Netduma R2 router review
TerraMaster F5-422 NAS Review
Radeon RX 6600 (Sapphire Pulse) review
Radeon RX 6600 (Gigabyte Eagle 8G) review
PowerColor Radeon RX 6900 XT Red Devil review
Corsair Sabre RGB Pro Wireless mouse review
Far Cry 6: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Colorful GeForce RTX 3060 Bilibili 12G review
ACER Predator GM7000 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD review
be quiet! Shadow Rock SLIM 2 review
AMD Ryzen Gets Delidded - And It Is a Tricky Thing to Do
We mentioned in our reviews that you should not delid AMD Ryzen processors for the sheer fact that even the heatspreader has sensors and that it is soldered. Next to that AMD did the cooling part rather well so the benefits of a lower temperatures versus the risk of bricking that processor might not be worth it.
Well, that thesis has been confirmed, pro-overclocker der8auer took a Ryzen 7 1700 (well actually multiple of them) and delidded Ryzen 7 to see what was hiding behind the Integrated Heatspreader (IHS). It took der8auer multiple attemempts to get a succesful delidded processor. To be more precise, it actually it took him three processors hence we can already conclude that the process is very risky.
In the end he succeeded though, in the photos below (clock thumbnails) you can see a Ryzen 7 1700 CPU delidded. You will notice a solder layer that ties directly to the IHS. Looking att he processor you can see multiple capacitors, all nicely covered by some sort of silicone protective layer, so AMD certainly went all the way here.
So what weas the end-reult delidding and cooling ? Well, der8auer shows it in a video, but the he achieved a drop of 2 degrees C lower on overall temperatures with a cooler sitting directly on top of the processor die. In short, and what we have been saying. Please do not delid the processor guys, chances are high you'll damage it and the temperature drop certainly doiesn't justify you bricking the processor or loosing warranty.
Microsoft Windows Bug Is Holding Back AMD Ryzen - 03/10/2017 09:44 AM
We've been adressing the topic widely in our reviews, it makes little sense for Ryzen processors that are that powerful to not perform as well in games in CPU bound situations. Microsoft now sends wo...
Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor - 03/06/2017 09:34 AM
In this review we take a look at a new Ryzen series processor from AMD. We peek at the Ryzen 7 1800X, a 499 USD processor that has eight cores and 16 threads (SMT). The 8-core processor will be tested...
Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X processor - 03/03/2017 02:44 PM
We tested the Flagship processor, now we review the Ryzen 7 1700X Processor that is a 100 bucks cheaper. The 8-core processor will be tested on an X370 motherboard. Read the review here....
Corsair is Ready for AMD Ryzen - 02/28/2017 09:35 PM
Corsair today announced its extensive compatibility for the groundbreaking new range of AMD Ryzen processors and the AM4 platform. With a completely new CPU architecture, chipset and CPU socket, AM...
AMD Ryzen Unboxing video - A peek at the Ryzen 7 1800X Reviewer Kit from AMD - 02/27/2017 06:19 PM
While videos and unboxing videos really aren't our thing (hey geeky looking Dutch guy with bad English accent) some of you have requested an unvoxing video of the AMD Ryzen press kit. We're allowed ...
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6150
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6150
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5404877 Posted on: 03/10/2017 04:44 PM
I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?
Maybe a combination of both.
No, it's really just Intel being overpriced and nothing else. When you consider their net income lately seems to average around $11 billion per year, clearly, they price things much higher than they need to.
Also consider this: GPUs tend to have more transistors and more FLOPs than the average CPU and are soldered to a daughterboard along with RAM, and they still end up being cheaper than what Intel offers.
You can also take a look at the Arduino Gallileo, which costs more than the average ARM-based development board while being less than half as powerful.
I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?
Maybe a combination of both.
No, it's really just Intel being overpriced and nothing else. When you consider their net income lately seems to average around $11 billion per year, clearly, they price things much higher than they need to.
Also consider this: GPUs tend to have more transistors and more FLOPs than the average CPU and are soldered to a daughterboard along with RAM, and they still end up being cheaper than what Intel offers.
You can also take a look at the Arduino Gallileo, which costs more than the average ARM-based development board while being less than half as powerful.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13527
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13527
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5404885 Posted on: 03/10/2017 05:00 PM
No, it's really just Intel being overpriced and nothing else. When you consider their net income lately seems to average around $11 billion per year, clearly, they price things much higher than they need to.
Also consider this: GPUs tend to have more transistors and more FLOPs than the average CPU and are soldered to a daughterboard along with RAM, and they still end up being cheaper than what Intel offers.
You can also take a look at the Arduino Gallileo, which costs more than the average ARM-based development board while being less than half as powerful.
The R&D budget for a CPU is like 10x the cost of a GPU because the entire layout is done by hand where as a GPU is almost entirely synthesized.
Does Intel charge a premium on it's 4+ core designs? Yeah - but the market was clearly willing to pay for it and for the vast majority of people, Intel's mainstream with significantly cheaper parts are more than enough.
I don't see the issue with them charging a premium but I am glad that AMD is competing to a degree where that premium is being effected.
No, it's really just Intel being overpriced and nothing else. When you consider their net income lately seems to average around $11 billion per year, clearly, they price things much higher than they need to.
Also consider this: GPUs tend to have more transistors and more FLOPs than the average CPU and are soldered to a daughterboard along with RAM, and they still end up being cheaper than what Intel offers.
You can also take a look at the Arduino Gallileo, which costs more than the average ARM-based development board while being less than half as powerful.
The R&D budget for a CPU is like 10x the cost of a GPU because the entire layout is done by hand where as a GPU is almost entirely synthesized.
Does Intel charge a premium on it's 4+ core designs? Yeah - but the market was clearly willing to pay for it and for the vast majority of people, Intel's mainstream with significantly cheaper parts are more than enough.
I don't see the issue with them charging a premium but I am glad that AMD is competing to a degree where that premium is being effected.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5404892 Posted on: 03/10/2017 05:10 PM
Then what is?
I certainly can't see the results of Intel's R&D... So little has changed for so many generations now. They even got stuck at 14nm.
Besides, Intel makes that 10 billion a year profit after expenses, including that R&D, have been deducted already.
I agree that Intel has a high profit, but that's not a proper way to do a comparison and prove it.
Then what is?
The R&D budget for a CPU is like 10x the cost of a GPU because the entire layout is done by hand where as a GPU is almost entirely synthesized.
I certainly can't see the results of Intel's R&D... So little has changed for so many generations now. They even got stuck at 14nm.
Besides, Intel makes that 10 billion a year profit after expenses, including that R&D, have been deducted already.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7889
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7889
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5404898 Posted on: 03/10/2017 05:17 PM
The R&D budget for a CPU is like 10x the cost of a GPU because the entire layout is done by hand where as a GPU is almost entirely synthesized.
Does Intel charge a premium on it's 4+ core designs? Yeah - but the market was clearly willing to pay for it and for the vast majority of people, Intel's mainstream with significantly cheaper parts are more than enough.
I don't see the issue with them charging a premium but I am glad that AMD is competing to a degree where that premium is being effected.
Don't confuse extortion due to monopoly, with a healthy market. The market is not willing to pay it, there is just no other choice. A lot of people confuse that and it's quite basic economics. The CPU market is completely distorted and is not functioning properly.
The R&D budget for a CPU is like 10x the cost of a GPU because the entire layout is done by hand where as a GPU is almost entirely synthesized.
Does Intel charge a premium on it's 4+ core designs? Yeah - but the market was clearly willing to pay for it and for the vast majority of people, Intel's mainstream with significantly cheaper parts are more than enough.
I don't see the issue with them charging a premium but I am glad that AMD is competing to a degree where that premium is being effected.
Don't confuse extortion due to monopoly, with a healthy market. The market is not willing to pay it, there is just no other choice. A lot of people confuse that and it's quite basic economics. The CPU market is completely distorted and is not functioning properly.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 2017-03-10
or is Intel really that overpriced?
Because no competition....(until now)