You are taking my desire to see something exciting soon, a bit too seriously.
Not really, I just think you had an awful hot take with sloppy reasoning that makes no sense. We're getting Zen 3D in the next few months. Is it seriously diminished that much just because it's not RIGHT NOW! instead of a few months from now?
To be honest, I didn't expect Alder Lake to get ahead of Zen 3.
If you didn't even expect it to beat Zen 3, then why do you expect AMD to have taken it more seriously even though there's still nothing that they could have done about it even if they had?
But they managed it and this should have heated things up. It hasn't, unfortunately. AMD's response seems to be lukewarm. They don't seem concerned and are fine to let Intel bask in the sun a bit.
What should they be doing? Telling all of the board partners that the schedule they gave them last year needs to be pushed up 5 months so that AM5 platforms can hit the market for a small number of Ryzen 6000 CPUs that get sold as desktop parts. Should they tell the notebook manufacturers that they'll have to do with half of their original orders so that they can sell some desktop parts? You're basically demanding that AMD alienate everyone else that they work with and for what? A desktop part that they would be replacing in ~6 months? Outside of people happy with an APU that won't want Zen 4, who's going to buy that?
They are NOT being a fierce competitor.
Even though Intel overtook AMD with Alder Lake, AMD hasn't been this competitive with Intel in decades. What does this even mean? How is the current state not fierce competition when it hasn't been this competitive in such a long time? You keep saying words as though you're making some profound statement, but they're just completely hollow because there's no logic or sense behind them.
Maybe you're expending AMD to cut prices. They probably could, but if they're still selling through their inventory at a good enough rate, why should they? Lowering MSRP by $50 or $100 won't change the products they have, and as the GPU market shows, MSRP is an illusion. If AMD cut the MSRP by $100 across the Zen 3 lineup the reality would be that retailers would pocket most of that $100.
Intel cooking up 12900KS constitutes competition.
What do you even mean by cooking up? They were always going to release a better binned part, just like both companies always do.
5800X3D seems like a half-hearted fulfillment of a promise and only because everyone waited in dismay for the 5900X3D for Christmas that AMD initially showed off.
So the 5800X3D is bad, yet Intel had to resort to "cooking up" the 12900KS?
Why was anyone expecting a product to release at Christmas if it was never announced to be available at that time? I've only seen one other poster here think that it was coming out (or needed to come out) in that period of time and I think they're dead wrong on their reasoning.
The 5800X3D is among other things a pipecleaner product for AMD to gain experience working with TSMC's die-stacking process. Most of it is probably being sold into the server market where they can get far greater margins, but it makes an okay halo product and a nice swansong for AM4.
AMD could have used the same mobile Zen3+ die to at least have G-series line-up for desktop. They have deliberately slowed down or they are having some unforeseen manufacturing snags.
As I pointed out earlier they'd need to have AM5 motherboards available and would need to take away supplies from notebook manufacturers.
You seem to have formed your conclusion first and have only tried to work backwards and argue it after the fact. That's why all of your points are ridiculous and don't even stand up to basic scrutiny. If it's a bad hot take, just leave it at that. It's not like internet forums aren't full of them and I've had enough of my own as well, but you can't make a bad hot take look good any more than you can polish a turd. And much like anyone you might see polishing a turd, they're going to look ridiculous for trying to do so.
Facebook
Twitter