Why Ryzen Was Amazing and the Haters Were All Wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puiu

Posts: 5,549   +4,518
TechSpot Elite
That is a common misconception I've seen been thrown around with no actual data to back it up.

Intel consistently doubled the performance every 5 years at the same price point (2010 to 2015, 2012 to 2017 etc.). Amd on the other hand, from 2017 to 2022 has increased perfromance by 35-40% at the same price point (1700 to 5600x).

Their new r5 model needs to be a lot faster and cost 300 euros to actually match the performance increase intel was giving us in their STAGNANT years.

So yeah, I really don't get people throwing random stuff like stagnant intel around when they haven't actually checked the numbers. Amd is way more stagnant then the worst years of intel.
You do realise that benchmarks exists right? from the 4000 series to the 7000 series the needle barely moved.


As you can see, from the 3770k to the 7700k the performance improvement just came from faster RAM and higher clock speeds (DDR3 vs DDR4 and 3.9GHz vs 4.5GHz). Your "double the performance at the same price point" is just pure fantasy.

Years of Intel giving you slight bumps and no extra cores, all packed within new sockets every 2 years.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
You do realise that benchmarks exists right? from the 4000 series to the 7000 series the needle barely moved.


As you can see, from the 3770k to the 7700k the performance improvement just came from faster RAM and higher clock speeds (DDR3 vs DDR4 and 3.9GHz vs 4.5GHz). Your "double the performance at the same price point" is just pure fantasy.

Years of Intel giving you slight bumps and no extra cores, all packed within new sockets every 2 years.
No its not fantasy. I gave you specifix years and specific cpus. The only intel cpu that actually broke the mold was the 7700k which lasted for mere months.

i7 870 to i7 6700k (5 years) is double the perfromance.

I7 3770k to i7 8700k is again, double the perfromance

1700 to 5600x is at most 40-45% performance increase.

Those are just.. Facts.. Sure the performance came from clock increases but... Does it matter where it came from?
 

dihartnell

Posts: 33   +22
Am4 x370 has been great for me.

I bought into ryzen 1st gen with 1600 and upgraded to a used 2700x and more recently used 3700x. Those have been very cheap upgrades. I hope the 7000 series is a runaway smash hit so I might be able to snag a used 5900x at the right price..although I don't really need it for my current workloads.
 

Lounds

Posts: 1,120   +1,021
The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is around 600 quid in the UK. €586 on Amazon. de (Germany). Do you have some special deal or know someone? Because those prices are unacceptable!
I can get it on Amazon UK for £443 right now in stock. If it can be had for £350 by November I'd be all over it. Although maybe a Ryzen 5600X would be a wiser choice?
 

Lounds

Posts: 1,120   +1,021
That is a common misconception I've seen been thrown around with no actual data to back it up.

Intel consistently doubled the performance every 5 years at the same price point (2010 to 2015, 2012 to 2017 etc.). Amd on the other hand, from 2017 to 2022 has increased perfromance by 35-40% at the same price point (1700 to 5600x).

Their new r5 model needs to be a lot faster and cost 300 euros to actually match the performance increase intel was giving us in their STAGNANT years.

So yeah, I really don't get people throwing random stuff like stagnant intel around when they haven't actually checked the numbers. Amd is way more stagnant then the worst years of intel.
We had skylake cores for nearly 5 years lol. So no they didn't double performance unless your counting the doubling of cores but that's only because AMD lit a fire under their arse.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,549   +4,518
TechSpot Elite
No its not fantasy. I gave you specifix years and specific cpus. The only intel cpu that actually broke the mold was the 7700k which lasted for mere months.

i7 870 to i7 6700k (5 years) is double the perfromance.

I7 3770k to i7 8700k is again, double the perfromance

1700 to 5600x is at most 40-45% performance increase.

Those are just.. Facts.. Sure the performance came from clock increases but... Does it matter where it came from?
870 to 6700k was 6 years and you used the 6000 series because you knew that the 7000 series did not fit your "5 years" mantra. We also went from DDR3 1333MHz to DDR4 3200MHz during that time.

FYI 1: The 8700k wasn't 2x the perf of the 3770k. Maybe in a few MT synthetic tests like encryption.
FYI 2: The 1700 launched in 2017 for 330$ and the 5600x in 2020 for 300$. Thanks for telling us how well AMD did in about 3 years.

Anyway, your entire argument is moot since you clearly don't know the years the CPUs were launched and you clearly didn't look at the results from the previous link I gave you.

The entire IT industry knows that Intel stagnated for a very long time, including Intel, but here you are telling everybody that we are wrong.
 
Last edited:

Kosmoz

Posts: 600   +1,110
So you bought not one not two but THREE cpus during the same time frame that someone with say a 8700k was basically keeping up and are now looking at getting a FOURTH cpu? I'd much rather have went 8700k to 12700k motherboard upgrade and all.
Guess for how much and when I bought them?

I never buy brand new, I always wait for a sale, even one year later if I have to.

In all these upgrades I never paid more than $100 after selling my "old" CPU, for the new one.

I think $100 / year for a CPU upgrade, in which I saw in all cases at least 20% better performance in the 1% lows in my games - I think it's a very good deal and worth it.

I could have skipped one upgrade easily, but I also like PC tech, even if I don't need to be on the newest gen as soon as it comes.

I could have not done that with intel at all. NEVER.
With 5800X3D, counting all the upgardes vs intel path, I get the same perf at a fraction of the cost. There is no contest for me here. AMD won.

When Zen4 comes I'll decide if I get 5800X3D or wait a little for Zen4 to get a sale. I'm fine with 5600x for now, I can wait 1-2 years even easily.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
The thing is... people on this forum are OUTLIERS... the VAST majority of people do NOT upgrade CPUs - regardless of the length of support.

Buying a CPU that is slower than its competition in the hopes that it will be faster later is a fool's venture 99% of the time.

The majority of people who bought Ryzen 1000 series made the WRONG choice because:
1: they never upgraded
2: they upgraded at the wrong time
3: they simply wanted to "support the underdog" not realizing that EVERY big corporation is out for two things - making money and raising stock prices.

If you are one of the few who bought a Ryzen 1000 series, then upgraded your CPU - good for you, you made a wise choice. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you are in the majority.
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
870 to 6700k was 6 years and you used the 6000 series because you knew that the 7000 series did not fit your "5 years" mantra. We also went from DDR3 1333MHz to DDR4 3200MHz during that time.
True, it was actually 6 years. So in 2023, it will be 6 years between the first Ryzen and the latest one. You think AMD can match Intel's performance increase at the 300€-350€ pricepoint? I don't. Yet you consider Intel stagnant...Don't you see a problem with your argument?
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
FYI 1: The 8700k wasn't 2x the perf of the 3770k. Maybe in a few MT synthetic tests like encryption.
Yes it was twice the performance in every multithreaded test. Cinebench is a good measurement of multithreaded performance, no? That's what people have been using all these years, so I used that one as well and yes, the difference is up there, maybe 95%+.

FYI 2: The 1700 launched in 2017 for 330$ and the 5600x in 2020 for 300$. Thanks for telling us how well AMD did in about 3 years.

Anyway, your entire argument is moot since you clearly don't know the years the CPUs were launched and you clearly didn't look at the results from the previous link I gave you.

The entire IT industry knows that Intel stagnated for a very long time, including Intel, but here you are telling everybody that we are wrong.
Yeah, so you got a 35-40% increase in performance with a 10% increease in price in 3 years. That's worse than the worst of Intel's stagnant years. 3770k to 6700k (3 years period) had a bigger increase than that. 4790k to 8700k had a bigger increase than that

It doesn't matter if I know the years the CPUs were released. You just don't want to accept it, its fine with me, if you don't care about facts keep spreading the misnformation that intel was stagnant while AMD is way way worse.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
With 5800X3D, counting all the upgardes vs intel path, I get the same perf at a fraction of the cost. There is no contest for me here. AMD won.
No you don't. With Intel you didn't need to upgrade. You could have bought an 8700k for 350€ back in 2017 , which is absolutely fine up until today.

The 5800x 3d costs as much as a 12700f + a mobo, so I don't see how you are paying a fraction of the cost either, also considering the 3d gets slaughtered in 99.9% of workloads.
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
We had skylake cores for nearly 5 years lol. So no they didn't double performance unless your counting the doubling of cores but that's only because AMD lit a fire under their arse.
What do you mean unless im counting the doubling of cores? The heck does that even mean? I just count the performance in multithreaded tasks, whether that is because of cores clockspeeds or whatever, it doesn't matter.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
What do you mean unless im counting the doubling of cores? The heck does that even mean? I just count the performance in multithreaded tasks, whether that is because of cores clockspeeds or whatever, it doesn't matter.
Well, it KIND OF matters because you could always overclock an Intel... so if you wanted 8000 level performance on a 6000 series intel, OCing it would get you there... OCing was always my answer to AMD's "we can upgrade our CPU"...

Intels were generally far more OC friendly - so you could get a "free" upgrade instead :)
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,322
True, it was actually 6 years. So in 2023, it will be 6 years between the first Ryzen and the latest one. You think AMD can match Intel's performance increase at the 300€-350€ pricepoint? I don't. Yet you consider Intel stagnant...Don't you see a problem with your argument?
Another POV for this stagnation: Intel's top desktop CPU core count:

2008-2016: 4 cores
2017: 6 cores
2018: 8 cores
2020: 10 cores
2022: 16 cores

That's what I call stagnation...
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Well, it KIND OF matters because you could always overclock an Intel... so if you wanted 8000 level performance on a 6000 series intel, OCing it would get you there... OCing was always my answer to AMD's "we can upgrade our CPU"...

Intels were generally far more OC friendly - so you could get a "free" upgrade instead :)
Well sure, but for example the R7 1700 could be overclocked by a whooping 30%. In which case, an R7 1700 to a 5600x has a multithreaded performance difference of...dunno, 10-15%? In 5 years, 15% difference? Yeah, AMD is not stagnant , it's just Intel :p
 
Last edited:

Biostud

Posts: 86   +47
No its not fantasy. I gave you specifix years and specific cpus. The only intel cpu that actually broke the mold was the 7700k which lasted for mere months.

i7 870 to i7 6700k (5 years) is double the perfromance.

I7 3770k to i7 8700k is again, double the perfromance

1700 to 5600x is at most 40-45% performance increase.

Those are just.. Facts.. Sure the performance came from clock increases but... Does it matter where it came from?
One difference is that the older CPUs were able to overclock far better. If you compared the stock speed of my aging 5820k of max 3.6Ghz boost, to a five year newer processor then the improvements look far better than the actual 4.3Ghz I am able to achieve. So most of the extra speed came from a larger thermal budget and higher clocks, and only minor IPC gains.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,365   +2,875
TechSpot Elite
The people who were anti-Ryzen were generally Intel fanboys. There's a crap-tonne of them so that explains the numbers you saw. I actually have three AM4 motherboards, an X370, an X570 and an A320 (in chronological order of my purchases).

I got the X570 because it was on sale and it was for my inevitable purchase of a 5000-series. The goodies like PCI-Express v4.0 and Smart Access Memory were nice but the real reason was that if you flash the BIOS on an X370 board to handle 5000-series CPUs, it will no longer support Ryzen 1 CPUs. Since I didn't want to lose the use of the R7-1700 as a backup CPU, I stopped at the AM4combo 1.0.0.1 update. That left me with the quandry of what to do with my R5-3600X when I got my 5000-series. This is because I knew that when I got my 5000-series that I'd be gifting my Ryzen 1 platform to one of my parents which would be more than enough for their typical Boomer home use.

The problem was that doing this would leave me without a mobo for my R5-3600X (and I really don't like having loose CPUs). Then, by pure chance, I happened to be looking at Canada Computers motherboards and they had the Biostar A320MH on clearance for $40CAD! There was no way I could say no to that so I grabbed it with 8GB of DDR4-2400 just so that I could keep my X370 CPU with 16GB intact. Neither my mom nor dad do anything that would require more than 8GB anyway.

I honestly believe that AM4 is the greatest PC platform that has ever been released because of this and it only makes me wonder what AM5 will be capable of. Good times, good times!
 
Last edited:

Arbie

Posts: 369   +668
What makes no sense? People complaining that Intel kept their core count steady while they are applauding AMD when they actually reduced them at a given price point? Makes no sense to me either, yet here we are
You're determined to distort reality. In affordables, Intel gave us only quad cores until 2017, and many only single-threaded. I know that I couldn't look at anything better. That's when Ryzen hit that bracket with six and eight multi-threaded cores. Forcing Intel to reduce and produce.

Without AMD we might very well still be running quads below $500. Maybe even on 14nm++++++. Why not?

Of course Intel could still compete in performance per dollar... they had infinite dollars! Do the math. Dollars from all those years of milking and anti-competitive practices. They could take any loss to stay in the market. That metric means nothing. Though with all their resources Intel could rarely even match AMD in performance per watt - a real technical measure which btw matters to me.

The point isn't whether Something Lake XXX got 2 FPS more in PUBG for $xx less. It's that without AMD's miracle comeback and terrific execution since then we'd be getting a lot less performance for a lot more $$ forever. Read that "forever" bit again: it's why Intel - who did do the math - went to even illegal lengths to kill them off.

And when you next shop for a CPU, consider whose war chest you want to bolster. Per the above, I don't care if Intel offers a slightly better "today-value". 2017 opened my eyes on that.
 

YSignal

Posts: 49   +38
Haters still hating it seems. Like alot of comments here I was an early Ryzen adopter, and have zero regrets. 1700x<3700x<5800x3D all on x370 taichi. Don't listen to haters & fanboys and just buy what you like.
 
Amd is way more stagnant then the worst years of intel.

Might be the math is wrong in this statement ?
You can't be more stagnant than the competitor in their worst years, and still be matching/surpassing the competitor during that time.
'Penrose stairs' image comes to mind :)

Case in point:
AMD Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000 on AM4, Q4/2020) matching/surpassing Intel Comet Lake (Core 10000 on LGA 1200, Q1/2020) and Rocket Lake (Core 11000 on LGA 1200, Q1/2021), and to some degree still being competitive with Alder Lake (Core 12000 on LGA 1700, Q4/2021) ... unless Zen 1 (Ryzen 1000 on AM4, Q1/2017) was so much better than Kaby Lake at the time (Core 7000 on LGA 1151, Q1/2017) :)

We have a nice example of AM4's success, at least for us, here at home:
- started with X370+1700 as my game/workstation
- my partner, working from home, was in need of a new workstation ... perfect reason to hand her the X370+1700 ad buy a new game/workstation for me :), X570+3900X
- now, when Zen 3 came out, I upgraded my X570 system to a 5900X and moved the 3900X to the X370 system 🎉

I think on Intel, this upgrade scenario would have been impossible ?
'Kaby Lake - Core 7000' on LGA 1151 (Q1/2017), 'Coffee Lake refresh - Core 9000' on modified and backwards incompatible LGA 1151 (Q4/2019), 'Rocket Lake - Core 11000 on LGA 1200 (Q1/2021)
 

callmesissi

Posts: 6   +2
I am not an Intel fanboy, or AMD hater, I usually buy whatever is best at the moment. I have been doing computer support for over 30 years, since the 80386 era I started. And always, the motherboard is the one that fails first, in my experience mobos start failing from 3 to a maximun of 6 years, there is always a rare one that lasts up to 10 years. But CPUs never ever stop working.

Having AMD using AM4 socket for so long has been HELL for me, and in fact is what has made me to stay away from Ryzen cpus. problems I have encountered so far:
1.- when you update the agesa, now older cpus dont work anymore... A series AM4, athlons,etc.
2.- buying a new mobo and a new ryzen cpu is total and complete bonkers, because you DONT KNOW if its going to work, unless you have an older a series am4 cpu or a new athlon 200ge to be sure that you CAN update the bios... so you have 150 bucks laying there just to being able to update the bios
3.- PINS on the cpu.. for gods ..... COME ON, worst design ever, intel got rid of them around 2004... a month ago I sold a computer, and yes, it was Ryzen,my client was adamant on getting one, I was afraid something was going to go wrong, as usual, either BIOS update not up to date or a BSOD. so anyway, I plug the new series 5000 and well... doesnt work! so I have to use my athlon 200ge to be able to update the bios and guess what, I cant get the ryzen out of the socket... %$#!&% this is not the first time, PIN design can get a cpu stuck in the socket, same as when you want to change the thermal paste you know, if has happened to you all... the cpu becomes glued to the heatsink and oh boy... BENT PINS.
so anyway I continue with the cpu stuck to the socket, and not being able to update de bios. I pray, try everything I could and nope, I have a ryzen 5000 series STUCK inside a motherboard... so I had to break the socket.. there goes 150 us. on the mobo...

If you bought an amd ryzen in 2017 and upgrade to a new 2022 ryzen.. either your mobo has already started to fail or is about to go boom! so why the bother? you alse need a new motherboard or will need one very soon.

Stuff in the past of amd like no trim support A series fm2 (neither raid trim support), pathetic real use usb 3 transfer rates (tops at 100mb/s goes down most of the time to 30mb/s) . terrible driver support (which IT IS true guys, you know it) and no integrated graphics..

I really thank Amd for creating Ryzen cpus, they made intel wake up and be competitive again, but unless Amd gets some quality sockets, drivers, gets rid of pins, makes their cpus at least being able to BOOT to bios and being able to update de bios, I see no point of it.

I prefer an intel mobo, that I KNOW I buy one of their 12th gen alder lake and it will support my 12th gen cpu, like they always do. Until they did their 9th /10th gen work like ryzen that you have to get some bios update for cpus to work. I prefer having a new socket, that every single cpu will work on that socket, that offers me good driver support for many years.

I am writting this on my everyday computer, an i7 4770. when I buy a new cpu I always buy 2 mobos. my first mobo lasted around 7 years, I am on the second one now. I got driver update on my integrated gpu just a few months ago,yes, a 2014 cpu gets a driver update in 2022) in the meantime if you buy a NEW sochet am4 A series APU, last drivers are over a year old... come on... they still are selling the apu and drivers are outdated... Windows 8.1 is now gone, but amd didnt release drivers for it, and last drivers for 8.1 are from 2015.

I dont see the point in "having the same socket" for so many years when you cant be sure at all that you can update the bios, and that you need an older cpu to being able to.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.