• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD Ryzen CPU models leaked

drescherjm said:
How will that be different from an i7??
Click to expand...
Precisely the point, why would Intel drop HT (back) into a i5 line and blur the i5/i7 lines? (i5-6xx line had HT) I'm sure it would still appeal like those salivating over HT-enabled Pentiums.
 
ManofGod said:
Who the hell cares?!?!?!?!? AMD needs market share so they are not going to price their processors at the overpriced amount that Intel does. Also, they are fully aware of the fact that although they need to make money, without market share, they will not make any money. It is common sense and does not take a business major to understand this.
Click to expand...

i mean people said the same thing about the fury cards and yet they were priced almost dollar for dollar with intel while not performing the same.

but your arguement is that they need market share but you're also ignoring the other side of the coin, intel has marketshare to bleed without any long term effect on their profits, so there's zero reason for intel to drop their prices. if ryzen actually hits their performance goals they have set that leaves room for AMD to then charge similar prices to intel. the only ones that can control where AMD sets their pricing if that ends up being the case is intel themselves. if they drop their prices AMD will follow, if they don't AMD won't. this is exactly what happened with fury. the prices never really changed because nvidia had no reason to change their prices. ultimately AMD needs to make their money back quickly with Ryzen so i wouldn't expect competitive prices unless they fail miserably to reach their goal.
 
Canard says glofo had 14nm yield problems with ryzen and thats why baseclock of quadcore ryzen is only 3.2

Glofo sucks again. Should go with samsung.
 
What interests me is that the bottom level Ryzens have 4 cores and 4 threads.
 
What interests me is that the bottom level Ryzens have 4 cores and 4 threads.
Click to expand...

Those will most likely be under $150 US. Maybe even $125 US.

I hope to get a 4C / 8T Zen with ECC support to replace my 10 year old core2quad that serves as my PDC / fileserver and linux based PVR. Most likely this will happen in March if the reviews are good.
 
Last edited:
CentroX said:
Canard says glofo had 14nm yield problems with ryzen and thats why baseclock of quadcore ryzen is only 3.2

Glofo sucks again. Should go with samsung.
Click to expand...

AMD would like to sell 8 core cpu ;) not 4 cores :) .
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
i mean people said the same thing about the fury cards and yet they were priced almost dollar for dollar with intel while not performing the same.

but your arguement is that they need market share but you're also ignoring the other side of the coin, intel has marketshare to bleed without any long term effect on their profits, so there's zero reason for intel to drop their prices. if ryzen actually hits their performance goals they have set that leaves room for AMD to then charge similar prices to intel. the only ones that can control where AMD sets their pricing if that ends up being the case is intel themselves. if they drop their prices AMD will follow, if they don't AMD won't. this is exactly what happened with fury. the prices never really changed because nvidia had no reason to change their prices. ultimately AMD needs to make their money back quickly with Ryzen so i wouldn't expect competitive prices unless they fail miserably to reach their goal.
Click to expand...

The Fury cards were not after a 4+ year "absence" from the market. Intel can afford to keep prices high even when Ryzen is selling well just because of brand power .
 
ochadd said:
Why wouldn't AMD release enough SKUs to cover all potential slots? I've never understood why Intel has so many SKUs either. Do we really need five pentiums, six i3s, and ten i5s of the Skylake line? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Click to expand...

To not waste silicon.. If certain chips do not make the cut, they get binned down to "lower" SKU's/specs....
My theory anyway.. I could be way off though..
 
OEMs like that. I mean that way they can charge you $100 more for to upgrade the CPU to one that is 100 Mhz faster..
 
jlbenedict said:
To not waste silicon.. If certain chips do not make the cut, they get binned down to "lower" SKU's/specs....
My theory anyway.. I could be way off though..
Click to expand...

Its a combination and depends on the company/volume.

Intel for example more or less only harvest silicon for their EP lines. While AMD does it for their FX and soon Ryzen (Zeppelin dies) line. For something like Raven Ridge I doubt they do it. IGP part is a little different tho.

All the rest is pure segmentation because that's what a free market is about. You select what you want and pay for it. There pretty isn't any Ryzen or Core CPU with a defect SMT for example, That's 100% binning. Same applies for AVX/AVX2 on/off. Caches tends to be the only thing, but again you got extra cache blocks for that anyway.

A quad core Core CPU with a defect core never becomes a dual core product as example.
 
exlink said:
You didn't list the R7 1700 at 390 EU which is a steal for an unlocked 8c/16t. These prices include VAT apparently so USD prices should be similar. One can only hope these prices are true and performance is good as it will light a fire under Intel to bring prices way down.
Click to expand...

Or they perform what they are priced at. Assuming pricing is real.

If Intel brings pricing down AMD just lost money if they perform as hyped. That would be quite imbecile by AMD to put it mildly.
 
Shintai said:
Or they perform what they are priced at. Assuming pricing is real.

If Intel brings pricing down AMD just lost money if they perform as hyped. That would be quite imbecile by AMD to put it mildly.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty safe to assume that if these chips perform and are priced as they are rumored then Intel will react. Intel has been running rampant with prices (especially at the higher tiers) due to a complete lack of competition. The overhead on the chips is probably insane. AMD needs to price Ryzen very competitively if they want to win over market share. People won't likely switch from Intel chips that have been pretty much stellar for the past decade to a new AMD chip if similar performing AMD chips are only 10% cheaper than their Intel rival. But if AMD is able to match the performance of Intel chips at nearly 20-30% less cost then consumers will likely check it out. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel will slash prices to reduce the margin - the question is by how much. They won't let AMD just scoop up market share that easy. So pricing these Ryzen chips correctly is very crucial and not easy at all for AMD.

It's a good time to be a consumer.
 
Intel has been running rampant with prices (especially at the higher tiers) due to a complete lack of competition.
Click to expand...

Where exactly has that happened? I mean the only place I can say it happened is the 10C / 20T (which I expected to be a $1100 CPU at release). In every other level the prices have been pretty much constant for 8+ years.
 
Last edited:
exlink said:
I think it's pretty safe to assume that if these chips perform and are priced as they are rumored then Intel will react. Intel has been running rampant with prices (especially at the higher tiers) due to a complete lack of competition. The overhead on the chips is probably insane. AMD needs to price Ryzen very competitively if they want to win over market share. People won't likely switch from Intel chips that have been pretty much stellar for the past decade to a new AMD chip if similar performing AMD chips are only 10% cheaper than their Intel rival. But if AMD is able to match the performance of Intel chips at nearly 20-30% less cost then consumers will likely check it out. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel will slash prices to reduce the margin - the question is by how much. They won't let AMD just scoop up market share that easy. So pricing these Ryzen chips correctly is very crucial and not easy at all for AMD.

It's a good time to be a consumer.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't maker sense from a business perspective. And both AMD and Intel gave their outlooks for both the quarter and year.

AMD isn't a cheap company. They take exactly what they can. Being cheap means performance metrics isn't there to take any higher.

If you hope for a price war you will be disappointed.
 
Shintai said:
But that doesn't maker sense from a business perspective. And both AMD and Intel gave their outlooks for both the quarter and year.

AMD isn't a cheap company. They take exactly what they can. Being cheap means performance metrics isn't there to take any higher.

If you hope for a price war you will be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Price war might be too strong of words, but certainly a price shakeup if everything is competitive. I do think AMD should sell them as high as they think they can, but it is fair to point out that, just on reputation alone, they almost have to be sold slightly cheaper than a similarly performing Intel. We're all enthusiasts here, so I think brand recognition is lost a bit on us, but if you were putting together a computer for a less savvy client and Intel and AMD had identically performing and identically priced CPUs, you'd plop the Intel in there because of the "better" brand name.
 
hQ13338.png
 
exlink said:
These are some really weird prices - almost as if these were wholesale prices and not MSRP.
Click to expand...
It's probably good to be true. But if the 1800X model can stay under $600 these things will sell like hotcake.
 
drescherjm said:
Has AMD been competitive at all for the last 5 or so years?
Click to expand...
In the mobile market they could've been, but all the manufacturers like wrapping their mouths around Intel's big blue di.... nose, and so we get things like my ENVY 360 with an FX-9800P, an unpopulated m.2 slot, and ONLY ONE GOD DAMN DIMM SLOT. So I have no dual-channel upgrade path, and I can't add an m.2 SSD. The exact same model with Intel components? Not only do you get 2 DIMM slots, but you get the m.2 and a 4K screen option. That 4K is running off the Intel IGP, too, so it's just as "wasted" as it would be with the FX-9800P. However, I don't see it as being wasted just because you can't game, as I find the desktop real estate of benefit, and you also don't need a high horsepower chip to do general Photoediting.

Point being, in the middle spectrum, AMD is still able to be competitive, but are not given the freedom to on account of being the underdog at the top end of the spectrum. No one picks little Timmy for dodgeball, except little do they realize he'd be just as good at the game on account of being a harder target to hit. Because from what I've thrown at this, it's handled it admirably. I can only imagine how much better it would do with some ACTUAL memory bandwidth... It's only exacerbated by the fact that AMD opted to not unlock the 2133MHz speed on this chip and so it only can drive that SINGLE stick at 1866MHz lol I can't really blame AMD though, as again that wouldn't be so bad in the intended dual-channel configuration!

But mark my words, even if AMD knocks one out of the park with Ryzen, 3 years from now as far as the mobile sector goes the knob-slobbering is going to persist and the laptops will still be favoring Intel.
 
AMD R7, R5 and R3 to compete with the i7, i5, i3? Or are they leaving the door open for an R9 like their GPU lineup?

Just a thought hehe.
 
Shintai said:
But that doesn't maker sense from a business perspective. And both AMD and Intel gave their outlooks for both the quarter and year.

AMD isn't a cheap company. They take exactly what they can. Being cheap means performance metrics isn't there to take any higher.

If you hope for a price war you will be disappointed.
Click to expand...

*Cough* 7640K 7740K *Cough* *Cough* Hyperthreading on a Pentium or i5 *Cough* *Cough* Intel massively overpriced *Cough*
 
TheLAWNoob said:
Be careful don't choke on your koolaid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how could I possibly think a $1200 8 core and $1700 10 core consumer processor is overpriced, amirite? Or how could I possibly think that a desktop core i5 processor with hyperthreading is a Intel response to AMD's upcoming processors, eh? :eek::D:rolleyes: Well, believe and follow whatever you want, does not change the way things are at all. :)

Edit: On a more serious note, an 8c 16t processor for $400 sound like a plan to me. I would do the one that is cheaper than that for my own personal work computer.
 
Based on all rumors and reading up on various analysis up to this point; I think/predict that Ryzen chips will be excellent in multi-threaded applications and will match Intel's offerings (8c vs 8c, 4c vs 4c, etc). But in single thread applications, most games, and overall IPC performance Ryzen will fall around 5-10% behind Intel's current chips. I also think AMD's chips will be better price-to-performance and overall be great chips.

Of course this is all pure speculation, but I have high hopes for AMD.
 
jlbenedict said:
Competition is a good thing. If Amd did not exist, imagine Intel pricing..
Click to expand...

Intel's response to the Athlon 64 was to raise prices and pretend they were better. They weren't in a hurry to dump netburst until they basically had to.

Don't expect much to change.
 
mda said:
AMD R7, R5 and R3 to compete with the i7, i5, i3? Or are they leaving the door open for an R9 like their GPU lineup?

Just a thought hehe.
Click to expand...

if they did the R9 it would probably be a halo 1000 dollar 4Ghz base clock cpu would be my guess. but i still don't think that's the naming they'll use.
 
Formula.350 said:
In the mobile market they could've been, but all the manufacturers like wrapping their mouths around Intel's big blue di.... nose, and so we get things like my ENVY 360 with an FX-9800P, an unpopulated m.2 slot, and ONLY ONE GOD DAMN DIMM SLOT. So I have no dual-channel upgrade path, and I can't add an m.2 SSD. The exact same model with Intel components? Not only do you get 2 DIMM slots, but you get the m.2 and a 4K screen option. That 4K is running off the Intel IGP, too, so it's just as "wasted" as it would be with the FX-9800P. However, I don't see it as being wasted just because you can't game, as I find the desktop real estate of benefit, and you also don't need a high horsepower chip to do general Photoediting.
Click to expand...

No they couldn't. They throttle like mad and their power draw is way too high.

We have to see what Zen delivers there with Raven Ridge later.
 
ManofGod said:
*Cough* 7640K 7740K *Cough* *Cough* Hyperthreading on a Pentium or i5 *Cough* *Cough* Intel massively overpriced *Cough*
Click to expand...

So you say. Was the K8 also overpriced? 1000$+ chips? How about the 800$ FX CPU? 650$ Fiji cards? 177$ APU? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top