Like others on this thread, those prices seem too good to be truth. But we'll have to wait and see. The issue, is that this leak might set up the wrong expectations, and then some people will feel cheated when the real prices are revealed.

Just expect zen3 prices and this is actually real better for us.

These are Zen2 prices

Alleged AMD Ryzen 9 7900X “Zen 4” CPU Offers Over 50% Cache Bandwidth Versus Zen 3

Now coming to the benchmark, we get 1494.8 GB/s in Memory Read, 1445.7 GB/s bandwidth in Memory Write, 1476.6 GB/s bandwidth in Memory Copy, and a latency of 10.1ns. Now we don't know what kind of specifications the entire system was running but it should be using the DDR5 DRAM. As you can see in the benchmarks, the alleged AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 12 Core CPU delivers a 47% increase in L3 bandwidth over the Alder Lake and over 50% increase versus its Zen 3-powered predecessor. The difference widens in the L3 copy metric where the chip is almost 3 times faster than the Alder Lake CPU. In latency, the chip delivers the lowest timing of all with an interconnect speed of 10.1ns whereas the Alder Lake CPU has a time delay of twice as much at 21.8ns. Do note that in latency figures, we are talking timing, and the lower the better.

That is a very impressive bandwidth for L3 cache.

Horus-Anhur:

The issue, is that this leak might set up the wrong expectations, and then some people will feel cheated when the real prices are revealed.

Expectation management and PC hardware 😀 But i think its worthwhile as for the first time in a long time, we may well see a real credible alternative to NV and Intel domination (in all areas both price and performance). Just think about it, GPUs that may be both faster and cheaper than NV alternative and CPUs that surpass both single and multi core Intel performance for less cash and less power. We can dream. And us punters are the winners when we have this kind of competition.

The only reason for AMD to sell 7600/7700 that cheap is if they managed to go backwards. Considering AMDs GPU pricing strategies (especially lower end), they will rather try to increase prices and make themselves look good when they slash prices...

Horus-Anhur:

Alleged AMD Ryzen 9 7900X “Zen 4” CPU Offers Over 50% Cache Bandwidth Versus Zen 3 That is a very impressive bandwidth for L3 cache.

well that's interesting if true. might make the need for huge amounts of 3D Vcache not as useful.

Crazy Serb:

The only reason for AMD to sell 7600/7700 that cheap is if they managed to go backwards. Considering AMDs GPU pricing strategies (especially lower end), they will rather try to increase prices and make themselves look good when they slash prices...

not at all. this is what happens when a new manufacturing process matures and it happens all of the time in every Consumer Electronics segment, irrespective of Blu-Ray players or Televisions. even without adjusting for inflation, TV prices are more than 70% less expensive than when LCD panels were introduced. like wise for Blu-Ray players. in 2007 the Intel Core2Duo (Q6600) - one of the best CPU's of all time - sold for $450. that is a four core eight thread CPU that is beaten like a bad dog by either AMD or Intel under $200. this CPU was so good it lead to a decade of complacency @ Intel. AMD has an incredibly high yield process - the highest ever achieved with semiconductors (which is NOT hype). this process has undergone a node shrink increasing the yield even more. Intel cannot compete on yield as all of their cpu's to date are monolithic (with well over 30% Lower Yield) which means they cannot compete on price (unless they subsidize the sales). until now AMD has had to pay to be a node pioneer - which is why Ryzen 3 had a price bump. this time they are not pioneering any node so they do not have to pay extra for exclusivity or the first fab slots.

tunejunky:

not at all. this is what happens when a new manufacturing process matures and it happens all of the time in every Consumer Electronics segment, irrespective of Blu-Ray players or Televisions. even without adjusting for inflation, TV prices are more than 70% less expensive than when LCD panels were introduced. like wise for Blu-Ray players. in 2007 the Intel Core2Duo (Q6600) - one of the best CPU's of all time - sold for $450. that is a four core eight thread CPU that is beaten like a bad dog by either AMD or Intel under $200. this CPU was so good it lead to a decade of complacency @ Intel. AMD has an incredibly high yield process - the highest ever achieved with semiconductors (which is NOT hype). this process has undergone a node shrink increasing the yield even more. Intel cannot compete on yield as all of their cpu's to date are monolithic (with well over 30% Lower Yield) which means they cannot compete on price (unless they subsidize the sales). until now AMD has had to pay to be a node pioneer - which is why Ryzen 3 had a price bump. this time they are not pioneering any node so they do not have to pay extra for exclusivity or the first fab slots.

First get names straight, it was Core2Quad. You can make same argument today that r5/i5 have basically same level of performance in games as their higher core count counterparts. Because CPU market is duopoly, I am 100% sure that it takes 2 parties to stagnate. If AMD made better product earlier, intel wouldn't sandbag their CPUs for so long. AMD was not pioneer for 7nm, that was Apple, just like for 5nm... Price increase for zen3 came directly from the fact it was the top CPU for literally 99% workloads (saving that 1% for things like Premiere with Quicksync and maybe some other outliers). AMD has a good history for pricing, especially when they are on top.

Maybe AMD is trying to build a big AM5 base by selling it's CPUs cheaper. After that is much easier to sell future Zen for people that already have an AM5 motherboard.

cucaulay malkin:

every pcie is backwards compatible

true but, and I'm not saying this specifically to you cucaulay but to everyone interested many people think bandwith is increased when a pcie slot is 5.0 but it's not, you will get the multiplier x16 x8 x4 of the max pcie your part is capable to to when the motherboard manual says pcie gen5 x16 becomes pcie gen5 x8 + x8 they are lying...kind of if you have a 4.0 gpu and another 3.0 card you'll get x8 4.0 and x8 3.0 the rest of the bandwith is lost it doesn't go anywhere else it's "your fault" for not using 5.0 hardware the fact that they spam pcie gen5 everywhere in descriptions even when it's not needed (for ex: x16 becomes x8+x8 would be enough) tells me they mislead customers on purpose another common mistake is that people read the bandwith or lanes can be distributed in the chipset spec, yes but only by the motherboard designer and once a choice has been made it's definitive as for the 7950x vs 13900k as a 5950x and 12900k owner i really hope AMD didn't get too crazy with temps I would not want another 12900k volcano (if 13900k is worse good luck cooling it) in the same hardcore custom loop triple 360mm rads two of which are 54mm thick the 5950x OC was 25°C cooler for a 29'000+ cinebench R23 score, 12900k for me is like the 4090 probably are going to be, above the stupid threshold heat is too much

Crazy Serb:

First get names straight, it was Core2Quad. You can make same argument today that r5/i5 have basically same level of performance in games as their higher core count counterparts. Because CPU market is duopoly, I am 100% sure that it takes 2 parties to stagnate. If AMD made better product earlier, intel wouldn't sandbag their CPUs for so long. AMD was not pioneer for 7nm, that was Apple, just like for 5nm... Price increase for zen3 came directly from the fact it was the top CPU for literally 99% workloads (saving that 1% for things like Premiere with Quicksync and maybe some other outliers). AMD has a good history for pricing, especially when they are on top.

it was the Core 2 Duo. at least in America. i bought it the day it was released AND AMD did pioneer 7nm with Apple AMD was the company that shared technology (and an x86/x64 licensing) with TSMC TSMC never made any CPU's before AMD. AMD paid well over a billion dollars over the first three years @ 7nm first for exclusivity, later for production slots. AMD & TSMC are still pioneering new processes (3d Cache) but not the nodes as Intel did what AMD has done (for ML). there is a world of difference between fabbing x86/64 vs. ARM (Apple & Qualcomm)

Horus-Anhur:

Maybe AMD is trying to build a big AM5 base by selling it's CPUs cheaper. After that is much easier to sell future Zen for people that already have an AM5 motherboard.

also very likely, but only because it's cheap enough to produce. as i mentioned in a different thread at this point in time the i/o controller chiplet costs more (with a slightly lower yield at different node) than the compute chiplet.

Horus-Anhur:

Maybe AMD is trying to build a big AM5 base by selling it's CPUs cheaper. After that is much easier to sell future Zen for people that already have an AM5 motherboard.

They need to have lots of CPUs and motherboards in stock if they want to do that, or they will be resold for a lot of money(like GPUs).

If the performance/power and performance/cost and performance generally are competitive, these should blow intel out of the water!

The CPU market has saturated, Alder Lake sales proved that it's plateaued. I don't claim to have any specific insider knowledge, but the retailers I do know claim that CPU sales are down, and demand has been flat. Other than us (well, not me this time), no one is going to be clamoring to buy these on release.

mackintosh:

The CPU market has saturated, Alder Lake sales proved that it's plateaued. I don't claim to have any specific insider knowledge, but the retailers I do know claim that CPU sales are down, and demand has been flat. Other than us (well, not me this time), no one is going to be clamoring to buy these on release.

quite true overall, but those numbers include OEM system sales. Alder Lake hasn't proven a thing except that Intel is "back". the "ryze" in AMD OEM sales has skyrocketed while Intel's has remained flat - except for mobile where both AMD and Intel are up. what's happening is the mainstream market has/is contracted and demand has segmented. right now the mainstream market is about 10% over replacement level (which is terrible for many OEMs). however, the enthusiast and gaming market has grown. much of that growth is (no doubt) from the effect of mining - but the gaming market has a lot of pent-up demand and the advent of a new generation of performance has driven prices down (along with ETH going POS). other factors in those numbers are deceiving as well as the current gen of Consoles really should be counted as OEM pc's. at this particular point in time i really do not consider the retailers. the market knows there is a new gen from both Intel and AMD in a few months and they're stuck with inventory that has a lower demand. this in no way should be extrapolated to new product. what is going to happen is like always the high end comes first - which always has demand. depending on how "wonderful" AMD and Intel are this go-round, the OEMs will adjust their system offerings. the low end really has difficulty as tablets/phones/consoles has eaten into the traditional market share and role. the mainstream will be fine, and some segments will have tremendous growth (i.e. AMDs w/ iGPU) for mainstream gaming (@1080p). the low end GPU market is questionable unless low end is now 1080p 240Hz 🙄 as iGPUs will make life hard. but this is where the gaming/CPU market has a big divergence. all the products above this level are far more profitable to all manufacturers concerned and there is proven demand far higher than the mainstream.

tty8k:

And the first listing is ......drums ...... Ryzen 9 7950X For $892 US, Ryzen 9 7900X For $608 US, Ryzen 7 7700X For $480 US, Ryzen 5 7600X For $330 US As expected nowhere near those dreamland prices we first heard of.

Pretty much as expected I suspect.

@tunejunky AMD stock is up over 28% in the last 30 days, the markets know what is coming.

pegasus1:

@tunejunky AMD stock is up over 28% in the last 30 days, the markets know what is coming.

yes they do. for some all it took was the reporting from Google and AWS about AMD's server platform. for other's it was the (non-tech) analysts finally understanding AMD's simple (if difficult to execute) plan of lowering the cost of manufacture while improving performance. any breakdown of profit per unit sold highlights the differential between AMD and Intel on the profitability (not overall profits - Intel still has scale) of it's processes. at this point AMD is making higher profits at a lower cost to the end user. which is a win-win for everyone as it places downward market pressure on Intel (who has a far more expensive product at cost of manufacture). Intel has to wait another generation before it can reap the (full) rewards of chiplets.