AMD AT CES

When discussing Zen2 pricing one must consider this

amd-iedm-2017-23-1024x579.png
 
bobzdar said:
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.
Click to expand...
As far as i think this is possible there will be 8 chiplets on TR4. All the Numa and other problems of that kind will be adressed by the i/o chip that is unique to the TR4. There will be 3 kind of I/O chiplets, all in 14nm made at Glofo or Samsung, 1 kind of CPU chiplet in 7 nm made at TSMC.
 
Last edited:
juanrga said:
When discussing Zen2 pricing one must consider this

View attachment 134744
Click to expand...
That's why AMD moved to chiplet design. The die sizes are much smaller without the IO and other ancillary poorly scaling circuitry. This is how AMD can keep yields very high, and costs relatively low.
If Intel didn't move to a chiplet design, they can't compete with AMD on price (or yield) anytime soon. And AMD can drop prices even lower if need be.
AMD's entire lineup is perfectly suited to the prices they have set. Get a chiplet with 1 or 2 malfunctioning cores? Lower bin, lower price, but still sold to consumer. Win-Win.

AMD has knocked the Zen design out of the park, and the ball is still flying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
I think they will start with 48 Core TR4 first then move to 64 Core TR4 later on. But they could launch both at the same time i guess. I would bet close to 3k for the 64C TR4 tho I mean who knows.
 
Calavaro said:
That's why AMD moved to chiplet design. The die sizes are much smaller without the IO and other ancillary poorly scaling circuitry. This is how AMD can keep yields very high, and costs relatively low.
If Intel didn't move to a chiplet design, they can't compete with AMD on price (or yield) anytime soon. And AMD can drop prices even lower if need be.
AMD's entire lineup is perfectly suited to the prices they have set. Get a chiplet with 1 or 2 malfunctioning cores? Lower bin, lower price, but still sold to consumer. Win-Win.

AMD has knocked the Zen design out of the park, and the ball is still flying.
Click to expand...

It is like a Khris Davis opposite field home run, long and gone

for the baseball challenged

 
Last edited:
Calavaro said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't help but disagree with this reasoning. Customer goodwill isn't worth a lot of money in this industry. Basically everyone chases the best deal in CPUs. Most customers will switch Intel/AMD in a heartbeat if it gives them a better setup relative to their needs for the price.

I bet Intel and AMD have very similar internal models for CPU demand. Both companies have been at this for a long time. If AMD has a product that is similar to Intel's, I expect them to immediately raise prices to a similar level; with maybe a slight discount because they are not the market leader and have a bit weaker ecosystem.

The correct business move is to charge the highest price possible for a product. Otherwise you are leaving profits on the table. The only constraints are competition, substitutes, and the ability of customers to delay buying.
 
enc0re said:
The correct business move is to charge the highest price possible for a product.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Even ignoring goodwill, install base, and other intangibles which certainly aren't nothing, the correct business move is to find the price value that maximises profit when accounting for volume at each price point.
 
hurleybird said:
Wrong. Even ignoring goodwill, install base, and other intangibles which certainly aren't nothing, the correct business move is to find the price value that maximises profit when accounting for volume at each price point.
Click to expand...

Obviously. That’s what I mean by highest price possible.
 
enc0re said:
I can't help but disagree with this reasoning. Customer goodwill isn't worth a lot of money in this industry. Basically everyone chases the best deal in CPUs. Most customers will switch Intel/AMD in a heartbeat if it gives them a better setup relative to their needs for the price.

I bet Intel and AMD have very similar internal models for CPU demand. Both companies have been at this for a long time. If AMD has a product that is similar to Intel's, I expect them to immediately raise prices to a similar level; with maybe a slight discount because they are not the market leader and have a bit weaker ecosystem.

The correct business move is to charge the highest price possible for a product. Otherwise you are leaving profits on the table. The only constraints are competition, substitutes, and the ability of customers to delay buying.
Click to expand...
Enthusiasts always go for the best performance/price ratio. Obviously. That's AMD by a long shot right now.
Joe Consumer goes with what the retailer recommends. In the past that meant nearly 100% Intel since the Intel illegal kickbacks paid very well, Joe Consumer got screwed on price, and AMD was nowhere to be seen in the retail channels. Slowly changing now, but not quick enough.
But where it really counts - corporate bulk purchases - is where the huge suppliers of prebuilt computers (HP, Dell, Lenovo et al) make your decision. "Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel" was the old, very wrong, slogan perpetuated by Intel. So buyers go the Intel servers, and since they worked the best, throw in the 30,000 PC's with Intel CPU's in them. This is where AMD now is wrestling away sales. Sell hugely powerful server systems, at deeply discounted prices, and the corporate desktop purchases follow. The price delta is even bigger in the server market than the consumer market.

The price strategy from AMD is brilliant. Sell the CPU's with enough margin to make the company and investors happy, but low enough that Intel can not sell their CPU's at any lower prices without cutting their obscene margins by an order of magnitude and perhaps enter a territory of selling at a loss. Intel is in real, actual, bonafide trouble, and we all know it.
AMD doesn't have to sell their CPU's at Intel prices. Intel has to sell their CPU's at AMD's prices, and that is going to hurt Intel hugely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boil
like this
DuronBurgerMan said:
I suspect 12 and 16 core AM4 Zen2 products will be priced higher than the 2700X was at launch.
Click to expand...
Follow the CPU names.

1600 -> 2600 -> 3600, same price bracket
1700 -> 2700 -> 3700, same price bracket
1800 -> (no 2800) -> 3800, same price bracket

And the same way for all other SKU's...
 
enc0re said:
The correct business move is to charge the highest price possible for a product. Otherwise you are leaving profits on the table. The only constraints are competition, substitutes, and the ability of customers to delay buying.
Click to expand...

Short term thinking protecting monopoly status leads to complacency. If you take this route that is all you will amount to.
 
Calavaro said:
Follow the CPU names.

1600 -> 2600 -> 3600, same price bracket
1700 -> 2700 -> 3700, same price bracket
1800 -> (no 2800) -> 3800, same price bracket

And the same way for all other SKU's...
Click to expand...

Point is, if Adored's leak was bullshit, then the provided tabulation may also be wrong.

In other words, the 8 core Zen 2 part may be a 3700
The 12 core a 3800
The 16 core a 3850 or 3900 or something.

So we don't know the pricing structure yet.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Point is, if Adored's leak was bullshit, then the provided tabulation may also be wrong.

In other words, the 8 core Zen 2 part may be a 3700
The 12 core a 3800
The 16 core a 3850 or 3900 or something.

So we don't know the pricing structure yet.
Click to expand...

He has been pretty spot with regards to Zen 2 leaks so far.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Point is, if Adored's leak was bullshit, then the provided tabulation may also be wrong.

In other words, the 8 core Zen 2 part may be a 3700
The 12 core a 3800
The 16 core a 3850 or 3900 or something.

So we don't know the pricing structure yet.
Click to expand...
What part of his leak/deduction has been incorrect so far in regards to Zen2?
He may have some details wrong, but thats to be expected since AMD themselves are not finished with the fine tuning of them.
But everything so far clearly points to 12 and 16 core SKUs being released. And following pricing logic, the prices should land very near the deduced prices.
 
Calavaro said:
AMD doesn't have to sell their CPU's at Intel prices. Intel has to sell their CPU's at AMD's prices, and that is going to hurt Intel hugely.
Click to expand...

This right here, there is zero reason for AMD to try & match Intel pricing...

There are 100 reasons for AMD to keep their sane pricing, and those 100 reasons are percentage points in market share...

Intel & Nvidia are going to have a very bad 2019...
 
AMD will go for the price/performance sweet spot.

Not, it should be noted, because they feel generous toward us, but because at the same value, most people will go Intel. In all things, AMD must undercut and win the price/performance comparison. GPUs, CPUs... everything.

At least until they recover the goodwill they lost with Bulldozer and ceding the high end GPU market to Nvidia. That will take awhile, the brand damage was very extensive. If this were any other market, AMD would probably be gone entirely. Fortunately for them, the tech world's memory is much shorter than with many others. A couple generations of seriously competitive products will bring them back - maybe eventually to the point where they can charge similar prices as opposed to significant undercutting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otg
like this
DuronBurgerMan said:
AMD will go for the price/performance sweet spot.

Not, it should be noted, because they feel generous toward us, but because at the same value, most people will go Intel. In all things, AMD must undercut and win the price/performance comparison. GPUs, CPUs... everything.

At least until they recover the goodwill they lost with Bulldozer and ceding the high end GPU market to Nvidia. That will take awhile, the brand damage was very extensive. If this were any other market, AMD would probably be gone entirely. Fortunately for them, the tech world's memory is much shorter than with many others. A couple generations of seriously competitive products will bring them back - maybe eventually to the point where they can charge similar prices as opposed to significant undercutting.
Click to expand...

Almost no one remembers Bulldozer as a thing unless their into tech sites, so for the general public it means nothing. Being faster and cheaper will allow them to recover market share. However if Intel continues to struggle to compete then I expect AMD to move prices up just like they did before. If Zen 2 turns out better then anything Intel can do then I expect Zen 3 to be more costly.
 
Gideon said:
Almost no one remembers Bulldozer as a thing unless their into tech sites...
Click to expand...

Disagree. General public gets this shit second- or third-hand. Which means if enthusiasts think Bulldozer sucks, then the non-tech folks will just have a sort of vague impression that AMD is the slow, crappy option if you want to buy something cheap. That impression must be eroded by the reverse: people saying AMD is fast and modern. During the transition period (which started when Zen launched, and is probably not yet over) AMD has to remain less expensive.

However, I do agree that prices will slowly creep up, as long as AMD remains competitive. As they gain mindshare, and hold on performance, they will slowly creep up in pricing.
 
Those who say AMD prices will increase. Just look at how AMD's prices have decreased over the life of their CPU's.
Don't need that jump in performance? Grab the previous gen at half price (or so), and keep most of the performance.
The brilliant, fantastic thing that allows for this is the drop-in CPU support. Grab an inexpensive B-series mainboard, and a 1700X if you want cheap, very good performance right this minute. Then a few months later grab the 3700 (or whatever) for a cheap CPU speed upgrade.
No more having to rebuild an entire system for expensive money, when you need a little bit more CPU speed. The value buyer in me loves this idea.
And that's what AMD is - the value buy. AMD knows they are and thus will not move their CPU prices generation to generation (SKU-to-SKU).
 
I think AMD will try do their best at cashing in where possible, it is a business and a business needs cashflow as much as mindshare. If the performance is epyc then people will pay.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
I think AMD will try do their best at cashing in where possible, it is a business and a business needs cashflow as much as mindshare. If the performance is epyc then people will pay.
Click to expand...

AMD benefits more from a user base with a high core count. Their products tend to be better in that field. By shaking down current consumers for the best possible prices on AMD side would mean that when Intel does make their comeback the user base still would be stuck at something Intel can dominate AMD on. The most important thing for AMD to progress the long term strategy is to have the amount of cores that forces Intel comeback to be on AMD playing field not vice versa.

AMD with home court advantage still has an uphill battle of epic proportions ahead....
 
Boil said:
This right here, there is zero reason for AMD to try & match Intel pricing...
Click to expand...

There are two very important reason: physics and economy.

Physics: Cost is a nonlinear function of performance. E.g. uncreasing IPC by 10% doesn't cost 10% more.

Economy: Zen1 used single die, weaker architecture than Zen2, 128bit units/datapaths, and cheaper node. Zen2 uses multipackage die, stronger architecture than Zen2, 256bit units/datapaths, and a much more expensive node.
 
juanrga said:
There are two very important reason: physics and economy.

Physics: Cost is a nonlinear function of performance. E.g. uncreasing IPC by 10% doesn't cost 10% more.

Economy: Zen1 used single die, weaker architecture than Zen2, 128bit units/datapaths, and cheaper node. Zen2 uses multipackage die, stronger architecture than Zen2, 256bit units/datapaths, and a much more expensive node.
Click to expand...

Much cheaper and easier to build then Intel's monolithic chips tho. That will continue to be Intel's biggest issue as they can get away with it on a mature node but not a new one.
 
juanrga said:
There are two very important reason: physics and economy.

Physics: Cost is a nonlinear function of performance. E.g. uncreasing IPC by 10% doesn't cost 10% more.

Economy: Zen1 used single die, weaker architecture than Zen2, 128bit units/datapaths, and cheaper node. Zen2 uses multipackage die, stronger architecture than Zen2, 256bit units/datapaths, and a much more expensive node.
Click to expand...

I wonder about the cost differences involved in separating the uncore I/O from the cores. Will this mitigate some of the cost increases involved with 7nm, or exacerbate them?

One thing that is interesting is it may allow for more salvaging. Dies with bad I/O had to be thrown out in most cases before (though how many is that, really?) even if the cores were good. I think the multi-chip model allows for more die salvaging, thusly. But packaging costs have surely risen as a result of this. And 7nm isn't cheap...
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
I wonder about the cost differences involved in separating the uncore I/O from the cores. Will this mitigate some of the cost increases involved with 7nm, or exacerbate them?

One thing that is interesting is it may allow for more salvaging. Dies with bad I/O had to be thrown out in most cases before (though how many is that, really?) even if the cores were good. I think the multi-chip model allows for more die salvaging, thusly. But packaging costs have surely risen as a result of this. And 7nm isn't cheap...
Click to expand...

Might also allow them to use global foundries and meet agreements while still allowing them to use 7nm tech. My guess is thats is quite a bit cheaper then making it all from 7nm. Based on the small chip size they can get quite a few zen chips off one wafer and 14nm is mature tech so yields should be no issue there. I am wondering if Intel will follow suit if they cant get 10nm working right.
 
Calavaro said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "increasing price to Intel level"?

If AMD release 8C/16T for the same prices as Ryzen 7 2700/2700X, that would be cheaper Intel.

Then AMD can release 12C/24T for the same price as Core i9-9900K (~$500) and 16C/32T for $700 to $800 dollars.

That FAR CHEAER than Intel.
 
Last edited:
DuronBurgerMan said:
I suspect 12 and 16 core AM4 Zen2 products will be priced higher than the 2700X was at launch.
Click to expand...

I suspect that 8C/16T "Ryzen 7" will be around the same price as Ryzen 7 2700/2700X launch's price.

12C/24T "Ryzen 9" will around the same price as the Core i9-9900K

16C/32T "Ryzen 9" will be around $700-$800

Calavaro said:
Enthusiasts always go for the best performance/price ratio. Obviously. That's AMD by a long shot right now.
Joe Consumer goes with what the retailer recommends. In the past that meant nearly 100% Intel since the Intel illegal kickbacks paid very well, Joe Consumer got screwed on price, and AMD was nowhere to be seen in the retail channels. Slowly changing now, but not quick enough.
But where it really counts - corporate bulk purchases - is where the huge suppliers of prebuilt computers (HP, Dell, Lenovo et al) make your decision. "Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel" was the old, very wrong, slogan perpetuated by Intel. So buyers go the Intel servers, and since they worked the best, throw in the 30,000 PC's with Intel CPU's in them. This is where AMD now is wrestling away sales. Sell hugely powerful server systems, at deeply discounted prices, and the corporate desktop purchases follow. The price delta is even bigger in the server market than the consumer market.

The price strategy from AMD is brilliant. Sell the CPU's with enough margin to make the company and investors happy, but low enough that Intel can not sell their CPU's at any lower prices without cutting their obscene margins by an order of magnitude and perhaps enter a territory of selling at a loss. Intel is in real, actual, bonafide trouble, and we all know it.
AMD doesn't have to sell their CPU's at Intel prices. Intel has to sell their CPU's at AMD's prices, and that is going to hurt Intel hugely.
Click to expand...

"Enthusiasts always go for the best performance/price ratio"

Is they why they buy $500 Core i9-9900K and $1200 Geforce RTX 2080 Ti?

...because they have the best performance/price ratio?

Calavaro said:
Follow the CPU names.

1600 -> 2600 -> 3600, same price bracket
1700 -> 2700 -> 3700, same price bracket
1800 -> (no 2800) -> 3800, same price bracket

And the same way for all other SKU's...
Click to expand...

my speculation:

6C/12T Ryzen 5 2600/X -> 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600/X*

8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700/X -> 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700/X*

none -> 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3800/X*

none -> 16C/32T Ryzen 9 3900/X*

* = hypothetical name

DuronBurgerMan said:
Point is, if Adored's leak was bullshit, then the provided tabulation may also be wrong.

In other words, the 8 core Zen 2 part may be a 3700
The 12 core a 3800
The 16 core a 3850 or 3900 or something.

So we don't know the pricing structure yet.
Click to expand...

my speculation:

6C/12T Ryzen 5 2600/X -> 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600/X*

8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700/X -> 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700/X*

none -> 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3800/X*

none -> 16C/32T Ryzen 9 3900/X*

* = hypothetical name

Calavaro said:
What part of his leak/deduction has been incorrect so far in regards to Zen2?
He may have some details wrong, but thats to be expected since AMD themselves are not finished with the fine tuning of them.
But everything so far clearly points to 12 and 16 core SKUs being released. And following pricing logic, the prices should land very near the deduced prices.
Click to expand...

All of it.

DuronBurgerMan said:
AMD will go for the price/performance sweet spot.

Not, it should be noted, because they feel generous toward us, but because at the same value, most people will go Intel. In all things, AMD must undercut and win the price/performance comparison. GPUs, CPUs... everything.

At least until they recover the goodwill they lost with Bulldozer and ceding the high end GPU market to Nvidia. That will take awhile, the brand damage was very extensive. If this were any other market, AMD would probably be gone entirely. Fortunately for them, the tech world's memory is much shorter than with many others. A couple generations of seriously competitive products will bring them back - maybe eventually to the point where they can charge similar prices as opposed to significant undercutting.
Click to expand...

If 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700/X* ~ 8C/16T Core i9-9900K in performance, that's already great value.

* = hypothetical name

Digital Viper-X- said:
He has been pretty spot with regards to Zen 2 leaks so far.
Click to expand...

The stuff in his videos have literally been grabbed from Anandtech forums.

Calavaro said:
Those who say AMD prices will increase. Just look at how AMD's prices have decreased over the life of their CPU's.
Don't need that jump in performance? Grab the previous gen at half price (or so), and keep most of the performance.
The brilliant, fantastic thing that allows for this is the drop-in CPU support. Grab an inexpensive B-series mainboard, and a 1700X if you want cheap, very good performance right this minute. Then a few months later grab the 3700 (or whatever) for a cheap CPU speed upgrade.
No more having to rebuild an entire system for expensive money, when you need a little bit more CPU speed. The value buyer in me loves this idea.
And that's what AMD is - the value buy. AMD knows they are and thus will not move their CPU prices generation to generation (SKU-to-SKU).
Click to expand...

Going from 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700/X -> 8C/12T Ryzen 7 3700/X* while maintaining the release price would be a big performance increase on its own
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see more affordable frequency-optimized options for Epyc like the 7371. There still aren't any TR boards with an integrated BMC.
 
_mockingbird said:
6C/12T Ryzen 5 2600/X -> 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600/X*

8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700/X -> 8C/12T Ryzen 7 3700/X*

none -> 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3800/X*

none -> 16C/32T Ryzen 9 3900/X*

6C/12T Ryzen 5 2600/X -> 6C/12T Ryzen 5 3600/X*

8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700/X -> 8C/12T Ryzen 7 3700/X*

none -> 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3800/X*

none -> 16C/32T Ryzen 9 3900/X*

8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700/X -> 8C/12T Ryzen 7 3700/X
Click to expand...

You got some of your thread counts wrong...

Ryzen 3 = 6C/12T
Ryzen 5 = 8C/16T
Ryzen 7 = 12C/24T
Ryzen 9 = 16C/32T

Top end Ryzen 9 will be 500 bucks...

Intel is fucked for the next year or two...
 
Boil said:
You got some of your thread counts wrong...

Ryzen 3 = 6C/12T
Ryzen 5 = 8C/16T
Ryzen 7 = 12C/24T
Ryzen 9 = 16C/32T

Top end Ryzen 9 will be 500 bucks...

Intel is fucked for the next year or two...
Click to expand...

No, I didn't.

8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700/X* ~$300-$400

12C/24T Ryzen 9 3800/X* ~$500-$600

16C/32T Ryzen 9 3900/X* ~$700-$800

* = hypothetical name
 
_mockingbird said:
No, I didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did...

The parts I highlighted in red, you are attributing 12 threads to 8 core systems...

Meaning, you got your thread counts wrong...

Your misnaming of the four (4) tiers of CPUS & cash grab pricing scheme is another issue all together...

AMD needs to keep at their lower pricing to grab market share, not jack up prices just because the other guy charges more...
 
Boil said:
Yes, you did...

The parts I highlighted in red, you are attributing 12 threads to 8 core systems...

Meaning, you got your thread counts wrong...

Your misnaming of the four (4) tiers of CPUS & cash grab pricing scheme is another issue all together...

AMD needs to keep at their lower pricing to grab market share, not jack up prices just because the other guy charges more...
Click to expand...

No, I did not.

12C/24T Ryzen 9 3800/X competes at the Core i9-9900K's price tag.

Also, I said the name is hypothetical.
 
Ryzen 3 = 6C/12T - $150

Ryzen 5 = 8C/16T - $250

Ryzen 7 = 12C/24T - $350

Ryzen 9 = 16C/32T - $500

With AMD sticking to their current pricing & reasonably priced mid-range Navi GPUs in the pipe, AMD should be able to get a good bit of market share from Intel & Nvidia...
 
Lisa Su said there was room that could fit another chiplet - but that doesn't mean AMD was going to do it right at the get go.

I'm guessing AMD won't even go higher than 8 cores on the AM4 UNTIL Intel shows their next hand. If the performance on 8 cores can beat a 9900K on less power for less $ what's the point? The only person you're competing with is your own TR product line.

AMD is likely to put out just enough cores and threads to put heat on Intel at a good price point first then maybe do a 'Tick Tock' strategy and do Ryzen 2 / Gen 3 Plus model next year with more cores (AMD what's up with the confusing nomenclature?).
 
Last edited:
Boil said:
Ryzen 3 = 6C/12T - $150

Ryzen 5 = 8C/16T - $250

Ryzen 7 = 12C/24T - $350

Ryzen 9 = 16C/32T - $500

With AMD sticking to their current pricing & reasonably priced mid-range Navi GPUs in the pipe, AMD should be able to get a good bit of market share from Intel & Nvidia...
Click to expand...

I really doubt that AMD is just going to charge just $100 more while adding an entire chiplet.
 
dvsman said:
Lisa Su said there was room that could fit another chiplet - but that doesn't mean AMD was going to do it right at the get go.

I'm guessing AMD won't even go higher than 8 cores on the AM4 UNTIL Intel shows their next hand. If the performance on 8 cores can beat a 9900K on less power for less $ what's the point? The only person you're competing with is your own TR product line.

AMD is likely to put out just enough cores and threads to put heat on Intel at a good price point first then maybe do a 'Tick Tock' strategy and do Ryzen 2 / Gen 3 Plus model next year (AMD what's up with the confusing nomenclature?).
Click to expand...

AMD can add products at new price points, 12C/24T for $500-$600 and 16C/32T for $700-$800.

Yes, I do realize that Threadripper exists, but those could be reserved for people who need more PCIe lanes.
 
_mockingbird said:
It wasn't a mistake and didn't need correcting.



It's not a typo.
Click to expand...
8 × 2 = 16, not 12. I don't think amd is going to release a gimped smt part like that. Otoh, I don't think the typo is that big a deal. Point it out and then stfu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top