• 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

Well, if you have owned a retail store, you should know that the typical profit margin is around 40%. Seriously. Here is a top post from a quick search on google which has electronics at 30.76%.

Now as high as it may seem to some, there are a lot of costs involved in retail and these margins are actually reasonable (really).

People see the $1100 price tag on the 6900K and think it's all going to Intel. In fact, it's more likely the retailer pays $650 to their SUPPLIER and sell on for $1100. Now the supplier's profit margin is somewhat smaller, because they deal in bulk, but it still eats into the Intel price.

My point is, if you consider the entire supply chain, I doubt Intel sells this for more than $500, which gets to $1100 by the time we can get it off some shelf. So the chip itself may in fact cost something like $250 to manufacture.

The gist of it is, if AMD are telling the truth when they say Zen is very cheap to manufacture (e.g. they can build the same at $100 and sell it for $200) then adding similar profit margins ($200 out the factory, $300 for bulk, $500 for retail) you can see how it can easily end-up half price. The cut propagate across the various profit margin ratios.
 
Well, if you have owned a retail store, you should know that the typical profit margin is around 40%. Seriously. Here is a top post from a quick search on google which has electronics at 30.76%.

Now as high as it may seem to some, there are a lot of costs involved in retail and these margins are actually reasonable (really).

People see the $1100 price tag on the 6900K and think it's all going to Intel. In fact, it's more likely the retailer pays $650 to their SUPPLIER and sell on for $1100. Now the supplier's profit margin is somewhat smaller, because they deal in bulk, but it still eats into the Intel price.

My point is, if you consider the entire supply chain, I doubt Intel sells this for more than $500, which gets to $1100 by the time we can get it off some shelf. So the chip itself may in fact cost something like $250 to manufacture.

The gist of it is, if AMD are telling the truth when they say Zen is very cheap to manufacture (e.g. they can build the same at $100 and sell it for $200) then adding similar profit margins ($200 out the factory, $300 for bulk, $500 for retail) you can see how it can easily end-up half price. The cut propagate across the various profit margin ratios.

One more thing to add: there's a big balancing act behind the scenes. Everyone needs their cut and must also consider volumes.

At $500 the chain will be making LESS money per chip and will rely on selling MORE VOLUME to make up for the profit difference. If a retailer is making $200 per Ryzen and $500 per 6900K, they will need to sell Zens at a 3:1 ratio in order to improve their bottom line.

Plus, if a random person walks into a store and asks the salesperson what to get, guess which sale will give them more commission?
 
But then the 8c/16t isn't aimed at you obviously. You are not the target market. You were never considering the intel offering anyway, so why would they price it to get you when they can just price it to be competitive against it's competition?

It'll be the cheaper offerings that'll be aimed at most of us. I hope they will put out a 4c/8t chip at a price comparable to the current 4c i5's (somewhere around £200), with performance close to that of an i7. Then place the 6c/12t chips, at a similar price point to the current i7 4c/8t range (£300-400). That would make sense for AMD. Affordable chips, outperforming the price equivalent offerings from intel. Switch to AMD and move up a class sort of thing.

The is exactly the point. It's funny reading some comments here and all over the place from people who wouldn't even look twice at the 6850k or especially the 6900k saying AMD need to price this around the £400 mark to get their interest haha :D! Sorry folks, but AMD aren't interested in you for THIS particular CPU, so forget it. There will of course be cheaper offerings further down the line, and perhaps the top end Ryzen price will be an indicator of their pricing structure, but straight out the gate they are going for the top end enthusiasts who would otherwise be considering spending over £1K anyway. It will be niche but if they nail it in the performance stakes it's going to be their flagship and get people excited about AMD again. Cheaper options will come later and what's going to be interesting is how these stack up against the Kaby i3/i5 options.
 
Last edited:
well the new gossip is intel are doing a big redesign in 2020, maybe they would have gone for that sooner if pushed, over the last 5years most of their effort seems to be on mobile and high end server as thats where they saw rewards

That will be the big re design where Intel are going to drop at a lot of the legacy x86 support on their CPU's???..... Suddenly lots of software won't run/ won't run properly regardless of what OS is running on the hardware! Legacy x86 support has held back development of more efficient CPU's no doubt but there will be a lot of moaning when intel do finally decide to make a break.

Again hardly a cast iron case of intel resting on their laurels. Ongoing x86 compatibility has always been a big selling point for intel especially to business customers who quite often run a lot of legacy software.
 
At $500 the chain will be making LESS money per chip and will rely on selling MORE VOLUME to make up for the profit difference. If a retailer is making $200 per Ryzen and $500 per 6900K, they will need to sell Zens at a 3:1 ratio in order to improve their bottom line.

Plus, if a random person walks into a store and asks the salesperson what to get, guess which sale will give them more commission?

That's a skilled salesman that has someone walk into a store looking for a PC and has them come out with a 6900K powered beast.
 
That's a skilled salesman that has someone walk into a store looking for a PC and has them come out with a 6900K powered beast.

The point propagates down to the 6700K and so on... Even Dell can make more selling Intel high-priced chips over competitively-priced AMD chips if consumers don't know better than to judger the price/performance ratio. If they can't push enough volume they'd rather sell the Intel-based version.
 
That will be the big re design where Intel are going to drop at a lot of the legacy x86 support on their CPU's???..... Suddenly lots of software won't run/ won't run properly regardless of what OS is running on the hardware! Legacy x86 support has held back development of more efficient CPU's no doubt but there will be a lot of moaning when intel do finally decide to make a break.

Again hardly a cast iron case of intel resting on their laurels. Ongoing x86 compatibility has always been a big selling point for intel especially to business customers who quite often run a lot of legacy software.
They will do what they did last time they removed some x86 instruction and emulate them. This means the instruction are slower but on legacy stuff it’s not a problem.
 
That’s the way Intel/AMD did it last time so software was not affected other than execution speed.

Perhaps you could be more specific about which 'last time' you are referring to?

For example your claim would not be true if it was in reference to 64bit x64 CPU's running 32bit code........ 32bit x86 software is run on 64bit x64 hardware in 64 bit Windows OS's with the use of a software emulator although the hardware itself has no issue running a 32bit OS solely in hardware....

'Many 64-bit processor architectures rely on some degree of software emulation to support 32-bit applications. This usually results in significant performance penalties. Both the AMD and Intel x86-64 processors however, run entrenched x86-32 bit applications natively'

SOURCE: - ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/webserver/appserv/was/64bitPerf.pdf


Itanium 64bit CPU's on the other hand cant run 32bit code as far as I am aware without software emulators and no microcode fix appears to have been proposed

WOW64 is the x86 emulator that allows 32-bit Windows-based applications to run seamlessly on 64-bit Windows ... but this is due to the OS being used (a 64 bit one) not the CPU's which natively run either 64bit or 32bit code natively without any emulation required
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you could be more specific about which 'last time' you are referring to?

for example 32bit x86 software is run on 64bit x64 hardware in 64 bit Windows OS's with the use of a software emulator although the hardware itself has no issue running a 32bit OS?....

'the full x86 16-bit and 32-bit instruction sets remain implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties'


Itanium 64bit CPU's on the other hand cant run 32bit code as far as I am aware without software emulators and no microcode fix appears to have been proposed

WOW64 is the x86 emulator that allows 32-bit Windows-based applications to run seamlessly on 64-bit Windows
It was a long time ago, I only remember because I work as a software developer and was using assembly language at the time. Feel free to search for it if you are interested.
 
Hell the last non-incremental update we saw was Core2!
How do you work that one out..? :p
Core2 was a massive improvement over Pentium D (which was basically a knee jerk attempt to give the Pentium IV life support so it could try and compete with Athlon 64 X2).

Seriously, Q9xxx to i5 7xx wasn't really noticeable outside of benchmarks, i7 8xx to 2xxx was the same, and so has been every "jump" since. It's almost embarrassing when Intel debut a new generation with 3-5% more performance than it's predecessor.


And let's not forget Ryzen is only capable of supporting dual-channel memory.
I'm sure the five people who actually use i7's to run software utilizing more than two channels will be devastated :P


Must have been a conscious decision by AMD to help keep the costs down (CPU and mobo).
My guess here is that AMD think that customers savvy enough to be considering their high end CPUs over Intel's will know if they need >2 channels or not. Whereas the people who look at systems and say "I want da one wit all da channels" would have said "I want da won wit da Intel logo!" anyway.
 
Last edited:
You AMD shills are hilarious!

Core2 was a massive improvement over Pentium D (which was basically a knee jerk attempt to give the Pentium IV life support so it could try and compete with Athlon 64 X2).

Seriously, Q9xxx to i5 7xx wasn't really noticeable outside of benchmarks, i7 8xx to 2xxx was the same, and so has been every "jump" since. It's almost embarrassing when Intel debut a new generation with 3-5% more performance than it's predecessor.

You try to label Intel's steady but rather slow improvements post the 'Core' era 'almost embarrassing' whilst thinking that were going to forget that in the same timeframe that AMD managed to go so wrong that they released Bulldozer CPU's that were frequently found to be inferior to the previous AMD Phenom's before we 'progressed' to an era where an Intel i3 CPU was often a better choice over an 'octo' core AMD CPU! Sure Intel lost the plot somewhat in the Pentium IV 'Netburst' days but when they ditched that they quickly overtook AMD in performance with the Core lineup.

AMD at best are catching up, per core IPC wise, with a nearly two year old range of Intel CPU's (Broadwell) and its not looking yet like there going to be super over clockers (hell even the clickbait article on wccftech is only saying cherry chips 3.8-4 Ghz OC!)

Bulldozer not showing great progression on from Phenom

More here

Dual core Skylake i3 often being a better choice than a hot power hungry 5Ghz 'octo' cored AMD CPU

Now to be quite clear I'm not anti AMD (an Intel shill)... I had plenty of AMD CPU's in the 90's and early 2000's when they produced some great CPU's. Ill quite happily go back to them for my next round of mobo/CPU upgrades IF they are competitive in the segment I am buying in (the higher end 'Enthusiast' end). As its currently looking however the first round of Ryzen CPU's wont be offering any compelling reason for to ditch my two year old x99/5820K setup with a CPU that cost me sub £300 at the time!

Its just silly with people saying there going to go with a 8c16t AMD CPU when they would never have considered one before and then claim it must cost less than £500inc and should be circa £300! The reality is that a lot of people would still be better with a Kabylake 7700K 4c8t CPU with better IPC and with a circa 5Ghz OC after the TIM is sorted out than with a Ryzen 8c16t OC CPU at circa 4Ghz!

The thing is that some of the AMD hyperbole on this forum could actively be harming AMD's chances! By raising expectations to the stratosphere only to be dashed again by reality.

On a minor note since when was the successor to the Q9xxx 'Yorkfield' series, with the lowliest CPU being the £173 q9300, the i5 7xx 'Lynfield' series that topped out with the £147 i5 760 ???
 
Last edited:
Bulldozer was AMD's Pentium 4, that much is obvious. Wrong design decision that cost them many years of sales.

To say that the jump from Core 2 onwards was embarrassing is a bit disingenuous IMO. Nehalem brought back HyperThreading which obviously made a big difference to multithreaded performance over Perynn. Sandy Bridge clocked much better and was a decent improvement, as was Haswell. Everything else has been a cash cow - essentially rehashes under the guise of new releases.
 
Last edited:
Sandy Bridge clocked much better and was a decent improvement, as was Haswell. Everything else has been a cash cow - essentially rehashes under the guise of new releases.

Although superficially this might, especially in light of CPU overclockers, appear to be true its not a fair reflection of the overall picture in this time.

Sandybridge 2600k to Skylake 6700k involved an increase in stock clocks of over 17.5% (3.4Ghz to 4.0Ghz) and over 10.5% for turbo frequencies (3.8Ghz to 4.2Ghz) whilst lowering the TDP 95w - 91w and keeping load power usage pretty much the same with a fairly hefty IPC increase to boot...

Cumulatively not far of a 25% IPC increase for productivity if far less inspiring for gaming...

2600K load power use

6700K load power use

Not to forget the integrated graphics received a massive uplift in the same period whilst staying within the same overall power envelope.

People just forget on this forum that performance pretty much regardless of power usage is a very niche customer base in a world where portability/battery life and apps that run fine on rather average hardware rule the roost
 
Last edited:
A comparison of stock clocks is utterly irrelevant for K models. What's the purpose of those again?

So essentally what your left with is a beefier integrated GPU, and a small power reduction.
 
Back
Top Bottom