AMD commits violent entry/exit strategy to Metatarsal - Pulling an Intel, the AMD way.

  • 🔧 Actively working on site again.
Man, the forced march of motherboard upgrades kind of blows my mind. My socket-7 board started as a P120, then a couple of regrettable side-steps to AMD and Cyrix, then a P166mmx, and then a P200 before I got a slot-1 board (which started with a Pentium II 400, and ended with a 1ghz on a sloket adapter).

I have a 4th gen i7 4990k, but I'll consider AMD again - if they stop this trend before it really gets going.
 
Honestly, the support for the 300 series boards ending makes sense. Pretty sure they were pushing the limits of some of the older boards with the higher end 3000 series CPUs. Plus, AMD said it'd support their AM4 socket until 2020 (Might've been 2021 now that I've thought about it.), right? It is 2020, so they were pretty close on the mark there. This is an unlikely possibility, but they may have miscalculated the capabilities of the older boards. I could be entirely wrong on this though. I need to do a bit more research.

As for the 400 series boards specifically, I'm sure they can handle more than the 300 boards.

So, I don't think AMD is pulling an Intel here with forced upgrades, at least not entirely.

This is kind of a side note, but for the lower-end and budget oriented parts like the A320 motherboards, it's surprising some of them even got Ryzen 3000 CPU support at all. I'm glad AMD supported the socket for as long as they have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is an unlikely possibility, but they may have miscalculated the capabilities of the older boards. I could be entirely wrong on this though. I need to do a bit more research.
AMD miscalculated, or more accurately didn't care because they were treading financial death, BIOS chip sizes.

300 boards, fine. The people that spent $60 on some shit A320 board got their money worth already and you can't expect them to last forever.

Where it sucks is for the many that bought like B450 Tomahawks and nicer DRM boards recently, specifically for upgradability, and because X570 prices were crazy $200+ at times like they are now.
 
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-Group-/4031vs10 Scroll down the list. By benchmark comparisons the first AMD card doesn't come in until spot 29 and it's twice as expensive as number 4, an Intel CPU.
[/QU

No offense, but userbenchmark is ran by intel shills who have yet to move past 2014:
6932E286-944F-474E-B778-CA548A58FE0E.png
 
No offense, but userbenchmark is ran by intel shills who have yet to move past 2014:View attachment 1298364
The actual benchmarks are submitted by users and include all modern AMD/Intel/Nvidia/ect. cpu's/gpu's. Nothing else matters. If you don't trust unbiased benchmarks submitted by independent sources then there is nothing that is going to sway you. Also looking at the website I'm not seeing how you even found whatever that page is. When I click on the CPU tab it literally just shows a list of the top benchmarked CPUs by user rating, then by avg benchmark (which is the only category that actually matters) and then also by their own "Value" rating which is an aggregate of all the data factoring cost and performance across various types of applications.

Sorting by avg bench the first AMD card comes in at 32 with the Ryzen 9 3900X which is a Q3 2019 card, so brand new.

Stop cherry picking data to dissuade your butthurt over facts.
 
Last edited:
Benchmarks don't tell the whole story especially when it comes to 'smoothness' and microstutters in gaming for many titles, where cores and threads make a clear difference. I'm not getting into AMD/Intel wars here, though.
 
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-Group-/4031vs10 Scroll down the list. By benchmark comparisons the first AMD card doesn't come in until spot 29 and it's twice as expensive as number 4, an Intel CPU.
Didnt userbenchmark get banned from r/AMD and r/Hardware for showing an incredible amount of anti-AMD bias, to the point of recommending a i3-7300 over a ryzen 5 1600? I'm not even sure the user submitted benchmarks aren't touched, tbh. Use Timespy and Cinebench scores, those are listed as well AFAIK.

I'm more impressed that 3 generations of CPU's ran on the same chipset at all. If this was an Intel product, we would have the opposite effect where the "AMD shills" come out and bang on Intel's decision to use different sockets/layouts for each gen of CPU... oh.

AMD should just go back to underpromising and overdelivering. I'm not sure anyone at Intel even cared when the Ryzen series first came out, they just added higher stock speeds and adjusted SKU's and prices a bit.

Another thing that makes me shake my head is the prices on comparable products.
3950x at 16c/32t, $1,099.99 Canadian. AM4.
I9-9960X at 16c/32t, $14,99.99 Canadian. X299.

If i didnt know a thing about computers except that big numbers good, lower costs bad, it doesnt take a genius to realize the $400 loonies more will quickly be ignored by anyone not looking to spend as much as possible to get as best equipment as they can.

The people that do have that kind of money and passion that they build a new rig on the top end lineup of every CPU and GPU generation, don't care if they have to upgrade a motherboard, to them it's like filling your car to go to work, it's just what you do for an upgrade. You get the absolute latest, you don't use a 6 month old part you've already got.
 
Last edited:
Didnt userbenchmark get banned from r/AMD and r/Hardware for showing an incredible amount of anti-AMD bias, to the point of recommending a i3-7300 over a ryzen 5 1600? I'm not even sure the user submitted benchmarks aren't touched, tbh. Use Timespy and Cinebench scores, those are listed as well AFAIK.

Are you thinking of the site that did some math magic where the Ryzen got the test results nerfed because it had more cores than the i7, so they "normalized" the score which proved that if they would have had the same amount of cores the i7 would be the better processor because of its higher IPC and frequency and therefore Ryzen = bad? One site did something incredibly shady and creative like that.
 
Benchmarks don't tell the whole story especially when it comes to 'smoothness' and microstutters in gaming for many titles, where cores and threads make a clear difference. I'm not getting into AMD/Intel wars here, though.
I have 3 computers, 1 of them has AMD components and the others Intel/Nvidia. My point isn't that one is obviously better than the other. The original tardo that I responded to made a claim that Intel CPUs are twice as expensive and 50% as capable as AMD CPUs, my point is that that is objectively and provably untrue no matter which way you look at it and no amount of fanboying or butthurt is going to change it.
 
AMD miscalculated, or more accurately didn't care because they were treading financial death, BIOS chip sizes.

300 boards, fine. The people that spent $60 on some shit A320 board got their money worth already and you can't expect them to last forever.

Where it sucks is for the many that bought like B450 Tomahawks and nicer DRM boards recently, specifically for upgradability, and because X570 prices were crazy $200+ at times like they are now.

Agreed, AMD has taken too long for the mid-range 500 series boards. If they released them much sooner, I don't think as many people would be pissed. Honestly I think companies should release mid-range stuff maybe a month or two after the high-end parts initially launch. Plenty of people didn't buy 500 series boards and got a 400 series because of the ridiculous prices. It's been nearly a year since Ryzen 3000 and the B550 boards haven't been released as far as I know.

AMD has certainly brought good things to the table throughout the past few years or so, but it looks like they're definitely slowing some things down way too much.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Allakazam223
The actual benchmarks are submitted by users and include all modern AMD/Intel/Nvidia/ect. cpu's/gpu's. Nothing else matters. If you don't trust unbiased benchmarks submitted by independent sources then there is nothing that is going to sway you. Also looking at the website I'm not seeing how you even found whatever that page is. When I click on the CPU tab it literally just shows a list of the top benchmarked CPUs by user rating, then by avg benchmark (which is the only category that actually matters) and then also by their own "Value" rating which is an aggregate of all the data factoring cost and performance across various types of applications.

Sorting by avg bench the first AMD card comes in at 32 with the Ryzen 9 3900X which is a Q3 2019 card, so brand new.

Stop cherry picking data to dissuade your butthurt over facts.

I mean it’s also not that they modified their benchmark results to heavily favor single threaded IPC and now it considers a i3 8100 to be ranked higher than a i9 9980XE. Oh wait, they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smaug's Smokey Hole
I mean it’s also not that they modified their benchmark results to heavily favor single threaded IPC and now it considers a i3 8100 to be ranked higher than a i9 9980XE. Oh wait, they did.
That's objectively untrue and your exceptionalism can be remedied by spending 10 seconds to look at the website, sorting by avg benchmark (which I explained already is the only category that matters because it's based on the raw numbers and not any sort of "best value" algorithm) and seeing that the i3-8100 doesn't come in until 138 with the i9-9980XE at 63.
 
That's objectively untrue and your exceptionalism can be remedied by spending 10 seconds to look at the website, sorting by avg benchmark (which I explained already is the only category that matters because it's based on the raw numbers and not any sort of "best value" algorithm) and seeing that the i3-8100 doesn't come in until 138 with the i9-9980XE at 63.
The article is from nearly a year ago. Can you, conclusively, prove that this was not the result of a previous ridiculous ranking system on 'Userbenchmark'? If the site in question has since changed from a ranking that happened to systematically push AMD gear down the rankings while also producing ridiculous results for (high end- high core count) Intel gear, to something that systematically pushed AMD gear down the rankings while producing less ridiculous results for Intel gear, what does that prove?

I'm not saying Intel doesn't make some great hardware if you sleep on piles of money, but I would be very interested to see an archive of their actual 'avg benchmark' rankings as of the time that the article was written.
 
Last edited:
The article is from nearly a year ago. Can you, conclusively, prove that this was not the result of a previous ridiculous ranking system on 'Userbenchmark'? If the site in question has since changed from a ranking that happened to systematically push AMD gear down the rankings while also producing ridiculous results for Intel gear, to something that systematically pushed AMD gear down the rankings while producing less ridiculous results for Intel gear, what does that prove?

I'm not saying Intel doesn't make some great hardware if you sleep on piles of money, but I would be very interested to see an archive of their actual 'avg benchmark' rankings as of the time that the article was written.

Googled it and found this link from 2019 that have screenshots from before and after the change.
 
Seems AMD has backtracked and will support Zen 3 on b450/x470 boards.

As we head into our upcoming “Zen 3” architecture, there are considerable technical challenges that face a CPU socket as long-lived as AMD Socket AM4. For example, we recently announced that we would not support “Zen 3” on AMD 400 Series motherboards due to serious constraints in SPI ROM capacities in most of the AMD 400 Series motherboards. This is not the first time a technical hurdle has come up with Socket AM4 given the longevity of this socket, but it is the first time our enthusiasts have faced such a hurdle.

Over the past week, we closely reviewed your feedback on that news: we watched every video, read every comment and saw every Tweet. We hear that many of you hoped a longer upgrade path. We hear your hope that AMD B450 and X470 chipsets would carry you into the “Zen 3” era.

Our experience has been that large-scale BIOS upgrades can be difficult and confusing especially as processors come on and off the support lists. As the community of Socket AM4 customers has grown over the past three years, our intention was to take a path forward that provides the safest upgrade experience for the largest number of users. However, we hear you loud and clear when you tell us you would like to see B450 or X470 boards extended to the next generation “Zen 3” products.

As the team weighed your feedback against the technical challenges we face, we decided to change course. As a result, we will enable an upgrade path for B450 and X470 customers that adds support for next-gen AMD Ryzen™ Processors with the “Zen 3” architecture. This decision is very fresh, but here is a first look at how the upgrade path is expected to work for customers of these motherboards.

  1. We will develop and enable our motherboard partners with the code to support “Zen 3”-based processors in select beta BIOSes for AMD B450 and X470 motherboards.
  2. These optional BIOS updates will disable support for many existing AMD Ryzen™ Desktop Processor models to make the necessary ROM space available.
  3. The select beta BIOSes will enable a one-way upgrade path for AMD Ryzen Processors with “Zen 3,” coming later this year. Flashing back to an older BIOS version will not be supported.
  4. To reduce the potential for confusion, our intent is to offer BIOS download only to verified customers of 400 Series motherboards who have purchased a new desktop processor with “Zen 3” inside. This will help us ensure that customers have a bootable processor on-hand after the BIOS flash, minimizing the risk a user could get caught in a no-boot situation.
  5. Timing and availability of the BIOS updates will vary and may not immediately coincide with the availability of the first “Zen 3”-based processors.
  6. This is the final pathway AMD can enable for 400 Series motherboards to add new CPU support. CPU releases beyond “Zen 3” will require a newer motherboard.
  7. AMD continues to recommend that customers choose an AMD 500 Series motherboard for the best performance and features with our new CPUs.
There are still many details to iron out, but we’ve already started the necessary planning. As we get closer to the launch of this upgrade path, you should expect another blog just like this to provide the remaining details and a walkthrough of the specific process.

At CES 2017, AMD made a commitment: we would support AMD Socket AM4 until 2020. We’ve spent the next three years working very hard to fulfill that promise across four architectures, plus pioneering use of new technologies like chiplets and PCIe® Gen 4. Thanks to your feedback, we are now set to bring “Zen 3” to the AMD 400 Series chipsets. We’re grateful for your passion and support of AMD’s products and technologies.

 
Last edited:
Back