What worries me more than the collection of marketing failures are the engineering failures which made the marketing failures necessary. This very much reminds me of post-Opteron AMD, which brought us Bulldozer.
Agreed. Hope Lisa Su goes into their sales and marketing group and holds them accountable. Speaking in half-truths and misleading statements about products is not going to build consumer confidence. They're gonna end up like Intel just did. Do things right, be honest about the product advantages, and price accordingly. Otherwise, they are just going to damage all the good progress they made with Zen 1-4.
Dont blame AMD's marketing team, they just do what they must to do. As AMD fanboy in my opinion and also in absolute fact Zen 5 is bad architecture and will become disaster for AMD itself. Blame AMD's enginers!!! How can you bring next generation but with worse performance???!! Is zen 5 real zen or just rebrand zen4 with faster ddr5 support????
So let me get this straight AMD, testing is so complicated that only your specialized testing can get the results that you got, none of the other reviewers testing real world applications can duplicate it. So then, how exactly does that translate to the normal consumer/ gamer EVER seeing any type of improvement or benefit from Zen 5?
Yea im a bit lost. Fine if not big upgrade with zen 5, but AMD surely dont have better ways to test than everyone else. Id like to be behind their test/marketing team then, must be something cool:P
Imagine if AMD was honest. "We didn't build this cpu for gamers. We want big money from servers, here's the scraps. We didn't think it would be this bad whoops, suck it."
I highly doubt that anybody deliberately lied. It is a company run by engineers who think that marketing is all BS, and they think that their products can market themselves, which is actually true to a large degree in this industry, but they also end up making mistakes because of their own bias toward the potential of their own products, and/or because of a lack of appreciation for how to properly manage reviewer and consumer expectations within the DIY and enthusiast segment. Part of the problem is that the marketing isn't well organized or managed by a Marketing/ PR department. A lot of the "marketing" by AMD is done by people who mostly work doing stuff like project management, and who aren't actually marketing specialists. I think it's not so much that they have a bad marketing department, as it is that they think they don't need a dedicated marketing department, and also that they don't want to allow marketing specialists to be more in control of what information is shown to the public. They have had enormous success despite not putting a priority on marketing. Good marketing doesn't need to rely on BS, at least not when you genuinely have good products. They probably need to hire some expensive marketing and PR specialists and give them more power over press releases and presentations. Of course, there does still need to be at least one or two people with strong engineering backgrounds involved closely with the marketing team in order for the marketing team to really work in a way which doesn't rely on BS.
We have to remember that AMD 7900X3D and 7950X3D chip get outpace by the 7800X3D in gaming, without scaling down the number of cores being used. With the problems that Intel has suffered the last few months to year. They probably seen this is the time to put out line of CPU's that kick ass in productivity, with the unexpected slight degrade to gaming. Foolish us thinking it consume less power, and give better gaming performance.
@@syncmonismare you describing their company structure and operations based on facts? AMD has a marketing department. Their ranks have executives. This is information you can look up online. A company that size would fall apart if they were just comprised of engineers. AMD has done a ton of obvious and deliberate marketing campaigns, and these are things executives higher up have to sign off on.
@@EasyMoneySG you are assuming marketing team is using actual real data. I wouldn't think that since apparently they don't even know the concept of percentage.
I replaced my i7 4790k with a Ryzen 7 7800X3D. 😎 Just pick the best price/performance for you, though I'd wait to buy Intel just because the dust is still settling on the oxidation thing.
This was the PERFECT opportunity to capitalize on Intel's terrible recent issues and instead of doing better, they followed the formula of PR disaster. A simple "our bad, we could've than better, and we will make sure to improve performance with updates". That's it.
why would they give a shit about what a few gamers think? those new CPUs are great for small businesses. From a business and marketing standpoint anyone would have done the same: Going where the money is at
Can you guys stop making the marketing department seem like this rogue faction inside the company, that does whatever they want, with no communication to the rest of the company. It sounds like pathetic fanboy cope at this point.
The concept of doing reviews becomes flawed if a reviewer is expected to match the vendor's results. You have to take into account different software and games tested, different way of testing games, game settings, different windows configuration, different drivers, different bios version, different bios settings, impact of storage used, the list goes on. If different reviewers get different results, thats fine, its a review, its not a validation process. The best thing AMD can do at this point is accept "all" of the results as valid, and work on the process of getting that update rolled out.
"The concept of doing reviews becomes flawed if a reviewer is expected to match the vendor's results." depends on what you mean, if both parties pick a broad list of old and new popular games, don't pick hardware or configurations that create a bottleneck then the average improvement of both should be similar. My guess is, games just aren't a very CPU bound workloads these days and thus improvements are going to be limited, as people who checked other types of workloads are getting a nice improvement. Seems to me AMD marketing made claims that even make the AMD technical people cringe. The other option is, the people running the gaming benchmarks at AMD are just not being honest with themselves or to their colleagues. That would be even worse.
This just proves why independent reviewers are so important. I appreciate you guys cutting through the bullshit and gaslighting. AMD ought to be ashamed of themselves. This honestly sucks so much worse because they were given the golden opportunity to give Intel a good whack with the oonga bunga stick given the 13/14th Gen issues they've been trying to bury. Instead, they chose to step on the rake.
AMD's marketing department needs to do a better job of managing expectations. However, it is actually very normal for improvements in computing performance to not be incremental and consistent over time precisely because of all of the different things which need to come together in order for hardware to be well optimized for, but AMD's performance numbers seem to reflect performance potential rather than what people can reasonably expect shortly after launch. Zen 3 set the bar really high for performance improvements at day one from a new architecture on the same process node and same platform, but we can't always expect to get improvements like that (in such a wide variety of different applications) on the same (or similar) process node as the previous generation from day one. Zen 5 has more significant changes to the architecture vs. the previous two generations since Zen 1, and some of those changes are not things which a lot of software can easily take full advantage of, at least not without some significant changes. It's hard to say how much this will improve performance in various applications over time, or how long it will take for various applications to take advantage of them, but some applications already see significant improvements in performance, even in windows, with even some games performing 18% faster, so clearly there is real potential for significant performance improvements in a wider range of applications. As great as it is for a company to be able to get big performance gains at day one, that's not always possible, and they do also need to invest in the future by implementing new architectural features which will require more labour intensive software optimizations which will allow for better performance in the long run. Zen 5 really doesn't seem that bad considering that it already performs significantly better in some applications, and also considering that it at least seems possible that there is still a lot of additional performance potential to be unlocked in a wide range of applications with better optimized software in the future.
@syncmonism I get what you're saying, but attempting to sidestep the real world performance by consistently contradicting themselves, cherry picking data points, and testing in a non-retail environment isn't a good look. Ultimately it has nothing to do with expectations vs. reality. It's reality vs. wishful thinking on AMD's part.
Typical AMD, just like they did with Radeon 7000 series GPUS, NVidia had just announced the super overpriced 4080, AMD just had to price the 7900XTX an XT normally, but no, they had to copy NVidias pricing strategy, because how dare NVidia have ALL the negative attention of the consumers, AMD had to step in and get some hate as well...
@@syncmonism Yeah the problem is they have a very reasonable improvement and that they said it'd be a world shaking improvement instead. If it's supposed to be better that's good and all, but if they lie about how much better it is and double and triple down it almost doesn't matter that the product is actually good. They're lucky that the other option is Intel.
@@syncmonism Yes, but the issue which brings problem for AMD are not low performance increase, we can live with that. Considering AI additions to architecture we probably will get efficiency improvements next gen, for this one engineering were busy with other things. Issue is lying and misleading consumers and trying to shift the blame and gaslight reviewers. Considering, what happens with last two lineups of Intel, just releasing a working CPU without trying to lie is an easy win. People were calling bullshit marketing months before CPU release (when they compared top-range CPUs using mid-range GPU), but they doubled down and now managed to turn mundane update into a significant reputation damage. AMD didn't botch new CPUs, AMD botched public relations and they should not be given any slack with that. Cooking numbers a little to get better picture, unfortunately, expected, lying directly - is not. I still likely to update to 9800X3D, but with how it's going, might decide to wait until 10800X3D.
Really? I believe AMD's engineers only succeeded in milking Jim Keller's design and TSMC's node improvements. Now ZEN architecture is done and engineers need to design a new architecture and they fail miserably. So, AMD's engineers are incompetent in my eyes. Also AMD's engineers for several years failed to compete against nvidia and now they can't even compete in the high end, only in middle range. I don't see any success story about AMD's engineers. ZEN 5 is AMD's engineers failure with added marketing lies. Who is responsible for this clusterfuck? Lisa Su. She needs to be replaced.
All AMD had to do was to say "we worked on efficiency for this gen, but if you choose for more performance instead switch PBO to enabled in BIOS. It may be that we are able to make our chips even faster, but we can't promise that - stay tuned"
When Intel faltered, all AMD had to do is have a clean launch for Zen 5, show modest gains, and keep the prices low to put Intel away forever. Instead, they got greedy, lazy, and complacent. They FK'd up their own launch, and now builders trust them far less as well. Bravo!
AMD's marketing department needs to do a better job of managing expectations. However, you're overreacting and blowing this out of proportion. It is actually very normal for improvements in computing performance to not be incremental and consistent over time precisely because of all of the different things which need to come together in order for hardware to be well optimized for, but AMD's performance numbers seem to reflect performance potential rather than what people can reasonably expect shortly after launch. Zen 3 set the bar really high for performance improvements at day one from a new architecture on the same process node and same platform, but we can't always expect to get improvements like that (in such a wide variety of different applications) on the same (or similar) process node as the previous generation from day one. Zen 5 has more significant changes to the architecture vs. the previous two generations since Zen 1, and some of those changes are not things which a lot of software can easily take full advantage of, at least not without some significant changes. It's hard to say how much this will improve performance in various applications over time, or how long it will take for various applications to take advantage of them, but some applications already see significant improvements in performance, even in windows, with even some games performing 18% faster, so clearly there is real potential for significant performance improvements in a wider range of applications. As great as it is for a company to be able to get big performance gains at day one, that's not always possible, and they do also need to invest in the future by implementing new architectural features which will require more labour intensive software optimizations which will allow for better performance in the long run. Zen 5 really doesn't seem that bad considering that it already performs significantly better in some applications, and also considering that it at least seems possible that there is still a lot of additional performance potential to be unlocked in a wide range of applications with better optimized software in the future.
I think Gamers and PC builders will give AMD a pass on this flub. Unless they too have their chips degrading internally like Intel. Besides it kind of reminds me when Intel released the Gen 14 chips. Lot of the early reviews got similar results. The one constant was the 14900, still was could beat the Zen 4 7900X3D and 7950X3D if the system was sent up a certain way for gaming. I myself if I am making gaming computer I will most likely look for the best AMD chip over Intel Chip due for being cheaper, and that most Intel Chips are built more for productivity side than they are for gaming. Both of them there is some special system settings to get the most of gaming on those chips, even above AMD 7900X3D and 7950X3D. The 5 and 7 line of each chip still will allow you do productivity, just not as fast as the 9 line of either chip.
Zen 5 is a dud for gaming. Even without their lying, 2%, or 5%, or even 8% gain gen over gen after 2 years at the same power is complete garbage. Nothing would've saved this launch.
Put Intel away ??? I'm sorry, but You want monopoly on the market, fck up prices and products like zen5 with shit gains every 2 years ? Bravo 😂 Intel is already paying for the massive problems with 13 and 14th gen and every person wishing for them to go bankrupt is clearly not thinking logically
Why does the 9950X need core parking? Why does Zen 5 introduce a *new* core parking nightmare, when we did not have this problem with Zen 4? Why is there a 200 - 250% increase in cross-CCD latency and a severe regression from Zen 4? Can AMD answer any of this? This kind of behavior is what I expect to see from Intel, not from AMD.
On TechTechPotato channel today they discussed some architectural aspects of Zen 5. One of them was increased cross-ccd latency. Their conclusion was that it doesn't really matter. On Level1Techs there is a video that compares Windows vs Linux gaming performance. On Linux the generational improvement in gaming between Zen4 and Zen5 is much highier. Also 9950x does not need any core paring in Linux to provide good results. It all points out to Windows not being ready to support new architecture in a efficient way.
@@Chibicat2024 Can't get around the fact that we have to use trash Windows in 2024, still, because there are still games coming out that only support that rubbish OS.
@@Chibicat2024 that's a poor argument. We wouldn't bring up Linux if it didn't exist. What Linux is telling us is that there is performance to be leveraged. Windows isn't leveraging it.. and we know the W11 scheduler is still broken 2 years in
If it is so complicated for professional reviewers to achieve the results AMD are claiming then what hope does an average gamer have? I think I'll keep my money
Exactly, even if all of these non-sense nitpicking procedures they're pulling out of their ass actually boost the performance, that is still a shit user experience and so it is still a shit product. I'm not paying for a product that's in beta where I have to jump through hoops to get it working properly. This is just as embarrassing as Intel at this point.
This is why I always wait at least a year before committing to new tech. Part of this rush to market is market demand driven. Just like Intel with their current CPU issues. I don't like seeing this sort of issue as a consumer, but I can understand the business side.
I know right? Out of the box, EXPO enabled with a fresh install of Windows and drivers is the most you should expect from any consumer. Using the Administrator account has been a thing since never for the average user and is wild it was even suggested; let alone unintentionally giving a performance boost to three generations of parts. Currently, RX 9000 is the generation to skip.
14:54 under default conditions for the 14900K/13900K/14700K/13700K might be the Extreme Profile. But remember guys, the "Extreme" profile is not even available on the 14600K/13600K, only the "Performance" profile is, and so you guys should test the 14600K/13600K under the Intel Default Settings as well.
Yeah, and clearly Intel Default Settings exist and are not "non-default settings", contrary to what is stated here at 14:43. These are meant to improve the stability of Intel 13th and 14th Gen chips in games, as motherboard vendors were effectively overvolting and overclocking the CPUs to the point of instability.
AMD: "Uh.. Uhm.. Actually you need to use one of these Windows Debloat scripts, and turn off C-States, and delete Windows Defender, turn off Windows Telemetry... There you go! Look, a 15% average improvement. Oh! Overclock your GPU too. See? Ryzen 9000 is awesome. Look at that IPC, damn"
Don't compare the street prices of the 7000 series with the MSRP of the 9000 series, obviously at these prices the 9000 are embarrassing, but I think they will drop soon, the 9900X here, in Europe is already just below MSRP and it came out last week
@@giovannimicalizzi1943 absolutely compare them, the product is not just the hardware, it's the whole package. Using this argument is like asking people why they don't buy the 9700x when they buy the 9600x lol
The simple fact, that Steve can stand in front of AMD and telling them they are wrong and bullshitting their customers, says it all. Corpo rats denie reality. Sad times we are living boyz.
Vote with your wallet. I'm still offended how AMD had the guts to ask ridiculous MSRP for the zen5 CPUs with today's prices of zen4. No coolers included, and comparing for example 105W tdp 7700x to 65W 9700x and claiming big efficiency gains😂😂😂 Did they forget that 7700 is a 65W part? No, they didn't. It's just a bs marketing and trying to sell You shit product with high margins on top of that.
Yeah but hardware unboxed should also change some of their games. Last of us pt 1 was not an important titel. Just look at the Steam charts. Same with other games that are not popular like Starfield. Those games are maybe modern but are not significant for gamers because no one plays them. A game from 2013 , Euro truck sim 2 has more players than Starfield and the last of us pt 1 combined. So why do reviewers even use those lame games? And not other games that are known to suck the CPU dry?
@@Vanadium probably because starfield is from one of the most successful gaming companies to date, and whether anyone likes it or not their game is so unoptimized they can use it to test worst case of every processor. I think it's a perfectly valid game to benchmark, as it really highlights the differences Intel and AMD have in performance
@@ICCUWANSIUT if you want a game that runs hard then you can take Star Citizen. Even in 4k with a 4090 the CPU matters a lot and you even have more dudes that play this 😆. To just take a game because it is from a successful company but that nobody cares about the game is the same as a random other game that nobody cares about. Tell me what is up with the Last of us Pt1? Why was it so important and why is it still relevant? Why not one SIM game other than F1 and even this game is not a full SIM in my book? The composition could definitely be better for the test suite. Many tech tubers that run serious tests but do the same kind of games. 20 games and maybe one SIM. That is kinda lame representation for a genre that is known to be more CPU heavy.
AMD: Our tests show 9% on average compared to last gen HUB: We see only 3% where is the rest? AMD: Our test show in gaming average 5-8% HUB: Ehh what is the actual real number? I predict this - AMD: We have changed our internal testing and now its withing 3-9% Case closed
Something has happened. There was a recall / delay, and now this. BTW I don't think AMD is claiming that the reviewers have got it wrong and they have it right, more that this is why they are seeing different numbers. Having said that, this post seems to be written in haste by someone who doesn't know the engineering and the engineers are just saying "get out of my face I'm trying to figure this all out myself".
@@therealsunnyk Thats a bad excuse. No one said reviewers are wrong its just it doesnt match with AMD internal data. Sometimes its best not to say anything than saying things that makes it ever worse. You actually are correct, something happened at AMD but we have no data about recall it was speculation. All we have is AMD internal testing data that doesnt match with external reviews that all.
AMD's completely cocked up with Zen 5 - the launch, performance and marketing. I'm impressed they're continuing to double down instead of conceding that fact.
It's because just like nvidia, they (the marketing department) don't really care about their standing with gamers anymore. Their job is only to get the stock value as high as possible while they pivot to data center and laptop.
Launch, performance, marketing and *price.* These chips might start selling if they offer them at a similar price point to the previous generation. Sure they might not be significantly faster but if you're looking to buy right now, there isn't a significant reason to prefer the 7000 series over the 9000 series *except* pricing (and maybe the inter-CCD latency for the 9900 and 9950). Of course, the 7800X3D's dominance is a good reason given that there's no 9000 series equivalent yet, but that's already a relatively expensive part so it doesn't matter to everyone.
The baseline profile is part of the Intel Default Settings spec, it's just not the same one as the Intel Baseline Settings that the motherboard makers made up on their own a little while back. But if you look at the image that Intel released for the Intel Default Settings, there are actually 3 profiles in that table: Baseline, Performance, and Extreme. But yeah, using the Baseline profile for testing your competitor when it is not the one that comes on by default (Performance profile is "Default", Extreme profile is "recommended", whatever that means) is just very scummy.
At 13:39 AMD is just using the old name here. In May, the “Intel Baseline Profile” became the “Intel Default Settings”. Clearly, Intel Default Settings are not "non-default settings", contrary to what is stated here at 14:43. These are meant to improve the stability of Intel 13th and 14th Gen chips in games as motherboard vendors were effectively overvolting and overclocking the CPUs to the point of instability.
Steve, built-in benchmarks are not represantative for the game performance,, but they are repeatable and will acurately show the performace difference. Also I have been saying everywhere that intel baseline profile is the normal way to test intel cpus. The other profiles are OC, just like PBO.
Yes these were two weird takes from him. 1. The built-in ('canned') benchmark have clear advantages of repeatability and less randomness compared to free play sessions. 2. At 13:39 AMD is just using the old name here. In May, the “Intel Baseline Profile” became the “Intel Default Settings”. These should be used and are clearly not "non-default", contrary to what is stated here at 14:43. These are meant to improve the stability of Intel 13th and 14th Gen chips in games as motherboard vendors were effectively overvolting and overclocking the CPUs to the point of instability.
I like to imagine him pointing at AMD like Nelson from the Simpsons and doing his, "Ha-ha!" while a bunch of intel cpus are all burnt up and on fire and arcing lightning behind him
I've been doing welfare checks on him (CPUpro) since the Raptor Lake issues came about. This has brought him immense joy. Jufes on the other hand has gone a bit crazy and won't shut up.
I am not a psychologist by profession, but I understand psychology, having taken a number of training courses. Considering that I have been watching almost all HUB videos for over 6 years, I can say that such behavior of HUB = anomaly. This can be explained either by receiving funding, for example, from Intel, or by the desire to create as much noise as possible and gain serious attention to themselves in order to receive additional funding. In the past few years, HUB mostly cried and complained when some company criticized their activities. Now they behave like mentally unstable creatures screaming with rage "Carthage must be destroyed".
@@zorbakaput8537 I don't know what combinations of alcohol and weed you use, but I only drink coffee. Otherwise - start using at least a little logic and common sense = there is a chance that you will turn from a HUB fanboy into an adequate user. Good luck!
THE FLOP IS REAL. And AMD will not get away with it by trying with BS statements. Good work Steve! And thanks for enlightening us all. The truth must always prevail.
The 9000 series sales must suck so AMD is panicking otherwise AMD wouldn’t give a shit about 3% versus 5-8% performance increase. AMD is challenging your results to salvage their narrative therefore their sales of 9000 series parts. Steve keep standing up for your results and kudos for doing so.
Their marketing department is just demonstrating why we're right to trust people like Hardware Unboxed, Gamer's Nexus, Jayz2c and so forth rather than AMD Marketing, Intel Marketing, LTT marketing etc. The first group's paycheque depends on reliably telling us performance of products, the latter's paycheque depends on selling specific products.
@@RN1441 Strike Jayz2cents from that list lmao. He talked about GN Steve being on a "crusade against Intel" for the mere fact of holding Intel accountable. Dude is either a fanboy or a paid shill, probably both.
Guess they shouldn't have hired the marketing peeps from Intel. They are again trying to get away with the same gaslighting shit intel's been known for.
or knowledge of statistics. Given the error bars on HWU and AMD test data, 3-5% average and 5-8% average are statistically the same (as well a practically the same)
@@chemie7037 No it's not. 2% and less is used as Statistically Insignificant margin. Steve's real-test data showed a +3% uplift so there is something there, but it's very low, basically negligible. The expectations AMD was touting are plain wrong, again from a Statistical Analysis point. It is a far cry from +40% (efficiency) to +16% (IPC) to +13% (Gaming). And now they're backtracking to ~10% and upto 9% then to 8% and lastly to a mere 5%. A +5% uplift is much closer to a +3% uplift, than it is to ~10% figures. So again it is just "wrong" and makes me question if anyone has been fired over this blunder, because it has opened up the corporation to legal action by authorities and consumers.
@@ekinteko Where are you getting 2%. That is not a rule of thumb to anything. The standard deviation is used and can vary depending on the testing. Then a t-test to compare
@@chemie7037 It comes from Statistics, notably from a Normal Distribution. Obviously the dataset changes from one thing to another, and that affects the Standard Deviation and p-values. The rule of thumb has been +/- 2.1% to see if it is statistically significant, at least when it comes to the natural sciences.
Have to put my money where my mouth is. You certainly show your hard Press credentials in how you organized this and kept the information flow. Difficult subject with easily convoluted concepts. Full respect and appreciation. Would have instantly doubled the $$ if you would have been able to include some of the other reviewers finds. Jayz' core parking guide as an example and how it relates to your conclusions. That alone shows a serious disconnect between bios/MoBo manufacturers, Windows, and AMD. Not to mention how screwball it is for us users, and for testing in general. Thank You for all the hard work. It is very appropriate. Your class, style, and especially the anger management are top shelf.
Did... AMD just pull a LTT w.r.t. Testing superiority? -Also, what are the test discrepancies when you test with a 7900XTX? Since everyone is testing with 4090, could be a factor...-
AMD will never be a leading figure in CPUs or GPUs because they frankly have no idea what they're doing. Nvidia screwed up with the RTX 4000 series and still AMD managed to mess this up, Intel is literally burning and they screw up again. They have to have a humiliation fetish
Pentium 4 vs Athlon XP and Athlon 64 was probably their biggest chance, but they ultimately threw it all away with Bulldozer. This is reminding me a little of that, though not nearly to the same degree.
@@speedforce8970 The fact is right now AMD is the leading "figure" in CPU. One mistake after 10 years of successful rollouts under Lisa Su is an incredible record. Neither Intel or Nvidia have come close over that time span.
@@almoreno3299 And yet, these incidents still cause enough brand damage that AMD is never at the top. Even now, when Intel is burning, they have more users than AMD does. AMD just simply loves to screw themselves over. Even after a terrible generation from Nvidia, there is not a single AMD gpu in the top 15 according to steam's hardware survey. Not fully accurate but it paints a grim picture for them. AMD needs to get their shit together and truly become "consumer friendly" because they're anything but.
@@speedforce8970 Nvidia didnt screw up, they priced according to their market Radeon must first catch up with performance and features to try to take down Nvidia Intel cpus for 2 generations are killing itself in normal use and this is while AMD has the better platform support and CPUs that are objectively better overall packages
Congratulations AMD, you take the 👑of bad faith for August 2024. Edit : Imagine running a multi billions dollars company and having the nerves of a toddler.
Intel sitting for AT LEAST all this year on data showing their CPUs were rotting themselves away, and then "fixing" it with a voltage limit, and telling users who already have terminally rotted CPUs 'if we reject it just keeping trying to RMA it to us', still wins your crown of bad faith by a factor of eleventy squillion.
@@greebj Please be team PC man, don't be Team Intel Team AMD please. Both of them fked up hard, just Intel in comparison fked up harder. Why choose between 2 bad apple when you can go for something proven to be save like AMD 7000 series or the 0x129 bios update of new Intel(well i still have doubt on this but based on Jayz checking on voltage and performance wise after 0x129 bios update, all seems fine).
No, not really. That wouldn't get anywhere. It is very unlikely that anybody actually thought that it was a good idea to lie about anything, given the market segment that this is relevant to. They were just being incompetent with their PR and properly managing expectations. The numbers were based on best case and cherry picked scenarios, most likely.
Their pre-release slide said "up to" X% improvement -- standard CYA weasel wording. However, they may be more exposed to an investor/FTC action if they weren't equally careful with their language to investors.
They have surely poked the bear now! Implying that first party testing behind closed doors is more accurate to a gamers experience than third-party reviews of actual gameplay…
15:20 but none of Intel's power profiles are intended for use - as per their communications while trying to weasel out of extending warranties for everyone. Why would Intel be framed as a victim of unfairness in this?
He didn't frame Intel as a victim, he's talking about AMD using a profile that a normal user with a K series wouldn't be running, regardless of what Intel say or suggest. Everyone knows Intel marketing and public relations are dog shit too.
Agreed. 13:39 It's actually fair that AMD is testing Intel products at "default settings-baseline power profile" rather than the (fairly random) motherboard vendor power profiles. AMD is just using the old name here. In May, the “Intel Baseline Profile” became the “Intel Default Settings” (so they're not non-default settings contrary to what is stated at 14:43). Both were meant to improve the stability of Intel 13th and 14th Gen chips in games (which were crashing at a noticeable rate at motherboard vendors' settings which were effectively overvolting and overclocking the CPUs).
Zen 5 will probably do fine. This is likely just a bad start. I highly doubt that anybody deliberately lied. It is a company run by engineers who think that marketing is all BS, and they think that their products can market themselves, which is actually true to a large degree in this industry, but they also end up making mistakes because of their own bias toward the potential of their own products, and/or because of a lack of appreciation for how to properly manage reviewer and consumer expectations within the DIY and enthusiast segment. Part of the problem is that the marketing isn't well organized or managed by a Marketing/ PR department. A lot of the "marketing" by AMD is done by people who mostly work doing stuff like project management, and who aren't actually marketing specialists. I think it's not so much that they have a bad marketing department, as it is that they think they don't need a dedicated marketing department, and also that they don't want to allow marketing specialists to be more in control of what information is shown to the public. They have had enormous success despite not putting a priority on marketing. Good marketing doesn't need to rely on BS, at least not when you genuinely have good products. They probably need to hire some expensive marketing and PR specialists and give them more power over press releases and presentations. Of course, there does still need to be at least one or two people with strong engineering backgrounds involved closely with the marketing team in order for the marketing team to really work in a way which doesn't rely on BS.
When a tech company says "in the ballpark" and won't share their own test data, just assume that your results are better than theirs, and whatever they're hiding actually makes them look far worse.
Don’t you know Steve's still standing, Longer than he ever did, Looking like a true reviewer, feeling like a little kid, Steve's still standing after all this time, Picking up the pieces of Zen 5s claims without a rhyme.
My 13 gen is fine. I just think we have an epidemic of people that shouldn't be building computers these days. They should probably go back to consoles if they don't know they need to monitor their system after a new build.
With AMD screwing this launch up so badly, they will be caught off guard with Arrow Lake made on TSMC 3nm very soon. Intel always comes back, and AMD always drops the ball, eventually.
It just seems strange that AMD would drop the ball so much on this so I do wonder what is going on? Maybe linked to the random 2 week launch delay too?
It's a shame that AMD's behavior is the only thing more disappointing than the generational uplift. Never thought I'd see my heroes become the villain.😢
"...my heroes"? 😂 What? Did they personally cure your cancer or something? See, this is why companies think they can get away with pulling s**t like this - because people worship them for the privilege of being able to buy their products... 😂😂😂
That's not a windows issue, they shouldn't allow any game to run in Administrator mode. A very dangerously security risk. Please do not recommend. AMD should tune their CPUs to run in standard user mode
No corporation is your buddy, EVER. They, like any business, specifically exist to make a profit. And the shareholders are there to make sure that happens, even if they have to shat the bed to get there. Just because AMD happen to release a product (every now and then) with great price to performance ratio doesn't make them your buddy.
@@meekmeads Yea their GPU keynote last year seemed to focus on misleading people, which Steve from GN called out after and he seemed genuinely angry with it
Yup, was going to comment on this to. It looks like more to do with AMD learning how to actually gift the best out of their branch prediction. Not the reviewers.
@@DingleBerryschnapps They did it as if it was in their daily routine bro. They used to lie about a TON of their benchmarks. AMD is now doing it cuz they have the upper hand at the moment.
@@DingleBerryschnapps Unbelievable that your comment was the least liked just for asking a question to provide any clarification for a statement out of curiosity. It's extremely revealing though. I guess it's not just the company that tries to cheat people, they taught their fans too. "Get out there to YT and make this Intels fault!" lol
You can tell that Steve is mad because he forgot to do the standard outro :p The point about Ryzen 9000 not selling is interesting though because AMD is still selling CPUs, just not these new ones. It seems like there were plenty of people waiting to see how Ryzen 9000 would turn out, saw the performance and just decided to buy Ryzen 7000. It's not like anyone is buying Intel at the moment.
Because you have low demands. Some people are still satisfied with a 2600K, but who cares. I sure don't care about AM4 anymore, its a dead end platform and no AM4 chips are considered high-end these days.
It's strange that Zen 5's results on Windows and Linux are very different as per Moore's Law is Dead. There are software issues on Windows and this is entirely AMD's fault as they rushed the Zen 5 release.
It's interesting how the reception of the 9000 series has been better with people who use Linux. I feel like Windows in general is kind of iffy in general now of days in regards to support of new hardware.
@@vogonp4287 Windows is trash and has been for many years. But I still can't make the switch to linux when it comes to gaming, because there are still games being released with only Windows support. It's a shame. I use linux for everything else.
@@timgibney5590 I imagine that they are too, but probably a bit differently, or in the same way any CPU architecture is. There are definitely a few specific areas where Zen 5 is held back by Windows though.
It’s good at least to know what the Admin account was doing differently, and that the same branch predict optimisation is coming for non-admin. Wendell’s video is worth a watch too.
Sorry you're not enjoying making those videos, but I'm enjoying watching them. The truth is out there and it's great you're brining it to us. Kudos and many thanks! 👏
Wendell's latest video has a lot of information and testing between different builds of Windows 11, Windows 10 and Linux. The bottom line seems to be that Windows 11 is a real mess at the moment, and there's probably also some things AMD need to fix with a microcode update.
@@CaptainKenway Think so too. It wont change the Numbers from 2% up to 20% but from 3 to 8 or something would be acceptable imo. Still BS Marketing but well... I at least expect 9000 Series to always be better than 7000 and thats not the Case right now which is Wild. Should NEVER be the Case.
@@magikarp2063 If your use case is gaming yes the pricing would make it a silly buy (would be even if the advertised 8-10% was real), if you do a specific workload that benefit from AVX 512 it's a different story. We're in a spot where linux is showing the expected uplifts and Windows...is doing something. There is some weird software (and maybe firmware) interaction going on here too. Things being wonky is always worth investigating, these chips won't be at these prices forever and for all we know other hardware could be impacted as well. Could be a case of an architecture change making what was previously a marginal edge case a big deal (that might get worse going forward).
@@mattsgamingstuff5867 Oh sure, its worth investigating for sure. I just don't think people should be making buying decisions based on this kind of thing. If you use AVX-512 workloads for work that's a different story.
Why can marketing departments never just take the L instead of doubling down when wrong. I doesn't matter what AMD's internal data says, what matters is real world statistics. If there is a discrepancy between those numbers its AMD who need to figure out why and even if everyone else is wrong its still AMD who need to find the cause and correct so people don't use their parts wrongly. I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't give a hoot about what AMD engineers see on their test systems, I only care how things work on my system and AMD need to throw out the idea that they are "right" and we are "wrong" because if that is the case they are still to blame for not making it clear how to do things right.
Even if their wild testing claims were all completely true, they're effectively saying "guys you have to just jump through a bunch of hoops to get our shitty product to perform properly". I wonder if their marketing department realises how awful that makes Zen 5 look. If someone like Steve can't even get it to work as intended, the average teenage gamer building their first system has absolutely zero chance.
Interesting..so this windows bug isn't actually zen5 exclusive but actually a bug that impacts even down to zen3? Will windows 10 still get this update since its EOS date is October 2025? I still really don't wanna switch to windows 11
This shit was supposed to not happen again with a actual engineer as the head of the company... Lisa please, hold your marketing department with a tighter leash and don't hesitate to use the whip when they do not behave properly
Hi Steve! AMD fanboy here. My last four processors were all AMD, and my last 5 graphics cards were, too. I'm a Linux user, excited about the advantage and computational gains exhibited in Phoronix's benchmark suite. I have nothing positive to say about this launch. Remember: Corporations are not your friends! Back to you, Steve. 😅
Not a very respectful thing to say that ALL reviewers are wrong. Some have been doing this work for decades. Dismissing people's years of experience and expertise is not very professional. Makes them instantly look like a fool.
@@mondodimotoriWendell from L1 tech really liked Zen5, but he's focused in the linux and server world, where the new architecture shines much more. Same with Laptop reviewers that are loving Strix Point. But LTT, GN and HUB being desktop gaming focused channels, it's pretty fair to call Zen5 a "flop" until we see lower prices.
Wendel released a video yesterday that adds to the confusion. It looks like a setting in the Bios about Virtualization Security also affects some Games Performance. :)
Amd knows exactly what the performance of zen-5 is. They over promised or mislead take your pick and now they are caught and try to make it go away by throwing more conflicting benchmark numbers. Amd thinks we are stupid.
How are you not sure what baseline power profile means? Intel published a big chart, it has 3 columns: baseline, performance, extreme. They had it up on HotHardware. Obviously AMD is in the wrong for not testing with the correct profile (Performance for i5/i7 K, Extreme for i9-K/KS), but I don't know why you'd say "I don't know they mean by baseline power profile."
