How Ryzen has altered the CPU market landscape

[trents]

This is quite interesting. Really highlights the impact of Ryzen on CPU architecture and marketing.

Linus makes the point that there is much less need for workstation class systems than before Ryzen. Ryzen kicked off a more cores war that has extended to the sub workstation class CPU niche and undermined the market for high end workstations.

One thing Linux points out that I didn't know was that all Ryzen CPUs support ECC.

 

[Richo999]

Now to find supported ECC motherboards and QVL��

 

[Woomack]

ECC won't work on most desktop motherboards using Ryzen. CPU supports it but it's not "validated" on client grade platform so it's simply disabled. It also works as ECC unbuffered so the same as many Intel CPUs .. or at least CPUs from last generations as Intel is locking server functionality in new desktop chips so users have to buy more expensive products if they want something above standard.

He actually said most of what I said a couple of months ago. Intel started to panic and killed whole product line + had too early premieres and chipset replacements what many users didn't like. Situations like when you just bought Z270 mobo and Z370 was around the corner.

I just see that Ryzen filled the gap in less expensive gaming/entertainment PC where Intel was constantly bumping prices. Users finally had a choice to get a CPU with more cores in reasonable price. In real it was like most of those who had older Intel processors wouldn't upgrade them at all if not Ryzen premiere. What's the point to buy "new" Intel processor which offers barely anything new?
However, most users buy 6 core Ryzens. It's about 60% of all Ryzen sales. Threadripper is almost not selling. It looks great in tests and there was a lot of noise on the web but in real barely anyone wants it.

All this topic is about home PC. In business we can still barely see AMD and it changed nothing. This is where are most PC sales. Good is that brands like Dell, HP or Lenovo are releasing new PC and workstations based on AMD. However, they're not selling good. I give it next 1-2 years and we will see higher sales here too.

 

[EarthDog]

Sounds familiar... And what I gripe about.

Going 'wide' (more cores instead of larger IPC and clock jumps) is, right now, nearly useless for people. Most users can be happy with a 4c/8t pc for years to come. The fact that there are 8c/16t cpus on mainstream is an annoying curiosity to me and that is only going to increase. Quad core CPUs have been in the market for over a decade and just recently it's become a minimum. 8c/16t CPUs will be fine for another 5-10 years.

But it's easy to see why/how this move of more cores cultured workstation sales...

 

[Alaric]

Companies need new products to sell, and IPC has hit a wall, or at least a pretty big speed bump. (No pun intended, but I'll take it) All they have left is cores. Intel's incremental speed increases are what passed for improvement because they were the only driving force in the market. AMD sucker punched them with Ryzen and offering more good, cheap cores. With both companies involved in the Core Wars, maybe utilization of said cores will pick up in the software market. It won't be immediate, but I think it's inevitable.

 

[EarthDog]

Cores are good... when they can be used. They can't (for the overwhelming majority of users, including enthusiasts here).

As I said, I am not holding my breath as quads were out for over a decade (hex's almost 8 years, octos 6!!!) and software has mostly caught up to that. Its going to be a long while before an octo is behind the curve and they are (both?) pumping out more cores on the mainstream platform past that.

Until the software catches up (and it had a chance to over the last decade) more cores annoys me.

 

[Alaric]

Until the software catches up (and it had a chance to over the last decade) more cores annoys me.

I don't disagree with your point at all, but I would find it more annoying if the CPU availability were restricted to Intel only, and that's pretty much the situation we were looking at. AMD was meeting a need it saw in its bank account, not the desktop market. LOL

 

[EarthDog]

I'd rather drive one good coupe, than to have two limos I can't utilize.

 

[Alaric]

Unless you were in the business of selling cars. Then selling two limos far outweighs selling one good coupe. I'm not saying your perspective is incorrect, it's just not the same as AMD's.

 

[EarthDog]

That's the thing. I'm the consumer. I don't care what direction they are going per say. They are a business trying to make a profit it makes sense to bring these out. I get that. However, I am a consumer and use their hardware and find for my uses (and seemingly a vast majority of others) much over a hex-core is a waste of cores/threads for the next several years. We are seeing a driver in a limo, but no passengers. Seems pointless and wasteful from my perspective.

Here is to hoping we see software speed up......considerably....... its ability to utilize (not use) all cores/threads for a performance benefit.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

I'm all for more cores, but that comes from the folding@home days when cores were kings and video cards just provided a nice visual display.

 

[Alaric]

ts ability to utilize (not use) all cores/threads for a performance benefit.

You're hitting the bullseye there, and it's a distinction I don't think is widely enough made.

 

[EarthDog]

I guess I'm just jaded waiting for it since they have been out for so long already. I seem sour.

 

[Alaric]

Well, AMD started and led the Core Wars, but Intel didn't really bother much. Since they dominated the ecosystem for so long, through market share and corrupt behavior, it had a depressing effect on developing for more multi core utilization. I would think (hope) that with Intel now having no choice but to engage AMD on core count, the rest of industry will move things along at a better pace than previously. I guess it will depend On whether or not Intel can get past the current speed limitations. If they can do that quickly enough they can counter Ryzen with raw speed, since that's what most John Q. Public's software responds to best. If Intel is too slow on that, or unable, the software industry will inevitably move to core utilization. Once that has some inertia, cores will be king.

 

[UltraTaco]

And then itll be Intel Core i27 with 4096 cores? (Or amd)

 

[orinwhite]

I must say Ryzen CPUs are cheaper, better and more competitive than anything else in the market

 

[EarthDog]

Better is up for debate... it depends on the use... but they are cheaper and offer a competative product, that is for sure!

 

[DaveB]

No debate, Ryzen CPUs are absolutely NOT better than current 8th and 9th gen Intels. But they are a good value because they are cheaper. Anything over 6C/12T is useless for 99% of buyers except for the epeen factor. Right now Microcenter is selling the 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600 for $99.99 which is by far the best price/performance value anywhere. I'm having trouble not buying one especially since I can get an open box MSI B450 mATX motherboard there for just $40 to go with it. I really don't need it but ………

My main computer is an ancient X79 with an HP OEM Pegatron motherboard I picked up on ebay years ago for $75. It's running a 4C/8T Xeon E5-1620 @ 4.4 GHz and handles everything with ease. I've been playing with 6C/12T Intel and AMD stuff for a few years but always end up selling them because my old X79 runs so well. I even built a couple of dual Xeon 16C/32T and AMD Ryzen 7 8C/16T systems for the fun of it but 4C/8T still gets the job done.

 

[EarthDog]

They CAN be better if one can utilize all the cores and threads. If so, it is a no brainer to go AMD...

A potato can run a PC, but how well it does work and gaming is another story. X79 is good for a general PC but will leave a glass ceiling on gaming (1080p) and long in the tooth in other functions. If users don't work or game on a PC a potato can run windows.

That said, I agree with the overall sentiment as one can likely see above...

 

[DaveB]

They CAN be better if one can utilize all the cores and threads. If so, it is a no brainer to go AMD...

Whatever Ryzen 6C/12T or 8C/16T Ryzen you get there is a faster and better performing Intel 8th or 9th Gen CPU available. So not sure how the Ryzen can be better, cheaper sure, but not better. Not talking Threadripper as that's not for a mainstream computer build.