Editorial Following Ryzen's Launch, Intel's CPUs Likely to See Price-Cuts

[TheGuruStud]

Lol. It's not Intel's fault they committed crimes to bankrupt AMD.

Do you dildos even listen to yourselves?

 

[Rictorhell]

Hopefully, when the Ryzen reviews come in, the performance will be AT LEAST competitive with current Intel parts and AMD can capitalize on it by selling a maximum number of Ryzen parts. If this does work out for AMD they need to be more strategic about how they use their resources and how they go about getting investors and going into partnerships.

I would hope that Ryzen would be the start of a second or third coming for the AMD CPU division, where they could eventually expand and grow their business to a point where they could be a serious competitor and threat to Intel on a permanent and ongoing basis.

The active competition from a healthy and thriving AMD would/could spur future technological innovation that won't happen with an unchallenged and at-ease Intel.

AMD should be further investing in R & D, even now, so that they can eventually fully match and outperform FUTURE Intel processors and parts, regularly.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Lol. It's not Intel's fault they committed crimes to bankrupt AMD.

Do you dildos even listen to yourselves?

As one who prides myself on every statement I make being truthful and banworthy at the same time...I strongly approve.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

Lol. It's not Intel's fault they committed crimes to bankrupt AMD.

Do you dildos even listen to yourselves?

Intel also paid AMD to end litigation regarding that. That along with allowing AMD to sell its fabs to GloFo and continue to have their x86 license (that Intel invented btw) should probably be seen as AMD tacitly ending their complaints about past Intel misdeeds.

So why are you still going on about it? Oh, that's right. It's because you certainly don't have any stunning AMD CPU victories to speak of in the last decade. Maybe soon. Hopefully soon.

But try not to be so desperate. Relying on corporations for your hate or your love is going to leave you miserable.

 

[Easy Rhino]

All leading manufacturers lower prices when their competitors offer a competing product. It's like the first thing they teach in business school.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Intel also paid AMD to end litigation regarding that. That along with allowing AMD to sell its fabs to GloFo and continue to have their x86 license (that Intel invented btw) should probably be seen as AMD tacitly ending their complaints about past Intel misdeeds.

So why are you still going on about it? Oh, that's right. It's because you certainly don't have any stunning AMD CPU victories to speak of in the last decade. Maybe soon. Hopefully soon.

But try not to be so desperate. Relying on corporations for your hate or your love is going to leave you miserable.

Another excuse? Intel cost AMD a minimum of 10x that paltry sum (and made it back 50x over). What's at least 25% market share worth for 10 years? That's like saying xyz mega corp. is just dandy for paying a minimal fee for all the death and destruction they WILLFULLY caused. No, ridiculously low sums paid due to a ineffective and corrupt judicial system does not pardon Intel.

And what's that retarded 2nd part? Intel should be bankrupted to show you how dumb you are. No money = highest chance of failure. Vega and Ryzen are almost a miracle given the budget.

 

[R0H1T]

Intel also paid AMD to end litigation regarding that. That along with allowing AMD to sell its fabs to GloFo and continue to have their x86 license (that Intel invented btw) should probably be seen as AMD tacitly ending their complaints about past Intel misdeeds.

So why are you still going on about it? Oh, that's right. It's because you certainly don't have any stunning AMD CPU victories to speak of in the last decade. Maybe soon. Hopefully soon.

But try not to be so desperate. Relying on corporations for your hate or your love is going to leave you miserable.

Let's try that again, without the x64 license there would be no Intel x86-64 in servers, or 64 bit desktops for that matter. So Intel did no charity to AMD, not even close & in fact without AMD innovating (on x86) they'd be stuck with the Itanic & who knows there may not have been any Intel today without AMD.

 

[evernessince]

Intel also paid AMD to end litigation regarding that. That along with allowing AMD to sell its fabs to GloFo and continue to have their x86 license (that Intel invented btw) should probably be seen as AMD tacitly ending their complaints about past Intel misdeeds.

So why are you still going on about it? Oh, that's right. It's because you certainly don't have any stunning AMD CPU victories to speak of in the last decade. Maybe soon. Hopefully soon.

But try not to be so desperate. Relying on corporations for your hate or your love is going to leave you miserable.

And AMD invented 64 bit. Let's see how far Intel gets with 4 GB of RAM. Intel cross licences lots from AMD.

Intel paid AMD a pittance compared to the market they robbed from them. As a company AMD had no choice but to accept Intel's offer or go bankrupt. You make it sound like AMD wasn't trying hard enough or that someone it's AMD's fault that Intel threatened OEMs to not buy AMD products. No one can ever be a perfect enough victim for you, can they?

Just look at the cost benefits from Intel's perspective

1. They gain a huge majority of the marketshare
2. They prevent a superior product from even being sold.
3. They gain around 10 years of market dominance (and the capital that comes with a monopoly) and use that money to diversify their business into SSDs, motherboards, and fabs.
4. They gain top of mind branding. In other words, everyone thinks of Intel when they think CPUs.
5. As a result of the others, applications are programmed towards Intel and everyone wants an Intel desktop or laptop, either due to mindshare or the fact that Intel can keep AMD under their Thumb simply due to the sheer size difference between the two companies.

Negatives?

1. They paid AMD what is only A FRACTION OF A SINGLE QUARTERS PROFIT. Not really a negative given they've had 10*4 quarters of amazing profit, not to mention the other benefits.

If Zen competes with Intel it's nothing short of a miracle given the stuff AMD has been through.

 

[eidairaman1]

Phenom 1 had a TLB issue and cold bug, Phenom II was a competitive chip, Orochi was the goose-egg, Vishera boosted 1core ipc quite considerably over 8150 with the 8350, after that AMD focused on APUs until Ryzen.

 

[evernessince]

Phenom 1 had a TLB issue and cold bug, Phenom II was a competitive chip, Orochi was the goose-egg, Vishera boosted 1core ipc quite considerably over 8150 with the 8350, after that AMD focused on APUs until Ryzen.

The problem with the Phenom II is it wasn't as efficient as Intel's competing product nor did it have better IPC. During that time period AMD was going through rapid hiring and firing and sale of assets to stay afloat because it had lost a large portion of the mobile market after Intel blackmailed OEMs. AMD lost the laptops first, then the desktops and server markets.

 

[Relayer]

Not only is competition important to our pocketbook, it's just as important to the progress of the industry. This ought to get the ball rolling again.

 

[Caring1]

Wouldn't it be nice if AMD and Intel reverted back to the old days. Both CPU's shared a common design. Remember Socket 7? You could swap out an Intel for AMD or vice-versa. Now, those were the days

In an ideal world, that would help manufacturers and consumers alike.

 

[Vlada011]

I love when something happen like this. It was bored on market with Intel and NVIDIA alone.
Are you aware that NVIDIA was close to ask 500-700$ for similar class as RX 480 very soon.
Gaming with Intel and NVIDIA become very expensive. For now cheapest option for gaming was some mATX board Intel i7 and Radeon RX 480 and to change every 3 years.
Now that could be done with AMD and same performance as i7-6950X after OC.
1800X + C6H + DDR4 and cooler could be bundle for 1000$.
Or 1700 + C6H + DDR4 + RX 480 reference for 1000$.

And customer now for 1000 get serious PC for gaming on 1080p.
Or for 1600$ for 4K but with GTX1080, his real value should be 500$ max, but never mind, NVIDIA is next on AMDs hit ist.

 

[Vayra86]

And AMD invented 64 bit. Let's see how far Intel gets with 4 GB of RAM. Intel cross licences lots from AMD.

Intel paid AMD a pittance compared to the market they robbed from them. As a company AMD had no choice but to accept Intel's offer or go bankrupt. You make it sound like AMD wasn't trying hard enough or that someone it's AMD's fault that Intel threatened OEMs to not buy AMD products. No one can ever be a perfect enough victim for you, can they?

Just look at the cost benefits from Intel's perspective

1. They gain a huge majority of the marketshare
2. They prevent a superior product from even being sold.
3. They gain around 10 years of market dominance (and the capital that comes with a monopoly) and use that money to diversify their business into SSDs, motherboards, and fabs.
4. They gain top of mind branding. In other words, everyone thinks of Intel when they think CPUs.
5. As a result of the others, applications are programmed towards Intel and everyone wants an Intel desktop or laptop, either due to mindshare or the fact that Intel can keep AMD under their Thumb simply due to the sheer size difference between the two companies.

Negatives?

1. They paid AMD what is only A FRACTION OF A SINGLE QUARTERS PROFIT. Not really a negative given they've had 10*4 quarters of amazing profit, not to mention the other benefits.

If Zen competes with Intel it's nothing short of a miracle given the stuff AMD has been through.

You guys realize its 2017 now right...

 

[dalekdukesboy]

You guys realize its 2017 now right...

Yes, but irrelevant in a sense...why? Those who don't know the past, are condemned to repeat it. I'm paraphrasing but it's a great cliche that always rings true, "cliched" only that it is "overused" due to being so right...it's really as simple as you need to know what happened before now so now and your future you will not repeat past mistakes, and build on past successes by repeating only those.

 

[Vayra86]

Yes, but irrelevant in a sense...why? Those who don't know the past, are condemned to repeat it. I'm paraphrasing but it's a great cliche that always rings true, "cliched" only that it is "overused" due to being so right...it's really as simple as you need to know what happened before now so now and your future you will not repeat past mistakes, and build on past successes by repeating only those.

Regardless of what happened in the past (reason I said its 2017 is because this AMD-Intel thing is a very old, very broken record by now, it's almost common knowledge), the current state of AMD has almost no relation to what Intel did back then. AMD's current state is entirely the result of its own business choices AND design choices. It was 100% AMD that developed Bulldozer. It was 100% AMD that chose to stick to GCN with its high CPU load on DX11 ánd release several halo products with stupid configurations (Fury X on water, Hawaii's stock coolers, the list goes on). It was 100% AMD to rebrand its GPUs for the third time. And it was 100% AMD to keep building on subpar CPU architectures.

The past is the past. AMD didn't almost die from lack of R&D funding, it died from bad marketing, bad business decisions, huge debt, and badly designed products / rebrands. It also doesn't recover because of Intel, but because right now it is actually releasing solid products that can actually compete. The RX480 is an example, and Ryzen another.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Regardless of what happened in the past (reason I said its 2017 is because this AMD-Intel thing is a very old, very broken record by now, it's almost common knowledge), the current state of AMD has almost no relation to what Intel did back then. AMD's current state is entirely the result of its own business choices AND design choices. It was 100% AMD that developed Bulldozer. It was 100% AMD that chose to stick to GCN with its high CPU load on DX11 ánd release several halo products with stupid configurations (Fury X on water, Hawaii's stock coolers, the list goes on). It was 100% AMD to rebrand its GPUs for the third time. And it was 100% AMD to keep building on subpar CPU architectures.

The past is the past. AMD didn't almost die from lack of R&D funding, it died from bad marketing, bad business decisions, huge debt, and badly designed products / rebrands. It also doesn't recover because of Intel, but because right now it is actually releasing solid products that can actually compete. The RX480 is an example, and Ryzen another.

I agree with all of what you said, about AMD screwing itself up and so on. But as one who hasn't defended AMD whatsoever in this and has repeatedly said they have "sucked" for years and blame them as much as anyone for stagnation of CPU market, I still reiterate regardless of when you go in history for AMD it is all relevant for without the past there is no future, so I simply don't buy your assertion that due to age the past simply relates to nothing happening now...au contraire I say.

 

[Raevenlord]

Interesting to note the phone app (as I view it on android) doesn't say editorial. The web page does, but when I look at it from the forum drop down in the app, it doesn't say editorial.

I pointed that out on a previous editorial to Raevenlord. I don't recall exactly, but I think he was going to pass on to W1zzard. As it stands now, the regular forum members who come straight here don't see that "Editorial" title.

Yep, I just commented earlier in this thread about that very article, was about Intel and Donald Trump at whitehouse etc, I didn't even realize this was an editorial till you pointed it out so obviously you are correct that members who come here don't even know what is supposed to be pure reporting vs. editorial since it isn't even marked. Not good.

rtwjunkie did comment that to me on the Trump Editorial, and it's something I brought up with W1zzard. A solution is being engendered that doesn't require duplicated information regarding it being an editorial; though apparently, it isn't easy to do so with TPU's structure. But I heard you. Until a solution isn't achieved, I'll simply end the editorial posts with a editorial disclaimer. Thank you for actively participating =)

You'd think Intel would have a good idea of what's coming from the competition and would have at least brought out an affordable 8 core CPU to compete. Well, we'll see, maybe Coffee Lake will have one.

And so true about that stagnation and milking the punters for next to no performance improvements each generation. Well, guess what, in my case, I haven't replaced my CPU since I got my Sandy Bridge 2700K way back in 2011. Just think how many thousands of dollars I haven't spent on Intel CPUs and chipsets because there was no performance incentive. And I'm not the only one. Now they're getting their ass kicked by a resurgent AMD which can't come soon enough. I was thinking of finally upgrading and to a 7700K, but with AMD coming out, I'll definitely wait and see.

I'm not really surprised that AMD could catch up on IPC in just one generation because all they had to do was ditch that siamesed disaster they built Bulldozer and its successors with and go back to a conventional design.

@Raevenlord Another fantastic editorial. More please!


Looking forward to this one.

Thanks, qubit =) Not sure if that one editorial would be appropriate here on TPU, but if a significant opportunity presents itself, be sure I will take that on. It's an extremely important part for my understanding of economics.

 

[Vayra86]

I agree with all of what you said, about AMD screwing itself up and so on. But as one who hasn't defended AMD whatsoever in this and has repeatedly said they have "sucked" for years and blame them as much as anyone for stagnation of CPU market, I still reiterate regardless of when you go in history for AMD it is all relevant for without the past there is no future, so I simply don't buy your assertion that due to age the past simply relates to nothing happening now...au contraire I say.

Well, I would even dare to guess that AMD would have made the exact same CPU when they didn't have the Intel 'struggle' to deal with, in fact the chances of them making an even worse Bulldozer than it was, would have been even greater. Of course as a blanket statement you're absolutely right that everything leads up to what we're looking at today, but AMD has had lots of opportunity to make up for it since, that I feel they or anyone else can't use it as an argument as to why they are where they are today.

 

[evernessince]

You guys realize its 2017 now right...

Regardless of what happened in the past (reason I said its 2017 is because this AMD-Intel thing is a very old, very broken record by now, it's almost common knowledge), the current state of AMD has almost no relation to what Intel did back then. AMD's current state is entirely the result of its own business choices AND design choices. It was 100% AMD that developed Bulldozer. It was 100% AMD that chose to stick to GCN with its high CPU load on DX11 ánd release several halo products with stupid configurations (Fury X on water, Hawaii's stock coolers, the list goes on). It was 100% AMD to rebrand its GPUs for the third time. And it was 100% AMD to keep building on subpar CPU architectures.

The past is the past. AMD didn't almost die from lack of R&D funding, it died from bad marketing, bad business decisions, huge debt, and badly designed products / rebrands. It also doesn't recover because of Intel, but because right now it is actually releasing solid products that can actually compete. The RX480 is an example, and Ryzen another.

You didn't even read my comment, did you? The current state of AMD has EVERYTHING to do with what happened in the past.

"It was 100% AMD that developed Bulldozer."

Intel robs AMD marketshare and thus funding > AMD comes out with bulldozer

See that cause and effect? Unless you are honestly saying the flood of talent out of AMD after they were essentially blocked out of the market by Intel's illegal practices somehow didn't effect their CPUs. Of course, you must be a genius. Good CPUs don't require good talent.

"It was 100% AMD that chose to stick to GCN"

No, they didn't have enough cash. They didn't even have enough to release of Full lineup of GPUs in the 200, 300, and Polaris series.

Seriously though, I'm not going to bother explaining the obvious connections.

Imagine a monopoly game and one where Intel cheats to get most of the properties, money, ect. Your argument is like "Well AMD, you should have built more houses a few turns back, maybe then you would have been able to get more when I landed on your property". You are completely ignoring the fact that AMD didn't even have the money to buy more houses and in fact had to sell a few of it's properties back to the bank. But yes, according to you Intel's malpractice back in the day has zero impact on the fact that they almost completely own the board today /s.

 

[Vayra86]

You didn't even read my comment, did you? The current state of AMD has EVERYTHING to do with what happened in the past.

"It was 100% AMD that developed Bulldozer."

Intel robs AMD marketshare and thus funding > AMD comes out with bulldozer

See that cause and effect? Unless you are honestly saying the flood of talent out of AMD after they were essentially blocked out of the market by Intel's illegal practices somehow didn't effect their CPUs. Of course, you must be a genius. Good CPUs don't require good talent.

"It was 100% AMD that chose to stick to GCN"

No, they didn't have enough cash. They didn't even have enough to release of Full lineup of GPUs in the 200, 300, and Polaris series.

Seriously though, I'm not going to bother explaining the obvious connections.

Imagine a monopoly game and one where Intel cheats to get most of the properties, money, ect. Your argument is like "Well AMD, you should have built more houses a few turns back, maybe then you would have been able to get more when I landed on your property". You are completely ignoring the fact that AMD didn't even have the money to buy more houses and in fact had to sell a few of it's properties back to the bank. But yes, according to you Intel's malpractice back in the day has zero impact on the fact that they almost completely own the board today /s.

If you think Bulldozer is the result of a lack of R&D funds, you are sugar coating it. Nowhere has this ever been a thing. Bulldozer 'was the future' because multithreaded was the future. Meanwhile Intel kept pushing IPC and a maximum of 4 cores for mainstream. The bottom line is still that AMD had a different design philosophy, one that also echoes throughout their ENTIRE product range and even did so before Bulldozer even existed. The moar cores philosophy is something AMD has firmly stood by and defended. GCN: same story - a very wide GPU instead of a very efficient and narrow one like Nvidia's.. AMD's marketing: more of the same story, we have even still seen inflated marketing claims regarding Fury X. These have all been conscious business and design decisions and they weren't the best ones they could have made, even at the time and even in the predicament they were in back then.

Some more perspective: the senior management at AMD has radically changed in the past few years, and ever since that was done, the marketing slowly changed, the products started making sense, and we could actually see some form of strategy emerge. All the while AMD was still in the red. Strange...

I know its the easy and popular line of thought, but AMD didn't almost die because of Intel. They suffered a major setback from Intel, and then forgot to adjust their company to a new reality, a major change that Lisa Su finally managed to push through. But this major change was not within AMD, it was within the PC market that was not focusing on multithread, but instead on small form factor, power efficiency and all-in-one. AMD bet on the wrong horse at the wrong time and responded by trying to fill the gap with APU's that they tried to sell on graphics power - a nonexistant market that they hoped would generate some revenue and recoup some of the losses made on Bulldozer.