Any idea on ZEN prices once it hits?

Any idea on ZEN prices?
Click to expand...

Of course nothing official. I expect AMD to under price whatever Intel processor that AMD thinks is its competition. For example the current 8 core is priced to compete with an i5. I expect that the new 8 core / 16 threaded Zen will compete with the lowest end Intel 6C / 12T Haswell-E and be priced with the AMD discount from that so to me $350 US is not out of the question. I also expect the 4C / 8T Zen to be priced to compete with an i5.
 
Last edited:
Nobified[H] said:
Any idea on ZEN prices?
Click to expand...

You could just as well ask on ideas on actual performance. Its price will be determined by the performance.

If it performs like a 1000$ Intel chip it will be priced around 1000$. If it performs like a 300$ chip it will be priced at around 300$.
 
Shintai said:
You could just as well ask on ideas on actual performance. Its price will be determined by the performance.

If it performs like a 1000$ Intel chip it will be priced around 1000$.
Click to expand...

If it can match the performance of 8C / 16T Broadwell-E, I expect $750 to $800 will not be out of the question. And that would be a large discount over a $1100 CPU.
 
Last edited:
$259 w/Wraith Cooler is my guess for the quad. Let's have a poll?
 
DrLobotomy said:
$259 w/Wraith Cooler is my guess for the quad. Let's have a poll?
Click to expand...

If the clocks doesn't change, its going to be much cheaper than that. 65W, 2.8/3.2Ghz quad with theoretical Haswell/Broadwell IPC would be facing an i5 6400 at 180ish$. Well, actually it would be facing a faster Kaby Lake part ;)
 
Shintai said:
You could just as well ask on ideas on actual performance. Its price will be determined by the performance.

If it performs like a 1000$ Intel chip it will be priced around 1000$. If it performs like a 300$ chip it will be priced at around 300$.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like products are priced based on performance :/

AMD will price Zen at whatever price they think they can sell it at.
 
gamerk2 said:
You make it sound like products are priced based on performance :/

AMD will price Zen at whatever price they think they can sell it at.
Click to expand...

Isnt that the same thing.

Performance should be performance metrics. Since raw performance alone is just one part.
 
I imagine it will be some place between $500 and $900 for the 8 core.

It should have more performance then the Intel 6 core and a little less or same performance as the Intel 8 core. Even if it has the same performance or a little more they need to be price aggressive to get market share.

I think the better question is what will the motherboards look like for pricing? 2011v3 mobos range from $150 to $500.

Of course we live in a world of price gouging so we may not reasonable pricing till mid 2017 when supply goes up.
 
Shintai said:
You could just as well ask on ideas on actual performance. Its price will be determined by the performance.

If it performs like a 1000$ Intel chip it will be priced around 1000$. If it performs like a 300$ chip it will be priced at around 300$.
Click to expand...

You keep pushing this but thankfully, you will most likely be wrong. Otherwise, AMD will not see much if any market penetration and I do not think they are stupid.
 
They would see penetration if they offer a discount. The discount does not need to be 1/2 price or anything remotely like that. 20% to 30% would be fine.
 
If they price their CPU's similar to how their graphics have been positioned, probably 20%-30% below competitors. BUT!

If the performance is similar or greater than intel offerings, I would expect to see the pricing to be about equal. It depends on if they want to start turning a profit, or focus on regaining share.
 
Guys, AMD needs to get $600 Billion in profits over the next two years to meet it's debt payments; they are NOT going to discount their brand new CPU lineup to chase market share. AMD is going to sell their chips at the maximum price they think they can sell them for, just like every other product on the market, ever.
 
Bandalo said:
Most of the internet seems to be expecting an 8C/16T chip that's 20% faster than Broadwell and only 45W TDP for $100. So I'm gonna go with that.
Click to expand...

If that is the case? I am a buyer!

Keep in mind, if AMD doesn't have a chip that beats Intel, they can always compete on the lower end. Last article I read states that AMD only has little over 2 billion debt long term. I like AMD for several reasons, cheap and game FPS are more than acceptable. Getting the latest CPU and spending over $1000 for it is just plain ridiculous. I will wait a few years, then buy it left over bin from some PC that is being scrapped. Don't get me wrong, if you want to spend $1000....go for it! I guess I have sat in too many meetings and heard it enough to be disgusted at CEO's perspective of what customers mean to them.

The spark of life of me has gone out, I no longer care like I used too. For those that have not seen the insides of Government or major corporations, count your blessings...you simply don't want to know. This reminds me of a movie, "the matrix". I think I will take the other pill and go back into make believe land.
 
Last edited:
GothamsReckoning said:
In the Blender benchmark it was a few percent faster. Not sure where most of the internet expects a 20% performance advantage over Broadwell-E. The fact that it's just as fast if not slightly faster in a highly multi-threaded benchmark is impressive seeing as how Haswell/Haswell-E was intended to be the main competitor for Zen.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the discussion following is usually full of people talking about how the Zen chip was an engineering sample, and they expect the release version clocks to be 20-30% higher, and then somehow also expect 30% OC headroom on top of that.
 
I'm expecting a repeat of Bulldozer release pricing when the FX-8150 was a bit more expensive than the i7-2600K back in OCT2011...because there will be quite a few AMD faithful's that will buy it at any price, regardless of how it performs compared to the competition. This initial higher than i7-K price may only last a month or two (given if Zen doesn't come within 10% performance of a Skylake i7), but AMD is desperate for revenue and profit, so I'm going to hedge my bets on the assumption that this is along the lines of what we'll be seeing for initial Zen pricing.
 
GothamsReckoning said:
Well from what I understand is that this is a second engineering sample (a ES2?) with clock speeds of 3Ghz and turbo disabled. The original engineering sample was 2.8Ghz with 3.2Ghz Turbo speed. That means they have already made 200mhz going from one ES to the second ES2. I would also expect that it is possible for AMD to have at least 3.2Ghz on their QS or production processors.
Click to expand...

Got any link to this?

So far its been 2.8Ghz base, 3.05Ghz turbo on all cores and 3.2Ghz max turbo. The Fmax of 14LPP wont allow high clocks either. Polaris is one example of this.
 
GothamsReckoning said:
No no link to this unfortunately that's the conclusion that I drew based on previous engineering samples and what was possibly shown at the recent demonstration. This could still be the same engineering sample revision/stepping as A0. However 200mhz is not unrealistic considering Skylake engineering samples were clocked at 2.4Ghz on Intel's 14nm process. Sure it's a different process but 200mhz isn't unrealistic in a span of maybe a few months. The engineering samples were shown for Skylake in late 2014 and the release was in mid-2015. That means in less than a year they got it from 2.4Ghz to about 4Ghz which is a nice 1.6Ghz boost from ES to Production.
Click to expand...
Well, that is a good example, admittedly. You forget that "late 2014" actually means mid October though, with release in late July/early August and troubled availability of 6700k in particular until god knows when.
AMD does not quite have the time to delay release of Zen until mid 2017 though. So these A0 clocks will be totally closer to final than in case of Skylake.
There is another interesting point: that guy Fottemberg claimed in his follow-up to April's Fools that 3Ghz A0 Zen ES existed. It all checked out. And it means that in a whole quarter AMD have not gotten a version with better clocks. Or they hide it for whatever reason. Note that for Ellesmere, AMD had done 3 minor revisions of a chip in 2 months or something.
 
GothamsReckoning said:
No no link to this unfortunately that's the conclusion that I drew based on previous engineering samples and what was possibly shown at the recent demonstration. This could still be the same engineering sample revision/stepping as A0. However 200mhz is not unrealistic considering Skylake engineering samples were clocked at 2.4Ghz on Intel's 14nm process. Sure it's a different process but 200mhz isn't unrealistic in a span of maybe a few months. The engineering samples were shown for Skylake in late 2014 and the release was in mid-2015. That means in less than a year they got it from 2.4Ghz to about 4Ghz which is a nice 1.6Ghz boost from ES to Production.
Click to expand...

Sure it wasn't a mobile 15W chip?
 
GothamsReckoning said:
It was the LGA1151 desktop part.

Intel begins to ship Skylake-S with disappointing frequencies to partners
Intel 14nm Skylake-S ES-1 Sample Pictured - Disappointing 2.4/2.9 Ghz Turbo Clock Speed
Click to expand...


Not exactly the best sites to put it mildly, and the VR-zone one is offline.

The problem is there is no CPU-Z or similar. It could be a T model for example.

At least 6 months before release with ES samples the SKUs are locked down.

And 6 months before release we saw 4770K, 6700K and now 7700K(Jan. 2017) for example.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
Not exactly the best sites to put it mildly, and the VR-zone one is offline.

The problem is there is no CPU-Z or similar. It could be a T model for example.

At least 6 months before release with ES samples the SKUs are locked down.

And 6 months before release we saw 4770K, 6700K and now 7700K(Jan. 2017) for example.
Click to expand...

So basically, you are saying that AMD does everything the same as Intel, right?
 
we also need to see how well these chips scale. those of us with 5ghz+ capable fx8's might end up keeping our gear.
 
Here's too hoping it is faster than my Surface Book I5 lol..... seriously not holding my breath. I remember all the hype leading up to Bulldozer and then watching Intels I3 backhoe that bitch into the ground. But I am not an intel Fanboy. I really truly am bored of my 3930K and want to replace it with Zen. Heres to you AMD don't let us down. God knows you will not survive another year or two if you fail this time as epic as bulldozer.

Something tells me they listened and learned from their profound mistakes with that chip line.
 
I know a lot of people are expecting the chip to retail for 800 dollars or more if it trades blows with intels 8 core parts, but I think that is sheer madness.

I'd be surprised if the top tier 8 core / 16 thread zen cpu went for more than 400 dollars. To my mind, the play from amd is to release something to take on the i7-x700k series from intel, their quad core parts that go for 300 plus dollars, and the 6 core parts that are in the low 400 range.


Why would amd release an 8 core for 800 to a thousand dollars, when intel has a 6 core going for half that? It's god damn insane. No, the play is to get decent margin with bigger volume, and that means offering MORE for similar prices to the quad cores.


The real question is whether it will matter for one of the bigger drivers of cpu purchases. PC gaming. I don't expect zen to be able to quite match the ipc of skylake, let alone the clock speeds. With kaby lake basically here now with similar to higher ipc over skylake plus even higher clocks... how is Zen going to fair against THAT?


How do games scale on quad cores with 8 threads vs 8 cores with 16 threads? If not much at all, that's an issue for making zen THE go to gaming cpu. But if it's close enough plus almost DOUBLE the performance for other more scalable across multiple cpu core tasks, then it could be a hit. But price? UNDER 400 dollars, no matter how well it performs is the ideal. Leave the price gouging to the server market.
 
tybert7 said:
I know a lot of people are expecting the chip to retail for 800 dollars or more if it trades blows with intels 8 core parts, but I think that is sheer madness.

I'd be surprised if the top tier 8 core / 16 thread zen cpu went for more than 400 dollars. To my mind, the play from amd is to release something to take on the i7-x700k series from intel, their quad core parts that go for 300 plus dollars, and the 6 core parts that are in the low 400 range.


Why would amd release an 8 core for 800 to a thousand dollars, when intel has a 6 core going for half that? It's god damn insane. No, the play is to get decent margin with bigger volume, and that means offering MORE for similar prices to the quad cores.


The real question is whether it will matter for one of the bigger drivers of cpu purchases. PC gaming. I don't expect zen to be able to quite match the ipc of skylake, let alone the clock speeds. With kaby lake basically here now with similar to higher ipc over skylake plus even higher clocks... how is Zen going to fair against THAT?


How do games scale on quad cores with 8 threads vs 8 cores with 16 threads? If not much at all, that's an issue for making zen THE go to gaming cpu. But if it's close enough plus almost DOUBLE the performance for other more scalable across multiple cpu core tasks, then it could be a hit. But price? UNDER 400 dollars, no matter how well it performs is the ideal. Leave the price gouging to the server market.
Click to expand...
Why would Intel release an 8 core for a $1k if they have a 6 core going for half that amount?

Also, PC gaming is a small driver compared to OEMs buying stuff in bulk for pre-builts, servers and workstations.

And finally, you've moved to justifications why Zen won't be good in consumer market. You're probably right though, that's the irony, just like K10 and Con cores, it will be fare better in servers.
Whether it will fare better than Intel in those, remains to be seen.
 
Why would amd release an 8 core for 800 to a thousand dollars, when intel has a 6 core going for half that? It's god damn insane. No, the play is to get decent margin with bigger volume, and that means offering MORE for similar prices to the quad cores.
Click to expand...

If AMD believes they can sell their stock of Zen CPUs at $800, they will sell it for $800. That's how Capitalism works.
 
gamerk2 said:
If AMD believes they can sell their stock of Zen CPUs at $800, they will sell it for $800. That's how Capitalism works.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Like when bulldozer came out at $1k usd, and quickly dropped to $340. That how capitalism works!

The price of Zen is easily determined. The cpu will be slotted based on performance just like current cpus and gpus are slotted.

If it performs between the Intel 6 core and 8 core then it will be priced between them. If it performs at 6 core levels it will cost the same as the 6 core.

Do not expect Intel 8 core performance for core i3 pricing.
 
Shadohh said:
Exactly! Like when bulldozer came out at $1k usd, and quickly dropped to $340. That how capitalism works!

The price of Zen is easily determined. The cpu will be slotted based on performance just like current cpus and gpus are slotted.

If it performs between the Intel 6 core and 8 core then it will be priced between them. If it performs at 6 core levels it will cost the same as the 6 core.

Do not expect Intel 8 core performance for core i3 pricing.
Click to expand...

Bulldozer was never $1k. It came out at $279 for the FX 8150 as the most expensive part. Also, AMD did not ever release the FX 9590 at $1k but did sell the processors direct to Boutique builders for whatever amount, we have no idea what they sold them at. The AMD Zen 8 core processor will NOT be $800 or above because they are trying to sell it, not have things sit on the shelf.

Oh, and $400 is no where near Core i3 pricing which is the amount that the person who was quoted from the person you quoted said. gamerk2, who is AMD going to sell to if the only released Zen processor is $800? Explain to me how they would gain significant market share, which is what they need, if they release their only processor initially at that price. No, you assessment leaves out so much detail that it is not how capitalism works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top