• 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 announce EPYC

Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,507
Location
Notts
I think the point here is its looking like AMD will have better pre-core performance and "MOAR COREZ". the cake and they get to eat it.

tbh if people just keep saying it over an over for years at one point it might come true. :p

then its going to be i told you this " insert whatever amd chip it is " was a intel beater. haha.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2003
Posts
4,203
Location
Stourport-On-Severn
I think 6 cores is a great starting point, and will allow them to use partially faulty dies (potentially), and if you consider they could be bringing them in at $99 and hopefully with a nice APU attached it would greatly disrupt the OEM market, and the low end desktop, more so than the 2200G has so far. It would be competing against Intel's i7 8700 or the i5 9600 but at a huge cost advantage and overall be better in power, speed, and security, a quadruple whammy.

I don't disagree with your latter thinking there Journey, but i also think that AMD won't actually have enough partially faulty dies to make the process worthwhile. In other words, why cherry pick such small dies, makes more sense to me to dump them and pick the best.................after all, they will never have to pay for them in the first place if they don't come up to spec.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,150
Location
West Midlands
I don't disagree with your latter thinking there Journey, but i also think that AMD won't actually have enough partially faulty dies to make the process worthwhile. In other words, why cherry pick such small dies, makes more sense to me to dump them and pick the best.................after all, they will never have to pay for them in the first place if they don't come up to spec.

Indeed, but even imperfect products can be sold, and TSMC/AMD may have an agreement in place while the 7nm costs are high that allows both parties to benefit. TSMC get paid a little towards the losses, and AMD get ultra cheap product to use at the lower end of the market place.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,841
Location
Planet Earth
It's not that hard to figure out is it?

Retail pricing of the R5 1600/2600 is USD $140-160 it's a six core CPU, using an 8 core die. Moving to a 16-core CPU isn't that big of a push at the highest end of the product stack for the enthusiast space. £499 again, like the 1800X was on release but this time for a 16c/32t CPU with 20+4 PCI-E lanes, and dual channel RAM, with a performance of that to outdo the competition. Again don't forget they sold the TR4 1900X which was only an 8-core CPU on the HEDT platform, giving access to those features that AM4 doesn't have. They could happily start the HEDT platform at 16c then go to 24/32/40/48 etc, allowing scope to make it impossible to chose Intel be it for number of cores, speed, or price.

I'd be highly surprised not to see a 6/8/12/16 in the standard desktop space, with a view to abandoning 4 cores to all but the very entry level devices.

Exactly. The 16 core CPU will be more expensive than what is available now. So lets say £500 to £550 at current exchange rates which is almost double what AMD charge now.

So something like:
1.)Ryzen 7 3800X 16C/32T ~ £500/£550
2.)Ryzen 7 3800 16C/32T ~ £400/£450
3.)Ryzen 7 3700X 12C/24T ~£350/£400
4.)Ryzen 7 3700 12C/24T ~ £300/£350
5.)Ryzen 5 3600X 8C/16T ~ £200/£250
6.)Ryzen 5 3600 8C/16T ~ £150/£200
7.)Ryzen 3 3500X 6C/12T ~ £100/£150
8.)Ryzen 3 3500 6C/12T ~£100

Each chiplet is 8C,so a 6C/12T CPU will have 3C enabled on each chiplet.

I mean it could be quite possible AMD does not do 16C on the desktop and only goes 8C.

The only case I can see that happening is we never see an AMD Ryzen 2 CPU,ie,its only an APU,and AMD goes from three desktop CPU lines to only 2.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Exactly. The 16 core CPU will be more expensive than what is available now. So lets say £500 to £550 at current exchange rates which is almost double what AMD charge now.

So something like:
1.)Ryzen 7 3800X 16C/32T ~ £500/£550
2.)Ryzen 7 3800 16C/32T ~ £400/£450
3.)Ryzen 7 3700X 12C/24T ~£350/£400
4.)Ryzen 7 3700 12C/24T ~ £300/£350
5.)Ryzen 5 3600X 8C/16T ~ £200/£250
6.)Ryzen 5 3600 8C/16T ~ £150/£200
7.)Ryzen 3 3500X 6C/12T ~ £100/£150
8.)Ryzen 3 3500 6C/12T ~£100

Each chiplet is 8C,so a 6C/12T CPU will have 3C enabled on each chiplet.

I mean it could be quite possible AMD does not do 16C on the desktop and only goes 8C.

The only case I can see that happening is we never see an AMD Ryzen 2 CPU,ie,its only an APU,and AMD goes from three desktop CPU lines to only 2.

Will look impressive if launched as proposed by you ;) I would fix the prices a little bit:

1.)Ryzen 7 3800X 16C/32T ~ £500
2.)Ryzen 7 3800 16C/32T ~ £450
3.)Ryzen 7 3700X 12C/24T ~£400
4.)Ryzen 7 3700 12C/24T ~ £350
5.)Ryzen 5 3600X 8C/16T ~ £300
6.)Ryzen 5 3600 8C/16T ~ £250

7.)Ryzen 3 3500X 6C/12T ~ £200
8.)Ryzen 3 3500 6C/12T ~£150
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
You'll probably find that the £400+ SKU's would become an Ryzen 9, rather than Ryzen 7.

Let's hope it is Ryzen 10.

1.)Ryzen 10 3800X 16C/32T ~ £500
2.)Ryzen 10 3800 16C/32T ~ £450
3.)Ryzen 8 3700X 12C/24T ~£400
4.)Ryzen 8 3700 12C/24T ~ £350
5.)Ryzen 7 3600X 8C/16T ~ £300
6.)Ryzen 7 3600 8C/16T ~ £250

7.)Ryzen 5 3500X 6C/12T ~ £200
8.)Ryzen 5 3500 6C/12T ~£150
 
Associate
Joined
10 Jul 2009
Posts
1,559
Location
London
16 core mainstream means likely 8 core minimum, it likely means 8 core APUs and it likely means quad core becoming the bare minimum in laptops as well. THat moves the baseline from dual core, to quad core. That's how that works. They still sold single cores along with dual cores, when they moved to quad cores, single cores went the way of the dodo, when they all went to 8 cores.... wait, Intel didn't until just now but while still selling 8th gen with dual cores in large supply.

More cores at the top end means more cores at the bottom end, that's the entire point. Game devs can't target the highest core chips sold because it will cut off 99% of potential game sales, which is the reason they target the lowest chips being sold. When the lowest chips improve, so do the targets game devs design for, this is both the way it's always been and the only way it can work. This worked on single core also, when the chips had X performance at the low end then that's what they targetted, as single core performance rose significantly and both AMD and Intel raised the performance of the lowest end chips so went up demands from games.

Are we forgetting Intel, the elephant in the room with their low end chips. Id does not matter what AMD is pushing, it matter what intel is suggesting.
Why does AMD need to bring 16 core Ryzen, when they already have 12/16/32 core Threadripper? Why confuse the market by dumping overlapping SKUs to the market. We have one Intel with their isomethingmeaningless naming nomenclature and hundreds of same chips under different names, why we need same thing from AMD? I would understand everyones desire to get 16 core desktop from AMD with Zen 2 if Threadripper was never introduced, but it has been and its here.
It is very likely that 3700x will woop Intels top dog to the pulp, and then comes Zen 2 threadripper with higher clocks to completely wipe the floor with i9s or whatever Intel will bring if ever.
Its amazing to see all this personal customisation going on :D hey AMD has 16 cores already, but I want different 16 cores, please, you'll see it will be so cool
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Are we forgetting Intel, the elephant in the room with their low end chips. Id does not matter what AMD is pushing, it matter what intel is suggesting.
Why does AMD need to bring 16 core Ryzen, when they already have 12/16/32 core Threadripper? Why confuse the market by dumping overlapping SKUs to the market. We have one Intel with their isomethingmeaningless naming nomenclature and hundreds of same chips under different names, why we need same thing from AMD? I would understand everyones desire to get 16 core desktop from AMD with Zen 2 if Threadripper was never introduced, but it has been and its here.
It is very likely that 3700x will woop Intels top dog to the pulp, and then comes Zen 2 threadripper with higher clocks to completely wipe the floor with i9s or whatever Intel will bring if ever.
Its amazing to see all this personal customisation going on :D hey AMD has 16 cores already, but I want different 16 cores, please, you'll see it will be so cool

Because Threadripper is a no-go unless you are a prosumer where its audience is.
Because Threadripper is expensive, power-hungry, needs special cooling and all of these make it clumsy and unwieldy.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
3,846
Are we forgetting Intel, the elephant in the room with their low end chips. Id does not matter what AMD is pushing, it matter what intel is suggesting.
Why does AMD need to bring 16 core Ryzen, when they already have 12/16/32 core Threadripper? Why confuse the market by dumping overlapping SKUs to the market. We have one Intel with their isomethingmeaningless naming nomenclature and hundreds of same chips under different names, why we need same thing from AMD? I would understand everyones desire to get 16 core desktop from AMD with Zen 2 if Threadripper was never introduced, but it has been and its here.
It is very likely that 3700x will woop Intels top dog to the pulp, and then comes Zen 2 threadripper with higher clocks to completely wipe the floor with i9s or whatever Intel will bring if ever.
Its amazing to see all this personal customisation going on :D hey AMD has 16 cores already, but I want different 16 cores, please, you'll see it will be so cool

Because if you can you bring a dominating force to a fight, not one just barely good enough.

You offer twice the cores for a slightly lower price.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Nov 2012
Posts
668
Will look impressive if launched as proposed by you ;) I would fix the prices a little bit:

1.)Ryzen 7 3800X 16C/32T ~ £500
2.)Ryzen 7 3800 16C/32T ~ £450
3.)Ryzen 7 3700X 12C/24T ~£400
4.)Ryzen 7 3700 12C/24T ~ £350
5.)Ryzen 5 3600X 8C/16T ~ £300
6.)Ryzen 5 3600 8C/16T ~ £250

7.)Ryzen 3 3500X 6C/12T ~ £200
8.)Ryzen 3 3500 6C/12T ~£150

A 16C mainstream part with a PCIE4 motherboard, yum if only!
 
Associate
Joined
10 Jul 2009
Posts
1,559
Location
London
Because Threadripper is a no-go unless you are a prosumer where its audience is.
Because Threadripper is expensive, power-hungry, needs special cooling and all of these make it clumsy and unwieldy.

And you believe 16core 32 thread high clocked desktop worthy Ryzen will not be expensive, high TDP which needs high end cooling, and not clumsy with various games having issues with 16+ threads? Oh and 32 threads on dual channel? It would be interesting :D

Because if you can you bring a dominating force to a fight, not one just barely good enough.

You offer twice the cores for a slightly lower price.

So you believe that 8 core Zen 2 clocked at say 4.5ghz will not be dominant against intels offerings? Intel already showed their hand with 9900K, and they are bleeding with pricing they MSRPd them at. Yet it still look pointless to everyone except 2-3 people in the market, even with Ryzen 2000 series.
And its so easy for you guys to wish AMD to release twice the cores for less money, but we need strong AMD with more money pumped in R&D, not the one which is selling their chips for peanuts just to satisfy few select people, just to prove that hey they can. Market woke up already, thanks to Ryzen.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,150
Location
West Midlands
And its so easy for you guys to wish AMD to release twice the cores for less money, but we need strong AMD with more money pumped in R&D, not the one which is selling their chips for peanuts just to satisfy few select people, just to prove that hey they can. Market woke up already, thanks to Ryzen.

Why is £500 peanuts? It's called marketing, and a show of force it makes life difficult for anyone to choose the competition if you have every base covered and then some. I'm pretty sure that brand awareness and word association is something that AMD would like when people say, fastest CPU for gaming, best CPU for productivity, best longevity, and high end enthusiast.

Also £500 16c is not twice the money, they sell 8c for less than £200... So yes.
 
Associate
Joined
10 Jul 2009
Posts
1,559
Location
London
Brand awareness and clogging the market with pointless SKUs are two different things ;)
As I said, 16 cores 32 threads on dual channel memory does not make sense. In order for it to make sense 4 channels required, that bumps tdp to levels where some of you do not like. They could have done 12 cores for am4, they had the tech, and could have priced it easily low enough, but they didn't. Enthusiast market which those 16 cores would aim at already know AMD and Ryzen, look at the sales of AMD chips at biggest retailers.
 
Back
Top Bottom