AMD Ryzen Prices Revealed: Massive Blow to Intel

If they release them at that price, I definitely use one for my upcoming HTPC build! Even if the performance falls slightly short of its $1000 dollar counter part. I've always secretly been an AMD fan since the original Athlon.
 
If Ryzen is even remotely close to i5/i7 in benchies, and these listed prices are somewhat accurate, I'll definitely be buying one. And, just to help AMD, I may buy a second. Just because. ;)

Waiting on the benchmarks...
 
c3k said:
If Ryzen is even remotely close to i5/i7 in benchies, and these listed prices are somewhat accurate, I'll definitely be buying one. And, just to help AMD, I may buy a second. Just because. ;)

Waiting on the benchmarks...
Click to expand...

The silence is a bit eerie though. If these chips were Intel slayers then NDAs would be getting broken left and right as insiders and employees of hardware partners were letting it be known unofficially, if not shouting from the rooftops.

And even if performance per dollar is on par with Intel or 15% less we'll still have a price gouging situation due to fanboys and novelty factor, like when Fury came out.
 
Last edited:
Imhotep said:
Its not a hype train. Its called enthusiasm. Company like NVidia not offering anything exiting to talk about... Its called stagnation.
Click to expand...

Nvidia gives people something to be excited about every time they release something- because they deliver.

People are more cautious about AMD when it comes to GPUs because they're hit and miss. They also refuse to target top-end performance.


And back on topic to CPUs- while Intel hasn't exactly released parts worth being 'enthusiastic' about since the 2000-series, AMD hasn't bothered competing at all. Enthusiasm at this point is either fanboism or naivete. It's certainly not rational, taking in AMD's past performance.
 
I don't get it, just because it's 8 core 16 thread why do we automatically assume it's on par with a 6900k

AMD is not stupid. If they had intel performance from the same number of cores/threads they'd price it accordingly.

I know there are people looking for the ultimate blockbuster deal all their lives but it doesn't exist. There is always a catch.
 
Regarding pricing:

Intel, as a business model, must maintain high margins on products. That's why they have never participated in a price war, even when there was price/performance competition. In the past, they have relied on their overwhelming market share, abuse of monopoly powers (this was settled in court, not just opinion), and reputation ("no one ever got fired for buying Intel") to win. It wouldn't matter if Ryzen performed %50 better and cost %50 less, Intel won't drop their prices.

AMD, on the other hand, does not have that limitation. They need two things - increased market share, and return to profitability. They need to move many units to achieve both. Lisa Su has demonstrated a long-term strategy, so I do not see AMD at this point trying to price equivalent to Intel. AMD can undercut Intel's prices considerably and still maintain a decent margin on every chip sold, while providing performance/price ratio much better than Intel that will increase market share. I'll give some credibility to the "leaked" prices.
 
jardows said:
In the past, they have relied on their overwhelming market share, abuse of monopoly powers (this was settled in court, not just opinion).
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Sorry, but read the actual court documents. This was in the EU and EU only, and the EU court ruled the way it did on a technicality, the courts investigating team of market experts found no foul play, and believe because of other factors, Intels actions had no impact on AMD and market share. However, Intel was handed a MASSIVE fine, it should be noted fines are not given to the company as damages or to consumers, but kept my the government. AMD also did not believe they had a case after the investigation, as if it did, they would have pursued Intel in court for damages, which it did not. The EU is also known for issuing these sorts of fines to tech companies when ever it can, even when, like in this case, its OWN investigation team states nothing was done, as it is a very good source of income for the government.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Wrong.

Sorry, but read the actual court documents. This was in the EU and EU only, and the EU court ruled the way it did on a technicality, the courts investigating team of market experts found no foul play, and believe because of other factors, Intels actions had no impact on AMD and market share. However, Intel was handed a MASSIVE fine, it should be noted fines are not given to the company as damages or to consumers, but kept my the government. AMD also did not believe they had a case after the investigation, as if it did, they would have pursued Intel in court for damages, which it did not. The EU is also known for issuing these sorts of fines to tech companies when ever it can, even when, like in this case, its OWN investigation team states nothing was done, as it is a very good source of income for the government.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to accurate. AMD and Intel have been going at it for years and yes Intel has lost cases in the US against AMD.

Rival chip makers Intel and AMD have been battling in the courts for more than two decades. Here’s a sampling of some of the major milestones in their many legal battles:

1976: AMD and Intel sign an agreement cross-licensing their patents.

1987: Intel terminates a portion of its agreement with AMD. AMD petitions for arbitration.

1990: Intel sues AMD for copyright infringement related to code contained in AMD’s 80C287 math coprocessor.

1991: AMD files antitrust complaint against Intel in District Court of the Northern District of California.

1992: District Court of Northern California rules in favor of Intel on copryight infringement case. AMD appeals.

1992: Arbiter rules that Intel breached its cross-licensing contract with AMD. Intel disputes ruling.

1993: Intel files copyright infringement case against AMD related to AMD’s AM486 processor.

1994: Supreme Court of California rules affirms arbiters ruling against Intel.

1994: District Court of Northern California rules in favor of AMD on copyright infringement case.

1995: Intel and AMD settle all litigation, including antitrust complaint, as part of a global settlement.

1997: Intel files trademark infringement complaint against AMD and Cyrix Corp. in District Court of Delaware. Two months later, AMD and Intel settle.

2000: AMD files a complaint with the European Commission accusing Intel of violating anti-monopoly rules in Europe. AMD also asks District Court of Northern California to force Intel to produce over 60,000 pages of documentation to the European Commission.

2001: District Court denies AMD’s application for the order. AMD appeals.

2002: The Ninth Circuit reverses the decision of the District Court. Intel appeals.

2004: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that U.S. federal courts are authorized but not required to force a company to submit documents to foreign jurisdictions. The Court remands the case back to District Court, which denies AMD’s request.

2005: AMD files antitrust litigation against Intel in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and in Japan.

2006: AMD files a complaint against Intel with Germany’s Federal Cartel Office.

2007: The European Commission charges Intel with antitrust violations, including paying suppliers not to use AMD processors.

2008: South Korean regulators fine Intel $25 million for paying two PC makers not to buy chips from AMD.

2008: U.S. Federal Trade Commission commences an antitrust investigation of Intel.

2009: European Commission fines Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its market dominance to exclude AMD.

2009: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo files a lawsuit against Intel alleging a systematic world-wide campaign to abuse its monopoly power by paying computer makers not to use AMD chips. His lawsuit reveals emails between Intel CEO Paul Otellini and Michael Dell discussing $1 billion in annual payments that were dependant on Dell not using AMD chips.
 
kac77 said:
That's not even close to accurate. AMD and Intel have been going at it for years and yes Intel has lost cases in the US against AMD.

Rival chip makers Intel and AMD have been battling in the courts for more than two decades. Here’s a sampling of some of the major milestones in their many legal battles:

1976: AMD and Intel sign an agreement cross-licensing their patents.

1987: Intel terminates a portion of its agreement with AMD. AMD petitions for arbitration.

1990: Intel sues AMD for copyright infringement related to code contained in AMD’s 80C287 math coprocessor.

1991: AMD files antitrust complaint against Intel in District Court of the Northern District of California.

1992: District Court of Northern California rules in favor of Intel on copryight infringement case. AMD appeals.

1992: Arbiter rules that Intel breached its cross-licensing contract with AMD. Intel disputes ruling.

1993: Intel files copyright infringement case against AMD related to AMD’s AM486 processor.

1994: Supreme Court of California rules affirms arbiters ruling against Intel.

1994: District Court of Northern California rules in favor of AMD on copyright infringement case.

1995: Intel and AMD settle all litigation, including antitrust complaint, as part of a global settlement.

1997: Intel files trademark infringement complaint against AMD and Cyrix Corp. in District Court of Delaware. Two months later, AMD and Intel settle.

2000: AMD files a complaint with the European Commission accusing Intel of violating anti-monopoly rules in Europe. AMD also asks District Court of Northern California to force Intel to produce over 60,000 pages of documentation to the European Commission.

2001: District Court denies AMD’s application for the order. AMD appeals.

2002: The Ninth Circuit reverses the decision of the District Court. Intel appeals.

2004: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that U.S. federal courts are authorized but not required to force a company to submit documents to foreign jurisdictions. The Court remands the case back to District Court, which denies AMD’s request.

2005: AMD files antitrust litigation against Intel in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and in Japan.

2006: AMD files a complaint against Intel with Germany’s Federal Cartel Office.

2007: The European Commission charges Intel with antitrust violations, including paying suppliers not to use AMD processors.

2008: South Korean regulators fine Intel $25 million for paying two PC makers not to buy chips from AMD.

2008: U.S. Federal Trade Commission commences an antitrust investigation of Intel.

2009: European Commission fines Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its market dominance to exclude AMD.

2009: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo files a lawsuit against Intel alleging a systematic world-wide campaign to abuse its monopoly power by paying computer makers not to use AMD chips. His lawsuit reveals emails between Intel CEO Paul Otellini and Michael Dell discussing $1 billion in annual payments that were dependant on Dell not using AMD chips.
Click to expand...


No where did I say they are not in legal disputes with each other all the time, most of what you listed all relates to IP and copyright infringement, not monopoly. These are not the same thing. In your own list, it also shows the US and a number of times has ruled in favor of Intel for anti trust. They also were not payments, but rebates to vendors. It was also not under an agreement to not sell AMD, but to get the biggest rebate at the current PC volume would mean selling mostly Intel chips, AMD has also offered the same kind of discounts to vendors.

As for the last one, Cuomo was going for governor, and needed to make a splash, people in the current (at the time) administration even stated how odd it was the Cuomo was going after Intel. He did become governor btw, as all of this was political. Once he took office and the case was handed over to his successor, most of the case was dropped based on other court rulings and he decided to settle for 6.5 million on other unrelated factors.
 
LOL Intel 6800K for $380 VS X1700 or even X1800 is going to wipe the floor with it in every way WATCH! AMD is gonna CHOKE!
 
It's so funny how some of us are freaking out because "these numbers aren't real!" or "we don't even know how it will perform!" Thank you for pointing out the obvious. :-p Why then are some of the rest of us getting excited? Because for YEARS there has been no other real choice for efficiency and performance (not price) than Intel. Ever since they released their Core i3/5/7 stuff, they have been ahead and it's never really been THAT close unless you get a stupidly high TDP CPU from AMD and even then it might get close.

Look, we all know nothing is official until it's actually official. Quite frankly I'm mostly looking to Kyle and Steve and their crew for their reviews since I know they won't hold back any punches. If it lives up to the hype, I know they'll sing AMDs praises. If not, then they'll be the first to say so.

That said, can't we allow some of us to get excited about the possibilities here? Maybe it's not realistic, maybe it's not even practical, but some of us like to think about the what ifs. :) So let us.

As for me, I'm cautiously optimistic. I don't think AMD would be hyping this up as much if it weren't close to the truth. We'll see how it goes. Until then, I'm going to enjoy the ride!
 
BlueFireIce said:
No where did I say they are not in legal disputes with each other all the time, most of what you listed all relates to IP and copyright infringement, not monopoly. These are not the same thing. In your own list, it also shows the US and a number of times has ruled in favor of Intel for anti trust. They also were not payments, but rebates to vendors. It was also not under an agreement to not sell AMD, but to get the biggest rebate at the current PC volume would mean selling mostly Intel chips, AMD has also offered the same kind of discounts to vendors.

As for the last one, Cuomo was going for governor, and needed to make a splash, people in the current (at the time) administration even stated how odd it was the Cuomo was going after Intel. He did become governor btw, as all of this was political. Once he took office and the case was handed over to his successor, most of the case was dropped based on other court rulings and he decided to settle for 6.5 million on other unrelated factors.
Click to expand...

Intel settled the AMD lawsuit by giving them a billion dollar + payout. I am sorry but a innocent company does not pay that kind of money out unless they know that they are likely to loose and in exchange AMD dropped the lawsuit. The only reason AMD even settled the case was due to them selling their fabs and they modified the agreement for the x86 license so AMD no longer has to have fabs.
 
if Ryzen is even remotely competitive and priced for enthusiasts, I'll buy one even though I don't need it.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Nvidia gives people something to be excited about every time they release something- because they deliver.

People are more cautious about AMD when it comes to GPUs because they're hit and miss. They also refuse to target top-end performance.


And back on topic to CPUs- while Intel hasn't exactly released parts worth being 'enthusiastic' about since the 2000-series, AMD hasn't bothered competing at all. Enthusiasm at this point is either fanboism or naivete. It's certainly not rational, taking in AMD's past performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is called enthusiasm, whether you like it or not.

Or here, let me fix your post: Something something, opinion, something something, fanboy accusation, something something, past. :D
 
I'll pick one up to play around with even if it isn't the second coming. I've wanted a new high end AMD chip for a long time, I would have bought a Steamroller refresh 8-core if they had made one.

I imagine something with 8 cores, anywhere-close-to-Intel IPC, and hyperthreading would be beastly at multi-threaded workloads.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The point is that Intel has not, and will not engage in a price war. They will use other means to maintain their profitability. AMD has rarely done anything but undercut the larger companies on price, so the "leaked" prices have a higher chance of being legit, even if they are "Intel killers"
 
I can only hope it compares to Intels chip. Intel's pricing with Zero competition is right back to where we were prior to the speed wars. I would dearly love AMD to become competitive again. That said, I'm not holding my breath either. Competitive means; Price, Performance, Wattage and Heat envelope. I'm not terribly interested in another power hungry space heater just to save a little money.
 
Gideon said:
Intel settled the AMD lawsuit by giving them a billion dollar + payout. I am sorry but a innocent company does not pay that kind of money out unless they know that they are likely to loose and in exchange AMD dropped the lawsuit. The only reason AMD even settled the case was due to them selling their fabs and they modified the agreement for the x86 license so AMD no longer has to have fabs.
Click to expand...

It does when it kills everything, they are the big target and had lawsuits going all over with every government wanting a cut of Intel, which has little to nothing to do with wrong doing in most cases it is political and income for government, just like in the EU case. By settling with AMD, it straight took the wind out of the sails of all of the other lawsuits, it's a piratical matter. cost of doing battle on so many fronts, and possibility of getting fined for God knows what, vs settling a single case and stopping all of it, in the end the cost of that settlement can be far less than doing battle, which with AMD had been going on for years already. The settlement by the way actually had nothing to do with pricing or marketing money for "Intel inside". More so it had to do with licensing and structure changes AMD wanted that needed Intel to agree to, they both agreed to as part of the settlement to have monthly meetings of both management and the technical engineers to make sure either side was not stepping on each others toes.

You also have to remember that political lawsuits like this that are technical and economic no less, that are left to a jury might as well be a coin toss as far as Intel is concerned. Intel was estimated to have spent 150-200 million (minimum) JUST in the case vs AMD, not including all the others popping up, and all of these would have gone on for years more, so on the grand scale of things, 1.2b to settle ALL lawsuits is the smart business decision to make. Assuming that it had won. Remember, AMD sued Intel to be able to make royalty free x86 chips, which is Intel IP, as AMD was only a supplier that Intel made an agreement with to make IBM happy. Think about that for a second, you have a business that a client wants more supply for something you make that you invented and own the IP to, so you license a 3rd party to make more of it, later after you drop that license, they sue you for a ROYALTY FREE license to manufacture your IP and sell it. Which more or less killed the agreement AMD and Intel had, that being their cross licensing agreement that each company could, with royalty paid make and sell each others designs. AMD also lobbied VERY heavy the US government to put in new regulation to stop the import of cheap chips. AMD has done a lot of things and more than Intel has done, but no one calls them out for it.

If AMD offers rebates or cuts prices, it is called competition, if Intel offers rebates or cuts prices, it is called monopoly and predatory pricing. :rolleyes:
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Just people that understand business and economics, and well, people that don't.
Click to expand...

One day closer to the release of Ryzen and yes, I am extremely enthusiastic. :) The only thing I care about more than that is the return of Christ when it comes to counting down the days. :) Call me what you will but, I am absolutely certain it will be a significant upgrade over the FX 8300 I have now and I just simply prefer to stick to AMD with my personal builds.
 
I would like to think Fury taught them a lesson about how not to price their products but I highly doubt it.

AMD seems to be of the philosophy that if a competitors product is worth $1000 then so is theirs if it performs similarly. This seems like a reasonable assumption to a CEO trying to maximize profit (minimize losses). Unfortunately I don't think they realize their loss of consumer confidence. Some diehards aside I think most of us given the choice would go intel / nvidia if prices are the same. What this price tells me is that the Ryzen 7 1700 compares to the 7700k at best in work loads we actually care about. It probably does well in highly threaded apps just like bulldozer but they have to have realized customers aren't fulling for the "ZOMG MOAR COARZ" anymore.

We haven't seen them severely undercut a competitor since the 4870 (which i think was ATI still anyways)
 
ManofGod said:
One day closer to the release of Ryzen and yes, I am extremely enthusiastic. :) The only thing I care about more than that is the return of Christ when it comes to counting down the days. :) Call me what you will but, I am absolutely certain it will be a significant upgrade over the FX 8300 I have now and I just simply prefer to stick to AMD with my personal builds.
Click to expand...

I realize that some people really do just have a subjective preference that ignores what most people consider objectively important, and I'm okay with that. It's not like you're likely to be wrong about Ryzen being a significant boost!
 
Leaked benchmarks are popping up everywhere , so all of you narrow minded little boys can stop your tantrums now. :D
 
Will there be a R9 as well? Lol

I wonder if AMD will release rebadged Opterons or whatever they'll be called, with quad channel RAM, and the extra bells and whistles
 
Imhotep said:
Leaked benchmarks are popping up everywhere , so all of you narrow minded little boys can stop your tantrums now. :D
Click to expand...

The only tantrums will be from people like you that bought into rumors and projections instead of waiting for verified benchmark results.

And at you, we will laugh.
 
Imhotep said:
Right, because your life is only about rational things. Must be really boring.
Click to expand...

If I'm evaluating hardware? Sure. But we're not talking about my life here. Try to stay on topic, at least, even if you can't make effective points.
 
Todd Walter said:
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!
Click to expand...
I've been running my Pheom II 1090T for ages with 32GB ecc ram as my home server. it's now at the point I am replacing it with a Thinkstation S30 I picked up for $250'ish on ebay and dropped 128GB ram into.

If Ryzen is fantastic, I will probably make a desktop build out of it. Current Desktop is i5-4570 (windows) & 4770k (stock) for linux. If it's not fantastic I'll look for a HP Z620/820, a Dell T5600/7600 or Thinkstation C30/D30.
 
tlkimball said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I've been good with my $200 4770k from Microcenter.....2 years ago...
My i5-4570 on the other hand, could certainly use more cores :)
 
Last edited:
I'm keeping a close eye on these processors, and more importantly their associated motherboard chipsets. If they're as good as AMD claim them to be I'll update my 2700k @ 5Ghz machine just to support the underdog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top