Who's planning to buy Zen?

Straight up! Are you buying a Zen?


  • Total voters
    415
From that Article:
.....I've seen rumors of 6-core parts with 12 threads, similar to Intel's $600 Core i7-6850K retailing for around $250 and the SR3 - potentially a 4-core part with 8 threads has been rumored to land at around $150....

If that turns out to be true and has Haswell IPC, I'll be grabbing that 6 core unit.

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is...

Assuming AMD made a CPU that could compete with Intel's $600 part, there's no way in hell they would sell if for $250. They might sell it for $500, but not $250.
 
If something seems too good to be true, it probably is...

Assuming AMD made a CPU that could compete with Intel's $600 part, there's no way in hell they would sell if for $250. They might sell it for $500, but not $250.

Can you explain the part on how AMD is going to sell these CPU with their terrible marketing and just slightly lower prices then Intel , what would people default to if it was not that much more money ?
Unless you think that they have people dedicated hatching the cpu?

The 8C16T part that is costing over $1000 would not sell well if AMD countered it with a product for $900 or $850, as it stands now the margins on this product would be very high but you do want to sell these at a price where people would be tempted to upgrade 4C8T cpu from Intel side.



Has some insights on yields (at the end) and performance
 
Last edited:
Can you explain the part on how AMD is going to sell these CPU with their terrible marketing and just slightly lower prices then Intel , what would people default to if it was not that much more money ?
Unless you think that they have people dedicated hatching the cpu?

The 8C16T part that is costing over $1000 would not sell well if AMD countered it with a product for $900 or $850, as it stands now the margins on this product would be very high but you do want to sell these at a price where people would be tempted to upgrade 4C8T cpu from Intel side.



Has some insights on yields (at the end) and performance


I'd say it won't happen based on evidence from every other tech market. Show me an example from the video card market where they competitor came out with a new card that was compatible to the existing top-of-the-line, but they sold it for half the price? How about a new SSD or hard drive with the same performance as the market leader for 50% less? How about a TV or monitor with all the same quality and capability for half off?

AMD's marketing isn't that bad, and the tech industry is already well aware of the new Ryzen parts. They're just waiting for actual performance and prices to buy. I can easily see them selling for cheaper to undercut Intel, but not by 50%. One, they DO need money and can't sell the chips for cost. Two, they need to recover the R&D they spent making them so they have something to spend on the next generation. Plus they need somewhere to go when Intel responds. Intel will have the Skylake-E's ready, and if AMD was selling that low, they have no where to go if Intel drops their own prices.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it. It would upend the CPU market, and we'd all benefit from the lower prices. I just don't think AMD would leave that much money on the table (or be able to meet demand at that price).
 
AMD's marketing isn't that bad, and the tech industry is already well aware of the new Ryzen parts. They're just waiting for actual performance and prices to buy. I can easily see them selling for cheaper to undercut Intel, but not by 50%. One, they DO need money and can't sell the chips for cost. Two, they need to recover the R&D they spent making them so they have something to spend on the next generation. Plus they need somewhere to go when Intel responds. Intel will have the Skylake-E's ready, and if AMD was selling that low, they have no where to go if Intel drops their own prices.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it. It would upend the CPU market, and we'd all benefit from the lower prices. I just don't think AMD would leave that much money on the table (or be able to meet demand at that price).

AMD has a product that needs traction. After several years of absence AMD has a change to pick up market share. There is no guarantee that Intel won't try and release something better then Ryzen and if Ryzen can gain market share now the next round is open. Next round Intel might have something better that AMD can't get close to then not getting aggressive now would (or could) cost them later.

I would still buy something that is more expensive then $500 but not that much more.
 
If they offered a rebate for early adopters it would be cool. Then they can push the rebate out to the next quarter.
 
Ryzen looks to be a competitive chip, but I'd really like to see a Ryzen-type chip (aka unlocked) based off the Naples core, say a 16-core, dual capable version. That would really get my attention....;)
 
AMD has a product that needs traction. After several years of absence AMD has a change to pick up market share. There is no guarantee that Intel won't try and release something better then Ryzen and if Ryzen can gain market share now the next round is open. Next round Intel might have something better that AMD can't get close to then not getting aggressive now would (or could) cost them later.

I would still buy something that is more expensive then $500 but not that much more.

OEMs isn't emotional invested and buys the best thing for their customers. And there is nothing in AMDs history that shows they are going to do what you hope. You are simply hoping for top performance for cheap without any reason.

You also forgot to reply on where you called me out on the FM3 platform diagrams. ;)
 
Those leaked prices don't make any sense to me. $149 for 4 cores, 8 threads? That's i7 cores/threads for less than half the price. We all have a feeling that stock IPC, (not oveclocked) will not be at Skylake or Kaby Lake levels, but still, $149 in my opinion is way too low. Overclock the snot out of that and you wouldn't need anything Intel or a higher level Ryzen with more cores for just gaming. It would be too good of a deal and would kill everything else.

Here is what I think would make sense:
4 cores, no HT, i3 killer -> $129 to $149 range
4 cores, with HT, i5 competitor -> $179 to $199
6 cores, with HT, i7 competitor -> $279 to $299
8 cores, with HT, but lower clock speed, -> $379 to $399
8 cores, with HT, higher speed, more OC headroom, -> $499

Basically you would get one step up for free. I5 type features, with overclocking, for i3 price. i7 features, again with overclocking, for i5 price. 6 core HEDT features for locked i7 price. 8 core HEDT features for 6 core HEDT price. Top end 8 core with higher OC headroom for half Intel's price. All these AMD cpus have the same features, and all can OC, but some more than others. Intel cuts out instruction sets on low end cpus, and they have a lot of locked, no OC cpus. AMD won't play that game, we already know this.
If AMD did all this, only the most hard core Intel fanboys would complain and not consider AMD, the complaints would be BS. AMD would clean up. But we will see what really happens.
 
OEMs isn't emotional invested and buys the best thing for their customers. And there is nothing in AMDs history that shows they are going to do what you hope. You are simply hoping for top performance for cheap without any reason.

I'm not hoping for anything but if they have a better solution for the money now is the time to cash in not 2 years down the road where the gap might be bigger.
If you can obliterate the need for Intel cpu short term and gently nudge people into buying your 8C16T solution over competitor 4C8T or 6C12T and shut them out of 8C16T that would mean that not only AMD stands to gain from it also the companies making AM4 motherboards.

As I see it AMD will have a better price for their 8C16T regardless of how this turns out. It is a "win" for consumers anyway.

And no I did not forget but you can use your own browser and lookup chipsets X370, B350 and A320 there some micro versions too ...
 
Is there a release date yet?
Before the end of February is the rumored (confirmed?) announcement, I'm assuming it will either be then or not long after. I thought someone said they don't want to do a paper launch.
 
I'm not hoping for anything but if they have a better solution for the money now is the time to cash in not 2 years down the road where the gap might be bigger.
If you can obliterate the need for Intel cpu short term and gently nudge people into buying your 8C16T solution over competitor 4C8T or 6C12T and shut them out of 8C16T that would mean that not only AMD stands to gain from it also the companies making AM4 motherboards.

As I see it AMD will have a better price for their 8C16T regardless of how this turns out. It is a "win" for consumers anyway.

Products gets priced how they perform. What a surprise isn't it? AMD also sold 8 cores for 5-6 years now.

If you need more pointers you can look at Intels outlook for the year. Or you can look up AMDs history.
Hell, even the CEO Lisa Su says AMD will not be the cheap company.

And no I did not forget but you can use your own browser and lookup chipsets X370, B350 and A320 there some micro versions too ...

Yes, and they show exactly the same platform. So if you got something, prove it. Else I assume you got nothing. :)
 
Last edited:
Shocked that you don't understand the difference between 3 chipsets and 1 benchlife picture the 3 chipsets are different even. Lisa Su would say that but when is there going to be a time where AMD is in the same position to do anything?
 
AMD has a product that needs traction. After several years of absence AMD has a change to pick up market share. There is no guarantee that Intel won't try and release something better then Ryzen and if Ryzen can gain market share now the next round is open. Next round Intel might have something better that AMD can't get close to then not getting aggressive now would (or could) cost them later.

I would still buy something that is more expensive then $500 but not that much more.

AMD doesn't have the cash reserves to start a real price war like that. Say they release an 8C/16T Haswell-level CPU for $500, cutting Intel's prices in half. Intel could drop their Skylake-E to compete, and they can afford to lose the profits. AMD can't afford to sell them for much less than that, so they have nowhere to go.

I expect you'll see something more like the AMD/Nvidia competition, where they each have products in each pricing tier, and the prices are damn close.
 
AMD doesn't have the cash reserves to start a real price war like that. Say they release an 8C/16T Haswell-level CPU for $500, cutting Intel's prices in half. Intel could drop their Skylake-E to compete, and they can afford to lose the profits. AMD can't afford to sell them for much less than that, so they have nowhere to go.

I expect you'll see something more like the AMD/Nvidia competition, where they each have products in each pricing tier, and the prices are damn close.

If the AMD CPU price is damn close to Intel, why wouldn't you just buy Intel. The x99 or upcoming x299 is has more features and PCI Express lanes. AMD has been non-competitive for like 5 or 10 years so they can't all of the sudden pop in with a new product and justify Intel pricing. They need to come in and undercut intel and prove themselves. For all we know AMD might have haswell IPC then fall behind again on the next Intel release.

On the other hand, AMD GPUs were generally on par with Nvidia except for the current round so they could justify the price since they were actually equivalent or slightly faster.
 
If the AMD CPU price is damn close to Intel, why wouldn't you just buy Intel. The x99 or upcoming x299 is has more features and PCI Express lanes. AMD has been non-competitive for like 5 or 10 years so they can't all of the sudden pop in with a new product and justify Intel pricing. They need to come in and undercut intel and prove themselves. For all we know AMD might have haswell IPC then fall behind again on the next Intel release.

On the other hand, AMD GPUs were generally on par with Nvidia except for the current round so they could justify the price since they were actually equivalent or slightly faster.

I think they'll be cheaper, but not half the price. Plus the AMD motherboards are going to be quite a bit cheaper than the X99/X299 boards, and you only need dual channel RAM, so overall it'll be quite a bit cheaper for a "similar" level of performance. They CAN pop in and disrupt things just by having something close to Intel in performance, they don't have to be that much cheaper in order to draw a crowd, they just have to be the "new hotness" for a while.

I think AMD will compete with Intel in the same price brackets. That's the only way they'll make money in the long run, and it's already been proven what prices the market will bear for those levels of performance.
 
Working Blender back to single core times:

6900K = ~272 seconds
5960X = ~302 seconds
Ryzen = ~288 seconds
 
I think they'll be cheaper, but not half the price. Plus the AMD motherboards are going to be quite a bit cheaper than the X99/X299 boards, and you only need dual channel RAM, so overall it'll be quite a bit cheaper for a "similar" level of performance. They CAN pop in and disrupt things just by having something close to Intel in performance, they don't have to be that much cheaper in order to draw a crowd, they just have to be the "new hotness" for a while.
I think AMD will compete with Intel in the same price brackets. That's the only way they'll make money in the long run, and it's already been proven what prices the market will bear for those levels of performance.

If you have a decent yield and can pay for the wafers you can make as much money as you can buy wafers. When there is no clear incentive to buy AMD as a consumer the price difference becomes a moot point.
Competing in the same price bracket will land them profits but not market share (with lower prices there are lower profits but higher market share) where that would "tie" consumers down for a couple of years.

Selling more would be better for AMD then selling less with higher profits.

Whichever strategy they pick it is going to be an improvement over the Bulldozer era.
 
If you have a decent yield and can pay for the wafers you can make as much money as you can buy wafers. When there is no clear incentive to buy AMD as a consumer the price difference becomes a moot point.
Competing in the same price bracket will land them profits but not market share (with lower prices there are lower profits but higher market share) where that would "tie" consumers down for a couple of years.

Selling more would be better for AMD then selling less with higher profits.

Whichever strategy they pick it is going to be an improvement over the Bulldozer era.
Also affecting price is the AIB board makers, if AMD is selling higher price meaning less volume it also means less volume for the motherboard makers -> Meaning they will have to jack up the prices or not bother to begin with. AMD has to balance on production capacity, customer expectations, partner needs and desire (so far it looks like ASUS is not having a X370 board out) . Since computers now are more a 3-5+ year term, customers will need to be swayed back to AMD more so then keeping with Intel. If AMD charges too much -> RyZen flops on the initial sells - motherboard makers wasted their time etc. If priced too low AMD may not be able to meet demand etc.

While the high end gaming PC sells are good, the desktop pc sells are not as good as before. AMD has some tough choices to make on pricing and getting products out that are fully supported by AMD and AIB makers. Tough challenge as well since AMD has not done this full scale in awhile.
 
Two concerns - a) lack of PCIe lanes. GPU + 3 x PCIe SSDs + 10GbE NIC = problem, and b) chipset / motherboard quality. I think AMD will have to sell a 6 core at 4 core prices to make me consider the platform for my 2nd PC.
 
No hex cores, Ryzen shipping in 8 Core with SMT, octo cores without SMT and quads with SMT, rumour of a non SMT quad as well.

SR7 - 8/16
SR5 - 8/8
SR3 - 4/8 and 4/4
APU - 4/8 and 4/4
 
APUs are a little year away and will have dual cores too most likely.
 
I'd say it won't happen based on evidence from every other tech market. Show me an example from the video card market where they competitor came out with a new card that was compatible to the existing top-of-the-line, but they sold it for half the price? How about a new SSD or hard drive with the same performance as the market leader for 50% less? How about a TV or monitor with all the same quality and capability for half off?

AMD's marketing isn't that bad, and the tech industry is already well aware of the new Ryzen parts. They're just waiting for actual performance and prices to buy. I can easily see them selling for cheaper to undercut Intel, but not by 50%. One, they DO need money and can't sell the chips for cost. Two, they need to recover the R&D they spent making them so they have something to spend on the next generation. Plus they need somewhere to go when Intel responds. Intel will have the Skylake-E's ready, and if AMD was selling that low, they have no where to go if Intel drops their own prices.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it. It would upend the CPU market, and we'd all benefit from the lower prices. I just don't think AMD would leave that much money on the table (or be able to meet demand at that price).
290X ($549) from Titan ($1000)... Proof given.
 
This rumor article sounds more reasonable:

http://en.yibada.com/articles/18997...e-plus-more-updated-details-to-beat-intel.htm

"Rumors have it that the Ryzen will sell starting at $149 for the SR3 and $249 for the SR5 while the SR7 in various configurations will cost no more than $400. A Black Edition of the same in 8-core package is rumored for only $499. And all the price points, if the speculations are correct, so far seem more inviting then pitted against the cash damage required by an Intel chip purchase."
 
As long as they hit the valu equation correctly it should bode well. For example, 10% less performance for 30% less price
 
that wasn't your question. You asked when ever has a gpu performed equal or better and been greatly lower price.

Valid point. I (and I'm sure everyone else) will be every interested to see the real-world benchmarks for Ryzen and the final actual prices.
 
Now im getting restless. After processing videos from my brand new Samsung 360 Gear camera I have come to the conclusion that the 3930K is now a slow chip for modern video compression and transcoding and processing of these new VR and 360 videos.

I am also going to be buying a much newer DJI drone and of course will be taking gobs of video with it and as such can't wait to get the 8 core AMD for processing these huge 4k videos in a considerably faster time frame than my 5 year old 3930K.
 
As long as they hit the valu equation correctly it should bode well. For example, 10% less performance for 30% less price

By the way Dresdenboy has posted a few hours ago that he does believe there will be a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen sku. Whether it will be at ,aunch or shortly after is not known. So all the pundits with their arcane theories why 6 core would not be made are possibly going to have egg in their face at launch. The reasons given why 6 core was not feasible do not hod traction. They are guesses built upon guesses. Isn't that called a house of cards?
 
By the way Dresdenboy has posted a few hours ago that he does believe there will be a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen sku. Whether it will be at ,aunch or shortly after is not known. So all the pundits with their arcane theories why 6 core would not be made are possibly going to have egg in their face at launch. The reasons given why 6 core was not feasible do not hod traction. They are guesses built upon guesses. Isn't that called a house of cards?

You can say the same for those expecting a 6 core cant you.
 
This hype reminds me too much about the Bulldozer launch.
Let's hope there's more substance behind it this time. After all, Intel hasn't come very far since then...
 
This hype reminds me too much about the Bulldozer launch.
Let's hope there's more substance behind it this time. After all, Intel hasn't come very far since then...

Sorry to burst your bubble here but in no way shape or form did AMD show Integer and Floating Point benchmarks close to Intel performance on equal amount of cores with Bulldozer
 
By the way Dresdenboy has posted a few hours ago that he does believe there will be a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen sku. Whether it will be at ,aunch or shortly after is not known. So all the pundits with their arcane theories why 6 core would not be made are possibly going to have egg in their face at launch. The reasons given why 6 core was not feasible do not hod traction. They are guesses built upon guesses. Isn't that called a house of cards?

If the yields are good then I would certainly not expect these shortly after launch ;)
 
AMDs Q4 results.

AMD Ryzen™ processors for desktops which will begin shipping in early March 2017

Could be late march before you can buy it. Or maybe even april.
 
Back
Top