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

[EsaT]

The question I have is.... Why would and choose to price these chips so cheap? Are they going to attempt to gain market and mind share again, as otherwise I just don't see why they would prices such seemingly good chips at a low price when they could easily in my mind, make more origin whilst still talking from Intel.

AMD needs exactly that major gaining of both market share and mind share for long term success.
While pricing closer to Intel could give more near future quarter profits, that would also cause loss of "goodwill" for actually giving people genuinely more for their money than previous products...
After Intel has been pretty much burglarizing and raping consumers for years.

Pricing too close to Intel would also give Intel more chances to fight back by lowering their profit margins.
What Intel certainly can afford to do.
So AMD needs to really pull the rug out from under the Intel.

And pricing 12c/24t to that 300 level is something Intel has hard time in answering in any way.
(and 16c/32t models would be kicking Intel to teeth)
At least until Intel's 10nm node is workable for high performance desktop chips, which is likely maybe next year.
And monolithic high core count chips would still be very expensive to Intel until node matures for high yields.

 

[nashathedog]

Edit: AMD have form, if they can push 5Ghz clocks they will, remember the FX-9590?

That's how they do it, Ryzen's just the latest example where clocks are close to the ceiling out of the box. Even without the ipc improvement a chip capable of 4.5 or 4.6 on all cores sounds pretty good especially if it's across 12 or 16 of them.

 

[4K8KW10]

Why would and choose to price these chips so cheap?

Because this is the chance they have to throw intel out of the market/to render them non-competitive. Since intel has no answer, this is the time and chance for AMD.

 

[humbug]

AMD needs exactly that major gaining of both market share and mind share for long term success.
While pricing closer to Intel could give more near future quarter profits, that would also cause loss of "goodwill" for actually giving people genuinely more for their money than previous products...
After Intel has been pretty much burglarizing and raping consumers for years.

Pricing too close to Intel would also give Intel more chances to fight back by lowering their profit margins.
What Intel certainly can afford to do.
So AMD needs to really pull the rug out from under the Intel.

And pricing 12c/24t to that 300 level is something Intel has hard time in answering in any way.
(and 16c/32t models would be kicking Intel to teeth)
At least until Intel's 10nm node is workable for high performance desktop chips, which is likely maybe next year.
And monolithic high core count chips would still be very expensive to Intel until node matures for high yields.

This and....

Because this is the chance they have to throw intel out of the market/to render them non-competitive. Since intel has no answer, this is the time and chance for AMD.

In short that ^^^^

AMD have the technology advantage, so much so that they can knock Intel down a peg or two, its probably the only chance AMD are going to get right now before Intel catch up to really hurt them and in doing so help themselves.

 

[Jokester]

The question I have is.... Why would and choose to price these chips so cheap?

Whilst Intel might not have anything competitive to put up against them, they're already selling 16core chips for ~£800, so realistically they won't be priced above them. But on the other hand, because of the chip design, yields will be great (and are rumoured to be even better than expected) so AMD will want to price these to sell to avoid having warehouses full of CPUs that they can't shift. The only real unknown that hasn't been spoken about by AMD is the pricing, but looking at the AdoredTV leak that the 16cores will be $450-500 so in the £450 ball park doesn't seem outrageous considering the above, with everything else slotting into the typical price bands behind them.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

That would give the Ryzen 3000 a 5% higher IPC, assuming the 4.5Ghz was an all core boost.

Dont Intel currently have a 10% IPC lead over Ryzen 2000? So if Ryzen 3000 has a 5% lead over Intel, then that means it has 15% IPC gain over Ryzen 2000 which is what we've all been speculating anyway.

 

[TrixX]

Dont Intel currently have a 10% IPC lead over Ryzen 2000? So if Ryzen 3000 has a 5% lead over Intel, then that means it has 15% IPC gain over Ryzen 2000 which is what we've all been speculating anyway.

Not from the testing I've seen. The IPC difference is within margin of error, or in other words less than 1% either way. The deficit is purely frequency currently even in single threaded applications.

 

[humbug]

Dont Intel currently have a 10% IPC lead over Ryzen 2000? So if Ryzen 3000 has a 5% lead over Intel, then that means it has 15% IPC gain over Ryzen 2000 which is what we've all been speculating anyway.

No, the IPC difference between Coffeelake (8/9000 series) Intel vs Zen + is practically nothing....

 

[lltfdaniel]

No, the IPC difference between Coffeelake (8/9000 series) Intel vs Zen + is practically nothing....

Well intel at 1080p is faster,

At 4k though there is hardly a difference as it uses the gpu more, plus that crysis 3 benchmark.

What get's me is intel has higher ipc in games and has been said cinebench is not a game, i just want to know if ryzen 3000 would be faster in games at 1080p or lower resolution, i get the feeling it won't.

But yeah crysis 3 and the multicore advantage as have said in this thread so i will bring it up again > https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review_1

Dan.

 

[Jokester]

Well intel at 1080p is faster,

That's because they've downclocked the Intel to the same clockrate as the AMD to show the IPC.

 

[humbug]

Edit: Right ^^^ they are all 4Ghz in that chart.

Well intel at 1080p is faster,

At 4k though there is hardly a difference as it uses the gpu more, plus that crysis 3 benchmark.

What get's me is intel has higher ipc in games and has been said cinebench is not a game, i just want to know if ryzen 3000 would be faster in games at 1080p or lower resolution, i get the feeling it won't.

But yeah crysis 3 and the multicore advantage as have said in this thread so i will bring it up again > https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review_1

Dan.

Oh for sure, but that's down to the 4Ghz 2700X vs 4.7Ghz 9900K clock speed difference, not IPC.

 

[lltfdaniel]

Oh for sure, but that's down to the 4Ghz 2700X vs 4.7Ghz 9900K clock speed difference, not IPC.

I stand corrected.

 

[SiDeards73]

Also people need to consider the many years game have been compiled on Intel biased compilers etc, there's a lot of stuff that just flat out favours Intels core design in game engines.

Should stuff ever get tailored to suit AMD as well then I'm sure the landscape would change quite a bit.

Take unreal 4 engine for instance it runs like a dog on most cpu but especially poor on Zen

 

[humbug]

Also people need to consider the many years game have been compiled on Intel biased compilers etc, there's a lot of stuff that just flat out favours Intels core design in game engines.

Should stuff ever get tailored to suit AMD as well then I'm sure the landscape would change quite a bit.

Take unreal 4 engine for instance it runs like a dog on most cpu but especially poor on Zen

That was certainly true in the past but these days more game developers than not are making games that are not just PC exclusive but also for Consoles, they are all AMD based.

 

[TrixX]

Also people need to consider the many years game have been compiled on Intel biased compilers etc, there's a lot of stuff that just flat out favours Intels core design in game engines.

Should stuff ever get tailored to suit AMD as well then I'm sure the landscape would change quite a bit.

Take unreal 4 engine for instance it runs like a dog on most cpu but especially poor on Zen

That was certainly true in the past but these days more game developers than not are making games that are not just PC exclusive but also for Consoles, they are all AMD based.

Until they do updates to support AMD architecture on Windows and/or game engines that are Intel biased there's always going to be a favouring of Intel CPU's. The only way to beat that is by being faster by a larger factor than required for unbiased applications. Going on the current stats that's a very real possibility with the exception of Unreal Engine 4 based titles where I think Intel will still hold the advantage due to it being so poor on Zen arch.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

It's so unfair that AMD needs to have a superior product to break even in games. Why cant Microsoft fix the windows scheduling issue? If it is indeed holding it back?

If Intel have indeed hit a wall with what they can do with their aging archtecture which dates back to the 180nm Pentium III era, perhaps they'll have to design something new to compete with AMD. Then Intel wont be optimised in games either.

 

[humbug]

Guys i don't see any Intel bias in games released in the last two years, at least for the most part i just don't believe it exists now, most games these days are made for console and ported to PC, no one is going to use a compiler that gimps AMD performance when consoles are AMD...

Look at this, 4.025Ghz vs 4.7Ghz and the performance difference is from 8 to 22%, mostly around 15%.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Guys i don't see any Intel bias in games released in the last two years, at least for the most part i just don't believe it exists now, most games these days are made for console and ported to PC, no one is going to use a compiler that gimps AMD performance when consoles are AMD...

Look at this, 4.025Ghz vs 4.7Ghz and the performance difference is from 8 to 22%, mostly around 15%.

That gives me hope. The clock difference there is 16.77% so the Ryzen 3000 only needs a 6% IPC increase for the 3600 to dominate in every game. AMD have this in the bag.

 

[EsaT]

But on the other hand, because of the chip design, yields will be great (and are rumoured to be even better than expected)

Zen2 chiplet is actually good amount smaller than super high end Snapdragon SOC meant to compete with x86 CPUs in low power computers:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13687/qualcomm-snapdragon-8cx-wafer-on-7nm
And fully in line with mobile SOC size.

So relatively small chip and with no risk of having wrong CPU dies piling up in warehouse AMD can make long term high volume order.
Something TSMC is certain to like, because it simplifies their job lot and allows high utilization of expensive production line(s).

 

[Martini1991]

Zen 2's IPC gain could be ~5% if the rumoured clocks of the benchmark are accurate, as clock for clock current Zen 2 threads off one core is faster than Intel in cinebench already isn't it?