ITT: We discuss future pricing and availability for AM3+ processors and mobos

[cbn]

32nm is fully mature and payed back. There really isnt anything to gain.

And when you use the absolute lowest bin for the 246mm2, you should as well for the 315mm2. It would be the quadcore FX.

A4-7300 was introduced July 3, 2014 ( http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-A4-Series A4-7300 - AD7300OKA23HL - AD7300OKHLBOX.html ) and I am referencing a date six months from now (so end of June 2015) for the $60 hexcore.

So if AMD can launch a $40 246mm2 low binned chip in July 2014, I would think a $60 315mm2 chip a year later wouldn't be much of a challenge.

315mm2 is only 28% greater die size compared to 246mm2, yet the price @ $60 would be 50% higher than $40 246mm2 one (plus the $60 315mm2 chip will have had an additional year to benefit from any process improvements)

 

[Magic Carpet]

AM3+ with the 970 chipset is still plenty modern enough for a product in the value segment. It does lack usb 3.0*, but does have six SATA 6 GBps and is capable of PCIe 2.0 x16 and PCIe x4 together.

*All 970 AM3+ boards I have seen on Newegg do have third party usb 3.0 though.

There are 970 boards that do x8/x8 when both slots are populated. For example. That is one killer mobo for the money, imo. AM3+ is outdated, but does everything my Haswell rig can. A bit slower, while using more power. But it gets the job done.

 

[ShintaiDK]

A4-7300 was introduced July 3, 2014 ( http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-A4-Series%20A4-7300%20-%20AD7300OKA23HL%20-%20AD7300OKHLBOX.html ) and I am referencing a date six months from now (so end of June 2015) for the $60 hexcore.

So if AMD can launch a $40 246mm2 low binned chip in July 2014, I would think a $60 315mm2 chip a year later wouldn't be much of a challenge.

315mm2 is only 28% greater die size compared to 246mm2, yet the price @ $60 would be 50% higher than $40 246mm2 one (plus the $60 315mm2 chip will have had an additional year to benefit from any process improvements)

You still compare apples and oranges. You refer to a hexcore, while the lowest bin is a quadcore. And you compare it to the absolute lowest bin for the other one.

Odd thing, seems to be 2 A4 7300.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-A4-Series A4-7300.html

And where do you see 40$? Its 46$ on newegg and out of stock/not avaliable. And its 57$ at amazon.

It also seems like a very low volume product. Basicly trash recovery.

 

[cbn]

Odd thing, seems to be 2 A4 7300.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-A4-Series A4-7300.html

That is older info.

The one I posted is the correct one.

 

[cbn]

And where do you see 40$? Its 46$ on newegg and out of stock/not avaliable. And its 57$ at amazon.

It was $40/free shipping on Amazon for the longest time (as in several months).

 

[ShintaiDK]

It was $40/free shipping on Amazon for the longest time (as in several months).

Got a link? Because all i find is this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MU00HGK

 

[cbn]

You still compare apples and oranges. You refer to a hexcore, while the lowest bin is a quadcore. And you compare it to the absolute lowest bin for the other one.

Yes, and the hexcore would have 1 year extra time on the 32nm process to make that yield more achievable.

Furthermore, the price on the $60 hexcore would be greater per mm2 silicon than a product launched 1 year prior.

 

[cbn]

Got a link? Because all i find is this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MU00HGK

Here was a recent hot deals link --> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2411117&highlight=7300

(The $40 price was not a hot deal though)

Notice my comment in post #2. That processor was $40 shipped for at least 2.5 months straight.

 

[cbn]

AMD also sells a whole bunch of other FM2 chips for $40 and below:

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#k=23&sort=a7

(I am counting five FM2 SKUs currently $40 and below. Most of these were launched even earlier than that A4-7300.)

 

[Ramses]

hard to believe you can buy a cpu, any newish cpu, for forty bucks. jeez

 

[ShintaiDK]

AMD also sells a whole bunch of other FM2 chips for $40 and below:

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#k=23&sort=a7

(I am counting five FM2 SKUs currently $40 and below. Most of these were launched even earlier than that A4-7300.)

Are those chips still in production? And what volume was/is they in?

If the hexcore you dream of is to cost 60$, how much for the quadcore? Whats left after all the cost?

Even if we pretend 100% yield. You get a raw cost of something like 13-14$ just for the raw wafer cost. Then you need to fuse it, package it, test it, logistics, sales, adding of cooler, warranty handling, support, shop/oem profits.

The first issue however is that yield is nowhere near 100%.

 

[cbn]

Plus you cant just say that the 315mm2 chips are 28% bigger, hence must cost only 28% more. Thats not how it works.

Yes, I do know that larger dies yield much worse than smaller dies.

But I also know that as time goes by yields also improve on any given node.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes, I do know that larger dies yield much worse than smaller dies.

But I also know that as time goes by yields also improve on any given node.

Time already happend. Focus is moved away from 32nm long ago.

You can look at prices in terms of how low AMD wish/can go. FX4300 is 100$, FX6300 is 110$, FX8320 is 150$, FX8350 is 180$. (Newegg prices.)

What you ask to is for them to effectively cut prices in half.

 

[tential]

Wrong Thread

 

[cbn]

You can look at prices in terms of how low AMD wish/can go. FX4300 is 100$, FX6300 is 110$, FX8320 is 150$, FX8350 is 180$. (Newegg prices.)

What you ask to is for them to effectively cut prices in half.

If AMD can move big core APUs in notebooks (where they really belong), they can increase volume on both AM3+ and Jaguar/Puma APU for desktop to fill the void left by FM2/FM2+ at both the high and and low end.

With a higher volume, dropping prices should be a lot easier.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If AMD can move big core APUs in notebooks (where they really belong), they can increase volume on both AM3+ and Jaguar/Puma APU for desktop to fill the void left by FM2/FM2+ at both the high and and low end.

With a higher volume, dropping prices should be a lot easier.

Why would they want to increase FX volume, when they gain better cost saving in your example by increasing APU volume? not to mention their goal is to lower the FX volume in favour of APUs. Without APUs in the desktop AMD would lose marketshare even faster.

And remember, only a minority buys a discrete graphics card. So buying a FX=Extra cost. If no APU, then they buy Intel with IGP.

Step back, look on it from a business perspective. If its bad its already a no go.

 

[cbn]

Why would they want to increase FX volume, when they gain better cost saving in your example by increasing APU volume? not to mention their goal is to lower the FX volume in favour of APUs. Without APUs in the desktop AMD would lose marketshare even faster.

Kaveri APUs are much better suited for mobile. The OEM desktops come with dual channel DDR3 1600 memory for an A10 Kaveri. <---How much sense does that make? And the APUs are really expensive too.

At least with mobile, the Kaveri iGPU is clocked lower so it doesn't choke so much on the lack of bandwidth.

Therefore, the best choice IMO would be to get Kaveri out of those desktops and replace them at the high end with a value priced hexcore using a chipset with integrated graphics.

Then at the low end of FM2/FM2+ desktop, a fast clocked Jaguar/Puma quad core APU would be the replacement.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Kaveri APUs are much better suited for mobile. The OEM desktops come with dual channel DDR3 1600 memory for an A10 Kaveri. <---How much sense does that make? And the APUs are really expensive too.

At least with mobile, the Kaveri iGPU is clocked lower so it doesn't choke so much on the lack of bandwidth.

Therefore, the best choice IMO would be to get Kaveri out of those desktops and replace them at the high end with a value priced hexcore using a chipset with integrated graphics.

Then at the low end of FM2/FM2+ desktop, a fast clocked Jaguar/Puma quad core APU would be the replacement.

So you want to design a whole new chipset with IGP for the FX series? Maybe move the IMC as well not to cripple the IGP too much? See some issues here? Also you cant clock a Jaguar/Puma into the fast category.

OEMs and the wast desktop buyer crowd want the exact opposite. The only sole reason the FX even exist is due to the server adventure they lost completely. Same reason why the only IGP less chips from Intel comes from the server segment. Consumer CPUs from Intel is counted as 99% IGP. Thats about how small and insignificant the niche you appeal to is. Hence why APU is the future, not FX chips.

Or to put it differently, you dont have a valid business case.

 

[cbn]

So you want to design a whole new chipset with IGP for the FX series?

There are already chipsets for AM3+ with integrated graphics.

 

[cbn]

Also you cant clock a Jaguar/Puma into the fast category.

It only needs to cover for the dual core SKUs.

 

[cbn]

OEMs and the wast desktop buyer crowd want the exact opposite.

An expensive A10 APU choked by dual channel DDR3 1600 is what OEMs and the vast desktop buyer crowd want?

In contrast, the two options I proposed above have small, but adequate iGPUs and I think they are both better options for the vast desktop buyer crowd (as you call it) than something with up to 512 GCN stream processors (that can't even be used to its full potential due to lack of bandwidth).

 

[ShintaiDK]

There are already chipsets for AM3+ with integrated graphics.

Do you know how old they are and how they perform? We talk anno 2010 Intel IGP speeds. Hell, my i5 661 in my HTPC is faster.

Plus those chipsets are like 18-25W TDP for the northbridge alone.

 

[ShintaiDK]

An expensive A10 APU choked by dual channel DDR3 1600 is what OEMs and the vast desktop buyer crowd want?

But it gives them what they want and need.

None of them need or want 6 cores with a chipset from 2008 with whatever support it lacks today.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It only needs to cover for the dual core SKUs.

They are still too slow. Its not designed to reach those speeds.

 

[cbn]

But it gives them what they want and need.

None of them need 6 cores or a chipset from 2008.

Fact is a value priced hexcore (in a typical OEM desktop) is going to be way better for almost any enthusiast level task a quad core APU user would do.

And even if they added a video card it would still probably be cheaper and faster than the Desktop A10 APU.