AMD keeps botching their product launches, and Zen 5 is just another example in a string of releases over the last two years that range from disappointing to downright embarrassing.
Opinion: AMD Keeps Botching Launches
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
Spot on as usual!
100% agree on the Ryzen Cores upgrades! This would help them big time to take on Intel.
Ryzen 3 - 6 Core/12 Thread
Ryzen 5 - 8 Core/16 Thread
Ryzen 7 - 12 Core/24 Thread
Ryzen 9 - 16 Core/32 Thread
100% agree on the Ryzen Cores upgrades! This would help them big time to take on Intel.
Ryzen 3 - 6 Core/12 Thread
Ryzen 5 - 8 Core/16 Thread
Ryzen 7 - 12 Core/24 Thread
Ryzen 9 - 16 Core/32 Thread
Starfals
Posts: 161 +133
Yeah, I agree about FSR 3. Took ages for that to be a thing. Its pretty funny how the 7800X3D had a ton of issues for me too. RAM/motherboard related. I still need 90-120 secs for a restart or reboot. Takes a while with all the fixes and updates to bios. Even with the right settings. Sure, it did go down from 5-6 mins... but yeah. On top of that, the 7800X3D was 650 euro in my country. Not even close to 450 lol. Prices did go down later, now it's literally 400 bucks... but yeah. That whole CPU launch gave me a horrible taste in my mouth. I never before had to update a bios 13 times!!!!!!!! 13!!! I never had to go to bios that often either. I was always going back for like 3-4 months. I don't even update my games that often lol. At least the performance is rock solid and nothing is not perfect once I'm inside the windows now, boot times aside. I do hate how even with a 360 AIO, temps can go to 87... on a 76W undervolted (-35 on all cores) CPU. Kind of annoying and insane, in a AC controlled room too. This nothing new tho. My friend has 5800X, and his CPU often goes to 90, and it has to lower the speeds to 4 (from 4.8). This new generation seems cooler and less power hungry, its a huge win in my book. Sadly, the performance uplift is barely there.
R00sT3R
Posts: 836 +2,561
It's all down to greed, especially with their GPU releases. They are simply pricing them to as close to Nvidias as they can, despite having notably inferior performance and features.
Catch as much cash as you can from the early FOMO suckers then let market forces do their work in reducing prices to clear stock gathering dust since the word has gotten around.
Catch as much cash as you can from the early FOMO suckers then let market forces do their work in reducing prices to clear stock gathering dust since the word has gotten around.
For Zen5: Your results are very different compared to any other review, no comments about that.
For "botched" GPU launches, market has clearly decided Nvidia is always better even when AMD was clearly better. If buyers don't care, why should AMD care?
AMD basically could have made much faster card than RTX 4090 on this generation because AMDs GPU chip is quite near Nvidia one on speed but die size is almost half. With equal die size AMD would be miles ahead. Still, AMD didn't even want to release that kind of card. Why? Again, buyers don't care, so why should AMD?
Whole reason for "botched" launches is that AMD knows they cannot win. Even with clearly superior product. Let Nvidia buyers cry about high prices, that's what they wanted.
For "botched" GPU launches, market has clearly decided Nvidia is always better even when AMD was clearly better. If buyers don't care, why should AMD care?
AMD basically could have made much faster card than RTX 4090 on this generation because AMDs GPU chip is quite near Nvidia one on speed but die size is almost half. With equal die size AMD would be miles ahead. Still, AMD didn't even want to release that kind of card. Why? Again, buyers don't care, so why should AMD?
Whole reason for "botched" launches is that AMD knows they cannot win. Even with clearly superior product. Let Nvidia buyers cry about high prices, that's what they wanted.
MarcusNumb
Posts: 199 +366
Totally agree with the writer, nice article!!! I'm seriously wondering whether AMD really wants to gain CPU market shares or just keep passing by. With the serious crisis Intel is facing, they could have gotten more market share if they had done things correctly since the beginning with the 7000 series launch.
This is likely driven by marketing and executives trying to maximize profits and boost stock prices. It’s not surprising at all. The engineers provide solid results, but the marketing team stretches the truth to make everything sound better, all to keep the executives happy so they can secure their big bonuses. This pattern is as old as time, and it’s only gotten worse since the COVID bubble inflated unrealistic profit and stock expectations.
As much as we might want AMD to do better, we’re just fooling ourselves. Nvidia dominates the GPU market with an 88% share compared to AMD's 12%, and Intel leads in the CPU market with a 65% share to AMD's 35%.
Are Nvidia, Intel, and Apple really any better?
As much as we might want AMD to do better, we’re just fooling ourselves. Nvidia dominates the GPU market with an 88% share compared to AMD's 12%, and Intel leads in the CPU market with a 65% share to AMD's 35%.
Are Nvidia, Intel, and Apple really any better?
Define correctly.
I don't understand what's wrong with those who say Zen5 launch was "bad"
How about checking facts before posting such BS
FYI, Intel dominates PC GPU market.
Let's keep going on surfing the wave and the clickbait headlines...
Since when journalists are giving us their opinions? Where is the impartiality so many love to blast in our face?
Ah, I forgot, this has nothing to do with facts anymore here. At lease I can get facts elsewhere like Anandtech. At least, they know what IPC means.
Since when journalists are giving us their opinions? Where is the impartiality so many love to blast in our face?
Ah, I forgot, this has nothing to do with facts anymore here. At lease I can get facts elsewhere like Anandtech. At least, they know what IPC means.
Tim is always just spreading his opinion which for me is really concerning for any outlets wanting to take itself seriously.
We all remember the Just Buy It from Tomshardware and how bad this was, but this is the same without the polemic.
In all honesty, I really don't care about his opinion because mine is as valuable as his.
i like foxes
Posts: 312 +215
HardReset , with that power efficiency of their GPUs , if they rolled out a faster card than RTX 4090 then we would see more melting PCI-E connectors because it would draw 540W ! 20% more than NVidia .
AMD must get their Radeons more power efficient as they re doing with their processors
AMD must get their Radeons more power efficient as they re doing with their processors
With much larger chip, they could also run with much lower clock speeds improving efficiency greatly. Your logic just doesn't work.
i like foxes
Posts: 312 +215
Yes , with lower voltage/clock they would get more efficient , here I agree , but they re not doing this .Maybe they try to squeeze every last drop of performance out of their GPUs .
Last edited:
Yes, because small fast chip with high power consumption is much cheaper to manufacture than large chip with low power consumption.
It's just, if AMD wanted to beat RTX 4090, no problem.
Took me all of 15 seconds to look it up before I actually wrote my comment, unlike your useless troll response. It is clear to everyone except you that I am talking about discrete GPUs.How about checking facts before posting such BS
FYI, Intel dominates PC GPU market.
- https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/analyst-nvidia-gpu-market-share-now-at-88-amd-with-12
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-intel-amd-market-share/
i like foxes
Posts: 312 +215
But they re not doing this because of the reason I pointed out .
Guys , I m playing NFS Unbound with NVidia Frame generation and I m getting 3x more performance . The graphics quality is very good . No upscaling
Last edited:
You are one trolling here. Talking about market share and then picking just tiny portion of everything to say Nvidia is market leader
FYI, Nvidia has zero integrated GPUs for x86 market. As for AMD, they basically ditched very low end trash because integrated ones are better anyway. To put it another way, better integrated GPUs AMD make, LESS they gain discrete share. Funny, isn't it? AMD discrete sales get LOWER because of better NON-discrete GPUs. And FYI again, every Nvidia mobile GPU is discrete one while most AMD mobile GPUs are non-discrete. That's why your post make absolutely no sense and is nothing else but pure trolling.
yRaz
Posts: 6,937 +10,739
I tend to disagree with this stuff because, at la7nch, scalping was still a problem with both AMD and nVidia selling above MSRP. AMD did a bunch of bulk deals selling pallets of the 79xtx to AI startups without boatloads of investor money.
The 79XT sold poorly despite being sold for 830-850 shortly after launch and being faster than nVidias offerings in the same price range.
The 7800xt was an okay value and being a pretty decent value once the market normalized.
7700 is still a terrible card.
The 7600XT has gotten better since it can be had for $250-270 now. Even though it had a launch price of 330, it was down to around $300 in the first few weeks.
The 79XT sold poorly despite being sold for 830-850 shortly after launch and being faster than nVidias offerings in the same price range.
The 7800xt was an okay value and being a pretty decent value once the market normalized.
7700 is still a terrible card.
The 7600XT has gotten better since it can be had for $250-270 now. Even though it had a launch price of 330, it was down to around $300 in the first few weeks.
MarcusNumb
Posts: 199 +366
In my point of view, simply the pricing strategy could have made a huge difference in this circumstance. How about 310 MSRP for the 9700x instead of 360 ? That price alone combine with the power efficiency would be a home run swing.
If they released the 9800x or 9900x first, price would not be as important as power efficiency or IPC gain. But the 9600x and 9700x are meant to be for the vast entry users so they will definitely compare the prices with all the offers for 5000 series first.
Partially agreed. Problem here is that both Ryzen 9000 and 7000 series CPUs fits on same motherboards. If 9000-series is priced too low, then who would buy 7000-series any more? Therefore 9000 series must be "bit too expensive" so that someone will buy 7000 series too. At some time 7000 series will disappear and then problem is no more.
To put it another way, AMD could have made 9000 series to require new motherboard. Then 9000 series could also be cheaper since it would not be competing against 7000 series directly. That's the price with long term socket, new arrivals must be priced bit "too high" so that there is market for previous generation too.
We must accept that competing against own products is generally bad idea.
Beerfloat
Posts: 898 +1,644
You do understand that news reporting and opinions are separate things, yeah? And that there is demand for both? And why do you spread your opinions, anyhow? Does that mean we shouldn't take you seriously?
In all honesty, for someone who claims not to care you seem to feel the need to respond quite often in AMD-related topics. And your opinion is really predictable. The conclusion is generally a given and the reasoning seems to be of secondary importance.
Last edited:
m3tavision
Posts: 1,566 +1,312
Wow...
This author really doesn't like AMD.
First off, there is no better Gaming card than the XTX right now... nor 19 months ago when I got mine.
This is so provable that TECHSPOT altered all of the Call of Duty data and no longer will compare XTX to any RTX card and claim there is some error with their test... and they deleted their old data and charts.
When in reality... I play side-by side with someone with a 4090 and w/same Dell monitor and settings. So explain why anyone would spend +$800 more..? TECHSPOT is trying to sell Gamer's CUDA when they absolutely know the whole gaming market is on RDNA.
This author really doesn't like AMD.
First off, there is no better Gaming card than the XTX right now... nor 19 months ago when I got mine.
This is so provable that TECHSPOT altered all of the Call of Duty data and no longer will compare XTX to any RTX card and claim there is some error with their test... and they deleted their old data and charts.
When in reality... I play side-by side with someone with a 4090 and w/same Dell monitor and settings. So explain why anyone would spend +$800 more..? TECHSPOT is trying to sell Gamer's CUDA when they absolutely know the whole gaming market is on RDNA.
Let's keep going on surfing the wave and the clickbait headlines...
Since when journalists are giving us their opinions? Where is the impartiality so many love to blast in our face?
Ah, I forgot, this has nothing to do with facts anymore here. At lease I can get facts elsewhere like Anandtech. At least, they know what IPC means.
If that IPC improvement doesn't translate into increased performance in applications people actually use, then it's nothing more than an academic curiosity for most consumers. Most people are not running scientific applications or applications that take advantage of AVX512.
Their results are pretty similar to the other outlets I read/watch like Gamers Nexus and TPU. I certainly haven't seen any reviews where the 9700X beats the 14700K in gaming by 13%. I think Tom's had it at 9% and their review is the most positive I've seen for the 9700X in gaming.
13% comes from AMD slides? Perhaps no-one tested with games and settings AMD selected? Cherry picking games and/or other software for presentation slides is normal.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
The first-ever portable Xbox is here, thanks to one very dedicated modder- Megalomaniac replied
