• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d say it’s actually a better market signal rather than indications of huge problems. “See, our competitiors send out defective products; we are holding back to make sure ours ship correctly.”

      That’s exactly what enterprise/datacenter customers want to hear: a dedication to stability.

        • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Any large scale manufacturer like AMD knows about what % of defective returns they get. They’re using the heat on Intel to help make their numbers look better.

          • lemmeout@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Actually, I think it’s not about defect numbers. This is about delaying until Intel releases the microcode update. They want to be compared after the (potentially) performance tanking update from Intel. Which is hilarious because Intel gave a date after AMD’s initial launch date.

            I think it’s also fair as a lot of reviewers aren’t going to bother retesting after Intel releases updates and comparing with AMD after the 9000 series hype has died down, if they had just recently did so for the AMD launch.

            • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              … You just contradicted yourself there with the timeline/dates lol.
              Wait for intel patch, but release date of cpus is before the expected release date of the microcode patch.

              • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                You’ve misunderstood. The original release date was set, then Intel announced the microcode update, which was after the original release date, then AMD announced that they’d be delaying the release date, and that new release date is after the microcode update.

                • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Ah, you meant original release date of the amd cpus.
                  Ye, makes sense.
                  I personally think they wanted to verify to have no issues in their cpu’s because intel is kinda euh… In a very bad state atm haha. You dont want to be part of that right now xD

  • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Makes sense for two reasons: They show everyone that they don’t push faulty hardware, unlike intel and they also delay the launch until after intel push their microcode update to ‘fix’ their high-end models, which will reduce performance. Ryzen 9000 will look even better in day one performance comparisons.

    • hohoho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve been following the Intel story closely. Watched the Gamers Nexus vids. Did I miss it or has it been reported that microcode updates will definitely degrade performance?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yup, the “fix” seems to be to limit boost to 5.3GHz or so, and there may be other mitigations as well. If it has anything to do with branch prediction or other eager optimizations, we could see further degradations like with the fixes for Spectre and other attacks.