Zen 3 pricing confuses me

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
Typically, with processors, the more cores you add, the more the law of diminishing returns applies with cost/performance. Not so much with these Zen 3 prices:

5600X - $299 ($50/core)
5800X - $449 ($56/core)
5900X - $549 ($46/core)
5950X - $799 ($50/core)

Jumping up $150 to go from 6 cores to 8 cores seems a little steep to me, but not terrible. In typical fashion, the cost per core increases. Then, you look at the 5900X, giving you 4 more cores (50% more!) for only $100. It almost seems like if you're going to get the 5800X, why not just spend another $100 and get the 5900X. Then, the 5950X brings the cost back up to the baseline of $50/core. Not a bad deal at all.

Now, I probably wouldn't have even brought this up, but the 5600X price is bugging me. That should be a $249 processor, at $42/core. With the current pricing on 3600/3600X processors, it's just not a good value to upgrade to that CPU, given that it's been 18 months since the 3xxx series launched.
 
Last edited:

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
9,776
3000 series processors (as well as earlier) still exist, and still use the same socket. They have no need to make the 5600X super cheap right now because if you want a cheaper CPU, you can just get a 1000-3000 series Ryzen. Also, the people looking for budget CPUs are more likely to just get an APU, so I think that is really where the budget competition will be.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,033
Typically, with processors, the more cores you add, the more the law of diminishing returns applies with cost/performane. Not so much with these Zen3 prices:

5600X - $299 ($50/core)
5800X - $449 ($56/core)
5900X - $549 ($46/core)
5950X - $799 ($50/core)

Jumping up $150 to go from 6 cores to 8 cores seems a little steep to me, but not terrible. In typical fashion, the cost per core increases. Then, you look at the 5900X, giving you 4 more cores (50% more!) for only $100. It almost seems like if you're going to get the 5800X, why not just spend another $100 and get the 5900X. Then, the 5950X brings the cost back up to the baseline of $50/core. Not a bad deal at all.

Now, I probably wouldn't have even brought this up, but the 5600X price is bugging me. That should be a $249 processor, at $42/core. With the current pricing on 3600/3600X processors, it's just not a good value to upgrade to that CPU, give that it's been 18 months since the 3xxx series launched.

The $50 across the board price increase isn't surprising. AMD is doing so because it can. Costs for AMD may have gone up as well. For whatever reason though, AMD decided not to include a replacement for the 3700X. I imagine that it cut into the 3800X sales quite a bit and that's the reason for it.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
3000 series processors (as well as earlier) still exist, and still use the same socket. They have no need to make the 5600X super cheap right now because if you want a cheaper CPU, you can just get a 1000-3000 series Ryzen.

But, the same could be said for when the 3000 launched and the 2000 were still available. The 3600 gave a massive performance uplift over the 2600, for only $199. This is about half the performance uplift, and they're pricing it at $299.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,033
3000 series processors (as well as earlier) still exist, and still use the same socket. They have no need to make the 5600X super cheap right now because if you want a cheaper CPU, you can just get a 1000-3000 series Ryzen.

This is true too. Similarly, while AMD has nothing in the 3000 series for the HEDT market below $1,400, it did or does still offer the Threadripper 2920X, 2950X, and so on. Although, the dead end platform makes that less appealing than buying a Ryzen 3000 series on the cheap if you don't want to spend $300 on a CPU.
 

jhatfie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
1,472
I bet that after the initial launch dies down some, they will introduce a few more sku's for friendlier $$.
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,261
But, the same could be said for when the 3000 launched and the 2000 were still available. The 3600 gave a massive performance uplift over the 2600, for only $199. This is about half the performance uplift, and they're pricing it at $299.
if it games faster than intel's 6 core offering, it is priced similar to intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,261
Typically, with processors, the more cores you add, the more the law of diminishing returns applies with cost/performance. Not so much with these Zen 3 prices:

5600X - $299 ($50/core)
5800X - $449 ($56/core)
5900X - $549 ($46/core)
5950X - $799 ($50/core)

Jumping up $150 to go from 6 cores to 8 cores seems a little steep to me, but not terrible. In typical fashion, the cost per core increases. Then, you look at the 5900X, giving you 4 more cores (50% more!) for only $100. It almost seems like if you're going to get the 5800X, why not just spend another $100 and get the 5900X. Then, the 5950X brings the cost back up to the baseline of $50/core. Not a bad deal at all.

Now, I probably wouldn't have even brought this up, but the 5600X price is bugging me. That should be a $249 processor, at $42/core. With the current pricing on 3600/3600X processors, it's just not a good value to upgrade to that CPU, given that it's been 18 months since the 3xxx series launched.
jumping from the 3800x to the 3900x was also $100 difference.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
jumping from the 3800x to the 3900x was also $100 difference.
That's a terrible example. The 3800X was a terrible value. You should be doing a 3700X ($329) to 3900X ($499) comparison. $170 difference. I pretend the 3800X doesn't exist; it's that bad.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
And...it gets worse. Apparently only the 5600X comes bundled with a cooler.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1614...en-3-on-nov-5th-19-ipc-claims-best-gaming-cpu

3700X - $329 launch price with cooler
5800X - $449 launch price without cooler

With the current 3700X pricing being $170 lower than the 5800X, factor in at least $30 for a decent tower air cooler, and you're looking at a $200 bump in price. I know, the 5800X is a better processor, but for $200 more? I'm not so sure about that.
 

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
10,030
$300 for 6 cores...

what_year_is_it.jpg


The 5800X is even worse, if you include the value of AC Valhalla the 3700X is literally half the cost and includes a cooler.
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,535
The 5800x seems to be a fully functional single CCX chiplet with all 8 cores on one part active since it has half the L3 cache of the 5900x. AMD is charging a real premium for the frequency and IP improvements over Zen 2. I also agree that removing the semi-premium boxed coolers from much of the new lineup is a pure profit margin fattening move.

Even with the price increase though, the 5900x still looks like decent value as the IPC plus speed improvements should now (probably) fully equal Intel in single threaded performance, while crushing the competition in multi-threaded applications and energy efficiency. Though on that last part I wouldn't expect a gamer to be saving much more than a couple hundred watt hours per day leading to, what a dollar or two per month in energy savings?
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
9,776
But, the same could be said for when the 3000 launched and the 2000 were still available. The 3600 gave a massive performance uplift over the 2600, for only $199. This is about half the performance uplift, and they're pricing it at $299.

When the 2000 series was released, it was already clear at that point that they were making huge progress, but they were still behind Intel. That required "budget" pricing. It wasn't until 3000 series that you could finally go Ryzen without feeling like you just compromised on performance by not going Intel. Intel has not really come out with anything better since then, and the 3000 has not gotten any slower, so there is no need for AMD to cannibalize sales of their existing 3000 series inventory.

Also, 5000 series is the end of the line for AM4, meaning that these will be the best processors ever released for this socket (Aside from something obnoxious like another "XT" refresh). Sort of like how CPUs like the Core2Quad Q9650 held their price very well even after the i3/i5/i7 CPUs were released because many just wanted to upgrade their 775 motherboard instead of a new CPU AND a new motherboard. I know that I am not planning to wait for AM5. $550 is a big enough pill to swallow without also picking up another $300+ motherboard at the same time.

$300 for 6 cores...

View attachment 286751

The 5800X is even worse, if you include the value of AC Valhalla the 3700X is literally half the cost and includes a cooler.

Then just buy the 3700X. They aren't going away any time soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,535
When the 2000 series was released, it was already clear at that point that they were making huge progress, but they were still behind Intel. That required "budget" pricing. It wasn't until 3000 series that you could finally go Ryzen without feeling like you just compromised on performance by not going Intel. Intel has not really come out with anything better since then, and the 3000 has not gotten any slower, so there is no need for AMD to cannibalize sales of their existing 3000 series inventory.

Also, 5000 series is the end of the line for AM4, meaning that these will be the best processors ever released for this socket (Aside from something obnoxious like another "XT" refresh). Sort of like how CPUs like the Core2Quad Q9650 held their price very well even after the i3/i5/i7 CPUs were released because many just wanted to upgrade their 775 motherboard instead of a new CPU AND a new motherboard. I know that I am not planning to wait for AM5. $550 is a big enough pill to swallow without also picking up another $300+ motherboard at the same time.



Then just buy the 3700X. They aren't going away any time soon.

Next gen for AMD is going to be new CPU, new motherboard, AND new RAM, which is another reason for AMD to push pricing a bit higher now.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,743
Sounds like they are getting greedy. If this is the case, then they are throwing away the one driving factor that propelled them past Intel. Sure, the cores are nice but I think it was the pricing that really gave them market share
 

OFaceSIG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
2,445
AMD is doing well and people are complaining. I remember buying the first dual core Athlon AFTER it dropped from $1000 to $600 and not a day before. Do we want AMD to survive for years or lose money, go under, and then Intel can charge 400-500 for a quad core again?
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
9,776
Sounds like they are getting greedy. If this is the case, then they are throwing away the one driving factor that propelled them past Intel. Sure, the cores are nice but I think it was the pricing that really gave them market share

But if you look at pricing as a whole, it tells a bit of a different story. Consider what this launch is going to do to 3000 series prices. A year ago it was difficult to find a 3900X for less than $500. By the time 5000 series becomes widely available the price of a 3900X will probably be pushed down to <$400. Being able to get a 12-core performance-competitive CPU for that cheap doesn't seem greedy to me, more like people just getting pouty because they would rather have the latest and greatest.
 

LukeTbk

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
70
Could see of the pricing being chosen to be able to lower them (the 5600-5800 we could assume the higher core will still be competitive at those price point) if needed on the day of Intel next launch (and have better margin in between those dates).

Pure speculation of someone that know anything, but maybe trying to direct purchase on the higher model as well, lower model already covered by the 3xxx (where I imagine the process is quite mature and high yield by now), maybe they want to continue to sale those 3600x-3700 for while.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,033
And...it gets worse. Apparently only the 5600X comes bundled with a cooler.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1614...en-3-on-nov-5th-19-ipc-claims-best-gaming-cpu

3700X - $329 launch price with cooler
5800X - $449 launch price without cooler

With the current 3700X pricing being $170 lower than the 5800X, factor in at least $30 for a decent tower air cooler, and you're looking at a $200 bump in price. I know, the 5800X is a better processor, but for $200 more? I'm not so sure about that.

A $30 air cooler isn't going to do a good job with a 3900X or 5900X.

Sounds like they are getting greedy. If this is the case, then they are throwing away the one driving factor that propelled them past Intel. Sure, the cores are nice but I think it was the pricing that really gave them market share

Costs for a lot of things have gone up in the past year. It may not be a matter of AMD being greedy. We don't really know for sure why the price went up. In any case, I don't think $50 is a huge deal. Again, AMD has charged considerably more for desktop processors in the past. I still think these are going to be an incredible value compared to their competition.
 

SnowBeast

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
1,259
If you guys don't like the pricing there is always Intel budget cpu's like the 10400,10600, and 10700k's to get yeah similar gaming performance.......:sneaky:
see how that changed once AMD overtook Intel, get it now?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,033
If you guys don't like the pricing there is always Intel budget cpu's like the 10400,10600, and 10700k's to get yeah similar gaming performance.......:sneaky:
see how that changed once AMD overtook Intel, get it now?

This is true. The 10700K is a pretty good gaming CPU. I've built a few systems with them for friends recently.
 

Decko87

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
1,799
Prices will dip below MSRP if you're willing to wait 4-6 months... I think I'm probably going to grab a PS 5 and game on that for a while, my B550 can just sit for a while. I have my work station with a 5700 and a 3900x if I feel like using a PC to game a bit. I'll just toss a windows drive in it.
 

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,150
I don't understand those complaining about the price hikes...You generally have to pay more to get higher performance. It's no different than any other market. If you want cheap, go intel. If you want the best, pay a premium for AMD.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,033
Prices will dip below MSRP if you're willing to wait 4-6 months... I think I'm probably going to grab a PS 5 and game on that for a while, my B550 can just sit for a while. I have my work station with a 5700 and a 3900x if I feel like using a PC to game a bit. I'll just toss a windows drive in it.

This is true too. Microcenter has had price breaks on the 3000 series for awhile.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,610
It makes sense to me. AMD thinks they have the best performing CPU in the world for Desktop. So they are raising prices, I mean I don't like it but hey isn't the goal for AMD to make money.

Of course I would wait for reviews, but if the IPC and clock speed numbers are to believed, Intel is in some trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this

LukeTbk

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
70
I don't understand those complaining about the price hikes...You generally have to pay more to get higher performance. It's no different than any other market. If you want cheap, go intel. If you want the best, pay a premium for AMD.
Didn't follow intel vs amd offering price point closely, but is that the current situation, on Newegg the 8 core 10700K is 463$ that is more than the 449$ of the 5800x 8 core Amd solution (you get integrated graphic)

Interl 10 core, 10900K at $700 is priced quite higher than the 12 core 5900 ($549)and not far from the 16 core 5950 ($799)

Do you really pay a premium for Amd 5000 ryzen offering, outside the 5600.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,583
AMD has been doing price increases for each new iteration. I'm not surprised at all that they are charging more. The BOD would have Lisa's head if they released a new arch which had the performance crown across the board and didn't charge for it. Then you have to look at supply, which is also going to be low on a new product such as this.

This is what a business who is leading does. This happened in the past too when Athlon 64 came out.

In addition to even all of this, are we forgetting who dropped the price on 6 CPUs to begin with? And it wasn't just $100 either. The 1600x debuted at $250.
 
Last edited:

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,261
I don't understand those complaining about the price hikes...You generally have to pay more to get higher performance. It's no different than any other market. If you want cheap, go intel. If you want the best, pay a premium for AMD.
10% more money for 20% more performance as far as 3800x -> 5800x goes. I guess some people would rather it be the same price and only 10% faster :p
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,535
I don't understand those complaining about the price hikes...You generally have to pay more to get higher performance. It's no different than any other market. If you want cheap, go intel. If you want the best, pay a premium for AMD.
You generally have to pay more to get higher performance within the same product generation. This is a new product generation and, as a general concept, pricing should be cheaper for equal performance to the older generation otherwise there is no reason to buy new. When it comes to computers and many other types of electronics, like TVs, each new generation should equate to significantly more performance for the same or less money.

While that is happening, it is nowhere near to the same degree of Zen vs Excavator, or Zen+ vs Zen, or possibly even Zen 2 vs Zen+. The big draw is supposed to be that these chips are equal to or significantly superior to Intel's equivalent Casecade or Comet Lake chips for significantly less money in several SKUs, which AMD insists is worth the newly elevated pricing.

Consumers have a right to their opinions in thinking that AMD should not be tacking on an extra $50+ across the board for the given performance increase, particularly when the last gen chips have had price drops.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,803
10% more money for 20% more performance as far as 3800x -> 5800x goes. I guess some people would rather it be the same price and only 10% faster :p

The 3800x was not a recommended buy at launch either. That is why most got the 3700x instead. $450 for the console-like 8 core us too damn much.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,057
How attainable were
Didn't follow intel vs amd offering price point closely, but is that the current situation, on Newegg the 8 core 10700K is 463$ that is more than the 449$ of the 5800x 8 core Amd solution (you get integrated graphic)

10700K is actually about $380 right now.
 

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,150
You generally have to pay more to get higher performance within the same product generation. This is a new product generation and, as a general concept, pricing should be cheaper for equal performance to the older generation otherwise there is no reason to buy new. When it comes to computers and many other types of electronics, like TVs, each new generation should equate to significantly more performance for the same or less money.

While that is happening, it is nowhere near to the same degree of Zen vs Excavator, or Zen+ vs Zen, or possibly even Zen 2 vs Zen+. The big draw is supposed to be that these chips are equal to or significantly superior to Intel's equivalent Casecade or Comet Lake chips for significantly less money in several SKUs, which AMD insists is worth the newly elevated pricing.

Consumers have a right to their opinions in thinking that AMD should not be tacking on an extra $50+ across the board for the given performance increase, particularly when the last gen chips have had price drops.

If we use your example, every new iteration of 14+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ should have reduced in price to the point that Intel sends you a $500 gift card to take their newest chip
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,261
You generally have to pay more to get higher performance within the same product generation. This is a new product generation and, as a general concept, pricing should be cheaper for equal performance to the older generation other wise there is no reason to buy new. When it comes to computers and many other types of electronics, like TVs, each new generation should equate to significantly more performance for the same or less money.

While that is happening, it is nowhere near to the same degree of Zen vs Excavator, or Zen+ vs Zen, or possibly even Zen 2 vs Zen+. The big draw is supposed to be that these chips are equal to or significantly superior to Intel's equivalent Casecade or Comet Lake chips for significantly less money in several SKUs, which AMD insists is worth the newly elevated pricing.

Consumers have a right to their opinions in thinking that AMD should not be tacking on an extra $50+ across the board for the given performance increase, particularly when the last gen chips have had price drops.
What about value though? We are seeing huge IPC gains. Intel has been lowering the per core price of CPUs for a few generations, but that is because they are adding higher core options to move everything down a tier, while not increasing IPC much at all. AMD already has up to 16 cores, so they are increasing IPC.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,583
You generally have to pay more to get higher performance within the same product generation. This is a new product generation and, as a general concept, pricing should be cheaper for equal performance to the older generation other wise there is no reason to buy new. When it comes to computers and many other types of electronics, like TVs, each new generation should equate to significantly more performance for the same or less money.

While that is happening, it is nowhere near to the same degree of Zen vs Excavator, or Zen+ vs Zen, or possibly even Zen 2 vs Zen+. The big draw is supposed to be that these chips are equal to or significantly superior to Intel's equivalent Casecade or Comet Lake chips for significantly less money in several SKUs, which AMD insists is worth the newly elevated pricing.

Consumers have a right to their opinions in thinking that AMD should not be tacking on an extra $50+ across the board for the given performance increase, particularly when the last gen chips have had price drops.
Um no. Processor generations do not always come in cheaper than the products they replace. Actually more often than not they are usually equal or more expensive especially if the performance is there.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,610
IF the numbers are to be believed the AMD CPU's are still great value. The 5900x is faster, has more cores than the 10900k Intel and uses way less power. The 5900x will be priced $549, yet the 10900k is around the $730-750 mark? Neither CPU will have a heatsink as well.

So I mean how is that not still value? Sure it isn't as cheap as the 3900x/3900xt, but Zen 3 is still the fastest CPU's you can get (according to AMD).
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,261
IF the numbers are to be believed the AMD CPU's are still great value. The 5900x is faster, has more cores than the 10900k Intel and uses way less power. The 5900x will be priced $549, yet the 10900k is around the $730-750 mark? Neither CPU will have a heatsink as well.

So I mean how is that not still value? Sure it isn't as cheap as the 3900x/3900xt, but Zen 3 is still the fastest CPU's you can get (according to AMD).
anyone with a 2700x-3900x can reuse their wraith prism if they wish, assuming 105w tdp is accurate representation.
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,535
If we use your example, every new iteration of 14+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ should have reduced in price to the point that Intel sends you a $500 gift card to take their newest chip

Intel was exploiting its highly dominant market position and consumers grumbled more with each generation because Intel was increasingly failing to deliver with each new generation. If it wasn't for Zen, I would not be surprised if most of Intel's main line of desktop CPUs were still either 4c/4t or 4c/8t.

Um no. When you buy the latest TV it does not get cheaper at the same size. It's more expensive. Not cheaper. Processor generations do not always come in cheaper than the products they replace. Actually more often than not they are usually equal or more expensive especially if the performance is there.

Outside of the specialty $30K-$100K+ TVs, each generation of TV offers very real improvements for the price points, this is in some combination of panel upsize, improvements to panel tech, lightning tech, processor upgrades, or other meaningful improvements. As an example, the Samsung TV in my family room originally listed for about $4K (not that I paid that much) in 2014. In each year since, a TV with similarly speced features has moved down in price point by about $500 per year so that now my TV is equivalent to the ones with an original MSRP of around $1,000 to $1,250-ish before accounting for any sales.

What about value though? We are seeing huge IPC gains. Intel has been lowering the per core price of CPUs for a few generations, but that is because they are adding higher core options to move everything down a tier, while not increasing IPC much at all. AMD already has up to 16 cores, so they are increasing IPC.

As I set forth in an earlier post, I think the the 5900x still looks like decent value for the money.
 

learners permit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
330
Considering all the time and effort spent on a near complete redesign of these cpus I really don't mind the cost increase at all. Those engineers do not work 1 million man hours for free do any of us? I surely do not.
 
Top