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

[Matkinson]

I do think the names have more to do with it than you think. If we had an i7 for £500 (cough 9900k) then people would kick off, even if it was double the cores.

People like to know that they can afford an i7 every generation for the rough price of £320 every time etc etc. Same with cars, same with everything really.

 

[humbug]

I do think the names have more to do with it than you think. If we had an i7 for £500 (cough 9900k) then people would kick off, even if it was double the cores.

People like to know that they can afford an i7 every generation for the rough price of £320 every time etc etc. Same with cars, same with everything really.

You maybe right, the interesting thing is Steve from GN said AMD have completely taken over the i5 segment, the 2600/X is now the new i5, it was Intel's biggest retail market, now taken over by AMD, Intel's biggest retail market is now the 9900K, i suspect AMD may steal that soon too.

 

[tamzzy]

The prices you suggest will put the AMD processors well above the price of their Intel counterparts.

depends on how AMD names their parts.

People like to know that they can afford an i7 every generation for the rough price of £320 every time etc etc. Same with cars, same with everything really.

^
the quad core ryzen2 parts may become ryzen 3 3xxx, and they keep the 6c parts ryzen 5 (and the 8c parts as ryzen 7), and then put the 12c and 16c parts as ryzen 9...who knows?
just speculation really at this juncture.
hopefully AMD moves the product stack downwards (nicer on my wallet), but i can understand if they don't and actually move the stack upwards instead.

 

[chrcoluk]

I've said many times I expect about £20 or so on top of the existing 3, 5, 7 tier prices with the new 9 tier going up to about £450, aligning yet undercutting the i9s. That's the be expected.

But to do any more than that will backfire; if people are prepared to pay Intel prices then they'll buy Intel unless Zen 2's performance is so substantially better than Intel even the fanbois and the uninformed can't deny it. Shareholders will be much happier with high volume, low margin sales to regain market and mind share because that is the sort of thing which evaluates the strength and worth of a company and pushes shares up.

As Nvidia and Intel are now finding out.

They already regained mindshare tho, that phase is done. So you saying you think AMD have to be around half the price of intel equivalent cpu's for people to buy them over intel? I disagree. I would say been 20%+ cheaper will be enough. Especially as the motherboards can be had for way cheaper and people can use existing AM4 boards for the chips as well.

 

[4K8KW10]

They already regained mindshare tho, that phase is done.

Wrong. Businesses avoid AMD's CPUs - market share is very low for AMD - Server 3.2%, Desktop 15.8%, Notebook 12.1% Q4 2018.

 

[Rroff]

I'd have to agree on that - where I work for instance AMD doesn't even get a look in - they will even buy more expensive Intel system (though partly due to the long term testing for compliance, etc. required) over a suitable AMD one.

Some of the big internet companies though have been moving over and/or moving from purely Intel.

 

[4K8KW10]

I'd have to agree on that - where I work for instance AMD doesn't even get a look in - they will even buy more expensive Intel system (though partly due to the long term testing for compliance, etc. required) over a suitable AMD one.

Some of the big internet companies though have been moving over and/or moving from purely Intel.

One of the many reasons why I left a previous job, was their extremely ignorant opinion of AMD that they would never use AMD's products and that AMD is a garage firm.
How can I work for a company if they don't provide me with the hardware I feel comfortable with?!

 

[Rroff]

While we don't exactly have a BYOD policy thanks to the use of Sharepoint/Office 365, etc. I can do a lot of my job, when it involves computers, on my own tablet/laptop if necessary so I can use whatever hardware I like. (There are some things that for security reasons have to use internal hardwired PCs though).

 

[d_brennen]

I spent fairly big bucks on hosts before Epyc was revealed, probably time to refresh by the time the successor to Rome is out. 72/96/128 core/socket monsters pls!

I can well imagine lots of business will buy Intel anyway, as it's the done thing.

One of the many reasons why I left a previous job, was their extremely ignorant opinion of AMD that they would never use AMD's products and that AMD is a garage firm.
How can I work for a company if they don't provide me with the hardware I feel comfortable with?!

AMD haven't had products worth considering in all segments though. BD/PD were down on power and in the graphics and compute acceleration space, NV provide better tools and performance. Leaving a job over some misplaced loyalty to a for-profit company is bonkers though. I hope AMD have furnished you with an embroidered wallet or something

 

[chrcoluk]

Wrong. Businesses avoid AMD's CPUs - market share is very low for AMD - Server 3.2%, Desktop 15.8%, Notebook 12.1% Q4 2018.

Those stats are skewed by lots of old hardware still in place in datacentres, many hosting companies are mass ordering AMD kit. These things dont change overnight.

Same with consumers as well really, many people still own 5+ year old intel kit and dont upgrade very often so of course stats will be skewed.

We have come of the back of a dominance from intel for about a decade, obviously on existing kit they will still have the majority of deployment.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/281741-new-retail-data-shows-amd-outselling-intel-21

As an example, many companies I use for hosting are still leasing out ivy bridge generation kit, they reuse hardware for several years to get best value out of it.

On consumer side, we see on here enthusiasts moving to AMD en masse, the mass market who doesnt have knowledge of tech, does however have knowledge of price so will pick AMD hardware thats half the price.

Datacentres are massively affected by meltdown, the performance hit can be absolutely huge, especially on VM hosts.

 

[Troezar]

I can definitely see AMD making 12C & 16C R9 and pitching the price above the previous R7 pricing.

R5 6C £200 - i5 8600K £260
R7 8C £320 - i7 8700K £380
R9 12C £399 - i9 9700K £380
R9 16C £499 - i9 9900K £487

Hard to say which way they will go but I think the above I us probably add high as they can go and still get strong sales in the current economic climate. I'd be happier to see prices 10% lower though.

 

[LePhuronn]

They already regained mindshare tho, that phase is done. So you saying you think AMD have to be around half the price of intel equivalent cpu's for people to buy them over intel? I disagree. I would say been 20%+ cheaper will be enough. Especially as the motherboards can be had for way cheaper and people can use existing AM4 boards for the chips as well.

Who said anything about half price? Your 20% cheaper than Intel and my $20 more than the previous Ryzen generation actually tally up a bit IF you talk about matching tiers

1600X was $249 launch
2600X was $229 launch
3600X at $269 launch would be practically identical to the i5 9600K, so drop that back down to $249 perhaps.

The Ryzen 7 vs i7 pricing roughly matches too (excluding the 1800X because that was a blip never repeated).

What I'm arguing against though is the notion that AMD should bump prices up based on core counts. So that means a 8 core Ryzen 5 is now to compare with an 8 core i9 but being 20% cheaper will make it sell? $399 for a Ryzen 5? Ludicrous, that's just shy of doubling the price over the previous generation. That would, in turn, put 12 and 16 core Ryzen 9s into a $500-650 bracket which is just silly.

 

[EsaT]

They already regained mindshare tho, that phase is done. So you saying you think AMD have to be around half the price of intel equivalent cpu's for people to buy them over intel?

Plenty of consumers who'll buy Intel no matter the overpricing.
Remember that Intel completely stalled advance in core count for decade and some 8 cores should be now starting to be pretty mainstream.

And of course those same people will find excuses for Intel, even if single thread performance is completely even slug fest.
So AMD needs to price agressively enough to have clearly more processing power per price.
Chasing highest short term quarternary profits would only leave more sales for Intel.

 

[4K8KW10]

What I'm arguing against though is the notion that AMD should bump prices up based on core counts. So that means a 8 core Ryzen 5 is now to compare with an 8 core i9 but being 20% cheaper will make it sell?

Nope, consumers will argue that it came too late and those who wanted that level of performance, already got an i9.

So AMD needs to price agressively enough to have clearly more processing power per price.

AMD needs the first chip that beats i9-9900K to be 50% of the price.

 

[~>Dg<~]

you living in a dream world. half the price.

also beats the i9 9900k at what ? cinebench. dont go over that again please.

 

[4K8KW10]

you living in a dream world. half the price.

Otherwise it won't sell

also beats the i9 9900k at what ?

Gaming at 480p and 720p

 

[TNA]

Getting closer. Looking forward to read reviews

6C/12T - €110
8C/16T - €200
12C/24T - €315
16T/32T - €499

£300 for the 12C/24T would be sweet. Would love if they can overclock to 5GHz, at least on 4 cores or something.

 

[LePhuronn]

you living in a dream world. half the price.

Nobody has ever said that, except for the munchkins who blindly accept Intel's ludicrous pricing as the only way things should be done and dismiss the notion that AMD could quite find themselves in a position to seriously undercut prices.

also beats the i9 9900k at what ? cinebench. dont go over that again please.

So don't get involved if the concept of the 9900K getting smashed offends you so much. Nobody's ever taken a single, carefully orchestrated demonstration as anything more than an indication of how far AMD have come with Zen 2 in such a short amount of time, and engaged in some optimistic discussion as a result.

If anything, you're the one clinging to the Cinebench run as evidence that Zen 2 won't beat Intel. Is something so trivial as a computer chip really so threatening to you? Of course not, so stop acting like it is.

 

[~>Dg<~]

why are you taking it so seriously ? dont get involved cause i dont agree with a silly statement being made based of one cinebench test ? concept is the right word. i hope amd does beat intel i have said this numerous times. im actually hoping they are great as i will probably get a 12 core amd cpu. so stop clinging to the forums so tightly. let your belt open a notch. breathe. amd isnt jesus christ. wait till proper benchmarks then progress it as the second coming.

 

[chrcoluk]

Plenty of consumers who'll buy Intel no matter the overpricing.
Remember that Intel completely stalled advance in core count for decade and some 8 cores should be now starting to be pretty mainstream.

And of course those same people will find excuses for Intel, even if single thread performance is completely even slug fest.
So AMD needs to price agressively enough to have clearly more processing power per price.
Chasing highest short term quarternary profits would only leave more sales for Intel.

They got away with it for more than half that time tho due to the competitor been a useless AMD FX chip.

You only need to beat the competition, thats the target of most companies.