AMD Ryzen: New Speculation on prices and release

PrMinisterGR

2017-01-23 14:22

The messaging from the presentation was that the 8-core part would be in a similar price bracket to the top end mainstream i7s. It's also the only strategy that would make any sense for them in order to regain market and mind share after almost a decade of stagnation.

#5384098

zig11727

2017-01-23 14:30

If AMD charges that much for a CPU I would just prefer to stay with Intel. No wonder I7-7700K is a minor update from I7-6700K. I hope this is a rumor.

#5384099

PrMinisterGR

2017-01-23 14:45

It sure doesn't fit the image of the AMD CEO recommending an 8-core Zen to a guy wanting to get an i7-7700k.

#5384108

nz3777

2017-01-23 15:06

It's the final Countdown..... Song from the group Europe. Go Amd!

#5384111

xvince1

2017-01-23 15:14

Time will tell, but the few numbers we got so far place it largely at the 6900K level. But again, we need complete numbers with final clock ( some softwares, instructions could be faster on one, and vice versa, so result could depend of softwares, different cases. ) There you put 2 different things in the same line. 22cores are for server, and Naples is the opponent for it. (32cores ). And professional market tend to have a big big latency when it come to hardware ( and software ) change, upgrade compared to standard consumers one. As for the price adjustment, thats ofc expected, this said AMD can re-ajust their price too. So im not quite sure it is really the good way for AMD to set a too much low price first. In case they need to reajust it...

I think that Professionnal/consumer market is only defined by avaibility and manufacturing prices. If both Intel and AMD can produce 8c/16t CPU at reasonably prices, the standard for top of line consumer/gaming rig will go for that instead of 4c/8t. What I wanted to say about 22 cores CPU, was just that Intel already can produce CPU like theses, at reasonably price, and that's just not the case for AMD. That's why the market will go for a nice step up in core count with Ryzen since the C2Q 🙂

#5384124

H83

2017-01-23 15:39

Might I ask why?

Well i want AMD to provide competition to the mainstream market (core I3/I5) so we can have good CPUs with good prices. But high end processors that cost more than 500€ or 600€ are meaningless for me and 80% of the market... I want to build a new rig to replace my current (ancient) one and right now my "future" CPU is the 7600K. I´m waiting for AMD to step up and show me they have something better. If the only thing they have to show is an expensive 8 core CPU, then i´m not interested.

#5384125

Asgardi

2017-01-23 15:44

I'm not taking this with a grain of salt but with a full sack of salt because it makes so little sense. AMD has made stupid decisions before, probably due to their lacking financies giving them little choice, but what this rumour is presenting would be the crown jewel of stupid decisions. Surely they have learned enough lessons already?

I see it the other way around. Their problem has been for quite some time having comparable or worse product and*trying to make people switch by making it cheap. Instead they*should get into situation where they have*simply better product, price it accordingly and still people would want that. That's the way of making money.*Anything else is desperate crawling*behind competition. If the product is actually great, these prices or even higher make perfect sense.

#5384139

AlmondMan

2017-01-23 16:10

X370 have 8x PCIe gen 2, Ryzen give 16x PCIe gen 3 plus links for express sata and NVME, but thats it. Intels x99 have also 8x PCIe gen 2, however CPU have 40+. Quadcores should be absolute minimum for lowend/midrange, they are here from freaking 2007.

Wrong: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-uncovers-a-bit-more-on-the-x370-chipset.html

#5384148

Denial

2017-01-23 16:19

Wrong: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-uncovers-a-bit-more-on-the-x370-chipset.html

I don't get it, doesn't that confirm what he said? CPU has 24 lanes of Gen 3, 4 for chipset, 4 for IO and 16 for graphics. Chipset has 8 lanes of Gen 2. Am I missing something?

#5384151

Agent-A01

2017-01-23 16:27

I don't get it, doesn't that confirm what he said? CPU has 24 lanes of Gen 3, 4 for chipset, 4 for IO and 16 for graphics. Chipset has 8 lanes of Gen 2. Am I missing something?

That is correct. I read that only 16x lanes can be used for graphics though. The other lanes are for NVMe and what not. If so, not good for mGPU users.

#5384167

AlmondMan

2017-01-23 17:11

Not as if it matters any in relation to speed yet.

#5384169

amdguru

2017-01-23 17:13

Knowing AMD, they most likely won't reach current Intel performance, so if the CPU costs 600-700$ and performs as much as the 6800k, which is around 450$, then it's AMD all over again, which frankly speaking is expected.

LOL, stop looking at the past for your answers of the future. I'm saying you don't know AMD today! The RYZEN SR7 doesn't quite get to the same performance as the $1,100 Core i7 6900k, but it won't cost close to $1,100! Furthermore, you're forgetting about the difference of mainstream and HEDT cpus. The SR7 blows away the 6700k/7700k, so it should cost more then $350. It's also faster then a Core i7 6800k, but again, not a 6900k. The demo of the SR7 was close to the 6900k, and was the cpu AMD was using to compare the SR7 to. The SR7 should cost $499 - $549 which places it right were it should be. Actually, since it's faster than the 6800k, a price point of $599 would probably be OK, but I believe it's going to cost between $499 and $549. You're an Intel fanboy and have already given up on RYZEN, OK, that's fine, but RYZEN is a whole different game and WILL steal market share from Intel. So no, it's not going to be AMD all over again.

#5384174

Denial

2017-01-23 17:20

Not as if it matters any in relation to speed yet.

Maybe not for GPUs but it matters for RAIDed SSD's. It doesn't effect me at all, I personally think the number of lanes is fine for my use - but there are definitely enthusiasts out there that don't think AMD's enthusiast platform is enthusiast enough. Enthusiast I know I'm spelling it right because spellcheck but for some reason that word looks so weird to me right now.

#5384176

fry178

2017-01-23 17:32

just some basic calc (scale by adding zeros 🙂 ): lets say the top one is going for 1000$, selling 10000 of them gets me 10.000.000$ even if it sold for low 350$, but now 100.000 of them, makes 35.000.000$ cost per unit would also drop much more, so i dont see any way, they will sell many if is +500$. maybe for some ultra high clocked one..

#5384186

Denial

2017-01-23 17:50

just some basic calc (scale by adding zeros 🙂 ): lets say the top one is going for 1000$, selling 10000 of them gets me 10.000.000$ even if it sold for low 350$, but now 100.000 of them, makes 35.000.000$ cost per unit would also drop much more, so i dont see any way, they will sell many if is +500$. maybe for some ultra high clocked one..

Because let's say the chip costs $300 to design/fab/test. Now they are making more $ at $1000 despite far lower sales. Not that the chip costs $300, but your sales numbers most likely aren't accurate either so it's all kind of moot. Honestly only AMD knows the breakdown, so they are going to price it exactly where it needs to be priced based on what they are looking to accomplish. I personally wouldn't mind if they charged $700-600 for it - as long as it's +-5% against the 6900K in the vast majority of benchmarks.

#5384209

xrodney

2017-01-23 19:07

Because let's say the chip costs $300 to design/fab/test. Now they are making more $ at $1000 despite far lower sales. Not that the chip costs $300, but your sales numbers most likely aren't accurate either so it's all kind of moot. Honestly only AMD knows the breakdown, so they are going to price it exactly where it needs to be priced based on what they are looking to accomplish. I personally wouldn't mind if they charged $700-600 for it - as long as it's +-5% against the 6900K in the vast majority of benchmarks.

cost per chip (working or not is relatively cheap) If you take cost of wafer and size of chips intel make, it probably cost $30-60 to make each chip, not counting for defects. Testing and packaging adds bit more to price but still its way less then they are actually being sold for.

#5384211

PrMinisterGR

2017-01-23 19:10

LOL, stop looking at the past for your answers of the future. I'm saying you don't know AMD today! The RYZEN SR7 doesn't quite get to the same performance as the $1,100 Core i7 6900k, but it won't cost close to $1,100! Furthermore, you're forgetting about the difference of mainstream and HEDT cpus. The SR7 blows away the 6700k/7700k, so it should cost more then $350. It's also faster then a Core i7 6800k, but again, not a 6900k. The demo of the SR7 was close to the 6900k, and was the cpu AMD was using to compare the SR7 to. The SR7 should cost $499 - $549 which places it right were it should be. Actually, since it's faster than the 6800k, a price point of $599 would probably be OK, but I believe it's going to cost between $499 and $549. You're an Intel fanboy and have already given up on RYZEN, OK, that's fine, but RYZEN is a whole different game and WILL steal market share from Intel. So no, it's not going to be AMD all over again.

Funny thing is that in some loads it was faster than the 6900k while using a (theoretically) lower TDP. It seems that the in-core interconnects are much better than the ring bus Intel is using. The "a bit more than the current top mainstream i7" price seems normal for me, for the SR7 part.

#5384216

Agent-A01

2017-01-23 19:16

Not as if it matters any in relation to speed yet.

It does for GPUs in quite a bit of games actually. 16x16 can bring pretty significant improvements.

You're an Intel fanboy and have already given up on RYZEN, OK, that's fine, but RYZEN is a whole different game and WILL steal market share from Intel. So no, it's not going to be AMD all over again.

Weird coming from someone with such a name. Regardless, history can repeat itself. Same thing happened with faildozer.

#5384226

HeavyHemi

2017-01-23 19:25

It does for GPUs in quite a bit of games actually. 16x16 can bring pretty significant improvements. Weird coming from someone with such a name. Regardless, history can repeat itself. Same thing happened with faildozer.

When did this change? Even SLI Pascal TITAN didn't seem to see anything but a negligible effect x8/x8.

#5384227

screwtech02

2017-01-23 19:29

Enthusiast= 4 x8 PCI-E for gpu, and @ least 8+ SATA 6G, with support of 64gb+ of memory...