Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance

[ilukey77]

For AMD to take over the market they need to be able to produce more chips. They need to ensure that they are not supply constrained. Therein lies a risk, if they buy and not sell at a price that makes decent profit or the parts end up stuck in inventory then their progress stalls. If it were to work for them then Intel could die.
AMD don’t need to take 100% of the market. They need to push Intel into a position where the costs of manufacturing their products overwhelms any chance of profit

I dont think its about volume ..

5090 sold crazy to the point of it was a paper launch but where is AMD even if they have huge supplies of the 9070xt/9070 at release the 5090 in all its MISSING LESS ROPS , MELTING PLUG GLORY will still sell as the better GPU ..

and at a premium ..

So i ask this question you want the latest and greatest CPU (and its arguably the 9800x3d ) would you wait till the 9800x3d is back in stock because its sold out everywhere OR buy the core i9 285k or whatever intel's top spec part is on a dead platform or at best 2 gen socket life span ???

or add to that would you buy the 9950x3d which will crush intel in both games and production ??

 

[thestryker]

show me all the percentages and graphs you want AMD are crushing Intel ..

Intel's latest gen CPU's flopped big time ..

AMD's strix point with its IGPU is set to crush Intel's laptop markets handhelds etc etc ..

AMD's server CPU's have been crushing Intel for a few years now ..

At a guess hard core intel fanboys are buying their rubbish or old 13th maybe 14th gen ..

I have a all intel build using the 14600kf ( great little cpu ) but wouldnt use it as my main ive got the 7800x3d !!

Bad socket life, terrible gen to gen uplift , terrible efficiency and no x3d has lead to intel's failing ..
( if feels like they didnt even try to fight back 5800x3d should have been the point where they said whoa hang on this looks like monster we need something )

As of right now AM5 is the better platform and the x3d cpus are better for games and when the 9950x3d releases Intel will respond with what ??

Im sorry but ( and like i said i dont hate intel anyone with even half a brain should know we need health competition between the 2 big CPU makers )
unless Intel can start to compete they are doomed ,,

Here's the thing you don't seem to be getting: AMD has been a better choice in mobile since Rembrandt launched in 2022 (aside from LNL niche), better choice in desktop since Zen 3 launched in 2020, and better choice in enterprise since Rome launched in 2019. This has turned into them having about a quarter of those markets. The only place they've actually made a real impact is enterprise and it's due to revenue. Consider that enterprise is also the slowest ship to turn due to buying habits and yet it's the only place meaningful gains have happened.

Being technically better is only part of the equation with the other major parts being OEM support and volume. Volume has been a huge problem for AMD when it comes to the larger markets. Intel can deliver guaranteed high volume and given the industry remarks about AMD they either can't or won't. When it comes to OEM support this is a big one mostly in mobile where Intel has had many different programs over the years which set baselines. They also design reference models and help OEMs with their designs.

So once again: AMD being better is meaningless unless they can translate it into revenue/volume. The only place they've done that is enterprise.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Here's the thing you don't seem to be getting: AMD has been a better choice in mobile since Rembrandt launched in 2022 (aside from LNL niche), better choice in desktop since Zen 3 launched in 2020, and better choice in enterprise since Rome launched in 2019. This has turned into them having about a quarter of those markets. The only place they've actually made a real impact is enterprise and it's due to revenue. Consider that enterprise is also the slowest ship to turn due to buying habits and yet it's the only place meaningful gains have happened.

Being technically better is only part of the equation with the other major parts being OEM support and volume. Volume has been a huge problem for AMD when it comes to the larger markets. Intel can deliver guaranteed high volume and given the industry remarks about AMD they either can't or won't. When it comes to OEM support this is a big one mostly in mobile where Intel has had many different programs over the years which set baselines. They also design reference models and help OEMs with their designs.

So once again: AMD being better is meaningless unless they can translate it into revenue/volume. The only place they've done that is enterprise.

I don't know that I would say Rembrandt was better than Intel's offerings at the time, but it was finally competitive with Intel's mobile parts. Mobile chips are about far more than just performance and cores. Battery life, power savings, etc. are all critical factors there. Winning slightly on performance while losing on battery often means you actually lose overall in perception.

And OEMs for laptops have so much to do with the final products. AMD for years was the budget brand for laptops that cost $500 or less. It takes time for that to change, so many OEMs haven't put equivalent effort into AMD solutions on mobile. That's changing, yes, and AMD is doing better now in mobile than they ever have AFAICT. But even with Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake laptops, it's not as simplistic as in the desktop CPU arena where you can point to performance and say AMD wins, or point to power and say AMD wins. Lunar Lake tops out at a paltry number of cores, but it's still selling well.

But the bit about volumes is absolutely spot on. Even now, Intel still can supply better volumes. The problem with Intel is that it's now using TSMC for several parts of various chips as well, but it still does higher volumes and not all of those tiles are built on TSMC's latest nodes. (Meaning, less competition from AI and GPU parts.)

 

[ilukey77]

I don't know that I would say Rembrandt was better than Intel's offerings at the time, but it was finally competitive with Intel's mobile parts. Mobile chips are about far more than just performance and cores. Battery life, power savings, etc. are all critical factors there. Winning slightly on performance while losing on battery often means you actually lose overall in perception.

And OEMs for laptops have so much to do with the final products. AMD for years was the budget brand for laptops that cost $500 or less. It takes time for that to change, so many OEMs haven't put equivalent effort into AMD solutions on mobile. That's changing, yes, and AMD is doing better now in mobile than they ever have AFAICT. But even with Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake laptops, it's not as simplistic as in the desktop CPU arena where you can point to performance and say AMD wins, or point to power and say AMD wins. Lunar Lake tops out at a paltry number of cores, but it's still selling well.

But the bit about volumese is absolutely spot on. Even now, Intel still can supply better volumes. The problem with Intel is that it's now using TSMC for several parts of various chips as well, but it still does higher volumes and not all of those tiles are built on TSMC's latest nodes. (Meaning, less competition from AI and GPU parts.)

Is the long term not death for them anyway?

Have all the supply you want but if it’s not selling then they are going to lose ..

Volume is fine to have but dont forget what AMD are supplying..
Desktops
Handhelds
Consoles
Server
Laptops

Want to do figures supply is not infinite on either side ..

Not to mention AMD for every one of them I’ve mentioned they’re hurting intel with basically a better product!!

 

[stuff and nonesense]

I dont think its about volume ..

It’s 2 parts.

Volume and market.

Home/Gamers
There are diehards on the Intel side and the AMD side, then there are those who float between. AMD currently has, arguably, the best gaming CPU. Its non x3d stuff is at least equal to intel's best and they can sell just about all they can make for that market.

For businesses the PCs tend to be laptops over desktops. This is the market AMD need to break open. As Jarred points out, a laptop is more than just a CPU, AMD have been the poor relation in the way laptop manufacturers have implemented their platform solutions. I have no idea how AMD changes the status quo. If they made more laptop CPUs and no one bought.. that’s lost money. If they don’t produce more they are stuck and don’t grow. It’s a catch 22. HP, Dell etc. hold AMD laptop growth in their gift. Should they choose to produce and promote AMD based equipment then something could happen, otherwise…

Servers and High performance is growing. Sustained development and pricing that is attractive to businesses will keep that market moving. That said, they can’t take their foot off the gas.