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?

 

[.vodka]

AMD wouldn't kill the 3800x pretty much ever. It's the playfield leveler. 95% of a 9900k at $100-$150 cheaper. It's also what they need to stand up to the 9900KS and that's one it can't win against. Stepping down to a 3700x only would make it worse.

I understand.

Still, they could offer both the 3800x and the hypothetical 3900 at the same price point. You get to choose between a high clocked eight core or a cheap MT beast.

That would be a good compromise.

 

[scannall]

Technically 9900KF is true 3800X competitor since both lack iGPU and KF version is a bit cheaper. 9900KF regular price is only $70 more than 3800X, and 9900KF has frequently been going on sale for only $420 making price difference pretty much moot.

I get what you're saying about AMD having 3800X halo product, they got to have that for marketing purpose. Unfortunately that leaves those of us who need/want more than 8 cores in a bind.

I love posts like this. Just 2.5 years ago, the top end consumer chips were 4 cores and 8 threads. We get spoiled quickly. I guess that's just part of human nature.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I love posts like this. Just 2.5 years ago, the top end consumer chips were 4 cores and 8 threads. We get spoiled quickly. I guess that's just part of human nature.

I'm very well aware, I've been rocking Haswell for 4 years 2013 to 2017 because it just wasn't worth buying yet another Intel 4c8t CPU with zero meaningful improvement. It is certainly great to have an option of 12c24t or even 16c32t CPU on consumer level AM4 socket just two years later in 2019, that is if AMD can actually make enough to satisfy the demand.

 

[misuspita]

When it comes to tech, usually what you buy this year will be both faster and cheaper the next year.

Take the 1700X ($399) and 1800X ($499) when they were launched. A year later the 2700 and 2700X hit, and was was faster and cheaper. It's just the name of the game when it comes to tech.

And today we have it easy. Remember the 1GHz battle that Intel and AMD fought almost 20 years years ago? In those days you could get the fastest CPU today, and in 2 months time another SKU appeared, with better freq. In 6 months you were only among the fastest, but not at the top

 

[Thunder 57]

I believe that the 3900 non X as originally planned is just a little bit slower and cheaper than the X version (boost slower by 200 MHz, cheaper by 50-75 USD?).

The 3600x2 compared to that would be slower, power hungrier, could be as "cheap" as I am suggesting. BTW I do not think that 300 USD is cheap. AMD would be actually making a nice profit on these considering how slow chiplets (and just 6C chiplets!) would be needed for them.

Ugh, I don't seem to get it. They are selling out everywhere. At this point, suggesting $300 12-cores is wrong. It's not cheap but AMD can make more by keeping the ASP high.

 

[.vodka]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176841871902949377

aaaand there it is. Hello 3900, in a Biostar mobo CPU support list

This kind of CPU so factory limited (65w bracket, 3.1GHz base) would lend itself very well to manual all core OC like the 1xxx series or per CCX OC to make the most out of it.

Now, what would be the price... I bet around $400-420 as in my other post.

I think I'll hold off upgrading my 1700 until this is released.

 

[Kocicak]

This is weird. Why should a 12 core processor have as low TDP as 6 core processor? Nobody expects (or wants) that. 3.1 GHz on paper looks really slow.

If they wanted something lower than 105W of 3900X, why not something like 85 or 90W?

 

[jpiniero]

Now, what would be the price... I bet around $400-420 as in my other post.

Especially since you can overclock them, the retail price has gotta be at least $450.

This is weird. Why should a 12 core processor have as low TDP as 6 core processor? Nobody expects (or wants) that. 3.1 GHz on paper looks really slow.

I could see a couple OEMs wanting it for a gaming desktop and market that it has 12 cores. 65W means a cheaper cooler.

 

[Topweasel]

Millions of reasons. 1 larger ASP on chips that don't make the 3900x clock limits but aren't good enough for EPYC. To give users alternatives. Because some people don't need the fastest clocks just cores and compute capability. For example. I have a 3900x for my gaming system, but my primary system is probably going to go from a 1700 to a 3950x at some point. But if AMD releases a 3950 65-70w version. Well that will be the one I will get. I would rather have the cores and threads then the absolute highest compute options.

Also a 65w 12 core would make an insanely powerful USFF CPU.

 

[Thunder 57]

Especially since you can overclock them, the retail price has gotta be at least $450.



I could see a couple OEMs wanting it for a gaming desktop and market that it has 12 cores. 65W means a cheaper cooler.

Because of the low clocks they could probably have it at $429, but I agree $450 sounds about right. I bet they won't overclock very well.

This is weird. Why should a 12 core processor have as low TDP as 6 core processor? Nobody expects (or wants) that. 3.1 GHz on paper looks really slow.

If they wanted something lower than 105W of 3900X, why not something like 85 or 90W?

That would make too much sense . That is why I don't think they will OC well.

 

[.vodka]

That would make too much sense . That is why I don't think they will OC well.

The 3900 won't overclock well. This is guaranteed to have 3600 quality tier chiplets that need much more voltage relative to the 3900x's quality for the same clock speed.

Besides, Zen+'s and Zen2's boost curve is factory set and you can't change it at all. I expect top/ST boost clock to be at around 4.2GHz (same as the 3600). PBO adds up to +200MHz to the entire curve so base clock and MT clock while boosting will still be far, far away from the 3900X's.

Overall performance after PBO will be lower, power consumption will be markedly higher due to crappier chiplet quality and higher average voltage, etc. Should sell well at $420-450.

This part is suitable for per CCX overclocking (viable now that it's being included in the latest BIOSes and there's 4 of them to tweak) or an all core OC, both scenarios which are undesirable on X parts that have a decent boost curve out of the box.

This is a good deal if you know what you're getting into (Just like the R7 1700 was: easy 3.8GHz all core OC, 90-95% of the 1800X's ST boost, faster MT clocks at $330 vs $500 back in March 2017). Personally I'm fine with the limitations vs the 3900x at the right price.

But if AMD releases a 3950 65-70w version. Well that will be the one I will get. I would rather have the cores and threads then the absolute highest compute options.

Also a 65w 12 core would make an insanely powerful USFF CPU.

There will be a 3950 non X at some point, that's for sure. Same chiplet quality as the 3600/3900, a bit better probably. There should be lots of those average parts that don't fit the specs for the 3900x/3950x or Epyc.

Slots right in between the $500 3900x and the $750 3950x. $650?

 

[Thunder 57]

The 3900 won't overclock well. This is guaranteed to have 3600 quality tier chiplets that need much more voltage relative to the 3900x's quality for the same clock speed.

Besides, Zen+'s and Zen2's boost curve is factory set and you can't change it at all. I expect top/ST boost clock to be at around 4.2GHz (same as the 3600). PBO adds up to +200MHz to the entire curve so base clock and MT clock while boosting will still be far, far away from the 3900X's.

Overall performance after PBO will be lower, power consumption will be markedly higher due to crappier chiplet quality and higher average voltage, etc. Should sell well at $420-450.

This part is suitable for per CCX overclocking (viable now that it's being included in the latest BIOSes and there's 4 of them to tweak) or an all core OC, both scenarios which are undesirable on X parts that have a decent boost curve out of the box.

This is a good deal if you know what you're getting into. Personally I'm fine with the limitations vs the 3900x at the right price.




There will be a 3950 non X at some point, that's for sure. Same chiplet quality as the 3600/3900, a bit better probably. There should be lots of those average parts that don't fit the specs for the 3900x/3950x or Epyc.

Slots right in between the $500 3900x and the $750 3950x. $650?

I don't expect an all core OC will do well at all, considering it has 12 low quality cores. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3800X unofficially drops to about $380 and the 3900 settles in a bit under $450. The 3800X costs too much when a nearly as good 3700X is considerably more cheap.

I think the 3900 at $450 would be a hard sell when the 3900X is only $50 more. $70-80 though, and it becomes more attractive.

 

[jpiniero]

I think the 3900 at $450 would be a hard sell when the 3900X is only $50 more. $70-80 though, and it becomes more attractive.

Given how unavailable the 3900X is, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3900X is more or less discontinued, even if AMD doesn't actually officially discontinue it.

 

[Thunder 57]

Besides, Zen+'s and Zen2's boost curve is factory set and you can't change it at all. I expect top/ST boost clock to be at around 4.2GHz (same as the 3600). PBO adds up to +200MHz to the entire curve so base clock and MT clock while boosting will still be far, far away from the 3900X's.

FWIW, WCCFTech is saying the boost for the 3900 is 4.3GHz. Sounds plausible.

 

[.vodka]

FWIW, WCCFTech is saying the boost for the 3900 is 4.3GHz. Sounds plausible.

4.3 top boost is doable on most 3600s with PBO. 12 core 4.3/3.1 at the 65w bracket sounds about right for a 12 core part.

This is the 2700's behavior (8c 12nm, 65w, 4.1/3.2, similar boost algoritm to the 3rd gen's). I expect the 3900 to behave like this out of the box:

The 3600 keeps its 4.2GHz max boost on all 6 cores within that same 65w bracket without PBO, so maybe clocks then fall off a cliff after 12 threads with the all core boost being hard capped to that 3.1GHz base clock. Maybe a floor of ~3.3-3.4GHz at 24 threads

PBO won't do much for the all core boost but could help a bit with the max boost clock. Some good 3600s hit 4.4GHz max boost with PBO, so there's that.

The 3900x as expected runs circles around this part as the 3900's curve can't even be drawn in this scale.

Should overclock like a 3600. We just raise that low all core boost clock to something more palatable and it's a good CPU. Per CCX OC will make this shine.

---------------------------------------------

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/d94mum/_/f1eqos0

Not too bad. Exactly ~65w at 3.1GHz / 0.93v according to the SVI2 TFN telemetry (but these are 3900x tier chiplets, so not exactly comparable)

 

[Kocicak]

Ok, AMD, when is my Double 3600 for $300 coming? I do not want any elegant 65W 3900. I want my DIRTEY POWER HUNGRY CHEAP 3600x2 !

Lisa, can you read this??? Please respond.

 

[.vodka]

You're not getting a 12 core made out of two 3600s for $300. That's not happening this generation, nor the next.

It would've happened if this was the time for 1st gen Ryzen to launch as a new product like the 1st gen was back in 2017 in order to shock with core counts and pricing. It's not the same market situation, either.

You're getting the 3900 likely for $400-450, yes, but not $300.

 

[Thunder 57]

Ok, AMD, when is my Double 3600 for $300 coming? I do not want any elegant 65W 3900. I want my DIRTEY POWER HUNGRY CHEAP 3600x2 !

Lisa, can you read this??? Please respond.

So you want something like a ~100W double 3600? For $300? That's just going to happen. Why bother with a 3700X/3800X then? Or the 3900? Outside of SFF/HTPC I don't see why anyone would. How about a "double 3600" 3900 at 105W for $400, and a 3900E (the one they are going to make) for $450? I think they could do that, but at that point you are just cluttering the lineup.

Don't get me wrong, I would love the idea of a 12-core high TDP at $300. But AMD is finally making money again and will need those margins to fight the good fight with Intel and whatever they finally come up with.

 

[Kocicak]

Some of you fail to realise, that AMD would have higher profit from making and selling one 3600x2 for $300 than one 3600 for $200. I even suspect, that selling one 3600x2 for $300 instead of TWO 3600 for $200 makes higher profit!

Just decompose the price of 3600 to individual parts, add price of one chiplet, perhaps a little longer testing and assembly and recompose the price again. You may find out, that the $300 is still a little bit high!!!

We are CONSUMERS and most of us not AMD shareholders! We want as much for our money as we can get.

I as a consumer want AMD to make and sell double 3600 with TDP of 95 or even 105W for $300 or even less!!!

What do YOU want, AS A CONSUMER?

 

[Thunder 57]

Some of you fail to realise, that AMD would have higher profit from making and selling one 3600x2 for $300 then one 3600 for $200. I even suspect, that selling one 3600x2 for $300 instead of TWO 3600 for $200 makes higher profit!

Just decompose the price of 3600 to individual parts, add price of one chiplet, perhaps a little longer testing and assembly and recompose the price again. You may find out, that the $300 is still a little bit high!!!

You aren't making any sense, or I am missing something entirely.

We are CONSUMERS and most of us not AMD shareholders! We want as much for our money as we can get.

I as a consumer want AMD to make and sell double 3600 with TDP of 95 or even 105W for $300 or even less!!!

What do YOU want, AS A CONSUMER?

I am not a shareholder and yea, it would be wonderful if this things cost $5, but companies exist to make a profit and to compete! Between BD and Ryzen Intel just milked the market. No extra cores. You'll pay us what we want. As a CONSUMER, I want a competitive market. So in this DUOPOLY that means I want AMD to make money so they can continue to COMPETE.

Why is that so hard to understand?? $300 is still a bit high for 12 cores? AMD is NOT a charity. If you want an awesome product, expect to pay a premium for it!

 

[Kocicak]

You aren't making any sense, or I am missing something entirely.

Yes, you are. You probably failed to realise, how many things the $200 price of 3600 contains and how little adding the second chiplet would actually add to the price, if the profit margin remained the same.

As a CONSUMER, I want a competitive market. So in this DUOPOLY that means I want AMD to make money so they can continue to COMPETE.

These things are superflous and exist just in your head, the premise "consumers want as much for their money as they can get" is enough. You do not need more. I studied economics and I know that.

BTW competition means companies making less money, so you have a glaring contradiction in your statement.

 

[Thunder 57]

Some of you fail to realise, that AMD would have higher profit from making and selling one 3600x2 for $300 then one 3600 for $200. I even suspect, that selling one 3600x2 for $300 instead of TWO 3600 for $200 makes higher profit!

Just decompose the price of 3600 to individual parts, add price of one chiplet, perhaps a little longer testing and assembly and recompose the price again. You may find out, that the $300 is still a little bit high!!!...

Please explain how two 3600 dies selling for $300 rather than $400 makes higher profit? At this point, I honestly wonder if you are trolling.

Yes, you are. You probably failed to realise, how many things the $200 price of 3600 contains and how little adding the second chiplet would actually add.

And with the reported struggles with TSMC 7nm? Not a great argument.

EDIT

You still haven't answered my question. Who would buy a 3700X, 3800X or 3900(X) when you could get a dual 3600 for $300 or less? I'd like to hear how you could make that argument.

 

[Kocicak]

You still haven't answered my question. Who would buy a 3700X, 3800X or 3900(X) when you could get a dual 3600 for $300 or less? I'd like to hear how you could make that argument.

People who need high single/low thread count load performance. The CPUs you mentioned are up to 500 MHz quicker than 3600. If I remember correctly I explained this here more than once already.

3600 is the SLOWEST 3rd gen Ryzen processor sold now and 3600x2 would be as slow as it.

 

[CHADBOGA]

People who need high single/low thread count load performance. The CPUs you mentioned are up to 500 MHz quicker than 3600. If I remember correctly I explained this here more than once already.

It is always best if one's ideas or notions have some basis in reality and are not extravagant wishful thinking.

 

[Kocicak]

Please explain how two 3600 dies selling for $300 rather than $400 makes higher profit? At this point, I honestly wonder if you are trolling.

I believe that 3900 will contain chiplets of (much) higher quality than those in 3600, perhaps even in 3600x. Those chiplets in 3600 have pretty clearly defined frequency wall.

If you rate the quality of all chiplets AMD produces, 3600 quality chiplet is in bottom third at least, I believe is could be even bottom fifth or less than that. It all depends how AMD allocates cost to chiplets depending on their quality and useability, but chiplets in 3600 will not cost more than $15 each.

If we presume that the cost $200 of 3600 contains $15 profit of the retailer, $35 profit of AMD, you add $15 for the second chiplet and $5 for incorporating it to the rest, apply the same profit margin on it, you get $227 for 3600x2.

AMD could charge as little as $249 and still make better profit on it than on 3600.

Now I regret that I have been using $300 as a suggested price for 3600x2. It was too much.