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

[easyrider]

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'm running my 2600 @ 4.1ghz and I ran my 9900k 5ghz all cores...Plus it two extra cores...Yes the 2600 is the slower chip...

Cheery Picking games means nothing...The 2600 is slower across the board...thats why its only £140

 

[Orange Nexus]

I'm running my 2600 @ 4.1ghz and I ran my 9900k 5ghz all cores...Plus it two extra cores...Yes the 2600 is the slower chip...

Cheery Picking games means nothing...The 2600 is slower across the board...thats why its only £140

Im not saying the 2600 is faster. What i said is if your 2600 can oc higher and your ram at least 3466 Cl14, then you wont see the difference. Deus is not a cherry picked game. So, happen that the owner has a ram that can oc to 3533 which help the shortcoming of infinity fabric.

 

[easyrider]

Im not saying the 2600 is faster. What i said is if your 2600 can oc higher and your ram at least 3466 Cl14, then you wont see the difference. Deus is not a cherry picked game. So, happen that the owner has a ram that can oc to 3533 which help the shortcoming of infinity fabric.

Well it all depends on what resolution..

 

[humbug]

I'm running my 2600 @ 4.1ghz and I ran my 9900k 5ghz all cores...Plus it two extra cores...Yes the 2600 is the slower chip...

Cheery Picking games means nothing...The 2600 is slower across the board...thats why its only £140

So its clocked 22% lower, so it slower, i think this is the point you are making?

 

[easyrider]

So its clocked 22% lower, so it slower, i think this is the point you are making?

Not really....Its slower and therefore cheaper....The 9900k can be priced so high because its faster....Thats pretty much it...

Like I said if you want the fastest mainstream chip you have to pay for the 9900k if you wanna wait and get a 3600x on release that maybe matches it in Cinebench for less... then good. Only then will Intel drop their prices.

I bought my 9900k for £499 sold it 8 weeks later for £480 and bought some premium bonds with the cash...I've updated my bios ready for Ryzen 3600x and if it matches 9900k then all is good

I use my Dell 6 core 8750H i7 laptop for music production and so figured I ditch the 9900k mobo combo as it was overkill for my needs...I game at 3440 x 1440p and with the 1080ti its pretty much ok to loose a few fps and bag £750 instead....

 

[humbug]

Not really....Its slower and therefore cheaper....The 9900k can be priced so high because its faster....Thats pretty much it...

Like I said if you want the fastest mainstream chip you have to pay for the 9900k if you wanna wait and get a 3600x on release that maybe matches it in Cinebench for less... then good. Only then will Intel drop their prices.

I bought my 9900k for £499 sold it 8 weeks later for £480 and bought some premium bonds with the cash...I've updated my bios ready for Ryzen 3600x and if it matches 9900k then all is good

I use my Dell 6 core 8750H i7 laptop for music production and so figured I ditch the 9900k mobo combo as it was overkill for my needs...I game at 3440 x 1440p and with the 1080ti its pretty much ok to loose a few fps and bag £750 instead....

I agree the 9900K is faster, it seems to me others also agree and there is an obvious reason for why, that's all i'm saying

 

[LePhuronn]

You're just talking **** now, FoxEye...

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD's current top end 8C/16T CPU is 60% percent of the price of the consumer Intel 8C/16T CPU,the 8C/16T Ryzen 1800X was around the same percentage when compared to the 8C/16T Core i7 6900K. The Ryzen 7 2700X was significantly cheaper than the Ryzen 7 1800X. The Core i7 9900K is significantly cheaper than the Core i7 6900K and cheaper than the Core i7 7820K. In both the latter cases the new models were faster than the older models.

Unless the pound suddenly crashes in value how the heck can the 7NM 8C/16T AMD CPU be only 20% cheaper than a £500 Core i7 9900K? So people are saying it is going to be £400 at the same exchange and tariff rates as now? A 33% price increase from £300,when both Intel and AMD have been dropping the price per core whilst improving single threaded performance?

Okaaaaay!

 

[Troezar]

I think what is being missed so far in this discussion is most buyers shop by budget. What is the best they can get for their £150, £200, £350 etc.

Currently for any given budget AMD offers the most performance. I'm not sure if all things were equal that the majority would buy AMD over Intel. I think they need to maintain that feeling of great performance for a fair price and make their profits on volume.

Radeon VII was a blip as it had a lot of very expensive memory and limited quantity. As I understand it Ryzen 3000 will have been in production for months by launch and is very high yielding.

It all points to AMD looking at shifting a lot of units to me. I suspect the limiting factor will be motherboards. My advice is order the one you want as soon as they are out or you might be waiting

My expectation is reasonable pricing a little above last gen.

 

[LePhuronn]

That's what I was getting at, CAT. Whether I failed to articulate properly or people are just being obtuse remains to be seen. If people are suddenly expecting AMD to shoot their prices up because per-core performance matches/beats Intel then they're retarded. Or trolling.

 

[FoxEye]

You're just talking **** now, FoxEye...

No I'm telling you - because it's a fact - that the only comparative measure worth a toss is perf/$.

You get the perf from bench-marking.

All other means of comparing chips - ie "tiers", "cores", etc... they aren't worth a thing.

Would you pass up a 4-core R3 chip from AMD because it's performed better than a 6-core Intel i5, but had less cores or wasn't in the higher "tier"? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be singing its praises and shouting about how crap Intel is.

The only measure worth anything at all is perf/$. Not cores/$. Not tier. Not how good and warm and fuzzy it makes you feel to buy AMD.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That's what I was getting at, CAT. Whether I failed to articulate properly or people are just being obtuse remains to be seen. If people are suddenly expecting AMD to shoot their prices up because per-core performance matches/beats Intel then they're retarded. Or trolling.

Even Intel hasn't done that. Per core performance of the Core i7 6900K,Core i7 7820K and Core i9 9900K all went up and the price dropped. The per core performance of the Ryzen 7 2700X increased over the Ryzen 7 1800X and the price dropped.

So suddenly saying that AMD will increase the USD price by 33% because their 7NM 8C/16T CPU is faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X is weird logic.The GTX1660 and GTX1660TI was faster than both GTX1060 versions at their RRP.

The worst case scenario is that the RRPs of the 6C and 8C Ryzen CPUs are the same as the launch RRPs of the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X and Ryzen 7 2700/2700X or slightly higher with inflation taken into consideration but with higher per core performance. That means $330 or slightly higher for the 8C 7NM Ryzen and $230 or slightly higher for the 6C 7NM Ryzen top models.

What people fail to realise is that there is internal competition for AMD products too. For instance is someone who has a Ryzen 5 1600X/2600X suddenly going to pay $300+ for the 7NM 6C replacement when their CPU was between $200 to $250 at launch?

UK pricing will be determined by our exchange rates and any tariffs we need to pay(or don't need to pay) if we leave the EU before 7nm Ryzen is available in volume.

I think what is being missed so far in this discussion is most buyers shop by budget. What is the best they can get for their £150, £200, £350 etc.

Currently for any given budget AMD offers the most performance. I'm not sure if all things were equal that the majority would buy AMD over Intel. I think they need to maintain that feeling of great performance for a fair price and make their profits on volume.

My expectation is reasonable pricing a little above last gen.

Exactly - most people I know do this. Also AMD still has less mindshare than Intel. Worst case I see is the RRPs being around the same or a tad higher,but with per core performance increasing. AMD will want people on earlier Ryzen CPUs to upgrade too.

Another factor is if AMD were going to increase prices they would have already done so with the Intel CPU shortage late last year. Except AMD Ryzen CPU prices fell whilst Intel prices increased!

AMD still is outsold by Intel if you include OEM sales - look at the marketshare in the market as a whole,its still Intel winning by a huge margin.

If AMD price too close to Intel,people will buy Intel CPUs. AMD is only selling what it sells now since they are cheaper and offer more of everything compared to Intel.

Also,Intel probably will be moving onto 10NM by the end of the year. At the very least even if they stay with 14NM this year with their desktop CPUs,I can see them launching a 10 core or 12 core CPU. If that comes in at the same price as the Core i9 9900K,then AMD having their own Core i9 9900K for not much less,will mean Intel will look relatively better value. People also need to consider that the chip in the Core i9 9900K(178MM2) is smaller than the chip in the Ryzen 7 2700X(213MM2) and I would assume 14NM is cheap by now.

 

[LePhuronn]

No I'm telling you - because it's a fact - that the only comparative measure worth a toss is perf/$.

You get the perf from bench-marking.

All other means of comparing chips - ie "tiers", "cores", etc... they aren't worth a thing.

Would you pass up a 4-core R3 chip from AMD because it's performed better than a 6-core Intel i5, but had less cores or wasn't in the higher "tier"? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be singing its praises and shouting about how crap Intel is.

The only measure worth anything at all is perf/$. Not cores/$. Not tier.

So much rage for somebody who's missed the entire point, or can I just not see what you're trying to say because you're so determined to dismiss a long-established product segmentation and marketing strategy? Why is it so hard for you to understand that a tiering system is simply a way of indicating a rough performance split within a company's product portfolio? Something marked as a "7" tier is expected to be superior to something marked in the "5" or "3" tier. How is that so hard for you to accept? And whether you want to accept it or not, whether it was intentional or not, if Intel have 3, 5, 7 and 9 tiers in their product portfolio and AMD have 3, 5, 7 and 9 tiers in their product portfolio then it is simply a natural psychological reaction that a potential customer is going to draw comparisons between the two.

That is where competition is drawn.

There is every chance that AMD could push the core counts up a notch in each of their traditional product tiers so we will now see 6 core Ryzen 3, 8 core Ryzen 5, 12 core Ryzen 7. Since you're harping on that price/performance is the only metric that counts (which is rubbish, but I'll indulge you), then you are suggesting that a 6 core Ryzen 3 should be priced against a 6 core 9600K. DG can cry all he wants about Cinebench not meaning anything, I think it's quite clear that Zen 2 is going to draw parity with Intel this time around. The result being the performance of a 3300X could be comparable to 9600K. You're honestly suggesting a price/performance ratio of a entry-level Ryzen 3 should be made against and upper-mid range i7? Are you mad?

The Ryzen 3, for example, is an entry-level CPU and should be charged accordingly. It doesn't matter what the core count is, it doesn't matter what the performance is, it doesn't even matter what the Intel equivalent is and whether comparisons between the two are intentional or not. An entry-level CPU should be priced at entry-level.

Yes, by all means bump the price up a smidgen to cover inflation, R&D costs, 2 extra cores or generally just because the tech is a good chunk better. But if that increase suddenly doubles the asking price of an entry-level chip, that is insane.

...Not how good and warm and fuzzy it makes you feel to buy AMD.

And frankly you can go do one with such childish comments. Try discussion rationally instead of reducing everything down to a partisan fanboi circle jerk. Not once has an emotional satisfaction ever been part of a discussion point I've made, so kindly stop adding your own spin to my words because you can't debate rationally.

 

[4K8KW10]

Is there an updated to April 2019 graph?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Is there an updated to April 2019 graph?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html

Its for CPU bench I just realised so not actual sales. However,here is an article on actual sales share from February 2019:

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...proved-market-share-across-all-segments-in-q4

That is AMD sales share from Mercury Research. In DIY sales AMD is doing OK,but the issue is most prebuilt and laptop sales are those with IGPs and Intel offers APUs with 8 cores and AMD only upto 4 cores. They are mostly relying on pricing currently to push sales,and they need to APUs with more cores to compete with Intel especially in laptops.

Intel has the majority of prebuilt sales it appears.

People need to consider how low AMD CPU sales were before Ryzen. They are basically rebuilding their name in CPUs from almost the start again. So to build share they do need to be aggressive.

 

[Minstadave]

Ryzen 2 should allow them to push the laptop segment harder with chiplets and 7nm.

I think AMD has limited resources so enteprise/desktop/laptop/console is hard to compete well across.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Ryzen 2 should allow them to push the laptop segment harder with chiplets and 7nm.

I think AMD has limited resources so enteprise/desktop/laptop/console is hard to compete well across.

I agree,but lacking an IGP will be considered a disadvantage for OEMs,so those 7NM Ryzen CPUs will all need at least a low end dGPU in a prebuilt desktop for example,so the cheaper Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5 CPUs would need to be competitively priced for OEMs against the Intel 4C and 6C CPUs. The 7NM Ryzen APUs probably will be released at the very end of the year or most likely next year,as the 12NM Ryzen APUs have just been released for laptops.

 

[Troezar]

At this point it's probably worth remembering just how big Intel is. If I was the CEO of AMD I'd be pretty pleased with how things are going.

AMD do need to brace themselves for Intel 10nm. I'm quite sure it will be good but likely expensive given all the delays and associated costs. Make hay while the sun shines, every sale now is one less for Intel given how infrequently most buyers upgrade.

 

[FoxEye]

<snip>

No I'm not suggesting you cherry pick a single benchmark and use that to determine your pricings and standings. I'm not mad, no. You can't just use Cinebench performance lol.

Look, AMD have had a "core advantage" for a while, and yet not had the performance advantage.

So how is comparing just using cores a valid comparison?
How is comparing just using tiers a good way of doing thing?
How is comparing just using frequency a good comparison?

Answer: none of those are good comparisons.

You have to judge on overall perf/$. I'm amazed you're actually arguing against judging on terms of perf/$.

How would you like to compare two chips, then? Price alone? Core count/$? So-called "tiers"? R3 vs i3? R5 vs i5?

You tell me what comparison is better than perf/$...

The Ryzen 3, for example, is an entry-level CPU and should be charged accordingly. It doesn't matter what the core count is, it doesn't matter what the performance is, it doesn't even matter what the Intel equivalent is and whether comparisons between the two are intentional or not. An entry-level CPU should be priced at entry-level.

You what? Performance doesn't matter? Competition doesn't matter?

And you called me mad? Heh.

I know it's not a CPU, but why don't you tell people who are looking at £1,500 2080 Tis how performance and competition doesn't matter...

 

[LePhuronn]

OK, let me try this another way because I sometimes struggle translating my brain through my fingers and we've gotten sidetracked from the point I was evidently failing to make.

The entire reason I've gone on this tier vs core count thing is because of the notion suggested elsewhere on this thread that if AMD have an 8c/16t Ryzen 3000 that matches or beats the 9900K then AMD should and will charge 9900K money for it. I've argued that doing so would be counter productive to AMD's sales because that would see AMD significantly increase their CPU prices beyond the point which would make sense to the general consumer, especially in an era where perception and mindshare is still skewed heavily against AMD.

Price/performance ratio in and of itself is a nebulous thing without any context. What I could consider poor price/performance ratio could be great for somebody else. And by extension then, if price/performance ratio is driving your purchasing decision, surely then you need to consider the price/performance ratio of other products and of competitors to make an informed choice.

Then this "undercut Intel by 20%" thing came along and it's confused the issue.


What I am trying to get at is this...

Let us ignore Intel even exist for a moment. AMD's Ryzen product stack consists of 3 performance tiers: entry level 3, mid-range 5 and top-end 7. Each one of those tiers has a price range applicable to the market segment they are targeted at. My argument is that the performance of the Ryzen 3000 series relative to Intel is largely inconsequential to the price brackets AMD will put to market. It doesn't matter if the 3300 SKUs get released with 6 cores and start trading blows with a 9600K, AMD could not justify in the eyes of the general consumer why their entry level range has suddenly doubled in price by price-matching their competitor's closest-performing part.

Now yes, AMD will have to be competitive with Intel in both performance and price, but AMD simply couldn't set a price band based on price/performance ratio to their competitor, otherwise the prices go through the roof and nobody would buy anything.

The only reason Cinebench is even mentioned is because that's the only tangible thing we've seen which gives any indication of Zen 2's performance. And in that carefully-controlled demonstration, AMD have a product that can match Intel's current top part.


So instead of asking the question again, let me try and do numbers. Hopefully that might clarify what I'm trying to get at. For purely argument's sake, let's say we have performance parity between a Zen 2 core and a Coffee Lake core, and AMD increase core counts in each product tier for Ryzen 3000.

AMD could take a 6c/12t Ryzen 3 and price it favourably against a Coffee Lake i3 because they are analogous to each other as entry level CPUs. That would see a Ryzen 3 price not much higher than its previous generation because that is the general expectation of how much an entry-level CPU costs. The absolute performance of that Ryzen 3 in isolation, and the relative performance compared to the i3 is then irrelevant. There also wouldn't be a need to undercut Intel by a whole lot, if any, because AMD will have the superior product performance at a good price.

or

AMD could take a 6c/12t Ryzen 3 and price it favourable against a Coffee Lake i7 because they are analogous to each as similarly-performing CPUs. That would see a Ryzen 3 price almost double its previous generation, even with a 20% undercut on Intel prices. And if AMD's lowest performance tier suddenly costs twice what it did, how crazy expensive do the 5s, 7s and possibly 9s become?


To me, the latter is utterly ludicrous and simply not realistic. Intel were lambasted for the price of the 9900K, do you really think AMD would commit the same PR suicide with a new, potentially market-disrupting, product?


Ultimately, however nebulous a concept price/performance is, I fully agree than it really should be the primary metric by way you make your purchasing choices, and I never actually said anything to the contrary. Consumers could well just say

"I want a 6c/12t CPU and Ryzen 3 performs about the same as the 9600K but is a bit cheaper so I'll go with AMD"

and that would be great and fine. But we both know surely that what will happen instead is

"lol AMD charging the same price as Intel for their bottom CPU. Joke company taking the pish. I'm buying Intel because they're better" (especially as 7 is better than 3, so an i7 is of course better than a Ryzen 3).