• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD Zen - Key Dates and Information

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,129
2,088
136
You are right in that sense. I just interprete it against the non hedt line. I might be wrong. I just dont see it as a interesting segment selling 600usd cpu so therefore interpreted the naming as they were gunning for up till i7 4c desktop.
Like I showed you it poses no problem for intel, why would it be any different for AMD? It is even simpler in AMD's case since AM4 supports all SKUs and there are no 2 platforms which might confuse some not-so tech savvy buyers(imagine a person buying s2011 CPU and s1151 board,it wouldn't be funny even though his board supports i7 chips :S). AMD would have no such problem as ANY Ryzen or RR/BR will slide in any AM4 board.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,881
5,842
136
It's really surprising for me that so many people are saying that AMD hadn't competitive CPU in the last decade.
What was wrong with Phenom II X4/X6 (2009/2010) - in fact, it was a very decent processor.
They were good, but they were not great. Thuban actually got close to competing with Nehalem on MT workloads, but that was near the end of Nehalem's run. Magny-Cours was respectable but not great in the workstation/server world. AMD lost a lot of market share with those CPUs regardless of how much I and others might have liked them.

There is no consumer market for cpu above 500 usd worth talking about. Its certainly less than 0.5M this year. And certainly not for amd. You mention the problem yourself.
That is why I expect their flagship to sell at $499. Slower/lower core count Zen will go for less. I think it'll bottom out at $150-$200 for their weakest quad which will compete directly with i5 CPUs.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,906
1,527
136
Like I showed you it poses no problem for intel, why would it be any different for AMD? It is even simpler in AMD's case since AM4 supports all SKUs and there are no 2 platforms which might confuse some not-so tech savvy buyers(imagine a person buying s2011 CPU and s1151 board,it wouldn't be funny even though his board supports i7 chips :S). AMD would have no such problem as ANY Ryzen or RR/BR will slide in any AM4 board.
I think amd faces the same problems as they do on gpu side vs nv. They have trouble selling for the same prices because they are not the premium brand.
I agree its more simple with one am4 solution and its a good argument. Am4 also lowers cost vs 2011. But still 2011 signals premium in spades. No matter that no consumer (-1) can use all the pci lanes or quad mem.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,864
1,620
126
My prediction on pricing:

8C16T BE - $799
8C16T - $599
6C12T - $389
4C8T - $279 ($249 if clocks aren't that great but only okay)
4C4T - OEM only ~ removed from market once Raven Ridge arrives

High enough to soak the early adopters a bit to rake in the profits AND to discourage Intel from responding. Cheaper enough to offer a reason to go with Ryzen, esp since boards should be cheaper than HEDT and presumably also includes a decent fan. Can cut prices later once yields get better and Skylake-X is released.
 

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
344
149
116
Dont think amd will go as high as 799. They have to shock intel enough so if intel wants to compete they have to slash their prices big. I think 599 for zr7 ryzen with 4ghz turbo boost.

Almost half the price of 6900 which puts intel in a bad position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButtMagician

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,864
1,620
126
Dont think amd will go as high as 799. They have to shock intel enough so if intel wants to compete they have to slash their prices big. I think 599 for zr7 ryzen with 4ghz turbo boost.

Almost half the price of 6900 which puts intel in a bad position.
Shocking Intel isn't in AMD's best interest, esp when yield is likely lousy.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,570
126
Dont think amd will go as high as 799. They have to shock intel enough so if intel wants to compete they have to slash their prices big. I think 599 for zr7 ryzen with 4ghz turbo boost.

Almost half the price of 6900 which puts intel in a bad position.
If they can do that, then I don't understand what the 1 month or so wait is for on both doing it and telling us.
If they told us right now that we could buy the 6900K competitor for $599 in a month, we'd all wait to upgrade.
If they'd told us a month ago, a lot of KL chips and BW-E chips probably wouldn't have been sold.

This is why I think the prices will be competitive, rather than half.
If they could beat Intel by half, I think they'd have released something already.
 

dahorns

Senior member
Sep 13, 2013
550
83
91
Dont think amd will go as high as 799. They have to shock intel enough so if intel wants to compete they have to slash their prices big. I think 599 for zr7 ryzen with 4ghz turbo boost.

Almost half the price of 6900 which puts intel in a bad position.
The last thing AMD wants is a price war with Intel. Only one company has the finances to survive that, and it isn't AMD. The smarter move is a slight discount, but mainly relying on Ryzen's performance to compete and take some market share while keeping margins high to replenish the company.
 

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
344
149
116
The last thing AMD wants is a price war with Intel. Only one company has the finances to survive that, and it isn't AMD. The smarter move is a slight discount, but mainly relying on Ryzen's performance to compete and take some market share while keeping margins high to replenish the company.
At CES, the company [AMD] openly asked journalists what it should be priced at. Price an eight-core Ryzen at around £400/$500 and you bring down the cost of eight-core chips to that of a six-core—a solid move for consumers, but not one that will greatly affect mainstream performance. Price it the same as a quad-core i7-7700K—about £300/$330—and you dramatically shake up the industry. The decision is yet to be made.

"There are a lot of discussions going on," says Hallock. "We're capturing the feedback. We wanna take share, we wanna be the best price/performance option, we wanna be the first on people's minds. That's part of the bounding box for pricing discussions as well as paying off the R&D investment... We're looking at what Intel does—and we're not gonna do that. We think people want the choice, and need the choice. The market needs the choice—hopefully we can turn it around."
found on arstechnica.com CES coverage (sorry lost original link)
 

bjt2

Senior member
Sep 11, 2016
784
180
86
My prediction on pricing:

8C16T BE - $799
8C16T - $599
6C12T - $389
4C8T - $279 ($249 if clocks aren't that great but only okay)
4C4T - OEM only ~ removed from market once Raven Ridge arrives

High enough to soak the early adopters a bit to rake in the profits AND to discourage Intel from responding. Cheaper enough to offer a reason to go with Ryzen, esp since boards should be cheaper than HEDT and presumably also includes a decent fan. Can cut prices later once yields get better and Skylake-X is released.
I agree. Especially if the top bin is over 3.6GHz. That clock could give more performance than 6900K in most if not all workloads. If it's clocked over 3.6, the correct price would be $999 or $1099, but to counteract INTEL that could lower 6950K at $1100 and 6900K even lower, better start with an already lower price.

The $599 can be the 3.4 base one. If the turbo is higher enough, also this can be faster than 6900K in most workloads...
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,721
1,115
136
The 4 cores die might be 30% smaller only, 40% at most With heavy volumes on the 4 cores side.
You keep repeating this BUT:
There is only 1 die and it's a 8-core die. A 4-core has either 4 dysfunctional or disabled cores. The 16-core server part is an MCM. These are 2 of the few facts we know.

That's why I don't see very cheap quads being released (at least $150) if at all. Selling 8-core as quads only makes sense if process yields suck or demand for 8-core parts is lower than expected. If it is a hit, be sure most 8-cores will be bought up as server parts probably for 1k+ and hence why would AMD sell the same die for only $150 if demand for same die at $1k is high?
 

bjt2

Senior member
Sep 11, 2016
784
180
86
is there any evidence to back that up?
480 prices, I suppose. There are news of $180 for a full board... If the yield were so low, they couldn't afford this price.
It's true that a GPU is easier to manufacture, but i guess that the chip is bigger than Zen, at least because of GDDR5 memory controller and other video stuff that occupy much space...
 

dahorns

Senior member
Sep 13, 2013
550
83
91
found on arstechnica.com CES coverage (sorry lost original link)
AMD can live up to that statement without starting a price war. For instance, using a single unified platform for consumer products is a pretty big departure from Intel's approach. So is releasing desktop chips without igpus. I also believe AMD will simplify the number of SKUs rather than mimic the confusing jumble that is Intel's number-salad lineup. AMD wants to lead in price/performance while maintaining Ryzen's status a premium product. I think it will do that by pitting its top AM4 chip against Intel's enthusiast line, but at ~half the price to account for the consumer versus server nature of the AM4 platform. The remaining SKUs will slot in from there, with the 6c/12t going against the 4c/8t i7 and so on.

To be clear, this is all speculation on my part. No sources. No secrets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dfk7677

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
344
149
116
AMD can live up to that statement without starting a price war. For instance, using a single unified platform for consumer products is a pretty big departure from Intel's approach. So is releasing desktop chips without igpus. I also believe AMD will simplify the number of SKUs rather than mimic the confusing jumble that is Intel's number-salad lineup. AMD wants to lead in price/performance while maintaining Ryzen's status a premium product. I think it will do that by pitting its top AM4 chip against Intel's enthusiast line, but at ~half the price to account the consumer versus server nature of the AM4 platform. The remaining SKUs will slot in from there, with the 6c/12t going against the 4c/8t i7 and so on.

To be clear, this is all speculation on my part. No sources. No secrets.
After 1.5 years of Zen speculation I am glad it all comes to an end in 1-2 months from now.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,931
19,607
136
The last thing AMD wants is a price war with Intel. Only one company has the finances to survive that, and it isn't AMD. The smarter move is a slight discount, but mainly relying on Ryzen's performance to compete and take some market share while keeping margins high to replenish the company.
AMD is basically starting at zero point right now when it comes to server/database, even enthusiast market. The last of these that wants a price war is Intel--they have far, far much more to lose than does AMD. I predict they won't budge on flagship/mainstream pricing for at least 6 months after Ryzen release, regardless of what AMD prices them at.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,541
461
126
My prediction on pricing:

8C16T BE - $799
8C16T - $599
6C12T - $389
4C8T - $279 ($249 if clocks aren't that great but only okay)
4C4T - OEM only ~ removed from market once Raven Ridge arrives

High enough to soak the early adopters a bit to rake in the profits AND to discourage Intel from responding. Cheaper enough to offer a reason to go with Ryzen, esp since boards should be cheaper than HEDT and presumably also includes a decent fan. Can cut prices later once yields get better and Skylake-X is released.
I like to think it won't be that expensive for the 8 cores. AMD don't have the marketing power or brand awareness of Intel so will need to be very aggressive to entice not just people, but more importantly, any OEMs that may be up for tender when their contract with Intel expires. I'm hoping for $699 for any BE, $500 for regular 8c and $350 for a 6 core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CentroX

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
5,413
1,996
136
If they can do that, then I don't understand what the 1 month or so wait is for on both doing it and telling us.
If they told us right now that we could buy the 6900K competitor for $599 in a month, we'd all wait to upgrade.
If they'd told us a month ago, a lot of KL chips and BW-E chips probably wouldn't have been sold.

This is why I think the prices will be competitive, rather than half.
If they could beat Intel by half, I think they'd have released something already.
They can't sell you anything right now so why give you a price?

Sure it might get you to hold off a purchase but you'll already do that. Giving you a price gives Intel a price and a month ahead of time to respond.

Unless they can sell you a chip they have no reason to give out more data.
 

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
344
149
116
A lot of people has pointed out that Asus was the only one who didnt show a X370 motherboard at CES. Weird. They had the B350, but I am not getting that one.
 

KTE

Senior member
May 26, 2016
478
130
76
I agree. Especially if the top bin is over 3.6GHz. That clock could give more performance than 6900K in most if not all workloads. If it's clocked over 3.6, the correct price would be $999 or $1099, [...]

The $599 can be the 3.4 base one. If the turbo is higher enough, also this can be faster than 6900K in most workloads...
Or even at 4GHz it can be a lot slower than 6900K...

Just using your baseless 'logic'


I don't envisage the top-end launch SKU being higher than $600, at any rate.

Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
 

Tup3x

Senior member
Dec 31, 2016
497
361
136
Considering that 6800K is closer to 400 € than 500 € in many places I'd think that 8 core Ryzen would be close to 400 €. It would totally make sense for AMD to offer a bit more at the same price or a bit less. Also AM4 is simpler platform too. 8 core Über Bling Bling WC Edition could cost more.

8 core Ryzen would not be worth it at all if it costs >200 € more than 6800K.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY