AMD Ryzen (Summit Ridge) Benchmarks Thread (use new thread)

[realibrad]

So that I can stay within a few pages of people (I'm never going to be on teh same page as you guys), we are only talking about HEDT/DT chips, right? Not the later Zen Cores meant for enterprise/servers?

While I love this as a consumer, I don't really like those prices for AMD. Recall that during those generations when AMD was winning the uncontested performance crowns, they did have the highest-price chips. If they are competing within the same level here, I can't see AMD justifying a 50% price cut on relative same performance--not for the high end top binned core. If the 6900K remains at the $1-1.2k price, I think AMD needs to price that competitor at a minimum of $800. Enthusiasts in the market for a 1k chip anyway are going to spend $800, or $900. Not a problem, and AMD needs that cash. Honestly, while it is good to see 8 cores going mainstream, I think that segment really should bottom out in the ~$550 range. I think the 6 core chip should be the mainstream high-core consumer chip. I like your $250 price there, maybe $250-300.

$150 for the 4c seems like a legit AMD price.

Either way, assuming they get perfect yields and binning within those yields, AMD would do extremely well at those price points, of course also assuming this performance is very much real, and the early notes of a rather disappointing KabyLake (same performance, 10W less) are also true.

AMD has a brand problem for many people. Even if they beat Intel by 5%, they could not charge the same as Intel. Intel is seen as a premium solution in the CPU world and AMD is not. For AMD to charge as much as Intel, they would have to beat them by a large margin. If AMD can string a few wins together, they can start to creep up their price, but if they do it too soon they will cut into their sales. If I were AMD, I would focus on getting more market share and lose a little margin on the desktop side.

 

[Ajay]

If you dont understand what that means then there s no use to even argue about anything...

It doesn't mean anything on it's own - parasitic loses, etc. can cause joules/cycle to vary for reasons other than energy sunk into flipping gates. Or do you mean something else?

 

[AtenRa]

It sure will be interesting. I wonder if Intel will reduce prices.

Have you seen the rumors for the price of the unlocked Core i3 ??

 

[FlanK3r]

Not even remotely close. With 200 samples and a 5960X/6900K/6950X you get 45-50 seconds. It requires a 4.25Ghz 6950X to get to AMDs 6900K stock number if 200 samples.



...con artist AMDs marketing is? Correct. Why change a good habit after 10 years of non stop.

AMD guy said, it was 150 samples settings. For score both systems this seems more realistic than 200 or 100.

 

[zinfamous]

AMD has a brand problem for many people. Even if they beat Intel by 5%, they could not charge the same as Intel. Intel is seen as a premium solution in the CPU world and AMD is not. For AMD to charge as much as Intel, they would have to beat them by a large margin. If AMD can string a few wins together, they can start to creep up their price, but if they do it too soon they will cut into their sales. If I were AMD, I would focus on getting more market share and lose a little margin on the desktop side.

Right, that's why I think they should underprice, but not by by 50%. As you say, the perception of premium is real. If AMD charges $500 for an equal/better performer to Intel's $1k cheap, they don't look like a value--they look like junk.

The Apple effect.

All things being equal, $800 vs $1k seems like the sweet spot. Yeah, at $500 you are going to get a lot of sales (Assuming you have the yield to accommodate that), but AMD also has to think about profit. I understand their market-share gaining strategy and it does them well here to target that mainstream a little bit more than enthusiast, but they can do that with the 4 and 6c processors, imo. pricing their top chips inline with Intel still keeps value at the ultra high end for customers that are going to spend that money anyway. People in that tier are savvy and probably aren't swayed by perceptions of premium, and they already know who AMD is. They are probably going to make their judgement based on performance in a rather nuanced and informed way. I don't think price matters as much to those customers as it does to AMD needing to capture more profit from them.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD is after the OEMs, cheap 6 Core 12 Thread (65W TDP) Desktop machines with Polaris RX 460 (75W TDP). And that package bellow 200W,

 

[zinfamous]

AMD is after the OEMs, cheap 6 Core 12 Thread Desktop machines with Polaris RX 460

a 6c Zen paired with a 460...does this make any sense? lol.

Or would that be a typical APU design going forward? hmm. still, seems too many threads to power a 460, no?

 

[AtenRa]

a 6c Zen paired with a 460...does this make any sense? lol.

Or would that be a typical APU design going forward? hmm. still, seems too many threads to power a 460, no?

This is for an OEM system, the more cores the better they sell

 

[Ajay]

Have you seen the rumors for the price of the unlocked Core i3 ??

I should have specified that I meant HEDT.

 

[KTE]

If you dont understand what that means then there s no use to even argue about anything...

You are so knowledgeable.

Please enlighten me by bringing up some randomly confusingly worded gibberish pseudoscience that has nothing to do with the slide.

Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)

 

[sirmo]

Good news for AMD keep rolling in, Unity a very popular engine just introduced Vulkan support with huge gains on many core systems: http://techreport.com/news/31116/unity-engine-adds-vulkan-support-for-a-big-performance-boost

 

[AtenRa]

I should have specified that I meant HEDT.

I mentioned the Core i3 because the rumor is for close to $170, if they will try to sell a dual core at $170 in 2017, I wouldnt expect them to lower prices of the HEDT CPUs.

 

[Ajay]

Perhaps I missed this, but how many lanes will Ryzen support (off CPU, not via chipset)?

 

[Ajay]

I mentioned the Core i3 because the rumor is for close to $170, if they will try to sell a dual core at $170 in 2017, I wouldnt expect them to lower prices of the HEDT CPUs.

Good point - so no price changes out of the gate. Guess we'll see what happens once Zen is out in high volume (like Q2).

 

[sirmo]

Perhaps I missed this, but how many lanes will Ryzen support (off CPU, not via chipset)?

I don't think we know yet.

 

[inf64]

Looks like AMD did a bit of "sandbagging" with the 40% ST IPC claim .
If the 4C/8T part really gets a 150$ price tag, locked or unlocked, there is no way intel can price an unlocked i3 Skylake at 150+$. Nobody sane would buy it.

 

[Abwx]

It doesn't mean anything on it's own - parasitic loses, etc. can cause joules/cycle to vary for reasons other than energy sunk into flipping gates. Or do you mean something else?

Parasistic losses are accounted anyway when they say same energy per cycle, Zen with its static parameters will consume the same as XV with its own characteristic and this with 40% more instructions executed each cycle, the terms are self explanatory and there s a slide to better understand :

 

[AtenRa]

Looks like AMD did a bit of "sandbagging" with the 40% ST IPC claim .
If the 4C/8T part really gets a 150$ price tag, locked or unlocked, there is no way intel can price an unlocked i3 Skylake at 150+$. Nobody sane would buy it.

I will be happy even if the 4C 8T starts at $200 and $300 for the 6C 12T.

 

[SPBHM]

I mentioned the Core i3 because the rumor is for close to $170, if they will try to sell a dual core at $170 in 2017, I wouldnt expect them to lower prices of the HEDT CPUs.

well that's the unlocked one, the others will have more sane pricing, still if AMD can deliver some 4c/8t with decent single thread performance and able to OC for prices close enough to i3s, it's going to be great.

 

[Phynaz]

If I were AMD, I would focus on getting more market share and lose a little margin on the desktop side.

Which is exactly AMD has said they are not going to do.

 

[Phynaz]

If the 4C/8T part really gets a 150$ price tag, locked or unlocked, there is no way intel can price an unlocked i3 Skylake at 150+$. Nobody sane would buy it.

Corporate America will buy them by the millions. Of course OEMs don't pay retail prices.

 

[raghu78]

AMD has a brand problem for many people. Even if they beat Intel by 5%, they could not charge the same as Intel. Intel is seen as a premium solution in the CPU world and AMD is not. For AMD to charge as much as Intel, they would have to beat them by a large margin. If AMD can string a few wins together, they can start to creep up their price, but if they do it too soon they will cut into their sales. If I were AMD, I would focus on getting more market share and lose a little margin on the desktop side.

The brand problem matters with OEM sales. For the ordinary layman who knows nothing about the components of a computer and buys from best buy yeah Intel's brand is preferable. The enthusiasts who want the top performance would not bat an eyelid to switch to AMD if they provide better performance. Did you forget that AMD sold USD 1000 CPUs back in the Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 X2 days and charged as much as Intel did and had no problem selling whatever they could manufacture..

btw are you kidding about losing margin on desktop side. Currently there is no margin to lose as its all losses. The problem for AMD has been that Bulldozer was a disaster. AMD has huge losses because they are not selling any reasonable volume of CPUs or APUs at all. Their current CPUs are shunned by almost everyone due to the stigma of horrible single thread performance and obsolete products with horrible perf/watt (FX series). Their APU sales is also miserable and not enough to even cover their R&D cost for Zen. With Zen AMD are on track to release a vastly more competitive CPU architecture. AMD needs to balance market share and profitability. AMD's goal should be to get to > 20% market share in CPU sales with reasonably good margins as quickly as possible. I think AMD can easily achieve that even if they launch Zen at USD 200(4C/8T) - USD 600(8C/16T). The indications are that AMD will go with such a pricing. If AMD launch at USD 150 - USD 500 I would be surprised. I also think Intel Kabylake and Skylake are still going to be ahead with IPC, stock perf and max clocks. But Zen puts AMD on a road to recovery. If AMD can follow up with a nice IPC bump with Zen+ then 2018 could be very interesting. There are rumours that Zen+ could be manufactured at GF 14HP which is scheduled for a H2 2017 ramp. There is a distinct possibility that AMD could hit 5 Ghz on air and match Intel max clocks in 2018.

 

[realibrad]

The brand problem matters with OEM sales. For the ordinary layman who knows nothing about the components of a computer and buys from best buy yeah Intel's brand is preferable. The enthusiasts who want the top performance would not bat an eyelid to switch to AMD if they provide better performance. Did you forget that AMD sold USD 1000 CPUs back in the Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 X2 days and charged as much as Intel did and had no problem selling whatever they could manufacture..

btw are you kidding about losing margin on dekstop side. AMD has huge losses because they are not selling any reasonable volume of CPUs or APUs at all. Their current CPUs are shunned by almost everyone due to the stigma of horrible single thread performance and obsolete products with horrible perf/watt (FX series). Their APU sales is also miserable and not enough to even cover their R&D cost for Zen. With Zen AMD are on track to release a vastly more competitive CPU architecture. AMD needs to balance market share and profitability. AMD's goal should be to get to > 20% market share in CPU sales with reasonably good margins as quickly as possible. I think AMD can easily achieve that even if they launch Zen at USD 200(4C/8T) - USD 600(8C/16T). The indications are that AMD will go with such a pricing. If AMD launch at USD 150 - USD 500 I would be surprised. I also think Intel Kabylake and Skylake are still going to be ahead with IPC, stock perf and max clocks. But Zen puts AMD on a road to recovery. If AMD can follow up with a nice IPC bump with Zen+ then 2018 could be very interesting. There are rumours that Zen+ could be manufactured at GF 14HP which is scheduled for a H2 2017 ramp. There is a distinct possibility that AMD could hit 5 Ghz on air and match Intel max clocks in 2018.

AMD is not shunned by most people because of IPC. They have lower IPC, higher power usage, and many other things. Those things mean little to nothing to most people, because most people have no idea about the tech they buy. They buy Apple because of the brand, not because they look at benchmarks and decide what works best.

I remember back in my Radioshack days trying to sell AMD computers vs Intel. People would almost always want the Intel PC because that is what they knew. Tech people knew that AMD was better, but nobody else really did. So even though AMD had a $999 cpu and beat Intel, people still wanted Intel. If you work in a non-tech company, ask your coworkers if they know AMD and what they do, then ask Intel.

I'm not saying AMD should take a loss, I'm saying they should make less profit to get some market share back. AMD has had its stock price jump, so they are not in the same position they usually are in. If they have a winner with zen, they need to not only look at today, but tomorrow. If they price it around $800-$700 like Zin said, I think that would not only get them some cash, but also lots of market share. It will get people talking about them and allow them to get more investment which should allow for more R&D.

 

[krumme]

Amd might wish for high prices and start as such but it will be shortlived when production ramps up.
The alternative to selling zen is selling polaris or some 28nm apu. Fx is just horendeous. The apu gives a loss too. Polaris is probably the only thing profitable at the moment. Its 230mm2 and cost 200 usd for an entire card. Even a 8c zen at 150 makes more profit.
Amd needs to sell Zen more than Intel needs to reach full capacity. Their current lineup produced at gf is in ruins as shown by their financials. Their current gf margins is down the drain.
I do not know what their capacity is but they are bound to change it to Zen asap. And they will just be forced to lower price to get there.
Remember the wsa also means they pay if they do not use gf enough.

 

[Harmaaviini]

Interesting clockspeed discussion. It seems that consensus has shifted to 3.4 GHz base clock. But if you watch the AMD event at 27:20 https://youtu.be/4DEfj2MRLtA?t=1641

From the context I infer that the 3.4 GHz is the base clock for the "low" end Ryzen and there will be another 8 core SKU with even higher base clocks. On the screen there is only 8c/16t 3.4 GHz+ 20MB L2+L3 cache. But 4/6 core chips won't have that kind of cache so I assume that 3.4 GHz+ also refers only to 8 core SKUs.