AMD Ryzen Prices Revealed: Massive Blow to Intel

Cali3350

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
4,654
I truly believe AMD is going to launch much cheaper products that are competitive with Broadwell IPC wise, and people will rip them because they are ~10% slower than Skylake. The Hype is getting out of control, and expectations always go with that.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
5,897
I truly believe AMD is going to launch much cheaper products that are competitive with Broadwell IPC wise, and people will rip them because they are ~10% slower than Skylake. The Hype is getting out of control, and expectations always go with that.
It used to be that if AMD just got close enough to make it exciting that it's a win. Now they have to undercut by half, beat Intel in features, support, and IPC too or its fail now.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
And after that, all of us will be paying 500 for a dual core Atom, since AMD will be gone for good.
That is not how markets work. Intel still has to compete with it self, it has to improve and offer good prices for people to upgrade, or they will sell nothing. Also, if Intel had that sort of margin on chips, everyone and their brother would be breaking into the market for a cut of those profits.

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
Contracts are agreed to, freely. Switching vendors and the like is a free choice and has nothing to do with it not being a free market and those costs go both ways. Shady deals? Like what? I hear this talked about ALL the time, but no one seems to have done research on what really happened. Intel had a less powerful CPU than AMD, so Intel cut prices and offered rebates to vendors who sold a given amount, which is the case with most bulk sales, sell more than a given amount and you get bigger and bigger bulk discounts/rebates. That was not shady, that was good buisness, as it is what people are hoping AMD is doing here and PRAISING them for it! That is they might have a CPU that doesn't match Intel in performance, but will undercut them on price to make it a better value...OMG! How shady of AMD! :banghead:
 

Wolf-R1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
2,005
This pricing will only matter if Ryzen can compete. If not then it won't matter.
 

Lith1um

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
2,830
I see a lot of negativity surrounding these leaked prices. Lots of people upset from being ripped off the past 3-5 years. hah
Like the time I spent $1049 USD on a QX9650, and it didn't overclock worth a shit. /And then I felt like a dumb fuck, who just got robbed.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
Contracts are agreed to, freely. Switching vendors and the like is a free choice and has nothing to do with it not being a free market and those costs go both ways. Shady deals? Like what? I hear this talked about ALL the time, but no one seems to have done research on what really happened. Intel had a less powerful CPU than AMD, so Intel cut prices and offered rebates to vendors who sold a given amount, which is the case with most bulk sales, sell more than a given amount and you get bigger and bigger bulk discounts/rebates. That was not shady, that was good buisness, as it is what people are hoping AMD is doing here and PRAISING them for it! That is they might have a CPU that doesn't match Intel in performance, but will undercut them on price to make it a better value...OMG! How shady of AMD! :banghead:
Contracts are entered into freely, so it follows that so they can be broken freely when market conditions change? Nope. They can and do still affect the demand curve, and therefore the equilibrium price. As it happens, a completely free market is purely theoretical. Branding, contracts, existing relationships, regulations, laws, etc. all play a role in the real world -- the incredulity of armchair economists not withstanding.

Also, I am not being pulled into the AMD/Intel holy war. Good try, though. :)

Edit: I re-read my original post...my use of the word "shady" was ill-advised. I should have simply said that Intel can and will provide incentives beyond price in order to earn and protect exclusivity deals. My point, however, stands -- price and performance are NOT the only factors.
 
Last edited:

DPI

Nitpick Police
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
10,960
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).
Ding ding ding. If Intel and AMD's market positions were reversed, AMD would be behaving exactly the same as Intel is now.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,242
I'm hoping for the best. I'd love to see a Intel/AMD price war. Get a nice Intel CPU for a lot less! :D
 
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
612
I've been holding on to my pokey hexcore Phenom on water waiting for AMD to show up. I need/want more cores and can't justify the uplift Intel has on 8 core CPUs!
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
I, too, hope Ryzen is a strong product. Healthy competition is great for consumers. And with the introduction of hyper-threading on Kaby Lake Pentiums, I'm struggling to see where AMD is competitive *anywhere* at the moment. Maybe with specific highly-thread applications at just under i5 price-points?

P.S. "Zen" is still a much, much better brand name than "Ryzen." Oh well.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,638
I see a lot of people here and for whatever reasons ... believing in all the AMD hype. I would love for the Ryzen to honestly truly be as fast ( across the board ) compared to Intel's 6 and 8 core CPUs. I'm not talking just handbrake. I'm talking everything from A to Z.

I don't see that happening. Already you're seeing leaks from all over, people that have the chip saying things like the 5820K 6 core / 12 thread CPU is about 15% faster than the top end Ryzen. Doesn't make sense does it?

For that reason, I think we will see AMD's top Ryzen chip no more than $500. If they do release the CPU at well above $500 and it's released and under performs the 5820K which can be bought for around $300 ... that is going to kill AMD dead in their tracks. They know this.

The logic being, "spend more for less performance" ,,,,, no tech company want's to be in that spot.

yeah, we will see the prices listed here on this article and maybe even slightly cheaper.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Clearly that is impossible given the IP hurdles/restrictions.
Such as? Assuming you mean x86 and the like, which people are free to make a logical interface for, which is why x86 clones existed, x86 is open. The hurdle comes in trying to make an efficient x86 based chip, or some given features which would require license from Intel or AMD. VIA, IBM, Cryix, NEC all messed with x86. Also, a new CPU does not have to be x86, something else can be made to take it's place, which is where things like ARM come in, while Intel dominates the compute intensive market, if they start charging $500 for Atoms, these other instruction sets would take off and you would see new ones come to the market. And I don't mean ARM as in RISC is better or something, only that new sets can be made.

Contracts are entered into freely, so it follows that so they can be broken freely when market conditions change? Nope. They can and do still affect the demand curve, and therefore the equilibrium price. As it happens, a completely free market is purely theoretical. Branding, contracts, existing relationships, regulations, laws, etc. all play a role in the real world -- the incredulity of armchair economists not withstanding.

Also, I am not being pulled into the AMD/Intel holy war. Good try, though. :)

Edit: I re-read my original post...my use of the word "shady" was ill-advised. I should have simply said that Intel can and will provide incentives beyond price in order to earn and protect exclusivity deals. My point, however, stands -- price and performance are NOT the only factors.
What does breaking a contact have to do with a free market? Getting into a contract is done by choice, if other options come into play while that contract is in effect they will have to live with the poor choice, or in the case of a 70% price delta, take whatever legal and monetary hit that might not even add up to a potential savings of 70% for breaking the contract. At 70% discount and the same performance, AMD would not be able to supply enough chips, contracts or not, the shelves would be bare. That sort of price difference just does not exist in the electronics world.

Not trying to pull into any "holy war" (not even sure what that is), only stating that simple market functions explain everything.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,684
I'm not upset with AMD. An 8 core for $3xx, ok sign me up. The fact we are paying the same prices for a quad core that we were 10 years ago is stupid.
It's not like a 10 year old quad core is the same as a new one though. There have been a lot of improvements in performance, platform, and power usage. And it's not like "upgrading to eight cores" is going to help in anything but rare instances anyway. The person that said that people are upset about being "ripped off" is just being dumb as there's hardly been a reason to upgrade CPUs for a typical [H] user as the majority focus is gaming and gaming still hasn't caught up to the amount of CPU power we've had for years. If you're going to be doing video encoding/streaming then Ryzen's extra cores will probably help; otherwise at best it's going to be a wash for anyone that's recently upgraded.

I just upgraded to Skylake from Lynnfield about a year ago. That Lynnfield gave me a good 5+ years and with the 5+ year old 4GB GTX670 in my spare computer it's still tearing through modern games (at stock clocks too). This Skylake will likely give me another 5 years for a $500-ish upgrade. That's damn good in my opinion.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
5,897
Such as? Assuming you mean x86 and the like, which people are free to make a logical interface for, which is why x86 clones existed, x86 is open. The hurdle comes in trying to make an efficient x86 based chip, or some given features which would require license from Intel or AMD. VIA, IBM, Cryix, NEC all messed with x86. Also, a new CPU does not have to be x86, something else can be made to take it's place, which is where things like ARM come in, while Intel dominates the compute intensive market, if they start charging $500 for Atoms, these other instruction sets would take off and you would see new ones come to the market. And I don't mean ARM as in RISC is better or something, only that new sets can be made.
smh
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
What does breaking a contact have to do with a free market? Getting into a contract is done by choice, if other options come into play while that contract is in effect they will have to live with the poor choice, or in the case of a 70% price delta, take whatever legal and monetary hit that might not even add up to a potential savings of 70% for breaking the contract. At 70% discount and the same performance, AMD would not be able to supply enough chips, contracts or not, the shelves would be bare. That sort of price difference just does not exist in the electronics world.

Not trying to pull into any "holy war" (not even sure what that is), only stating that simple market functions explain everything.
You just answered your own question. A party to a contract can't change their purchasing decisions freely, and therefore cannot respond freely to changes in the competitive landscape. That affects demand, and therefore equilibrium price. In any event, I was responding to a comment up-thread that claimed if AMD released a processor with equivalent performance for a 10%-20% less, they would instantly outsell Intel. That is a demonstrably false oversimplification. Other than that, I don't think we're having the same discussion (though feel free to have the last word if that is all you're after).

Edit: I struggle to believe that someone with 4200+ posts is truly unfamiliar with the concept of AMD/Intel fanboy flame-wars. But sure, OK. :p
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
You just answered your own question. A party to a contract can't change their purchasing decisions freely, and therefore cannot respond freely to changes in the competitive landscape. That effects demand, and therefore equilibrium price. In any event, I was responding to a comment up-thread that claimed if AMD released a processor with equivalent performance for a 10%-20% less, they would instantly outsell Intel. That is a demonstrably false oversimplification. Other than that, I don't think we're having the same discussion (though feel free to have the last word if that is all you're after).

Edit: I struggle to believe that someone with 4200+ posts is truly unfamiliar with the concept of AMD/Intel fanboy flame-wars. But sure, OK. :p
A freely agreed to contract does not make it not a free market, the idea it is no longer a free market because of contracts is just...I don't even know how to respond to it. Will it take time for these business to have turn over to switch to AMD? Sure, but that is happening all the time, and quite frankly, would be a good thing for AMD, because volume wise, they would NEVER be able to take over full market supply, it would take some time just for them to get up to pace, I believe supply, or lack there of will be of a bigger impact. So outselling Intel would not happen, but not for a lack of market demand.

Anyone in the market to buy, would be crazy to look at Intel with those sorts of values. Hell, most of the consumer market would make a pretty heavy shift to AMD in a very short time for all new systems, which would only take a few percentage shift to drain AMD of supply. I mean we are talking about Intel with what, 87% market share vs AMD with 13%? The point being, with that sort of price difference and performance, assuming AMD made money off of it still, contracts or not, Intel would be bled dry, any new contracts as well would be going to AMD, I will put my paycheck on that, we are not talking about having the cost of a vendor change for a 5% drop in cost, we are talking a 70% drop, there would have to be other very serious issues for that change not to happen, supply being one of them.

None of this matters however, because we are not going to see those kind of performance to price ratios. Either the prices are wrong, or performance is far lower than what AMD is hinting at, possibly both.
 

Kor

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,175
Quite a hammer blow if the pricing is accurate and the final CPU is actually competitive.
 

Dahkoht

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
431
So what's the pricing for the AMD chip that will beat my 7700k at 5ghz in gaming ?
 

jmilcher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
4,518
The clickbait titles are really cutting into the integrity and quality of "news" around here. Heres to hoping Ryzen is competitive
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,657
What if I told you that a Ryzen CPU might cost up to 70% cheaper than its Intel equivalent? Well, if these prices are true, you may have to believe it. Let’s be specific: the Ryzen 7 1700 is being listed with a cost of $317. Being that it has 8 cores and 16 threads, that would make it comparable to Intel's Core i7-6900K—which is $1,049. Wake me up! What do you think the foot traffic sounds like right now at Intel?
Isn't the 1800X more comparable in clock speed, making it a more relevant comparison?
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,638
So what's the pricing for the AMD chip that will beat my 7700k at 5ghz in gaming ?
I'm not entirely convinced they are going to have much if anything really that beats a Kaby Lake @ 5Ghz. Their 8 core / 16 tread might beat you out in a few benchmarks but it's not going to be anything you use.

Word around the camp fire is putting the single core performance of the Ryzen at question. That's the big question. And clearly I personally don't know anything but there are a lot of people with this CPU and leaks are coming out everyday. Some of the numbers are looking sketchy.

The 7700K at 5Ghz is a fcking beast especially with 3200+ ddr4 memory
 
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
What if I told you that a Ryzen CPU might cost up to 70% cheaper than its Intel equivalent?
If it performs exactly the same or better then I'd say that's fantastic but, as has been the case in the past with pretty much every new AMD release their products never perform as well as Intel products do even in spite of the price differentials. I'm hoping that Ryzen will actually do what the paperwork claims it can do and we'll find out soon enough I suppose, but I'll be the first to admit I'm a fan of Intel hardware and always have been because it literally just works even if it does cost more.
 

Imhotep

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
815
AMD already has a winner. Looking at early benchmarks and rumored price alone. Some parts of Europe CPUs are so expensive they are wishing they could pay US prices. Markets like china, brasil and india even if they have to pay 50% of most expensive 8 core part from intel. That is a win already. Its just a matter of a few weeks until we start seeing enthusiast oriented mobos from all major makers.
 
Last edited:

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,060
I hope the chips aren't turds. Competition is a good thing.
Despite little proof, I think we can rule that out already. They may not win all benchmarks, but the product seems very competitive price/performance wise (based on pure rumors, and AMD's demo last month).

Frankly, I'm getting a new CPU/mATX mobo/2400mhz DDR4 next month to help my just purchased RX480 and retire my FX6300. I don't care if I buy KBL or ZEN, but I'd rather buy AMD if it's good value to help them out. Intel doesn't need more money.

Coincidentally, it just came out that Intel plans on doing their 8th gen also on 14nm. Greater process delays + (hopefully) a strong AMD... the competitive scenario is starting to remind me of the 90s!
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,668
Still seems like low prices to me, but if they are true then it's clear AMD is going for market share and Intel will have to pay a heavy price for it. I mean no one is paying $1000 for a chip if it's only a 10% difference in performance compared to a $500 AMD chip. Will be interesting to see how these chips do in reviews.
 

pfc_m_drake

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
1,373
I too hope Ryzen is a success.
Unfortunately I think Cali3350 was right in post #85 - Ryzen will probably be 10-20% slower than Sklake and AMD will get shredded for it.

Regarding pricing rumors: I remember right before launch there were persistent claims that Google was NOT going to renounce its Nexus roots and that the Pixel would be $299-$499. Then launch day comes...BAM...$700-$900 pricetag.
 

tlkimball

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
330
For me, AMD is losing a lot of goodwill for not addressing the hype train. They need to be a lot more transparent if the want regain trust. They have a long history of this sort of behavior.

I'm perfectly happy with my $300 7700K from Monoprice.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,304
AMD already has a winner. Looking at early benchmarks and rumored price alone. Some parts of Europe CPUs are so expensive they are wishing they could pay US prices. Markets like china, brasil and india even if they have to pay 50% of most expensive 8 core part from intel. That is a win already. Its just a matter of a few weeks until we start seeing enthusiast oriented mobos from all major makers.
AMD may or may not have a winner, but they definitely have fanbois!

I'd prefer AMD 'wins', personally. But history is not on their side, and making vacuous claims isn't helping.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,936
Can't wait for the prices to get jacked up 50% because of the "high demand". You won't get a ryzen cpu at those prices.
I will get them at release prices because I will be going to the Microcenter about 3 hours away on release day. Not going to do the F5 refresh on Newegg stuff, no thanks. Seriously looking forward to that road trip and I took the week off just for that. Trip, purchase and build, going to be a fun week.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I will get them at release prices because I will be going to the Microcenter about 3 hours away on release day. Not going to do the F5 refresh on Newegg stuff, no thanks. Seriously looking forward to that road trip and I took the week off just for that. Trip, purchase and build, going to be a fun week.
Putting together a new rig with the latest and greatest, the best of times.:D
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,491
Cores don't mean nothing if the performance isn't there.
No. When it comes to gaming, cores don't mean anything.
POS i3 is good enough for most. If you use your PC as something other then a console for baby games, then maybe the answer is different.
Also do you really think a Ryzen core = Bulldozer core? LOL!
 

THUMPer

2[H]4U
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,262
I will get them at release prices because I will be going to the Microcenter about 3 hours away on release day. Not going to do the F5 refresh on Newegg stuff, no thanks. Seriously looking forward to that road trip and I took the week off just for that. Trip, purchase and build, going to be a fun week.
Some friends and I may be doing the same. But it depends on what motherboards they have to bundle with. I'm interested in that white msi one we saw at CES. Assuming they release it.
 

jbc029

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
484
Already you're seeing leaks from all over, people that have the chip saying things like the 5820K 6 core / 12 thread CPU is about 15% faster than the top end Ryzen.
I'm not entirely convinced they are going to have much if anything really that beats a Kaby Lake @ 5Ghz. Their 8 core / 16 tread might beat you out in a few benchmarks but it's not going to be anything you use.

Word around the camp fire is putting the single core performance of the Ryzen at question. That's the big question. And clearly I personally don't know anything but there are a lot of people with this CPU and leaks are coming out everyday. Some of the numbers are looking sketchy.
Any links to go with that speculation? Spent about 20 minutes or so looking for anything from the last week regarding "ryzen, 5820, performance" and am getting nothing returned (not even reddit). Just wondering where all the leaks are that are reporting this.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,304
No. When it comes to gaming, cores don't mean anything.
POS i3 is good enough for most. If you use your PC as something other then a console for baby games, then maybe the answer is different.
This really is game-dependent- for the worst offenders, while average framerates may very well be 'fine' from the weaker CPUs, minimum and median-low framerates tend to suffer, affecting the 'feel' of the game. You usually get plenty for your money, but that doesn't mean that 'cores don't mean anything'.
 
Last edited:
Top