I already gave my opinion in post #16459Is 3600uclk and 2400fclk possible or is the italian guy delusional ?
N3E is not just for server. N3P is the evolution of N3E.N3E is enterprise/server, N3 is efficient junk. N3P is the value play performance/efficiency mainstream 3nm. N3X is for Nvidia, high end performance and increased silicon density.
TSMC dictates the prices not Apple. Anyway, if you believe so show some proof that that Apple is increasing the price of TSMC nodes.Yes because then most "cheap" AMD users wouldn't want the extra cost being passed onto them. And the cost got driven high due to Apple.
At least AMD owes customers an explanation and a side by side comparison of the non certified chips vs. the certified AMD Zen 5 chips they are sending out to testers. We need to see what is going on and why the 1-2 week release delay is happening.
Funny thing i got hands on 5600x on 31th oct 6days before official release. And litteraly noone was interested back then xD I think i only got a mention on VC or WCFKEKSo Italian dude with 9900X runs a few gaming tests with a "questionable" memory setup and thats it? Radio silence since then? At least throw us some more crumbs, bro, even stale ones, lol. People better hope I never manage to snag such an early unit and not be under NDA like him. There would be a lot of pissed off tech news outlets out there...
It's called transparency.. . . Why?
With no official reviews performed with potentially defective units and no retail sales to consumers of potentially defective units, there's very little reason for transparency. AMD has not "wronged" anyone, only delayed a product release a short time. They very well could have delayed it with no statement at all.It's called transparency.
Is AMD paying you for your statement? Or are you an AMD voluntary public service agent here on the forum?With no official reviews performed with potentially defective units and no retail sales to consumers of potentially defective units, there's very little reason for transparency. AMD has not "wronged" anyone, only delayed a product release a short time. They very well could have delayed it with no statement at all.
It's called transparency.
It's common sense logic. Who buys up capacity in bulk, years in advance and who has loads of cash and still makes loads more through their uniquely demented userbase? Out of all of TSMC's customers, that's Apple. They may have done a service to mankind by enabling TSMC to do accelerated R&D for the invention of advanced process technologies because of Apple's needs but they are also the ones who promoted TSMC to becoming a monopoly. Apple is like oxygen. A necessary evil. Too much leads to oxidation and accelerated aging and not enough halts future progress. I love *some* things about them but I hate way more about them than I love about them.TSMC dictates the prices not Apple. Anyway, if you believe so show some proof that that Apple is increasing the price of TSMC nodes.
Fantastic reply. I always like hearing from strange new worlds.Is AMD paying you for your statement? Or are you an AMD voluntary public service agent here on the forum?
Well, this expected if they talk about Epyc : 4nm vs 3 nmIan said that Zen 5c would see a much smaller drop in frequencies compared to what Z4c had relative to the classic cores.
Interesting.
I don't really believe AMD. This sounds too suspicious, TBH.AMD said they discovered an issue (in testing), it's been resolved, and good product will be delivered with a very small delay. As long as the released products are good, there will be nothing to add to the story.
I don't really believe AMD. This sounds too suspicious, TBH.
AMD said there was issues and he doesn't believe AMD so obviously theres no issues and the delay is because AMD felt like it.Ok. . .
What do you think is the issue then?
Maybe they really are waiting for the 14900K fix so they truly can obliterate them in launch benchmarks.AMD said there was issues and he doesn't believe AMD so obviously theres no issues and the delay is because AMD felt like it.
There probably IS an issue but not the one that AMD is telling us.AMD said there was issues and he doesn't believe AMD so obviously theres no issues and the delay is because AMD felt like it.
YES.Maybe they really are waiting for the 14900K fix so they truly can obliterate them in launch benchmarks.
Ian said that Zen 5c would see a much smaller drop in frequencies compared to what Z4c had relative to the classic cores.
Interesting.
No. AMD said this during the post-tech-day briefing in the context of Strix Point's N4P Zen 5 cores and N4P Zen 5c core sizes, the latter being just 25% smaller than the former. (Whereas the difference was 35% between Phoenix 2's Zen 4 and Zen 4c cores.) These lowered space savings are because AMD had to work within stricter constraints WRT Voltages and clocks in order to make the compact cores work as a support to the classic cores the way as AMD wanted them.Well, this expected if they talk about Epyc : 4nm vs 3 nm
Okay... AMD are lying publicly when they say that they had a QA issue with the first batch. From this follows that they are either going on lying publicly by saying that they are recalling the first batch from their channel partners, or it follows that they are happy to sink the cost of the product recall just for the nicer comparison in reviews.BINGO!
Now that's a logically possible motive behind AMD's decision.
Nah. If that is the case they wouldn't have to reexamine the entire current inventory.YES.
BINGO!
Now that's a logically possible motive behind AMD's decision. The greater the average performance percentage difference, the better Zen 5 looks to the public!
AMD should've just said so.
"We regret to inform you that we don't feel this is the right time to publish Zen 5 benchmarks. We will wait for our dear competitor to get their act together before we thoroughly embarrass them".
OK, you are telling me that they will get the CPUs back, every single one of them, run them through their QA test gauntlet and get them back on shelves ON August 8th for the single CCD CPUs????Nah. If that is the case they wouldn't have to reexamine the entire current inventory.