Why Ryzen Was Amazing and the Haters Were All Wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.

Irata

Posts: 2,169   +3,750
Bought a B450 Tomahawk Max + 2700X combo new after Ryzen 3000 was released. The board was around €90, CPU+ HSF + a free game €150. Both have served me well and the CPU will get upgraded to a 5700x once Zen 4 is out, aiming to pay in the €200ish range.

The idea of being able to upgrade on an existing platform getting noticeably better performance at the same - or in this case lower - power consumption by just doing a drop in replacement is awesome.

Saves money, it‘s a more sustainable approach and the thing I like the least about building a PC is the mainboard installation / wiring.

I do hope AMD will continue this with AM5 but rather than committing to a year they should commit to x generations of CPU support.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,426   +5,737
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.
AMD is better today because zen 3 is a huge departure from OG zen. OG zen is still slower then skylkae at gaming, because games today still benefit from good single thread performance, which OG zen did not have. OG zen had really good multi thread performance, but games today still need both. Gaming is inheriently lightly threaded, and while we have moved large portions to other threads that fact will never change.

See also, here:

in 2021 zen 1 is STILL slower then skylake in modern games. All those cores and zen 1 is barely faster then a 3770k, slower then a 4770k. Building a 7700k system at the time would have been a wiser choice for gaming. I rest my case.

zen1.PNG
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.
How is it disingenuous? If gaming was your primary use case, skylake offered better performance then zen, zen +, and zen 2. If you bought a zen CPU and motherboard, then upgraded to zen 2, you still didnt have skylake tier performance and had now spent more money doing so.
AMD cpu's were not bad at gaming so if performance was acceptable then who cares.
Because if the performance was "acceptable" you wouldnt need to upgrade your CPU every 2 years.
Getting only 230 fps vs 250 fps in counter strike means nothing unless you go competitive as a reference.
Getting lower performance then haswell means a lot.


zen 1 could barely outpace a STOCK 3700k. it took until zen 2 to match the stock performance of skylake in 1% lows, still lost in averages, and this did not take into account the signficant OC headroom of skylake (or older chips for that matter, as OCed ivy bridge could beat zen 2).

When you keep a platform for 5+ years, that lost performance matters. Once the "250" FPS intel chips can only get 60-80, the "230" FPS AMD chip wont manage 50 FPS. We already saw this happen with phenom II. And FX. That difference matters, and zen isnt magic.
So you got good performance and more cores at better price and longer mobo compatibility.
It's not a better price. Spending $150 three times to match the performance of a $250 CPU is a waste of cash. $450>$250. That was my entire point, for the cost of building and upgrading your AMD system you could have just...built intel fromt he get go and gotten the same or better performance years earlier. And you just proved you know exactly what I am talking about.
How the hech is that wasted money?
Because instead of spending $100 on a zen CPU, then $200 on a zen 2 CPU, then $300 on a zen 3 CPU, you could have just spent $250 on a skylake CPU and gotten superior or comparable gaming performance the entire time. Basic math.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 533   +681
I've been a big fan of AM4. I have a x370 board, but am still rocking the 1700x. I was thinking about picking up the 5600x when the priced dropped, but now and looking to see if 5800X3D is ever going to come down in price. I have no problem waiting until Zen4 comes out and see if 5800X3D drops in price. I hardly use my PC for more than lighter games anyways.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 937   +1,366
AMD is better today because zen 3 is a huge departure from OG zen. OG zen is still slower then skylkae at gaming, because games today still benefit from good single thread performance, which OG zen did not have. OG zen had really good multi thread performance, but games today still need both. Gaming is inheriently lightly threaded, and while we have moved large portions to other threads that fact will never change.

See also, here:

in 2021 zen 1 is STILL slower then skylake in modern games. All those cores and zen 1 is barely faster then a 3770k, slower then a 4770k. Building a 7700k system at the time would have been a wiser choice for gaming. I rest my case.

View attachment 88338

How is it disingenuous? If gaming was your primary use case, skylake offered better performance then zen, zen +, and zen 2. If you bought a zen CPU and motherboard, then upgraded to zen 2, you still didnt have skylake tier performance and had now spent more money doing so.

Because if the performance was "acceptable" you wouldnt need to upgrade your CPU every 2 years.

Getting lower performance then haswell means a lot.


zen 1 could barely outpace a STOCK 3700k. it took until zen 2 to match the stock performance of skylake in 1% lows, still lost in averages, and this did not take into account the signficant OC headroom of skylake (or older chips for that matter, as OCed ivy bridge could beat zen 2).

When you keep a platform for 5+ years, that lost performance matters. Once the "250" FPS intel chips can only get 60-80, the "230" FPS AMD chip wont manage 50 FPS. We already saw this happen with phenom II. And FX. That difference matters, and zen isnt magic.

It's not a better price. Spending $150 three times to match the performance of a $250 CPU is a waste of cash. $450>$250. That was my entire point, for the cost of building and upgrading your AMD system you could have just...built intel fromt he get go and gotten the same or better performance years earlier. And you just proved you know exactly what I am talking about.

Because instead of spending $100 on a zen CPU, then $200 on a zen 2 CPU, then $300 on a zen 3 CPU, you could have just spent $250 on a skylake CPU and gotten superior or comparable gaming performance the entire time. Basic math.

Your basic math is off. You do not have to upgrade three times. Just once from zen 1 to zen 3 if desired. Or not at all if performance is good enough with a second gen or whatever games you play not at all even with gen 1. And good luck not updating a gen 6th or 7th gen cpu thinking you'd be fine for gaming. I think you are trying to hard. Your premise AMD owners NEEDING to update every generation is a strawman's argument at best. Try and go from a 7th gen to 10-11th gen on intel platform without updating the motherboard, which screws your math up.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,150   +2,316
Another excellent article from someone that knows how to appreciate a customer friendly corporation.

Yes, it is beyond stupid to be a corporate rabid fanboi and people need to start thinking like back in the day: We are the customers and we need to place our wallets before theirs.

The mind wonders how would this have been if written by Tim, especially if it was GPU related...
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 2,169   +3,750
AMD is better today because zen 3 is a huge departure from OG zen. OG zen is still slower then skylkae at gaming, because games today still benefit from good single thread performance, which OG zen did not have. OG zen had really good multi thread performance, but games today still need both. Gaming is inheriently lightly threaded, and while we have moved large portions to other threads that fact will never change.

How disingenuous of you to show a screen shots comparing CPU limited to 4C

Here is the summary from HUB‘s 2019 article revisiting the 7600 vs 1600.

For those that skipped to this point we'll quickly summarize: overall the Ryzen 5 1600 was noticeably slower in a single game, namely Far Cry New Dawn. Performance was still very playable, but frame rates were well down on the Core i5-7600K. Ryzen was also slightly slower in World War Z and it was a draw in Rage 2 and Hitman 2. As we moved into more demanding modern titles, we found the R5 1600 to be a good bit faster in Assassin's Creed Odyssey and then overwhelmingly faster when testing with Battlefield V, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and The Division 2.

Taking Battlefield V as an example, have a look at the minimums. That‘s the difference between a smooth game and stuttering.
BFV_1440p-p.webp



The best thing is, the Ryzen 1600 customers can now easily upgrade to a 5600, 5700x… on their existing board. Never mind better multi-tasking / thread performance all along.
 
Last edited:

DZillaXx

Posts: 533   +681
AMD is better today because zen 3 is a huge departure from OG zen. OG zen is still slower then skylkae at gaming, because games today still benefit from good single thread performance, which OG zen did not have. OG zen had really good multi thread performance, but games today still need both. Gaming is inheriently lightly threaded, and while we have moved large portions to other threads that fact will never change.

See also, here:

in 2021 zen 1 is STILL slower then skylake in modern games. All those cores and zen 1 is barely faster then a 3770k, slower then a 4770k. Building a 7700k system at the time would have been a wiser choice for gaming. I rest my case.

View attachment 88338

How is it disingenuous? If gaming was your primary use case, skylake offered better performance then zen, zen +, and zen 2. If you bought a zen CPU and motherboard, then upgraded to zen 2, you still didnt have skylake tier performance and had now spent more money doing so.

Because if the performance was "acceptable" you wouldnt need to upgrade your CPU every 2 years.

Getting lower performance then haswell means a lot.


zen 1 could barely outpace a STOCK 3700k. it took until zen 2 to match the stock performance of skylake in 1% lows, still lost in averages, and this did not take into account the signficant OC headroom of skylake (or older chips for that matter, as OCed ivy bridge could beat zen 2).

When you keep a platform for 5+ years, that lost performance matters. Once the "250" FPS intel chips can only get 60-80, the "230" FPS AMD chip wont manage 50 FPS. We already saw this happen with phenom II. And FX. That difference matters, and zen isnt magic.

It's not a better price. Spending $150 three times to match the performance of a $250 CPU is a waste of cash. $450>$250. That was my entire point, for the cost of building and upgrading your AMD system you could have just...built intel fromt he get go and gotten the same or better performance years earlier. And you just proved you know exactly what I am talking about.

Because instead of spending $100 on a zen CPU, then $200 on a zen 2 CPU, then $300 on a zen 3 CPU, you could have just spent $250 on a skylake CPU and gotten superior or comparable gaming performance the entire time. Basic math.

I'm going to tell you right now. Zen1 easily outpaces Ivybridge. I rocked my Sandy Bridge for a very long time, but was using a Ryzen 1700x as my server machine. Sandy Bridge @4.8ghz, and fast low latency ram. Pretty much as good as it gets for Sandy. Ivy is not a jump from Sandy Bridge in performance. Ended up replacing the ryzen with an actual Dell Server.

I moved from my 4.8ghz 2600k to my Ryzen 1700x @ 3.8ghz (Pstate OC). It is hands down faster, single thread and massively faster multithread. And this was just first gen ryzen. With a Nvidia 1080ti, the swap was well worth it. Rocking a X370 motherboard, the new BIOS options allow me to move to Zen 3. And the Recent price drops on the Ryzen 5600x look temping, and easily offers high end performance that even Adler lake barely outperforms on most tasks.

So keep your misinformation out of here. Sure Haswell with an OC was a better gaming CPU compared to Zen1, but that faded with time. These days on modern games Haswell shows its limitations more than a 6-8 core Zen 1 does. 4core Intel Chips did not age well into the modern era.

Same with Skylake and Zen 2, Quad Core Skylake is a damn joke. It did not age well, and users got screwed in their upgrade path. Skylake +++ had a higher core count sure, but by this point in time Zen 2 was extremely comparable for gaming performance. Most people don't OC, and if they do it is a light OC. Skylake +++ chips hot super hot and power hungry when pushed hard. Not many did it.

Which is why AMD has been the most recommended CPU provider for new gaming rings since the release of Zen2. Zen2 was close enough for modern games, and the core count boost was worth it. Zen3 was hands down faster than anything Intel had, and it took Intel over a year for Adler Lake. And Honestly Adler Lake is faster, but again not by much. And with the 3DCache AMD more than holds its own. Alder Lake has its use case, The platform will have one more upgrade, even if it is small. AM4 is a dead end, Zen 3 is as good as it will get. If you didn't already have a AMD Setup, and wanted to buy something new. Alder Lake isn't horrible. The Alder Lake i5 is at a great price point.

That being said, Going AM5 will be the best thing you can do as a gamer if you value money and you are looking to upgrade. If AM4 is anything to compare to, it will give you a platform to use for a long time. Unless Intel changes their way, Intel's upgrade path is a joke.

AMD Chips also do very well in Frame Pacing. Sure some of those older Intel chips can still put up some decent min framerates, but the frames overall are all over the place. It does not always make for smooth performance. Even going back to Zen1, The gaming experience was always smooth.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,644   +1,646
This means that if we want to compare Intel CPUs released over the past 5 years, we need four individual test systems using different motherboards...
That's a bit intellectually dishonest cherring-picking of dates, isn't it? LGA1150 was released 8 full years ago, whereas LGA1700 is going to be around at least a couple years from now.

Certainly AMD has an advantage here -- but how much of an advantage is it really? I've upgraded my main (AMD) system twice in the last five-ish years ... and both times there had been enough progress in other areas to tempt me into a new mobo as well.
 

Achaios

Posts: 389   +1,079
QUOTE
Essentially, if you bought a Core i5-7600K in 2017 it would have been a struggle not to upgrade by the release of the 10th-gen series
UNQUOTE

Well, I 'm still on the 4770K Haswell and my Maximus VI Hero Z87 motherboard bought in 2013.

I get that Chipzilla & f*bois rly hate us Haswell Hodlers. Well, haterz gunna hate I suppose.

The 4770K is still perfect for me for gaming and work and its power consumption is pretty low too in idle, a vast upgrade over the 400W power consumption of my Core 2 QX9650 to give me 4GHz.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 533   +681
QUOTE
Essentially, if you bought a Core i5-7600K in 2017 it would have been a struggle not to upgrade by the release of the 10th-gen series
UNQUOTE

Well, I 'm still on the 4770K Haswell and my Maximus VI Hero Z87 motherboard bought in 2013.

I get that Chipzilla & f*bois rly hate us Haswell Hodlers. Well, haterz gunna hate I suppose.

The 4770K is still perfect for me for gaming and work and its power consumption is pretty low too in idle, a vast upgrade over the 400W power consumption of my Core 2 QX9650 to give me 4GHz.
Honestly I just moved off of my 2600k @ 4.8ghz. It still continues to do a great job, but I was tired of how old it was. It has high idle power usage, and no nvme.

I bought a Ryzen 1700x back when it released, but used it primarily as my server with a X370 board. The High Core Count, Ability to use ECC Memory, and many PCI-E slots was key. I ended up retiring a Dell T330 at work, and while it was a downgrade in performance it makes for a better server.

So I moved the Ryzen 1700x to my office, moved my 1080ti over. Added a new nvme ssd, installed windows. And watched how a Stock 1700x easily stomps my old 2600k @ 4.8ghz. And while it doesn't OC that well, with a PState OC of 3.8ghz the performance is really solid. Nice thing is when I feel like it, I will pop in a Zen 3 chip and get top tier performance.

The Real winner is AM4 and people who bought in early. You could buy in early, and upgrade to the late in life chips and you would see massive gains. Going from Zen 1 to Zen 3 is a big bump. And it doesn't have to be expensive.

M.2 Slots, Faster PCI-E, etc. Those really don't matter in the long run. Sure some features are nice to get, but the need to upgrade just for those is not always worth it. Upgrading your AM4 mobo just to get PCI-E 4.0 NVME Speeds isn't going to make your games any faster.

For Value AMD has done a great job. AM4 is a dead end now. But AM5 will make for a perfect platform for future gamers.

Some users on here upgrade every other year it seems like. When I was younger I was the same way, but Kids and Work doesn't give me a lot of gaming time. I've found it to be mostly a waste to upgrade so often for such little gains. GPU upgrades have always been the best, but sadly games don't push graphic hardware like they used to.

Growing up in the days where flagship graphic card struggled just to hit 40fps on new games. Now it seems flagship cards are hitting 144fps+ on the most demanding titles. Crazy times, and sad times.
 

mbk34

Posts: 341   +236
It's quite a long article just to say that AM4 has been supported various processors since 2016. I'll freely admit I'm still using an i5 3570K from 2012 but it still seems pretty speedy for the development work I do. Obviously it would be underpowered for the latest AAA games but they're not my thing.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,216   +4,268
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.
Alder Lake already has DDR5 so it's the bare minimum to stay kind of competitive with intel. As to the performance difference? Well according to AMD's own numbers it shoud land between 15% and 30% increase on most cases, most of them closer to that 15% number.

Honestly it's not very impressive but I understand it's because they're launching on a new platform with like 4 or 5 completely new technologies so of course the platform is not going to be very mature at launch and my point overall is that you shouldn't expect it to be much more better than Alder Lake and definitively behind Raptor Lake when that eventually launches (Mostly because it looks like it will launch after Zen 4 so of course it should be a bit faster it's just the way the release schedule works atm)

Which kinda goes back to my point: The new features are nice to future proof what should be a long term platform but given the previous experience of AMD almost going back on their word about supporting AM4 I think assuring AM5 long term support is more valuable for the very reasons this article speaks of: If you tell buyers "Ryzen 7000 might be a bit behind but it will get equal and even better than anything that intel does over the years without you having to switch platforms" Is a solid selling point, it's kind of why we're here commenting in fact.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,685   +1,342
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.
FM1, FM2 and AM1 were all supposed to be short living. There was not promised long term support and it was never really expected either. AM3+ was pretty much fiasco, agreed.

However remembering LGA775 and Core 2 fiasco, all above AMD sockets were pretty good indeed. At least AMD didn't break their promise like Intel did.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 533   +681
Alder Lake already has DDR5 so it's the bare minimum to stay kind of competitive with intel. As to the performance difference? Well according to AMD's own numbers it shoud land between 15% and 30% increase on most cases, most of them closer to that 15% number.

Honestly it's not very impressive but I understand it's because they're launching on a new platform with like 4 or 5 completely new technologies so of course the platform is not going to be very mature at launch and my point overall is that you shouldn't expect it to be much more better than Alder Lake and definitively behind Raptor Lake when that eventually launches (Mostly because it looks like it will launch after Zen 4 so of course it should be a bit faster it's just the way the release schedule works atm)

Which kinda goes back to my point: The new features are nice to future proof what should be a long term platform but given the previous experience of AMD almost going back on their word about supporting AM4 I think assuring AM5 long term support is more valuable for the very reasons this article speaks of: If you tell buyers "Ryzen 7000 might be a bit behind but it will get equal and even better than anything that intel does over the years without you having to switch platforms" Is a solid selling point, it's kind of why we're here commenting in fact.
Raptor Lake is nothing more than an enhanced Adler Lake. Nearly all performance gains are coming from multithread performance. Improvements are being made on the E core, not the P cores. We will get higher clocked E cores, and those E cores may have some minor improvements. The P cores on the otherhand will largely be untouched. And Intel doesn't have much overhead for higher clocks on said P Cores, we will see higher single core boost speeds.

It will be better than Adler Lake sure, but don't expect anything crazy. Single Core performance improvements will largely be from higher boost clocks. E Cores is where the performance gains are this round. Power usage be damned!

Based on core clocks alone, even if nothing changed from Zen3 we'd be looking at big performance uplift from AMD. But that is not the case. IPC improvements have been made, performance all around have been made. I Don't see Raptor Outperforming Zen4 in any notable metric.

The AM5 platform is also launching strong, with a very good foundation. Especially at the high end. Could easily pop in a future Zen 5 or 6 and get a massive improvement and not miss out on much. Intel is not going to give you that option.

Zen4 with 3D Cache is going to really gap Intel in gaming performance if Zen3+3D Cache is anything to gauge. Zen4 alone should beat Raptor Lake in gaming.

That also being said. Raptor Lake is most likely the last chip to be used by their current platform judging by intel's past. Though who know, we may be lucky and get one more generation out of the socket. So doesn't bold well for future improvements.

Considering you could have moved from a Zen1 to Zen3, and changed nothing else. That level of improvement on a platform is crazy. Remember how Skylake users got stuck with their 4c platform, and Skylake +++ while only adding cores forced a platform upgrade while using the same socket. THANKS INTEL.

I have plenty of love for Intel. Adler Lake was a short term win for Intel. They still have a lot of fight left. Performance/$ is the game here. And Alder Lake i5 is hard not to recommend for a gaming machine.
 
My train of thought is simple: I upgrade when I feel like what I have isn't providing a satisfactory experience anymore, and when I'm buying, I buy whatever performs the best for my use case at a price range I'm comfortable paying. Ryzen has never fit into that equation. Zen 3 got there, but then came Alder lake when it was time to upgrade. I went from i7 920 to 6700k to 12700kf. Right now I'd probably go for 5800X3D, but that wasn't in the picture 6 months ago.

To me "upgrade path" seems like a strange argument to make for early AM4 since if you're the type to upgrade every generation, you clearly care about bleeding edge performance and Ryzen never really got there until the end of the platform outside specialized, multithread heavy use cases. Ryzen had its moments where it was a excellent choice for budget conscious buyers, but bang for buck buyers rarely upgrade every 1,2,3 generations.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 533   +681
FM1, FM2 and AM1 were all supposed to be short living. There was not promised long term support and it was never really expected either. AM3+ was pretty much fiasco, agreed.

However remembering LGA775 and Core 2 fiasco, all above AMD sockets were pretty good indeed. At least AMD didn't break their promise like Intel did.
AM2>AM2+>AM3>AM3+
This actually wasn't bad, and allowed for some flexibility. And Honestly AMD did a pretty good job with these sockets. The only Shame was Bulldozer chips not being backwards compatible with more AM3 board. Some did, but many did not.

LGA775 was a damn mess, unless you owned a later in life board. Early 775 boards are horrible, even mid life 775 boards suck. You got Later in life c2q's and they oced like crap on older boards. Really was the last time Intel had a long life platform, and it was managed horribly.

Now Intel sticks with two gens per platform, with little to no performance upgrades between the two generations. Makes upgrading pointless, there was no reason unless you went from an i5 to i7. And even then Gaming performance is questionable on that type of upgrade.

FM1 FM2 was a stupid move by AMD. And AM1 should never have happened. But in this era of AMD, Buying anything AMD was a mistake. Intel was clearly the way to go.
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 600   +1,110
I went on a MSI B450 Mortar MAX from Ryzen 2600 to 3600 to 5600X and I still have the option to upgrade to 5800X3D which is at least 20% better (especially in 1% lows) compared to the 5600X.

I'm a very happy AMD customer. Thanks AMD.

Now do the same with AM5 and you will have another winner platform.
 

theruck

Posts: 548   +345
Saving this article for Steve as the most AMD hailing ever.
you theoreticize about 10400F just to wipe it of the next sentence that its not good enough. so picksomething better there is plenty to choose from.
all the BS arguments about 3gens mobos for upgrades? who has ever upgraded the CPU and kept the old mobo? the market does not do that
now to my experience with AMD ryzen.
first availability. they are just never on stock when you want them (when they are hot and new and killin Intels in benchmarks)and rarely for the msrp. even the cheapest Athlons hard to get months after they have been "released"
you buy the cpu and mobo recomended on some biased overmotivated websites like techspot buy some memory fire it up and it just does not start. what do you do? send it back and take intel setup because it runs with any combination of cpu/mobo/memory you can buy. with intel you get better and more NICs on the mobos as well. realtek having buggy drivers for ages, no thank you. its been for ages like this and its been ages of these compatibility problems with AMD cpus and memory modules.
so AMD means hype,buzz and BS on and on this absolutely unnecessary article
being the proof of it.
even if the ryzens are more expensive if they would have some value they would not be abandoned, but they will be with the tick-tock being now their play as well so welcome AMD fans and consumers to your own mud. the company has let you down once again
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 533   +681
Saving this article for Steve as the most AMD hailing ever.
you theoreticize about 10400F just to wipe it of the next sentence that its not good enough. so picksomething better there is plenty to choose from.
all the BS arguments about 3gens mobos for upgrades? who has ever upgraded the CPU and kept the old mobo? the market does not do that
now to my experience with AMD ryzen.
first availability. they are just never on stock when you want them (when they are hot and new and killin Intels in benchmarks)and rarely for the msrp. even the cheapest Athlons hard to get months after they have been "released"
you buy the cpu and mobo recomended on some biased overmotivated websites like techspot buy some memory fire it up and it just does not start. what do you do? send it back and take intel setup because it runs with any combination of cpu/mobo/memory you can buy. with intel you get better and more NICs on the mobos as well. realtek having buggy drivers for ages, no thank you. its been for ages like this and its been ages of these compatibility problems with AMD cpus and memory modules.
so AMD means hype,buzz and BS on and on this absolutely unnecessary article
being the proof of it.
even if the ryzens are more expensive if they would have some value they would not be abandoned, but they will be with the tick-tock being now their play as well so welcome AMD fans and consumers to your own mud. the company has let you down once again
What?..

My brain hurts just trying to read this garbage.
 

Strawman

Posts: 577   +294
so a relatively inexpensive but powerful CPU such as the Ryzen 5 5600 has become a drop-in upgrade for your 5-year-old R5 1600 system for just $175.

Yeah, sure, but you are assuming people didn't sell their mobo / cpu combo back in 2020 when AMD announced (briefly, but still) that there won't any support. Or, they didn't sell it in the following 2 years, until today.

Well, that's WRONG. People did. Just me personally, have 2 people that I wrongly adviced (no fault of my own), that their 1600x b350 combo isn't going to support Zen 3. So they moved to alderlake.

So yeah, great move there AMD. You decided to finally give support to a 2 year old CPU after Intel started wildly smacking you around the room. Absolutely amazing support :p

I prefer Intel way more when it comes to motherboard support. I know WHAT im getting and WHEN im getting (usually, day one). With AMD, it's contradictions after contradictions, announcements, then taking back those announcements, then taking back some other announcements, then take back the taken back announcements, then announce some delays but hold on to your dear mobo cause it's going to support sometime in the future the now 2 year old CPUs. Amazing
 
Last edited:

fps4ever

Posts: 937   +1,366
Yeah, sure, but you are assuming people didn't sell their mobo / cpu combo back in 2020 when AMD announced (briefly, but still) that there won't any support. Or, they didn't sell it in the following 2 years, until today.

Well, that's WRONG. People did. Just me personally, have 2 people that I wrongly adviced (no fault of my own), that their 1600x b350 combo isn't going to support Zen 3. So they moved to alderlake.

So yeah, great move there AMD. You decided to finally give support to 5 year old CPU after Intel started wildly smacking you around the room. Absolutely amazing support :p

I prefer Intel way more when it comes to motherboard support. I know WHAT im getting and WHEN im getting (usually, day one). With AMD, it's contradictions after contradictions, announcements, then taking back those announcements, then taking back some other announcements, then take back the taken back announcements, then announce some delays but hold on to your dear mobo cause it's going to support sometime in the future the now 2 year old CPUs. Amazing

You didn't do your research that all B350 motherboards might not be able to upgrade to zen 3 and its no fault of yours? Sure OK...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,685   +1,342
AM2>AM2+>AM3>AM3+
This actually wasn't bad, and allowed for some flexibility. And Honestly AMD did a pretty good job with these sockets. The only Shame was Bulldozer chips not being backwards compatible with more AM3 board. Some did, but many did not.
Bulldozers were backwards compatible but motherboard vendors didn't bother to add BIOS support.
LGA775 was a damn mess, unless you owned a later in life board. Early 775 boards are horrible, even mid life 775 boards suck. You got Later in life c2q's and they oced like crap on older boards. Really was the last time Intel had a long life platform, and it was managed horribly.
Yeah. One problem is that many are so stupid they didn't realize there were basically 4 different versions of LGA775 socket and they just think socket compatibility maintained throughout LGA775 era. That it of course did not.

FM1 FM2 was a stupid move by AMD. And AM1 should never have happened. But in this era of AMD, Buying anything AMD was a mistake. Intel was clearly the way to go.
Since there were no mandatory display output connectors on AM2/AM3 boards (not CPU's available that had integrated graphics), AMD had to use new socket offer integrated solutions.

AM1 was supposed to be cheap and it was indeed very cheap. That's all it needed to be and it had point there. Usually cheap platforms had and have soldered CPU's, AM1 was exception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.