has had more price reduction imposed on Ryzen by the market in less time than Intel had with their well known overpriced stuff. The evidence from the market has proven that AMD was overpricing the Ryzen from the start. AMD's release price for Ryzen was completely unrealistic. This is not imagination, delusions, or subjective opinion, this is real pricing on the street reality.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,774 +9,665
Many people cannot seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the gaming market is a very small part of the overall market, and that AMD targeting the gaming market on the first iteration would have been a stupid, at best, business decision. Maybe, just maybe the revenue they earn from the deep pockets of the workstation and server markets will enable AMD to stay competitive with Intel for the foreseeable future.
Besides, the people who are complaining still have the Intel choice!
First of all define small. There a billions of dollars in the slice the pie made up by gamers. Secondly, AMD's market was deceitful trying to draw in all the gamers with all the hype targeted at gamers. Just like all the hype they had with Vega, and then they do the bait-and-switch, and AMD says "oops, we meant compute". If gamers are upset, AMD only have themselves to blame. And to top it all off they have the audacity to overprice. Intel is the king of overpricing, but AMDs action has basically let them get away with bloody murder. And the "worst case scenario" for AMD, that hasn't even be touched yet. Anyone knows what that really means?
There is no double standards. AMD failed to test adequately. failed to get board partners lined up, these are all self-inflicted errors commited by AMD. Not to mention they are more than 6 years late to market. Ryzen's gaming performance is only about par with Sandybridge.
Can you get it for free? I didn't think so. It is best to reuse old gaming machines for rendering, compression, transcoding etc. They can render while I sleep. Nobody cares if it 3x as long, when you can have multiple old machines all cranking on something. And I got old haswells, and old sandybridges that are good for that kind of stuff and doesn't require me to spend thousands for new hardware and building machines to do that.
LOL. Professional. This what happens in corporate IT departments. You get assigned that PC and keep it until they decide to replace it. I got old core2duo in the lab still running test scripts. Hell no they won't replace your board and never would they get the best board. They will get the cheapest board and the cheapest system they can finagle from Dell, HP or the likes. If you are self-employed you are probably losing money buying all that hardware. Heck my main desktop at work is an very ancient i5-4670 non-K Dell and had to fight bean counters in finances to get another 16GB just so I can get a couple more VMs running for my git repos and compiles.
hey look another old benchmark.Where is i5 on this chart? The R5 is not top on this chart either. And since the i5 here has already been established to be within a percent or 2 of the 7700K see:
Reference: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4
It means even today the R5 is not doing better than the i5 across the board for gaming. Being on par or adequate is the not the same as "burning down" like the exaggeration some people like to make.
Keep telling yourself that. The market has a different idea. We are not the "poorly educated" that is so easily fooled. The market pricing trends are only downward for Ryzen. And AMD has had more price reduction imposed on Ryzen by the market in less time than Intel had with their well known overpriced stuff. The evidence from the market has proven that AMD was overpricing the Ryzen from the start. AMD's release price for Ryzen was completely unrealistic. This is not imagination, delusions, or subjective opinion, this is real pricing on the street reality.
and here's the interesting part. if you average BF1, Total War: Warhammer and Watch Dogs 2 (just these 3 games) you get that the OCed 7600k is ~8% faster compared to the OCed 1600x with the lows going back and forth between AMD winning and Intel winning by slim margins, but if you look at the Metro: Last Light results, the 7600k has only slightly slower avg FPS, but it's 0.1% go down to 33FPS vs 55FPS on the 1600x.
And if you like cherry picking benchmarks then here, enjoy this one:
TL;DR The 1600 is a much better buy than the 7600k. The only delusions I see here are yours I still can't comprehend why you can't see the obvious that the majority of people are seeing.
You are basically paying less and getting much more with just small compromises in some games (and that's only if you are using the 1080TI at 1080p with a 200$ class CPU). You are trading better than 7700k multithreading performance for a few gains in some titles while losing in others
Last edited:
Whatever happened to "burn to the ground"? Now it is just your supposedly "much better buy". How is it a much better buy when it is not cheaper, and definite not much cheaper than the 7600k. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472532/Core_i5-7600K_Kaby_Lake_380_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
And the R5 doesn't even win 100% of the time in non-gaming uses see:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/7
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/9
And how do you justifying way overpricing compared to $100 Ryzen 3? $25 per AMD core, so the much better buy is the R3, The R5 1600x needs to be at $150 to be much better buy to be at least even compared the R3. $50 for R5 is probably actually still too generous considering you get only a effectice 4% gain see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-1600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/3919vs3930
Those multithreading gains are not worth the price premiums AMD is demanding. That is why it is overpriced. We don't play cinebench blender handbrake 24/7. Ryzen's strength does NOT align with generalized workload or gaming. It is NOT a good fit, so that strength does NOT get to command a price premium. Is just like when AMD rolled out 64bit compute with the Socket939. They didn't get to charge price premium for 64-bit. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you like to give donations to AMD? I happen to like to save money. The best money saver right now is the Ryzen 3. You don't need all that multithreading, and there is not enough return for the dollar to spend more for them.
Last edited:
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
So I'm bad for correcting your assumptions? /BigPileofSalt
"There is no double standards. AMD failed to test adequately. failed to get board partners lined up, these are all self-inflicted errors commited by AMD. Not to mention they are more than 6 years late to market. Ryzen's gaming performance is only about par with Sandybridge. "
Like I said earlier, Intel has done the same thing recently on multiple occasions. Is skylake not tested because the of bugs the stock stepping had?
"Can you get it for free? I didn't think so. It is best to reuse old gaming machines for rendering, compression, transcoding etc. They can render while I sleep. Nobody cares if it 3x as long, when you can have multiple old machines all cranking on something. And I got old haswells, and old sandybridges that are good for that kind of stuff and doesn't require me to spend thousands for new hardware and building machines to do that. "
So your spending more money, more space, and more electricity on the same amount of power and your going to tell me no one cares? Nope, you must be the only one who thinks that heat won't be an issue during the summer or that space won't be an issue. This isn't even considering that you have to buy accompanying parts for each computer as well. There is zero incentive for doing things your way and methinks you've never actually done it.
"LOL. Professional. This what happens in corporate IT departments. You get assigned that PC and keep it until they decide to replace it. I got old core2duo in the lab still running test scripts. Hell no they won't replace your board and never would they get the best board. They will get the cheapest board and the cheapest system they can finagle from Dell, HP or the likes. Heck my main desktop at work is an very ancient i5-4670 non-K Dell and had to fight bean counters in finances to get another 16GB just so I can get a couple more VMs running for my git repos and compiles."
Assumptions! Who said anything about corporate IT work?
"If you are self-employed you are probably losing money buying all that hardware. "
First, you'd have to be a pretty bad business to not make enough money to cover equipment upgrades. Second, you can write off anything used for the business on your taxes. Every business does this and anyone with basic knowledge would know this.
Guess what I did NOT buy skylake stuff. Not enough gain at the time to even worth the time for consideration.
To quote you...
Gaming comes first for me. My old machines all have all the necessary bits made up of hand-me-downs (from memory, cpu, mouse, kb, case etc.), from when I upgrade my main machine, and heat and electricity doesn't amount to much for a overnight run every now and then. I rip the blue-rays throw the content thru handbrake to compress and then put the mp4 video on the phone/tablet for the road trip. I'm sure I am not the only person that has done very mundane things like this. If I got several movies to do, I got several old machines already sitting there. I cost me essentially nothing other than a little electricity to do that.
What you've clearly shown is that you just make the assumption that everyone has workloads like you. Most people don't need a render farm like you. And it does NOT pay to spend for money for under utilized cores and threads. And it doesn't matter if you can try to write of some your hardware costs, you are not getting dollar for dollar tax reduction for every dollar you spent on cost. If your tax bracket is 15% for likes of Buffet and Romney, you are only getting 15 cents back per dollar cost. And if you are replacing your hardware all the time for your business you NOT being very frugal and not minimizing your costs effectively.
You sure like to talk a lot without actually making sense.
Ok dude, before you embarrass yourself further, put in numbers AMD's "premium".
- What are the numbers?
- How much extra do you pay for AMD? What is the delta?
- Why do you consider gaming to be the only metric you use to calculate the value of a CPU?
- Why is something that costs less, doesn't require a third party cooler and has 2x more multithreading performance worth less compared to something that in some games is slightly faster: ~1600 vs 7600k~ (I don't think I need to remind you that the 1600 is only 10% slower than the 7700k which in turn is faster than the 7600K in all situations)
- Why is "multithreading" nothing to you? Do the games that use it just not exist in your book?
Let's see your thought process, because believe me I freaking tried to understand you but you kept showing old benchmarks and you even cherry picked those. And even those you picked showed why exactly your reasoning is flawed.
You said this when I showed you the BF1 picture: "Where is i5 on this chart? The R5 is not top on this chart either. And since the i5 here has already been established to be within a percent or 2 of the 7700K"
- Why does the i5 need to be there when it had the i7?
- Why did you link us an review that had only 4 games and in one of them the i5 was posting high avg but pathetically low mins? (the 7600k's avg fps was 13% slower than the 7700k, but the 0.1% was 3x lower)
- Why are the newer benchmarks which include more games and updated games/bios/drivers irrelevent to you?
In all fairness, you won't be able to answer these questions because they have already been answered by everybody else using facts not just personal opinions.
Where is the new benchmarks with the patches, and not just singly silly benches without the i5, and i7 for comparison, no some doctored youtube garbage video either. I tried looking for them, but where the heck are they? You guys talk about them but never show the data.
Isn't techspot recent article good enough:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1478-destiny-2-pc-benchmarks/
Nah, it doesn't show AMD in a very favorable light, it shows the Ryzen gimping the GTX1080ti.
So if published old benches is all we got, then those are the facts we can discuss. The rest is all made up conjecture. Wheres the tables and charts of all the benches?
Show them already. It shouldn't be hard.
Tom's just did a recent bench for VR see:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/oculus-rift-vr-cpu-performance,5215-8.html
And example of typical results chosen by random:
Where is your updated benches to show otherwise? AMD didn't provide patches again? How many months has it been since release, 6 monhts. How much longer do people have to wait for moar patches?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/oculus-rift-vr-cpu-performance,5215-8.html
And example of typical results chosen by random:
Where is your updated benches to show otherwise? AMD didn't provide patches again? How many months has it been since release, 6 monhts. How much longer do people have to wait for moar patches?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Vfeheherh- tripx99x replied
-
Senua's Saga: Hellblade II system requirements revealed, 70GB of storage space required- Squid Surprise replied
-
Intel CPUs Are Crashing and It's Intel's Fault: Intel Baseline Profile Benchmark- erickmendes replied
-
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Revisit: Is this the GOAT?- Arbie replied
