• 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

Boot_Loop said:
AMD Epyc 7742 2P Rome Server review

Intel will seriously get their barse kicked with this release. 14 server-class CPUs coming to take market share from Intel. Twice the cores, 50% more performance and for 25-30% less cost on top in many cases.
Click to expand...

Twice the cores!
This is why the Ryzen 3000 series is such a major disappointment.
Using the EPYC release as basis, there should have been a 16-core/32-thread Ryzen 7 for £380-400.

"C-Ray is a ray-tracing application that fully exploits the floating-point prowess of a CPU. Running at 4K and 16 rays per pixel, it's impressive on the new Epyc processors, which turn in another record time.

Bear in mind that the Epyc 7601, which was the fastest 1P server processor until Epyc 7002 Series surfaced, takes about 24 seconds to complete this test. And the desktop Ryzen 9 3900X pulls in at just under a minute, going by submitted results."

EPYC-Test-CRay.jpg
 
Why would someone recommend a 2080 since the 2080 super has come out? Why would someone create a brand new account go into a couple threads and out of nowhere suggest going intel nvidia despite better AMD specs having been already suggested then not be able to back up their choices? Why would "someone else" then use those posts as proof that intel is better? Why are we discussing gaming performance in a thread specifically about server CPUs?

There are a lot a questions we just don't know the answer to it seems :P
 
Hotwired said:
Because Intel still have gaming as a highlight.

It's being deliberately dense to suggest AMD should price based on gaming performance.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't, they should price based on technology advancements and what would push sales more. I'd already have bought a 3700x if it was priced where the 2700x was, or less, and if there was a 12 core at under £300 and the lower 16 core under £400 either would have been a good option.

Remember pricing back when Intel wasn't taking the absolute mick, we had 2500k's for £150, that was on 32nm. Now the cores don't use the same transistors per core, numbers have gone up to get more performance but that chip also had a gpu that took up around 1/3rd of the die. 22nm, 14nm, 7nm, we're fully 3 nodes on from a quad core that cost £150 and offered great value. If you said increase transistor count massively per core for performance one node, then double core count the next, then after 3 nodes we should be on 16 cores WITH a cpu not massively different pricing.

3950x is only well priced after years of Intel absolutely abusing the market on pricing. It's very very poorly priced when considering value and massive reductions in density of the cpu cores.

I mean if you fundamentally broke off the cpu section of a 2700x, used a double density process and added in twice the cores, that's effectively what we've got with a 3950x. Now while 7nm doesn't scale well in pricing compared to previous nodes, it's not about doubling the cost per core, it just means cost per mm2 has gone up, cost per core has gone down, just not by half this time, more like by say 30-40%.

Ryzen 3000 pricing makes perfect sense against Intel 8700/9900k pricing, it makes awful sense vs Intel 2500/2700k, and even 3500/3700k pricing, back when Intel was actually offering decent value. 1800x (after it's price drop) and 2700x throughout offered somewhat a return to actual value pricing in the CPU market, some how with better tech that reduces costs and increases density, 8 core costs went up rather than down, that isn't how 'tech' costs are supposed to go from new technologies. A 16 core 14nm chip that was twice the die size going up in cost would make absolute sense, but a 8 core 7nm chip costing 50% more than a 14nm 8 core chip doesn't, at all.
 
drunkenmaster said:
They shouldn't, they should price based on technology advancements and what would push sales more. I'd already have bought a 3700x if it was priced where the 2700x was, or less, and if there was a 12 core at under £300 and the lower 16 core under £400 either would have been a good option.

Remember pricing back when Intel wasn't taking the absolute mick, we had 2500k's for £150, that was on 32nm. Now the cores don't use the same transistors per core, numbers have gone up to get more performance but that chip also had a gpu that took up around 1/3rd of the die. 22nm, 14nm, 7nm, we're fully 3 nodes on from a quad core that cost £150 and offered great value. If you said increase transistor count massively per core for performance one node, then double core count the next, then after 3 nodes we should be on 16 cores WITH a cpu not massively different pricing.

3950x is only well priced after years of Intel absolutely abusing the market on pricing. It's very very poorly priced when considering value and massive reductions in density of the cpu cores.

I mean if you fundamentally broke off the cpu section of a 2700x, used a double density process and added in twice the cores, that's effectively what we've got with a 3950x. Now while 7nm doesn't scale well in pricing compared to previous nodes, it's not about doubling the cost per core, it just means cost per mm2 has gone up, cost per core has gone down, just not by half this time, more like by say 30-40%.

Ryzen 3000 pricing makes perfect sense against Intel 8700/9900k pricing, it makes awful sense vs Intel 2500/2700k, and even 3500/3700k pricing, back when Intel was actually offering decent value. 1800x (after it's price drop) and 2700x throughout offered somewhat a return to actual value pricing in the CPU market, some how with better tech that reduces costs and increases density, 8 core costs went up rather than down, that isn't how 'tech' costs are supposed to go from new technologies. A 16 core 14nm chip that was twice the die size going up in cost would make absolute sense, but a 8 core 7nm chip costing 50% more than a 14nm 8 core chip doesn't, at all.
Click to expand...

It would be a disaster if another 10-year-long stagnation comes, this time "thanks" to AMD's lack of initiative to launch more cores.
Imagine Ryzen 7 4000 is again only an 8-core.
 
drunkenmaster said:
They shouldn't, they should price based on technology advancements and what would push sales more. I'd already have bought a 3700x if it was priced where the 2700x was, or less, and if there was a 12 core at under £300 and the lower 16 core under £400 either would have been a good option.

Remember pricing back when Intel wasn't taking the absolute mick, we had 2500k's for £150, that was on 32nm. Now the cores don't use the same transistors per core, numbers have gone up to get more performance but that chip also had a gpu that took up around 1/3rd of the die. 22nm, 14nm, 7nm, we're fully 3 nodes on from a quad core that cost £150 and offered great value. If you said increase transistor count massively per core for performance one node, then double core count the next, then after 3 nodes we should be on 16 cores WITH a cpu not massively different pricing.

3950x is only well priced after years of Intel absolutely abusing the market on pricing. It's very very poorly priced when considering value and massive reductions in density of the cpu cores.

I mean if you fundamentally broke off the cpu section of a 2700x, used a double density process and added in twice the cores, that's effectively what we've got with a 3950x. Now while 7nm doesn't scale well in pricing compared to previous nodes, it's not about doubling the cost per core, it just means cost per mm2 has gone up, cost per core has gone down, just not by half this time, more like by say 30-40%.

Ryzen 3000 pricing makes perfect sense against Intel 8700/9900k pricing, it makes awful sense vs Intel 2500/2700k, and even 3500/3700k pricing, back when Intel was actually offering decent value. 1800x (after it's price drop) and 2700x throughout offered somewhat a return to actual value pricing in the CPU market, some how with better tech that reduces costs and increases density, 8 core costs went up rather than down, that isn't how 'tech' costs are supposed to go from new technologies. A 16 core 14nm chip that was twice the die size going up in cost would make absolute sense, but a 8 core 7nm chip costing 50% more than a 14nm 8 core chip doesn't, at all.
Click to expand...


7nm costs 2X as much as 14nm and....

2700X

x0T3St6.jpg.png

3900X

a9ATjLp.jpg.png
 
humbug said:
7nm costs 2X as much as 14nm and....

2700X
Click to expand...

The 7nm part is smaller, and the cost of 14nm today is something like 30% of the cost when 14nm was new and in heavy demand. There is a reason why TSMC has far less 7nm volume but it's already responsible for a very large part of the revenue. New nodes have higher demand which brings with it higher cost, old node costs reduce massively. Yield's are good on both.

As for needing 2 dies, incorrect, it's 2 dies only for a 12 or 16 core, an 8 core using a single 7nm die that at 75mm^2 is only a little over 1/3rd the the size of a 2700x, and a larger, but also vastly cost reduced, less complex, higher yield I/O die. Together a 7nm chiplet + 14nm I/O die should cost considerably less than a full 2700x die.

A 3950x package might cost more, but not drastically and certainly not 3 times more.

But again you're talking total cost. Realise that production is part of the cost, a 2700x die might only cost $20, and lets pretend that a 3950x is just double the transistors, same die size on a node that costs twice as much per mm^2, then it would cost $40 per chip, meaning you could add $20 to the actual price to cover the increased production cost.

Lets say a 2700x costs $20 per die, and another $20 in shipping, packaging, etc. So $40 to $200 in a store, that's a 5x mark up. Now lets say the 3950x costs $40 per die, packaging costs increase but not double, marginal and shipping costs barely change meaning lets call it $30, so $70 total, but the chip is $750, so over a 10x mark up. If you just added the $30 difference and made it a $230 chip, AMD would make the same actual profit per chip.

Now tape out and R&D costs more on 7nm but not THAT much more. This is a huge increase in margins, the actual cost in production is absolutely in no way remotely close to justifying the extra costs. Like I said, a 8 core that instead of costing half, cost 20-30% less, and a 12 core that was somewhere near 2700x launch pricing, and a 16 core at 1800x pricing, that seems like fair pricing. Nothing you're talking about justifies going from $250 8 cores to $750 16 cores.
 
7nm wafer costs ~$10,000.
14nm wafer costs ~$3,000.

Ryzen 7 2700X estimated die cost is ~$13.59.
Ryzen 7 3700X estimated cost 7nm+14nm is ~$6.08 + $12.34 = $18.42.

Screen-Shot-2019-04-19-at-7-41-30-PM-740x258.png


Wafer-cost-comparison-for-14-nm-nodes-16.png
 
drunkenmaster said:
They shouldn't, they should price based on technology advancements and what would push sales more. I'd already have bought a 3700x if it was priced where the 2700x was, or less, and if there was a 12 core at under £300 and the lower 16 core under £400 either would have been a good option.
Click to expand...

You'd have bought a 12 core or potentially a 16 core if they'd priced them hundreds lower?

And they should price it lower because it would push sales?

The supply of 12 core cpus is getting vaporised by the demand and I'd bet a tenner the supply of 16 cores won't survive launch day, launch week or launch month.

Push sales :p

Then there's the 3700x vs 2700x price... both launched at $329 so who is responsible for the retail price being higher? Is it actually AMD?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom