I'm also a bit confused by some of the responses to this reveal. AMD looks like it will still keep the value crown while continuing to increase the performance of its parts. While it could sell these cheaper why should it? It's not a charity. People have proved that they will buy Intel higher end desktop parts no matter how much they cost. Why should AMD not introduce a part that will likely match the 9900k in most workloads and beat it in others at a quite a significant discount?
-
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 Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
perhaps the better comparison is the US prices.
9900k on the USA rainforest = $485, intel bulk pricing = $488. OCUK £500 (briefly £450 on a 24h special, but i can't see any reason why this cannot be repeated)
3800x $399...by extension as we all know 1:1 conversion ~ £400 (and including day-one retailer gouging) i can see it having price parity with the 9900k, at least for the first month or two. or more if intel stealth drops their prices.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
What's underwhelming is you can buy a 8 core 16 thread CPU from AMD today for what ~£200 today. We're moving to 7nm, double the transistor density, 8 core/16 thread should be dropping in cost. 7nm costs more per mm^2, but we're still talking about a fairly significantly smaller amount of actual 7nm die and a much cheaper than it was then 14nm die. Frankly they could be, and should be imo offering the 12core chips at current 8 core pricing, and offering 16 core stuff at higher prices.
Going from a £200 2700 8core 16 thread chip to a £300 8 core 16 thread chip when the production cost is significantly lower is incredibly underwhelming and exceptionally disappointing.
I fully intend to upgrade to Zen and had waited for Zen 2, but I was hoping for a very reasonably priced 12 core as we currently have reasonably priced 8 cores. Going from very reasonably priced 8 cores to significantly more expensive 8 cores is not imo good, for a node drop.
This is a very 'intel' move, using a node for increasing margins over offering just drastically better performance. Cheaper chips per core = higher volume sales, stealing shedloads of market share and generally causing many people to switch.
Intel will drop prices to match AMD and now it will end up being 8 core 16 thread Intel vs AMD at about the same price. With Intel name recognition that isn't going to convince huge amounts of people to switch to AMD. Personally I think pricing is terrible and isn't built to take advantage of the next year. AMD should be dominating, absolutely slaying Intel the next year. Make everyone take them seriously, have Intel become the joke company offering half the cores at double the power and without any security and a year of that and Intel's name will have taken a huge hit.
Linus more or less confirmed that 16c Ryzen 3000 will come later in the year.
And to those say "no 5Ghz" probably because X370/B350 boards couldn't take 5Ghz clocks and need to stick to 105W TDP of the 1800X?
Lets not forget, the Ryzen 3000 series has to be backwards compatible to the previous gen. MSI is the only company doesn't support the CPU on the 300 series, and is against using them on 400 series.
Asrock, Asus, Gigabyte to name a few, need to facilitate 12c monstrocity on the boards designed for the 1800X. More likely we didn't see the launch of the 16c chip is because only 500 series can support is and it could have been a sour taste outright if Lisa has said "16c only on 500 series boards".
Already many trolls took up the MSI announcement of no support, as a gospel that AMD was lying to everyone, regardless if Asrock, Asus etc support those CPUs.
And to those say "no 5Ghz" probably because X370/B350 boards couldn't take 5Ghz clocks and need to stick to 105W TDP of the 1800X?
Lets not forget, the Ryzen 3000 series has to be backwards compatible to the previous gen. MSI is the only company doesn't support the CPU on the 300 series, and is against using them on 400 series.
Asrock, Asus, Gigabyte to name a few, need to facilitate 12c monstrocity on the boards designed for the 1800X. More likely we didn't see the launch of the 16c chip is because only 500 series can support is and it could have been a sour taste outright if Lisa has said "16c only on 500 series boards".
Already many trolls took up the MSI announcement of no support, as a gospel that AMD was lying to everyone, regardless if Asrock, Asus etc support those CPUs.
Great post.
This is exactly what is/will happen and is exactly what AMD fans said they wouldn't do, because "AMD need to retake market share".
AMD always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 1,189
- Location
- Guernsey
105w @ stock is pretty good going for 12 cores I think.
Remains to be seen how much more headroom is left.
And where an all core boost will max out at.
Hopefully @ 5ghz+, but that might be some wishful thinking on my part.
Steve @ Gamers Nexus did briefly mention the 16 core is rumoured to be reaching up to 300w.
(but didn't say much more than that).
Least we know why the VRMs have been beefed up on the X570 mobo's lol.
Remains to be seen how much more headroom is left.
And where an all core boost will max out at.
Hopefully @ 5ghz+, but that might be some wishful thinking on my part.
Steve @ Gamers Nexus did briefly mention the 16 core is rumoured to be reaching up to 300w.
(but didn't say much more than that).Least we know why the VRMs have been beefed up on the X570 mobo's lol.
where's 4k8kw10 when you need him to fangirl for amd eh? lol
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,749
- Location
- Planet Earth
They have also announced the Ryzen 5 too. Prices look the same as the launch prices as the Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X at launch.
Though if the specs are true, is around 30% faster. Do you want me to have a look on your previous posts supporting Intel & Nvidia pricing?
Poor release, that is.
I understand that AMD must control the demand because of very tight supply of chiplets from TSMC but this is just too much.
I see people are disappointed, too.
With a Ryzen 7 3800X, you get 150 MHz max clock increase and between 10 and 15% IPC increase, with the same quantity of cores and total performance increase over the Ryzen 7 2700X not more than 15-20%.
This is disgraceful from AMD.
I will wait for new 12C/24T SKUs and/or significantly lower prices than 500$.
People don't even want to speak about it, many are left speechless.
I understand that AMD must control the demand because of very tight supply of chiplets from TSMC but this is just too much.
I see people are disappointed, too.
With a Ryzen 7 3800X, you get 150 MHz max clock increase and between 10 and 15% IPC increase, with the same quantity of cores and total performance increase over the Ryzen 7 2700X not more than 15-20%.
This is disgraceful from AMD.
I will wait for new 12C/24T SKUs and/or significantly lower prices than 500$.
People don't even want to speak about it, many are left speechless.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
So £350-£400 then
.Edit - so not as high as £400 then which was your point, fair enough.
It makes me wonder if there is some kind of dodgy dealing going on between AMD and Intel, such that AMD have an agreement to keep making Intel look
I jest (partly).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
Why wait for a mobo to be released before grabbing a 12c, out of interest?
If this isn't sarcasm I think hell just froze over
from previous uk retailer pricing...you'd probably be waiting a while, if that's your cup of tea. (i know i will, until prices are more sensible)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
3600x look like a killer bang for buck CPU to me. that's the one i will be picking up
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
That's an interesting statement. If you're referring to TSMC yields then this does not necessarily translate to massively lower AMD procurement costs. TSMC will want their pound of flesh too from the innovative 7nm process.
Everyone needs to recover R&D investment for a return on equity that will satisfy shareholders.
Because I do not have a motherboard to put the 3900X on?
Though my brother will be happy, as going to get for him a 12c for his birthday this summer.
It will go well with my old CH6.