My first windows PC was with AMD, my first 'good' graphics card was with ATI and my second one was ATI as well. Everything they've done since has simply made me not want to buy their products. I don't think Infinity Fabric is the real future for CPUs, because it adds so much latency, but I don't think the Intel Ring Bus is either... So we'll see what happens soon.
Point taken about AM3 and AM3+. I’m giving it some consideration but I can’t see the game moving on to render my 3550 i5 useless. Its single threaded performance is making sure its my GPU bottlenecking me in games I play. I bought my cpu maybe 4/5 years ago. Maybe even 6. Its still decent enough. Not good for anything too intensive obviously like rendering. That’s a very good point. I want significant features to make the upgrade worthwhile. I forgot about M2 SSDs. I’m still using Sata 6gbs SSDs. I do think you’re bang on about what will likely happen with the 3000 series given the past. Tbh like you said before. The gap between 2000 and 3000 series isn’t going to be extensive enough to offset the addition in cost. Not really an AMD fan lol. Want to be but AMD make it so hard!
History says far different about AMD's 'backwards compatibility'. AMD have claimed support for AM4 until 2020, but this is really not that far away for starters. But what we to remember is how they provided support in the past, when they were actually creating new CPUs. The AM3 boards were replaced by AM3+. You could, from a technical point of view, use the latest version of CPUs, but you would lose enough features that most didn't bother. But here's the real question. Are you planning on replacing your CPU in the next 1.5 years? I have yet to meet a person who has an upgrade plan for CPUs on that short of scale. I personally hadn't bought a new CPU for 7 years. When was the last time you bought a CPU? By the time I want a new CPU, the motherboard technology has progressed so far and so fast that I want M.2 and I want all the other new features. If you plan on upgrading CPUs in under a years time, then sure, the AMD board may pan out slightly better. But again, who does that? Also, it isn't unprecedented that a motherboard lasts 2 generations. Ryzen and Ryzen 2 (that's the 3000 series) have been intel's standard for years. I have my doubts that AMD will fully support this motherboard with the Ryzen 2 anyway, I expect AM4+ to be the 'correct' board, but with perfunctory support for the AM4 (It works, but all the shiny new features don't) and you'll see loads of problems, require motherboard bios flashes (this is already the case with 2200g and 2400g), hear stories of bricks, and issues. So no, I don't think longevity matters here, I think it's all about PR rather than substance. It was a dig at Intel that AMD fans can use to 'shoot down' Intel when comparisons happen.
It is sad however as its a bit too little to late. Software isn’t really geared to multiple cores unless its at the top end for consumers like adobe or enterprise workstation stuff. Gaming wise. The gpu tends to be the bottle neck most times. Its actually making think about plumping for a 1080ti. AMD are so far behind nvidia I reckon we’ll just get the trickle affect. 5/10% performance gain instead of the beastly 20/30% between 9th and 10th gen.
Oh yeah I agree 100% all the way. Intel have really cheesed me off with the constant changing of chipsets. There’s no reason for it other than to line their own pockets from what I gather. They’ve got that still brilliant characteristic of single threaded performance but I’m starting to not care about that and just want AMD to make Intel pay for their complacency and above all, greed. No competition has really hit us consumers in the pockets. As the platform matures, I reckon Ryzen is going to be a behemoth. The only problem is that AMD gpus are shocking next to Nvidia. So thirsty and the performance just isn’t there.