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

[Journey]

Ignoring the bickering, I actually though the point about being as fast/faster for 50% of the price was quite relevant to the forth coming Zen2 based CPU's. After all, you only need to look at the pricing across the current crop of Intel 6-8 core CPU's to see that wouldn't be hard, assuming AMD can actually get the performance to the same point.

Take the current sweet spot, which seems to be 6c/6t or 6c/12t CPU's, if you did a direct comparison of the i7 8700 (non-K) which is about £300, and then look at the R5 2600 which is about £150, and 'IF' AMD manage to get the performance increase needed, whether that be by clock speed or IPC gains and the pricing remains the same/similar then you have 50% of the cost for the same level of performance. I know some people find it hard to believe, but not everyone only plays games either, some people actually use computers for work, or indeed work in the computing industry.

There's obviously lots more to add, but I think that personal preference to performance and cost/value plays a big roll in the interpretation of what is good vs. bad and sadly those personal preferences derail threads.

 

[4K8KW10]

There's some seriously loyal fans on here, one guy quits his job because his company don't buy AMD (I'm paraphrasing)... Astonishing.

Yes, I did it, and said it was one of the reasons. How can a person work with people lacking basic professional skills?!
You won't be able to sell your own products because of similar people will dismiss your company's products claiming it was a garage firm...


Ryzen 5 1600 costs $79.99
intel i7-8700K costs $359.99

Which is better?

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

Yes, I did it, and said it was one of the reasons. How can a person work with people lacking basic professional skills?!
You won't be able to sell your own products because of similar people will dismiss your company's products claiming it was a garage firm...


Ryzen 5 1600 costs $79.99
intel i7-8700K costs $359.99

Which is better?

Did you look after a department budget, or just a principles thing?

And which is better, or better value? I think you already know the answers lol.

 

[LePhuronn]

These type of customers wouldnt be affected it seems even by super cheap AMD kit then, so isnt really an argument for keeping the prices at what they are now.

So you're saying because the stubbornly misinformed wouldn't buy AMD anyway, that gives free reign to ramp prices beyond reason? Not sure that argument is valid, or sensible.

Can you do me a favour, please. When you said undercut Intel prices by 20% did you mean through tier-to-tier comparison or core-to-core comparison?

 

[FoxEye]

Why does 9900K performance for 50% cheaper sound too unbelievable? It's called progress.

I guess because it bucks the recent trend.

Not sure if you've noticed, but everything has been getting more expensive each generation, and not by a small amount.

Look at graphics cards. Instead of the progress we all want, new cards that are faster than the old cards sit an entire price bracket further up (more expensive).

And AMD will not ignore their competition making staggering profit margins. They won't say, "Let's charge considerably less than the market will bear because we're just really good dudes."

e: I meant to also say:

*IF* AMD charge 50% less than Intel, retail will simply increase their margins until the gaps is more like 10-20%.

So OcUK and the like will be making the extra profit instead of AMD, and you'll all still not get the super cheap chips you're dreaming about.

 

[LePhuronn]

I don't believe AMD is going to massively undercut Intel. 20% cheaper... maybe. 50% cheaper as some have suggested... not a chance.

OK, can you do 2 things for me please.

Firstly, can you clarify where the 50% cheaper thing came from? I don't recall anybody saying 50% cheaper, and certainly not in regard to a 12 or 16 core CPU.

Secondly, AMD already do undercut Intel by a good chunk already. 2700X vs 9900K for instance, for all of the 9900K's advantages, it is certainly not 75% better, yet costs 75% more. 9600K is not 40% better than 2600X but costs 40% more. So let's say for argument's sake that the CES demo actually is indicative of Zen 2's overall performance gains, are you suggesting that AMD will inflate their prices by 40%+ because of the performance parity?

And I think the question I asked of chrcoluk is appropriate to you too: are you applying this 20% price undercut on a tier-to-tier comparison or a core-to-core comparison?

 

[FoxEye]

And I think the question I asked of chrcoluk is appropriate to you too: are you applying this 20% price undercut on a tier-to-tier comparison or a core-to-core comparison?

Neither. Workload to workload. For me that's gaming, specifically, but it doesn't have to be.

Tiers are arbitrary and AMD has almost always had "moar coars", even with worse overall performance.

 

[LePhuronn]

*IF* AMD charge 50% less than Intel, retail will simply increase their margins until the gaps is more like 10-20%.

So OcUK and the like will be making the extra profit instead of AMD, and you'll all still not get the super cheap chips you're dreaming about.

But at least that could be argued as price fixing and actionable.

 

[LePhuronn]

Neither. Workload to workload. For me that's gaming, specifically, but it doesn't have to be.

Tiers are arbitrary and AMD has almost always had "moar coars", even with worse overall performance.

Tiers aren't arbitrary at all, that's how product segmentation is achieved: R3/i3 = entry level, R5/i5 = midrange, R7/i7 = top end, R9/i9 = super premium. And therein lies my point:

Comparing the tiers, AMD are likely to have the superior product with Ryzen 3000. Even if core counts remain the same, AMD wouldn't need to undercut Intel in this instance because even price parity would be a significantly better proposition over Intel. But some are suggesting that if CES truly is indicative of Ryzen 3000, then the per-core performance will match/beat Intel and AMD should price accordingly.

i.e. an 8 core Ryzen 3000 should cost £470 because that's what the 9900K costs.

That means, suddenly, 3rd generation 8 core Ryzen has increased in cost by 75%. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And it gets worse from there.

If Ryzen 3000 is capped at 8 cores then the flagship SKU has increased 75% in price.
If Ryzen 3000 goes onto 12 cores, then R7 is no longer the flagship yet still costs 75% more, and the new flagship ends up exceeding even Intel's crazy prices.

If Intel and Nvidia are facing consumer and shareholder backlash over inflated prices, what makes you think AMD would commit the same suicide?

 

[FoxEye]

Tiers are arbitrary in that an AMD R3 isn't claiming to be equal to an Intel core i3.

The only really non-arbitrary measure is price/perf. That's it.

Comparing "tiers" or comparing "cores" is pretty meaningless.

But at least that could be argued as price fixing and actionable.

You can't honestly believe that? Of course retail can do what it likes in terms of markup. Always has, always will.

 

[LePhuronn]

Tiers are arbitrary in that an AMD R3 isn't claiming to be equal to an Intel core i3...Comparing "tiers" or comparing "cores" is pretty meaningless.

No, the appropriation of a numbering system Intel use to designate performance tiers is entirely coincidental, isn't it. And any comparison or equivalency a customer may derive when looking at AMD's and Intel's identically-numbered performance tiers is entirely of their own making, isn't it

You can't honestly believe that? Of course retail can do what it likes in terms of markup. Always has, always will.

Well that depends entirely on if the retailers' markup affects AMD vs Intel sales; if massively inflated prices by retailers pushes customers into buying Intel CPUs instead, then it could be argued said prices are harming competition, which could well fall foul of the Competition Act 1998. It'd be a tricky one to prove though.

It'd also be interesting to see what shareholders make of it too; I'm not sure they'd take kindly to the retail channel negatively affecting sales, and therefore market growth and market perception, through inflated pricing, and could pressure AMD into taking some form of action.

Quite an interesting hypothetical situation...

 

[d_brennen]

Price competition will stop retailers taking the pee. Someone online will undercut silly prices, the the battle to shift stock commences.

 

[easyrider]

We all, let's be honest now, have that need to justify our purchases. lol. If you buy a cheap cpu, then you buy a cheap motherboard, ram, etc. to stay true to its value. If you have a golden 2600 and be able to oc to 4.2 paired with some fast ram and tight timings, then you might not see the difference among other more expensive cpus.

I currently have a Ryzen 2600 and it’s slower than the 9900k it replaced...like anything if you want the fastest then you have to pay for it...wether it be the 9900k or the 2080ti...that’s it...

The 2700x is slower than a 9900k and it’s cheaper...wether the cost v performance is worth it is up to the consumer...but it doesn’t make the 9900k a bad chip...it’s a fantastic chip but it’s expensive...

If the Ryzen 3600 matches 9900k for less money then all is good...but if Ryzen 3700 destroys anything intel has then I doubt it will be much cheaper...as it doesn’t need to be.

 

[4K8KW10]

but if Ryzen 3700 destroys anything intel has then I doubt it will be much cheaper...as it doesn’t need to be.

Ryzen 7 3700 won't be the top part. The top part has a right for a premium. The lower tiers haven't - regardless of their relative performance.

 

[easyrider]

Ryzen 7 3700 won't be the top part. The top part has a right for a premium. The lower tiers haven't - regardless of their relative performance.

We will see

 

[Orange Nexus]

I currently have a Ryzen 2600 and it’s slower than the 9900k it replaced...like anything if you want the fastest then you have to pay for it...wether it be the 9900k or the 2080ti...that’s it...

The 2700x is slower than a 9900k and it’s cheaper...wether the cost v performance is worth it is up to the consumer...but it doesn’t make the 9900k a bad chip...it’s a fantastic chip but it’s expensive...

If the Ryzen 3600 matches 9900k for less money then all is good...but if Ryzen 3700 destroys anything intel has then I doubt it will be much cheaper...as it doesn’t need to be.

You notice the difference between your 2600 and the 9900K prolly cos you cannot oc your 2600 to 4.2GHz. And, your RAM is just at 3200 Cl14. In benchmarks, yah, that you'll see a stark difference, I keep on reading about how PUBG is a determining game where Ryzen falls short. Check this out . . .

https://i.imgur.com/PNGvuqY.png

Because of the infinity fabric thing, Ryzen needs faster RAM with tweaked timing when paired with a fast GPU. Here is another game and I checked the setting multiple times and they seem the same.

8700K at 5.2GHz . . .

https://i.imgur.com/tvcV3Ii.jpg

But the Ryzen with 3533 Cl14.

 

[LePhuronn]

but if Ryzen 3700 destroys anything intel has then I doubt it will be much cheaper...as it doesn’t need to be.

You know that, I know that, people on this forum know that, but unfortunately the Great Unwashed Masses don't know that. Until the stigma of "budget brand" and "garage company" are washed away, AMD will have a hard time justifying (however unnecessarily) big prices if they bump up to near Intel levels. We've already seen it with the Radeon VII and the lunacy that was $1,000 for the FX 9590. Hell, I think $500 for the 1800X garnered a little derision.

Right now AMD would need to literally grind Intel's performance into the dust in every conceivable metric with zero compromises and zero caveats in order to charge Intel-level prices because it would take that level of destruction to convince everybody that Ryzen 3000 is worth the price tag. Zen 2 is going to be a monster, but it's not going to be that level of monster. And I fear if AMD do jump prices up significantly over the previous generation then they're just going to screw the pooch because public perception of AMD CPUs simply will not accept it.

 

[4K8KW10]

I wonder if renaming CCX to CCD is indicative of it being an 8 cores thing now? Renaming "Core Complex" to "Compute Core Design" purely for a laugh seems redundant.

Sorry, I'm grasping all of the straws, I have none spare

Would just need to use a game that didn’t make use of 50+% of the total RAM.

I remember way back when that single/dual was only worth <5% but that was years ago. This seems to be the trade off of using 2x CCD to give you 16 cores, each channel is connected to one specific CCD.

This is questionable, perhaps there will be a special long-range interface for connecting a chiplet with IO.
The block diagram shows how the two chiplets (with 1 CCD each) are connected via the Infinity Fabric to the memory controller.


https://videocardz.com/press-releas...-lisa-su-to-deliver-computex-2019-ceo-keynote

 

[FoxEye]

No, the appropriation of a numbering system Intel use to designate performance tiers is entirely coincidental, isn't it. And any comparison or equivalency a customer may derive when looking at AMD's and Intel's identically-numbered performance tiers is entirely of their own making, isn't it

I really couldn't care less about the impression it's supposed to give to uninformed buyers at PC World. It's just marketing and I really hope it's not how you choose your CPU purchases.

Here where we are hopefully a more discerning kind of customer, we know that the only way to compare products is by bench-marking (real-world or synthetic).

But if you wish to believe that an R3 is somehow contractually obliged to be a similar ballpark performance to an i3, you go right ahead. I don't believe AMD have ever said that this is supposed to be the case, have they?

e: Just to further show you how pointless comparing by "tiers" is.

AMD could make their R3 twice as powerful as an i3, for twice the price. They could do the same with the R5 and the R7.

You could then come along and say, "Look! AMD is better at every tier!!" And it would be meaningless, still. Tiers are arbitrary.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

But if you wish to believe that an R3 is somehow contractually obliged to be a similar ballpark performance to an i3, you go right ahead.

Nobody thinks that. More like the R3 is somehow contractually obliged to be a similar ballpark PRICE to an i3. That's the idea if the tier system. i3 is low end, meaning low price. They are price teirs.

So for example, the Ryzen 5 8c16t should be in the same ballpark price as the i5. It wont undercut Intel massively, just a little.