• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      149
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 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
            26
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 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
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              3 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
                7
                ·
                3 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
                  2
                  ·
                  3 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

                  • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It wasn’t me who you replied to originally - I agree that it’s most likely AMD are just being super cautious given historically how many times bad news for their competitors has been falsely equated by the press as equivalent to a minor issue they’ve had, and the delay moving things after the microcode update and therefore making launch-day benchmarking more favourable is just a bonus.

        • Woovie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hanlon’s razor, don’t overthink it. No need for mindless conspiracy theories based on zero data. If it’s aajor concern we’ll hear something no doubt.

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

            I think you mean Occam’s Razor. AMD signaling responsibility is a simpler explanation as a “dunk” on Intel, them having a similar issue as Intel seems far too coincidental. They’re on completely different nodes, so there’s no reason their issues would be related.

            So my take is that AMD thinks Intel’s fix is going to degrade performance significantly, so they want to wait to ensure their launch is as impactful as possible (bigger perf delta, more time to find hardware issues, etc). If AMD can show strength and reliability while Intel suffers, they could snap up much more market share (and improve product availability at launch).