People might be lucky for getting 2 more cores, but wouldn't it hurt stability? Were those chips tested on 6 or 8 cores before shipping?

I'm betting the majority of the cut down chips are perfectly fine and they're cutting them down to fill demand.

Silva:

They do lose money if they do that: r5 1600x costs 260€ (average) r7 1700 costs 330€ (average) About 70€ of loss a piece (average).

No, they do not lose money, because someone buying a 6-core processor is buying it for that price and is not expecting to get an 8 core processor. The cost to make all of the Ryzen (not threadripper) processors are the same, so no matter what pricepoint they are selling it at, as long as it's above the cost, they are making a profit. The only way they would "lose" money, is if someone planned to buy an 8-core processor, heard about this "issue", and bought a 6 core instead, and received one that was an 8 core. But proving this is the way someone actually thought when they went to buy a processor is borderline impossible to do. If they did intend to get an 8 core processor, and bought a 6 core processor and it happened to still only be a 6 core processor, you could say they still lost money if they kept that 6 core processor instead of returning it (which wouldn't really affect AMD, but rather the seller, and they'd just sell it as used/refurbished/etc.) then you could say they lost money as well as otherwise they would have bought an 8-core processor and made more money, but again, this is borderline impossible to prove this is the thought process someone went through. Bottom line, since AMD makes a profit on all their processors even though they all cost the same to manufacture, they are never at a "loss" any time anyone decides to buy one, be it a lower cost one, or higher cost one.

Aura89:

No, they do not lose money, because someone buying a 6-core processor is buying it for that price and is not expecting to get an 8 core processor.

The hypothetical person is buying a 1600(X) in the hopes that they don't have to buy a Ryzen 7. That would be a loss to AMD, since that means they aren't earning the extra money they'd have got from the R7. If the person never intended to buy a Ryzen 7, then sure, AMD didn't lose any money.

The cost to make all of the Ryzen (not threadripper) processors are the same, so no matter what pricepoint they are selling it at, as long as it's above the cost, they are making a profit.

Yes, it costs the same to make all Ryzens, but those doped silicon wafers aren't cheap. Any dead transistors are wasted material. The more transistors involved in the die, the greater the loss is of the chip. Generally speaking, the more complicated something is, the greater the chance of failure. This is why AMD made Threadripper and Epyc multiple separate dies - if they had a single 32-core die where more than half the cores had at least 1 small defect, that would be such an expensive loss. Having that many transistors perfectly functional on a single die is difficult to achieve even by modern technology, and I'm sure this is why Intels get so outrageously expensive once you have 10 or more cores. You're effectively paying for the rarity and perfection. Meanwhile when looking at low-end parts, Intel is very competitive with price:performance, probably because their dual and quad cores are cheaper to produce than Ryzen dies (which are all produced as 8 cores).

but again, this is borderline impossible to prove this is the thought process someone went through.

Do not underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer.

Bottom line, since AMD makes a profit on all their processors even though they all cost the same to manufacture, they are never at a "loss" any time anyone decides to buy one, be it a lower cost one, or higher cost one.

To paraphrase my statement earlier: they may not have lost money, but there is potential money they never earned, yet should have.

Hmm..... Anyone willing to make odds-or-ends of this? https://imgur.com/a/1z32s

schmidtbag:

The hypothetical person is buying a 1600(X) in the hopes that they don't have to buy a Ryzen 7. That would be a loss to AMD, since that means they aren't earning the extra money they'd have got from the R7. If the person never intended to buy a Ryzen 7, then sure, AMD didn't lose any money.

If AMD is rebranding perfectly good Ryzen 7 chips as Ryzen 5, then it's because there is strong demand for the latter (and an excess supply of the former). It won't do AMD any good to stockpile Ryzen 7 chips, especially if there is a shortage of Ryzen 5 chips. In the end, it's money in AMD's pocket and they don't lose anything by doing it.

D3M1G0D:

If AMD is rebranding perfectly good Ryzen 7 chips as Ryzen 5, then it's because there is strong demand for the latter (and an excess supply of the former). It won't do AMD any good to stockpile Ryzen 7 chips, especially if there is a shortage of Ryzen 5 chips. In the end, it's money in AMD's pocket and they don't lose anything by doing it.

AMD is still arguably losing money on functional hardware they can't sell, but, they are inevitably returning more of a profit by selling a higher quantity of lower-end parts. I'm sure AMD gets more of a profit selling 2x 1600Xs than they do 1700Xs. I do see your point though.

OMG! Poor AMD!.....and this just happen 1 day before Intel releases it´s new CPU batch........what a coincidence.................suuuuuuuuuuurreeeeee 😉 Well played AMD, well played 🙂

tunaphish6:

I'll have to check when I get home tonight--it's a computer I've been using as a back-up. I just reformatted and was heading out the door when I checked--cursory glance at Task Manager labeled it as a 6-core and Windows 10's Task Manager is just different enough to where you can't confirm individual cores. Downloading HWMonitor really quick showed cores 0-6, each with individual temps and frequencies. I'll benchmark it tonight, as well as confirm with other utilities--it might just be a coincidental fluke.

If you look closely, you'll notice HWMonitor lists Core 0, Core 1, Core 2, Core 4, Core 5 and Core 6. There is no Core 3. It looks like a bug in HWMonitor. Open Task Manager. Go to the "Performance" tab and change the graph view to "Logical Processors". If there's only 12 graphs displayed, it's a 6 core processor.

sykozis:

If you look closely, you'll notice HWMonitor lists Core 0, Core 1, Core 2, Core 4, Core 5 and Core 6. There is no Core 3. It looks like a bug in HWMonitor. Open Task Manager. Go to the "Performance" tab and change the graph view to "Logical Processors". If there's only 12 graphs displayed, it's a 6 core processor.

Thanks for the heads up. Guess I got my hopes up.

D3M1G0D:

They're most likely accidental chips - chips which were functional 8 cores but packaged as 6 cores, but without two of the cores deactivated. I wouldn't expect any additional chips like them (the customers who got them are incredibly lucky).

I agree, I believe it was a mistake on behalf of the supplier - I imagine it would be illegal to purposefully include 8 cores within Ryzen 5 CPUs because it's not the known specification of the product, the consumer would be getting something they didn't agree to (even if it is an extra 2 cores & most wouldn't complain!).

@Robbo9999 just read all the legal/fine prints, it doesnt matter if the customer finds it cool or not. most terms/conditions/disclaimer etc are almost always "accepted" when purchasing of the product (even if you need to unpack the product to read them) they usually guarantee a certain performance "or better", so getting a faster/more cores/whatever it is, dont see anything more happening than a return to POS. and as long as amd released the cpu as an 8 core, there is no issue. doubt they forgot to disable 2 cores, more likely cause of supply shortage (amd) or by accident (seller).

airbud7:

what if you never sell it?.....is that still a non-gain or a loss? shareholders like to see real money.

Shareholder doesn't need real money at all but dividends. If not enough dividend they can fire some "unimportant" worker to get some cashflow and pay shareholder. Also if you don't sell it then it is in stock and so it's at the manufacture cost price (and so 2 way to do one at fluctuation cost mean if you reduce the manufacture cost then the complete stock cost less and one at static cost in wich in same scenario you will have one old stock at a price and one at a less expensive cost for the same product). so yes still non-gain if they doesn't sold them, they just have made value. Anyway if smart company they never lost money 😉

rl66:

it's not a lost of 70Euro but a non-gain of 70Euro... it would be a lost if the CPU would have cost +70Euro to be done and that the consumer price would have been kept at old CPU's price with 0 gain (wich is clearly not the case)

Do you have a finance/accounting degree? It's considered a loss because they lose the opportunity to sell it for higher. A loss is a loss.

Silva:

Do you have a finance/accounting degree? It's considered a loss because they lose the opportunity to sell it for higher. A loss is a loss.

Do you not understand a lost sale is worse than a slight reduction in profit. I would venture to say that the 1600/x sells better than R7 and Threadripper combined. Selling 3 1600 is equivalent to selling 2 1700 in profit. And again there is no LOSS it's a reduced profit. AMD makes a profit on 1600 and 1700 because both cost the same to manufacture. You are the only one in this thread that does not seem to understand this. Look at it this way. Since they both cost the same to make. 1600/x sells say 3 million units in a quarter (stock is only 2.5 million) R7 whole lineup sells 750,000 in a quarter (stock is 1.5 million) You need another 500,000 6 core units and have 750,000 8 core units not moving. Which is worse financially the lost sale or the reduced profit?

What? ^ http://replygif.net/i/317.gif

fry178:

@Robbo9999 just read all the legal/fine prints, it doesnt matter if the customer finds it cool or not. most terms/conditions/disclaimer etc are almost always "accepted" when purchasing of the product (even if you need to unpack the product to read them) they usually guarantee a certain performance "or better", so getting a faster/more cores/whatever it is, dont see anything more happening than a return to POS. and as long as amd released the cpu as an 8 core, there is no issue. doubt they forgot to disable 2 cores, more likely cause of supply shortage (amd) or by accident (seller).

I don't know about the fine print in this situation, but I know that in many industries deviating too far from expected specifications for a product will land you in hot water! And even on a non-legal level, it's kind of ridiculous to buy a CPU expecting to get 6 cores & then you get 8 instead - it's a different product, it's not the one you bought, can't be anything other than a mistake from AMD, no way they did it on purpose - it's exceedingly unprofessional for them to say "yeah, let's just bung in a few 8 core products because we ran out of 6 core products"; unfortunately it's also exceedingly unprofessional if it was a mistake/accident! Although personally I'd have more respect for them as a company if it was a genuine mistake rather than a decision - deviating from spec so far on purpose would be unthinkable, it would call into question the integrity of their whole product lineup & whole business the way I see it.

Robbo9999:

I don't know about the fine print in this situation, but I know that in many industries deviating too far from expected specifications for a product will land you in hot water! And even on a non-legal level, it's kind of ridiculous to buy a CPU expecting to get 6 cores & then you get 8 instead - it's a different product, it's not the one you bought, can't be anything other than a mistake from AMD, no way they did it on purpose - it's exceedingly unprofessional for them to say "yeah, let's just bung in a few 8 core products because we ran out of 6 core products"; unfortunately it's also exceedingly unprofessional if it was a mistake/accident! Although personally I'd have more respect for them as a company if it was a genuine mistake rather than a decision - deviating from spec so far on purpose would be unthinkable, it would call into question the integrity of their whole product lineup & whole business the way I see it.

Likely just an error in manufacturing that the cores weren't disabled. Not 1800x's packaged wrong or anything like that. This is assuming that the reports are true.

Do you have a finance/accounting degree? It's a loss because they lose the opportunity to sell it for higher. A loss is a loss.

First one has to understand how COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) is calculated. Forget FIFO(First in First out), LIFO(Last in First out) or Averaging valuation methods. SG&A (Selling General & Administrative) is below the line. The equation is simple Beginning inventory + cost of goods manufactured - ending inventory = COGS. Take an item out of inventory that costs more to manufacture than the "proper" item and sell it for the same amount as the lessor item; a reduced price. This provides the amount earned as sales. Sales - COGS = Gross Profit/Gross Margin. So there is no loss to report. It is just a reduced profit. This kind of substitution does not meet any requirement to be disclosed even as a footnote to the financials in a 10Q or 10K. No public disclosure required. Opportunity Cost is an economic term and has nothing to do with accounting. It has meaning for an economist not an accountant issuing financial statements.

Cheeky bastards.Got a call from the shop I bought my components from , that they have instructions from AMD to recall some of the ryzen CPUs.I had to return the CPU, because it's defective ,and I get a new one.I told him there is something wrong ,for sure ,motherboard firmware reports 8 cores and 16 threads and the BIOS is not working right.He changed his voice tone there, I didn't realize why at that moment , even asked me if I confirmed that in CPU-z.I couldn't send the CPU back this week and googled the recall and lo and behold, threads pooping up about 8 core ryzen 5's. Even reports 4 Mb of L2 cache like the 1800x. Gona overclock it and run some tests to see where it stands.The funny part is, I had to wait almost 2 weeks for it and they gave me an extra discount for it... Hehe lucky me.