• 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" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Bonjour said:
Intel owned the market when the FX-51 came out as well.
Click to expand...

We don't know final clockspeeds - we assume AMD can just about get to Core i7 6900K level. Intel is pricing the Core i7 6900K since it sells at that price.

But if their cherry picked top bin 8C/16T is actually much higher clocked ,and if BW-E level IPC holds across gaming and non-gaming benchmarks,the only fanbois will be those buying a Core i7 6900K at £1000 on a more expensive platform.

I would also expect more custom PC builders to ditch the Core i7 6900K in their E-PEEN rigs and go for the 8C/16T Ryzen.

Plus even if AMD have a £600 to £700 top bin,its hardly like they won't have a cheaper £400 to £500 one.

Look at every top bin AMD CPU - there have been cheaper versions with the same core count going back a very long time.

Some here can deflect as much as they want - if AMD has something faster or similar speed to Intel undercutting it by 30% of the price,the Intel CPU is still overpriced and making up excuses to put down the AMD product is hilarious.

Imagine if the Fury X undercut the GTX980TI by 30% at launch - instead of £500,it was £350. It would have done far better.
 
Last edited:
Intel has not once ever cared about pricing on their enthusiast SKUs, even when AMD were competing.

Nobody is going to be dropping their 6900K for Zen if they have any sense, there's a reason they're still refining aspects of it.

All I will say is it's going to cause vendors to rethink how actively they promote their QVL specifications on memory kits.

There are going to be a lot of users buying Zen scratching their heads otherwise...
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Here is a fact. £700 Zen DOA. Expect a price drop within weeks if supply is not constrained.
Click to expand...

ONLY if performance doesn't live up to expectations. If Ryzen GENUINELY does smash the 6800k and is near or even better than 6900k performance, than £700 would be a steal. Are you seriously that susceptible to brands and marketing BS that you would discount performance just because it's not a brand you deem to be worthy lol? That's a very blinkered view and either you're too young to remember when AMD were actually a serious competitor, or you've just forgotten. Of course, AMD have to share some blame here for letting Intel run roughshod over the CPU market for so long, but if they are able to produce a CPU that seriously competes, then it should be priced accordingly. Hilarious some people expect a freebie just because of brand! Besides, although AMD have certainly fallen far, their pedigree is hardly non-existent or without previous form.
 
Legend said:
ONLY if performance doesn't live up to expectations. If Ryzen GENUINELY does smash the 6800k and is near or even better than 6900k performance, than £700 would be a steal. Are you seriously that susceptible to brands and marketing BS that you would discount performance just because it's not a brand you deem to be worthy lol? That's a very blinkered view and either you're too young to remember when AMD were actually a serious competitor, or you've just forgotten. Of course, AMD have to share some blame here for letting Intel run roughshod over the CPU market for so long, but if they are able to produce a CPU that seriously competes, then it should be priced accordingly. Hilarious some people expect a freebie just because of brand! Besides, although AMD have certainly fallen far, their pedigree is hardly non-existent or without previous form.
Click to expand...

When I got into building PCs,AMD had the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 around,and I can remember that the top AMD bins of the Athlon 64 not only had the performance but the price to match,and AMD until a few years previously was "the budget brand".

AMD had no problem pricing their top bin CPUs at high prices when they had the performance and there were enthusiasts on forums who had them,ie,like the FX51 and FX53.

But AMD also had cheaper SKUs based on those "halo" products which were popular,and those Opterons which were well priced. In fact it shows you on the CPU side people care less about branding,etc if the performance is there.

Even if there is a £600+ top bin SKU,there will be cheaper SKUs under that,which will probably target the 6C/12T Intel CPUs,as long as the IPC and clockspeeds are there.

The top bin will be a "halo" product and Intel and Nvidia have shown if the performance is there,then "halo" products actually seem to work.
 
Last edited:
RavenXXX2 said:
Here is a fact. £700 Zen DOA. Expect a price drop within weeks if supply is not constrained.
Click to expand...

That is not a fact. It is opinion.

I wouldn't worry if top-end Ryzen is too rich for your blood. They should eventually have chips at each price point, including the performance level you are aiming for.
 
Yeah for sure... I always assumed Ryzen was top-end with a price to match, but undercutting the comparable Intel offering. So if Ryzen is neck and neck with the 6900k at £300 less, that's damn good IF it's genuinely competitive. They will undoubtedly have chips to compete at the lower price points, but they're initially going for the top which makes sense and obviously all part of their strategy. I hope it pans out... we all win if so, even Intel fan boys as they will have to re-think their pricing.
 
Legend said:
Yeah for sure... I always assumed Ryzen was top-end with a price to match, but undercutting the comparable Intel offering. So if Ryzen is neck and neck with the 6900k at £300 less, that's damn good IF it's genuinely competitive. They will undoubtedly have chips to compete at the lower price points, but they're initially going for the top which makes sense and obviously all part of their strategy. I hope it pans out... we all win if so, even Intel fan boys as they will have to re-think their pricing.
Click to expand...

Yep,since AMD will have lower bin 8C/16T products which will undercut the Intel 8C/16T SKUs by mahoosive amounts. I mean IF AMD has competitive IPC and clockspeeds,a lower bin 8C/16T around Core i7 6800K level pricing(or maybe slightly higher) would make it look rather meh in comparison for example.

That alone would put downward pressure on the 4C/8T chips,since Intel would need to probably drop 6C/12T BW-E pricing a bit.

OFC,this is all assuming IPC and clockspeeds are good enough with Ryzen.
 
They arent going to get away with close-to-Intel pricing in the enthusiast market if Zen overclocks poorly, ideally they want SR3 doing 4.5ghz+ and the SR7 which is probably going to be power constrained doing 4ghz+ with SR5 somewhere inbetween. If Zen tops out at 3.6-3.8ghz like the early Phenom II's did then they are going to have to be aggressive on pricing because people WILL pay extra for [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], average/typical overclocks are always a factor when buying.

To me it appears that AMD are struggling with clock speeds, first they did that 6900K comparison downclocked at 3ghz and more recently I read that they raised voltage at the Horizon event to ensure stability at 3.4ghz - and why did they have turbo disabled? was 3.4ghz already pushing the limit? These might have been engineering samples but are you really going to get a massive improvement in silicon at this late stage? AMD have been talking about matching Intel on IPC but if they don't match them on clock speed (both stock and overclocked) then they can't expect to compete with Intel on prices.
 
mmj_uk said:
They arent going to get away with close-to-Intel pricing in the enthusiast market if Zen overclocks poorly, ideally they want SR3 doing 4.5ghz+ and the SR7 which is probably going to be power constrained doing 4ghz+ with SR5 somewhere inbetween. If Zen tops out at 3.6-3.8ghz like the early Phenom II's did then they are going to have to be aggressive on pricing because people WILL pay extra for [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], average/typical overclocks are always a factor when buying.

To me it appears that AMD are struggling with clock speeds, first they did that 6900K comparison downclocked at 3ghz and more recently I read that they raised voltage at the Horizon event to ensure stability at 3.4ghz - and why did they have turbo disabled? was 3.4ghz already pushing the limit? These might have been engineering samples but are you really going to get a massive improvement in silicon at this late stage? AMD have been talking about matching Intel on IPC but if they don't match them on clock speed (both stock and overclocked) then they can't expect to compete with Intel on prices.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? what sort of insane backward talk is this? Zen is already running higher base clocks than Intel's equivalent and as an engineering sample.

Hell the 6900K engineering samples didn't get much over 2Ghz, if you want to make arguments like this the evidence suggest Zen is way batter than Broadwell for clocks and efficiency.
 
I think people really seem to forget how things were - if AMD gets decent IPC and reasonable clockspeed,the 8C/16T Ryzen needs to match or beat the Core i7 6900K. That is £1000 and even at £600 to £700 that is 30% to 40% cheaper.

It might annoy some but Intel is selling the Core i7 6900K at a price the market will bear at that level of performance.

Every review site will paint the Intel chip as looking more expensive and worse value - forum enthusiasts might moan at pricing of "halo" parts but it works in the real world. Most people are not going to care if we think its expensive - they will see reviews saying AMD is expensive but better value than the equivalent Intel chip,etc with them probably saying "AMD is back" enthusiastically(most likely AMD will love to push that narrative too).

If AMD have the performance to match or beat a Core i7 6900K it won't be cheap. The days of the Athlon 64,etc tell you that and I have been an enthusiast long enough to remember people having no problem buying the FX CPUs.

AMD was considered the budget brand for a very long time upto the Athlon/Athlon XP days,when they had SKUs which were price comparable to Intel ones. People judged them on their performance.

The Athlon 64 was the height of that. It worked for AMD.

People don't seem to understand why halo advertising works.

AMD WILL have cheaper SKUs,and I expect the volume chips will be 4C and 6C salvage chips,which will probably perform better in games due to higher clockspeeds,and they will have a cheaper 8C/16T SKU too.

But unlike some in this thread,plenty of people will look at these cheaper SKUs,and think wow,that 6C/12T Ryzen is half the price of that 8C/16T one and is faster in games.

Bargain.

Plenty will look at that 8C/16T lower SKU,and think wow,its 90% of the top one for 60% to 70% of the price for non-gaming.

That is why halo marketing works. Nvidia does that every year - launches a stupidly priced Titan and a few months later a TI which is 90% of it for significantly less. It makes the volume models look better value.

Plus its easier for Nvidia to sell salvage dies than full ones anyway.

Some of you contradict your stance on the top 8C/16T Ryzen SKU,when you spend £500+ on a GTX980TI instead of a Titan or bought a Fury instead of a Fury X.

Its the same as the GTX980 vs the GTX970 or the R9 390X vs the R9 390.

Its the same thing AMD did with the FX51,etc and quietly allowed people to spend less on a Opteron. Yet it mostly meant people probably spent a bit more than they normally might have.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
What are you talking about? what sort of insane backward talk is this? Zen is already running higher base clocks than Intel's equivalent and as an engineering sample.

Hell the 6900K engineering samples didn't get much over 2Ghz, if you want to make arguments like this the evidence suggest Zen is way batter than Broadwell for clocks and efficiency.
Click to expand...

Humbug,

What?

I have a 6900k engineering sample here. Does 4.4 at 1.32v. Not sure who's cool aid you've been drinking.

Continue.
 
humbug said:
Oh of course you do, riiiight ;):D
Click to expand...

Lol, not sure what your understanding of engineering samples are, but there are quite a few out there. All of which pretty much mirror the retail silicon for overclocking range in this instance. Just trying to put a plug on the misinformation that gets posted here.
 
None of the AMD samples tested actually have their fancy new Turbo boost activated either - even on 28NM bulk (which was a worse process than 32NM SOI),AMD managed to hit 4GHZ to 4.2GHZ boost clockspeeds with expanded BD cores(which were actually larger than the first ones).

If AMD can hit 4GHZ on 28NM bulk,I think they might probably be OK on 14NM.

I think there seems to be a hope for some reason AMD won't get the clockspeeds up.

Seems a weird hope,since we would actually want AMD to get reasonable clockspeeds,so Intel can drop prices on their SKUs,especially the 4C and 6C ones most of the people here want to buy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom