Why Ryzen Was Amazing and the Haters Were All Wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loadedaxe

Posts: 78   +119
Great article Steve!
I am considering a 5800X3D to replace my 3800X chip, I do love this 10900k I have as well though and even thought of jumping to a 12900K system. Its cheaper to go 5800X3D for the simple fact I don't need a new motherboard (Asus Prime X570 P) I haven't decided, one needs to be sold though as the need for 2 PCs is no longer.

I cant wait for your review of the older boards.
 

dangh

Posts: 662   +1,037
Thank for the piece, well written. I've jumped on AMD quite a time ago (k6 266... after IBM286) and after changing at some stage to 4690k returned to ryzen family. Happy to see the direction AMD goes and hope they will continue doing that. Lets hope next mb platform will last another 4-5 generations of CPUs.
 

envirovore

Posts: 510   +946
TechSpot Elite
Having upgraded from a R5 2600 to a R7 3700x, all while using the same parts otherwise, is the reason I went with AMD for my newer build just as I have in the past. Their stance on platform longevity and support, even if it meant they weren't necessarily the best at the time (hi, bulldozer).

I plan on swapping that 3700x out for a higher end 5xxx series later this year and riding AM4 out for at least another year if not more before jumping to AM5.

Intel's 'strategy' of making users buy a new motherboard every two CPU releases has been *the* factor in not buying into any of their platforms for any one of my machines since I started investing in my own PC's over 20 years ago.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,217   +4,269
You know, instead of all the new features about fancy memory and such taking up space on the AM5 official announcement a few days ago I would have liked for Lisa to just commit to another 5 generations of Ryzen chips for AM5. It would have been a much better selling point than some nvme + memory acceleration scheme I guarantee nobody will use for the next 2 or 3 years anyway.
 
I started with 2600X on B450 Tomahawk, upgrading to 5800X3D will keep me going for several chipset generations without any other change to the system (maybe a GPU next year, depends on what the next gen is gonna be like). Can't wait to skip all the early AM5/DDR5/PCIE5 stuff and wait for when all of that drops in price and is optimized. If the motherboard lasts until the next-next generation, even better.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 304   +421
I was a solid Intel boy. Ryzen changed all of that for me. Absolutely rock solid. Upgraded CPU recently and couldn't believe my old board works perfectly. No new memory (I run 64GB of RAM), no new nothing. Pop CPU in and go.

With what I believe a heavy recession about to kick in, any way to save money now will pay big dividends next year.
 

envirovore

Posts: 510   +946
TechSpot Elite
You know, instead of all the new features about fancy memory and such taking up space on the AM5 official announcement a few days ago I would have liked for Lisa to just commit to another 5 generations of Ryzen chips for AM5. It would have been a much better selling point than some nvme + memory acceleration scheme I guarantee nobody will use for the next 2 or 3 years anyway.


It's expected to be supported for as long as AM4, at least as of now.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17192/ces-2022-amds-nextgen-am5-platform-to-have-long-term-support

Still a better choice for upgrade path over Intel, assuming Intel sticks with their history of forcing a mobo upgrade every two releases.
 

nodfor

Posts: 287   +491
You can get an 5600X and enjoy top tier gaming perf but we didn't get there easy - AMD planned to block b450, then eventually they let even b350 get an update. And the price initially, for the 5600X, well it was just bad.

I would still recommend AMD today but only because prices for late gen Intel motherboards are out of touch with reality.
 

emmzo

Posts: 672   +910
It's expected to be supported for as long as AM4, at least as of now.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17192/ces-2022-amds-nextgen-am5-platform-to-have-long-term-support

Still a better choice for upgrade path over Intel, assuming Intel sticks with their history of forcing a mobo upgrade every two releases.
I suppose it's a great argument for some, same mobo. I upgrade cpu in 5-6 years, I had never used the same mobo and even if it were still compatible I'd just buy a new one anyway for a new system, because there's other upgrades available anyway.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,217   +4,269
It's expected to be supported for as long as AM4, at least as of now.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17192/ces-2022-amds-nextgen-am5-platform-to-have-long-term-support

Still a better choice for upgrade path over Intel, assuming Intel sticks with their history of forcing a mobo upgrade every two releases.
Expected is nice but I am looking for official commitment from AMD not just an expectation.

You see Steve here while otherwise very fair in this piece is actually in my opinion, making light of the "small hiccup" with AMD almost dropping backwards compatibility for Ryzen chips.

Then this is Lisa's statement:

‘I don’t have an exact number of years but I would say that you should expect that AM5 will be a long-lived platform as AM4 has been’

So instead of what I would expect in terms of AMD giving us assurance they will support the platform all the way through to confirm by implication that they won't have these 'technical hiccups' where they were basically bullied by press and supporters into supporting the earlier chipsets, now we have an extremely soft and non-committed statement telling us the opposite "Sure we'll make sure to support the platform for a while, but we won't actually make it spec for partners to put large enough UEFI to support many large updates so if they run into space limitations like we did in AM4 this time I did not promise support so you'll just have to buy a new motherboard"

Sorry but I don't want this thread to be just a big old rainbow and flower orgy praising AMD: they're not perfect just because they're better than intel and they won't ever be unless the press and the users demand a more firm commitment than "You should expect..."
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,597   +2,562
People have forgotten, pre and post Zen, you didn't have to upgrade as often on Intel as you did on AMD to keep up. If all AMD users care about are CPU upgrades, then you were basically the ones wasting your money. Look how long people kept i7 920's, 2500K's, and 7700K's and remained at or near the top in gaming compared to Bulldozer and Zen at those times. 4C/4T i5 was beating an 8C/16T R7!

New motherboards mean a new chipset, meaning more or better features and performance. I'll never turn that down if I want it after the 3 or so years I'll typically keep a motherboard.

As for AM5 socket longevity. I read an interview with a dude at AMD and he would not commit to how long AM5 would last when asked directly, and I see why he would do that. Revenue is up at AMD, and anytime they feel they have a competitive product, they raise prices. Look at Zen 3. Radeon VII. Look at how they wanted Zen 3 support to start after the 400 series. Profits are king. And AMD will ask for a kings ransom if they think they can get it. The plan was never to remain the cheaper option. You can't have all the latest tech and the highest IPC and not charge top dollar for it. I'm just saying, Zen 4 platform pricing may surprise a lot of people. Look at the introduction of X670E and X650E boards for starters. Those won't be cheap.

That's my take, anyway.
 
Last edited:

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,512   +5,920
"AMD did promise platform support until at least 2020 and bar a small hiccup that was quickly reversed, it's been mostly smooth sailing for those who bet on Ryzen early and had a clear upgrade path in subsequent generations."
Yeah, if you completely ignore how long it took to get 3000 and 5000 series support on 300 series boards, which are still touch and go. I guess early adopters just get screwed, right?
"no one upgrades every generation, or even every second generation, so AM4's longer platform support is useless, it benefits no one, Intel is better so buy Intel." Many variations of that comment have been left on our CPU reviews over the years -- certainly less in the last year -- but 3+ years ago this was a recurrent theme.
Because many in the intel camp DONT. There are plenty of 6000 series computers still in operation, you go on tech forums and many are rocking 5+ year old intel builds. CPUs simply do not age like GPUs, and should need replaced every few years. Its an enviromental and financial waste.

Put it another way, it would take until ryzen 5000 for AMD to surpass skylake in gaming. That was a big deal. But the thing is, you could have just built intel, skipped 3 gens of ryzen, then a year after the 5000s released built a alder lake system that once again beat AMD and will serve well for years to come (and those old skylkae system STILL maintain 60 FPS minimums in modern games).

"but muh CPU upgrade path" was used as a cope by AMD fans for years to justify them buying into a platform that was slower in gaming, when their primary purpose was gaming. You end up spending 2x as much on AMD just to get what intel already offered. When I upgraded I skipped 6 generations and went from ivy bridge right to coffee lake. I did so because I wanted NVMe boot support and because intel was still faster in games, and would remain so for several more years. Looking back that was a terrible choice, hindsight is 20/20, I should have waited even longer and jumped on alder lake or zen 3 once they were out. That ivy system worked fine and still works fine today as a NAS controller.
 

envirovore

Posts: 510   +946
TechSpot Elite
Expected is nice but I am looking for official commitment from AMD not just an expectation.

You see Steve here while otherwise very fair in this piece is actually in my opinion, making light of the "small hiccup" with AMD almost dropping backwards compatibility for Ryzen chips.

Then this is Lisa's statement:



So instead of what I would expect in terms of AMD giving us assurance they will support the platform all the way through to confirm by implication that they won't have these 'technical hiccups' where they were basically bullied by press and supporters into supporting the earlier chipsets, now we have an extremely soft and non-committed statement telling us the opposite "Sure we'll make sure to support the platform for a while, but we won't actually make it spec for partners to put large enough UEFI to support many large updates so if they run into space limitations like we did in AM4 this time I did not promise support so you'll just have to buy a new motherboard"

Sorry but I don't want this thread to be just a big old rainbow and flower orgy praising AMD: they're not perfect just because they're better than intel and they won't ever be unless the press and the users demand a more firm commitment than "You should expect..."

Valid points indeed, and their attempt at locking out budget Ryzen boards from 5xxx support was indeed some sketchy b.s. which I even disagreed with, the staggered support of what would work with what CPU on what chipset board also had me raising eyebrows at them.
Sure, they caved, but only after so much pressure due to the platform doing well, so agreed there...while they do put up a front of 'consumer first' they're obviously still a business and making bucks is their ultimate goal.

I'm just not one to tend to go out an build a new system every 2 or 3 years. Hell, I rode my Athelon II x3 CPU out for over 10 years, well into Ryzens first generation before finally upgrading to the r5 2600 build.
Suppose there's nothing stopping me from going Intel in that case, but having the option to just swap out a CPU after 3 or 4 years for a performance gain over building an entire new machine is the enticement I need to keep me with them.

If I were chasing pure performance and had the ability to afford to do so with a new build for whatever the top performing CPU at the time is, yeah I'd swap back and forth between the two vendors. I can't afford that luxury (just my current build alone was quite a long time of saving for it all, thanks GPU prices), so the option for 'budget friendly' longevity outweighs having to have the absolute in performance for me.

But yes, even with Ryzen it hasn't been all sunshine and rainbows for AMD users, thankfully it's still been a far better ride than the FX line ended up being (I feel for my friend still using his).
 

Biostud

Posts: 95   +63
You know, instead of all the new features about fancy memory and such taking up space on the AM5 official announcement a few days ago I would have liked for Lisa to just commit to another 5 generations of Ryzen chips for AM5. It would have been a much better selling point than some nvme + memory acceleration scheme I guarantee nobody will use for the next 2 or 3 years anyway.

My guess is that when you see what DDR5 does for MT performance with 16 cores @5Ghz+, you might consider differently.

In tech, if you are not a step in front, you are a step behind.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,512   +5,920
Expected is nice but I am looking for official commitment from AMD not just an expectation.

You see Steve here while otherwise very fair in this piece is actually in my opinion, making light of the "small hiccup" with AMD almost dropping backwards compatibility for Ryzen chips.

Then this is Lisa's statement:



So instead of what I would expect in terms of AMD giving us assurance they will support the platform all the way through to confirm by implication that they won't have these 'technical hiccups' where they were basically bullied by press and supporters into supporting the earlier chipsets, now we have an extremely soft and non-committed statement telling us the opposite "Sure we'll make sure to support the platform for a while, but we won't actually make it spec for partners to put large enough UEFI to support many large updates so if they run into space limitations like we did in AM4 this time I did not promise support so you'll just have to buy a new motherboard"

Sorry but I don't want this thread to be just a big old rainbow and flower orgy praising AMD: they're not perfect just because they're better than intel and they won't ever be unless the press and the users demand a more firm commitment than "You should expect..."
That's pretty wishy washy, given AMD has an established track record of screwing over the consumer until media attention forces them to change their behaviour. rDNA downclocking issues, GCN black screens, evergreen and GCN frame pacing issues, 400 series ryzen 3000 AND 5000 support (two seperate isntances), 300 series support for 3000 and 5000 (still somewhat ongoing), ece.

They also have an *AWFUL* track record of keeping sockets alive. Remember FM1? FM2? AM1? AM3+? AM4 is the best they've done since the AM2 days.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 984   +1,477
Yeah, if you completely ignore how long it took to get 3000 and 5000 series support on 300 series boards, which are still touch and go. I guess early adopters just get screwed, right?

Because many in the intel camp DONT. There are plenty of 6000 series computers still in operation, you go on tech forums and many are rocking 5+ year old intel builds. CPUs simply do not age like GPUs, and should need replaced every few years. Its an enviromental and financial waste.

Put it another way, it would take until ryzen 5000 for AMD to surpass skylake in gaming. That was a big deal. But the thing is, you could have just built intel, skipped 3 gens of ryzen, then a year after the 5000s released built a alder lake system that once again beat AMD and will serve well for years to come (and those old skylkae system STILL maintain 60 FPS minimums in modern games).

"but muh CPU upgrade path" was used as a cope by AMD fans for years to justify them buying into a platform that was slower in gaming, when their primary purpose was gaming. You end up spending 2x as much on AMD just to get what intel already offered. When I upgraded I skipped 6 generations and went from ivy bridge right to coffee lake. I did so because I wanted NVMe boot support and because intel was still faster in games, and would remain so for several more years. Looking back that was a terrible choice, hindsight is 20/20, I should have waited even longer and jumped on alder lake or zen 3 once they were out. That ivy system worked fine and still works fine today as a NAS controller.

Pot, kettle, black right there. It took Intel forever to get off the Sky Lake generation of 6th thru the 11th series cpu's. The point of AMD innovating to eventually beat all of those during the same time period is missed I guess. And you can use a AMD bulldozer system for a NAS just as well. We are not talking gaming there.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,512   +5,920
Pot, kettle, black right there. It took Intel forever to get off the Sky Lake generation of 6th thru the 11th series cpu's.
Whataboutism argument. It took AMD 4 generations to match what intel was already selling, and it is both an enviromental and financial disservice to pretend like AMD was the superior choice for gamers at the time. Intel sitting on skylake does not change this argument nor combat it.

Also, 10th gen bud. 11th gen was rocket lake, not built on skylake but rather backported icelake. It gets a bad rap for obvious reasons, but core for core it was an IPC improvement, rather noticeable, over skylake. 6 core vs 6 core was actually decent.
The point of AMD innovating to eventually beat all of those during the same time period is missed I guess.
AMD innovation is great, doesnt mean it was a sensible purchase. Again, the argument here is all that innovation only got you to where intel was 4 years earlier, and you could have had that performance this entire time.
And you can use a AMD bulldozer system for a NAS just as well. We are not talking gaming there.
I never said you couldnt. My point there was how long system last for these days. You dont need to upgrade every year-2 years, or even every 4 years, unless you're buying into a slower platform that you hope will get faster.

zen 3 is great. Its whats in my system now. OG zen and zen+ sucked if you were a gamer, and zen 2 was still slower then at the time 4 year old intel hardware.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 984   +1,477
Whataboutism argument. It took AMD 4 generations to match what intel was already selling, and it is both an enviromental and financial disservice to pretend like AMD was the superior choice for gamers at the time. Intel sitting on skylake does not change this argument nor combat it.

Also, 10th gen bud. 11th gen was rocket lake, not built on skylake but rather backported icelake. It gets a bad rap for obvious reasons, but core for core it was an IPC improvement, rather noticeable, over skylake. 6 core vs 6 core was actually decent.

AMD innovation is great, doesnt mean it was a sensible purchase. Again, the argument here is all that innovation only got you to where intel was 4 years earlier, and you could have had that performance this entire time.

I never said you couldnt. My point there was how long system last for these days. You dont need to upgrade every year-2 years, or even every 4 years, unless you're buying into a slower platform that you hope will get faster.

zen 3 is great. Its whats in my system now. OG zen and zen+ sucked if you were a gamer, and zen 2 was still slower then at the time 4 year old intel hardware.

I think you are forgetting It took about that long to pressure Intel into upping core counts on all but the highest end Intel cpu's...4 cores, 8 threads was always good enough.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,512   +5,920
I think you are forgetting It took about that long to pressure Intel into upping core counts on all but the highest end Intel cpu's...4 cores, 8 threads was always good enough.
I think you dont understand the argument nor the point I made in my original comment. Why do you keep bringing up unreleated facts, like intel's sitting on skylake and their insistance on 4 cores, to counter the argument that for gaming going the upgrade zen path was a mistake, and wasted money, compared to the performance you could have had originally?
 

fps4ever

Posts: 984   +1,477
I think you dont understand the argument nor the point I made in my original comment. Why do you keep bringing up unreleated facts, like intel's sitting on skylake and their insistance on 4 cores, to counter the argument that for gaming going the upgrade zen path was a mistake, and wasted money, compared to the performance you could have had originally?

No I get your point but added another as well. I understand where you are coming from but it is disingenuous to say AMD users could have had the "performance all along" when cost and what you consider good enough performance comes in. AMD cpu's were not bad at gaming so if performance was acceptable then who cares. Getting only 230 fps vs 250 fps in counter strike means nothing unless you go competitive as a reference. So you got good performance and more cores at better price and longer mobo compatibility. How the hech is that wasted money?
 

grvalderrama

Posts: 302   +152
zen 3 is great. Its whats in my system now. OG zen and zen+ sucked if you were a gamer, and zen 2 was still slower then at the time 4 year old intel hardware.
The first years of Ryzen weren't that good at gaming because most games were programed to work heavily with one high speed and low latency thread, which Intel had the advantage, instead of using multiple cores and threads. But, as it says in this article and in many reviews, amd had better IPC and in the long run that would make ryzen a better cpu for all tasks, including gaming, today you can see that statement to be true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.