-
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
So, a 4.5GHz boost Threadripper made up of 8 6-core chiplets that are sufficiently leaky/junky to not be an EPYC.
And people said I was talking rubbish about the benefits of granular binning and how a Threadripper could be beastly with "junk" chiplets
Soldato
Personally I couldn't give two hoots if AMD are not as cheap as people expect. Let's look at recent history, in Feb 2017, just two years and four months ago when AMD first launched the Zen based CPU's to consumers, we had a market place saturated with 4c/4t and 4c/8t CPU's and a few HEDT systems up to 10 cores at £1800, and if you wanted a 12c/24t model you needed to buy a Xeon-E5-v4 which was upwards of £2200 for 3.0GHz-3.5GHz.
In the 28 months since then, we have gone from the 4c/8t to a 12c/24t CPU at a cost of $499 with clock speeds that are much higher, and better IPC. Intel launched the 2500K in Jan 2011 at $211 ($240 adjusted for inflation), and the 2600K for $317 ($360 inflation adjusted), so 101 months ago was the last time we saw Intel bother to make something remotely exciting for the average consumer. It beggars belief that a company who sat on their hands for so long and did nothing until forced, and then when they did do it increased the pricing, and altered the product stack in order to introduce the 8700K followed by the 9900K.
Pretty soon, or at least within the next 12 months, you will be able to buy a standard desktop CPU with 16c/32t and it will be priced according to the market, if Intel are struggling with 10nm still, and the best they can offer is a 10900K with 10c/20t at $499-599, then you can assume the AMD part which has 60% more cores and more than likely just as fast, while drawing the same or less power will be priced just low enough to not be able to ignore it, and high enough that it makes them good profit.
$385 at MSRP is a 9700K with 8c/8t, for 31% more cost you get a CPU that has 50% more cores, or 200% more threads (the 3900X), how can people not see that there is still value in that?
In the 28 months since then, we have gone from the 4c/8t to a 12c/24t CPU at a cost of $499 with clock speeds that are much higher, and better IPC. Intel launched the 2500K in Jan 2011 at $211 ($240 adjusted for inflation), and the 2600K for $317 ($360 inflation adjusted), so 101 months ago was the last time we saw Intel bother to make something remotely exciting for the average consumer. It beggars belief that a company who sat on their hands for so long and did nothing until forced, and then when they did do it increased the pricing, and altered the product stack in order to introduce the 8700K followed by the 9900K.
Pretty soon, or at least within the next 12 months, you will be able to buy a standard desktop CPU with 16c/32t and it will be priced according to the market, if Intel are struggling with 10nm still, and the best they can offer is a 10900K with 10c/20t at $499-599, then you can assume the AMD part which has 60% more cores and more than likely just as fast, while drawing the same or less power will be priced just low enough to not be able to ignore it, and high enough that it makes them good profit.
$385 at MSRP is a 9700K with 8c/8t, for 31% more cost you get a CPU that has 50% more cores, or 200% more threads (the 3900X), how can people not see that there is still value in that?
Permabanned
Personally I couldn't give two hoots if AMD are not as cheap as people expect. Let's look at recent history, in Feb 2017, just two years and four months ago when AMD first launched the Zen based CPU's to consumers, we had a market place saturated with 4c/4t and 4c/8t CPU's and a few HEDT systems up to 10 cores at £1800, and if you wanted a 12c/24t model you needed to buy a Xeon-E5-v4 which was upwards of £2200 for 3.0GHz-3.5GHz.
In the 28 months since then, we have gone from the 4c/8t to a 12c/24t CPU at a cost of $499 with clock speeds that are much higher, and better IPC. Intel launched the 2500K in Jan 2011 at $211 ($240 adjusted for inflation), and the 2600K for $317 ($360 inflation adjusted), so 101 months ago was the last time we saw Intel bother to make something remotely exciting for the average consumer. It beggars belief that a company who sat on their hands for so long and did nothing until forced, and then when they did do it increased the pricing, and altered the product stack in order to introduce the 8700K followed by the 9900K.
Pretty soon, or at least within the next 12 months, you will be able to buy a standard desktop CPU with 16c/32t and it will be priced according to the market, if Intel are struggling with 10nm still, and the best they can offer is a 10900K with 10c/20t at $499-599, then you can assume the AMD part which has 60% more cores and more than likely just as fast, while drawing the same or less power will be priced just low enough to not be able to ignore it, and high enough that it makes them good profit.
$385 at MSRP is a 9700K with 8c/8t, for 31% more cost you get a CPU that has 50% more cores, or 200% more threads (the 3900X), how can people not see that there is still value in that?
Theirs a lot of value in that.....
Soldato
You don't disrupt the market through profiteering and acting like your competition. If AMD start charging near Intel/Nvidia money for their kit then they won't get the sales. There's still too much negativity floating around for AMD to combat the stigma and yet charge "high" prices for their clearly superior technology and product.how can people not see that there is still value in that?
I agree with the logic, and I was a supporter of the logic behind the price points from the original leaks (although I've always maintained they were a bit too low), although my threshold for what is an unreasonable price differs from others. I think the prices are too high, but only by a smidgen, almost an inconsequentially stampy-feet principle (like only £50 too high for the 8 and 12 cores).
Oh....My sides are splitting....
cant say how much too high they are until we see accurate performance numbers verses the intel equivalent, but knowing amd these prices will come down in a couple of months after all theres always a early adopters tax.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
You can buy it for a whole ZERO Vietnamese Dollars. That is cheaper than chips.
I bet the mobo costs TWO GRAND though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
And Apple just put a Xeon in their overpriced high end Workstation lmao...
Soldato
MotherOfGod.jpg
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
It is obviously a dud though.
Link says a) it's available, b) it has 64MB of cache.
Yeah, er no.
Link says a) it's available, b) it has 64MB of cache.
Yeah, er no.
Soldato
Apple are failing. I genuinely think the corpse of Steve Jobs would do a better job than Tim Apple.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Tim in the bar watching Jensun promote Nvidias latest "Super" products, Jensun finishes and walks off stage, Tim says to Jensun "Hold my beer!"
Caporegime
This seemed a real opportunity for Apple to bring in AMD, Threadripper 2 on the Mac Pro would have been very interesting. They already work closely with AMD on GPUs.
Probably lots of exclusivity deals in the background though.
Soldato
100% nonsense.
I'd say that link was complete BS.
For one the 3800X is an R7 part... why would the 3850X be an R9?
Also the clocks are too high given what we now know.
Caporegime
Forty Eight ####'ing Cores, Ninety Six Threads???????
.
That's the same as Intel's $20,000 48-Core Cascade Lake-AP.