Question Rethinking AMD consumer CPU lineup in the situation of chiplet scarcity

[Kocicak]

If we look at the higher end of the consumer CPU lineup by AMD (beginning with Ryzen 3600), and the fact that AMD is unable to deliver a highly clocked 6+6 core CPU and effectively offers no high core count CPU at this point, and the fact that the high quality chiplets are better used in server CPUs, I believe it is time to radically rethink the lineup of consumer CPUs.

I believe the higher end of the consumer CPU lineup can comprise of just 4-5 processors.

1) 6C 3.9/4.2 65W - the same as current 3600 - price 200 USD
2) 6+6C 3.6/4.2 95W - made from two chiplets which are used in 6C - price 300 USD

These two CPUs can cover 75-90% of the market demand, they are made from low quality chiplets which can have up to two nonfunctional cores. These chiplets are unusable in server processors anyway. They are essentially a waste product of server CPU production.

The market demand can be nearly all covered by chiplets that are not needed for server CPU production !!!

3) 8C 4.0/4.7 95W - very high quality chiplet which could be used in server CPU - price 400-450 USD
4) 8+8C 3.8/4.7 135W - made from two chiplets which are used in 8C - price 750-800 USD

5) 8+8C-super ?/? ?W - made from "miraculous chiplets", intended for those who want something extraordinary and special - price 1000 - 1200 USD. Existence of this product depends on the existence and quantity of those "miraculous chiplets".

What do you think?

 

[VirtualLarry]

5) 8+8C-super ?/? ?W - made from "miraculous chiplets", intended for those who want something extraordinary and special - price 1000 - 1200 USD. Existence of this product depends on the existence and quantity of those "miraculous chiplets".

Ryzen Ultimate Edition? Hmm. Maybe!

 

[VirtualLarry]

I belive the higher end of the consumer CPU lineup can comprise of just 4-5 processors.

1) 6C 3.9/4.2 65W - the same as current 3600 - price 200 USD
2) 6+6C 3.6/4.2 95W - made from two chiplets which are used in 6C - price 300 USD

These two CPUs can cover 75-90% of the market demand

They might "cover market demand", but do they Maximize ASPs? That's what AMD is aiming for, here. Maybe if you include server processors in the mix, considering that they can sell the 8C "perfect" chiplets for server CPUs.

Let's just say, that I personally would be satisfied with a 6+6C CPU, @ 3.6/4.2, I don't need the 4.4Ghz "boost", which is really only for single-core (read: gamers) load anyways, all-core load speeds are quite a bit lower (around 4Ghz or below, for my 6C/12T R5 3600). If they could sell those for $400-450, I would take the savings and greater availability over the 3900X's highly-binned cores anyday. (Seeing as how there seems to be no problems with availability of 3600 dies, then slapping two of them into a package, shouldn't be much more of a problem, IHMO, and would have better availability than their current 3900X CPUs, which seems to be largely non-existant at this current point in the market.)

 

[Kocicak]

... I personally would be satisfied with a 6+6C CPU, @ 3.6/4.2, .... If they could sell those for $400-450, I would take the savings and greater availability over the 3900X's highly-binned cores anyday.

I believe they can sell them for $300 easily and keep most people away from wanting their healthy 8C chiplets which they need for server CPUs.

If somebody really needs some high clocked fine 8C chiplet, I do not see why such a CPU should not be more expensive than 6+6C, even it would be weaker in heavilly multithreaded loads.

BTW I have suspition that 3900X is (partially) made of fully functioning 8C chiplets, which could also explain the short supply of it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

So your idea is to charge MORE for a CPU made with an 8C chiplet, that could have presumably gone into a really more-expensive server CPU, than for a 12C CPU, made with cheaper, slightly-defective, dual 6C chiplets?

Interesting idea, but I don't know if that would mesh with the public-at-large's idea of value and cost per-core. They might question why a 12C CPU would be cheaper than an 8C CPU (*), and that might engender some dis-trust ("there must be something wrong with it, if they're selling it so cheap"), and tarnish AMD's brand.

No, I think that they are doing the right thing, although the shortage of 3900X CPUs is worrying. I would welcome the introduction of a 12C (6+6C) 3900 non-X SKU @ $450 USD though. I don't think that it makes any sense at $300. Sure, they could probably sell them, but didn't Lisa Su say that they "no longer wanted to be thought of as the 'budget brand'"?

(*) Edit: Although, your idea might have some merit. I saw a ThreadRipper 1920X (12C/24T) selling for under $300 the other night, I don't know if it was Newegg, or a third-party seller (I didn't click on it), but it sounded like a fairly good deal, alibeit the Ryzen 3000-series consumer 12C/24T CPUs have a 10-15% IPC, and a L3 cache-size uplift. And the X399 mobos are more expensive than the AM4 mobos.

 

[Abwx]

Using 100 as indice for 3700X + 3800X sales of other SKUs are at 115 for the 3600 + 3600X and 35 for the 3900X.

That s 1.85 6C dies for one 8C die, also AMD could possibly use dies with 8 functional cores to select the ones that can work reliably at 4.6 and then disable two for use in the 3900X.
Actually if they wanted they could even have 8 functional cores in each 6C die and use them invisbly in the respect of the OS...

Edit : 6C SKUs can in no way cover 75% of the market as suggested by the OP, the proportions i quoted are the ones from Mindfactory..

 

[Kocicak]

3600 outsell 3900X 100:1 at least.

 

[VirtualLarry]

3600 outsell 3900X 100:1 at least.

I really doubt it's quite that much. I might believe 40:1, maybe 50:1, but 100:1? That seems unlikely. $200 still isn't "Celeron Athlon money" territory ($50 CPUs).

Edit: That being said, I'm really curious about the 3500 and 3500X, what prices that those will be offered at in the US market. I could see the 3500X basically matching the price/performance of the i5-9400F, giving end-users a compelling reason to go with AMD's AM4 platform, as a forward-looking, advanced, upgradable platform. And then the 3500 would have to necessarily be a little cheaper, maybe $100-120.

@ $100 price-point, and "OK to decent" for gaming purposes, I could see a 6C/6T 3500 CPU outselling a 3900X 100:1.

 

[Abwx]

3600 outsell 3900X 100:1 at least.

...............................

Sockel AM4

AM4 CPU | Hier sparen :: Bis 8 Kerne :: Bis 4.30GHz Turbotakt :: Für DDR4-Speicher geeignet :: AMD ++ Einfache Bestellung und schnelle Lieferung

www.mindfactory.de

9720 vs 3270 that s barely 3:1.....

 

[Ajay]

So, you didn't get traction in this thread : https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...950x-supply-issues-long-term-problem.2568729/
So you start another one?

 

[Thunder 57]

I believe they can sell them for $300 easily and keep most people away from wanting their healthy 8C chiplets which they need for server CPUs...

But why would they take a huge hit in their margins when they are selling like hotcakes? There may be room for a 3900 with those specs at $400, but no less. AMD is finally making good money, why would they be so stupid to piss away their competitive advantage?

Interesting idea, but I don't know if that would mesh with the public-at-large's idea of value and cost per-core. They might question why a 12C CPU would be cheaper than an 8C CPU (*), and that might engender some dis-trust ("there must be something wrong with it, if they're selling it so cheap"), and tarnish AMD's brand

Exactly, there is such a thing as pricing something too low. Besides losing money on each sale the general public might wonder why it's so cheap.

Also, you seem to be misunderstand what makes a good server chip. They don't need high clocks, they need the most power efficient ones. Threadripper will likely get the highest clocking ones, with Ryzen getting the leftovers.

 

[Kocicak]

AMD has PLENTY of 6C chiplets that cannot clock higher than 4.2/4.3, which are used in 3600.

Then they sell 8C boosting to 4.4/4.5 selling for $330/400.

Then they sell 6+6C for $500, which they have huge trouble making in volume, possibly because they need high quality chiplets for them, some of which are probably 8C chiplets.

The planned 8+8C has been posponed now for two months.

The FACT IS, that AMD at this moment IS UNABLE to supply high core count CPUs to customers. People wait for months for the CPU they want. Doubling Ryzen 3600, selling it for very competitive price, would satisfy a lot of customers, would decrease number good 8C which need to supplied to consumer market.

So AMD could:

• Continue making 3600. BTW I have no idea why to specify the base frequency so low, when all 3600 clock higher at 65W.
• Drop 3600X. Using chiplets used in this could help producing the "double 3600"
• Make the "double 3600" and sell it for $300.
• Unify 3700X and 3800X and sell it for $400.
• Make 3950X as planned.
• Drop 3900X, which would not sell anyway after the 3950X becomes available.

A note about the efficient and high clocking CPUs. CPU is made of layers of various semiconductors and conductors. When these layers are impreciselly made, the CPUs leaks, passes current not doing anything usefull just heating. Can anybody please explain me, why preciselly made low leak CPU would not clock high? What electrical or physical characteristic would prevent it from clocking high?

About the "hit in their margins": They have good 8C chiplets which need to be used in server CPUs bringing huge margins and bad 8C, 7C, and 6C chiplets unusable in server CPUs, usable in consumer market, bringing low margins.

The best thing to do in sell good 8C chiplets in servers and bad 6,7,8C in consumer market. What I am proposing makes exactly that, increasing the margins.

AMD proves the troubles supplying good 8C chiplets to consumer market by limited availability of 3900X and postponing 3950X. Doing what I proposed would calm the situation considerably.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The FACT IS, that AMD at this moment IS UNABLE to supply high core count CPUs to customers. People wait for months for the CPU they want.

I doubt that they are "unable to supply" their server customers. Face facts, Server market gets "first dibs" on 8C chiplets. There just aren't that many left over for their consumer lineup.

 

[VirtualLarry]

• Make the "double 3600" and sell it for $300.
• Unify 3700X and 3800X and sell it for $400.

The best thing to do in sell good 8C chiplets in servers and bad 6,7,8C in consumer market. What I am proposing makes exactly that, increasing the margins.

AMD proves the troubles supplying good 8C chiplets to consumer market by limited availability of 3900X and postponing 3950X. Doing what I proposed would calm the situation considerably.

Not really seeing where this would improve the margins for AMD, by selling a 12C (6+6C) CPU, based on 3600 dies, at $300, and removing pent-up demand for 3900X CPUs, at $500 ea.

That's like a $200 loss for each sale. How does that improve margins. Please give a detailed explanation.

And how does removing product segmentation between the 3700X and 3800X, if both were $400, improve margins as well? Who would buy the 3700X, if it cost the same as the 3800X, but the 3800X was binned for better single-core clocks?

I think that you are a bit enamoured with your idea, of selling twin 3600 dies in a 12C CPU at a low cost, to think this through thoroughly.

I agree, that would work to alleviate shortages of 12C AM4 CPUs to some extent, but AMD has to do that *smartly*, so they don't cannibalize ASPs and demand for their higher-binned CPUs. I don't see them doing that for less than $400 (double the price of a 3600, since it's double 3600s in effect, make some sense for pricing), or $450 (value-add, for having 12C in one CPU, versus two 3600 equivalents - same reason single larger HDDs have a "premium" over just multiples of smaller drive pricing).

Here's what I think:

3500X (6C/6T, 3.6/4.1, 32MB L3/Gamecache) $140 (would be $150, but it has to compete with Intel i5-9400F).
3600 (6C/12T, 3.6/4.2, 32MB L3) $200 (Good all-rounder, fair price)
3600X (6C/12T, higher clocks, higher binning, higher TDP, 32MB L3) $250
3700 (8C/16T, made from 4+4C defective dies, lower clocks like 3600, 32MB L3) $300
3700X (8C/16T, made from single 8C chiplet, not as high-binned as 3800X, 32MB L3) $350
3800 ??
3800X (8C/16T, made from single 8C chiplet, higher-binned, 32MB L3) $400
3900 (12C/24T, made from dual 6C chiplets, lower-binned like 3600, 32MB L3) $450
3900X (12C/24T, made from dual 6C chiplets, higher-binned, 64MB L3) $500
3950X (16C/32T, made from dual 8C chiplets, higher-binned, 64MB L3) $750

Note that the 3700 would be a slightly cheaper chip, and still only have 32MB L3 cache, which means, 16MB from each die disabled/defective, thus allowing usage of chiplets with only 4C valid, more than 4C with only 16MB L3 valid, or both. Since it would be dual-die, it would have the write performance of a dual-chiplet CPU, giving it an actual slight advantage over the 3700X, in that particular metric. Which would make it an even more interesting CPU, on a budget, for certain applications.

 

[sandorski]

I think AMD should just stick with what they have announced.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think AMD should just stick with what they have announced.

Well, yeah, but I think that they should introduce an 8C/16T CPU, made from 4C+4C defective dies, with half-size L3 enabled in each die as well, as a dumping-ground for "bad chiplets". Maybe we'll see a 3700 soon enough.

Maybe a 3400 and 3400X (3400 4C/4T, 16MB L3), 3400X (4C/8T, 32MB L3) - my opinion only.

Wait, is the APU also the 3200G and 3400G? That would be confusing, to have a 3400G APU and a 3400 CPU, probably. Oh well. Maybe they won't introduce 4C/4T or 4C/8T CPUs, and just use 4C/8T-enabled chiplets in a hypothetical 3700 CPU (8C/16T, 4+4C, 16+16MB L3). That's what I feel that they should do, eventually, once they have enough 4C-only enabled chiplets stocked up, which might not be for a long while.

 

[Thunder 57]

About the "hit in their margins": They have good 8C chiplets which need to be used in server CPUs bringing huge margins and bad 8C, 7C, and 6C chiplets unusable in server CPUs, usable in consumer market, bringing low margins.

The best thing to do in sell good 8C chiplets in servers and bad 6,7,8C in consumer market. What I am proposing makes exactly that, increasing the margins.

AMD proves the troubles supplying good 8C chiplets to consumer market by limited availability of 3900X and postponing 3950X. Doing what I proposed would calm the situation considerably.

You don't know any of that. BTW, the 3900X doesn't need good 8C chiplets. The 8C chiplets are going into servers first, we get the leftovers. Don't see how that increases their margins, but, you are beyond reason it seems.

 

[Kocicak]

I think AMD should just stick with what they have announced.

Current situation may be different from what AMD predicted when they did the original plan. Changing the plan may benefit them and consumers as well.

Note that they have troubles executing the original plan anyway.

 

[Kocicak]

You don't know any of that. BTW, the 3900X doesn't need good 8C chiplets.

It needs much better chiplets than which go to 3600 and 3600X to clock higher and meet the TDP. And if they are efficient enough, it is actually more probable they are good overall and are fully functioning 8C usable in server CPUs.

 

[IEC]

The sorts of chips used for server CPUs versus consumer CPUs are pretty much on the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of silicon characteristics.

Highly unlikely they would divert 8c server chiplets for the purposes of making a lower margin desktop CPU product.

Almost every change suggested in the OP would lower ASPs and margins.

 

[sandorski]

Current situation may be different from what AMD predicted when they did the original plan. Changing the plan may benefit them and consumers as well.

Note that they have troubles executing the original plan anyway.

I am sure it is different, it almost always is, they just need to stick to their plans and focus on what they need to focus on. Part of that probably is on securing Fab space with Samsung and working through all the issues that causes. Production problems will eventually work out and all the models were chosen for quite specific reasons, many of them for Technical reasons that make sense with ample Supply. So when the Production side of the equation figures itself out you are going to want all these Models anyway. So focus on other things.

Of course it all depends on how bad the shortages are, but they just might lower Inventories needing Written Off when Zen3 releases. As I understand it these Products are being Supplied at some rate, just not at the rate of Demand. In the next month or so we should hear more about the details of these issues.

 

[Guru]

If we look at the higher end of the consumer CPU lineup by AMD (beginning with Ryzen 3600), and the fact that AMD is unable to deliver highly clocked 6+6 core CPU and effectivelly offers no high core count CPU at this point, and the fact that the high quality chiplets are better used in server CPUs, I believe it is time to radically rethink the lineup of consumer CPUs.

I belive the higher end of the consumer CPU lineup can comprise of just 4-5 processors.

1) 6C 3.9/4.2 65W - the same as current 3600 - price 200 USD
2) 6+6C 3.6/4.2 95W - made from two chiplets which are used in 6C - price 300 USD

These two CPUs can cover 75-90% of the market demand, they are made from low quality chiplets which can have up to two unfunctional cores. These chiplets are unusable in server processors anyway. They are essentially a waste product of server CPU production.

The market demand can be nearly all covered by chiplets that are not needed for server CPU production !!!

3) 8C 4.0/4.7 95W - very high quality chiplet which could be used in server CPU - price 400-450 USD
4) 8+8C 3.8/4.7 135W - made from two chiplets which are used in 8C - price 750-800 USD

5) 8+8C-super ?/? ?W - made from "miraculous chiplets", intended for those who want something extraordinary and special - price 1000 - 1200 USD. Existence of this product depends on the existence and quantity of those "miraculous chiplets".

What do you think?

This is why you probably flip burgers or clean the toilets. You just literally destroyed any value AMD processors have and set AMD and consumers at large back at least 5 years, where we get same cores, same features, same stuff with just barely 5-10% performance difference from Intel, just now coming from the red team, at the same time destroying AMD and its margins.

 

[Kocicak]

In the next month or so we should hear more about the details of these issues.

We may never hear that, because all this information regarding production and sale numbers are trade secret. We do not know how is the binning process set up, what bins there are and how they can keep up with the demand.

What we know is that AMD fails to supply enough of high core count CPUs and pospones the release of already planned CPUs, while they apparently have abundance of lower quality chiplets which are being used in Ryzen 3600.

The solution is obvious and easy, right??? Just populate the damn free space in 3600 with a second chiplet and you are done!

 

[moinmoin]

I think AMD should just stick with what they have announced.

My impression is the high max boost frequencies they announced for 3900X and 3950X may be exactly why we don't see more of the former and the latter was delayed. (That got nothing to do with high core count either.)

 

[Kocicak]

People with moderate heavilly multithreaded load needs would be satisfied enough with the "double 3600" which can be produced and sold cheaply while not consuming any good chiplets destined for server CPUs and people with higher such needs would buy the 3950X with the added benefit of higher boost frequency. Those wanting high boost frequency without any special heavilly multithreaded load needs would buy the 8C 3800X or how would be that called.

I am really sorry, but I fail to see any lowering of margins here anywhere.

The only trouble for AMD would be in situation, that what they curently put in 3700X is so bad, that it cannot be used even in lower chiplet count server CPUs. Shift in sales from the $330 3700X to the $300 "double 3600" would mean, that they get less for CPUs in which they put two server CPU unfit chiplets than what they used to get for 3700X in which they put just one server CPU unfit chiplet.

When you look at the frequency and TDP of 3700X, if looks quite good to me, and I do not believe the chiplet in it cannot be used in any server CPUs.

The limited supply of 3900X indicates that what they put in it can be used in server CPUs and not selling it would just free up more chiplets for server CPUs. The demand for server CPUs fluctates too you know. A new security flaw of Intel CPUs comes and the demand just increases unexpectedly. A large portion of the demand for 3900X could be covered with the proposed "double 3600".