Yeah, I praised AMD's Ryzen's TDP because their last gen was utter crap compared to this one. It was entirely incomparable. They went from 300W monstrosities that couldn't beat even Core i5's to Ryzen that puts even Intel to shame most of the time and considering the R&D differences between both, you'd expect Intel never to get into that position. Ever.
So in your opinion it's fine to praise Ryzen for better power efficiency than it's predecessor (even though possibly not many people will choose between them), but it's wrong to criticize Polaris for drawing 2x what similarly performing 1060 needs - even though these cards are direct competitors at the moment. This is... interesting.
By share coincidence the power difference is similar in both cases. Zen shaved of 100W compared to Bulldozer, but RX580 needs 100W more than GTX1060.
And did I mention that many people will go for a dual (or more) GPU lineup? I'd rather have a 200W CPU and 100W GPU than the opposite.
Also... 300W? FX-9590 has a TDP=220W.
The R&D argument is just weird. If AMD's R&D is too small, they should simply hire more people. What's the problem? It's not like they're a tiny, unknown company.
And if they can't afford a bigger R&D, they should try to sell more mainstream products.
But instead they're concentrating on specialized, niche parts. First marketing Ryzen towards gamers (and not including an IGP) and now giving us a GPU that's hardly usable in notebooks, AIO and small systems.
Looking at the current strategy, it seems AMD is fine with the role of an "underdog": smaller, targeted at particular group of clients. But if that's the case, we shouldn't really expect less because of size difference.
Intel is big, but Intel makes many things. Money from CPU sales funds research in other areas - it's always been like that. I doubt their budgets for actual CPU R&D differ greatly.
Sorry, but tiny case users are in total minority. I've had a miniATX build and in all the years I had it, all I've seen was tons of big cases and like 5 people who had ITX builds as HTPC.
Of course they are. But so are large gaming desktops in the whole personal computing business.
Also, people on this forum keep saying that Intel - by not going over 4 cores in consumer CPU - blocks the evolution of software towards using more cores.
So here's my answer: why is AMD forcing us to get large cases with large PSUs and cooling solutions? Why are they blocking the evolution towards smaller gaming rigs?
BTW: I assume RX550 is designed to be paired with Ryzen in PCs that don't need powerful GPU (like office desktops and non-GPU-dependent productivity machines). I wonder how this card will perform. Given the specs compared to RX460, it'll have to be the slowest card available right now, but maybe it's suitable for passive cooling?
That could easily be the most interesting card in the RX5xx series.
Sure, it's fast and efficient, but it's just so damn boring now.
R9 Fury had HBM which was something new and exciting as it was never used before.
OK. So here I'm out, really... You prefer a PC part because it is "exciting", performance being less important. This is something I can't argue with. No one can.
At this point you could simply say that you prefer AMD, because you like red over blue and green...
