Zen 3 pricing confuses me

Teenk9

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
1,008
Imagine that, complaining that the price of top of heap Ryzen CPUs are too high when just over a couple of years ago some of the same posters had no issue paying so much more.
 

bwang

Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
998
for gaming it seems the 5800X would be fine for the next few years...

yeah I think that's one of the issues with the pricing - a lot of people want the 8-core part, but we're basically being forced to buy the 12-core instead
 

Endgame

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
337
when the T-Birds were competitive with P3s and P4s, AMD was priced the same. When X2s were slapping intel silly IIRC, AMD was more expensive. This $50 hike is expected and fine for competitive launch chips. 3000 series will likely drop a little, so if bang for your buck is goal, go get a 3700, or buy a used 2700 as I’m sure there will be a fair number of those available from people upgrading like me.

imagine if this were an Intel launch - the 5950 would be 999 and the 5900 would be 749.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
18,808
yeah I think that's one of the issues with the pricing - a lot of people want the 8-core part, but we're basically being forced to buy the 12-core instead

the 5900X is $100 more expensive then the 5800X...5950X is $350 more...5800X seems like the best price/performance chip for gaming
 

TheSlySyl

Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
571
The 3900X and 3700X still exist and still have excellent performance.
If you want 8 or 12 cores for cheaper, at less power for core, go for one of them. The 5000 series has better IPC but given that the 3700X and 3900X have both been $60-$100 off MSRP for 6+ months now, this seems absolutely reasonable. I got my 3900X for $400 back in April.

In less a year the 5000 series will probably go down in price once the hype slows and end up at a similar cost to the current 3000 series as the 3000 series slowly fades out.


I'm more than happy with my 3900X right now but I'll likely upgrade to a 5950X in 2+ years to keep this X570 motherboard relevant for as long as I possibly can and to avoid the AM5 and DDR5 early adopter tax and bugs.
 
Last edited:

bwang

Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
998
the 5900X is $100 more expensive then the 5800X...5950X is $350 more...5800X seems like the best price/performance chip for gaming
for that extra $100, you get 50% more cores and twice the cache - probably worthwhile even for just gaming. $100 is pretty marginal when you consider the cost of everything else in a gaming rig.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
18,808
for that extra $100, you get 50% more cores and twice the cache - probably worthwhile even for just gaming. $100 is pretty marginal when you consider the cost of everything else in a gaming rig

is the chiplet arrangement the same for both?...meaning none are disabled or borked in any way?
 

///M3

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
327
The pricing seems off to me as well, but this done explain why they launched the XT chips so close to the 5000 series release.

I had my mind set on a 5800X, but at $450 I just don't know. I'm now curious what Rocket Lake will bring to the table.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
404
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:
I'm confused. What products are you talking about with street price and MSRP? And as I said before, please take the 3600X and 3800X out of the discussion. Those chips were a horrible value, and should not be used when comparing to the Zen 3 announcement prices.

Also, have you seen what AMD has done, as a whole, in the last 5 years, operating on such "lean" margins? Yeah, their stock (market cap) is up 40x. Not bad. You do know most companies operate near a 10% profit margin, and top earners are around 20%? Offering the best bang-for-the-buck has SAVED them. Now, they're trying to act like Intel. Not smart.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,422
the prices are justified, given the pricing from Intel.
and it gives AMD room to play. If Intel decides to lower prices or something, AMD likely has room to come down. And/or release some in between SKUs. Of which Intel has MANY.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,314
I'm confused. What products are you talking about with street price and MSRP? And as I said before, please take the 3600X and 3800X out of the discussion. Those chips were a horrible value, and should not be used when comparing to the Zen 3 announcement prices.

Also, have you seen what AMD has done, as a whole, in the last 5 years, operating on such "lean" margins? Yeah, their stock (market cap) is up 40x. Not bad. You do know most companies operate near a 10% profit margin, and top earners are around 20%? Offering the best bang-for-the-buck has SAVED them. Now, they're trying to act like Intel. Not smart.
You can't just dismiss the 3600x just because the 3600 was an incredible deal, it was the cpu that had the most post launch hype and got a bunch of people to move to an AMD system.

This time they allegedly have the performance crown in the area they didn't before and don't need pricing as a hype generator, it might allow Intel to slip in and start making financial sense at some price points but I think AMD still looks like the better value overall pending final reviews and any Intel price cuts. The fact that I should be able to drop one into my couple year old motherboard without any further upgrades makes it an even better value for me.
 

Pastuch

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
500
I may sell my 3600x and get a 5600x... for gaming I’m willing to bet a 5600x is faster than a 3950x. My 3600x is a bronze chip with really shitty average boost clocks. Hoping I get lucky on the 5600x
 

Hakaba

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
804
Well looks like AMD doesn’t need to compete on price anymore. Since they are slowly catching up with each realease I am not surprised they are taking pages from Intel’s playbook.

Overall, I am enjoying the white knights defending everything AMD does while falling up a cliff trying to attack Intel for doing it earlier...

Either way, looks like a great release and possible upgrade for the HTPC, the 2200G is getting a little anemic.
 

chithanh

Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
794
it's just not a good value
cost per core
I don't think that cost per core is an indicator of value. The number of cores or the arbitrarily chosen model number is inconsequential. What matters is the actual performance that you get for the price.
Cost per CB20 nT would maybe be a better indicator.

Given 20% uplift in IPC and perf/W, a 5600X ($299) will perform somewhere between a 10700 ($310) and 10700X ($380) in multithreaded tasks, likely closer to the latter, so is competitively priced.
The 5800X ($449) beats the 10900K ($530)
The 5900X ($559) beats the 10980XE ($820)
The 5950X ($799) beats the Xeon W-3275 ($💸💸💸)

That is not to mention the lower cost of AM4 mobos, and that many users can even keep the one they have now.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,229
I'm confused. What products are you talking about with street price and MSRP? And as I said before, please take the 3600X and 3800X out of the discussion. Those chips were a horrible value, and should not be used when comparing to the Zen 3 announcement prices.

Also, have you seen what AMD has done, as a whole, in the last 5 years, operating on such "lean" margins? Yeah, their stock (market cap) is up 40x. Not bad. You do know most companies operate near a 10% profit margin, and top earners are around 20%? Offering the best bang-for-the-buck has SAVED them. Now, they're trying to act like Intel. Not smart.

No you don't get it. The price went up 50 bucks on the the skus they announced. That is it. It's not 100 this way or that way.

WTF does market cap have to do with anything? And I'm not talking about most companies as there are only TWO freaking companies that make cpus. And one is operating at more than twice the gross margin of the other.

Bottom line, if you cannot afford the $50 hike, this cpu isn't for you. If you cannot appreciate that they improved the performance by 19%, addressing the design weaknesses, while maintaining the same TDP you are clueless. The TDP tells me that they did real fucking work here. It's not the usual BS overclock that Intel does hiding their TDP numbers.
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
199
This chip is aimed squarely at Intel's last wall: raw sc performance.

People have happily paid the Intel premium for top of the line gaming performance. We know this and so does AMD. They feel they finally have a chip that can whip Intel at even the niche 1080p benchmarks, hence why they immediately went with those.

Zen2 will still be more than enough for most things and cheap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,583
This chip is aimed squarely at Intel's last wall: raw sc performance.

People have happily paid the Intel premium for top of the line gaming performance. We know this and so does AMD. They feel they finally have a chip that can whip Intel at even the niche 1080p benchmarks, hence why they immediately went with those.

Zen2 will still be more than enough for most things and cheap.
I'm torn because of it. But you're helping me. I game but it's but one of the many things I do. With the 3000 series getting dirt cheap I could just save myself the upgrade and do it later.
 

Chelica

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
2,347
We also have to factor it who this product is for. If you're running on a recent/now last gen CPU, do you really need the upgrade? If you're upgrading CPU everytime there's a new release, then is the price hike really an issue? It's not good value to run a setup for only 1 to 2 years then upgrade.

Also, it's not like the previous CPUs are being removed from the market. If the use case calls for the older CPUs that is cheaper, then go for that build versus getting the latest and greatest. There's a cost in early adopting.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,314
We also have to factor it who this product is for. If you're running on a recent/now last gen CPU, do you really need the upgrade? If you're upgrading CPU everytime there's a new release, then is the price hike really an issue? It's not good value to run a setup for only 1 to 2 years then upgrade.

Also, it's not like the previous CPUs are being removed from the market. If the use case calls for the older CPUs that is cheaper, then go for that build versus getting the latest and greatest. There's a cost in early adopting.
I decided to skip the 3000 series and stick with my 2700x, while the 3000 series was a decent bump in performance I decided to hold out for this gen which looks to be nice bump over the 2000 series and a worthwhile upgrade.

When I built my current system I considered a 8700k system that would have been a bit better in games if I had taken the time to delid it and OC it but also would have been a few hundred dollars more and wouldn't have any worthwhile upgrade path. The money I saved will cover most of the cost of a 3800x or over half the cost of the 3900x that I should be able to drop right into my MB, either should outperform the 8700k by a larger margin than the 8700k would beat my 2700x by.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
9,776
It's not good value to run a setup for only 1 to 2 years then upgrade.

Really it depends. There are so many hobbies out there, and other things that people splurge on. People buy expensive golf clubs and then never go golfing. People buy expensive archery sets / bows that end up as wall decorations. People buy expensive quadcopters and then never fly them. People buy expensive stereos and then never actually use them to listen to music. The examples are endless. A bad value is spending money on something that you don't use. Spending money on something that you literally use for multiple hours every single day is not a bad value, and quite easy to justify IMO.

And upgrading your CPU doesn't mean that the old one goes into the trash. You can sell it or use it in another computer.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,803
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.

Alder Lake next year - that's a joke right?

Rocket Lake isn't being released until next March at best so the chances of Intel releasing ADL in 9 months or less is slim to none.

RKL will battle Zen3 which will most likely have price drops/cheaper SKUs by then and ADL will have to fight 5nm Zen4 by the time it is released.

AMD is sitting very good right now.
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,197
Prices will go down once two things happen:

AMD gets more Wafer allocation for TSMC 7nm

And

AMD fills its current Console Launch APU contracts.

Give it one or two quarters. They want to make the gap between Intel and themselves as wide as possible, but there are only so many wafers going around. They have a FINITE amount of chips to sell. They are going to only sell premium X series chips until they can get more quantity.
 

Decko87

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
1,799
Prices will go down once two things happen:

AMD gets more Wafer allocation for TSMC 7nm

And

AMD fills its current Console Launch APU contracts.

Give it one or two quarters. They want to make the gap between Intel and themselves as wide as possible, but there are only so many wafers going around. They have a FINITE amount of chips to sell. They are going to only sell premium X series chips until they can get more quantity.
Dead on, also, Intel being more competitive in March will likely lower prices as well. I'm going to get a 5900x at some point, but it'll likely be sub 500 by the time I buy it.
 

Chelica

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
2,347
Really it depends. There are so many hobbies out there, and other things that people splurge on. People buy expensive golf clubs and then never go golfing. People buy expensive archery sets / bows that end up as wall decorations. People buy expensive quadcopters and then never fly them. People buy expensive stereos and then never actually use them to listen to music. The examples are endless. A bad value is spending money on something that you don't use. Spending money on something that you literally use for multiple hours every single day is not a bad value, and quite easy to justify IMO.

And upgrading your CPU doesn't mean that the old one goes into the trash. You can sell it or use it in another computer.
Oh for sure. However, those folks that treat this as a hobby wouldn't be the same ones complaining about price hikes. There's a price to pay to play and if one is okay with it, then it's their $$. I'm just talking about folks that have the previous gen and then complain about the cost to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

I personally am ready to upgrade. I usually skip a gen or two and then decide on which pathway to go depending on my needs. I have not built an AMD rig for a VERY long time and am pretty excited to give the 5900x a try.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
716
I forget, how many gens does am4 support now? Amd hooks you up with a drop in upgrade AGAIN and your pissin yourselves?
Hmm yeah lets bitch about $50. The average rig runs what 1500 2000 grand...yup 50 bucks is going to break ya. Suck it up and thank AMD for existing.
 

Opus131

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
205
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.

Well, i was looking at the 5600x vis the 10600k.

The 10900k was always overpriced with the 10700k being the better deal by far. Again, always when talking about gaming i guess the 10900k had its productivity niche. Same with the 5900x which no gamer would really need.

As for being faster. I understand that AMD is actually pretty trustworthy all considered but it's still their claim. We'll see how that goes once independent tests start popping out.
 

learners permit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
330
I've already set aside the coin I'm simply waiting for the chips to fall. Been fixing and upgrading laptops for people for last three months and managed to make enough coin for a 5800X doing it.
 

Jinto

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
1,695
The pricing is definitely a bit weird. Don't see how the 5800x makes sense when it is so much more than the 5600x and only $100 less than 5900x.
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,261
The pricing is definitely a bit weird. Don't see how the 5800x makes sense when it is so much more than the 5600x and only $100 less than 5900x.
could be long term strategy to get people to buy 12 core CPUs now, so the next time they upgrade, they will want at least 12 cores again. And since intel doesn't offer much bang for the buck over 10 cores, they would go AMD again. AMD isn't just in the business of selling CPUs, theyre in the business of customer retention.
 
Top