They will but shareholders want growth not just sales, as we seen with nvidia share price crash.
-
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
They will but shareholders want growth not just sales, as we seen with nvidia share price crash.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
Yes that's the problem. There have been a number of occasions during the last 30 years where AMD have had the superior product but people still bought Intel because of the name.
AMD's market share is still low, so expect low pricing no matter how great their new CPUs are.
AMD Unveils CPU Market Share Statistics – Highest Market Share Since 2014, Captured All Segments Including Server, Desktops, and Notebooks https://wccftech.com/amd-cpu-market-share-highest-since-2013-ryzen-threadripper-epyc/
Great; I'll hold you to it.
How much for my 3600 8c/16t, please? I'll take one for £150 ish, thanks very much
its low because check their profit figures.
They already making an indent in both desktop and server space, the next step is to drive profits up. Maybe I will be proven wrong and they go for pure marketshare, but we will see.
@FoxEye are you blind, or just being deliberately obtuse here? I ask you this directly:
Why would AMD significantly hike the prices of Ryzen 3000 over the previous 2 generations? Because they perform better than Intel? Is that your only argument?
Ryzen 1000 was closer in performance to Intel than AMD has been in years, why didn't they price closer? The upper tier Ryzen 2000s had Intel licked in everything except extreme FPS gaming, why didn't AMD bump their prices to match? Hell, by virtue of Intel's insane 9900K price, the 2700X was almost half the price. But suddenly Ryzen 3000 is going to have a significant price increase?
Actually, you could be correct, but for all the wrong reasons and flawed logic. AMD's top tier will see a significant price increase given that the new Ryzen 9 tier is rumoured to be $450 and $500, that's a good $130 more expensive than the top Ryzen 7. That's exactly what Intel did with the i9s: keep the existing tiers more or less the same price, but introduce a new, more expensive top tier.
The fact that these CPUs are likely to be literally twice the 9900K at about the same price is neither here nor there...
So there you go! Looks like you're going to be correct: AMD will charge near Intel prices for their top CPUs. Unless, of course, you wish to now change your argument to say AMD will charge 9900K money for the 8-core Ryzen 5s just because we saw an engineering sample 8 core match the 9900K in a demo?
Please don't because you'll just look ridiculous.
Why would AMD significantly hike the prices of Ryzen 3000 over the previous 2 generations? Because they perform better than Intel? Is that your only argument?
Ryzen 1000 was closer in performance to Intel than AMD has been in years, why didn't they price closer? The upper tier Ryzen 2000s had Intel licked in everything except extreme FPS gaming, why didn't AMD bump their prices to match? Hell, by virtue of Intel's insane 9900K price, the 2700X was almost half the price. But suddenly Ryzen 3000 is going to have a significant price increase?
Actually, you could be correct, but for all the wrong reasons and flawed logic. AMD's top tier will see a significant price increase given that the new Ryzen 9 tier is rumoured to be $450 and $500, that's a good $130 more expensive than the top Ryzen 7. That's exactly what Intel did with the i9s: keep the existing tiers more or less the same price, but introduce a new, more expensive top tier.
The fact that these CPUs are likely to be literally twice the 9900K at about the same price is neither here nor there...
So there you go! Looks like you're going to be correct: AMD will charge near Intel prices for their top CPUs. Unless, of course, you wish to now change your argument to say AMD will charge 9900K money for the 8-core Ryzen 5s just because we saw an engineering sample 8 core match the 9900K in a demo?
Please don't because you'll just look ridiculous.
Great; I'll hold you to it.
How much for my 3600 8c/16t, please? I'll take one for £150 ish, thanks very much
I'm guessing roughly the cost of a 2600 CPU was at launch, so whatever $199 translates to in £ when they do release.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,293
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I've got to agree with this.
I'm happy to buy AMD products (And do). But people don't half oversell it.
I like Ryzen, but to pretend it doesn't have flaws is ridiculous. Ryzen + didn't fix those flaws (Tbh, Ryzen + got more talk than it deserved) but hopefully Ryzen "2" will. But I've already regressed my IPC hopes for it while some people are talking it up to be faster than ever.
Rise of (still small volume) server CPU sales will bring profits increase.
Simply because of Intel's obscene profit margins there's certainly room for healthy profit margin even at more competitive price level.
Neither there's need for any "clearance sale/discount bin" pricing with processing power available from especially Zen2 EPYCs.
And AMD doesn't have market control/share in any area to go for Intel style maximimizing profit margin per unit in a very long time.
Even Zen2 capturing 50% market share wouldn't be enough for starting that milking of consumers.
If AMD starts stalling in what's technically possible for them, that risks letting Intel catch AMD easier in where AMD is now strong.
Chance what Lisa Su certainly doesn't plan on giving Intel.
So those paying Intel's ludicrous overprices aren't bonkers, but those expecting AMD to keep pushing forward for disrupting market share status quo are?
Because Intel maintaining that ludicrous overpricing is only way AMD would end up being half the price for same performance.
You shouldn't talk about what's rational, if you don't see any problem in literally cultist prices charged by Intel.
Six cores should have been standard for years and eight cores todays high end and not some luxury level.
I think you've kinda missed the point. The guy you're quoting is definitely an irrational AMD diehard, but there's good reasoning for why more people buying AMD is a good thing.
The more even the market share is of competing companies, the better it is for us as consumers in terms of pricing and value.
If more people buy AMD, it is a strong message to Intel that what they've been doing isn't good enough and that they need to do better.
I thought harmless speculation and chat was "on topic"? It's those not wishing to engage in such, or at least offer constructive counter points, as adults is what derails the thread.
Or just lock the entire thread down until somebody leaks new information, that'll prevent the close-minded from picking fights like children.
Or just lock the entire thread down until somebody leaks new information, that'll prevent the close-minded from picking fights like children.
But enthusiasts don't pay the bills, the mainstream customers do. Throwing out midrange Ryzens at over £450 won't generate sales. Plus, what CPU are you actually talking about? An 8 core Ryzen? A 16 core Ryzen? By all means push that mental 3850X out for £500-600 because that is a rational price, but an 8-core Ryzen 5? No.
Then you're part of the problem. No desktop CPU should cost £800, that's insane and you're perpetuating ridiculous price gouging from all and sundry by opening your wallet for such lunacy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,132
- Location
- Scotland
By that logic every time there's a performance bump there should be a price bump too. Being that Pentium 1's were ~£200 I would hate to try to figure out where we would be price wise now.
So why is the Radeon 7 £799 more expensive than a 2080 ?
It’s not faster...
AMD is not offering value here...
Because it's a halo product designed to create/bolster the perception that AMD are able to compete with Turing. They're making almost no money on the product, which was originally never roadmapped for a consumer release. AMD simply cannot offer anything of value in the high end GPU space right now, which is why they're essentially missing in that sphere. You can only push technology forward when you improve on a competitor's product or can make an equivalent for less money (see: Zen).
Your comment does reflect on a larger point though that in these days of shareholders expecting multi-billion dollar companies to make billions of profit each and every year, competition is hindered. Even if you make your product twice as good, shareholders expect you to simply double your profit instead of moving technology forwards to keep up. This only works because the way the system is set up encourages a large number of small competitors to eventually become a tiny number of huge competitors, as an industry matures. You can see it in pretty much all technology markets (phones are another good example) and is a nice example of what happens when you have unfettered capitalism with CEOs making hundreds of times the amount of cash their average workers do and tax laws being ludicrously exploitable by both corporations and their executives.
P.S. Both RTX 2080 and Radeon VII can be had for £650 (pre-order), £799 is the sucker price.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
There is more than way to skin a cat.
If we assume that skinning the cat is profit maximisation, you can price gouge on limited sales volume, you can run tight margins on very high volume, and you can do something in between.
If we are to try to rationalise AMD's likely price points then we have to take into account everything that differentiates them from Intel, but also everything that differentiates Zen 2 from Zen/Zen+.
We have company that holds a minor market share, marginally inferior existing product, similar margins per unit, and significantly lower pricing at the same performance levels. Going forward we get an architecture that is designed to be massively scaled up in terms of volume, thus reducing the effective costs per unit, but also a further increase in core count and a likely IPC lead across the boards, though with clocks that may still trail.
It's clear that the chiplet design is aimed at increasing market share significantly. If you are looking to increase market share then you don't do so by price gouging. AMD may well have a target market share, and that will override any short-termist profit pressures. They have to think long term, which would generate more overall profit for the company than just capitalising on immediate superiority and possible price gouging.
You price gouge when you are the dominant market actor, but dominance doesn't mean having the superior product; AMD haven't earned the right to price gouge.
If we assume that skinning the cat is profit maximisation, you can price gouge on limited sales volume, you can run tight margins on very high volume, and you can do something in between.
If we are to try to rationalise AMD's likely price points then we have to take into account everything that differentiates them from Intel, but also everything that differentiates Zen 2 from Zen/Zen+.
We have company that holds a minor market share, marginally inferior existing product, similar margins per unit, and significantly lower pricing at the same performance levels. Going forward we get an architecture that is designed to be massively scaled up in terms of volume, thus reducing the effective costs per unit, but also a further increase in core count and a likely IPC lead across the boards, though with clocks that may still trail.
It's clear that the chiplet design is aimed at increasing market share significantly. If you are looking to increase market share then you don't do so by price gouging. AMD may well have a target market share, and that will override any short-termist profit pressures. They have to think long term, which would generate more overall profit for the company than just capitalising on immediate superiority and possible price gouging.
You price gouge when you are the dominant market actor, but dominance doesn't mean having the superior product; AMD haven't earned the right to price gouge.