• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Zen 2 APUs/"Renoir" discussion thread

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
moinmoin said:
God forbid AMD not replacing SKUs announced a mere 3 months ago right away and give an iGPU for free on top of it. I mean, come on now...
Click to expand...

Im not the one who suggested they will replace non XT SKUS with Renoir.
And personally if you ask me, 3300X is tooooo expensive for a 4C 8T non iGPU CPU in middle of 2020.
 
leoneazzurro said:
The difference is that series 4000 APU is a serious contender for Intel in price/performance/power consumption where 3000 series was still lacking in comparison to Intel offerings, and 4000 series was aiming especially at the high end/higher margins laptops, being 8 core native. And you don't contend on a low margin market like the one covered by Intel with 2 /4core APUs with a 8 core native part on a more expensive process. AMD has not the same resources as Intel, and thus they have priorities, and of course their priorities are where the higher the margins are. In the meanwhile, if you want an AMD APU with low core count, you can go for the older 3000 series which still offers more than good competition with even priced Intel parts.
Click to expand...

That is happening simple because AMD only using a single die for a high volume market. They should have made a 4C 8T die to replace the 3200G/3400G and use the 8C APU dies for the high end SKUs only.
So as we said before, no replacements for the now two year old tech 2000G/3000G APUs.
 
LightningZ71 said:
But, again, you are arguing a specific corner case, "raw compute performance of the iGPU is the only important factor and no other improvements to the entire product matter in any measurable way".

We have NO in game performance benchmarks, just a leak of system level benchmarks from one suite. Until we see something that shows otherwise, you're just beating a drum for a problem that doesn't yet exist. While compute performance is important for most games, it's not the only factor.

Let's wait and see the real numbers...
Click to expand...

I dont need benchmarks to know that raising the initial sku price by $40 and place a R3 that is at the botton of the product stack to replace what used to be the top pf the line R5 apu is already a bad situacion. Even if it does not lose performance in any area. Do you undertand that we should be comparing the 3400G to the 4600G right? What AMD is doing here is like replacing the RX5600 with a RX6100 at the same price just because it matches performance... IN FACT they did exactly that with gpus, the result was a severe price increase across the board.

So even before seeing bechmarks those prices are already bad enoght.
 
AtenRa said:
That is happening simple because AMD only using a single die for a high volume market. They should have made a 4C 8T die to replace the 3200G/3400G and use the 8C APU dies for the high end SKUs only.
Click to expand...

That is what they will do next year (as well as probably targetting the Y line of Intel's processors). And the only reason they are doing this next year is that they have less resources than the competition and for following many projects you need resources. If you have constraints, you tend to do what it is more important/brings more gain first.
Also, it is not that the competitor is doing better, as in the same price bracket of the 3200G (or even 3400g) their offer consist of Pentium Gold 6600 or I3 10100 - not really the "creme de la creme"
 
AtenRa said:
Im not the one who suggested they will replace non XT SKUS with Renoir.
And personally if you ask me, 3300X is tooooo expensive for a 4C 8T non iGPU CPU in middle of 2020.
Click to expand...
That's if you can find one close to MSRP. The only ones left are high mark up from resellers. Steve from techspot says AMD does not know when more of the 3100 and 3300x will be available in the channel either. Those 2 are as bad as the new i9, for terrible pricing and availability.
 
moinmoin said:
God forbid AMD not replacing SKUs announced a mere 3 months ago right away and give an iGPU for free on top of it. I mean, come on now...
Click to expand...

This is why we can't have nice things.

When AMD sucks, it's all whining about how their lack of competitiveness allows Intel to price gouge and offer noting new year after year. Now AMD has done us all a huge favor the past few years by forcing Intel to compete, and it's still not good enough. Nevermind the fact that you get 8 cores vs 4 in the 3200g/3400g. It comes with less CU's *gasp*. Considering iGPU's are bandwidth starved and Vega is running much faster it will probably be a wash.

I'm tired of it. AMD is not raising prices just for the fun of it. They are raising prices because the are releasing a better product. If the market disagrees, prices will drop.Sorry some of you want a console like APU in your system, for various reasons AMD isn't doing that. You don't have to like it, but whining about it nonstop isn't going to change the situation.
 
Thunder 57 said:
forcing Intel to compete
Click to expand...

While I do not necessarily agree with what @Shivansps is saying - namely, he wants to pay the same price generation-over-generation for the same amount (or more) of CPU + iGPU performance - it should be clear that nobody can force Intel to be competitive at this point. Were Intel competitive, they would have Golden Cove-based products on the market right now, and AMD would have to react to that, driving prices lower in several segments.

Instead Intel is giving us a big fat goose egg.

AMD will let their prices creep upwards. You may or may not continue to see bang-for-buck in some segments - in my opinion, the 4750G PRO is a really nice deal just because it's cheaper than a 3700X and outperforms a 3700X - in fact, proerly-tuned, it may outperform a 3800XT! And the 4c/8t Renoir parts may stack up well against the 3300X which is impossible to get anyway. I would have to look harder at how well they perform out-of-box and what tuning options are available to really make a more-salient comment there. Regardless, no matter how well-positioned some of these current and future products will be wrt the rest of the market, prices overall will go up. The only thing that could keep that from happening would be Intel selling something better than their current lineup of products.
 
grant2 said:
Semiconductors are the only industry where I see customers feel like they're entitled to better products, for lower prices, year after year.
Click to expand...

Prices go up, prices go down. Nobody wants to pay $700+ for something like the FX-62 anymore. Which would translate into over $900 today thanks to inflation. There's are good reasons for that. The semiconductor industry isn't the only one throughout history that has experienced significant improvements in quality with prices that remained stable over a period of time - look at the beef industry in the 19th century of the United States, or the automotive industry in the 1950s or 1960s (again, United States). Enormous improvements in capability were possible without skyrocketing prices.

As for Renoir? If people don't buy desktop APUs for whatever reason, AMD will just cut off the market. Nobody else is really competing in that space.
 
DrMrLordX said:
it should be clear that nobody can force Intel to be competitive at this point. Were Intel competitive, they would have Golden Cove-based products on the market right now, and AMD would have to react to that, driving prices lower in several segments.

Instead Intel is giving us a big fat goose egg.
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken, but it is still too laser focused as to what competition entails. I understood what he was inferring with the statement about forcing them to compete. A great example is the i3. In a relatively short period of time, it went from 2/4 to 4/4 to 4/8.
 
DAPUNISHER said:
Your point is well taken, but it is still too laser focused as to what competition entails. I understood what he was inferring with the statement about forcing them to compete. A great example is the i3. In a relatively short period of time, it went from 2/4 to 4/4 to 4/8.
Click to expand...

Well, Intel was forced to give you 4/8 i3, or former old i7 Flagship CPU from 2016-2017.

iGPU side, Intel HD630 GPU is very competitive vs 50$ Vega 3 iGPU/Athlon 3000G. :relieved:

As expected, CPU side on Athlon 200GE, it is a noticeable bottleneck.Even in this iGPU gaming this is obvious.

Intel® Core™ i3-10100 Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.30 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i3-10100 Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.30 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com


i3 -10300 vs Renoir APU Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G/Vega 6. iGPU gaming comparison hm, there is no any point to wait for any benchmarks.
 
Asterox said:
Well, Intel was forced to give you 4/8 i3, or former old i7 Flagship CPU from 2016-2017.

iGPU side, Intel HD630 GPU is very competitive vs 50$ Vega 3 iGPU/Athlon 3000G. :relieved:

As expected, CPU side on Athlon 200GE, it is a noticeable bottleneck.Even in this iGPU gaming this is obvious.

Intel® Core™ i3-10100 Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.30 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i3-10100 Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.30 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com


i3 -10300 vs Renoir APU Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G/Vega 6. iGPU gaming comparison hm, there is no any point to wait for any benchmarks.
Click to expand...
Is this a joke post? Your bolded statement iterates what I just wrote. And the rest of it is...a joke?
 
Well Intel has been selling the same useless iGPU for how long? 5 years?

AMD is going dangerously close to that as well when Cezanne launchs.
 
Shivansps said:
Well Intel has been selling the same useless iGPU for how long? 5 years?
Click to expand...

You have to go mobile to get their latest iGPUs.

AMD is going dangerously close to that as well when Cezanne launchs.
Click to expand...

Just because AMD isn't putting Navi into their APUs, doesn't mean they aren't updating them. The CU count isn't going up though, and let's face it, iGPU performance won't really move until something is done about the memory situation.
 
DrMrLordX said:
Prices go up, prices go down. Nobody wants to pay $700+ for something like the FX-62 anymore. Which would translate into over $900 today thanks to inflation. There's are good reasons for that.
Click to expand...
Sure no one "wants" to pay a lot of money for something.

But this is the only industry where I consistently see customers act genuinely offended that the pace of performance : price ratio improving is never, ever good enough.

There's always lots of complaining about "greed" etc. etc. you'd think AMD was refusing to sell lifesaving penicillin to war widows or something.
 
grant2 said:
Sure no one "wants" to pay a lot of money for something.

But this is the only industry where I consistently see customers act genuinely offended that the pace of performance : price ratio improving is never, ever good enough.

There's always lots of complaining about "greed" etc. etc. you'd think AMD was refusing to sell lifesaving penicillin to war widows or something.
Click to expand...

Were you saying the same thing when Intel gouged the hell out of people for years for babysteps in performance? Genuinely curious.

AMD is making money hand-over-fist now with average margins of 46% across their product line. I think it's perfectly acceptable for consumers to not want that margin to increase by way of higher prices.
 
grant2 said:
Semiconductors are the only industry where I see customers feel like they're entitled to better products, for lower prices, year after year.
Click to expand...

That is the essence of computer industry for decades, this year's High-End is next generation's main stream.
It is what essentially moore's law is about, how quickly IC prices are falling and how performance is increasing over the previous generation.

Performance stagnation is technically made in order to maximize profits when the competition cannot follow. Thats the time when the consumer pays more for less than before.
 
Last edited:
DrMrLordX said:
AMD is making money hand-over-fist now with average margins of 46% across their product line. I think it's perfectly acceptable for consumers to not want that margin to increase by way of higher prices.
Click to expand...
Gross Margin is not same as profit. If they were same than AMD would have profit of $3.09 Billion instead of $341 Million( 5.06% of Revenue) they made last year.
Gross Margin = ((Revenue-Sells)/Revenue)*100%
Gross margin tells margin between Revenue and Sell, it does not count R&D cost, support cost etc. And if I am remembering correctly normal gross margin for companies is between 30-40%.
 
Shivansps said:
Well Intel has been selling the same useless iGPU for how long? 5 years?

AMD is going dangerously close to that as well when Cezanne launchs.
Click to expand...
Buy Nvidia then if you fill AMD is becoming evil.

I dont get you people. On one forums you guys say AMD's GPU's are so 'inferior' than Nvidia one's that AMD should stop selling GPUs altogether. On other forums you guys whines why AMD reduced their APU's CU size.

One of the reason why AMD reduced their is that you guys can pair 'superior' GT1030 with those APU. Also less CU means less die space wasted on iGPU part.
 
Shivansps said:
Well Intel has been selling the same useless iGPU for how long? 5 years?

AMD is going dangerously close to that as well when Cezanne launchs.
Click to expand...
And it may only be overtaken in the last year.

Not quite what I'd call a 'useless iGPU'.
 
AtenRa said:
That is the essence of computer industry for decades, this year's High-End is next generation's main stream.
It is what essentially moors law is about, how quickly IC prices are falling and how performance is increasing over the previous generation.
Click to expand...
But maybe currently more accurately would be to say:

"That was the essence of computer industry for decades, this year's High-End is next generation's main stream."

Speculation of about the end of Moore's Law keeps getting more frequent. And while node advances haven't been too bad until 7nm, the cost per transistor has not decreased like it used to.

I suspect that eventually AMD will need a native 4 core 7nm die for the lower end, but they obviously did not think it's a priority. Guess they only have so many people and between Zen2 and Zen3 for servers, Sony and Microsoft, GPUs, etc. the low end stuff way down the list.


 
Geranium said:
Gross Margin is not same as profit. If they were same than AMD would have profit of $3.09 Billion instead of $341 Million( 5.06% of Revenue) they made last year.
Gross Margin = ((Revenue-Sells)/Revenue)*100%
Gross margin tells margin between Revenue and Sell, it does not count R&D cost, support cost etc. And if I am remembering correctly normal gross margin for companies is between 30-40%.
Click to expand...
Currently AMD has a net margin of %9.72. That is quite low really. Intel is at %30.02 net margin. As further reference Apple and Google are both %21 net margin.

Gross margin doesn't really tell you a lot, other than the value of your products shipped. It's the net margin that tells you if it was worth the effort or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top