AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris/Navi GPUs

Still looks to me like all the theoretical advantages of AMD are still that; theoretical.

Today, having many more cores/threads doesn't translate to tangible real world improvements (i.e. 4% increase is within the error margins, almost...).

AMD is back in the game; yeah... but it better focus on actual workloads that todays O/S's and Programs actually excel at rather than trying to win the synthetic benchmarks that only get you bragging rights and not actual productivity increases...

 

I can tell you that with AMD's TR actual workloads just fly by. I can not see any intel system being more productive in my workloads, At the price point it would not be as much of an overkill of a system either.

AMD is nipping at Intel's heels, especially with 12nm, but it will not be until 7nm that there will be serious competition for the performance crown(s). TBH I do not need the power of the TR as it is now, I will not need a 7nm one either but you know I will have too have one.

AMD's biggest problem is there are not a lot of OEM system selections available. The systems can be fast and cheap but if they are not available, consumers (business or personal) can not use them.

 

The Most Powerful Mini Gaming PC...
Published on Mar 29, 2018
With an Intel CPU and AMD RX Vega M graphics, the Hades Canyon NUC is a dope gaming PC.

New KILLER Mini Gaming PC from Intel - RX Vega M !!!
Published on Mar 29, 2018
Dave2D review of the Hades Canyon NUC - The ultimate mini gaming pc with Kaby Lake G (Intel i7-8809G + AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH)

Intel's Coolest CPU EVER... Thanks to AMD!
Published on Apr 18, 2018

 

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X User Publishes Benchmarks & Overclocking Results Ahead of Launch


Ryzen 7 2700x managed to oc up to 4.3GHz on all 8 cores right below it's max Turbo boost @4.35GHz. Amazing results Same as i7-8700K manage to oc up to 4.65GHz on all 6 cores.

 

wait, whats your point here?

that it scores the same in CB15 as an 8700K at 4.65 ghz? or that its able to overclock to 4.65 ghz when run with 6 cores just like the 8700k? both statements dont make much sense to me..

edit: oooh i got it! cuz of the 8700k 1 core turbo of 4.7 ghz minus 50 mhz.... well thats a weird comparison

in any case, its basically a repetition of ryzen gen 1, reaching overclocks at their turbo level (4-4.1 ghz). curious to see how this looks with a large number of cpu samples analyzed!

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

Nope. Ryzen 2700x show oc below its max Boost (4.35GHz). Same as you could oc your [email protected] instead of 4.7GHz all 6 cores. Forget the scores. I talk about the overclock showed

HeHe. Many ways to put a comparison

 

TBH, 1945 in CB15 is about what I would expect from a 1700x if it could do 4.3 GHz. This may mean only 4.4 for the Binned TR CCX's, not a worth while upgrade to me, At 4.0 GHz I get 3500 so 4.4 GHz would most likely only yield 3,850 or so. Now if 4.7 GHz were achievable, that might be a different matter.

 

If showed results is what we get from 2nd gen (2700x), I would say the results is disappointing. But I expect better results with new MB.

https://hwbot.org/submission/3731750_abilioalbino_cinebench___r15_ryzen_7_1700_1963_cb


https://hwbot.org/submission/3749793_remarc_cinebench___r15_ryzen_7_1700x_1956_cb


https://hwbot.org/submission/3693710_cox_cinebench___r15_ryzen_7_1800x_1947_cb

 

Yeah, I agree with Brother @Papusan about the disappointing aspect being the lack of overclockable headroom. This was one of two major influences in why I opted for 8700K instead of an 1800X or TR CPU. Nothing wrong with Ryzen or TR performance if you like stock. Problem for me is... I don't like stock. Nothing special about stock. The second major influence, which will continue to be a consideration for me until it is fixed, is the lackluster offerings in GPUs. I know it is just a personal hangup, but I just don't like the idea of using a GeFarts GPU with an AMD GPU. They need to provide powerful, efficient, highly overclockable GPUs that match or beat NVIDIA so I can go red and not have to try to mix oil and water. To me that is sort of like a cultural dilemma, LOL. I'm eager to see AMD kick NVIDIA in the privates more so than Intel. The Green Goblin needs to be taken off of its high horse, and using an Intel CPU with an AMD GPU (if they actually made a good one that I would consider buying) is not a problem for me. They are not competitors in the GPU world.

 

And 4.150 from the predecessor beating 4.3Ghz ain't very promising results. New MB and firmware/software for 2700x will make a differenc, but still it smells.

 

Something fishy about that "review". Why such a crappy fire strike score? My physics score is the same as the one posted, and mine was at 4.1ghz? Hoping that because this is a sample chip, as described in the article, that the released version will be slightly better. A new motherboard will not do much in terms of performance, as it has been stated that the x470 chipset is just a renamed x370.

They better have more headroom than that, or they wont get my money this go around! It better clock to 4.7ish if they want my mulah!

 

I somehow doubt 4.7ish. If 14nm is yielding 4.1 GHz and 7nm is looking at even 5.2 GHz I am sure a shrink to only 12nm is real world only about 4.3 GHz. Surely a bump but no where near the bump they need to make these a must have upgrade to an existing Ryzen system. It is a shame as they will loose out on that upgrade money but it is a bit early for that anyway.

It is only 1 year since the first Ryzen Gen 1, you would think most people want at least two years from their investment of a CPU (including TR's). In that sense it seems 7nm fits in the picture much nicer. A healthy time of initial investment and then hopefully healthy upgrade as well.

 

Yup, that's what I expect, one more CPU upgrade if I catch the socket at the start, and only one best CPU choice if I get into the socket at the tail end.

But, if there is some useful performance improvement to your needs, and the new motherboard chipset features are useful to you, there's no reason not to follow through with upgrades at each update point in the life of the socket.

 

well lets just wait and see guys, this was ONE sample and that basically a "leak" before the cpu even hit the shelves officially. could be a lemon, could be a golden cpu, could be an unexperienced user with tons of background processes and programs, thus stealing lots of cycles away from CB15, who knows

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

And they will even lose more when Intels first mainstream 8 core i7 will hit the market. The 8 cores advantage will be blown away.

 

I expect Intel to keep up the performance lead even after the 12nm parts are out. The performance lead will substantially diminish, if not evaporate, with the advent of 7nm. That will be a much more interesting time. For now conservatively 95% or better of system usage can easily be met with a Ryzen based system and with the 12nm that will only be bolstered even more so.

 

I'd prefer to wait and see the reviews of released products as there are too many unknowns at this time and people could be posting misleading 'reviews' of unreleased products (which should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway).

Efficiency aside (which actually brings the 12nm published technical specs into question as they said 10% performance improvement for a lower power draw... and we saw 10% TDP increase with roughly 10% increase in performance, a linear increase yes, but regardless, it still contradicts the manuf. process technical manual), just because the 14nm process had a problem with Ryzen going past 4.1GhZ, doesn't mean 12nm will too. It's a small extension/improvement yes, but 14nm was ultimately designed for low power and mobile devices which typically run at lower speeds... whereas 12nm is supposedly designed for higher clocks and high powered desktop parts (and should theoretically be able to clock higher).

Just because AMD was unable to set a higher frequency, doesn't mean independent users will run into the same problem.
Besides, AMD's higher TDP could be rooted in higher voltages (again)... so undervolting could be the answer to this (and its possible AMD simply set higher operational voltages on these new CPU's - again, possible yield issues. or just unoptimized voltages?).

 

I just do not expect miracles. 4.3 GHz sounds about right, now process maturity and the like may yield up to 4.5 Ghz down he line but LBH, this will not be a must have upgrade for me. I need to see at least 4.7, preferably 4.8, to drop another grand on an upgrade. This is why I state 7nm looks like what I will be waiting for.

On that note the 1700x looks to be a much better CPU for a new system than a 1800x. Now we just need the OEM's to start offering some real machine choices.

 

I'm sure AMD needed increase TDP due the higher base clocks.
See also
YouTube LiveStream Shows Benchmarks AMD Ryzen 2700X to be 10% faster(the YouTube link is removed). Take it for what it is.

 

I think it more marketing that anything else. They have to look at the increase, if it were from 4 to 4,3 that is well under 10% but in our mind hearing 4.35 we think effectively 4.4 so it sounds more like that, or close too, 10% increase. When they start getting to these number games you know that the STOCK settings are being stretched to their max from both sides of the pool.

 

AMD Wraith Stealth vs. Cryorig C7, Mini-ITX Chopin Build

 

https://wccftech.com/full-amd-ryzen...azon-priced-cheaper-than-previously-reported/

 

That's a good example why it's not a good idea to get too invested in pre-release unofficial leaks and guesstimates, and wait for the actual release info.

Including the info in this article and previous articles the information provided is unofficial, and include nothing factually useful for making a purchase decision.

 

OK, will finally comment about this. With Zen+ refreshment performance (based on leaks) I am not impressed much.
But that is the whole story of AMD CPU lineups for the latest decade or so "Not impressed much". Of course sometimes they are doing good, even very good but never as " Spectacular" as their marketing promised. There were always some drawback against expectations which (usually) were compensated with price or else (coolers etc).

This is why I had nothing but smile reading (yet again) how so good Ryzen+ should be based on... speculation, nothing more.
AMD's marketing team consists of engineers for sure because they find really neat points which advanced users want to believe about architecture and specs and... each kind of points for each own kind of customers, which should back up your exaggerated expectations. Year by Year.

But I might be wrong and Zen+ really makes up ~20% faster with 10% frequency, 10% tech process and 10% latency improvements. (doubtly)

 

2018 Dell XPS 15 2 in 1 - Hands On Review
Intel Kaby Lake G Vega M GPU
Published on Apr 5, 2018
The Dell XPS 15 2 in 1 is far from a conventional laptop, but it’s an experiment that (mostly) goes right. With an advanced new keyboard and some surprisingly good gaming performance, the XPS 15 2 in 1 is a vision of the future.

 

I do not think anyone came out touting 20%+ on the system, some hoped for that. The establishment came out early with a total of around 15% improvement for 12nm. It was touted if you included improved efficacy of the 12nm that overall it could be looked at as greater than 15%.

In the end it is a nice bump, TOCK, for the CPU and any new system build. It is not a worthwhile upgrade for existing systems. This was true of Intel before ZEN as well. People did not run out just to buy the next CPU clocked 100 to 200 MHz faster either as it was released. We are spoiled by recent memory of Intel's vastly superior upgrades to combat ZEN.

On that note, if Intel had not the reserve it were able to tap into and Zen were competing on the old cores and speed then the competition might be entirely different. All those fan boys love the Intel new cores and speed, look at all they were sitting on just to milk your accounts dry and their attitude was you will take it and like too (and to a point it still is!).

 

I appreciate GamersNexus stance on waiting to release Ryzen 2 info with the rest of the media / press upon embargo lift. There is also some interesting thoughts on x370 vs x470, without specifics that will be released with everyone's post embargo publication.

This is a Q&A, and the 1st Q is the X470 vs X370 Q, starting at 01:06...

Ask GN 75: X470 vs. X370 Tests, Balancing Criticism vs. Samples
Published on Apr 5, 2018
This Ask GN episode talks about X370 vs. X470 chipset differences and benchmarks, balancing criticism vs. receiving samples, AMD direct GPU sales, and more.

Spoiler: TIMESTAMPS

01:06 - X370 vs. X470 on Ryzen 2 testing?

04:47 - TJCCBR47: “Ask GN: How to balance criticism and not leaving manufactures mad? You lost CoolerMaster samples, HardOCP lost Nvidia samples and Guru3D lost Intel samples, do you think its fair not receiving samples or its some kind of censorship?”

13:45 - RepsUp100: “Why doesn't AMD sell GPUs directly on their site like NVIDIA does?”

15:33 - Terence Gelo: “Hey Steve, is there a cost difference to manufacturers between FreeSync and GSync at a hardware or software integration level? I see FreeSync integrated into a lot more products, and products with GSync seem to be more expensive. I'm wondering why NVidia is trying to widen their market share with consumers, but they're not as successful as AMD when it comes to providing incentives through third party accessories (monitors). Maybe I am missing core concepts, but it almost seems like Gsync is being phased out.”

18:06 – Mandragoras: “What I'd love to hear from you is explain how is it possible that consoles with their weak processors and weak GPUs can achieve such amazing results. According to what I read on the internet, I would expect an FX 8120 to be better than Xbox One S or PS4's processor and their GPUs to have similar performance to a GTX 650 Ti or a GTX 660 Ti accordingly. So despite the console games being watered down and optimized, why is it impossible for equal or slightly better PC components to handle games the same? What consoles lack is advanced graphic settings which basically gives the player the possibility to optimize the game themselves but that can either result in equal framerate with a lot worse detail or equal detail but unplayable framerate. Using these components on a PC today will give unsatisfactory results in the majority of AAA games.”

23:37 - Jonas Petkevičius: “What do you think about Geforce Now (cloud based gaming)? P.S. I fyou want to do test I can give my account”

25:58 – inversion: “@Steve Burke #askgn-questions pardon for the not so serious question but any April Fools plans in mind?”

26:07 - 2ndLastJedi: “Why dont we see VR benchmarks? How does CPU effect VR performance? Is i5 6600k enough for VR or is an 7700k goung to be much better?”

28:03 - x041: “#askgn-questions @steve Burke First, love the shelf in the background, looks great. Will you be testing/reviewing the der8auer Skylake-X Direct Die Frame?”

28:31 - M Emlay: “What's wrong with the wood backdrop. Shelves? Trying to keep up with Jayz display?

 

So, been gone but coming in.

1) 10% transistor efficiency improvement DOES NOT mean 10% improved speed. To conflate that is silly.

2) The extra TDP for the extra MHz kinda is a hit to the nuts, but not a deal breaker. It means that due to other changes for latency, etc., The extra transistor efficiency was not enough to keep the same envelope. It doesn't mean it isn't more efficient. For example, think of overclocking the SOC voltage that controls the IMC. It adds a couple degrees C to Temp, which is extra TDP. So, with the higher speeds and those efficiencies, you need more Temp dissipation. It's physics.

3) no reason to be disappointed at all. I predicted these speeds long ago.

4) leaks and benches by different reviewers showed lower scores, on average, than what people achieved on their own. Factors from review samples to retail, ram speed, proper work on voltages for overclocking, etc., Played a huge role in the scores. This will be the same.

5) I mentioned also that 7nm is the fight, going against either 14nm+++ or 10nm+. This is a hold over year, like broadwell was for Intel, except this is a better CPU than the original Ryzen, unlike BW. No reason for tribalism.

6) if the Ryzen 7nm chips wind up at or around 5GHz, don't expect major headroom there either. It will exist, but not like going from 4ghz to 4.8 was on Skylake. We will see what that node holds. With projected speeds on DDR5, I'm wondering how the will change the gearing on IF. There are questions I have that there isn't a clear answer to yet.

7) it is the 2900 that will likely be positioned against Intel's 8-core, so let's not look at the lower in the stack 8-core with dual channel ram just yet. If you compare those chips, then you get quad channel ram and more pcie, even though speeds will be slower. As I said, this refresh want the reason to want the platform, moving to 7nm was.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

>10% transistor efficiency improvement DOES NOT mean...
I read about 10% better performance for the same frequency. To me this statement pretty much means +10% performance from only tech process because next lineup can't be lower clocked.
> 7nm is the fight; if the Ryzen 7nm chips wind up at or around 5GHz...
Now see, not to offend anyone - merely a fact, I am already sick of this approach with all these whens and ifs. WhenEVER AMD processors arrive on shelves you always hear "the next time will be finally as good as expected because..." and "if it will finally gets clocked to...". As I wrote above AMD's marketing-tech hybrid department really knows what to put into techy customers heads. I have read it sooooo many times on another forums.

Clearing the mud: AMD always makes people overestimate upcoming CPUs. AMD always makes excuses for current and at the same time the baseground for future overestimating next CPU lineups.
This doesn't say anything about processors itself. That happens whether they are a hit or miss, doesn't matter, really. This is why I am immune to joy of speculation about AMD processors and possibly graphics processing units too.

 

Top Level Leak
Lisa Su‏ Verified account @LisaSu
"Got some new toys from the team today to try out. @AMDRyzen 2 coming soon!!! Hope you guys are excited...."

6:05 PM - 5 Apr 2018
https://twitter.com/LisaSu/status/982061716447129600
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/8a5dzx/lisa_su_on_twitter_got_some_new_toys_from_the/

 

I still have to say that no where did I ever get that 12nm was going give us anything all that great. I saw 10% but always read that as a total, with another 5% coming if you count efficiency. so 10% more performance at 5% better efficiency. That better efficacy could be at idle so it means little too me.

Even at 7nm there may not be competition. The big if is even if 5.0 GHz is Intel going to be only where they are or is there more yet untapped speed in the current process. I know with 7nm things should start becoming more interesting. Is AMD to become the new performance king? Maybe, but I somehow doubt Intel is just going to sit there and give up the crown willingly.

 

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 CPU Benchmarks Posted By Chilean User – Tested on High-End X370 Motherboard, Runs DDR4 Up To 3333 MHz, 4.0 GHz Max OC Potential
Not much over boost clocks who is 3.9GHz
When it comes to benchmarks, the Cinebench R15 score for the Ryzen 5 processor was 1384 at 4.0 GHz and with memory at 3333 MHz. This was the most stable speeds the chip ran at to post the CB R15 score.

---------------------------------------------------------------

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Overclocked Up To 4.3 GHz (1.4V) Across All Cores in First Preview Testings – Detailed CPU Benchmarks
We also have the latest AMD Ryzen 7 2700X previews which talk a lot about the overclock potential and CPU performance tests from El Chapuzas Informatico and Hardware Numb3rs. The new bench marks come right after we posted new tests for the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 CPU over here.

As for power consumption, AIDA64 revealed that the system consumed 200W (no dGPU or HDD) at full load. When it came to overclocking, the chip only managed 4.2 GHz with 1.4V. There are still no gaming benchmarks which most users are currently waiting to see and we may have to wait till the 19th to see more results. You can read the full review from El Chapuzas Informatico over here.

Horrible overclock results. My calendar shows that we have passed April 1, for several days ago. Aka this can't be a April Joke.

 

On Ryzen 1 release, AMD themselves said that there would be about 40% performance increase between first and last comparable CPU (i.e. 1700 vs 4700) on AM4. A quick math says 10% increase per generation. I can't see why all the heat.

 

Re-read post... " When it came to overclocking, the chip only managed 4.2 GHz with 1.4V." Can't even overclock all cores up to stock Boost. 2700X is for now AMD's High-end mainstream chips.

 

It wasn't related to you (our posts kinda overlap), but since you got affected - they weren't talking overclocking. I'd be more than happy to see better overclocking, but we'll have to wait to see what the 7nm process would bring.

 

I just do not understand why more people are not recognizing it is a huge problem that it cannot manage to hold stock boost on all cores. In terms of overclocking potential, that's even more pathetic than last generation Ryzen. Lackluster overclocking is why I rejected Ryzen to begin with, and now they're going in the totally opposite direction with wave two, LOL.

Excellent stock performance is always nice, but sucking at overclocking makes a product unacceptable to enthusiasts. There is nothing to be enthused about.

 

And I agree wholeheartedly. Then there's this thing that at least they are competitive. With GPUs in the same position (clocked at an inch of stability) they're still behind.

 

We know you do not like chips you can not overclock. That is fine for you but it does not matter that much too 95% of the other world or more. We overclocker's really need to get over ourselves. I mean of the user group here what percentage even bothers with the overclocking thread?

On that note, it was known for a while AMD was going to dip into the chips capabilities for a boost to stock for generation 2. You do not think Intel will dip into their capabilities when 7nm comes to market? Enjoy your overclocks today boys, time is a running out.

Edit; On that note too, I would have expected better than 4.2 on all cores. I would have liked to see 4.4 but accepted 4.3 early on for all cores. If this is the advent AMD will get like no upgrade money from the new offerings.

 

We can make all the excuses in the world for it, but that doesn't make it ok if it cannot hold stock boost clocks stable on all cores. That's not even really overclocking and there is no good excuse for that. Just because the average Joe cannot relate to it doesn't make it ok. Those guys might as well just buy a BGA turdbook and play all the DOTA and WoW they can handle. But, most things related to PC are going to hell in a hand basket anyway. I don't think people that know better and are justified in expecting something better should be dismissed as if their opinions don't matter. It would be kind of nice if AMD offered a solution that everyone could be happy about. Appears they either can't or don't want to. Not sure which is the case. We can substitute the name Intel for NVIDIA and it's the same scenario. Would be great if Team Red would not be content with second fiddle for a change. I know I'd like that, and I am sure lots of other folks would, too. Status quo is a one horse show.

 

As far as BGA, you guys have lost that battle, they are here to stay. It does not matter what the enthusiast market wants it is what sells in the consumer market. I do not disagree with BGA/PGA just realize there is nothing I can do about it.

As far as expecting better, you bet I would like to see it. I have to agree though it has to be better but at stock offerings. This is what matters to the market so this is where AMD needs to focus. They need CPU's and GPU's that at stock compete with the other teams top end hardware. As it is the hardware at stock competes with at least 90% of the other teams hardware that in the end is sold, they are maybe selling 10% of the other teams CPU/GPU beating hardware. Because though the marketing of being the fastest is not there the systems are just not being offered.

Would I like to see AMD doing a first chair, sure I would. Hopefully with 7nm but if this is true of 12nm I hold a lot less hope than I had before.

 

Yeah, I totally agree with part of that. I hold a whole lot less hope about things than I ever have before. Almost the entire industry is in shambles now. I was really hoping AMD would upset the apple cart more than they have and fan the flames of PC war among enthusiasts like the good old days. It was awesome when Intel, NVIDIA and AMD were all ripping at one another's jugular veins and all the bickering in forums between fanboys... good times.

But, I haven't lost the BGA battle and never will lose it because I won't accept it. It might not go away, but I still have the last word on the matter about their laughable trash by voting no with my wallet, LOL. The more people we (enthusiasts) can turn sour to it and incite angst and bitterness toward it the better. Any opportunity to inflict some hurt on them for selling trash, even if the hurt is only slight, is a win. Kind of like water from a faucet left dripping in a sink eventually erodes the porcelain and ruins the sink... they deserve nothing less than a tarnished image.

 

Not even manage oc up to defauld max boost clocks for all cores is tragic for an unlocked chips. On top the high-end one. I can't remember seen similar from nowadays or yesterdays mainstream unlocked chips.

 

Yes. Why bother even saying it's unlocked at that point? It may as well not be if being unlocked is of no value.

 

though each have different sense of value, this is where we see in terms of computer electronics. if people continue to look at the ways they've been doing (for decades) then soon all these OEM/ODM will give us junk and people will have to accept it because its the best they've got. we got to make sure our voices are heard that we pay premium, for good product, not some half ass ones so they can increase their stock value.

imo AMD did great, able to increase their stocks and come out with excellent product like ryzen, to our overclocking standard its not yet enough. i need that to be at least 4.7-4.8ghz before i can consider it good enough.

agreed.

 

I can not in good faith steer people away from a system because it is BGA. I will note it too them and explain it but to most it does not matter. Do I vote with my wallet, It is one of the reasons I went with a TR. A system by a manufacturer where all new AM4 and TR offerings are not BGA. Now there are quite a few here that still support manufacturers that offer some BGA for whatever reason, aren't there?

On that note too, not a single one of those offerings need a de-lid either.

 

AMD need to up consumer to 12c then we all benefit

 

Yes, that is true that some manufacturers sell a mixture... oh, wait... only one does. Clevo. Unless we count the MSI 16L13 stepchild without their name anywhere on it. Then there are two. But, I discourage buying anything that is BGA if the person asking is an enthusiast or even a poser/wannabe enthusiast. I only recommend one Clevo option and one MSI whitebook 16L13 as viable options. If the person is a consumer or a gamer, it doesn't really matter what they buy as long as it does what they want it to do and they have no expectation that it ever amounts to anything more than that. The other thing I have found is, those types of shoppers really don't have a good technical grasp of things and many ask for advice, then do whatever they want. Same situation happens with expert advice on cars (which is also a major element in my lifelong career). Friends and relatives ask for advice on cars, you give it in a very clear and unmistakable manner, then they turn around and buy exactly what you told them specifically not to buy because some ignorant knucklehead with a salesman pedigree schmoozes them with ludicrous BS. Then they come back to whine and moan about it being a piece of crap, say they wish they would have listened and want help fixing it. But, then they do the same thing the next time, LOL. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Are you referring to the AMD CPUs usually not needing a delid? (Probably so since BGA has no lid, but still run insanely hot in most cases.) If the former is what you are referring to, that's because they don't use garbage for thermal paste under the IHS like Intel does. I do give them lots of credit for that because they deserve it. They use solder, like they should. Good job on that part.

Intel and NVIDIA make plenty of mistakes, but selling CPUs and GPUs that suck at overclocking isn't one of them. That's one reason why I want AMD to do better. Limited options and having to choose from the lesser of two evils is never good for anyone, even though that's what it boils down to now. I choose Intel because I can fix the crappy thermal paste issue and I cannot fix the crappy overclocking problem from AMD. If I could, I would buy AMD without batting an eye because I am not a brand advocate or a loyal customer. I'm a demanding and vengeful customer with no mercy for the things that I do not like, but cannot fix myself.

Amen to that. We will all have with they are willing to put up with.

 

A rumor with 7nm. TBH for most this is irrelevant. As it is we do not really have much software out there to use up the 8 cores available now. 12 cores may give the overall performance crown and bragging rights but little else.

 

Almost the same as you say we neither should buy from Intel. They push out BGA. The main point is that AMD couldn't deliver this time either. Maybe next time Or +2020.

 

I hope it does not take AMD until 2020. That would be very bad, and there is always a chance they might not survive that long if they do not take steps to beat Intel and NVIDIA from every angle. That would be really horrible for everyone if that happened. I really want them to be successful at beating Intel and NVIDIA at everything. Don't know if they can or will, but I still want them to.