AMD boasts of record sales, says 5nm Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 coming this quarter AMD rode surging demand for its datacenter silicon and a healthy appetite for Ryzen notebooks to a solid end to its second quarter of the year, which saw it hit more than $6 billion in sales. “Our work over the last several years has placed AMD on a significant growth trajectory,” CEO Lisa Su said on Tuesday’s Q2 2022 earnings …
Those of us that have already bought into Zen3 and DDR4: we're not particularly likely to buy into Zen4 early in it's lifecycle are we?
Want and need are of course two totally different things, but having recently picked up a 5950X for not very much, it's the GFX card that is next up for a change.
> ...it's the GFX card that is next up for a change.
Which is most probably a red one as well, since NVidia in their endless wisdom decided to cripple all their cards -except for the 2k+EUR 3090 one- with 12 or less GB memory. Hardy adequate for something I intend to use the next three years.
Yeah, I found that weird as well. Most of Nvidia's desktop GPUs don't even have 16GB of GDDR ram, whereas the 3080 mobile on my laptop has 16GB of GDDR ram, luckily.
Or else I may have gone all in with team red (currently my main machine is a laptop - Lenovo Legion 7 with a 5900HX CPU with 32 GB of ram and the above mentioned 3080 mobile with 16GB GDDR).
Same here.
Happy with my AM4 system for now, although will likely drop in a replacement for my 3800X to extend the life of the system. I'm mostly a gamer on this PC (I have a company laptop for work), so I might go for the 5800X3D rather than the 5950X.
Can't see me switching to AM5 any time soon, as that would mean new CPU, Memory and a Motherboard, and some of those are going to be premium prices for a while yet.
One thing to note if you are buying a new GFX card as well, prices have dropped considerably since the start of the year.
As an example, AMDs 6800 XT were around $1,130 USD back in March, these are now under $700. In the UK you can pick up a Gigabyte Radeon RX 6800 XT Gamin OC 16GB for £649.99 from OCUK.
Still not throw away money of course, but way better than it's been for the last year or so.
I need a new computer, and have decided I want it to be Ryzen of some vintage. (The current one is a 10-yo laptop, so doesn't owe me anything.)
If it weren't that socket AM4 is at the very tail end of its lifespan, with no further upgrades forthcoming, that would be the obvious choice -- I'm not exactly one who always needs the new shiny.
But as it is, I have three options, all distasteful:
* go with Ryzen 7000 and risk the usual .0-release bugs
* wait a year for a second-generation Zen4 CPU and AM5 mobo (but I'm really tired of how memory-constrained the current laptop is, and not sure its screen or keyboard will live another year)
* buy into AM4 even though it's run out of road, and AM5 is projected to have 5 years ahead of it.
Clearly it's the wrong year for an upgrade.
(At this point, I suppose I'll wait until Ryzen 7000 has been out for 2-3 months, read the reviews, and then decide whether to risk that.)
Quote: "(At this point, I suppose I'll wait until Ryzen 7000 has been out for 2-3 months, read the reviews, and then decide whether to risk that.)"
I'd say this is likely a good choice if you're going for a full new build at this time.
The CPUs are almost certainty going to be fine, better node and tweaked architecture, but they are not fundamentally different from Ryzen 5000.
Main issues are likely to be things like BIOS including the low level AGESA from AMD. Plus potentially memory compatibility, which was an issue with early Ryzen, although not so much recently. But AM5 is a new chipset, and new memory architecture so my guess would be a few teething issues to start with, but who knows!
Leaving it a few months from launch, not only gets reviews out, but gives AMD and the board manufacturers time to iron out any BIOS and AGESA issues, driver bugs etc.
My last/current gaming PC is an Intel box that I built about 5\6 years ago.
I usually try to go for the best CPU\GPU I can afford and then maximize useful life of the machine by doing the following as performance issues arise.
-Buying faster RAM when the prices come down
-Overclocking the %#$^ out of everything possible (I know it reduces lifespan, but not within my window for upgrades)
-Upgrading the video card (hopefully for one good enough for my next build)
The sticking point ouf of all of this is that the motherboard architecture is my limiting factor for the Intel CPU's. I can only buy an i7 that may or may not overclock faster than my poor abused i5 (6600k running at 4.8Ghz)
For some reason I never realized that AMD motherboards tend to support reasonably long cycles of CPU's. I think if I had gone AMD last time I could still find some reasonably priced upgrade room on the CPU front with maybe just some BIOS updates.
Is that what your experiences with AMD boards are or am I misunderstanding their architecture cycles?
Sorry for the late replly.
"Is that what your experiences with AMD boards are or am I misunderstanding their architecture cycles?"
I can't answer from experience. This build will be my first dip in the AMD pool. That said, my understanding from reading is that they make (some?) sockets last longer than Intel tend to do. AM4 launched in 2016, and the last new CPU for it was (or is due to be?) released this summer. Similarly, they've announced a planned 5-tear lifespan for AM5.
That's one of my main reasons for deciding to go AMD this time.
The other is (unofficial) support for ECC RAM, as in, that's not in the specs but it's been supported [*] even so. No guarantee that will continue of course, which is another reason not to buy right out of the gate. (In Intel world, from what I've read, non-Xeons don't do ECC, not even off-spec. And Xeon == $$$.)
[*] And they actually use the ECC functionality, as opposed to simply ignoring it as some "ECC-capable" CPUs/chipsets do.
But again, all this is based on web browsing, not experience. Please don't take my word for it.
Never too late for some good info :)
Yeah I think AMD might align better with how I upgrade my systems.
If I could buy a decent recent powerful chip for my Intel board, like I probably could if I had gone AMD, I would not have to upgrade the board (and possibly the RAM again) for at least a few more years.
AMD would give me a decent reprieve from building a whole new system, especially if I could overclock that new CPU and stretch it out even further, possibly with an upgraded GPU.
I hate to waste old perfectly functional stuff and most of my older desktops end up in my Proxmox farm...but I'd rather extend their life as a desktop for as long as possible first.
This really is pretty good execution by the AMD team. I know Intel aren't boxing as clever as they might, but to take advantage AMD have to get everything right. And they are. It's good to see.
There's been some talk about how AMD, being fabless, aren't in line to get any US gov cash to invest in fabs. That's possibly an error by Uncle Sam. AMD clearly have a good team, and a good team comes about because the company knows how to have good teamwork. Would they be good at extending that team to include fabrication expertise? Possibly yes.
It's interesting to ask the same question of Intel, except there we already know that they're bad at forging the expertise they've got into a team that delivers. So one might view money sent that way as potentially wasted.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
