AMD Delays Ryzen 9000: “Did Not Meet Quality Expectations”

AMD Delays Zen 5 CPUs: R9 9950X, R9 9900X, R7 9700X, R5 9600X

We’ve been asking about review samples since the AMD event that is now publicly known. That occurred in early July. AMD never set firm dates for shipment, but had numerous soft shipment targets for review units. It missed all of those targets. We started pressuring AMD for timelines today, as an arrival late in the week would require coordination for our team.

AMD provided us with the statement in the introduction. This is the first time AMD has delayed a major product launch in a while. We asked AMD what exactly the “not meeting full quality expectations” comment means and were told this:

Doing final checks, [the validation team] found something they didn't like. As we completed our final checks, we found the initial production units shipped to channel partners didn't meet full quality expectations.

AMD to GamersNexus

Speaking with AMD’s channel partners, including large OEMs and system integrators, we learned that CPUs have already been available for validation in new pre-built PC SKUs for at least a couple weeks now, if not longer in some cases. 

Speaking with one large US-based retailer and confirming with AMD, we learned that AMD is pulling back all units from the channel and re-validating them. We’re not sure which lab AMD is using for that, but likely the validation lab we saw in our AMD lab tour is a part of this effort. AMD intends to run all the CPUs against its “mission” spec, or in other words, ensure they can hit out-of-box targets. We heard a rumor that AMD was having difficulty with memory overclocking performance, but have since learned that, if this is true, it is not related to the delay. The delay is strictly to hit out-of-box performance.

We asked AMD if this was to try and sift for “gold” samples for reviewers. AMD said no, this affects all units currently in the channel. The “channel” here would mean retailers, distributors, suppliers, and OEMs like Dell, HP, and Lenovo, among other smaller partners. This does not just affect review units. Our understanding is that AMD is pulling all CPUs back prior to release. From what we were told by AMD, this is a simple pass/fail: The CPU either hits the targets or doesn’t. AMD emphasized that it is possible that most of the CPUs hit the target, but that it is exercising caution to ensure that it doesn’t have any escapes that underperform.

Currently, the official date is August 15th for release, pushed back from July 31st. Our understanding is that it is possible AMD pulls this forward for some CPU SKUs, assuming it is able to clear them for launch in time.

Commentary: Chaos in the CPU Market

Now we’re getting into some of the commentary.

This complicates things from a consumer standpoint as well: Currently, we are in a holding pattern on Intel until it releases its microcode and BIOS updates to resolve the excessive voltage problem. Intel has publicly committed to a “mid-August” release for that. This means that Intel’s microcode may ship alongside or around the time of AMD’s CPUs. As we don’t know if Intel’s microcode changes will affect performance yet, it is possible that all of Intel’s CPUs need to be rerun with that change.

The new CPUs include the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, Ryzen 9 9900X, Ryzen 7 9700X, and Ryzen 5 9600X. These are commonly shortened to "R9," "R7," and "R5" for the prefix. The CPUs will ship on the Zen 5 architecture and AM5 platform, including support for X670E, et al. New X870E, et al. chipsets will accompany the launch. The price is not yet known.

AMD had the best possible launch timing with Intel’s fumbles recently. If it had hit the release in a few days, Intel would be at an all-time low, confidence and comfort with Intel recommendations would be near-0 for most the consumer-minded media, and AMD would be a de facto choice. 

From AMD’s strategic standpoint, we see this in two ways:

First, if AMD had flubbed this launch, it would be peak embarrassment and the worst possible time to accidentally ship units with an uncertain or undefined performance issue. It’d hurt consumer confidence in effectively all available CPUs. Not delaying could be worse if any single reviewer, or any vocal consumers on reddit, ended up with CPUs below spec. As soon as two of those claims hit reddit, it’d drown-out the Intel story as the new hot controversy, speaking frankly.

Second, AMD’s delay means it may lose some of its advantage against Intel if Intel is able to ship its microcode and regain some confidence in that time; however, we don’t believe Intel’s microcode updates will improve performance. It will either stay the same or get worse, so it’s possible that it works out for AMD either way.

From a consumer standpoint, this is how we’d look at it: We’d rather see a delayed product than a bad product. The somewhat famous quote attributed to various people in the games industry, from Miyamoto to Kojima to Newell, is that a late game is late once and that “suck is forever.” (That particular manifestation of the quote might be GabeN).

We’d rather see a delay than have confusion and anxiety for consumers who’ve already built their PCs. It’s terrible to have to pull a new system apart that you’re excited about and sit in RMA hell, so this seems the better route. For partners, this will be a big time cost: They’ll have to pull CPUs out of prebuilts ready to ship and send them back, but that’s better than dealing with an RMA nightmare.

There are some concerns: First, it’s not clear how long AMD has known about this. Based on the timelines, we would assume it has been a concern for at least a few weeks. AMD did not comment officially. If AMD thought it’d get away with it but saw what happened to Intel, that’d be concerning. 

It’s also not clear why AMD’s processes would fail to catch below-spec units this late in the game. 

The entire thing has seemed rushed from the beginning: AMD originally announced a “July” release date, but didn’t specify when. During the press event in July, it specified the literal last day in July. That always seems like the month was chosen with expectations that everything would be perfect.

Even still, delaying is the best move if, in fact, this is a simple pass/fail and units that fail can be removed from retail. That’s what we’d want to see. It’s certainly better than shipping them and having a year-later revisit like we’ve seen with Intel lately.

As a personal note, the industry is in the most chaos it’s been in for years. We’re wondering if this is related to COVID-era ramp mixed with recent cut-backs colliding.