AMD's Ryzen CPU's (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris GPU's

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Rage Set, Dec 14, 2016.

  1. Support.2@XOTIC PC

    Support.2@XOTIC PC Company Representative

    Reputations:
    477
    Messages:
    3,117
    Likes Received:
    3,468
    Trophy Points:
    331

    I suspect these models are selling on different types of consumer expectation about what they're getting. Cost to performance is not necessarily everyone's top (or even close to top) priority. If something seems to have a price that doesn't match its value to you, you are likely not the intended buyer.
     
    hmscott and ajc9988 like this.
  2. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,143
    Messages:
    4,693
    Likes Received:
    6,554
    Trophy Points:
    581
    But, as is found in other segments, sometimes the lower cost product is actually better. I've bought plenty of overpriced POSes in my life. But, contra, I've also purchased cheap POS products when I should have just got the better one. It is an example of buyer beware. Not everything with a premium price is worth the ask, nor of the quality claimed. And there are times when the cheap will screw you worse than you think. Unfortunately, advertising only further obscures this, as does biased reviews. This is why we rely, often, on people we trust and know that have used it more than on what we see.
     
    hmscott and Deks like this.
  3. Support.2@XOTIC PC

    Support.2@XOTIC PC Company Representative

    Reputations:
    477
    Messages:
    3,117
    Likes Received:
    3,468
    Trophy Points:
    331
    Certainly, and I'm not discounting this effect at all. It was mostly to point out that the performance may not always be related to the price because of differing priority.
     
    hmscott and ajc9988 like this.
  4. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,432
    Messages:
    11,933
    Likes Received:
    1,963
    Trophy Points:
    631
    You must be joking, right?

    See:
    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=981&cmp[]=1011&cmp[]=3042


    See:
    http://techreport.com/review/32743/amd-ryzen-7-2700u-and-ryzen-5-2500u-apus-revealed/3


    First off; I don't know any P9650 cpu's... Second, the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U is roughly on par with the current i5-825u0 and/or i7-8550u (see second link above).

    With over 4x the performance (multicore) than the Core 2 Duo you were rocking an eternity ago and over 84% better single core / responsiveness too - by your thinking we should be paying more than the $800 asking price today. This is ignoring the huge reduction in TDP for todays platforms and the fact that $$$'s of 2008 are worth much more than $$$'s of 2017.

    This is how things go; inflation ensures things seem (on the surface) to get more expensive. Even when they're not.

    Yeah; I'm ignoring the gpu - because. As long as I can see the output on a screen; a dgpu, dGPU, DGPU or igpu is all equivalent to me (put the weighting you want on this component - but I'm sure today's offerings will blow away the 9600m GT in all things that matter for a mobile user).

    The other thing to consider is that circa 2008 the economy and the industry was at a different place than they are today. The deals they were able to offer or were 'forced' to offer is much different than what they need to do today to survive.

    That is one reason that your GL702ZC seems like such a good buy vs. this one to you. But that is not a valid comparison for many reasons... the biggest one being the poor and abysmal performance on battery and battery life - not to mention the noise of the system too.

    That $805 system today that you're whining about with over 5x the RAM, 4x the CPU and (for $130 extra...) based on an SSD - even if the capacity is smaller (upgrade as you need...) - is so far past the 2008 Acer you hold in such high regard that it may as well be from a different planet.

    And we can get it today for (much) less than a grand.

    So, tell me; who are you trying to fool? :)

    Manufacturers aren't getting away with anything that consumers don't let them do in the first place. Just because something is offered, it should not be obtained.

    For the under a grand, fb/light gaming/sb's latte drinking crowd? This has success written all over it.

    In any event; the past or present deals (i.e. sunk costs) you may have got has nothing to do with what you will be offered in the future (this future).

    That is controlled by the market and hinted at by MSRP's.

    I have no doubt that we will see this product again at the $600 range or lower soon enough - and at that point the comparison to 2008 tech or will be even sillier.

    Don't dismiss the low end offerings because your requirements/tastes have gone upscale.



    Take all the above (inflation, TVM and performance/battery life improvements) and come try to tell us how anything we can configure today isn't worth the cost.

    You don't need to: there isn't anything you can present that would convince me or anyone of that point of view. The world keeps moving on.

    The litmus test for the above statements is the fact that manufacturers are offering orders of magnitude improvements vs. decade old tech, overall. If they weren't? We'd all still be rocking core 2 duo's while Intel, AMD, NVidia, etc. would be 1/10th the size they are now (in $M/earned and employees, etc...).

    I agree with you that some of it is artificial inflation.

    My comeback; never buy anything at full price (MSRP). Which goes back to buying the best (highest performing) platform I can whenever I'm in a position to buy. Which allows me to wait for the best opportunity to get the 'next' latest tech at the best price at any given future time when I'm ready to buy once more.

    The label 'low end' vs. 'mid range' doesn't matter anyway. That is just a constantly moving target - not only for the O/S, programs and games - but for the individual person's needs too.

    Don't get so hung up on the absolute price. Look at what is actually offered in exchange. And I don't mean just compared to random past products. Nah...

    What you always compare to is what are you able to do with your current system vs. what the new platform will actually allow you to do (better).

    If you're already above the Ryzen 5 2500u - look elsewhere. If the R5u allows you to go above your current reach; whether it is a good deal depends on how much actual 'better' is offered vs. what you can afford to buy otherwise. If you're able to spend $130 more for an SSD (as an example) then the 'performance'/snappiness gained is worth it.

    The cheapest (absolute $$) is not always the cheapest in the long term. Time is $$$$ (TVM) and (and but!) it is the one thing we can't earn - no matter how much we'd like to.

    While we all would love to see these as $500 or lower offerings we can pick up at the local convenience store checkout line, the reality is much more complex than that.

    Shareholders, staff and suppliers all need to be paid their fair or unfair share.

    I wouldn't want it any other way.

    Why? Because today isn't the day that will mark the last computer I'll buy. We all need them there, innovating and improving, for the time when a new system is needed once more.

    Take care. :vbthumbsup:

     
    Papusan likes this.
  5. Deks

    Deks Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    983
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    1,233
    Trophy Points:
    231
    My point was that a mid-range laptop with an MXM dGPU in 2008 could be found for £600-£800
    Today, OEM's are asking of consumers to pay the same for an ENTRY level system performance which is not even mid-range caliber and doesn't even have a dGPU - I don't care how much more powerful the new system is in relation to the old one.
    What's next?
    In another 10 years, instead of seeing excessively low cost of new technologies (as it actually should be today), we will see entry level systems being charged TWICE the price tag?
    With mid-range quadrupling in price?

    That defies even vaunted 'capitalist thinking' - but at the rate things are going, it seems to be where things are going in USA... and people actually think this is acceptable in a day and age of ever rising living expenses, stagnating wages, job losses due to massive automation, etc.?

    I'm hardly discrediting this APU's capabilities... it's really powerful, but from a performance point of view it still falls into the category of 'entry level' and my point was that the price being asked for an APU system like this (regardless of its features) is beyond RIDICULOUS in 2017.

    The economy changed, yes, but it doesn't benefit the consumer at all.
     
    hmscott likes this.
  6. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,432
    Messages:
    11,933
    Likes Received:
    1,963
    Trophy Points:
    631
    You may not care about the performance difference - others do.

    You are also ignoring other, just as important, factors too:

    Here's a simple example for you to understand:
    See:
    http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=GBP&to=USD&amount=1&year=2008

    See:
    http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=GBP&to=USD&amount=1&year=2017

    See how the exchange rate is different back then? You paid a whopping amount of equivalent USD$$ for your decade old system vs. the $600 USD going price of the system today.

    2008 midrange vs. 2017 low end doesn't matter either. Not when the so called low end is 4x and 5x more computing power today...

    You can try to dismiss these important factors as much as you want - the world will move on without you.

    For everyone else; today is always the best day to buy tech - if you need it now.

    The prices are more than reasonable and if your budget allows you to spend more - do so! That is what I always will recommend.

    O/S's, programs and games in 2008 don't compare to the same in 2017. This is a different world - a moving target. This is why yesteryear's 'midrange' can't compare to today's 'entry level'. The target is fluid and the definitions are ever changing.

    You are fixating on a single aspect ($) when that is and has never been a measure of something's worthiness.

    In another 10 years, we will still be paying the same ~$1K for a decent system - except it will come with an order or two of more compute capabilities than anything we can dream up now.

    And if that future system is entry level vs. what can be bought at the high end is irrelevant - it will still be worth whatever consumers at that time are paying for it for all the reasons indicated in my posts here.

    If you're just slamming the fact that this is an SoC/APU... you're still wrong.

    The form isn't the important part - otherwise we'd all have apartment complexes to house our house sized computers with 1MHz speeds - what is important is the compute power and features each new advancement brings us.

    To state "...the price being asked for an APU system like this (regardless of its features) is beyond RIDICULOUS in 2017." and believe it shows not how greedy OEM's are.

    Rather, it shows how much you still have to learn with this aspect of computing and life in general.

    So please, stop going on about midrange 2008 and entry level 2017.

    The details and nuances here matter. A lot.

    And nobody has been given any guarantees that any change in the economy will benefit consumers. Nobody.


     
  7. James D

    James D Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,264
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Trophy Points:
    231
    6, bro. If I'd have to put my money, I would say those will be 6 cores CCXs. Why? Because mainstream 6 Cores CPU would need one, albeit good, chip. Bad chips will go for R5 and R3.

    Hmmm, 64 doesn't divide on 6... perhaps I would loose my money. :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017
    Papusan and hmscott like this.
  8. jaug1337

    jaug1337 de_dust2

    Reputations:
    2,075
    Messages:
    4,812
    Likes Received:
    924
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Ryzen 1700 in a laptop.

     
    hmscott likes this.
  9. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,556
    Messages:
    15,947
    Likes Received:
    19,619
    Trophy Points:
    931
    That's awesome, the Ryzen 7 in the Asus GL702ZC even beat the 8700k / 7700k destops in multi-core :)
    GL702ZC Cinebench R15 score 1412 multi 148 single.jpg
    With the RX580 it's gaming GPU scores are passable, but the real benefit of this laptop is the 8c/16t Ryzen 1700 CPU in a laptop :)
    Firestrike GL702ZC 1700 580 plus temps.jpg
    Asus ROG GL702ZC gaming fps.jpg
     
  10. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,556
    Messages:
    15,947
    Likes Received:
    19,619
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Ryzen Mobile’s Features You Don't Know About
    Published on Nov 15, 2017
    Ryzen Mobile has features you probably don't know about. Stay tuned...
     
Loading...

Share This Page