AMD CPU sales skyrocket with Ryzen 5000 launch, leaving Intel in the dust | Hacker News Reader

AMD CPU sales skyrocket with Ryzen 5000 launch, leaving Intel in the dust

techradar.com

207 pointseddieoz235 comments

What sales, they hardly had any stock available. I've been trying since the release to get my hands on a Ryzen 5900x and they're sold out everywhere. I'm trying to get on a waiting list for it now, fingers crossed that they can deliver before the new year.

The article states as much. Most of the sales aren't from 4th gen ryzen, though the 5600x has had a fair amount of sales.

I got a 5800X this week from my local MicroCenter to build a new system for Flight Simulator (they are sold out 5800X and 5900X or and 5000 series at all currently). Getting a new video card is also a problem.

Yeah this has been a huge problem for me too. I'm about to just go Intel instead. I hope they ramp up production and don't miss out because I think a strong AMD would be a good thing. I can't wait forever to build my new rig though and I've been using Intel for decades so I have confidence in it. Excited to go AMD but I am building a new rig for a reason (my old one is in its death throes and I use this thing all day almost every day for work).

My old desktop is still a beast with a 10 core Xeon and 128GB of ram. I'm investing in a new rig to speed up my rust compiles. The current machine is 4 years old now, so I can afford to wait a few months for a build that will last me that long.

Do you actually get real RoI on that thing? Must have cost magnitudes more than normal desktop hardware. Or is this where you just accept that it's worth it purely for tingling the geek inside you?

A faster compiling machine is the difference between sustaining a state of flow critical to developer productivity, or not. Paying even $5000 for a desktop that yields probably a 2x improvement in productivity for someone paid at least $10K a month is a total no-brainer.

I think 2x improvement in productivity is a pretty optimistic number unless you don't write much code and mostly just compile it. In heavier workloads there certainly can be decent ROI though.

Compile time impact is a very non-linear thing. There's a narrow band that could be called the distraction threshold. An investment in faster hardware will give very small returns if you are already below that range and only moderate returns when so far above that the investments only gets you a little closer. But when the speedup crosses that narrow band or at least significant parts of it, it's a night and day difference.

Is there an average number for the distraction threshold or is each person pretty different?

Once it goes over about twenty seconds for me, I'm switching tasks or checking my email (or worse, HN.)

Keeping that compile time down is critical to being productive.

And the 24 Core 128G RAM machines are how we get bloated software...

(not blaming anyone in particular)

My dad got me a really good deal ($600!) on the RAM on ebay, otherwise I think 64gb would have been plenty. The nice thing about it is the Linux buffer cache keeps everything in memory, the SSD is just for durability.

Over 4 years of heavy software development I think the system has paid for itself in time saved.

I built a TR 3960X (24 core) 32GB of RAM workstation for $3000, including a 700 dll graphics card (2080 Super). Realistically a 100 dollar graphics card would've sufficed for my usage (development). So it could've been built for $2400.

Depending on the context such a machine could be very cheap or very expensive, but even here in Mexico that's about one month of an engineer's salary, which I don't find too outrageous for a primary tool which lasts for years.

Depending on your workload, the performance improvements could be very noticeable (running multiple VMs, compiling, and unit testing at the same time). It does open up faster workflows if you adjust to the new speed.

Old server hardware can be very cheap, although it's not necessarily the best value. Typically it only makes sense if 1) you need a lot of memory, 2) you don't mind a slightly higher power bill and 3) you don't care about single core performance.

I've used a 12-core Haswell Xeon as a desktop for about five years (got it used for around $500, plus $200 for a brand new LGA 2011 v3 motherboard). At the time it was twice as fast as a high-end desktop 4-core CPU. It's still reasonably competitive on multithreaded workloads versus a recent 6 core desktop CPU, but fares poorly on single-threaded tasks. DDR4 was a bit expensive back then, but quad channel memory helps in that you can buy lower density DIMMs. Today, even DDR4 ECC RDIMM server pulls are dirt cheap. I picked up 4x16GB DDR4-2400 RDIMMs for just $90 last year.

I'll probably replace it with a 5900X soon, but it's served well over the past five years. Certainly much better than a i7-4770K box from the same time.

>I hope they ramp up production

Every high-performance CPU released lately uses TSMC for manufacturing, which can't keep up with demand.

See Playstation 5/Xbox shortages, Ryzen and Radeon shortages. I think only Apple was able to secure enough manufacturing.

Would Nvidia's shortages also fall in this bucket?

Nvidia used samsung. Rumor has it that their shortage is because they sold their cards directly to cryptominers.

I believe this was debunked. The sales to cryptominers only represents a few percents of the total.

That is stuff angry gamer kids make up to find a reason to be mad. The reality is that manufacturing is generally slowed due to covid, and demand is generally high due to covid, and nobody can keep up.

Is mining on GPUs still something people do? Or can be done anywhere near profitable? I got the impression with ASICs that game was up.

It's for ASIC resistant currencies I believe

Nvidia's RTX 3000 line is manufactured by Samsung, not TSMC.

We know more about Nvidia shortage on 3000 series: Samsung wafer, substrates and components (maybe the GDDR6X memory chip which only Micron can make).

[1] https://www.techpowerup.com/275530/nvidia-rtx-30-series-shor...

All rumors about low supply 3000 series are debunked by looking at their quarterly revenue results and the Steam ranking that was released yesterday. (See my other reply.)

If you can hang on for a couple more weeks. Supply side is supposed to get a lot better on the AMD cpus by the last two weeks of december.

If you don't need the best single core performance, the cheaper Ryzen 3000 chips are still available.

And unlike intel they've been using the same sockets for the last 3 generations, so upgrading the CPU in future is actually a reasonable idea.

I assume Intel’s prioritizing their high-volume customers over retail channels.

What’s this have to do with intel?

Because Intel doesn’t have competitive fab/products Intel customers are buying up AMD products (at consumer level).

Ok, I misread the parent comment.

I gave up getting a 5900x and went with a 5800x because I was tired waiting for it.

actually in germany you can't get your hands on ANY 5000X series chips. there is basically zero stock.

It's quite frustrating that this is becoming the norm, whether it be the 3XXX Nvidia cards, Playstation 5s, Ryzen CPUs, why is it that no hardware company can keep up with demand these days?

They're all bottle-necked by availability at TSMC.

What's bottlenecking TSMC? The availability of more ASML equipment? The production of silicon? Literal floor space in the foundries? The ability to get stuff in or out of Taiwan?

Probably limited capacity of state-of-the-art foundries.

Scalpers aren't helping. I'd be super curious how many they've gotten vs normal customers.

Scalpers don't keep them. They redistribute them to normal customers.

...at elevated prices. "How much blood did the leech suck?" is a valid question. Dollars would be better units than number of video cards, but the number of video cards passing through the leeches correlates and is still meaningful.

...at elevated prices ...that the buyers were willing to pay.

All non-zero prices are elevated compared to zero. All parties are consenting here.

Same with the Series X, I want one of the boy for Xmas, co-worker of my missus managed to get 5 of them, he wanted 650 for a console he paid 450 for.

I told her to tell him where to shove it.

It's not that I can't afford it, it's that scalpers can go fuck themselves, the boy will be more than happy with Quest 2 and my current gaming PC in the new year when I can build another.

And whoever ends up with the one you didn't buy will be happy too. I see this as a win/win/win.

So remember the pandemic

COVID means spiked demand (people are bored) while reducing the supply cap (lockdown, broadened sick leaves, etc). Combine that with the separate spike caused by a solid HW generation all-around and the result shouldn't be too surprising.

What ever happened to the laws of supply and demand? If the demand is high, and the supply is limited, they should be raising their prices. Stockx says an xbox series X is worth $750, a PS5 is worth $950, and a Ryzen 5900X worth $800. Why can't vendors just raise their prices, so I can buy from a retail outlet I trust, rather than a scalper.

honestly I wonder the same thing, but I think the average consumer views this as something like "first-party scalping". large price movements (in either direction) immediately after release make people dislike the brand.

still doesn't make sense to me. these are computer parts, not insulin; set the price as high as is necessary to keep units in stock.

I know some of them worry about angering customers by "price gouging", but customers get mad when they can't get the product too. Might as well make money on the anger.

In a way people are getting gouged regardless by competing for a limited quanto. Whoever gets lucky and gets their hands on a unit can just go and upsell it at a higher price

By not increasing their prices AMD is letting the after market have that surplus. Sure they don't need to get their hands dirty (and risk negative PR), but also it means they can't ship as many units or profit as much as they could have.

A lot of it is because eventually production will catch up, and in the meantime companies want to catch consumer attention with the actual intended retail price while still big in the news rather than scaring them away with a higher launch price and then dropping it later and risk not catching the attention of uninvested customers.

There is also some marketing value in having a product sell out quickly.

I was in front of a 3060 ti, I could afford it but it was frigging $730 CAD and there is no way I am forking that amount of money to play video games.

For limited launches doing blind auctions would be really cool. You wouldn't have web pages melting down and requiring people to hammer f5, because you could run the auction for long enough that everyone can get their bid in. And at least theoretically scalpers should have much harder time making profit in a well-organized auction. And nobody can accuse vendor of price gouging in an auction because the price would be so purely market-driven.

This happened with the Nvidia 2xxx cards too.

I think it's less that they can't keep up with demand, and more that they're "launching" earlier in the production process.

In the past they would have just launched later.

It's also a marketing ploy. It sounds much, much better when all you keep hearing is "out of stock", "sold out". It creates "fear of missing out" (FOMO). You know, like in real life when you see a long queue in front of a shop.

But then by the time they are in stock a successor is already around the corner.

For starters all the Xbox, PS5, Ryzen and RX chips come from the exact same production line. And the Samsung N8 yield doesn't seem to be anything special regarding Nvidia. Add that repeated waves of Covid lock-downs have made demand explode and that we're in the busiest period of the year anyway...

Exactly. Intel is hardly being left "in the dust."

In the enthusiast segment where people build their own machines, perhaps. AMD is yet to get traction in the mass volume corporate desktop/laptop markets, although they have also taken significant market share in the lucrative server market.

Corporate desktop market is interested in exclusively cpu with integrated videos, cheap motherboards and low idle consumption. AMD fails in at least two of these points.

I've noticed HP has been offering laptops now with AMD processors instead of Intel.

Yeah was going to buy a 5900X and an NVidia 3070. Can't get either so spent the cash I had lying around on an M1 Mac Mini to play with.

Edit: I’m still going to buy the first two items at some point. But not yet.

Same deal with new GPU's from AMD and nVidia.

Yes, it's really nice that there's more mipmaps than ever before, but that doesn't do me much good if I can't actually buy your thing.

The fact that these products are out of stock everywhere implies more sales than if they were sitting on shelves.

Or low supply. The RTX 3080 is impossible to find, but not because they have high sales. They just haven't made very many of them.

But it does have high sales. It was hyped to the moon.

Hype != sales. And I'd be interested to see what sales numbers you're referring to. Every single source I can find says retailers are receiving very low supply, and obviously selling out of that very low supply. But selling out of low supply does not equate to high sales numbers.

But if you have a source that says otherwise I would love to see it.

P.S. I'm sure it would have great sales numbers if they could make enough of them. I'm not suggesting the demand isn't there.

Check out the November Steam results.

The RTX 3080 is already at 0.23%. After just 1 month.

If you don’t think that’s impressive, compare it against some AMD GPUs like the 5700 or the 5600 XT, which has the same share.

There’s a reason Nvidia’s quarterly gaming results where a blowout.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

One of the several Danish retailers publishes their waiting list data: https://www.proshop.dk/RTX-30series-overview which are impressive -- just that one retailer received 3500 cards, 4300 clients have bought and not received them and they have ordered 24000 cards into their shop for future sales. And out of the 24,000 ordered, they only have confirmation for 860.

This is large retailer, but once of a dozen in Denmark.

Not saying that's not impressive, but you had me thinking for a second that Nvidia was already going past AMD's previous top end card. But that's actually the 5700XT, which is 4.5x as popular as the RX5700 non-XT. The RX5700 is not as widely available in the first place if my understanding is correct.

But yeah Nvidia in general has got the market for gamers pretty much cornered. People will go for Nvidia all the time if the price is the same ballpark. But it still has ways to go before it comes even close to its predecessors in the RTX 2080 and the RTX 2080 Super, both of which are about as popular as the RX5700XT.

Don’t you find it mind blowing that after such a short time on the market, it already has 1/5th of the share of a 5700 XT?

Of course it won’t come close yet to the 2000 series. But what it shows without a doubt is that there was plenty of supply and that gamers bought it.

There is no reason to think at this time that supply was lower than any other launch before it.

But demand was way higher.

It's a bit higher than I was expecting for sure, but I'm not exactly mind blown by it. AMD is famously unable to sell their high end cards to the Steam audience (at least in recent years) so the ability for a new and hyped Nvidia card to sell well in a month's time (especially these months' time), is very much not surprising.

The only surprise for me here is that the stock of Geforce cards they got out is slightly higher than complainers on internet forums makes it seem. If they truly already had enough stock to cover 1/5th the demand of the RTX 2080 then their stock situation is not great but not all that bad (these numbers are not that, but an indication).

> What sales, they hardly had any stock available.

Some people gave the same reaction when there were no EPYC processors available when they were first announced.

Then we've learned that almost all of the production has ended in Google's, Dropbox's and other big tech's data centers. :)

This is "no one drives in New York, there's too much traffic" levels of logic.

Not really. There is an infinite available of cars that may be driven into NY. There is only a finite number of CPUs available. I have money and want a CPU but cannot get one. I doubt there is anyone in NY who cannot find a car for sale.

Luckily there are a bunch of other CPUs for sale too.

The counterpart in this analogy is not the cars themselves, but the capacity of the streets to hold the cars.

I just checked a couple boutique builders and they’ve all got 5000 series Ryzens in stock.

Then please share them. The small shops in Canada are reserving these chips for system builds, not as separate items. All the online options are only taking orders for future stock. If I want one of these before february I've been told to order from the US, with the associated costs/risks.

https://www.nowinstock.net/ca/computers/processors/amd/full_...

To be fair the traffic is jammed. The traffic surge happened a while back. I guess these are "presales". Our economy is getting jitted, wonder how that will end up working.

More like a soft launch from AMD. They launched with a very limited amount of stock available.

> What sales, they hardly had any stock available.

Out of curiosity, are you trying to buy a chip, or a system?

If the latter, is it possible that it's a problem with PC makers not assembling enough AMD systems, rather than AMD not making enough chips?

I'm asking because for a long time Intel would have deals where they'd give PC manufacturers a hefty discount if AMD were less than 10% of their sales; such that the only way for AMD to make it worthwhile for HP / Dell / whoever to make more than 10% AMD systems would be to pay them to put their chips in machines (negative costs). They were taken to court over it and punished, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing it again.

Particularly as apparently they're still saying what they did wasn't wrong in the first place:

https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-is-still-fighting-a-10-year-ol...

EDIT: What's with the downvotes? Intel did a pretty despicable thing to AMD; it's documented in a court case. And they're still fighting to say that what they did was fine. I think people deserve to know about that kind of behavior, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if it's still going on.

Not the person you replied to but: I’ve been trying to get the same one. No chance. Luckily the shop I ordered from has a queue system so I don’t have to hunt. Just today I got an email that their supplier is delayed the next shipment and they have no idea when anything is going to arrive

It's the chip in this case.

Intel did a pretty dirty thing there, how they haven't been slapped down for abusing a monopoly is beyond me. Do antitrust laws have any teeth in the US anymore?

Nope. At some point geopolitics came into the picture and the US decided it was going to protect its own bigcorps at any cost. The hidden threat was (and is) that China would never do such a thing as punish its own big corporations for anticompetitive, unethical and illegal practices.

> What sales, they hardly had any stock available.

No one goes to Disney World anymore; its too crowded. And, no one buys AMD CPUs anymore, they're always sold out!

It's a supply side phenomenon, not demand side. AMD launched the 5900 with very little stock. To be fair the sales the article is discussing are most of the other product lines, and they mention the issue.

Right now there is nothing available CPU or GPU wise.

Where are you signing up? Micro Center won't do stock alerts or waiting lists.

There are still no XPS level laptops available with Ryzen CPUs, which makes me so sad. I'd like to upgrade my work machine but I'd prefer not to buy Intel at this time.

Unfortunately, even if there was, they wouldn't have Thunderbolt so it would limit the external display options. Hopefully when USB4 starts rolling out it'll be a different story.

What's the benefit of Thunderbolt displays? I think it's far more common to just do DisplayPort on USB-C alternate mode, or for slightly more specialized screens, the USB-C ones with power delivery. Thunderbolt screens are really unusual in my experience.

It's an understandable restriction if you already bought a Thunderbolt screen and need a new computer that's compatible with it, but requiring Thunderbolt case I might get a screen that needs it later is very far down my priority list of computer features.

I have a dock with two 4k 60hz DisplayPort monitors that runs off TB3. Afaik that's not possible over USB.

TB3's display output is just displayport. Identical to displayport over USB-C.

You're only giving up the data part of TB3.

TB3 is 40Gbps, USB-C 3.2 10Gbps. 4K@60Hz is possible over USB-C but 4K@120+Hz only with TB3 AFAIK (or dedicated DP cable of course).

The 40Gbps is for the data connection of TB3. The display part of TB3 is independent and is just DisplayPort. Both TB3 and USB-C alt-mode can do DisplayPort 1.4, assuming both sides support it of course. TB3 only actually requires DisplayPort 1.2.

There's actually no difference here whatsoever on the display-only side of things.

(side note, USB 3.2 achieves up to 20Gb/s, not 10Gb/s, and TB3 is also realistically only 20Gb/s as well unless you're sticking to the super short 0.5m cables)

Right, I was thinking of USB 3.1 Gen 2 which is 10Gpbs. Hooray for these naming schemes.

But good to know about the display connection being the same. I was under the assumption that the increased data rate of TB3 could be used for DisplayPort connection too.

USB-C 3.2 comes in 5Gbps, 10Gbs and 20Gbs variants, called Gen 1, Gen 2, and Gen 2x2 respectively

If you just want the displays, you can get that over vanilla USB-C:

https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1220-126-usb-c-triple-4k-dis...

If you want displays and all your other dock stuff combined under a single cable, that's where you're better off with Thunderbolt, yes. The USB-C docks can do some of this (I think with DisplayLink) but not quite as well.

A Thunderbolt dock doesn't limit your display choices like the comment I replied to was talking about though, you'd just use any normal DisplayPort screen. Worst case without it you're plugging in separate display cables in addition to a non-video USB hub.

This is not necessarily true. Apple sells their non Intel macs with Thunderbolt and there are some ryzen motherboards with thunderbolt support [1]. That being said, Thunderbolt is a lot less common on AMD boards probably because it is a lot more expensive then it would be on an Intel board. And Laptops so far have always received the budget treatment for ryzen chips (want a better screen? intel only, etc).

So I think lack of thunderbolt comes down to manufacturers not wanting to pay as much for their AMD R&D and keep costs down with simple, budget motherboards.

Or, if you needed Thunderbolt 3, you could just wait until USB 4 is commonplace, which is basically Thunderbolt 3 + some more.

[1]: https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X570%20Phantom%20Gaming-ITXTB3... (there are more, and even ATX boards, first one I could find).

There is nothing stopping manufactures from including Thunderbolt.

Well, nothing besides a bunch of R&D since AMD doesn't provide any reference design with Thunderbolt.

I've replaced my aging and failing 2013 XPS with a Ryzen 5 IdeaPad S540, cheap and slightly bigger but has a second internal M.2 slot, SD card slot, RAM upgraded to 32GB, and full size HDMI and USB A connectors for less than 900€. I'm happy with the upgrade, even if this machine won't last as long as the XPS (though its full metal case is sturdy enough).

>Ryzen 5 IdeaPad S540

Too bad that, like most Ryzen laptops, it only has a HDMI 1.4 port just like every Lidl/Aldi discount bin laptop from 2012, so you can't get 60Hz at 4K on your external monitor, which is laughable for a device that costs almost a thousand bucks. HDMI 2.0 devices have been on the market since like 2016 already.

I don't know why all OEMs gimp the Ryzen variants like this. It's either they have slower USB/HDMI, or worse screens, or outdated wireless or less RAM/storage than the Intel version of the same device.

One theory I heard, is Intel requires OEMs to sell a certain percentage of their chips on premium machines if they want to stay on their nice partners list and get their chips at good prices, so OEMs, in order to stay in Intel's good graces, just gimp the Ryzen ones to force your hand to buy Intel if you want no compromises, other than an outdated CPU.

My aging laptop is in dire need of replacement and I would also want to replace it with a Ryzen one but the very few ones that have no major compromises have been sold out for months and show no signs of being restocked(in the EU at least) whereas Intel's outdated 9th and 10th gen based laptops are in stock everywhere but I wouldn't touch tose with a 10ft(3,048m) pole.

> so you can't get 60Hz at 4K on your external monitor

Maybe my eyes just aren't that good, but I really can't see why I would need 4k over standard HD, which gives me plenty of screen real estate and a perfectly fine picture.

4K is 4x the pixels of standard HD. You can fit 4 HD windows next to each other. That's a huge difference! Any work with spreadsheets or multiple window code comparison benefits tremendously.

I don't see why your preferences should have an impact on my needs for 4k screens or vice-versa.

Well it really doesn't. I was mainly asking for the conversation of it and to see what people had to say about the matter.

For me, 38" monitor has been a game changer for productivity. That's not quite 4K but very close.

how big is your monitor? to me, 4K is noticeably better than 1440p on a 27" monitor, especially for rendering text. 1440p is certainly acceptable at that size, but my guess is it would look quite bad on anything >30".

I have a 24" monitor. Could be that people just have larger monitors than me.

I always get the impression that people are just coding off their laptops all the time. 4k on a laptop seems like overkill.

1080p is fine for a 24" display imo, though I'd want 1440p for a 25". the current trend in laptop displays is baffling to me too. why anyone would sacrifice hours of battery life to have a 4K panel on something like an xps 13 is beyond me.

I mean, sure, but if you have a 4K display, you want your machine to output 4K at a decent refresh rate.

Many IT companies provide their employees with a two screen setup and more recently with the availability of Ultrawide screens you can replace 2 screens (1920 x 1080) with one ultrawide (3440 x 1440) and the first thing you notice is that HDMI 1.4 can't feed the ultrawide at 60Hz and to make it work you need to make some ugly hacks and downstep the refresh rate to 30Hz even though the monitor supports 75hz native refresh rate.

I think you can hit 50hz not 30 on hdmi 1.4

Maybe your monitor isn't good enough. If you've got a 32" inch monitor, FullHD is pixelated. I've got a 43" monitor, it's 4K and it couldn't work at FullHD resolution.

It's all about text rendering fidelity for me. I can fit a lot more code on my 4k screen.

I noticed that as well. Either the build quality is questionable, some hardware elements, or the screen itself. Somehow it seems like there isn't any real AMD option that a self-respecting dev could buy. By the time AMD laptops catch up, M1 will leave everybody in the dust.

The Huawei Mate 14 2020 AMD is an outstanding machine, with a 3:2 display that has the same vertical space as a 16" 16:9, and a 4800H, and a solid all-metal chassis (only 16GB RAM, though). It's available in the UK, unfortunately with their god-awful UK QWERTY layout.

The big problem is 4800H availability. I gave up waiting for the Tuxedo Pulse 14 with it, and got a M1 Macbook Air instead.

>god-awful UK QWERTY layout

Mate, zou havenät seen the German lazout.

The UK keyboard sits in the uncanny valley where it superficially looks like US-ANSI, then you realize the tilde (essential character for a UNIX-er) has been replaced by the negation sign ¬ (who even uses that?) and the @ and # signs relegated to Outer Mongolia.

Lenovo has several AMD options in the Thinkpad lineup. Personally I'm eyeing an T14 but am really putting it off as I'm hoping System76 actually gets their in-house designed laptops available as I'd like to see those before pulling the trigger on yet another Lenovo.

Screen quality on these is pretty bad

I can't find it listed on the website, but does it really not have a USB-C/Thunderbolt port? My XPS connects out to a dock via USB-C that then goes to two displays, one on HDMI and the other on displayport. I assumed this kind of setup was fairly standard, but that's awful if Intel is using their muscle to prevent it on non-Intel HW.

I'm writing this from a Ryzen-powered Thinkpad connected to a 4K display via USB-C. That Ideapad doesn't seem to support USB-C video output, so the probable reason is market segmentation. They probably want to make the people who want external displays buy a Thinkpad or a Legion.

I think that has usb 3.2 gen 1 so only 5Gbs, but that can still support 4k @ 60hz with the right usb hub, maybe via displaylink compression

Unfortunately the USB-C is only USB 3.2, not Thunderbolt capable. It's not a thinkpad, it's sold as a "gaming laptop" that's why it's cheaper.

Thunderbolt isn't available on AMD laptops. You do get USB-C 3.1 Gen 2 (10Gbps) which is enough for 4K 60Hz, but I can't say about two high-res monitors.

"AMD is for budget devices"... Sadly, that's what marketing says. I don't understand how these people have a job at big companies, or anywhere really lol

XMG (Clevo/Schenker/Sager/Eurocom/etc) has the best Ryzen laptop I've seen yet, although I don't really like their quality: https://www.xmg.gg/en/xmg-apex-15

Yes I've looked at these ones first, but they were more expensive and I went the safe and cheap route with Lenovo.

> One theory I heard is Intel requires them to sell a certain number of their chips on premium machines if they want to stay on their nice partners list and get their chips at good prices so they just gimp the Ryzen ones to force your hand to buy Intel if you want no other compromises other than an outdated CPU.

I wouldn't put this past intel, but I doubt it's even necessary.

most people that buy laptops don't know that amd is currently beating intel on price/performance in the high-end parts. to most people that have even heard of amd, it's the "budget" cpu brand.

looking at typical home user desktop/laptop configurations, it's obvious that they aren't even trying to choose optimal sets of parts for the price with most of their skus. they just slap together whatever sounds good to the median consumer.

> One theory I heard is Intel requires them to sell a certain number of their chips on premium machines if they want to stay on their nice partners list

I think this has happened in the past already (https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5803442/intel-nearly-1-an...).

If they're really doing it again... good luck.

Some of that bad rep is earned. My ex-wife got a Lenovo with a cheap amd a few years ago and it was the worst buy of her life.

I have no much use for a 4K display, I don't own any (I'm both myopic and old anyway). in fact for me the worst point is that it could have a 1920x1200 panel, but carries a FHD one instead, with a large useless black band below, too bad.

If you have bad eyesight, you actually want a high DPI display. You crank up the scaling to 200% and have images that are the same size but much sharper.

how does the battery fare ?

Supposedly 8 hours running Windows but removing Windows was my first action; about 5 hours under Linux (running Pop_OS 20.10 with 5.8 kernel). Everything works great under Linux but the driverless fingerprint reader. Also you need to install manually a dkms for the Wifi, but everything's fine and fast afterwards (actually reaching 600 Mbps with Wifi).

Am I the only one who still prefers doing dev work on a desktop?

I'm on a laptop right now because of WFH, but even with a full "desktop" setup (dock, 2 external monitors, external keyboard/mouse, etc), it's not as pleasant as using a desktop. Crappy graphics, a low power CPU (and only 2 cores), not as much drive space, etc. Even if I get the highest spec laptop available, for the same money a desktop will blow it out of the water.

Maybe if you're traveling a LOT it'd make sense but I have to imagine for the vast majority of people, they're in one spot most of the time. That could be a desk in an office or a fixed spot somewhere at home.

I have a desktop at work and use the laptop for working from home or elsewhere. Though my new laptop (4 cores, 8 threads, 32 GB of RAM, Vega graphics) is markedly faster than my desktop now :)

Thinkpad T14s is available with Ryzen 7 PRO 4750U, and while they don't have exactly same form factor, I personally would rate T14s higher.

Lenovo is selling several of the new T series Thinkpads with Ryzen chips. IHMO something like the T14s is pretty comparable to an XPS, but I don't know what your evaluation criteria are, and I have a personal preference for Thinkpads, so I'm biased.

The T14s is great, but just needs a 16:10 screen. The new X1 Nano has that and is my ideal form factor, but it’s still Intel only.

The lenovo x13, which comes in intel or amd variants, is closer to the XPS13. I have the prior generation x395 running pop_os and it's fantastic.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm looking at those, but it looks like they have 8 gigs of soldered RAM. I'd like my next laptop to be a bit more futureproof than that, especially with all the electron apps popping everywhere. My current laptop is 7 years old with 8 gigs of RAM, and sometimes it has to swap and starts choking up, when I try to open too many things at once.

You can upgrade it to 32gb, but it's soldered and non-upgradable unlike the regular T14.

Thanks for the hint. I will take a look about it.

I just got my T14s that I customized with 32GB, Ryzen 4750u (8c/16t), and the 400nit display (sadly lost the display lottery, but I didn't notice until I checked the part#). However, it took 60+ days to ship as I ordered it Sep 1st. I suppose the shortage of the Ryzen chips mean long delays for Lenovo laptops which are customized as opposed to the preconfigured variants. All of the preconfigured ones had the 250nit screen and 8-16GB however.

I just received my similarly spec'd T14s AMD yesterday. I opted for the low power, high NIT screen as well. How do you check if you got a good screen?

I first checked which panels were the good ones here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-s-Panel-Lottery-continu..., which indicates Innolux is the panel to get. Then I went to https://support.lenovo.com/ie/en/partslookup and punched in my serial number, located near the bar code on the bottom of the laptop. From the "Parts" tab select the "Commodity Type" as "LCD PANELS" and you should see something like "FRUofAUO14.0FHDIPSAG" indicating I get the "AUO" manufactured LCD panel. If you are particular about getting the Innolux, you can use the substitutes button to figure out the lenovo replacement part number for the desired LCD Panel. For the Innolux on the T14s, it could be ordered here: https://lenovo.encompass.com/item/12401836/Lenovo/01YN156/, but it seems to be currently out of stock.

Thanks for the links. Looks like I also got the AUO display (FRUofAUO14.0FHDIPSAG).

Edit: looks like you can get the Innolux on eBay for around $100 (shipped direct from China). Might have to consider that.

Yes. I have the X13 which is quite similar to the T14s (just smaller) with the same processor/ram and I'm quite happy. Best keyboard I've had on a laptop. Does suspend to ram/suspend to disk/hibernate work you for you though? Using Manjaro on 5.9 kernel and X, and most things work out of the box well enough for my purposes except for suspend/hibernate and I can't find any info online for how to fix it completely.

Added "idle=nomwait amd_iommu=off resume=<swap UUID>" kernel params and this seems to sometimes work but usually not...

And what is your battery life? I get ~5 hrs (up to 6.5hrs with most processes disabled except firefox), with around 6-8 watts discharge rate (using powertop --auto-tune).

Typical trials and tribulations of new hardware with linux. I was thinking of trying out Fedora/Ubuntu/Pop_OS to see how they are.

Totally agree about the keyboard and processor/ram. Originally thought about getting the X13, but I recall the screens options weren't that good, and I prefer the larger size and bigger battery anyways.

As for Linux, I fully intended to dual boot Arch and Windows. Due to circumstance, I am stuck with a tiny 128GB NVMe and so I am using the default Windows for now. I've been watching this playlist of a user installing Arch on their T14s to help prep me on some of the quirks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFPynCqfzc&list=PLiKgVPlhUN.... I hope that helps answer some of your questions.

Yeah, for what it's worth--I also am dual booting Windows (solely for games, wine isn't worth the trouble) and I've had absolutely no problems with it. In fact, it's buttery smooth with every game I've tried it on (CK3, Noita, Synthetik, Kenshi, Factorio, etc.).

Indeed, same with Precision laptops. I unfortunately had time limits and had to bite the bullet with Intel. Gutted.

Have you considered an Asus Zephyrus G14? It comes with a Ryzen 9 4900HS and Linus (Tech Tips) seemed very impressed with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYqG31V4qtA

No Home/End keys and no webcam. Otherwise I would've been recommending that in this reply from one.

Omg that keyboard, what are they doing :(

I was very tempted to get the new XPS 13 but the Intel CPU + the reported QA issues made me reconsider.

The problem is yes, there's no AMD equivalent it seems. Maybe T14s but it's not available in my country right now.

As far as manufacturing capacity goes, AMD's GPU and CPU manufacturing is incredibly constrained due to the sheer volume of console SoCs they have to pump out. I believe 80% of their N7 wafer capacity at TSMC is currently dedicated to console SoCs, the remaining 20% being dedicated to CPU and GPU dies.

Good problem to have from the perspective of AMD shareholders.

Well...maybe. I'm sure they are leaving some revenue on the table short term here. I'm sure they make more $$ per unit on their Retail CPU's and GPU's.

There was a video the other day from Gamers Nexus[0] that explained that in the pecking order, the DIY builder/enthusiast community is down at the bottom of the list when it comes to orders... Microsoft and Sony are at the top, followed by the OEMs, then the builders. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiZHYCN-vw4&t=1562s

Both Sony and Microsoft were on a PowerPC base for the PS3/Xbox360 generation. Sony was on a MIPS before that. While there's definitely value in knowing you basically own the console market for the next few years, consoles have a much easier time jumping ship on architectures than PCs do, so having such a large portion of your revenue tied to two customers, both of whom are capable of jumping ship quite easily on the 4-5 year timeframe is maybe not great from a strategic point of view.

I think that's a bit LESS likely now that gamers are "demanding" backwards compatibility. While not entirely unfeasible, it's a lot more feasible to simply stick with what they have been using to make that process easier.

So my opinion, as a gamer and not much else, is simply that it feels like it's easier to stick with x86 at this point.

You're saying AMD "only" won the "short-term" console market for 2013-2027 (so far) but instead they should... what? Focus on a 20-30 year time horizon? There's no such thing in the chip industry.

Yeah, whatever. The future of consoles is not really relevant right now.

The past generation of consoles, the PS4 and Xbox something, is what gave AMD the cashflow to create their current Ryzen and Navi technologies.

The current generation of consoles is the same. AMD has guaranteed earnings that can be invested in new R&D.

Will the consoles in five years use something different? It really doesn't matter. Cashflow is cashflow.

What matters is the impressive advancement that Apple has with their M1 ARM processor. This is current technology, being sold right now.

Not necessarily. These deals were probably negotiated two plus years ago and are probably much much lower margin than their current CPU and GPUs. AMD needed console deals in order to fund some of their R&D but they are unlikely to make a ton of profit from them.

I'm pretty sure they'll get pretty good rates at TSMC for booking that much capacity, which means higher margins on their own products.

This is as clickbait as it gets.

AMD is doing extremely well, but you need more data than sales from one random retailer, to claim they’re leaving intel in the dust.

If this article is to be believed, AMD is outselling Intel by five to one (84% of sales vs 16%). Somehow I think this would be bigger news than one person's post on Reddit (which is the "source" techradar cites as the basis for this entire article)

that may be true on retail CPU channels, but the vast majority of intel sales are to OEMs

On Amazon Newegg etc 4 out 5 top selling processors were Amd for the last 6-8 months even before Ryzen 5000 series so in retail Amd 5-1 against intel is not a shock. Even for Oem's a year ago you could barely see an Amd build now days at least half or more are Amd. But the biggest indicator for me that Intel has started hurting is what Intel is saying to the press. If intel sales were not hurting they would not need to do some of the shit they are saying to the press.

As of today there is literally no reason to get an Intel CPU from a performance or price perspective for both single core or multi core use cases. So the only sales Intel would get would be from brand recognition.

If they can really crack the PC laptop market, Intel is really in trouble. They lost phones, are losing Mac, are slowly losing cloud/data center/HPC, and if they lose PC that's about it.

Especially given that TSMC seems on a good track to go to 3nm nodes. Which supposedly will have something like 2.5x the transistor density then Intels current production mechanism.

Even without much other improvements from AMD this can hurt quite a bit.

The only think currently beneficial for Intel is that they don't relay on TSMC and in turn are not affected by shortages of nearly everyone else competing for TSMC production capacities. Also they will be less affected if the situation between China and Taiwan escalates.

(Through I would argue they didn't lost phones, as they never had any relevant footing in the phone marked at all.)

Intel had a footing in the very early phone market via StrongARM but they sold that off for some bizarre reason. They also got a little bit of a footing with Atom in the Android market, which is why Android/x86 was a thing, but they didn't seem to take that seriously either.

Thanks, I didn't know.

I always thought Android/x86 exists for "special purpose" reasons, including to make it easy to prototype Java Android Apps and similar. (I mean for pure Java Android Apps the difference in code you write between x86 and ARM Android should be very very small. Through it doesn't work out that well once JNI is involved, I guess)

AMD and ARM are both eating Intel's lunch lately

It's a bit of nit-picking but I would say AMD and Apple.

The M1 is a Apple chip not and ARM chip. Sure it uses ARM IPs including the ARM instruction set. But it doesn't really use the ARM provided IP-cores as far as I know. So the M1 is ARM in the sense that AMD chips are x86 ;=)

This seems to be a pointless differentiation but the M1 chips are inherently different from other ARM ISA using chips using ARM IP-cores. Probably the main difference is that they have special hardware support for x86 emulation allowing fast x86 emulation on a ARM ISA CPU which is normally not possible otherwise.

I believe they still license the ARM designs and just make changes on top of them. The GPUs are also very much PowerVR-based, even though they aren’t branded that way any more.

The special hardware for emulation was also mostly debunked. Turns out it’s just a really optimized software emulation layer.

> I believe they still license the ARM designs and just make changes on top of them.

Nope. They only license the ISA (Apple has an ARM ISA perpetual license). Apple hasn't used ARM designs since the A6 back in 2012.

> But it doesn't really use the ARM provided IP-cores as far as I know.

You are correct. Apple has made fully custom chips since 2012. However the graphics still seems to be PowerVR based (ergo the complaints by Imagination Technologies about IP infringement)

Yeah, I've been trying to buy components for a build for the past two weeks.

No 5600x (or even 3600). No nvidia cards at decent prices.

I'm guessing the etherium 2 launch just drained the whole supply chain.

Eth2 is a Proof-of-Stake system and doesn't rely on the computationally heavy Proof-of-Work, so it's unlikely that Eth2 is a major contributor to a lack of supply.

I’ve managed to get my hands on a 5800x but I think it’s simply because it’s by far the worst value proposition in the new lineup and demand is probably not as high.

Ah no computer sales were already at black friday/holiday season levels for the last 4-5 months. Chip supply already couldn't meet the demand and then you got some big generational advances in gpus Amd/nvidia and cpus Amd add new generation consoles so the demand went through the roof. The annual production capacity is for 1000 but the demand now 1500-2000 so the shortages are here to stay for at least another 6 months to a year.

What is better? Ryzen 5000 or Core i7-10700K?

The Ryzen 5900x bests the 10900K on price, power usage, single-threaded performance and multi-threaded performance.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-5900x-vs-i...

My biggest gripe with amd is that I need to think about gfx card when buying one. I’d love to have a simple vega 8 in all of their cpus.

I have a hard time believing that most purchasers of high-end consumer CPUs wouldn't use a discrete GPU. What's the use-case you're envisioning where an integrated GPU is a good use of die space?

It's mostly that there isn't a cheap discrete GPU worth buying. So if you're doing a software development rig, where yes those 12 or 16 cores will be put to good use, you're stuck with spending $100+ on a new GPU that'll spend its entire life idling or scrounging the used markets. The low-end discretes are crap rebranded from 5+ years ago. Which means outdated display connections and bad hardware video decoders.

Nobody cares. That's really it. There is too few people that would want it, therefore its fiscally irresponsible to offer it.

Is $100 really that much? Get a second hand gpu from 5 years ago for less. Those don't have issue with video though you might have to look for right connectors.

If you want to get into corporate market, no company would spend extra $100 on GPU if you can have it integrated. I'd say vast majority of consumers really do not want separate GPU. I personally am very happy with Intel HDs on all my computers.

I think we underestimate (or, overestimate) low end GPUs.

a geforce 1030 will be adequately taxed on desktop loads: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gt-1030.c2954

Can get them for 40eur, they barely do 1080p.

You can't connect 2+ 4k/60fps monitors to it, which is the only thing I expect from non-gaming GPU, besides being silent.

Dual 4k/60fps is still very niche at this point. Last I checked the cheapest option is to just get 2 x 15$ graphics cards. The next low end graphics card refresh is expected in Q1 which should solve this for you.

How about just dual any monitors? The GT 1030 only has a single HDMI 2.0B port and DVI which I haven't seen on a recent monitor in a while now. So 1 monitor connection from the last 10 years. And no display port connections, which is just wtf.

Even cheap 4K monitors like Samsung UR55 (260$) can handle DVI.

You can go DVI to HDMI with either a 5$ adapter or a single DVI to HDMI cable. Only real difference is DVI doesn’t carry sound, but as long as one monitor has sound that’s irrelevant.

No it doesn't:

"Number of DVI inputs 0" ( https://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-ur55-series-28-ips-4k-u... )

And the GT 1030 is only single-link DVI, not dual-link, so you can't even drive 2560x1600 with it.

So it tops out at 2x 1080p monitors (or 1 high-res + 1 1080p secondary, whatever). Literally worse than GPUs from 10 years ago. Which since all I want a GT 1030 for is to drive monitors makes no sense at all.

I meant it was backwards compatible with the protocol not that it had the physical connector on it. Even dual link DVI is rather bandwidth limited when you’re talking 4K resolution so having the physical port would be largely pointless.

But, again the cheapest dual 4K/60fps video card costs more than buying 2 of the cheapest HDMI 2.0+ cards. Which is why graph is card companies don’t really cater to that market. Unless your case and motherboard only has slots for a single card it’s effectively a non issue.

Ok. But there are two things that you want to be true then “onboard graphics are a requirement” and “it needs to do dual screens at 4k60”

I still don’t hear an argument here for having it all in one package. There are APUs in the Ryzen series, they perform worse, but everything is a trade off, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

You can get new and adequate GPUs for less than 100eur which will do what you want and “won’t sit idle” because they’re taxed. This GPU would struggle with even 1 screen. I think you underestimate the load a desktop has on a GPU, 2D rendering isn’t “free” and can take a lot of CPU die space and add to the heat/power delivery issues of a modern cpu.

> There are APUs in the Ryzen series, they perform worse, but everything is a trade off, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

From what I've seen, the APUs perform pretty similar to the CPUs they're derived from. The thing is the APUs are the last thing AMD releases, and the model numbers are confusing, and Zen2 APUs aren't widely available. Zen+ quad core isn't very exciting anymore, but it's the APU you can buy at retail in the US.

I doubt anyone wants to make a sub-$100 GPU a la GTX 1650 when the demand is sky high for the chips... And what's wrong with buying a used card?

90% of low tech corporate business users with bloated spreadsheets and resource hogging antivirus. Anyone doing virtualization/containers.

Those people are not buying top of the line components though.

If you don't need much GPU power then having a GPU on your CPU has some benefits:

- No need for a separate component, no hassle finding a "proper" card and buying it (I.e. you only need basically a integrated GPU as a PCI card, but good look getting one, you always can get older "cheap" GPUs but then there is always the chance that because them being older the driver support started to rot.)

- Integrated GPUs tend to have reasonable good Linux driver support, at least for newish CPUs for a view years.

- No extra fan or other components which can make unwanted noise.

- One less component makes trouble shooting easier.

Tbh. if AMD would ship something like a large package (not on-die, but chiplets or otherwise packed) combining a 16+ core cpu (+hyperthreading) with a reasonable integrate GPU and ~2GB low latency RAM pro core + 3year waranty I would be quite interested in that. Some companies I worked with before would like that too as far as I can tell.

I have a few primary use cases in mind:

- developer machine (I don't game)

- server in the basement

- htpc, no gaming (maybe some retro)

In all of these (and probably more), a discrete GPU feels like a detriment. More space, more heat, more drivers, more hassle, more money.

Mos of the workload for my domain involved just a ton of Ram and CPU compute only.

Ofcourse there are related subdomains where I need the graphics, but we are talking about 1 in 1000 use case.

I just need the gfx card to drive the display only.

An interesting feature if you want to just play Windows games once in a while is "PCI passthrough" aka VFIO. With that you can assign a PCI device to be used directly by Windows emulated within a VM, which lets you play game in Windows in emulation with almost no performance penalty.

But then you need another graphics card for your main Linux system.

A developer's machine doesn't really require a lot of graphic horsepower, as long as it can drive multiple high resolution monitors.

I see the use case at least, but I agree that I rather AMD use the die space for a faster CPU and release cheap (sub $100) and low power graphics cards with multiple display outputs.

> rather AMD use the die space for a faster CPU

They don't have to use die space for it. CPU cores are in a separate die already. They can easily slap a Vega 3 IC (which they already have the designs for) alongside the 12nm I/O die.

> release cheap (sub $100) and low power graphics cards with multiple display outputs.

The problem is they're not doing that, either.

Last time they released a "low" end GPU was 5 years ago with RX 550. And it wasn't actually low-end, price-wise (It had $80-100 MSRP and never got cheaper thanks to crypto miners)

> What's the use-case you're envisioning where an integrated GPU is a good use of die space?

These CPUs are using a multi chip design. There'd be no waste of die space. They can slap a small Vega3@12nm die alongside I/O die.

I don't get why AMD refused to sell the Ryzen 4000 APUs directly. They would make a great CPU for some small builds that aren't going to game...

Probably:

- limited production capabilities

- maybe not-so-perfect yield

- self-competition to their still selling 3000 processors and their son to (theoretically) sell discrete graphics cards

To get a chance to chip Ryzen laptops AMD needs to chip a APUs to OEMs similar for the office pre-build desktop marked. So chipping APUs to them is necessary, on the other-hand shipping it to end users is not necessary and in context of limited production capabilities it's a bad idea to ship an additional product to a marked where (in difference to OEMs) it's hard to judge how many will be sold beforehand and where selling them can negatively affect selling other AMD products.

I built two systems recently with the 4650G that I imported via Aliexpress. I paid a little more than MSRP and shipping was slow and nerve racking, but the sysrems work nicely, and no GPU made it fit in a smaller ITX case (heatsink selection is tricky though)

While I agree with your sentiment adding a simple Vega 8 to their CPUs is a lot more work and expense than you'd think.

They have a thing going where they manufacture Zen core chiplets, and that put together X number of chiplets to make a processor. This is very attractive in terms of cost.

As best I know they don't have a GPU chiplet, and so they can't just add one to a CPU. All their processors containing both CPU and GPU are designed like the M1 - one big chip with both.

Hopefully this will change soon, and we'll have Navi 2/3 chiplets going around.

I wonder if there's a way for motherboard manufacturers to add an integrated GPU to the boards today. I think I remember seeing some nvidia chip on a really old motherboard once, but maybe that was before a lot of the PCIE stuff was moved directly into the CPU die?

Some Chinese frankenboards for Xeons have very crappy videocards onboard.

A lot of mainstream server boards have very crappy videocards onboard too; usually the IPMI chip has something with vga output (and network console).

That's an understandable complaint but I believe that using a built-in GPU means it can't use ECC memory.

I'm planning to build my workstation and I'm settled on 5950x, but the fact that I need to get a gfx card separately is irritating, given that I'm in India and it adds a ton of money that I could be spending elsewhere!

The Ryzen 5000 is basically across the board superior to the nearest Intel competitor.

That is, 5600X > 10600k, 5700X > 10700k, etc... This is, however, assuming MSRP pricing for both. If the Ryzen is being marked up due to shortage while the Intel is being discounted a significant enough price gap could warrant still going with Intel.

Even better the 5600x is only very slightly behind the 10700k in multi-core workloads while being ahead on performance and power consumption (and price).

Which Ryzen model exactly? I have some comparison benchmarks in my meta benchmark.

Gaming: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...

Applications: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids[]... (that's a rather small selection though)

The 5800X is clearly faster.

It's the straightforward comparison, 8 cores/16 threads for both. Surprisingly, the 5600X is still faster - at least in games.

5800X is faster than 10700K and 3700X is better value than 10700K. It's pointless to buy Intel.

I do not need external GPU. I want integrated. So intels are better value to me, keeping in mind that intel MOBOs are alsos cheaper.

A 4750G or 5750G would be good for you but unfortunately you won't be able to buy them.

Precisely my point.

From the article:

> ... going by sales figures from one major European retailer... German retailer MindFactory... AMD sold 35,000 units ... whereas Intel ... just over 5,000 units

So, this story is a a small sample. It might be true generally, I can't say but the title is somewhat misleading.

Waiting to see what intel releases in response.

Should techradar be really on the list of allowed website on HN? The amount of trackers dump on the visitors is mind boggling.

You can't even buy them though. Sold out everywhere. Hopefully next year they'll be back in stock.

There's something wrong in this story. The IdeaPad Slim 7 4800u, a laptop that has been called "too good to be true" has been put of stock due to 4800u supply issues for months.

It's super hard to find any laptops with high end (comparable to i7/i9) processors.

I'm totally unsure where is the stock coming and going.

Tinfoil hat tells me that Intel is buying up all the supply!

These charts were only about desktop processor sales. I believe there wasn't a single laptop processor in the data, which makes sense as you don't buy laptop processors individually.

its a proxy. laptop sales outstrip desktop globally. if there is THIS much laptop shortage, I dont think its the case that AMD is choosing to focus on the desktop market versus laptop.

I'm seeing a large supply shortage. My bet is that someone is buying up all the supply at an enterprise level. Either it is AWS (with its new AMD servers - https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/amd/ ). I dont think there's barely enough AMD supply for retail

Reply on news.ycombinator.com