3rd gen Threadripper, big fail and missed opportunity for AMD.

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
First gen and second gen threadripper was a great opportunity for AMD to get enthusiast on their HEDT segment.

Many many enthusiast are waiting for a good threadripper with good single core and multi thread performance,
so the 3rd gen was the CPU that all people was waiting for BUT...

Price is now stupidly high,
mainstream gained a lot more cores for the same money
while HEDT is getting the same number of cores with really increased price.

On the HEDT segment we don't expect more performance at the same price, we expect more cores at the same price!

Now that Intel is selling the 18 cores i9-10990XE at only $999 an Intel core costs 55USD while the crappy AMD 3960X boosts the price at 58USD per core with a whopping 1400USD.
Leave alone the stupidly high priced 3970X at 2000USD

AMD is missing a big opportunity here, no enthusiast will spend that much for a dying platform like TRX40,
a platform that must die soon due to the USB4 and DDR5 arrival.

BIG FAIL AMD
 

Verado

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
304
You mad for 3 buck difference in per core price? Jeez..
Also, many would also feel that HEDT is as much about pcie lanes as moarcores.
Anyway. Superior product costs more than inferior product. Not surprised..
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
692
First gen and second gen threadripper was a great opportunity for AMD to get enthusiast on their HEDT segment.

Many many enthusiast are waiting for a good threadripper with good single core and multi thread performance,
so the 3rd gen was the CPU that all people was waiting for BUT...

Price is now stupidly high,
mainstream gained a lot more cores for the same money
while HEDT is getting the same number of cores with really increased price.

On the HEDT segment we don't expect more performance at the same price, we expect more cores at the same price!

Now that Intel is selling the 18 cores i9-10990XE at only $999 an Intel core costs 55USD while the crappy AMD 3960X boosts the price at 58USD per core with a whopping 1400USD.
Leave alone the stupidly high priced 3970X at 2000USD

AMD is missing a big opportunity here, no enthusiast will spend that much for a dying platform like TRX40,
a platform that must die soon due to the USB4 and DDR5 arrival.

BIG FAIL AMD

2 door corvette costs more than 4 door camry. FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
You mad for 3 buck difference in per core price? Jeez..
Also, many would also feel that HEDT is as much about pcie lanes as moarcores.
Anyway. Superior product costs more than inferior product. Not surprised..

I mad because I can't see the real advantage from a 3960X that starts from 1400USD and a 3950X that costs 750USD.
the performance difference is not there and the TR platform itself isn't enough to justify the price.

no humans will need all those PCIe lanes today, be serious. 4 channel? ok but is not enough for the price difference.
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
It is disappointing, but AMD no longer has to be the value alternative to Intel. AMD CPUs are no longer 2nd tier to Intel. And they are priced accordingly.

There are a lot of software that "simply prefers Intel" just because intel pays and helps developers to optimize their software/compilers for Intel CPUs.
With a similar price per performance I would choose Intel all the day.
There are a lot of people who agree with me and this is the reason why AMD will always score 2nd.

they had the opportunity to crash intel in the enthusiast segment
with an interesting performance per dollar ratio and they destroyed their possibility of success.
if ryzen 3000 offered a no brainer over Intel due to the good performance per dollar,
threadripper is now targeting the "I have money to burn people" only.

enthusiasts will not find threadripper so appealing not fo the bug price but for the bad performance per dollar that is so close to intel now.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
186
They are not for "bang for buck" customers, but for those who make money by saving time with the most powerful CPU available.

Cost per core is not really a driving factor anymore, when you have the fastest product available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
They are not for "bang for buck" customers, but for those who make money by saving time with the most powerful CPU available.

Cost per core is not really a driving factor anymore, when you have the fastest product available.

threadripper X series is marketed for enthusiast and workstation, the workstation part is mostly the WX series.
sincerely I think that they definitely lost the enthusiast segment with this launch.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
5,722
I been saying this for ages. Once the roles change AMD is going to start jacking up the prices. If Intel doesn't release something competitive AMD's prices will continue to rise. AMD is not a charity. They are a business and profits are king.
 

jbc029

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
484
I been saying this for ages. Once the roles change AMD is going to start jacking up the prices. If Intel doesn't release something competitive AMD's prices will continue to rise. AMD is not a charity. They are a business and profits are king.

Pretty much this. They aren't vying to be the alternative HEDT cpu anymore. When you *know* your new product is crushingly good vs your opponent, you don't have to price check so hard.

Intel's HEDT stack had to drop into the price range of AMD's consumer stack...because that's what it's worth.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,673
I mad because I can't see the real advantage from a 3960X that starts from 1400USD and a 3950X that costs 750USD.
the performance difference is not there and the TR platform itself isn't enough to justify the price.

no humans will need all those PCIe lanes today, be serious. 4 channel? ok but is not enough for the price difference.
One has 16 cores the other 24. One has just barely enough memory to support the 16 cores it has while the other has more than enough bandwidth to saturate the cores and then some. One officially supports ecc while the other doesn't.

It's not that hard for me to see the differences.
 

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,199
First gen and second gen threadripper was a great opportunity for AMD to get enthusiast on their HEDT segment.

Many many enthusiast are waiting for a good threadripper with good single core and multi thread performance,
so the 3rd gen was the CPU that all people was waiting for BUT...

Price is now stupidly high,
mainstream gained a lot more cores for the same money
while HEDT is getting the same number of cores with really increased price.

On the HEDT segment we don't expect more performance at the same price, we expect more cores at the same price!

Now that Intel is selling the 18 cores i9-10990XE at only $999 an Intel core costs 55USD while the crappy AMD 3960X boosts the price at 58USD per core with a whopping 1400USD.
Leave alone the stupidly high priced 3970X at 2000USD

AMD is missing a big opportunity here, no enthusiast will spend that much for a dying platform like TRX40,
a platform that must die soon due to the USB4 and DDR5 arrival.

BIG FAIL AMD

The only "Fail" I see here is on the OP.

Mega6 summed up the thread nicely.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
747
First gen and second gen threadripper was a great opportunity for AMD to get enthusiast on their HEDT segment.

Many many enthusiast are waiting for a good threadripper with good single core and multi thread performance,
so the 3rd gen was the CPU that all people was waiting for BUT...

Price is now stupidly high,
mainstream gained a lot more cores for the same money
while HEDT is getting the same number of cores with really increased price.

On the HEDT segment we don't expect more performance at the same price, we expect more cores at the same price!

Now that Intel is selling the 18 cores i9-10990XE at only $999 an Intel core costs 55USD while the crappy AMD 3960X boosts the price at 58USD per core with a whopping 1400USD.
Leave alone the stupidly high priced 3970X at 2000USD

AMD is missing a big opportunity here, no enthusiast will spend that much for a dying platform like TRX40,
a platform that must die soon due to the USB4 and DDR5 arrival.

BIG FAIL AMD
If I am not mistaken the new TR is being introduced at the market entry prices of TR+

TR40 is not a dying platform, it's a new platform which the new TR requires to function ( the old boards will not run them ).

What AMD is angling for here is to remove the TR+ processors from the channel and will continue to sell the TR+ (12nm) as the discounted product.

It may not be what we want as consumers, however, you are seeing a company that is achieving performance parity and more in almost every aspect of their processors and they are demanding increased prices.... It was always going to happen. AMD is not the underdog that releases cheap CPUs and graphics cards, they are a business. Mark my words, if they end up dominating the CPU / GPU markets you will see AMD's prices rise exponentially to match.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,633
Intel cut their price in half.

3950x is still competitive with 10990xe at a far cheaper price for not only cpu, but when You factor in platform it furthers savings.

You're crazy. Sans threadripper Intel would still be charging $1600+

Balance has been restored and now the 10990xe is actually a good option vs amd options when you consider cost and performance.
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
Balance has been restored and now the 10990xe is actually a good option vs amd options when you consider cost and performance.

that is the point, AMD had the opportunity to crash intel with no brainer.
On the mainstread there is really few reasons to choose Intel over AMD, it isn't the same on the HEDT platform.

Intel 18cores at 999USD imho is a better bet than a ultra expensive 24cores or a stupidly high priced 2000 CPU that no one will buy.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,470
that is the point, AMD had the opportunity to crash intel with no brainer.
On the mainstread there is really few reasons to choose Intel over AMD, it isn't the same on the HEDT platform.

Intel 18cores at 999USD imho is a better bet than a ultra expensive 24cores or a stupidly high priced 2000 CPU that no one will buy.

Your opinion is not "AMD fail". It is just that. Opinion. You should be thanking AMD for dragging Intel down the price cut path kicking and screaming - otherwise you'd be paying double or 1.5x $999 for your precious 18 Intel cores. Stop crying about AMD pricing. Where were you the past ten years while paying Intel's exorbitant rate?
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
Your opinion is not "AMD fail". It is just that. Opinion. You should be thanking AMD for dragging Intel down the price cut path kicking and screaming - otherwise you'd be paying double or 1.5x $999 for your precious 18 Intel cores. Stop crying about AMD pricing. Where were you the past ten years while paying Intel's exorbitant rate?

sure you're right, thanks AMD to convince intel in lowering the price but my next HEDT will be the cheaper intel :)
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
I mad because I can't see the real advantage from a 3960X that starts from 1400USD and a 3950X that costs 750USD.
the performance difference is not there and the TR platform itself isn't enough to justify the price.

no humans will need all those PCIe lanes today, be serious. 4 channel? ok but is not enough for the price difference.

Sooooo buy a 3950x?
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
sure you're right, thanks AMD to convince intel in lowering the price but my next HEDT will be the cheaper intel :)

It sounds like you’re upset because AMD is finally in a position where they don’t need to undercut themselves or Intel because they have the better product and are finally able to charge what it’s worth.

I don’t know how you were raised, maybe your parents taught you that you’re special, maybe the sports you played didn’t keep score or awarded trophies to losers, and now you have a sense of entitlement. whatever the case, in the real world, no ones going to feel sorry for you. AMD is not going to read your post and adjust their prices. Even with the “threat” buying Intel.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,470
And they, AMD have been operating close to break even which we know IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. They have to get above 50% margin at some point. Look at Intel whose operating at over 70% margin lol.


I would argue "sustainable" but not where they want to be. AMD IS making money, but not a lot. Intel's position appears much LESS sustainable than AMD right now though. Also, AMD can exploit their technological advantage by producing a superior product in quantity thereby minimizing the need for huge margin growth. Of course, now everyone wants 7nm from TSMC.
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
What I'm complaining about is that Threadripper is not the big bargain that ryzen is.

With ryzen processor you have more for less, with threadripper CPUs you have a little bit more for much more money.

New intel 18 cores will not be that slower than AMD 24 cores counterpart but it will be a lot cheaper.

Why AMD, now that it is in the position to be a no brainer even on the hedt market opened a room for intel to sell their CPUs?
 
Last edited:

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,470
Why AMD, now that it is in the position to be a no grainer even on the hedt market opened a room for intel to sell their CPUs?


Yes, AMD is a "no grainer". That's why you have to pay. Understand now?
 
Last edited:

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,897
I think AMD could use some lower core CPUs on this platform. Possibly a 16C CPU. Maybe that will happen after the 2XXX model stock runs out.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,665
Remember, when Intel had no competition they were charging at 1K for their "Extreme" CPU's and then double the price due to lack of competition.

You can thank AMD for forcing Intel to lower their prices, because Intel will still happily charge $2K or more for their HEDT parts if AMD wasn't able to compete, not to mention releasing measly 4 core CPU's with a 5% increase annually on their mainstream platform if Ryzen didn't exist.

Nobody is forcing you to buy an overpriced CPU from AMD or Intel, vote with your wallet.
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
I think AMD could use some lower core CPUs on this platform. Possibly a 16C CPU.

Same here, 2950X was a well balanced CPU, but
Remember, when Intel had no competition they were charging at 1K for their "Extreme" CPU's and then double the price due to lack of competition.

You can thank AMD for forcing Intel to lower their prices, because Intel will still happily charge $2K or more for their HEDT parts if AMD wasn't able to compete, not to mention releasing measly 4 core CPU's with a 5% increase annually on their mainstream platform if Ryzen didn't exist.

Nobody is forcing you to buy an overpriced CPU from AMD or Intel, vote with your wallet.

why should I thank AMD for?
they don't acted like good competition, they simply get the intel crown.

intel had their flaship CPU at 2K, now AMD have their mid tier threadripper at 2K with more to come that will easily surpass 3K.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,633
that is the point, AMD had the opportunity to crash intel with no brainer.
On the mainstread there is really few reasons to choose Intel over AMD, it isn't the same on the HEDT platform.

Intel 18cores at 999USD imho is a better bet than a ultra expensive 24cores or a stupidly high priced 2000 CPU that no one will buy.

Amd was only crashing Intel because
that is the point, AMD had the opportunity to crash intel with no brainer.
On the mainstread there is really few reasons to choose Intel over AMD, it isn't the same on the HEDT platform.

Intel 18cores at 999USD imho is a better bet than a ultra expensive 24cores or a stupidly high priced 2000 CPU that no one will buy.

The 2970 Launched at $1300 though, the 3960 is launching at a similar
Same here, 2950X was a well balanced CPU, but


why should I thank AMD for?
they don't acted like good competition, they simply get the intel crown.

intel had their flaship CPU at 2K, now AMD have their mid tier threadripper at 2K with more to come that will easily surpass 3K.

Their 24 core cpu launched at 1400 and the previous gen launched at 1300, pretty minor increase, they kept the same pricing structure pretty much.
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
Amd was only crashing Intel because


The 2970 Launched at $1300 though, the 3960 is launching at a similar


Their 24 core cpu launched at 1400 and the previous gen launched at 1300, pretty minor increase, they kept the same pricing structure pretty much.

Newer CPUs should offer more cores for the same price, this is the thrend in the latest months/years.
This was the success of the Ryzen series.

Sincerely same core count is not enough to justify a new CPU with increased price specially if we are talking of so many cores.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,633
Newer CPUs should offer more cores for the same price, this is the thrend in the latest months/years.
This was the success of the Ryzen series.

Sincerely same core count is not enough to justify a new CPU with increased price specially if we are talking of so many cores.

Should because you say so? 3000 series is drastically faster than zen and zen +

Threadripper 1900x was 8 cores at $549, 1920x 12 cores at $799, 1950x 16 cores at $999

Threadripper 2920x was 12 cores at $649, 2950x 16 cores at $899, 2970wx $1299 for 24 cores, and 2990wx is $1799 for 32 cores.

Threadripper 1 didn't even offer 24 cores, so there's not a pattern you can base it on. 3950x effectively eliminates the need for lower end threadrippers.

I guess you can argue AMD doesn't have anything that directly competes with the 10990xe, but the 3950x will likely compete well with it at a lower price (749 plus lower price of platform) and the 3960x will likely smash it. I guess AMD could offer a ~20 core product @ 999 to compete with it, but it's really not needed.
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,571
Should because you say so? 3000 series is drastically faster than zen and zen +

Threadripper 1900x was 8 cores at $549, 1920x 12 cores at $799, 1950x 16 cores at $999

Threadripper 2920x was 12 cores at $649, 2950x 16 cores at $899, 2970wx $1299 for 24 cores, and 2990wx is $1799 for 32 cores.

Threaripper 1 didn't even offer 24 cores, so there's not a pattern you can base it on. 3950x effectively eliminates the need for lower end threadrippers.

drastically faster? give me some percentage. it must be faster because it is new. but why the increased price with same amount of cores?
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,633
drastically faster? give me some percentage. it must be faster because it is new. but why the increased price with same amount of cores?

I'm going to guess it's 15-30% faster depending on workload.

it's $100 more for the same amount of cores. 7nm is expensive. Inflation is a bitch. it's less than 10% costlier. AMD is also currently wearing the overall performance crown.

Also keep in mind this is what happens when a company gets ahead, they don't give you great prices because they love you. They give great prices because otherwise people would not buy their stuff.

AMD64 launched at a great price and made a mark m,uch like ryzen did, by the time athlon 64x2 hit it was pretty costly compared to an entry level dual core intel offering (pentium 820d).
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
but why the increased price with same amount of cores?

Have you considered how much more cache the new processors have? You do realize this is an added cost right? Have you read about the increased transistor count on a more complex manufacturing process? This also adds cost. For soemone looking into HEDT, you don't seem to know a whole lot about even the most basic engineering hurdles and cost associated with the new vs old processors. I mean, I don't know a whole lot about it either, but I can at least conceptualize it.

Plenty of reviews out there for new vs old Ryzen that you can lookup yourself and get percentages. This is yet another example of your sense of entitlement, and I'll remind you again... No one is going to feel sorry for you.
 

Azrak

Gawd
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
1,012
The pricing reflects what AMD thinks the product is worth for the performance it has, including when comparing that performance and feature set with the competition. I would wait for benchmarks and comparisons before jumping to conclusions. After that, if you still don't agree, then you need to find other options or wait for the price to drop in 6 months+ and evaluate again.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,231
drastically faster? give me some percentage. it must be faster because it is new. but why the increased price with same amount of cores?

yes because cores are the only thing that matters..

lets ignore the fact that you're going from 64mb of L3 cache to 128MB or a base clock of 3Ghz to a base clock of 3.8Ghz or that zen 2 is between 10-15% faster clock for clock over zen+ or that it has a max boost clock of 4.5Ghz vs 4.2Ghz, or that it has pcie 4.0 over pcie 3.0 or that it has quad channel memory that is accessible by all 4 chiplets through the IO die vs sharing bandwidth off 2 of the 4 zen+ dies or that it has 8 lanes dedicated to the chipset vs 4 lanes.. the list goes on and on.. so the 100 dollars more is chump change for what you actually get over the previous generation..
 
Top