I said it before... AMD has a competitive product, so it does what every leading company does, it acumulates wealth.

AMD was the prefered/cheaper option during the Ryzen/Ryzen+/Ryzen2 era, when they had weaker products/were perceived as having weaker products.

The moral still remains, companies are NOT your friend. You act as if this is the first generation of CPUs where you are actualy paying attention. They will eventually release CPUs without igpus... But at launch they always release their most expensive products. That has always been the case.

Current opinion (based on their own announcement, from what I gathered) seems to be that all of the Zen 4 lineup will have integrated graphics, but for most, including these flagship models that are released first, they're just meant to put something on screen, not have any actual performance. There will be a specific class for that, as it is now, but there won't be the need to also get a dedicated video card for office computers with AMD CPUs anymore, and there should be power savings for the others as well if the iGPUs will take over and allow the dedicated cards to be off while in simple desktop applications.

i disagree. and i'm looking at this as a customer, who uses the pc mostly for gaming. it may doesn't look the same, if one is using the pc mostly for video editing or other stuff.

amd's short sighted gog-like tactic (since zen 3), to clone intel, won't lead to any wealth in the long run. why would i need amds products if i can have the original?

since the zen launch, many people said, that its good (for us customers) to have amd as competitor. and it was true back then. but now, what exactly looks competitive about zen 4 compared to alder/rocket lake (in case zen 4 won't bring some magical gaming performance uplift compared to zen 3)?

and i'm not an intel fan and have used mostly amd cpu's in my pc's.

zen, zen+, zen 2, zen 3 all launched wihout an igpu

actually that could explain amd's decision on igpu's. maybe they want to compete with intel on office pc supplier market

Well, you can become an Intel fan and get the original (whatever you meant by that), if they happen to deliver the best bang for your buck. I'm exactly waiting for the chips to fall down and dust to settle. Kinda answered your own questions there as I see it.

Btw, we needed AMD to become competitive so Intel would wake up and went back to the drawing board again. Otherwise we would end up on the same old beaten quadcore each year with 1-2% ipc uplift per generation for another decade if it was only up to Intel.

DDR5 is a major scam that's not worth buying, but Ryzen 7000 requires it.

Plus the next Intel's generation CPUs will probably be coming next month (October), and no doubt they will own Ryzen as usual.

And also the new Intel CPUs will be compatible with DDR4, which means consumers won't need to be price-gouge scammed via wasting many hundreds of dollars on extortion-ally-priced DDR5 scams...and instead, with Intel, they can just use their current DDR4 sticks that they already own for an additional cost of $0.

Given all that, I have no idea why anyone would want to buy the horrible value Ryzen 7000.

This exactly.

Kind of funny that +13% IPC is seen as not that good* though as below I don't really disagree, and have no plans on upgrading. Intel had 8 years where its combined IPC gain was less than 13% total. It's only two big increases in the last decade were Sandy Bridge (being generous on the decade, first released Jan 2011) and when it finally got 10nm working over the last two years.

*which it isn't, objectively, but only because the prior improvement has been so large. +60% Zen over Bulldozer was back to Moore's Law days, albeit Bulldozer was a, uh, low starting point.

Major reasons to be skeptical / hold off:

1.DDR5 is more expensive than DDR4 and you'll need a new mobo as well so upgrading means you have to pay for CPU+RAM+Mobo+ probably a cooler if you want to OC and the new socket has a different mounting system than the one on AM4

2. AMD seems to have realized having normal R3/5/7 non-X CPUs is unprofitable if the X CPUs aren't significantly better. So they either with-hold non-X CPUs, eliminate them entirely or seem to have replaced them with G CPUs with iGPUs so the X CPUs look better by comparison. Not so good considering X CPUs cost such a premium over everything else.

3. If you're upgrading from something significantly weaker / slower, it might be better to wait for the R3 CPUs and those don't even have a simultaneous release with the R5 and R7s anymore. Its like the budget market became invisible to AMD, the same way budget GPUs are an afterthought these days. I wonder if its because silicon is in short supply, shipping being more difficult and it being more profitable to make fewer higher-margin, higher-end products than many lower-margin, budget products.

4. I'm a big fan of iGPUs too since I've been rendered unable to play because of GPUs failing in my FX6300 rig. But the G processors are also second (or third) priority for AMD, and I wonder how cost-efficient they can be when high-speed DDR5 RAM is so expensive.

All this on top of mobo makers needing to get their BIOSs in order.

Considering the cost of upgrading, I think it'll only be worth it if performance is significantly improved or if the costs come down. Fortunately, it doesn't look like there's any software on the horizon that could force minimum DDR5 on users to force them to buy into this. Never thought I'd be glad Winbows 11 came out earlier.

I was talking about how AMD/Intel/every leading company does business, and you say that you disagree and then talk about your opinion as a consumer... I'm pretty sure these are two different things... so this isn't a dialogue.


Again, we're talking about two different things. I was talking about how AMD/Intel puts their most expensive product on the market first, and once they've saturated that market, they'll release other products. Yes, for zen 4, their most expensive product will have iGPUs, while zen, zen+, zen 2, zen 3 didn't have any. If after they've saturated that market, there is also a market for CPUs wihtout an iGPU, they'll release a CPU to expand to that market too.

If however, as it happened for zen 3, every CPU they produced flies of shelves even when priced at almost double the MSRP, then they'll sell the same CPUs with iGPUs until they release the next generation.

That is, effectively, the reason. There are two other subsidiary reasons as well, but ultimately if you have a choice of making 4 'Ryzen 5300' or 2 Ryzen 5800x or a Ryzen 5950x during a shortage you prioritise them last to first because the latter two are considerably more profitable per die mm*.If you don't favour the premium product you're leaving cash on the table. It wasn't just about the PC market and covid etc either, AMD also were contractually obligated to use capacity to ramp up near simultaneous console releases for MSony.

Certainly unfortunate for budget users; but AMD is fundamentally not a charity, and not our friend.

The other two reasons are that even when fab capacity isn't constrained 7nm and smaller nodes are still more expensive than prior nodes, when usually a newer node rapidly became cheaper than its predecessor's peak; and that 7nm is a very reliable process. Many of the older cheap entry level chips relied on selling 'botched' CPUs from the edge of wafers which were not suitable for use in high end chips. There are a lot less of them on 7nm. AMD's Zen 2 price/ performance/ value king 3300x was semi constantly out of stock, probably for this reason.

*Making and selling chips also have fixed costs outside of just paying GloFo or TSMC for the foundry capacity and wafers. Even if you could just chop a 5800x in half to get 2 5300x to be as profitable they'd need to sell at more than 1/2 the price of that 5800x due to those fixed costs.

thats an approach to become a better deal at hardware. but don't forget that the longer you wait the more value it lose. and, considering the development of the last years, it may happen that the prices won't go down even after a year. anyway paying a lower price some time after release may not be a bargain.
kinda. looking at ddr5 from a gamer perspective, i think that it will become interesting when 16/32 gb sticks with 8000 mhz and higher as well as good cl timings become affordable. also i expect, that ddr5 will become necessary for gaming in about two years, if not later.

i was pretty happy when amd released zen. it was a great upgrade considering the prices back then. but there's one thing i wanted to add. we can look at the "every year a new quad from intel with 2% ipc uplift" from another perpective. if one had the money for an i7 sandy bridge + decent mainboard + cooling back in 2011, then it would be great for gaming at least 5 years if not more. so it was a great value, in retrospect.
this. in my opinion, they had the opportunity to realease ryzen 7000 desktop cpu's without an igpu but with 64 instead of 32 mb l3 cache and ask for a 7600x 300 bucks, for a 7700x ... that would justify the costs for ram, cpu and mobo upgrade.

that would be a new low for hard & software companies, we didn't had it with the appearence of ddr, ddr2, ddr3 or ddr4. although i'm not saying it won't happen with ddr5 in the next years.
i see, i misunderstood that reply. you're right.

looking back at my reply, i see that it was unlear. i should have added more text. i'm trying it now shorter, leaving less room for unclearity.

i still disagree. you're right, companies trying to acumulate wealth.

but so far zen 4 doesn't look like a competitive product for gaming, considering the prices for cpu + ram + mobo. hell, even if one is only looking at the cpu price, it still isn't. as others here said, alder/raptor lake just offer more. zen 4 looks like a bad clone of intel cpu's.

so it kinda does look foolish and shortsighted for amd to set high msrp's for ryzen 7000 cpu's, if it wanted to acumulate wealth. i assume that amd will lose desktop cpu market shares to intel because of zen 4 or the prices for ryzen 7000 will fall pretty fast after release.

Also big disappointment is that all the CPUs starting 13600 (non-K) and below are just rebranded Alder Lake processors...

i'm pretty sure that you've got it wrong, the raptor lake leak from igors lab does not say anything about it, in fact the intel 600 series mobo's will support raptor lake cpu's. or am i missing something here?

but the leak also suggests that raptor won't offer avx512. thats a real bummer for all emulation enthusiasts
the question is, if there is a noticeable performance difference between alder and raptor on the non-k i5 level. speeds nearly the same, arch nearly the same, l3 cache the same, ... and it currently looks like raptor also won't offer avx512, at least officially.

They've done this before eg with socket 1151 where Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake had the same socket in theory, but different pin layout. It wasn't received well then either.

Well, in the igor lab's slides, on slide 9 you can see that they mention the new chipset(700 series). New motherboards will come for raptor lake... but you might be right, I don't see a clear indication that the new motherboards are going to be required...Who knows, it is a leak after all.