Zen 3 pricing confuses me

123Lanoix

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
3,996
Is the Memory support for 5900X still 3200mhz native ? or is it natively offical support 3600mhz?
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,625
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.



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.



As I set forth in an earlier post, I think the the 5900x still looks like decent value for the money.
The key is similarly spec'd.At no time have I ever bought a TV with more features at launch than the TV it replaced for cheaper. Now maybe after it's been on the market for a while. But at launch? Nope.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,549
The 5900x is faster, has more cores than the 10900k Intel and uses way less power.

I think we need to have a serious discussion about if gamers actually care about power consumption, which took an up inordinate amount of time in the presentation. These CPUs have basically zero price advantage over current Intel offerings. I thought the whole point of AMD having a huge advantage in process was to hammer Intel on price with higher margins? Maybe they can't make as many of these chips or there's some other issue going on with the architectural changes which makes harvesting for lower tiers harder (hence the missing SKUs).
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,633
I think we need to have a serious discussion about if gamers actually care about power consumption, which took an up inordinate amount of time in the presentation. These CPUs have basically zero price advantage over current Intel offerings. I thought the whole point of AMD having a huge advantage in process was to hammer Intel on price with higher margins? Maybe they can't make as many of these chips or there's some other issue going on with the architectural changes which makes harvesting for lower tiers harder (hence the missing SKUs).

Taking out the power usage part. How is a 5900x 12c/24t CPU at $549 not a price advantage over an intel 10x/20t CPU at $730?.....I mean if that isn't hammering the price to Intel, I don't think you would be ever satisified.

I mean saving almost $200, while having 2c/4t more and (according to AMD) have more gaming performance....I am not sure what is value to you then.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,549
Taking out the power usage part. How is a 5900x 12c/24t CPU at $549 not a price advantage over an intel 10x/20t CPU at $730?.....I mean if that isn't hammering the price compared to Intel, I don't think you would be ever satisified.

I mean saving almost $200, while having 2c/4t more and (according to AMD) have more gaming performance....I am not sure what is value to you then.
You have a point with the 5900x, but in a price thread, I think the other SKUs are also fair game here. If you don't care about power, how is this launch better than 10700K or 10600K rig you could have had for months? Great, they caught up? Today is a day for investors to celebrate. I'm a little more measured.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,819
I would like to see more about the architecture. It really seems like Renoir with more cache would come within spitting distance of this.
 

Attachments

  • 20201008_130136.jpg
    20201008_130136.jpg
    214.3 KB · Views: 0

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,633
You have a point with the 5900x, but in a price thread, I think the other SKUs are also fair game here. If you don't care about power, how is this launch better than 10700K or 10600K rig you could have had for months? Great, they caught up? Today is a day for investors to celebrate. I'm a little more measured.

Well they (According to AMD) caught up and surpassed Intel in gaming. AMD had already surpassed Intel in workstation applications.

All while using way less power. And you don't have to upgrade your current motherboard (if you are using 400+ series). Power might not mean a lot to you, and thats fine. But, a lot of people like having a smaller PC, while having more power!

Again, we need to wait for benchmarks from independent reviews first.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,549
Again, we need to wait for benchmarks from independent reviews first.
For sure. I have some decisions to make here. I already have a B550 so it's just a question of what chip to buy because I do care about heat, power, and competition. I'm just not breaking out the pom poms over what has been universally acknowledged today as a $50 price hike across the board.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,625
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.
The 5800x most likely has one premium binned chiplet with 8 cores, while the 5900x and 5950x, like the original 3800x and 3950x maybe with one good chiplet and one shitlet. The 5600x has 2 of the cores disabled so the chiplet is basically a shitlet but more usable with the worst cores hacked off. That to me explains the price differences per core.

As per price and performance - it looks like it smacks Intel for both.
 
Last edited:

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
18,830
I was expecting the 5800X to cost around the same as the current 3800X but it looks like AMD has taken a page out of Intel's playbook and raised prices across the board for the new processors...
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,326
The 5800x most like has one premium binned chiplet with 8 cores while the 5900x and 5950x maybe like the original 3800x and 3950x with one good chiplet and one shitlet. The 5600x has 2 of the cores disabled so the chiplet is basically a shitlet but more usable with the worst cores hacked off. That too me explains the price differences per core.

As per price and performance - it looks like it smacks Intel for both.
the 5600x, the 'worst' cpu announced, has a boost clock of 4.6GHz. That makes me a little confident in OCing potential, since it pretty much means every CCX they make has at least one core good enough to do 4.6GHz, since if they didn't, they wouldn't be good enough for any CPU, and be a ton of waste. So I'm guessing all core OC will be not far below that 4.6 number. Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but really I'm hoping the boost algorithm works well enough that I leave it at stock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

Chelica

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
2,363
I think the sweet spot will be the 5900x, especially in comparison to Intel's current offerings. It'll be hard to compare it against AMD's last gen offering but the good news is that you can still get those chips. For those with 3000 series, this is not a must go to upgrade. Normally upgrading every gen is not going to be a good $ value. I'm on Intel's 8th gen and even then, the upgrade is stretching it. Do I need it? Not really...it's more of a want at this point.
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,048
I would like to also complain. I am extremely excited to replace my 2700x with a 5800x... however at these prices i have myself thinking about a 3700x at $214, a 3900x at $379 or just going for a 5900x. I do some video encoding so i dont want a 6 core part...
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,326
I would like to also complain. I am extremely excited to replace my 2700x with a 5800x... however at these prices i have myself thinking about a 3700x at $214, a 3900x at $379 or just going for a 5900x. I do some video encoding so i dont want a 6 core part...
What did you want to see performance wise in your budget? A 5800x should be about 37% faster than your 2700x.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,842
I was expecting the 5800X to cost around the same as the current 3800X but it looks like AMD has taken a page out of Intel's playbook and raised prices across the board for the new processors...
No. They took a page out of how to run a profitable business. AMD is not a charity. Their primary concern is to make money. Expect them to go even higher if Intel doesn't compete. I don't see Intel next cpu to be much better then the 10900k. AMD is going to be king for the next two years at least if all their claims are true.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,633
Those prices are making Intel competitive if all you care is gaming.

Not really. The 5900x is about $200 less than the 10900k, and (according to AMD) faster in gaming. Not sure how that would make Intel competitive?

Of course this is what AMD says, again we need to wait for real independent reviews.
 
Last edited:

UltraTaco

Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Messages
998
Well, mates, what did you think was going to happn when amd is the true leader is performance and highly computerized applications?

AMD is power! AMD is strength! AMD is future!!
 

123Lanoix

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
3,996
Well, mates, what did you think was going to happn when amd is the true leader is performance and highly computerized applications?

AMD is power! AMD is strength! AMD is future!!
umm it's ok i didn't need to buy a new motherboard. the 3000 series will be cheaper now and the XT models.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
18,830
No. They took a page out of how to run a profitable business. AMD is not a charity. Their primary concern is to make money. Expect them to go even higher if Intel doesn't compete. I don't see Intel next cpu to be much better then the 10900k. AMD is going to be king for the next two years at least if all their claims are true.

I get it but I'm going according to how AMD has operated in the past...they always were priced much more competitively...so now that they have a CPU that can stand toe to toe with Intel they are starting to act like Intel...
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,633
I get it but I'm going according to how AMD has operated in the past...they always were priced much more competitively...so now that they have a CPU that can stand toe to toe with Intel they are starting to act like Intel...
I mean if they were going to act like Intel they would of priced the 5900x closer to $700 imo.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
AMD captured a lot of market share due to their price competitiveness. Folks were fine accepting a decrease in performance, but saving a significant amount of money on the CPU/Mobo combo. That's how AMD differentiated themselves, and honestly, why I went with them with my last 3 builds.

Now, they're neck-and-neck with Intel on performance (we'll see), and close in pricing. Yes, they are more power efficient, but I'm feeling like this price hike is taking away a huge amount of allure as to why people jumped ship from blue to red.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
If the performance data supplied by AMD is consistent with what 3rd party reviewers find, I don't see how anyone could honestly be upset at the pricing for these CPUs.
Because the barrier to entry for a 6-core CPU is $300. How are they going to price a quad core? Anything over $100 is going to be tough, with Intel having their 10100 for sale at $99 at various retailers.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,750
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).

No, and besides, the 10850K is $449 and basically the same thing as the 10900K ... and everyone, if they want can get 5.1 to 5.3ghz on a 10900K / 10850k .. for the record
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,633
Because the barrier to entry for a 6-core CPU is $300. How are they going to price a quad core? Anything over $100 is going to be tough, with Intel having their 10100 for sale at $99 at various retailers.
You do realize they haven’t released the non x variants of the CPU’s yet? There is plenty of room for more CPU’s at a lower price point.

I think AMD learned their lesson after released the 3700x and 3800x and the 3600x and 3600. Everyone bought the cheaper models since the performance difference was like 1-2%
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,633
No, and besides, the 10850K is $449 and basically the same thing as the 10900K ... and everyone, if they want can get 5.1 to 5.3ghz on a 10900K / 10850k .. for the record
While using more power, and having less cores/threads.

So it’s to be expected
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,842
I get it but I'm going according to how AMD has operated in the past...they always were priced much more competitively...so now that they have a CPU that can stand toe to toe with Intel they are starting to act like Intel...
Uh remember the FX CPUs? They were $1000 over a decade ago. AMD priced ryzen where it needed it to be to win market share.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
608
I get it but I'm going according to how AMD has operated in the past...they always were priced much more competitively...so now that they have a CPU that can stand toe to toe with Intel they are starting to act like Intel...

Amd is dropping a ~19% IPC gain on us with a new generation. That’s very much not like Intel.
 

bwang

Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
999
The pricing is a little strange because the 5800X is such a bad deal compared to the 5900X and the 3700X. Going from an on-sale 3700X to the 5800X you spend an extra $180 (67%) to get 20% more performance. Going from the 5800X to the 5900X, you spend an extra $100 (22%) to get 50% more cores. At this rate they are basically telling you "please buy a 5900X", which is not really a bad thing unless you really wanted a $300 CPU.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,231
Now, they're neck-and-neck with Intel on performance (we'll see), and close in pricing. Yes, they are more power efficient, but I'm feeling like this price hike is taking away a huge amount of allure as to why people jumped ship from blue to red.

Omg, 50 more is a deal breaker huh?
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,842
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).
The 10900l has a msrp of $550 I believe. Those high prices are from 3rd part vendors trying to jack the price up on a CPU that doesn't really exist in the retail channels. Like other say there is the 10850k which is only 100mhz less but can be OC to the same levels as the 10900k.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,750
A $30 air cooler isn't going to do a good job with a 3900X or 5900X.



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.

Actually, this will be a great opportunity for Intel. The 10850 @ $450 is an incredible CPU, 20 threads, ability to OC to 5.1 to 5.3ghz .... I see Intel dropping the price on this CPU to really fck with AMD.

With AMD's higher prices now, Intel is going to stand out more to consumers.

Also, next year, Intel is releasing it's 10nm MONSTER that will destroy everything, 20% estimated IPC games, new architecture, etc. AMD has a very narrow window here.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
Omg, 50 more is a deal breaker huh?
Omg, yes it is. And, it's actuallly $100. Let me explain...

Let's pretend the 3600X and 3800X never existed, because they shouldn't have. They were crap. The 3600 is just as good. Let's continue...

3600 at launch - $199. 5600(X) at launch, 18 months later, still a 6 core, $299.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
Another point. When the 5600X releases, it will have been almost 6 months since the 10600K released. When it did release, it was being sold for around $265 ($279 now, $259 at Micro Center). Six months later, AMD decides to release their 6-core for MORE money. I bet they perform very similarly. In yesteryears, it was simple to choose an AMD product over Intel, because the price/performance was much better. Now, they're likely equal.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,231
Omg, yes it is. And, it's actuallly $100. Let me explain...

Let's pretend the 3600X and 3800X never existed, because they shouldn't have. They were crap. The 3600 is just as good. Let's continue...

3600 at launch - $199. 5600(X) at launch, 18 months later, still a 6 core, $299.

That's the street price. It's msrp is 250. Price hike is 50 all around. Stop mixing in street prices with MSRP just to justify your whining. They're a for profit company and they've been operating at around 35% profit. They cannot sustain that margin indefinitely. Yall need to get a grip. Compare Intel who operates at a 70%+ margin. :rolleyes:
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
18,830
The pricing is a little strange because the 5800X is such a bad deal compared to the 5900X and the 3700X. Going from an on-sale 3700X to the 5800X you spend an extra $180 (67%) to get 20% more performance. Going from the 5800X to the 5900X, you spend an extra $100 (22%) to get 50% more cores. At this rate they are basically telling you "please buy a 5900X", which is not really a bad thing unless you really wanted a $300 CPU.

for gaming it seems the 5800X would be fine for the next few years...
 
Top