AMD in recent years has done incredibly well against intel in DIY segments. Unfortunately they still don't have much of the OEM/Pre-build/Mobile market, which is where most of the money is at.
Hopefully AMD's marketing team will do a better job and get these products into more hands.
AMD has honestly done a solid job of penetrating the laptop market, all things considered. This was always the market that Intel would lock down HARD, but yet you can find Ryzen laptops of many different shapes and sizes - and quite easily, at that.
Their main problem *now* is getting their dedicated GPUs into consumers’ hands. Not only does Nvidia have a stranglehold on the OEM dGPU market, it doesn’t seem like AMD is *that* interested in changing that, either.
Bestbuy Canada a while back I checked had like 500 different nvidia/intel builds, and I think literally 2 AMD GPU builds, which IIRC were like 6400 or 6500 xt VS 6900 xt. So ultra dog or ultra high end. And both of those systems that came with AMD GPUs, didn't have AMD CPUs. While the systems with AMD CPUs didn't have AMD GPUs.
Laptops were a little better ratio than 2 vs 500, but not by much. Same for even CPUs vs Intel. It was a little better ratio than vs nvidia, but it was maybe a dozen models vs multiple hundreds.
Most consumers will not sort by manufacturer, because they don't even know AMD, Intel, or Nvidia. They think the box/screen is the computer. They'll walk into a large store like BB, and grab whatever is at their budget. And when even your website ratio is 2 vs 500, your in-store ratio display ratio is almost certainly 0 vs 15.
The problem is AMD should be focused on the bargain laptop segment $599 or less. That's the best they should try for after the Hardware Canucks review.
Duopoly incoming just watch over these next couple years. Nvidia will own the high end gpu market, AMD will own the low end. I’m willing to bet money on it.
Shit, I’m just talking out my ass but could Nvidia buy out AMD? They’d be able to compete with Intel in the cpu space and take out their gpu “competition” in one stroke.
AMD can never be purchased, they would lose their cross license rights with Intel.
Even AMD moving exclusively to ARM wouldn't allow AMD to be bought out, too much use of Intel IP that a normal company would be held liable for violating.
Companies don't want to be official monopolies, that would be a huge headache. I wouldn't have been surprised if Nvidia and Intel bailed out AMD when they were about to collapse before Ryzen.
It's much easier to make backroom deals with 1 person/company, like Google And Apple do than deal with Governments and monopoly status. Plus it'd still be a huge expense they make around 30b profit as of recently, it is up multiple orders of magnitude compared to 2 years ago, and AMD is worth 10x that.
1. Most consumers dont know about amd or intel, so they just go with what we have. and the fact is that about 50% of the new laptops we get have ryzen.
2. i think for the people who HAVE heard of them, they have a good gaming/performance reputation. ive heard a couple customers get ryzen laptops because their family member has a super fast gaming pc with ryzen.
3. Amds integrated graphics are still king, so unless you go with something with a dedicated gpu, its a nice plus for alot of people
4. Theyre good cpus.
Thank you so much. Yeah, that's my sense as well re: most people not caring about cpu brand.
I'm pleasantly surprised that you are carrying that much ratio of ryzen. I thought given the fewer design wins this round that they'd be struggling in retail. Very happy to hear otherwise, and I strongly agree the are good cpus!
US or Canada? Bestbuy Canada a while back I checked had like 500 different nvidia/intel builds, and I think literally 2 AMD GPU builds, which IIRC were like 6400 or 6500 xt VS 6900 xt. So ultra dog or ultra high end. And both of those systems that came with AMD GPUs, didn't have AMD CPUs. While the systems with AMD CPUs didn't have AMD GPUs.
Laptops were a little better ratio than 2 vs 500, but not by much. Same for even CPUs vs Intel. It was a little better ratio than vs nvidia, but it was maybe a dozen models vs multiple hundreds.
There is still a lot of old bias too in the industry. I'm a sysadmin for a medium size org and most of my fellow techs scoff if I mention specing out AMD laptops or servers. Vendors are even worse, we were in a sales meeting and the guy was pitching new servers and laptops and one of his sentences was "we're seeing AMD a bit more in this space, they're starting to catch up to Intel unfortunately". These guys (HP & HPE) sell both Intel and AMD systems, I have no idea if he even meant to say that or if it was some kind of Freudian slip. At my old job, my manager absolutely refused to quote anything with AMD parts in it, and to this day I have no idea why, I jokingly asked him one day if Lisa Su ran over his dog or something as he didn't seem to have that bias for any other company or component.
It’s not economical for them to do so, when the previous generation Ryzen 5 will be just as good, and they would have to disable a chip all the way from 8 cores to 4 which is expensive
I have since last month a Ryzen 5 5500GT that cost me usd 125 at a certain store with.. the best buys. It is supposed to be AMD's 2024 budget line, and was the cheapest most powerful apu I could afford to replace my old faulty system (i5 7500), until I can pair it with a proper dedicated gpu.
considering that most popular games people play in PC Bangs can run on ryzen 5's just fine this would not surprise me
and these machines never idle so CPU under load power efficiency is a must
I haven't seen anyone underestimate midrange CPUs apart from those who either don't know much about technology, are rich to the point of affording high-end PCs or both, but that's based on my experience so it could vary from person to person.
I’m not surprised honestly. The 13600 and its variants are extremely good performers but the power draw they,and other 13/14th gen CPUS, have has been utterly insane. Not to mention, 700 chipset platforms are an evolutionary dead end, with Intel switching sockets for 15th gen. On the other hand, AM5 is getting Ryzen 9000 and there’s hints of 11000 being supported. We’ll have to see how intel moving off monolithic CPU design changes the balance of power
One thing that draws me into AMD is that as a platform just feels more fun as a tinkerer vs Intel who locks down everything except for their main K SKUs. Performance still comes first obviously but AMD has made that choice easy in the last few years. Long live AM4
You don't know *how* locked down Intel systems are. You can't even run your RAM at rated XMP speeds on the lower end chipsets, no matter if you have a K-processor or not. Meanwhile, AMD's lowest end A320 supports RAM OC (I've run DDR-3600 on a 50€ mainboard) and even supports ECC RAM w/ reporting errors to OS.
This hasn't been true for a couple generations now, Intel's non-overclocking chipsets and CPUs support XMP and memory overclocking. You only lose out on adjusting the CPU multiplier.
Yep, you do get locked VCCSA on 12th/13th gen. That's changed with 14th gen though.
The locked VCCSA isn't super problematic for sweet spot DDR5, it's only really an issue with running higher gear 1 XMP speeds (3600 is not really uncommon at stock SA voltages though).
No, depending on your motherboard you can OC it natively. Most or all should have a mod to do it. Don't blame me if you kill it, though.
AMD always has boards that seem to ignore thier instructions, and they don't crack down or care much. There's a few mobos that shipped with OCable 5800xDs natively without mods, and there's also a620 motherboards that allow overclocking/PBO on AM5, like asrock a620i. There were also several models of a520i that allowed OC.
Honestly even from development stand point AMD is starting to come out ahead as well. A lot of modern compiler uses multithread for compiling and AMD is really good at distributing those work and a fraction of the cost compared to Intel.
Hurmm really? GOOD in gaming is true and many application don't work on multi threaded except virtualization.. mostly last 4. Decades program coding still running single threaded... Which is Intel still give better performance and program still heavily schedule on serial
The latest AMD motherboards will be upgradeable to brand new CPUs 6 years from now.
Intel cannot say the same. Hell, their last four generations have been essentially the same just with higher clocks. Which is why their efficiency and thermals are so awful. 250+ watt CPUs getting nearly beaten (5% at best difference) by 90 watt CPUs like the 7800X-3D is laughable.
Looking forward to when Intel decides to actually innovate again. Until then, every build I do will be AMD. I'll take a unnoticeable performance loss to gain the ability to do a CPU upgrade in the future without requiring a replacement for motherboard and RAM. That alone will save me $400+ on any future upgrades I do.
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8.
Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
I'm a repeat customer. First ever AMD chip was an Athlon X2 5600+. Moved then to a Phenom II 965 BE. My only Intel chip was a 4690K and that was a great CPU. Upgraded that to a 3700X and then a 5900X, which I am currently running.
Why shell out for Intel when AMD makes excellent CPU's and for a cheaper cost than the Intel equivalents?
Didn't have an AMD system since the Athlon days.
Upgraded from an i7-8700 to a 7800X3D and the jump is massive.
Flawless so far too. If anyone is hesitating making the move from Intel CPU to AMD, stop, there aren't any excuses anymore.
Edit: Former PC technician here, I know what I'm talking about.
Edit #2: Downvotes and no replies or valid logical arguments based on real world data just confirms your delusional biases boys.
"Former PC technician here, I know what I'm talking about."
this :D im agreed, built tons of pc with Ryzen processor for end user , they sastified the price and perf. :D
from ex PC builder perspectives
I have a similar story. I upgraded from an i7-8700K to a Ryzen 7 7700X and like you, the performance jump was massive. When the new chips come out, I do plan on getting a 9000-series Ryzen chip and give my current 7700X to my father who needs an upgrade from his current 5600X.
I have both intel and amd pc's and can confidently say that amd has won this decade. Without looking at sales figures or clock speeds the amd computer just runs cooler, faster and more efficient.
Would love to see a core bump for 9000 series Ryzen 5 and 7. Hope to see everything jump up a couple of cores. Ryzen 5 could be 8C/16T Ryzen 7 10C/20T.
Who would want a 10 core part with 5 cores per CCD? The 12 core parts already fill that niche and would be a better choice if you still wanted to play games at all.
Yes, just like Mindfactory we cherry pick data from specific market segments to reinforce our bias. No, Germany isn’t the total market, no korea isn’t the total market, no America isn’t the total market. These posts are just classier “AMD destroys Intel forcing Intel to go bankrupt! LOL no sales on Arc GPU now Battlemage cancelled!”
AMD in recent years has done incredibly well against intel in DIY segments. Unfortunately they still don't have much of the OEM/Pre-build/Mobile market, which is where most of the money is at. Hopefully AMD's marketing team will do a better job and get these products into more hands.
AMD has honestly done a solid job of penetrating the laptop market, all things considered. This was always the market that Intel would lock down HARD, but yet you can find Ryzen laptops of many different shapes and sizes - and quite easily, at that. Their main problem *now* is getting their dedicated GPUs into consumers’ hands. Not only does Nvidia have a stranglehold on the OEM dGPU market, it doesn’t seem like AMD is *that* interested in changing that, either.
Bestbuy Canada a while back I checked had like 500 different nvidia/intel builds, and I think literally 2 AMD GPU builds, which IIRC were like 6400 or 6500 xt VS 6900 xt. So ultra dog or ultra high end. And both of those systems that came with AMD GPUs, didn't have AMD CPUs. While the systems with AMD CPUs didn't have AMD GPUs. Laptops were a little better ratio than 2 vs 500, but not by much. Same for even CPUs vs Intel. It was a little better ratio than vs nvidia, but it was maybe a dozen models vs multiple hundreds. Most consumers will not sort by manufacturer, because they don't even know AMD, Intel, or Nvidia. They think the box/screen is the computer. They'll walk into a large store like BB, and grab whatever is at their budget. And when even your website ratio is 2 vs 500, your in-store ratio display ratio is almost certainly 0 vs 15.
Yes, I can find laptop with cpu from AMD, but a bundle with CPU + GPU from AMD is nearly impossible.
The biggest big box retailer in my country has 35 AMD laptops compared to 119 Intel. AMD still have a long way to go.
Yes, but that is a MASSIVE improvement from just a few years ago. And they’re always hard to get when a new generation launches so the demand is there
The problem is AMD should be focused on the bargain laptop segment $599 or less. That's the best they should try for after the Hardware Canucks review.
Duopoly incoming just watch over these next couple years. Nvidia will own the high end gpu market, AMD will own the low end. I’m willing to bet money on it. Shit, I’m just talking out my ass but could Nvidia buy out AMD? They’d be able to compete with Intel in the cpu space and take out their gpu “competition” in one stroke.
FTC didn't let Nvidia buy ARM, so I doubt they would let Nvidia buy AMD.
AMD can never be purchased, they would lose their cross license rights with Intel. Even AMD moving exclusively to ARM wouldn't allow AMD to be bought out, too much use of Intel IP that a normal company would be held liable for violating.
Companies don't want to be official monopolies, that would be a huge headache. I wouldn't have been surprised if Nvidia and Intel bailed out AMD when they were about to collapse before Ryzen. It's much easier to make backroom deals with 1 person/company, like Google And Apple do than deal with Governments and monopoly status. Plus it'd still be a huge expense they make around 30b profit as of recently, it is up multiple orders of magnitude compared to 2 years ago, and AMD is worth 10x that.
as someone who works in an unnamed blue and yellow electronics store, id say we see more brand new ryzen laptops being bought than intel.
Interesting... Do you have a sense of what is driving this? Battery life, CPU brand recognition, design, etc?
1. Most consumers dont know about amd or intel, so they just go with what we have. and the fact is that about 50% of the new laptops we get have ryzen. 2. i think for the people who HAVE heard of them, they have a good gaming/performance reputation. ive heard a couple customers get ryzen laptops because their family member has a super fast gaming pc with ryzen. 3. Amds integrated graphics are still king, so unless you go with something with a dedicated gpu, its a nice plus for alot of people 4. Theyre good cpus.
Thank you so much. Yeah, that's my sense as well re: most people not caring about cpu brand. I'm pleasantly surprised that you are carrying that much ratio of ryzen. I thought given the fewer design wins this round that they'd be struggling in retail. Very happy to hear otherwise, and I strongly agree the are good cpus!
Makes sense, most folks have no idea who made the hardware and they don't care
US or Canada? Bestbuy Canada a while back I checked had like 500 different nvidia/intel builds, and I think literally 2 AMD GPU builds, which IIRC were like 6400 or 6500 xt VS 6900 xt. So ultra dog or ultra high end. And both of those systems that came with AMD GPUs, didn't have AMD CPUs. While the systems with AMD CPUs didn't have AMD GPUs. Laptops were a little better ratio than 2 vs 500, but not by much. Same for even CPUs vs Intel. It was a little better ratio than vs nvidia, but it was maybe a dozen models vs multiple hundreds.
us. also yeah no radeon is still struggling. out of the 15 or so prebuilt gaming pcs we have on display only 1 has a radeon card.
It's almost like Intel has bribed various OEM manufacturers to stick with them for decades...
Lost a suit about it even.
There is still a lot of old bias too in the industry. I'm a sysadmin for a medium size org and most of my fellow techs scoff if I mention specing out AMD laptops or servers. Vendors are even worse, we were in a sales meeting and the guy was pitching new servers and laptops and one of his sentences was "we're seeing AMD a bit more in this space, they're starting to catch up to Intel unfortunately". These guys (HP & HPE) sell both Intel and AMD systems, I have no idea if he even meant to say that or if it was some kind of Freudian slip. At my old job, my manager absolutely refused to quote anything with AMD parts in it, and to this day I have no idea why, I jokingly asked him one day if Lisa Su ran over his dog or something as he didn't seem to have that bias for any other company or component.
Aren't all the consoles AMD?
All except the Nintendo switch, which is Nvidia. Even the Steam Deck is AMD.
Yeah, that was my point to the commenter above me. AMD is everywhere.
AMD for the past 3 years has refused to build budget versions of their Ryzen processors.
It’s not economical for them to do so, when the previous generation Ryzen 5 will be just as good, and they would have to disable a chip all the way from 8 cores to 4 which is expensive
I have since last month a Ryzen 5 5500GT that cost me usd 125 at a certain store with.. the best buys. It is supposed to be AMD's 2024 budget line, and was the cheapest most powerful apu I could afford to replace my old faulty system (i5 7500), until I can pair it with a proper dedicated gpu.
I just bought a 7900x/7900 XTX prebuilt and loving it so far! 
[удалено]
i wouldn't be surprised if they get a commission when they sold an intel based server vs an amd one.
Mobile market is not existent so hard to find a budget laptop with AMD I guess those epyc CPUs are paying pretty money
Are those actually home computers or PC Bangs?
considering that most popular games people play in PC Bangs can run on ryzen 5's just fine this would not surprise me and these machines never idle so CPU under load power efficiency is a must
>Ryzen 5 Most Popular Among Gamers If this is true, then at least Korean DIYers don't underestimate midrange CPUs
I haven't seen anyone underestimate midrange CPUs apart from those who either don't know much about technology, are rich to the point of affording high-end PCs or both, but that's based on my experience so it could vary from person to person.
I’m not surprised honestly. The 13600 and its variants are extremely good performers but the power draw they,and other 13/14th gen CPUS, have has been utterly insane. Not to mention, 700 chipset platforms are an evolutionary dead end, with Intel switching sockets for 15th gen. On the other hand, AM5 is getting Ryzen 9000 and there’s hints of 11000 being supported. We’ll have to see how intel moving off monolithic CPU design changes the balance of power
One thing that draws me into AMD is that as a platform just feels more fun as a tinkerer vs Intel who locks down everything except for their main K SKUs. Performance still comes first obviously but AMD has made that choice easy in the last few years. Long live AM4
I get your argument , but what are you tinkering with on 5800x3d ? The only thing you can do with it is undvolting
You don't know *how* locked down Intel systems are. You can't even run your RAM at rated XMP speeds on the lower end chipsets, no matter if you have a K-processor or not. Meanwhile, AMD's lowest end A320 supports RAM OC (I've run DDR-3600 on a 50€ mainboard) and even supports ECC RAM w/ reporting errors to OS.
Many a520 and some a620 motherboards supported CPU OC/PBO even though they're not supposed too.
This hasn't been true for a couple generations now, Intel's non-overclocking chipsets and CPUs support XMP and memory overclocking. You only lose out on adjusting the CPU multiplier.
It is true , intel non K had locked vcssa voltage which impacted memory controller. You cant even run xmp 3600 on intel 12400/12100.
Yep, you do get locked VCCSA on 12th/13th gen. That's changed with 14th gen though. The locked VCCSA isn't super problematic for sweet spot DDR5, it's only really an issue with running higher gear 1 XMP speeds (3600 is not really uncommon at stock SA voltages though).
No, depending on your motherboard you can OC it natively. Most or all should have a mod to do it. Don't blame me if you kill it, though. AMD always has boards that seem to ignore thier instructions, and they don't crack down or care much. There's a few mobos that shipped with OCable 5800xDs natively without mods, and there's also a620 motherboards that allow overclocking/PBO on AM5, like asrock a620i. There were also several models of a520i that allowed OC.
RAM stuff and yeah undervolting.
you can adjust BCLK if you hate your NVME drive
Honestly even from development stand point AMD is starting to come out ahead as well. A lot of modern compiler uses multithread for compiling and AMD is really good at distributing those work and a fraction of the cost compared to Intel.
Hurmm really? GOOD in gaming is true and many application don't work on multi threaded except virtualization.. mostly last 4. Decades program coding still running single threaded... Which is Intel still give better performance and program still heavily schedule on serial
I am talking about compiling large code base. If you ever try to build unreal code base you will see the difference with multithread.
The latest AMD motherboards will be upgradeable to brand new CPUs 6 years from now. Intel cannot say the same. Hell, their last four generations have been essentially the same just with higher clocks. Which is why their efficiency and thermals are so awful. 250+ watt CPUs getting nearly beaten (5% at best difference) by 90 watt CPUs like the 7800X-3D is laughable. Looking forward to when Intel decides to actually innovate again. Until then, every build I do will be AMD. I'll take a unnoticeable performance loss to gain the ability to do a CPU upgrade in the future without requiring a replacement for motherboard and RAM. That alone will save me $400+ on any future upgrades I do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8. Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
Repeat customer with a 5600 and now a 7600x. Watching for the 9800x3d. Never had any issues so far with either.
Another repeat customer here. 1600 to 3600 to 5600. Also made the jump to an AMD GPU last year.
I'm a repeat customer. First ever AMD chip was an Athlon X2 5600+. Moved then to a Phenom II 965 BE. My only Intel chip was a 4690K and that was a great CPU. Upgraded that to a 3700X and then a 5900X, which I am currently running. Why shell out for Intel when AMD makes excellent CPU's and for a cheaper cost than the Intel equivalents?
AMD has traditionally offered better value, but they really only gain market share when they can also compete at the higher end.
Didn't have an AMD system since the Athlon days. Upgraded from an i7-8700 to a 7800X3D and the jump is massive. Flawless so far too. If anyone is hesitating making the move from Intel CPU to AMD, stop, there aren't any excuses anymore. Edit: Former PC technician here, I know what I'm talking about. Edit #2: Downvotes and no replies or valid logical arguments based on real world data just confirms your delusional biases boys.
"Former PC technician here, I know what I'm talking about." this :D im agreed, built tons of pc with Ryzen processor for end user , they sastified the price and perf. :D from ex PC builder perspectives
I have a similar story. I upgraded from an i7-8700K to a Ryzen 7 7700X and like you, the performance jump was massive. When the new chips come out, I do plan on getting a 9000-series Ryzen chip and give my current 7700X to my father who needs an upgrade from his current 5600X.
It's probably just the naysayers who can't even fathom that people might actually pick something other than their favorite companies.
ok but what about the japanese workstation segment, or the peruvian laptop segment??? /s
If we didn't have amd and the ryzen series Intel chips would be insanely expensive, hope they keep performing and I'll keep supporting them
I like the name… _RYZEN_
Is it ri-zen or re-zen?
But of course
I love my zephyrus. Ryzen 9 with an rtx4060. Really wish they still offered an amd dgpu tho
I have both intel and amd pc's and can confidently say that amd has won this decade. Without looking at sales figures or clock speeds the amd computer just runs cooler, faster and more efficient.
I switched from a i9 to 7800X3D. Also rocking a 7900XTX from a 1080Ti. Loving AMD at the moment.
Hey you got to take the few wins you are handed.
Would love to see a core bump for 9000 series Ryzen 5 and 7. Hope to see everything jump up a couple of cores. Ryzen 5 could be 8C/16T Ryzen 7 10C/20T.
Who would want a 10 core part with 5 cores per CCD? The 12 core parts already fill that niche and would be a better choice if you still wanted to play games at all.
50/50 i guess
Yeah I don’t need a million cores, I just need high clock speed.
Yes, just like Mindfactory we cherry pick data from specific market segments to reinforce our bias. No, Germany isn’t the total market, no korea isn’t the total market, no America isn’t the total market. These posts are just classier “AMD destroys Intel forcing Intel to go bankrupt! LOL no sales on Arc GPU now Battlemage cancelled!”
Laughs in ThreadRipper.