• 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."

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 50 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
965
96
HEDT platform will definitely not be dead. Intel can put 8-cores on two platforms, and the higher-end platform will have 10 & 12 core options as well, with a significant upgrade in prices and more PCI-e lanes and quad channel memory. There are enough people stupid enough to buy it make it worthwhile for them to do so - along with maintaining the halo effect.

The problem with them doing it anytime soon is that they would have to have this planned for years already for maximum benefit.

I think we'll see Intel only meeting AMD prices in the middle - but not head-on - in the retail market. OEMs will get massive discounts to "encourage" their loyalty.

Intel's HEDT platform has features AMD's AM4 platform simply doesn't have - it is irrelevant if those features are valuable for most users, they will be genuinely valuable for some people... and there are, as I said, enough idiots that will pay far more than they should just because it makes them feel good.

Assuming AMD pricing as follows and NO Intel performance benefits:

Ryzen 3: 2xxx x4: $130~$200, 4/4
Ryzen 5: 2xxx x4: $250~$350, 4/8, 6/12
Ryzen 7: 2xxx x8: $350~$500, 8/16

i3 9xxx x4: $150~$200, 4/4
i5 9xxx x4: $220~$300, 4/8
i7 9xxx x6: $350~$400, 6/12 (dual platform)
i7 9xxx x8: $550~$700, 8/16 (dual platform)
i7 9xxx x10: $999~$1200, 10/20 (HEDT only)

This is what Intel would do, IMHO, with equal performance, in regards to retail pricing to counter Ryzen. Pentium and Celeron would still be dual core, but Pentium will have hyper-threading.
But the hedt line is one generation behind. Aside from a handful of people building very specific workstations, who would buy an 8 core Broadwell over a faster 8 core Skylake just for some pcie lanes and quad channel DDR4. Most people get nothing from those things.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
716
1,638
136
Thank you for the response. You seem to posses a fair bit of Industry knowledge so let me ask your and anyone else's opinion on this.

We have the
1800X at $499.99 retail
1700X at $399 retail
1700 at $329 retail

How much gross revenue do you think AMD makes on each one? I know big box OEM's have razor thin margins on PC's these days (probably a bit skewed by all the $399 beige boxes that these Ryzen CPUs will NOT be in), so for big retailers such as Amazon and Newegg that probably purchase directly from AMD/Intel, how much % do you think AMD gets to keep?
OOH, PICK ME, PICK ME!

I've already done all of the math based on what I can find :p

14nm LPP, 192mm^2, per-die-cost: $23~40 (highly yield dependent)
1331 PGA Package: $5~$7 assembled
IHS + Solder + Glue: $1~$2 assembled
Tray: $0.15
Retail: $2.25~$3.00 (w/out HSF)
Box: $9~$15 (95W~140W HSF)

So, the full range is basically $30~$65 of cost for AMD, excluding some shipping costs which are highly variable depending on the exact flow AMD is using, but should add about $1 or so to the base price.

THEN, there are destination costs (shipping, losses, legal compliance fees, etc.), this is potentially a big part of the end cost. The higher the volume, the better. If AMD sales 1000 CPUs to a large retailer, the cost per CPU for this may only be $0.50 (which is a LOT of money, when you think about it...). With orders of 100 CPUs it would cost AMD $5/CPU.

In the end, though, AMD is still making bank per unit sold.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
716
1,638
136
But the hedt line is one generation behind. Aside from a handful of people building very specific workstations, who would buy an 8 core Broadwell over a faster 8 core Skylake just for some pcie lanes and quad channel DDR4. Most people get nothing from those things.
Skylake-X 8-core vs Ryzen 8-core... we know who wins. And by a healthy margin.

As it stands, Intel has less incentive to move prices but a major incentive to move core counts.

i3 will become all quad core.
i5 will become quad core with hyper-threading
i7 will begin with six cores.

This re-positioning is to align with AMD on a core-count basis and has already begun. Intel will make it look like this was something that was going to happen anyway and that they were in no way responding to AMD's feeble attempt to claim superiority.

Here, though, Intel has a split-issue. For legal reasons it is best if AMD looks competitive and actually gains some market-share... not too much, but just enough. For financial reasons it is best if AMD looks like they can't compete with anything Intel has to offer in the bulk of their sales region.

Intel will largely keep appearances by simply moving core counts around and using their superior clock speeds to win, charging ever more for a few extra cores - and always more than AMD. They will have legal protection by being able to point to needing to use more cores as a sign of having a healthy competitor, and they will use their ability to still command a healthy margin - and charge twice as much as their competitor for their respective flagship CPUs - to assuage investors' fear.

They will use Coffee Lake's 15% bump to say that they will stay one step ahead of AMD at all times and will use Cannon Lake to make a genuine 8-core die to cut their costs. They will then charge 15% more than AMD for 10% more performance while claiming to have achieved 15%.

... Or will they? (See, I'm just asking questions :p)
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,003
126
Skylake-X 8-core vs Ryzen 8-core... we know who wins. And by a healthy margin.

As it stands, Intel has less incentive to move prices but a major incentive to move core counts.

i3 will become all quad core.
i5 will become quad core with hyper-threading
i7 will begin with six cores.
Agree, but these are in effect "price cuts." ;)

This re-positioning is to align with AMD on a core-count basis and has already begun. Intel will make it look like this was something that was going to happen anyway and that they were in no way responding to AMD's feeble attempt to claim superiority.
It was going to happen anyway, Intel's product roadmap is largely driven by OEM requests.

Here, though, Intel has a split-issue. For legal reasons it is best if AMD looks competitive and actually gains some market-share... not too much, but just enough. For financial reasons it is best if AMD looks like they can't compete with anything Intel has to offer in the bulk of their sales region.
There's no legal reason for Intel to "let" AMD gain market share; if Intel wins its market share fair-and-square, then that's AMD's problem, not Intel's. For example, Intel had no issues killing the Cat core line in value notebook/desktop with Bay Trail-D/M and its successors.

Intel will largely keep appearances by simply moving core counts around and using their superior clock speeds to win, charging ever more for a few extra cores - and always more than AMD. They will have legal protection by being able to point to needing to use more cores as a sign of having a healthy competitor, and they will use their ability to still command a healthy margin - and charge twice as much as their competitor for their respective flagship CPUs - to assuage investors' fear.
How I read this, please tell me if I'm wrong: you're saying that Intel will build superior products at each tier and have higher price tiers for products that AMD doesn't have direct competitors for.

If AMD can drive Intel to build better products for the money, then that's great for everyone, no matter which brand you prefer :)

They will use Coffee Lake's 15% bump to say that they will stay one step ahead of AMD at all times and will use Cannon Lake to make a genuine 8-core die to cut their costs. They will then charge 15% more than AMD for 10% more performance while claiming to have achieved 15%.

... Or will they? (See, I'm just asking questions :p)
Coffee Lake should be a more than 15% bump in MT applications. The 15% bump Intel was referencing was probably Kaby Lake Refresh-U -- it has 2x the cores, but all core turbo is likely significantly lower in 15W envelope than it is for the dual core parts (for obvious reasons, 14nm++ is not magic).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phynaz

HBRents

Junior Member
Feb 22, 2017
15
50
41
Gross revenue or gross margin?

If you are asking for my estimate on average selling price/mix...I would say the 1700X will be the most popular, it's the "sweet spot." Clocked high out of the box, unlocked, and should be able to overclock to match/beat the more expensive 1800X. I can see the 1700 also being popular because of its price (good processor cores, and 8 of them, for $329!) though not as popular frankly as the 1700X since it is clocked much lower out of the box and I'll bet you it's lower quality silicon than the 1700X/1800X use.

As far as how much AMD gets to keep, I'd say that Newegg/Amazon/etc. probably get 15% of that selling price.
Do we know if Intel/AMD sell directly to these e-retailers? If so would that be a 85% gross margin? Also I'm assuming OEM sales would take a bit less than retail.
 

Doom2pro

Senior member
Apr 2, 2016
587
619
106
Are you certain? Some sources say 2nd, others 28th
The embargo ends the 28th, the Capcasin day... But the products don't release until the 2nd... These are two different events, so not sure what you mean by sources, they are separate and not connected as far as I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

JDG1980

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2013
1,662
565
136
There's no legal reason for Intel to "let" AMD gain market share; if Intel wins its market share fair-and-square, then that's AMD's problem, not Intel's. For example, Intel had no issues killing the Cat core line in value notebook/desktop with Bay Trail-D/M and its successors.
Except the only reason Bay Trail was even remotely competitive was because of billions in "contra-revenue" - bribes for OEMs to include the chips. In many cases an OEM would not only not have to pay anything for the Bay Trail chip, but Intel would pay THEM to use it. (How else do you think we got $199 Windows craptops from HP?) No way AMD can compete with this dumping, and it's exactly the kind of behavior antitrust laws are supposed to forbid. That Intel was never prosecuted for this misconduct was a disgrace.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
716
1,638
136
Agree, but these are in effect "price cuts." ;)
Price cuts are fine - as long as Intel never calls them that in response to AMD, that's just bad for business.

It was going to happen anyway, Intel's product roadmap is largely driven by OEM requests.
Yes, eventually. AMD just pushed it ahead. I doubt KBL-R has any six core mainstream offerings (but I'm looking ahead to Coffee Lake in 2018, clearly, and versus Zenver2, which has a 15% or so performance improvement).

I don't see Intel even being capable of moving a six-core CPU with KBL-R. They may just let AMD have their time in the sun - the retail end user isn't directly important to them anyway.

There's no legal reason for Intel to "let" AMD gain market share; if Intel wins its market share fair-and-square, then that's AMD's problem, not Intel's. For example, Intel had no issues killing the Cat core line in value notebook/desktop with Bay Trail-D/M and its successors.
To contrary, Intel has already been found guilty of violating many laws... in Europe. Intel will absolutely be willing to pay with a billion of lost revenues if it prevents them from needing to face multi-billion fines in Europe... an action that will support their newly competitive opponent and look bad with investors at the same time. AMD will not need to a file a complaint for this to occur, from my understanding of the ruling (not entirely aware of the intricacies of European anti-trust law).

Intel's contra-revenue investments were undoubtedly illegal. In time, they may even have to pay for that. I think someone has to file a legal complaint, first, and AMD is the only party capable of doing so... since it is a different market with a different class of products.

How I read this, please tell me if I'm wrong: you're saying that Intel will build superior products at each tier and have higher price tiers for products that AMD doesn't have direct competitors for.

If AMD can drive Intel to build better products for the money, then that's great for everyone, no matter which brand you prefer :)
Yes, there's no real downside for the consumer :p

It's just a matter of how AMD can manage to benefit from their investment - and how we, as responsible consumers, can help to ensure they benefit. For a very short period of time AMD has an upper hand in the HEDT performance market - equal to superior performance at vastly superior prices. That will not last until the end of the year. Intel will force that gap closed by hook or by crook or any combination of the two.

Zenver2 will come out sometime in 2018 to compete, primarily, against Coffee Lake. Both of these will likely be 15~20% improvements over their outgoing architectures. Coffee Lake, from rumors, has a six core native die. This is all Intel was going to give OEMs and consumers... and there's no way Intel would upgrade that to an 8-core die in less than a year.

Cannon Lake, however, has time to be changed to include an eight-core die.

Coffee Lake should be a more than 15% bump in MT applications. The 15% bump Intel was referencing was probably Kaby Lake Refresh-U -- it has 2x the cores, but all core turbo is likely significantly lower in 15W envelope than it is for the dual core parts (for obvious reasons, 14nm++ is not magic).
I think KBL-R and Coffee Lake are possibly one in the same, though there's a lot of confusion surrounding both (or maybe I'm just the one confused?). Both were scheduled to be released at the same time (late 2017), both have had the same rumors about them... I just think the original Coffee Lake was a different product entirely and now it's just a Kaby Lake refresh (a.k.a. Sky Lake refresh #2).

It is also possible that the two products target different markets and both exist concurrently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
How else do you think we got $199 Windows craptops from HP?
To begin with, Microsoft subsidizes Windows license for ultra cheap laptops.
No way AMD can compete with this dumping, and it's exactly the kind of behavior antitrust laws are supposed to forbid.
Sure, explain where exactly did Intel break the law, if AMD itself could not sell CPUs at negative prices, but was allowed to do so with OEMs?
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
716
1,638
136
Do we know if Intel/AMD sell directly to these e-retailers? If so would that be a 85% gross margin? Also I'm assuming OEM sales would take a bit less than retail.
A "bit less" for OEM may be something of an understatement.

Think about Apple's computers when Jobs was in charge and they actually ran high-end modern hardware. They include CPUs that would cost, at retail, $1,100. They then include the enterprise version of graphics cards that would cost $1,500. They include another $1,500 worth of hardware.

They then charge $3,500 - and half of that is their own product margin.

It almost looks like you're getting a good deal... you could never use those same parts to build that system for that price...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
716
1,638
136
To begin with, Microsoft subsidizes Windows license for ultra cheap laptops.
Windows only costs about $15~$20. Unless you're not one of the privileged few, then it costs many times that... and can not be transferred unless you pay even more. This is how Microsoft became #1 and maintained it - they were so cheap that other corporate entities could not hope to catch up and compete with the revenues they could possibly bring in.

Sure, explain where exactly did Intel break the law, if AMD itself could not sell CPUs at negative prices, but was allowed to do so with OEMs?
Intel created new components to sell, apparently at a loss, on purpose, to crowd out a competitor from a market that was potentially going to support that competitor.

There's a definite difference between selling existing inventory at a loss and creating a new product to purposefully sell at a loss...

Then you have crazy moves like AMD destroy $60M in CPUs and writing it down as a loss instead of selling them at half price to cut their losses. I know why they did it, but it's actually really stupid when you think about it :p
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Then you have crazy moves like AMD destroy $60M in CPUs and writing it down as a loss instead of selling them at half price to cut their losses. I know why they did it, but it's actually really stupid when you think about it
Wait, what.
There's a definite difference between selling existing inventory at a loss and creating a new product to purposefully sell at a loss...
Eh, sounds like natural extension of price competition to me. But then again, i hate anti-trust laws.
 

HBRents

Junior Member
Feb 22, 2017
15
50
41
A "bit less" for OEM may be something of an understatement.

Think about Apple's computers when Jobs was in charge and they actually ran high-end modern hardware. They include CPUs that would cost, at retail, $1,100. They then include the enterprise version of graphics cards that would cost $1,500. They include another $1,500 worth of hardware.

They then charge $3,500 - and half of that is their own product margin.

It almost looks like you're getting a good deal... you could never use those same parts to build that system for that price...
I suppose at one time that would be true but for present day, an 8-core Mac Pro desktop Zeon E5 8 core 3ghz and with dual Firepro D500 (these appear to be Tonga's, am i correct in assuming this?
  • 1526 stream processors
  • 384-bit-wide memory bus
  • 240GB/s memory bandwidth
  • 2.2 teraflops performance
Anyways this build starts at $5499 direct from Apple right now. It says Xeon E5 on the apple site but I cannot find anything in Intel's ark that matches up to 8-core 3.0ghz and 25mb cache on any of the E5's. Regardless its a single 8-core broadwell from Intel and I'm sure they are getting incredible deals on AMD's old graphics tech.

A Dell with a 6700 non-k and 750ti with mechanical hard drive is $1099 http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-8910-desktop/fdcwvmax105b

Relevant point to Ryzen being that I don't see any super huge discounts on a brand new high end 8-core CPU when I'm seeing that most OEM builds with 8 cores carries a nice premium over their entry level beige box's and its almost certainly impossible to find a build with an i7 (Ryzen's competition) that you can't build cheaper yourself.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
716
1,638
136
Wait, what.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/10/15/amd-misses-earnings-targets-and-writes-down-65m-in-inventory/

It made more sense to destroy $65M in inventory than to take the losses to their margin to sell them cheaper.

Eh, sounds like natural extension of price competition to me. But then again, i hate anti-trust laws.
No, it's not normal to knowingly create a product that can never make a profit. It's then even less normal to have a product that is only half as good as your competitors (AMD was well ahead in this particular market - they owned it) and then to, in effect, pay companies to use your products instead of your competitor's superior product.

AMD had the last laugh, though, as their Jaguar CPUs now own the gaming market and AMD actually benefits from their product... and Intel is stuck with a money-losing market... though Intel is going to make up for that in the long run. This is probably why AMD hasn't made any formal complaints (and it's really risk for them to do so at this point).
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
It made more sense to destroy $65M in inventory than to take the losses to their margin to sell them cheaper.
Finances work in mysterious ways.
AMD was well ahead in this particular market - they owned it
That i am aware of, being an owner of Bobcat APU and all.
then to, in effect, pay companies to use your products instead of your competitor's superior product.
Long-term and evil, i like that.
AMD had the last laugh, though, as their Jaguar CPUs now own the gaming market and AMD actually benefits from their product... and Intel is stuck
That's basically a hollywood plot right there.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
716
1,638
136
I suppose at one time that would be true but for present day, an 8-core Mac Pro desktop Zeon E5 8 core 3ghz and with dual Firepro D500 (these appear to be Tonga's, am i correct in assuming this?
  • 1526 stream processors
  • 384-bit-wide memory bus
  • 240GB/s memory bandwidth
  • 2.2 teraflops performance
Anyways this build starts at $5499 direct from Apple right now. It says Xeon E5 on the apple site but I cannot find anything in Intel's ark that matches up to 8-core 3.0ghz and 25mb cache on any of the E5's. Regardless its a single 8-core broadwell from Intel and I'm sure they are getting incredible deals on AMD's old graphics tech.

A Dell with a 6700 non-k and 750ti with mechanical hard drive is $1099 http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-8910-desktop/fdcwvmax105b

Relevant point to Ryzen being that I don't see any super huge discounts on a brand new high end 8-core CPU when I'm seeing that most OEM builds with 8 cores carries a nice premium over their entry level beige box's and its almost certainly impossible to find a build with an i7 (Ryzen's competition) that you can't build cheaper yourself.
Yeah, things have changed a lot since I last looked at PC prices - especially at Apple. The PC market has been shrinking due to the lack of innovation so prices have been going up relative to the components to try and keep revenues and profits up. And Intel has undoubtedly been milking some...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
472
136
If Ryzen is as compelling as it seems then AMD will sell millions. And if Vega is a must have too then people will be part of the AMD gaming platform and ecosystem (which theyve been building for a long time). That would put them in a pretty good position i think market wise and vs their competitors. Plus Ryzen and Vega make such great branding.

Is it possible that Ryzen and Vega have some special communication between them? They sure seem to share some similar design goals. HSA as one of them.
 
Last edited:

HBRents

Junior Member
Feb 22, 2017
15
50
41
Yeah, things have changed a lot since I last looked at PC prices - especially at Apple. The PC market has been shrinking due to the lack of innovation so prices have been going up relative to the components to try and keep revenues and profits up. And Intel has undoubtedly been milking some...

Nice data! big time thank you. I'm actually in my university finance department's mock trading group and I have chosen semi-conductor to put my mock investments into. I think TSM, INTC, NVDA, and AMD are all very solid medium term buys.

Just trying to make my own forecast as to AMD's EPS what may be in Q1. Analysts are forecasting -.04 EPS and I just think with a full month of Ryzen sales AMD may beat the analysts.
 

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
472
136
Nice data! big time thank you. I'm actually in my university finance department's mock trading group and I have chosen semi-conductor to put my mock investments into. I think TSM, INTC, NVDA, and AMD are all very solid medium term buys.

Just trying to make my own forecast as to AMD's EPS what may be in Q1. Analysts are forecasting -.04 EPS and I just think with a full month of Ryzen sales AMD may beat the analysts.
Well it is tax season afterall.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS