AMD Ryzen Prices Revealed: Massive Blow to Intel

As long as they beat a 4.8ghz devil's canyon I'm all in. Waiting for Vega is going to suck now with half a loop.
 
THUMPer said:
I see a lot of negativity surrounding these leaked prices. Lots of people upset from being ripped off the past 3-5 years. hah
Click to expand...

No one was ripped off, people bought what was available and the market supported the prices, Intel has no problem selling chips. This is why I find it doubtful AMD will price them like this IF they really are in the same performance range of Intel. They would be losing out on LOTS of income they need right now and for what? A 50% difference in price with the same performance, hell, just a 10-20% delta in price and very few would buy Intel, as the market already supports those prices at much larger market saturation than AMD can probably even put out at this time. If they could do 70% cheaper and same performance, NO ONE would buy Intel who knows anything about computers, and you would not be able to find stock for probably months, if ever.

This is all based off of a lot of "if" however, if they are sub $400, if it's a 8 core part, if its performance matches Intel in real world etc etc.

And with so many ifs, I might as well throw in another, IF all this turns out to be true, my next server/video editing rig will probably be AMD based.
 
LurkerLito said:
Well if the prices are accurate and the performance is on par to the i7-6900k then AMD has a real winner on their hands. I will of course wait and see the real numbers first. Please don't mess this up AMD I'd really like to buy an AMD CPU for my next rig.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even need to be on par. Even if it's with 10 or 20% at the given price it'd be worth it.
 
DPI said:
Slow down. All depends on core vs core performance. AMD is guilty of putting out high core count chips with underperforming babycores before.

AMD core != Intel core
Click to expand...
FTFY
 
thesmokingman said:
You can feel the worry and anxiety in some of the posts.
Click to expand...
l3q2XzKDT3K6TWsE0.gif

A real nail biter
 
I know right? This is a fantastic outcome if it turns out to be true. Intel will have to slash prices in kind and that is good for all, not just ppl buying into AMD.
 
Just need to be wary that the prices being referenced seem to be distributor and not MSRP, they get their own % in the channel.
Still looking to be very competitive though, personally I am interested in Ryzen but I would still like AMD to have a reasonable margin rather than cutting it too fine.

Cheers
 
I am hyped, but not for the release, I'm hyped to see the reviews. The "1700" being priced near the 4c/8t i7 feels right, as just a bit ago there was a leak that the 8c/16t Ryzen lined up with all the i7's as competition. Combine this with recent news of Intel saying Ryzen looks competitive, and releasing training material already trying to counter it. Things pointing to Ryzen being competitive, and I'm really interested to see how the "auto clock ramp with adequate cooling" thing works.
 
If the performance is good these prices might even be enough to defeat any new anti-competitive tricks Intel might try.
 
My thoughts on this are two fold. First and foremost, it is going to depend a lot of stock clocks and pricing. Given where I think Ryzen is going to clock at, I think its 8C part needs to come in at $350, given that we are seeing 7700K selling for $310 to $350. I think this would give AMD great momentum in moving the Ryzen brand and sales forward.

Second, we are going to have to see rock solid motherboard support. Everything I have seen motherboard-wise has been more budget focused and that concerns me somewhat. Given that most of the controllers now reside on-die, it makes it a lot simply than it used to be for motherboard builders, I still have my reservations about compatibility testing.
 
Derangel said:
I don't remember who it was but during CES one of the tech Youtube channels I follow said that they were told higher-end boards would be coming later with the initial launch primarily focusing on budget products.
Click to expand...
Which really shows the difference in mindset between AMD and Intel, AMD being considered the budget brand while Intel is the enthusiast with plentiful Z boards available at launch.
 
Armenius said:
Which really shows the difference in mindset between AMD and Intel, AMD being considered the budget brand while Intel is the enthusiast with plentiful Z boards available at launch.
Click to expand...

I can't help but feel it's the mobo manufacturers being wary and waiting to see how Ryzen is received and sells before putting their full support behind it.
 
Derangel said:
No we don't. The facts show there might be potential for it to be a winner but the benchmarks AMD has shown are too limited and too controlled to really gain any solid information from. And that's ignoring that benchmarks from the company making a product always tend to be optimistic (and I'm not just picking on AMD here, it applies to Intel and Nvidia as well). We need to see how it pans out in other reviews and in the real world. It very well could be a winner, but no point in getting overly hyped about it right now.
Click to expand...
I don't talk about AMD provided benchmarks, and no i do not expect it to be faster than even Broadwell-E in certain popular cases. Basically i knew IPC would be fairly close since about August, only wondering about clocks and pricing. Both are covered now and result is enough to get even myself, a hard pessimist, on the train.
 
Derangel said:
I can't help but feel it's the mobo manufacturers being wary and waiting to see how Ryzen is received and sells before putting their full support behind it.
Click to expand...

Nailed it. Why spend the added manufacturing cost to produce fully loaded MoBos if no one is going to buy them?
 
Derangel said:
I can't help but feel it's the mobo manufacturers being wary and waiting to see how Ryzen is received and sells before putting their full support behind it.
Click to expand...

The major players already showed off an array of X370 motherboards.
 
Derangel said:
I can't help but feel it's the mobo manufacturers being wary and waiting to see how Ryzen is received and sells before putting their full support behind it.
Click to expand...

No way, they already have 17 integrators on board set to release all manner of desktops. There's plenty of MB's leaked but as with anything under NDA and pre-release we have to wait and see.
 
gigatexal said:
It doesn't even need to be on par. Even if it's with 10 or 20% at the given price it'd be worth it.
Click to expand...

^ This. So much this.

The sentiment of "AMD IPC has to be >= Intel IPC or failure" is bullshit. If it's 10% slower (instead of the current 50% slower) and offering 8 physical cores for 1/3, or even half, the price, that's a hands down winner.
 
I'm going to buy whatever has the best single core performance. The gap between my 2600k and a 7700k is already pretty small so if the new AMD IPC is only 90% as good as intel it's not going to be compelling.

My other concerns are about motherboard and chip set quality. Intel seems to have a very refined platform and almost everything is integrated. I suspect the AMD boards are going to have a lot of 3rd party chips and modules which can work, but I don't think it's going to be as nice.

Mostly I'm just hoping for a minor price war. A price skirmish even...
 
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Eager to see the release and all the reviews.
 
thesmokingman said:
Soldered...
Click to expand...

If it is soldered then Delidding wouldn't gain you much (if anything) anyway.

Good for AMD doing this right. Intel should be ashamed for their under-heatspreader paste. I can only imagine that the only reason they do that is for built in obsolescence. Paste dries out, CPU starts thermal throttling more and more, consumer assumes their PC is "old and slow" and have to buy a new one.

Intel gets people to "upgrade" without having to improve their products.
 
If all that is true it is Athlon days all over again for AMD. If not they are hosed.
 
Looks like lots of people are banking on this being true, and performance holding.

FgavIfhh.jpg
 
almalino said:
With that prices I might consider going to AMD CPU next time around. Unless Intel reduce their prices by whooping 60% :)
Click to expand...

And after that, all of us will be paying 500 for a dual core Atom, since AMD will be gone for good.
 
grtitan said:
And after that, all of us will be paying 500 for a dual core Atom, since AMD will be gone for good.
Click to expand...

Nah, we'll just be holding onto our quad/hexa/octa core CPUs for a lot longer ... like 5-15 years longer. :D
 
BlueFireIce said:
No one was ripped off, people bought what was available and the market supported the prices, Intel has no problem selling chips. This is why I find it doubtful AMD will price them like this IF they really are in the same performance range of Intel. They would be losing out on LOTS of income they need right now and for what? A 50% difference in price with the same performance, hell, just a 10-20% delta in price and very few would buy Intel, as the market already supports those prices at much larger market saturation than AMD can probably even put out at this time. If they could do 70% cheaper and same performance, NO ONE would buy Intel who knows anything about computers, and you would not be able to find stock for probably months, if ever.

This is all based off of a lot of "if" however, if they are sub $400, if it's a 8 core part, if its performance matches Intel in real world etc etc.

And with so many ifs, I might as well throw in another, IF all this turns out to be true, my next server/video editing rig will probably be AMD based.
Click to expand...

Except we don't have a truly free CPU market. For OEMs, there are contracts to worry about, costs associated with switching vendors, etc. Not to mention the shady deals that have been cut in the past that have kept AMD out of Dell's business lines, etc. AMD could release a chip identical in every way to an Intel equivalent and charge 10-20% less, and still sell fewer by an order of magnitude. Hell, it already happened with the Athlon. AMD had a simply better product, and Intel still shifted lots of units. I'm sure some corporate buyers got some good perks, though. :p
 
tungt88 said:
Nah, we'll just be holding onto our quad/hexa/octa core CPUs for a lot longer ... like 5-15 years longer. :D
Click to expand...


Yeah, this has already been happening for some time.

The lack of a competitive AMD and a less competitive Cyrix equivalent has made market advances slower, and driven up prices, to the point where we probably pay the same amount on average per year for our gear, just that we upgrade less often.

I mean, back in November 2011 when I spent $600 for my Core i7-3930k and $400 for the Asus P9x79 WS motherboard, I had never that much for a CPU and mobo before. (It was the type of emotional purchase I try to avoid, after being pissed off after the Bulldozer launch). IO had buyers remorse for spending that insane amount of cash, but 5+ years later I'm still using the same system, still overclocked to 4.8Ghz and still kicking ass.

That's $200 per yer for a CPU+Mobo, which is actually probably less than I paid during the height of competition between AMD k7 and Intel (but granted I went a little nuts back then).

Sure, a good amount of this is also due to successive die shrinks becoming more difficult and costly, but the lack of competition has not helped.
 
Trepidati0n said:
How can you be "ripped off" when you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY bought it and all relevant facts were available to you.

----

side note...if you think Intel doesn't what AMD's pricing plan is...I got a bridge on the moon to sell you.
Click to expand...

Plus, although the younger fanboys may not know this, long long ago AMD participated in the same type of pricing when Intel's Netburst couldn't complete (although to AMD's credit, Intel still was charging a lot for a shitty product).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top