-
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
Soldato
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
Sorry for not realising that 23rd of April was as famous as 25th December.
Caporegime
Meow...
Apologies if this has already been posted - went back several pages but there's quite a bit of bickering to sift through!
Anyway, thought this was interesting, especially the AI based software that splits single threaded code into "threadlets" to make use of multiple cores. Quite relevant to the debate around just how useful having more cores is/isn't in the near future.
Anyway, thought this was interesting, especially the AI based software that splits single threaded code into "threadlets" to make use of multiple cores. Quite relevant to the debate around just how useful having more cores is/isn't in the near future.
Associate
Don't think is already been posted couldn't find it had
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/289299-amd-zen-2-architecture-ryzen-3-cpu-improvements
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/289299-amd-zen-2-architecture-ryzen-3-cpu-improvements
Soldato
Here's a summary of that article...
"Intel charge a lot of money for their processors so AMD has to do the same. I don't care about 75%+ yield of wafers which offset the increased per-wafer cost, AMD can't charge that little money for 8 cores because Intel don't".
Soldato
He seems to have ignored AMD charging as low as £150 to £180 for CPUs like the Ryzen 7 1700. Whereas I don't think AMD will give away 7NM Ryzen with ultra low pricing,they will undercut Intel,which is what they did with Ryzen when 8 core Intel CPUs were nearly £1000. Also they need to gain marketshare and mindshare whilst Intel still has it problems,because they will fix them at some point.
Soldato
I really don't see it being anything more complex than adding about £20 or so to the existing tier prices and creating a new top tier at the £350-£450 mark. Ryzen 3, 5 and 7 tiers have not significantly changed in price between 1st and 2nd generations (1800X seems to be a blip), so why would 3rd generation suddenly ramp the prices up? Because there's (potentially) another couple of cores on each tier? And what about those who don't believe we'll get 12 or 16 core Ryzens? Intel money for a Ryzen 7?
Anybody who thinks that AMD will suddenly start charging £400 for an 8 core Ryzen 3 just because it matches the 9900K is an idiot. And if AMD really do that then they can go do one and deserve every failing they get for being incompetent, squandering a golden opportunity to tear into their competition, and simply greedy.
Anybody who thinks that AMD will suddenly start charging £400 for an 8 core Ryzen 3 just because it matches the 9900K is an idiot. And if AMD really do that then they can go do one and deserve every failing they get for being incompetent, squandering a golden opportunity to tear into their competition, and simply greedy.
Last edited:
Soldato
I think the fact you can buy a 2nd Gen 6 core for <£140, or an 8 core <£210, it is hard see them moving past $/£300 for an 8-core even if it smashes it out of the park in terms of performance. After all the 9700K is 'only' £370, and Intel don't need to lower their pricing, as they hold the upper hand in terms of sentiment and marketing for over a decade, and the tide is only starting to turn now. I'd expect a 12-core to be £399-479 if that is the highest core count they go for now, with a 16-core at £549-649 later maybe.
Don
And that’s the thing to remember, 8 cores are the new 4 cores.
Caporegime
I should say that i have not yet read the article but that quote, i accept i may need more context.... seems to me the ramblings of a moron. Or one of a bias position clutching at straws.
Intel charge a lot more for their CPU's because they can, they have a brand premium that enables them to set very high prices even for products that are little; if better than the competition because the competition do not enjoy that brand mind share.
To address his point more directly, since the introduction of the Zen architecture AMD have gone from a loss making company to one of healthy profit, their revenue has close to doubled and their margins up by 10 percentage points, that's a lot BTW, i would suggest the author get an education on these maters, or just shut up.
ETs are arguing that AMD's net profit margin is only 5-6%, while intel money grabbing scheme achieves as much as 29-30%.
But intel is a totalitarian regime and can afford it. AMD can't - AMD is either more sales or loss of sales in exchange of better profit margins, which won't necessarily mean better financial quarters in the end.
For Q4 2018, AMD's market share is still very low, even for its own historical standards.
Server 3.2%, Desktop 15.8%, Notebook 12.1% Q4 2018.
For AMD, market share is a million time more important than profit margins.
Caporegime
5-6% is cow dung, AMD's profit margins currently stand at 38%, as public record, Intel are at about 50%
Caporegime
I just had a quick look at what they are on about, they are using the net profit to make their arguments, yes its moronic... net profit is what you arrive at after paying down exist debts, R&D spend and a whole lot more besides.
What matters in their argument, the argument that they are making is that AMD need to put prices up because they are not making any margins on their products, in that what matters is what the difference is in what it costs them to have it at the stores ready for you to buy and what they ultimately get for that product, anything else that they chose to spend money on there after, like R&D spend, voluntary debt reduction, IP purchasing.... is nothing to do with any of that. if it costs me £100 to get my product to where you can buy it for £140 i have a gross margin of 40%, if i spend £30 on R&D i have a net profit of 10%.
look you cannot run a business with 5% margins and survive for long unless you have a lot of savings, because you have no money to future proof yourself with, its why pre Bulldozer years AMD had $3bn petty cash and now have about $500m and a lot of that is recouped post Zen.
Its a complete and utter conflation of the facts, it could be deliberately or total misunderstanding of what they are talking about and frankly with modern tech journalism i don't know which it is, it could equally be one or the other.
Last edited:
I think you're right. Unfortunately that means I'll be going 8C rather than 12C but from AMD's perspective it would make sense to price the 12C high and release the 16C later. That's the way to maximise profits. As you say the 8C cap is already set, that is if you want a really good uptake at launch. They might drop the price a little on launch to generate some favourable headlines then raise them "due to unprecedented demand"?
I think you're right. Unfortunately that means I'll be going 8C rather than 12C but from AMD's perspective it would make sense to price the 12C high and release the 16C later. That's the way to maximise profits. As you say the 8C cap is already set, that is if you want a really good uptake at launch. They might drop the price a little on launch to generate some favourable headlines then raise them "due to unprecedented demand"?
Nope, that will lead to negative headlines that AMD got the nvidia syndrome to get greedy. And people will start buying intel's CPUs again.