News AMD Launches Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 CPUs, Launches September 27

[helper800]

Do you even know what that comment aimed at and the context that came before it? No? Then why the heck do you feel you need to reply to it?

That guy acted as if AMD was some kind of heroic corporate entity that staged a revolution to throw the evil emperor Intel off his throne and liberate the CPU world from his iron grip. Not an established competitor that failed so bad they enabled Intel in the first place and help bring the stagnation along. They made horribly bad decisions that nearly bancrupted them and caused damage to everyone who needed a new computer, there is simply no blaming anyone else for it. It's great they made a comeback. I like having a choice and better products. It's still utter bulls to glorify AMD for it, especially when their decline was their own doing, and to blame Intel for it.

And just to make it really, really clear for everyone around what I mean. AMDs failure and incompetence is also what caused the stagnation for multiple years by effectively taking away the competition. You cannot just blame one when they are both part of the same whole. Had it been the other way round you can be 100% sure it would have been the exact same. So it's bulls to act as if they are so much better. They aren't. They made customer unfriendly decisions as well and will do so in the future. Stop that one-side bs already. They are both big corporations, they have the exact same goals. They aren't your friends any more than Intel is.

Neither are our friends, however, pinning the blame of Intels actions of stagnation and crapping all over consumers for 7 years primarily on AMD, the failing competitor, is half-witted... Competitors do not control the actions of each other and should be held accountable for their own actions, not their potentially, or realized, effects they have on their industry peers.

 

[TerryLaze]

Neither are our friends, however, pinning the blame of Intels actions of stagnation and crapping all over consumers for 7 years primarily on AMD, the failing competitor, is half-witted... Competitors do not control the actions of each other and should be held accountable for their own actions, not their potentially, or realized, effects they have on their industry peers.

They didn't stagnate, they just were asking a very high premium for products* that no other company could provide which is what every company does if they have a product that only they can make.
And as far as crapping on consumers goes that's the point that kyara is making, all the companies are doing that.

* They had a six core in 2011 for about $1000 and an 8 core in 2014 for again that much

 

[helper800]

They didn't stagnate, they just were asking a very high premium for products* that no other company could provide which is what every company does if they have a product that only they can make.
And as far as crapping on consumers goes that's the point that kyara is making, all the companies are doing that.

* They had a six core in 2011 for about $1000 and an 8 core in 2014 for again that much

I know the points he is trying to make. If Intel was as interested in innovation instead of sitting on their laurels we would have had consumer level 8 core parts somewhere between 2014-2017 (HEDT is not, imo, a product for consumers). They were on 14nm for how many years? That's Intel's fault, not AMD's. Lack of competition does not mean lack of innovation, that's a choice made for short term profiteering and greed. Because of Intel's actions they left room for AMD to weasel themselves back into the market coming up with architectures promptly that hit Intel where they were weakest. Overall the result of a duopoly is better than a monopoly, but the ends don't justify the means. If Intel cared about long-term profitability and innovation they would have left much less of a market for AMD to come back to.

 

[KyaraM]

Neither are our friends, however, pinning the blame of Intels actions of stagnation and crapping all over consumers for 7 years primarily on AMD, the failing competitor, is half-witted... Competitors do not control the actions of each other and should be held accountable for their own actions, not their potentially, or realized, effects they have on their industry peers.

For the bazillionth time... what I blame AMD for is mismanagement and miscalculation, so very basic and essential corporate tasks, which catapulted them out out of the market and enabled Intel to stagnate. I never blamed them for any of Intel's actions, even if you guys like to paint it that way. Had AMD not been incredibly stupid, it stands to reason that continuous pressure would have led to continuous improvements on both sides and thus to a higher level of performance than today. Or stagnation on both sides for different reasons, who can really tell; I'm not really a believer in eternal growth. Instead, it's all Intel's fault and theirs alone, and AMD is the great hero who brought innovation back, which I guess makes for a better narrative than admitting that AMD, well, fricked things up bad and helped bring the situation along through it. Emphasis for making it obvious (hopefully... not holding my breath, though) what exactly I'm blaming on them. And would have done the same had it been the other way round. Heck, with how overpriced their chips were for over a year it is kinda obvious, but sure, I'm apparently a half-wit now for seeing things this way.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

I know the points he is trying to make. If Intel was as interested in innovation instead of sitting on their laurels we would have had consumer level 8 core parts somewhere between 2014-2017 (HEDT is not, imo, a product for consumers). They were on 14nm for how many years? That's Intel's fault, not AMD's. Lack of competition does not mean lack of innovation, that's a choice made for short term profiteering and greed. Because of Intel's actions they left room for AMD to weasel themselves back into the market coming up with architectures promptly that hit Intel where they were weakest. Overall the result of a duopoly is better than a monopoly, but the ends don't justify the means. If Intel cared about long-term profitability and innovation they would have left much less of a market for AMD to come back to.

They weren’t stagnating lol. They were just being greedy and charging exorbitant rates for everything lol what a great excuse

 

[-Fran-]

They weren’t stagnating lol. They were just being greedy and charging exorbitant rates for everything lol what a great excuse

Yes and no... Keep in mind Intel had that 14nm problem for several years.

In their defense, they wanted to bring 6+ cores into the mainstream sooner, but their 14nm issues kept them from doing it, so they only did it with massive dies harvested from Xeon parts. I mean, compare the die sizes from all "-E" versions. They were not even in the same ballpark and that's also why they were so stupidly expensive; plus their non-E versions were faster for games and such tasks that weren't highly threaded. In terms of pricing, both AMD and Intel have been guilty of "HEDT" shenanigans. Pentium4 EE, AMD FX-51 (these were essentially Opteron dies with heavy OC), Intel's X-line of CPUs and now ThreadRipper Pro.

That's why it's a "yes and no". They clearly could've accelerated their roadmap and adapt it to 14nm before Covfefe Lake S, but they are perfectionists (I guess?) and wanted a proper transition to 10nm. While they were doing that, AMD got their holes covered and the water off the boat, so they caught up to Intel. Those holes were absolutely self-inflicted; there's no discussion there, but I'll just say Intel is no sparkling butterfly either. That's old story now and it had nothing to do (I hope) with AMD shooting the boat and making those holes.

Regards.

 

[helper800]

For the bazillionth time... what I blame AMD for is mismanagement and miscalculation, so very basic and essential corporate tasks, which catapulted them out out of the market and enabled Intel to stagnate. I never blamed them for any of Intel's actions, even if you guys like to paint it that way. Had AMD not been incredibly stupid, it stands to reason that continuous pressure would have led to continuous improvements on both sides and thus to a higher level of performance than today. Or stagnation on both sides for different reasons, who can really tell; I'm not really a believer in eternal growth. Instead, it's all Intel's fault and theirs alone, and AMD is the great hero who brought innovation back, which I guess makes for a better narrative than admitting that AMD, well, fricked things up bad and helped bring the situation along through it. Emphasis for making it obvious (hopefully... not holding my breath, though) what exactly I'm blaming on them. And would have done the same had it been the other way round. Heck, with how overpriced their chips were for over a year it is kinda obvious, but sure, I'm apparently a half-wit now for seeing things this way.

I am not trying to put forward a narrative and I actually agree with the premise of your argument. I personally just do not believe the conclusions you came to. To be clear I did not mean that you were half-witted in the sense of you being dumb, but meant that the first half of what you are saying is correct and the other half, the conclusions of the argument, were, imo not logically based. Sorry if I offended you.

They weren’t stagnating lol. They were just being greedy and charging exorbitant rates for everything lol what a great excuse

I think this is actually more a matter of semantics at this point. You say POE-tah-toe, I say PAH-tah-toe.

Yes and no... Keep in mind Intel had that 14nm problem for several years.

In their defense, they wanted to bring 6+ cores into the mainstream sooner, but their 14nm issues kept them from doing it, so they only did it with massive dies harvested from Xeon parts. I mean, compare the die sizes from all "-E" versions. They were not even in the same ballpark and that's also why they were so stupidly expensive; plus their non-E versions were faster for games and such tasks that weren't highly threaded. In terms of pricing, both AMD and Intel have been guilty of "HEDT" shenanigans. Pentium4 EE, AMD FX-51 (these were essentially Opteron dies with heavy OC), Intel's X-line of CPUs and now ThreadRipper Pro.

That's why it's a "yes and no". They clearly could've accelerated their roadmap and adapt it to 14nm before Covfefe Lake S, but they are perfectionists (I guess?) and wanted a proper transition to 10nm. While they were doing that, AMD got their holes covered and the water off the boat, so they caught up to Intel. Those holes were absolutely self-inflicted; there's no discussion there, but I'll just say Intel is no sparkling butterfly either. That's old story now and it had nothing to do (I hope) with AMD shooting the boat and making those holes.

Regards.

I guess I am more of a skeptic. When Ryzen realized their market Intel was all of a sudden releasing higher core parts at a reasonable-ish price point. I think they purposely shelved higher core parts because it was more profitable to make smaller core CPUs in bulk at higher prices than the former.

 

[-Fran-]

I guess I am more of a skeptic. When Ryzen realized their market Intel was all of a sudden releasing higher core parts at a reasonable-ish price point. I think they purposely shelved higher core parts because it was more profitable to make smaller core CPUs in bulk at higher prices than the former.

That's just Capitalism in action: Intel realized Ryzen was now no track and they weren't. They had to make a decision. No one knows the finer details, but you can extrapolate Intel had to do one of two things:
1- Bring "moar coars" plans forward or
2- Go back to the original roadmaps and try to shoehorn them in their current process node (more likely).

Either case, again, this is Capitalism in action. Newton's 3rd law, almost, but for Capitalism, LOL. Who made the other do what, I guess it's less important. As stated above a few posts ago, no Company will look after your interests (or consumers in general) and only Stake and Share holders. Intel reacted for sure, but AMD is just one of many things that Intel has on their plate. Losing Apple I'd say hurt Intel way more than AMD getting back into it.

Regards.

 

[King_V]

That guy acted as if AMD was some kind of heroic corporate entity that staged a revolution to throw the evil emperor Intel off his throne and liberate the CPU world from his iron grip.

That is not at all how they described it.

Not an established competitor that failed so bad they enabled Intel in the first place and help bring the stagnation along.

Yes, AMD screwed up. They're hardly "enablers" though - nobody held a gun to the collective heads of Intel's management and said "Don't you dare make any real progress!"

Intel decided to offer crumbs, and charging for it as if these were products offering real progress. Intel chose their path.

They made horribly bad decisions that nearly bancrupted them and caused damage to everyone who needed a new computer, there is simply no blaming anyone else for it. It's great they made a comeback. I like having a choice and better products. It's still utter bulls to glorify AMD for it, especially when their decline was their own doing, and to blame Intel for it.

And just to make it really, really clear for everyone around what I mean. AMDs failure and incompetence is also what caused the stagnation for multiple years by effectively taking away the competition. You cannot just blame one when they are both part of the same whole. Had it been the other way round you can be 100% sure it would have been the exact same. So it's bulls to act as if they are so much better. They aren't. They made customer unfriendly decisions as well and will do so in the future. Stop that one-side bs already. They are both big corporations, they have the exact same goals. They aren't your friends any more than Intel is.

You are reading way more into the earlier comments than what is there. Yes, AMD is effectively the "good guy" in the Ryzen comeback. Yes, they stagnated. Also, they are tiny compared to Intel, and Intel definitely played dirty in the past to harm them.

AMD wasn't nearly in the position that Intel was when AMD fumbled the ball. Intel's fumble, though, their stagnation, was a choice they made. They weren't struggling when they decided to do "just more of the same."