AMD AT CES

Chimpee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,683
I'm fully aware of what the 9900k brings to the table, but AMD has not been able to touch it, even with OC'd Ryzen 2000 cpus, so if 8 core vs 8 core and AMD can match Intels performance @ lower power, that's a win :p (and most likely considerably less $$)
Really good year for Ryzen, I am also excited to see what Intel brings to the table at the end of 2019. Just feel like a great year for CPU, haven't felt like this since the Athlon days.
 

capnstabn

Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
534
I'm fully aware of what the 9900k brings to the table, but AMD has not been able to touch it, even with OC'd Ryzen 2000 cpus, so if 8 core vs 8 core and AMD can match Intels performance @ lower power, that's a win :p (and most likely considerably less $$)

That is good news. But judging by their pricing on the new Radeon, I am not sure how much cheaper they will go. I was hoping the new Radeon would beat Nvidia on price -> performance on not match it.
 

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,724
That is good news. But judging by their pricing on the new Radeon, I am not sure how much cheaper they will go. I was hoping the new Radeon would beat Nvidia on price -> performance on not match it.

They don't need to be cheaper if they perform similarly and use approximately the same power (or less).
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,620
That is good news. But judging by their pricing on the new Radeon, I am not sure how much cheaper they will go. I was hoping the new Radeon would beat Nvidia on price -> performance on not match it.

if you follow the leaks, it should be a fair bit cheaper, the 12 & 16 core being closer in price.

Look at the current landscape, current 8 Core AMD chips are over $250 cheaper than the 9900k :) (Canadian)
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,876
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,876
TR uses a much larger package. TR3 will likely be able to support 4 chiplets.

It will be interesting to see if Zen 3x00 will support 2 chiplets for up to 16 cores. My gut says yes, but we'll have to wait and see.

In conjunction meaning when they release next gen tr, they may also add the 2nd chiplet to ryzen. A staggered launch, hit intel with the 8c/16t parts first at half their pricing, then roll out 16c/32t am4 and 64c/128t tr4 in the fall when intel release their 10th gen core parts.

No need to wait, Su basically confirmed it.
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
15,190
For me the biggest news was pci-e 4.0. Great platform update. I assume this is double the bandwidth again? Just need oems to start making storage adapters, nvme adapters, etc. Has anyone heard about any new NVME ssds using 2 lanes instead of 4, and maybe some card to drop 8 nvme in one x16 pci-4.0 slot? I'd love to see 10Gbit/s nics coming out in x1 form factors so you can stick them in any slot.

If the 16C/32T AM4 parts are $399 in bulk, and $349 + $30 off motherboard @ MC or cheaper, I think it'll finally be time to upgrade my linux (i7-4770k) workstation :) I think my i5-8400 (gaming box) has a couple years left before I hand it down to the wife, unless games requiring more than 6 cores come in sooner rather than later.

I almost replaced it with TR but didn't like the power consumption+price.
 

Boil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,439
I was reading that the new Zen 2 7nm will be at minimum as fast as a 9900k and those numbers might be higher.

There is a good chance that the Zen 2 that was shown at the AMD CES keynote was actually the Ryzen 5 3600 CPU, which would be the middle of the pack for Zen 2...

There are Ryzen 3 CPUs that will perform lower than the demoed R5, and there are R7s (12c/24t) & R9s (16c/32t) that will perform higher,,,

I am excited to see what the rumored APUs will bring to the table, looking at that R5 3600G, 8c/16t & Navi graphics...
 

stashix

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
344
Some people may have noticed on the package some extra room,” she said with a chuckle. “There is some extra room on that package and I think you might expect we will have more than eight cores.
Looks like red will be replacing blue on my end.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,876
There is a good chance that the Zen 2 that was shown at the AMD CES keynote was actually the Ryzen 5 3600 CPU, which would be the middle of the pack for Zen 2...

There are Ryzen 3 CPUs that will perform lower than the demoed R5, and there are R7s (12c/24t) & R9s (16c/32t) that will perform higher,,,

I am excited to see what the rumored APUs will bring to the table, looking at that R5 3600G, 8c/16t & Navi graphics...

I'm guessing 3600X, but yeah. They were essentially showing a mid range r5 cpu against Intel's top of the line i9 desktop cpu.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
TR3 will likely be able to support 4 chiplets.

4 chiplets would be 32c/64t. They already sell a threadripper with those specs, so they're definitely going to sell the zen2 version.

The 8 chiplet one is the 64c/128t, and AMD already publicly stated that the 64c/128t Epyc Rome will be socket-compatible upgrade. Since TR4 is the same physical socket as SP3 it definitely has the pins necessary for 64c/128t. Will AMD actually *sell* a 64c threadripper 3 is a different question, but the hardware should be there to do it, and the physical space is definitely there.
 

UberHaus

n00b
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
6
There is a good chance that the Zen 2 that was shown at the AMD CES keynote was actually the Ryzen 5 3600 CPU, which would be the middle of the pack for Zen 2...

There are Ryzen 3 CPUs that will perform lower than the demoed R5, and there are R7s (12c/24t) & R9s (16c/32t) that will perform higher,,,

I am excited to see what the rumored APUs will bring to the table, looking at that R5 3600G, 8c/16t & Navi graphics...

The next gen APUs could be a huge value for budget gamers. Any chance they support raytracing?
 

Epyon

Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
930
4 chiplets would be 32c/64t. They already sell a threadripper with those specs, so they're definitely going to sell the zen2 version.

The 8 chiplet one is the 64c/128t, and AMD already publicly stated that the 64c/128t Epyc Rome will be socket-compatible upgrade. Since TR4 is the same physical socket as SP3 it definitely has the pins necessary for 64c/128t. Will AMD actually *sell* a 64c threadripper 3 is a different question, but the hardware should be there to do it, and the physical space is definitely there.


I thought we were not going to see 64 core TR because it would eat epyc sales and that we would only get 48 core? I would love to see 48 core TR tho.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
I thought we were not going to see 64 core TR because it would eat epyc sales and that we would only get 48 core? I would love to see 48 core TR tho.

There is always that possibility that AMD decides not to do it for market segmentation reasons. I was just referring to whether or not the socket can actually do it.

But we currently have a 32c/64t threadripper despite Epyc topping out at 32c/64t as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if we get a 64c/128t threadripper at some point, too (maybe the mid-generation refresh of it before zen3?). Epyc has enough other distinguishing features that TR doesn't really eat into its sales (double the memory channels, more PCI-E lanes, multi-socket support, etc...)
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
There is always that possibility that AMD decides not to do it for market segmentation reasons. I was just referring to whether or not the socket can actually do it.

But we currently have a 32c/64t threadripper despite Epyc topping out at 32c/64t as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if we get a 64c/128t threadripper at some point, too (maybe the mid-generation refresh of it before zen3?). Epyc has enough other distinguishing features that TR doesn't really eat into its sales (double the memory channels, more PCI-E lanes, multi-socket support, etc...)
Yeah wouldn't surprise me if we see 48 and 64 core tr 3970/90wx chips as well with non wx being 16 24 and 32.. at least from the tr presentation it seems to me like they're trying to shift tr to be high performance epyc.
 

chithanh

Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
930
The current product differentiation between Threadripper and Epyc is not the core count. It is RDIMM/LRDIMM/NVDIMM support, more PCIe lanes, dual socket capability (except Epyc P series), and enterprise features. I don't expect this to change.

Rather, I predict that we will go from 8 core AM4 / 32 core TR4 / 32 core SP3 platform to 16 core AM4 / 64 core TR4 / 64 core SP3.

Also I don't think that AMD needs to stay with the WX branding for the higher core count Threadrippers. The NUMA situation will be more relaxed due to the single I/O die. The negative scaling which we observed going from 2950X to 2990WX with some applications will probably go away.
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
14,963
Personally I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't say anything regarding the rumors. And it also makes me think that if they are showing a 8 core 16 thread chip being about on par with a 9900k, if not edging it slightly in that specific benchmark, there is no way they sell that chip for $200 cheaper than a 9900k. That makes 0 business sense.
 

cyberguyz

Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
710
Actually it makes tons of business sense. AMD knows they have a reputation as being a less costly solution compared to Intel. You can bet your boots that they will compete hard on both the performance and value fronts. And being less costly than Intel causes consumers (us) to look to them for our computing needs.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
AMD has to sell cpu if they are going to price them the same way Intel does then AMD will never get anywhere. They have to move them they have to get it right if Ryzen 3000 series does not completely blow Intel away then it does not look good for AMD.
Selling more cpu at lower prices to get benefits of higher core count in the desktop market is needed that is where AMD really outperforms Intel.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
6,725
Yeah wouldn't surprise me if we see 48 and 64 core tr 3970/90wx chips as well with non wx being 16 24 and 32.. at least from the tr presentation it seems to me like they're trying to shift tr to be high performance epyc.
If that were the case would they have started selling that high freq epic chip they released recently?
 

CAD4466HK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,286
Actually it makes tons of business sense. AMD knows they have a reputation as being a less costly solution compared to Intel. You can bet your boots that they will compete hard on both the performance and value fronts. And being less costly than Intel causes consumers (us) to look to them for our computing needs.

I remember a time when you had to have more than the average Joe 6-pack's monthly income, to afford a flagship Intel OR AMD chip. Back when the Athlon 64 was king and Intel was still trying to pimp their Expensive Edition silicon, AMD demanded a $1000 for the FX-51,FX-53,FX-55,FX-57,FX-60 ($1100),FX-62,FX-70,FX-72,FX-74.

And let's not forget the audacity that AMD had for trying to sell a FX-9590 for $920. The point is if AMD knows they are king of the hill, you can bet they will price their chips accordingly. Because at the end of the day, both AMD and Intel are just money hungry corporations trying to please their shareholders.

And yes there will be an uproar from the filthy masses crying and moaning that AMD did them wrong because they supported the "under dog", while the rest will be patiently hitting F5 on their browsers to pre-order that shiny new silicon.
 

PliotronX

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 8, 2000
Messages
2,070
Intel: "we are announcing CPUs with GPUs disabled. Somehow for more than those with them enabled."

:D

Never thought I'd see the return of AMD parts being more power efficient the way PD was going.
 

Chimpee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,683
Intel: "we are announcing CPUs with GPUs disabled. Somehow for more than those with them enabled."

:D

Never thought I'd see the return of AMD parts being more power efficient the way PD was going.

Probably doesn't help they are stuck in 14nm hell for 2 years already, but at least the end is near for Intel as they seem to finally resolve their 10nm debacle.
 

Chimpee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,683
Been hearing that for years, I bet all you see out of 10nm is notebook processors this year.
LOL, I am not discounting that Intel may still stumble this year, but after reading Kyle coverage of Intel Architecture Day, it does feel like they finally have a direction to go compare to the previous 2 years.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
I remember a time when you had to have more than the average Joe 6-pack's monthly income, to afford a flagship Intel OR AMD chip. Back when the Athlon 64 was king and Intel was still trying to pimp their Expensive Edition silicon, AMD demanded a $1000 for the FX-51,FX-53,FX-55,FX-57,FX-60 ($1100),FX-62,FX-70,FX-72,FX-74.

And let's not forget the audacity that AMD had for trying to sell a FX-9590 for $920. The point is if AMD knows they are king of the hill, you can bet they will price their chips accordingly. Because at the end of the day, both AMD and Intel are just money hungry corporations trying to please their shareholders.

And yes there will be an uproar from the filthy masses crying and moaning that AMD did them wrong because they supported the "under dog", while the rest will be patiently hitting F5 on their browsers to pre-order that shiny new silicon.

Completely agree. I wouldn't be surprised if prices go up 100 bucks more for this launch since there's room between the 2700x and 9900k to do it. If the performance is there I won't have a problem with it. Always thought the 2700x was under priced anyways compared to Intel but it's allowed them to get through the door to take some of the desktop market from Intel.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,876
I remember a time when you had to have more than the average Joe 6-pack's monthly income, to afford a flagship Intel OR AMD chip. Back when the Athlon 64 was king and Intel was still trying to pimp their Expensive Edition silicon, AMD demanded a $1000 for the FX-51,FX-53,FX-55,FX-57,FX-60 ($1100),FX-62,FX-70,FX-72,FX-74.

And let's not forget the audacity that AMD had for trying to sell a FX-9590 for $920. The point is if AMD knows they are king of the hill, you can bet they will price their chips accordingly. Because at the end of the day, both AMD and Intel are just money hungry corporations trying to please their shareholders.

And yes there will be an uproar from the filthy masses crying and moaning that AMD did them wrong because they supported the "under dog", while the rest will be patiently hitting F5 on their browsers to pre-order that shiny new silicon.

They will absolutely stratify the stack - 8c/16t will be in the $399 range for the 3600x (imo). But, 12c and 16c will be $50 cheaper than the tr4 chips at those marks, so $599 and $779-799 respectively for the X models (and non-x another $100 cheaper). Then tr4 will start at 16c and go to 64c - getting quad channel ram (and 100mhz more) in the base 16c for that extra $100. I think we'll see the 12c tr4 go away and the only overlap will be the 16c part.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
Originally I thought that 1st generation Threadripper should come in at $1600 while others thought close to $2000 if you looked at Intel. And we all know where that ended up .....
 

aduljr

n00b
Joined
Jan 25, 2017
Messages
29
I don't think AMD is going to increase prices here, I see the 8 core coming in around the same price as the current one. 12 core at 100 bucks more, and 16 core 100 bucks more than that. We could say that 330 for the 8core 430 for the 12 core, and 530 for the 16 core.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,318
I thought we were not going to see 64 core TR because it would eat epyc sales and that we would only get 48 core? I would love to see 48 core TR tho.

I dont think it would eat. Epyc has 8 channel ram and a host of server specific functions whilst the tr would be neutered I would think.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
if you follow the leaks, it should be a fair bit cheaper, the 12 & 16 core being closer in price.

Look at the current landscape, current 8 Core AMD chips are over $250 cheaper than the 9900k :) (Canadian)

Those are not "leaks", those are fakes.

AMD don't name nor price its products until close to release.

There is a good chance that the Zen 2 that was shown at the AMD CES keynote was actually the Ryzen 5 3600 CPU, which would be the middle of the pack for Zen 2...

There are Ryzen 3 CPUs that will perform lower than the demoed R5, and there are R7s (12c/24t) & R9s (16c/32t) that will perform higher,,,

I am excited to see what the rumored APUs will bring to the table, looking at that R5 3600G, 8c/16t & Navi graphics...

It is not the Ryzen 5 3600.

It doesn't have a name yet.

AMD don't name its products until close to release.

I'm guessing 3600X, but yeah. They were essentially showing a mid range r5 cpu against Intel's top of the line i9 desktop cpu.

See above.

Personally I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't say anything regarding the rumors. And it also makes me think that if they are showing a 8 core 16 thread chip being about on par with a 9900k, if not edging it slightly in that specific benchmark, there is no way they sell that chip for $200 cheaper than a 9900k. That makes 0 business sense.

I would guess that it would sell around the same price as what Ryzen 7 2700X was selling for.

I don't think AMD is going to increase prices here, I see the 8 core coming in around the same price as the current one. 12 core at 100 bucks more, and 16 core 100 bucks more than that. We could say that 330 for the 8core 430 for the 12 core, and 530 for the 16 core.

I would guess the the 8-cores is around the same price as Ryzen 7 2700X.

12-cores for $500 and 16-cores for $700
 
Last edited:

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,620
Those are not "leaks", those are fakes.

AMD don't name nor price its products until close to release.


It is not the Ryzen 5 3600.

It doesn't have a name yet.

AMD don't name its products until close to release.



See above.



I would guess that it would sell around the same price as what Ryzen 7 2700X was selling for.



I would guess the the 8-cores is around the same price as Ryzen 7 2700X.

12-cores for $500 and 16-cores for $700

if they're at the point where they demo it on stage, and just say not final clocks, I'd say they're close to release.(2h is 5 months away!)

I had an AMD Radeon ES that had a name =p it was 2-3months from release!
 
Last edited:

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
if they're at the point where they demo it on stage, and just say not final clocks, I'd say they're close to release.(2h is 5 months away!)

I had an AMD Radeon ES that had a name =p it was 2-3months from release!
From some of motherboard manufactures sources at ces the delay seems to be the 500 series chipset motherboards so amd is holding off releasing zen 2 til then.
 

Calavaro

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
8,476
Those are not "leaks", those are fakes.

AMD don't name nor price its products until close to release.


It is not the Ryzen 5 3600.

It doesn't have a name yet.

AMD don't name its products until close to release.



See above.



I would guess that it would sell around the same price as what Ryzen 7 2700X was selling for.



I would guess the the 8-cores is around the same price as Ryzen 7 2700X.

12-cores for $500 and 16-cores for $700

AMD will not increase prices in any meaningful way. 2 main reasons.

1. Customers will cry foul and all the goodwill AMD has built up the past 2 CPU generations are gone in an instant.
2. If AMD increases price to Intel level, AMD is killing any CPU marketshare growth right then and there. AMD needs to be cheaper to wrestle marketshare and keep sales high. Buyers are emotional buyers and buy things based on feeling. We all now feel that AMD is right on point with performance and price. They'll move prices by US$ 10-30 SKU to SKU. Eg. a 2700X launched at US$329 (now cheaper) will be priced similarly with the 3700X equivalent (naming TBA) - maybe a few dollars more or less.

Finally, the maximum price AMD will charge for the rumored Ryzen 9 3800 series will be US$ 499 (with a lower binned R9 at US$50-75 less). Same as the launch price of the Ryzen 7 1800x...

There is nothing to suggest AMD will increase prices at all SKU to new gen SKU. Stop thinking Intel price raping, and start thinking reasonable.
 
Top