AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

[CuriousTomCat]

So if OCUK are selling 2600X for £200, whats logical about them putting up say a zen2 6 core chip up for half that price? how does that make business sense to OCUK, they just wouldnt do it.

Well they have done it. OCUK are still selling the dual core i3-6100 for £158.99 when they are also selling the dual core i3-7100 for £134.99 as well as the quad core i3-8100 for only £109.99.

So yes, why wouldn't OCUK sell a zen2 6 core chip up for half that price? The zen2 6 core has to compete with the i3-8100 for £109.99 so that is the ball-park price they will be aiming for.

 

[Kirby Wurm]

That's not particularly impressive tho is it? Well, not for us gamers More Hz please!

It's fairly impressive how close the single threaded score is considering the clock speed deficit.

 

[Donnie Fisher]

I don't get the concern about vrms on older/existing boards for future CPUs. If it runs a 4core 95W CPU just now then why on earth would you worry about an 8core CPU running at 95W ???

Obviously the core and watts will wary, but the point stands. Why worry?

 

[tamzzy]

I don't get the concern about vrms on older/existing boards for future CPUs. If it runs a 4core 95W CPU just now then why on earth would you worry about an 8core CPU running at 95W ???

Obviously the core and watts will wary, but the point stands. Why worry?

Because of how tdp is measured. It isn't the max power limit that its supposed to be.

Eg 9900k pulling 250w when overclocked when it's a 95w part. That 95w applies only at its non-boost state.

 

[FoxEye]

Might find you're underestimating the depreciation. If rumours are to be believed.

If ryzen 3000 hex core is going to be in the region of £100-120.
And you've just spent £180 on a 2600x...which you need to take into account as well.
My man maths suggests that expected resale price of the 2600x is probably going to be in the region of £70-80 (let's say £80 for argument's sake).
Your loss is looking more like £100, rather than £20-30.

As others have said, I don't think there's even a remote chance that they're going to be as cheap as that.

Expecting 8c/16t to be in the region of £250-£300, personally.

It would be strange to expect such a cheap product when all the noises coming out of AMD in the past few years have been, "We want to drop our image of being a budget brand."

Expect prices similar/comparable to Intel.

 

[tamzzy]

@FoxEye as I've said, I'm just going off the currently available rumours, so as always, a large pinch of salt is required.

And again, as I've said in other threads, I suspect that the true pricing would probably be an additional 10-20% of the current rumours (plus whatever the retailer price gouging is). But again, that's just my man maths.

 

[Murphy]

I don't get the concern about vrms on older/existing boards for future CPUs. If it runs a 4core 95W CPU just now then why on earth would you worry about an 8core CPU running at 95W ???

Obviously the core and watts will wary, but the point stands. Why worry?

Because it's not just about running a similar 95W TDP, it's about running a CPU with a 10W TDP higher requirement and potentially a real world extra 50-100W.

The key word is the requirement, a 1800x had a TDP of 95W at stock settings and those stock settings included a base clock of 3.6 and boost of 4.0, a 2700X has a TDP of 105W with a base of 3.7 and boost of 4.3.

Specing a motherboard for a 95W CPU at 4.0Ghz is fine as you may build in 10-20% headroom, use that same board for a 105W CPU and 4.3Ghz means you've now got a board with less headroom and that lower headroom results in possibly not being able to OC the new CPU to the same extent as the old one.

Put it this way, if you only had 1080p media and were shopping for a new TV would you spend a little extra for a 1440p or even 4K TV even though you don't currently need it or would you stick to buying a 1080p TV and possibly regret it later when you do have some higher definition media to watch?

 

[chrcoluk]

Depends on MSRP as well...if over gouged, either won't buy or buy elsewhere...just like the 9900k where many enthusiasts just bought from Amazon USA instead

yes but not enough to stop the retailers from selling out. So it didnt matter.

 

[chrcoluk]

Because of how tdp is measured. It isn't the max power limit that its supposed to be.

Eg 9900k pulling 250w when overclocked when it's a 95w part. That 95w applies only at its non-boost state.

It includes boost state also.

Thats why turbo mode by default is limited to low cores.

So e.g. max turbo is only on 1-2 active cores, then it progressively goes to a lower clock as the active core count goes up.

My 8600k at non turbo speeds barely hits 50 watts and its a 95 watt TDP, however it will hover 90-95 under AVX load in stock turbo usage.

 

[tamzzy]

yes but not enough to stop the retailers from selling out. So it didnt matter.

prices dropped pretty quickly to msrp actually, for the 9900k in comparison to previous releases like the 8700k etc
IIRC ocuk never sold out, or if they did, stock was pretty quickly replenished (granted it was the oem chips they were getting, not the retail stock)

It includes boost state also.

But Intel’s rated TDPs are always calculated at the base clock, with no turbo frequency enabled at all. In other words, a CPU cooler capable of handling a 95W TDP is suitable for handling a 9900K running at stock frequency. As soon as Turbo Mode kicks in, all bets are off in terms of overall power consumption.

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...asurements-dont-reflect-real-world-power-draw


from the horse's mouth (aka intel):

TDP

Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.

 

[chrcoluk]

Well my comment excludes the 9xxx intel chips, everything just went upside down on power draw with those chips LOL.

Also some board vendors even run chips out of spec on stock bios settings. Probably to cheat benchmark reviews.

 

[tamzzy]

Well my comment excludes the 9xxx intel chips, everything just went upside down on power draw with those chips LOL.

intel's "tdp" has been this way for quite a while now actually. it's only because they've started to cram more cores into their cpu design that something had to give...

Also some board vendors even run chips out of spec on stock bios settings. Probably to cheat benchmark reviews.

yep. called MCE. remember the MCE fiasco for the 8700k not too long ago?

 

[Murphy]

It includes boost state also.

Thats why turbo mode by default is limited to low cores.

I thought Intel change that recently and only measured TDP at base clock rate, IDK how AMD measures it as I've not paid much attention to TDP as it's become fairly meaningless IMO.

Didn't people complain about a recent Intel CPU with a TDP spec that was something like a third lower than what reviewers tested.

EDIT: Forget that tamzzy already covered most of it.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

As others have said, I don't think there's even a remote chance that they're going to be as cheap as that.

Expecting 8c/16t to be in the region of £250-£300, personally.

It would be strange to expect such a cheap product when all the noises coming out of AMD in the past few years have been, "We want to drop our image of being a budget brand."

Expect prices similar/comparable to Intel.

Why on earth would AMD charge so much money for a Ryzen 5 when it has to compete with the Intel Core i5 which starts at £169.99? Yes, AMD dont want to be known as a budget brand but charging £250-£300 to compete with an i5 for £169.99 is beyond ridiculous.

 

[hominid]

Ryzen 3k, X570 Motherboards and Navi supposedly launching on 7th July: https://twitter.com/wccftechdotcom/status/1097191964116606976

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Wccftech got that "news" by watching RedGamingTech's video from 2 days ago. Paul himself said Navi may still be delayed according to his leak.

 

[tamzzy]

7/7 hmmm....i wonder...

 

[FoxEye]

Why on earth would AMD charge so much money for a Ryzen 5 when it has to compete with the Intel Core i5 which starts at £169.99? Yes, AMD dont want to be known as a budget brand but charging £250-£300 to compete with an i5 for £169.99 is beyond ridiculous.

I believe that the Ryzen 3 that AMD demo'd beating an i9 9990k was an 8c/16t chip (Cinebench).

So they don't have to line up against the Intel i5 chips, that's for sure.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

I believe that the Ryzen 3 that AMD demo'd beating an i9 9990k was an 8c/16t chip (Cinebench).

So they don't have to line up against the Intel i5 chips, that's for sure.

Yes, an 8c/16t Ryzen 5, not a Ryzen 7. The numbers are to show which Intel CPU they're are competing against. The Ryzen 3000 8c/16t CPU demo'd at CES was a Ryzen 5, it's been confirmed and it is aimed at the i5 market.

 

[FoxEye]

Yes, an 8c/16t Ryzen 5, not a Ryzen 7. The numbers are to show which Intel CPU they're are competing against. The Ryzen 3000 8c/16t CPU demo'd at CES was a Ryzen 5, it's been confirmed and it is aimed at the i5 market.

As a business, AMD are very unlikely to give away massive amounts of performance over their rival's chips for "free".

I guess we'll find out in 609 months.