Chips usually cost less than burgers.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD 8 core RYZEN price
- Thread starter cosmogenesis
- Start date
Chips usually cost less than burgers.
Well, a mobile i5 is a dual core too
And so are some of the mobile i7's.Intel is a bit of a con artist when it comes to mobile chips. You have to look up the exact model to find what you're getting. A mobile i5 can be worse than a desktop i3 (and clocked lower too!)
Depending on what you're doing with it, a mobile i3 can sometimes be better than a mobile i5 
e.g an i3 dual core hyperthreaded at 2.5GHz vs an i5 dual core hyperthreaded at 2.0GHz. But the i5 has more cache or something. I don't get it at all, mobile processors are daft.
Aren't they called M3/M5/M7 now too?
e.g an i3 dual core hyperthreaded at 2.5GHz vs an i5 dual core hyperthreaded at 2.0GHz. But the i5 has more cache or something. I don't get it at all, mobile processors are daft.
Aren't they called M3/M5/M7 now too?
I think they will push volume sales over margins, simply to claw back desperately needed market share, and to push for a more favorable wafer supply agreement with GFlo. Also higher volume means they can bin more of the better chips, and sell them as another model at higher price points latter down the line.
It has to be substantially cheaper to sell in decent numbers and bring back market share. If they price it stupidly then I will be avoiding on principle, even if AMD is better value for money as at least the boards will be a bit more feature rich.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,744
- Location
- Planet Earth
So basically some of you will pay more for a worse value Intel chip unless AMD gives their ones away away for nothing, hence making sure they have crap margins so they can then have no money for more R and D and will eventually go bankrupt.
IMHO if that is the attitude of some I really think they should just concentrate on the OEM and commercial markets TBH,and not bother with the DIY one.
Lol, now I know why Intel still sold a decent amount of Pentium 4 CPUs to enthusiasts despite the Athlon 64. They basically want AMD to enable people to buy cheaper Intel CPUs,and will still pay beyond the odds for them.
No,I don't think a 4C/8T Ryzen will be under £190 if it has decent IPC since not even the FX8150 and Phenom 955BE were that price at launch. The Phenom II X6 was the same.
Plus if AMD can get Haswell/Broadwell level IPC,I don't see any reason why it should not be priced at Core I5 6600K/7700K level especially since it even will come with the Wraith cooler which is half decent and will have HT which incurs around a £75 to £100 tax on the Intel side.
IMHO if that is the attitude of some I really think they should just concentrate on the OEM and commercial markets TBH,and not bother with the DIY one.
Lol, now I know why Intel still sold a decent amount of Pentium 4 CPUs to enthusiasts despite the Athlon 64. They basically want AMD to enable people to buy cheaper Intel CPUs,and will still pay beyond the odds for them.
No,I don't think a 4C/8T Ryzen will be under £190 if it has decent IPC since not even the FX8150 and Phenom 955BE were that price at launch. The Phenom II X6 was the same.
Plus if AMD can get Haswell/Broadwell level IPC,I don't see any reason why it should not be priced at Core I5 6600K/7700K level especially since it even will come with the Wraith cooler which is half decent and will have HT which incurs around a £75 to £100 tax on the Intel side.
Last edited:
I am building a Ryzen based PC regardless next year, I just think given how bad the bulldozer margins are anyway. Taking a lower profit per chip, compared to Intel would still be a massive financial win for them.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 1,342
£350 isn't nothing (for the 8c, 16t), and that's a very reasonable price to pay on a single small square chip IMO.
They'll be missing out on quite a number of sales then, and will be selling them at an even cheaper price if they want anyone to buy the OEM machines. I'll take an OEM chip without the packaging or useless stock cooler, anyway.
I might be convinced to purchase an AMD chip, if the price is right (not free though, I realise that is too much to ask).
Well that's a shame. Quad-core in 2017 will be equivalent to 2016's dual-core in my book, and £190 is enough to be spending on ageing CPU technology.
Everyone's been saying, quite rightly, that Intel have been overpriced for years. Now is the chance for CPU prices to come down to more reasonable levels. I don't think many people are interested in the stock cooler, especially on this site. If the cooler is expensive (hybrid) then they'd better have an option without.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,742
If amd make an affordable 8c/16t chip then its all good even if its slower than the intel offering. As its 1k so few are sold
That's actually the most likely outcome because due to having no competition for so long Intels 6/8 core CPUs are all overpriced to hell at the moment, some of them cost double what they should.
Five years ago Intel were charging $583 for a hexcore i7 because there was no competitor, eight years ago they were charging $339 for a Q9650 because there was a competitor. Those chips were both high end like the 6900K.
Oh-kay, firstly the FX-9590 was discounted to sub-£200 ASAP as they realised nobody was going to pay that much for an AMD CPU, and thankfully after the subpar GPU marketing AMD have now accepted that they are a valued brand and they cannot command Intel equivalent prices just because they try and market themselves as a premium brand.
Secondly, the FX-51 was the best CPU in history when it launched, that is quite a selling point. Not only was it 64 bit but it arrived just as Intel were going into full panic mode as the realisation set in that Pentium 4 was dead in the water. This CPU unlike so many, was worth every penny.
Thirdly, factoring in inflation/tax/etc to adjust CPU prices doesn't work, a 200MHz Pentium Pro would be $1,900 in todays money, does that mean AMD should target that?
Last edited:
I don't think you know what "giving it away" means.
Their 8 core needs to be less than £400, it absolutely needs to be. Intel prices are broken so aren't an example of what AMD prices should be.
FX-9590 was discounted pretty quickly because it soon became apparrent that it was just about competitive with a stock clocked i5 at the time, while consuming a ludicrous amount of electricity and getting really hot. In today's Intel lineup it's average gaming performance is somewhere between a a stock i3 6100 and i5 6400 (performance more favourable where multithreading is important) so it makes no sense for it to sell at a higher price.
A few relatively credible sources I've seen are reporting rumours of a 4c8t Ryzen (hopefully competitive with i7 6700) for US$150 (here's one http://www.pcworld.com/article/3149...h-will-amds-zen-cost-heres-what-we-think.html ).
If there's a Ryzen option at that performance / price level I'll going AM4 pretty much immediately. If it's somewhere north of £250, I'll hang on to what I've got or look at 2nd hand i7 options. I'd imagine lots of people would make similar decisions.
However to shift some volume, AMD need OEMs on board. They need to be courting Apple, Dell & HP rather than the like of you and me (it's perhaps not that far fetched that we might see Macs with AMD CPUs: http://www.thebitbag.com/apple-imac-2017-with-amd-ryzen-processor/212804). A Zen based SOC with integrated GPU similar to XB1 or PS4 could actually work really well in a Mac - and imagine what being selected by Apple would immediately do for AMD's reputation.
Another upcoming maching on the horizon is Microsoft's Xbox Project Scorpio. It's pretty guaranteed that it wil feature an AMD CPU but a relativly low clocked 4c8t version based on Zen architecture might well give equivalent or better performance to the Jaguar based chip in current Xboxes, while remaining energy efficient - or up the clock rate to allow it to out-muscle PS4 Pro.
It's the like of Mac and Xbox that will keep AMD's revenue coming in if they get those kind of design wins.
A few relatively credible sources I've seen are reporting rumours of a 4c8t Ryzen (hopefully competitive with i7 6700) for US$150 (here's one http://www.pcworld.com/article/3149...h-will-amds-zen-cost-heres-what-we-think.html ).
If there's a Ryzen option at that performance / price level I'll going AM4 pretty much immediately. If it's somewhere north of £250, I'll hang on to what I've got or look at 2nd hand i7 options. I'd imagine lots of people would make similar decisions.
However to shift some volume, AMD need OEMs on board. They need to be courting Apple, Dell & HP rather than the like of you and me (it's perhaps not that far fetched that we might see Macs with AMD CPUs: http://www.thebitbag.com/apple-imac-2017-with-amd-ryzen-processor/212804). A Zen based SOC with integrated GPU similar to XB1 or PS4 could actually work really well in a Mac - and imagine what being selected by Apple would immediately do for AMD's reputation.
Another upcoming maching on the horizon is Microsoft's Xbox Project Scorpio. It's pretty guaranteed that it wil feature an AMD CPU but a relativly low clocked 4c8t version based on Zen architecture might well give equivalent or better performance to the Jaguar based chip in current Xboxes, while remaining energy efficient - or up the clock rate to allow it to out-muscle PS4 Pro.
It's the like of Mac and Xbox that will keep AMD's revenue coming in if they get those kind of design wins.
Last edited:
It doesn't really matter, their prices have to be relative between CPUs. Intel prices are broken, but for the most part i7 prices are relative to core count, so I fully expect the 8 core Ryzen to be about 80% more than the 4 core, and the 6 core price to be almost right in the middle of the 4 and 8 core price.
Let's examine your suggestion that some of intel's cpu's cost 'double' what they should.
Intels 2015 figures for the Client Computing Group which is the unit that deals with cpu sales for desktops laptops and phones....
$32.2 billion revenue out if a total intel revenue of $55.4 billion. Total net income for all of the business was $11.4 billion
http://www.intc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=950391
So intel's revenue (not profit) in 2015 were just over 58% due to CPU sales.
Assume more profit is due to the cpu sales than other business so let's say 75% net profit is from cpu sales rather than a proportinal 58%
Thats $8.55 billion net profit on sales of $32.2 billion which is around 26.5% net profit as a proportion of my generous assumption for profit accounted for by intel cpu's. So you could say from my example the average intel cpu has a circa 25% profit component for intel in its pre tax price (note UK vat is 20%).
So your claim that intel sell cpu's at double cost price looks a bit unlikely (especially in the uk where 20% of the retail coat is due to vat alone and not down to intel) if their average profit margin on the average cpu was circa 25% not closer to well over 100% which would be the situation if intel were selling their cpu's at 'double the price they should be'
You will note that intel spent a not inconsiderable $20.1 billion on r+d and aquisitions in the same period.
The claim that intel have been sitting around doing nothing for years whilst massively overcharging customers is a myth. People on this forum are just too myopic to realise that most of the advancement's in the last 10 years have been in a far more relevant area.... power consumption
This is due to cpu frequencies stalling at around 4Ghz with silicon and increasing core counts quickly showing diminishing returns in most applications.
Simply put the big increases on cpu speeds with silicon cpu's have most likely already been obtained and its pure physics that has left the market leader (intel) only being able to offer small incremental increases in recent years
Last edited:
Intel have basically been refining the same sort of thing since Sandy Bridge. They haven't had to have a really radical rethink of their consumer CPU architecture since Athlon 64 sent them into a panic about the P4s.
Since Sandy Bridge AMD have never done any better than to catch up a little, every so often. I don't think Ryzen is going to send Intel into a particular panic (I see it as probably Intel-competitive rather than Intel-beating). It's not going to force them into a radical architectural rethink.
Honestly, I think Intel's response will be to just cut some prices and then release higher clocked chips (or extra cores / HT for the money) to put themselves in the lead again. It would be nice if AMD can manage to trade blows at the higher end for a while though, as their 14nm process is refined, they move onto 7nm (or maybe 10?) and they can release some higher clocked chips. That should make it possible for some very high performing CPUs to be in the reach of mainstream pricing.
Given most games are cross platform, and the current Xbox and PlayStation generations have comparitively weak octacore CPUs, 8 thread chips (or sufficiently highly performing 4 thread) are going to be enough for gamers for the foreseeable future. I don't think there is going to be a 'killer app' game for a long time that will encourage the masses to upgrade beyond recent i5s, i7s or upcoming 4c8t Ryzen chips. For general home use, even low end CPUs have been adequate for a long time. For someone that just wants a bit of web browsing and media an AMD APU, Pentium, Atom, Celeron or whatever has been fine for a long time.
Since Sandy Bridge AMD have never done any better than to catch up a little, every so often. I don't think Ryzen is going to send Intel into a particular panic (I see it as probably Intel-competitive rather than Intel-beating). It's not going to force them into a radical architectural rethink.
Honestly, I think Intel's response will be to just cut some prices and then release higher clocked chips (or extra cores / HT for the money) to put themselves in the lead again. It would be nice if AMD can manage to trade blows at the higher end for a while though, as their 14nm process is refined, they move onto 7nm (or maybe 10?) and they can release some higher clocked chips. That should make it possible for some very high performing CPUs to be in the reach of mainstream pricing.
Given most games are cross platform, and the current Xbox and PlayStation generations have comparitively weak octacore CPUs, 8 thread chips (or sufficiently highly performing 4 thread) are going to be enough for gamers for the foreseeable future. I don't think there is going to be a 'killer app' game for a long time that will encourage the masses to upgrade beyond recent i5s, i7s or upcoming 4c8t Ryzen chips. For general home use, even low end CPUs have been adequate for a long time. For someone that just wants a bit of web browsing and media an AMD APU, Pentium, Atom, Celeron or whatever has been fine for a long time.
Last edited:
So no sensible rebuttal....
argumetum ad *gif image*???
Rather poor debating technique....
I suggest you put up ( a reasoned argument) or quiten down
Come on what have you got beyond vapid gif's?
Intel spent nearly double the amount on r+d and aquisitions then they made in profit I'm 2015! They haven't been sitting around.
Last edited:
No argent to be had gif says it all
Yes you totally convinced me.......
