Phynaz
Lifer
- Mar 13, 2006
- 10,140
- 819
- 126
Somebody PLEASE create a Ryzen Price Speculation thread.... *sigh*
You could.
Somebody PLEASE create a Ryzen Price Speculation thread.... *sigh*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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."
Shocking Intel isn't in AMD's best interest, esp when yield is likely lousy.
Globalfoundries has the best 14/16nm yield in the industry.
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.
The 4 cores die might be 30% smaller only, 40% at most With heavy volumes on the 4 cores side.
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.is there any evidence to back that up?
is there any evidence to back that up?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Or even at 4GHz it can be a lot slower than 6900K...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...