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?

 

[Kocicak]

One more thing: 3600x2 could be completelly locked and not overclockable, just allowed to do what it can at its TDP rating.

3900 and 3600x2 could happily live next to each other, one efficient, made from high quality chiplets, overclockable and expensive, the latter not efficient, made from low quality chiplets, not overclockable and cheap.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Some people need to lay off the... HIC! ... whiskey (lake?)

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

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.

...and you fail to explain how selling a low volume product at the same margin as a high volume product actually produces more overall profit.
For a product to be worthwhile then its margin must reflect the volume of sales that applies to.
The other aspect here is that if it is the chiplets that are in short supply, and not every other element of the CPU package, then from a business perspective it makes more sense to produce products that command a larger margin per chiplet used.

 

[Kocicak]

I showed that 3600x2 could have significantly higher profit margin than 3600. Selling more 3600x2 and less 3600 increases total profit.

Selling 3600x2 with high profit margin would also decrease sale of 3700x with possibly similar profit margin - effect on total profit is neutral.

Selling 3600x2 decreases sale of 3900 and 3900x with possibly higher profit margin - effect on total profit is possibly negative.

Overall effect for AMD in my estimation - positive.

I am a consumer and I do not care about profit of AMD more than I care about my expense. Buying 3600x2 for $249 or even $269 would make me satisfied as a consumer and that is what I care about.

Some of you behave irrationally, Lisa is not your mother, she is a Captain of a money grabbing monster. They want to give you as little for your money as they can. You want to get as much for your money as you can. The interest of you and AMD are opposite. Remember that.

 

[TheGiant]

Some of you behave irrationally, Lisa is not your mother, she is a Captain of a money grabbing monster. They want to give you as little for your money as they can. You want to get as much for your money as you can. The interest of you and AMD are opposite. Remember that.

I like my 3900X (except the power). No I dont like it, I like it very much.
Interests are the opposite when you believe are opposites. The power comes from perception of power, not from the absolute value....
70MB of my 3900X cache costs something. I have doubts (serious) that even AMD is aware of it as a company. We will see with the 2nd half numbers..

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

I showed that 3600x2 could have significantly higher profit margin than 3600. Selling more 3600x2 and less 3600 increases total profit.

Selling 3600x2 with high profit margin would also decrease sale of 3700x with possibly similar profit margin - effect on total profit is neutral.

Selling 3600x2 decreases sale of 3900 and 3900x with possibly higher profit margin - effect on total profit is possibly negative.

Overall effect for AMD in my estimation - positive.

I am a consumer and I do not care about profit of AMD more than I care about my expense. Buying 3600x2 for $249 or even $269 would make me satisfied as a consumer and that is what I care about.

Some of you behave irrationally, Lisa is not your mother, she is a Captain of a money grabbing monster. They want to give you as little for your money as they can. You want to get as much for your money as you can. The interest of you and AMD are opposite. Remember that.

You said you'd studied economics...
The first thing you learn is about supply and demand curves. What you are proposing is that AMD essentially only sell this 3600x2 CPU, as that would be the price-performance winner on every metric for years to come. You propose they sell it at a lower price than existing ASP, which is ridiculous.
Lets entertain your ridiculous suggestion for a minute. They sell exactly the same total number of CPUs as they currently do, they do so at a lower price point than their current ASP, yet due to the need for 2 chiplets per CPU (as this would be the only product that'd then sell) they'd need more chiplets overall than they currently need for the exact same sales volume at higher ASPs. How can you not see that an extra chiplet, regardless of its actual cost, will result in lower margins per sale, and lower profits overall?
Tis not rocket science. Basic maths.
Your logic is completely wrong. A 3600x2 decimates the entire lineup if sold at your pipedream pricing.
As a consumer I'd love if I got everything for free, but as a realist I understand that companies need to make profits in order to invest in their products of the future.
What you also ignored was that AMD are already impacting competition across the market; Intel are being forced to provide better than the stagnation products of recent years, and at a more competitive price point. Competition is not about the cheapest becoming cheaper, rather making the market leader compete more on price and quality of offering.

Your posts make it seem like everyone other than yourself owns AMD shares. Quite frankly, I don't own a single share in any company.

 

[Kocicak]

Lets entertain your ridiculous suggestion for a minute. They sell exactly the same total number of CPUs as they currently do, they do so at a lower price point than their current ASP, yet due to the need for 2 chiplets per CPU (as this would be the only product that'd then sell) they'd need more chiplets overall than they currently need for the exact same sales volume at higher ASPs. How can you not see that an extra chiplet, regardless of its actual cost, will result in lower margins per sale, and lower profits overall?
Tis not rocket science. Basic maths.

I can argue that with the constant number of sold CPUs the revenue could be higher (for example because a lot of people who planned to get 3600 would get 3600x2 instead).
I can also argue that this move would DECREASE the number of HQ 8C chips sold on consumer market freeing them up to be used in server CPUs with "astronomical" profit margins.

I believe that introduction of cheap 12 core 3600x2 processor would speed up abandoning Intel products significantly. The total number of sold CPUs could in reality rise significantly.

A 3600x2 decimates the entire lineup if sold at your pipedream pricing.

I have a more positive view on 3600x2. I believe if would be the most practical and sold CPU in a decade. Winner made of scrap. A shining star! (golden text)

 

[VirtualLarry]

The total number of sold CPUs could in reality rise significantly.

You really think that demand is that elastic, based solely on price? My take on it is, there is a limited consumer purchasing base out there, that's still buying PCs, and fewer still of us buying and assembling our own. I really don't think offering a bargain-basement fire-sale prices CPU option, would increase or stimulate demand, more than there already is out there. And the buying public that's left, has shown (in Intel CPUs, and NVidia GPUs, and less so for AMD CPUs and GPUs), that they are willing TO PAY FOR "top tier" / "top bin SKU" products. Moreso than the entry-level. There are less and less Joe Sixpacks out there buying PCs, and even fewer still assembling them. Those of us, the "Enthusiasts" that are left, see the value in the longevity that buying a top-shelf CPU or GPU brings. And especially the "Gamer Enthusiast" segment, has shown that they have a lot of disposable income. Why would AMD leave that all on the table, just because you want one particular SKU cheap? It really, really, doesn't make any sense, to anyone but yourself. That's what we're all saying to you. If that would help them gain a competitive advantage, I could see it. But they already HAVE a competitive advantage. Maybe when Intel is selling 12-core consumer-range CPUs for $300-400, then I could see it. Get back to me in 5 years when they do that.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Some of you behave irrationally, Lisa is not your mother, she is a Captain of a money grabbing monster. They want to give you as little for your money as they can. You want to get as much for your money as you can. The interest of you and AMD are opposite. Remember that.

Honestly, I think AMD has, throughout the Ryzen CPU/APU's lifespan thus far, been offering a LOT of value on the table for what you get for what you pay for one of them, compared to their only real competitor in this space, Intel.

We know that Intel is/has been a "money grubbing monster", with product segmentation and disabling all kinds of features, limiting overclocking to just a few top-shelf SKUs and mobo chipsets, etc.

We haven't seen any of that shenanigans from AMD. Just a lot of real value, something that I've personally believed that Intel was loath to give people.

I really question your objectivity here.

Edit: Look, we all want "cheap (*insert expletive here)". But buying things strictly from Chinese budget sellers, and not supporting local stores, is going to put our neighbors and friends out of work, eventually.

Demanding that AMD offer SKUs, that cost them more to make, at fire-sale pricing, is just going to harm their profits, and harm their longer-term competitive abilities.

We want "cheap but good, like REAL good" CPUs, for the long haul. I think, honestly, that AMD has been very fair in pricing their CPUs. Especially when you look back at their history, of charging over $1000 for their top-end Athlon 64 x2 products. That hasn't been the case in the consumer space yet. The 1800X debuted at $500, and was quickly reduced. The 3950X is a 16C/32T, unprecedented performance for the consumer space, and yet, they're only (rumored) charging $750 or so for it. Below $1000. That's something. That's not nearly as money-grubbing as you imply.

I understand, not all of us can (personally) afford one of those "monster" 12C/24T or 16C/32T AM4 CPUs. I'll have to save for several months, if I want to get one. Maybe like six months. I was lucky to be able to afford a Ryzen R5 3600 for $200. But harming AMD's long-term competitiveness, just because of your personal financial situation, is selfish.

 

[Thunder 57]

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.

Nah. The 3700X, at $80 more than your CPU, has the same stock clocks and 200MHz more boost for four less cores. That's nothing, that chip is then DOA. 3800X, 300MHz more but for $150 more and four less cores. Dead. 3900X? 400MHz more at literally twice the price. That's a deal for a sucker.

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.

Making up numbers to fit your narrative is not proof of anything.

I showed that 3600x2 could have significantly higher profit margin than 3600. Selling more 3600x2 and less 3600 increases total profit.

Selling 3600x2 with high profit margin would also decrease sale of 3700x with possibly similar profit margin - effect on total profit is neutral.

Selling 3600x2 decreases sale of 3900 and 3900x with possibly higher profit margin - effect on total profit is possibly negative.

Overall effect for AMD in my estimation - positive.

You didn't show anything. You would drastically lower the ASP with a CPU requiring TWO chiplets. Low quality or not, those dies cost money. Even if revenue did increase under your plan, who cares if your margins are crap?

I am a consumer and I do not care about profit of AMD more than I care about my expense. Buying 3600x2 for $249 or even $269 would make me satisfied as a consumer and that is what I care about.

Some of you behave irrationally, Lisa is not your mother, she is a Captain of a money grabbing monster. They want to give you as little for your money as they can. You want to get as much for your money as you can. The interest of you and AMD are opposite. Remember that.

And there it is! Evil monster company making money is bad. Maybe we should be having this discussion in P&N? And why just AMD, what about Intel? If you ran AMD it would die a slow painful death. Then we'd have 10 years of 8 cores from Intel at whatever they feel like charging, because, why not?

I want a healthy AMD that can continue to provide awesome CPU's year after year. Without decent profit, how would they survive? Not only that, but why would they work their butts off to make chump change?

I can argue that with the constant number of sold CPUs the revenue could be higher (for example because a lot of people who planned to get 3600 would get 3600x2 instead).
I can also argue that this move would DECREASE the number of HQ 8C chips sold on consumer market freeing them up to be used in server CPUs with "astronomical" profit margins.

I believe that introduction of cheap 12 core 3600x2 processor would speed up abandoning Intel products significantly. The total number of sold CPUs could in reality rise significantly.



I have a more positive view on 3600x2. I believe if would be the most practical and sold CPU in a decade. Winner made of scrap. A shining star! (golden text)

Like I said, who cares about revenue if your margins are poor? BTW, AMD has no problem selling these CPU's at higher prices. Clearly people have no problem throwing money at the "money grabbing monster". They are providing excellent products at a great value, they have earned the right to that profit.

 

[Thunder 57]

It really, really, doesn't make any sense, to anyone but yourself. That's what we're all saying to you.

What's that saying? Something like if everyone in the room says you're drunk but you say your not, you're probably drunk.

 

[VirtualLarry]

(Re: AMD Ryzen CPUs/APUs)

They are providing excellent products at a great value, they have earned the right to that profit.

Amen! Believe me, if I thought that they were over-charging somehow, I'd mention it. I just don't see it.

Look, 1800X debuted at $500 MSRP. Top-end consumer chip, HALF the price of older historical top-end AMD CPUs (Athlon 64 x2 as mentioned).

Fast-forward 2-3 years, we've got the 3900X for the $500 pricing slot again. But this time, we get 12C/24T, and higher clocks, Nearly DOUBLE the performance of the 1800X (ok, just eyeballing here, I haven't benchmarked), for the same price, two years later.

Edit:

PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

PassMark Software - CPU Benchmarks - Over 1 million CPUs and 1,000 models benchmarked and compared in graph form, updated daily!

www.cpubenchmark.net

1800X 15,535
3900X 31,862

Over double the performance!

By comparison, GPU values are standing still.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Nearly DOUBLE the performance of the 1800X (ok, just eyeballing here, I haven't benchmarked), for the same price, two years later.

In CBR20 my 3900x is more than twice as fast as my old 1800x. In CBR15, not quite 2x as fast, but close (3900x: 3453, 1800x: 1815)

 

[Thunder 57]

In CBR20 my 3900x is more than twice as fast as my old 1800x. In CBR15, not quite 2x as fast, but close (3900x: 3453, 1800x: 1815)

Good thing that "money grabbing monster" made all that money so they could double CPU performance in two years. I mean, Intel, when they had no competition took seven years to do the same according to Passmark (2600k till 9700k).

 

[IEC]

If you want a cheap 12 core, there's always the TR 1920X. I sold one of mine a month or so ago for $200. That guy got a smoking deal.

I'll probably sell the 1950X next.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

I hadn't built my own pc in a very very long time, and then Ryzen came along. The first gen was great value, but not quite enough to get my money. The second gen was only ever billed as a minor upgrade, so was never going to get my money. This third gen went above and beyond, not only in price and performance, but also the whole chiplet concept. I had no hesitation in jumping onboard with a 3600X for £218. Anything above that was never really going to tempt me since the extra cash is always better spent on an improved GPU for my own personal use cases.
If a 3600x2 was also available at marginally higher prices then it'd have been a steal, and yes I may have bought it. But, and it is a big but, I wouldn't then be buying any new CPU for the next 10 years.
Companies have to price products with future earnings in mind. If you give me free god-like stuff today, you're not going to be getting any money from me tomorrow. If you don't get any money from me tomorrow, even if you made slightly more money today you are going out of business the day after tomorrow. That is what I mean by decimating the market; its not just today's products that'd have to compete with it.
The desktop market does not have the same level of loyalty buy-in as mobiles do, so it has to do everything it can to actually provide worthwhile products to the market; good enough to justify the purchase, but not so cheap or expensive that it has full or zero market penetration.
I'm actually happy to see AMD aren't short-term profiteering.

 

[Asterox]

In CBR20 my 3900x is more than twice as fast as my old 1800x. In CBR15, not quite 2x as fast, but close (3900x: 3453, 1800x: 1815)

Very impresive no doubt, but even more impresive is( if you ignore servers or Epyc Rome)what you can get from AMD up to 200$.This is most important price point for 80% of PC buyers or gamers.Ryzen 5 3600, in near future his price will drop for another 20$ no doubt.

So if you want to buy AMD CPU, "you have a little problem" hm old Ryzen 7 or new gaming Ryzen 5.Non gaming Ryzen 5 2600 is only nuisance, or for example the best seling CPU(57 000+ sold) on german Mindfactory retailer.

But hey on Intel side no problem, just ignore and goodbye.

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3600-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B07STGGQ18

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B41717Z

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-Cooler/dp/B07B41WS48/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ryzen+5+2600&qid=1570107912&s=electronics&sr=1-1

 

[ElFenix]

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?

Why are you shouting?

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[CHADBOGA]

Why are you shouting?

AT Moderator ElFenix

For the hard of seeing folks who don't agree with him.

 

[Thunder 57]

Why are you shouting?

AT Moderator ElFenix

Who is this @Grazick character who has been here for most of the year and has zero posts, just some reactions, including downvoting your post? It must not be human, or am I wrong?

 

[Kocicak]

Why are you shouting?

Not shouting, just emphasizing! You know, like in real life? People can do that with their voices.

 

[Thunder 57]

Not shouting, just emphasizing! You know, like in real life? People can do that with their voices.

Yes, but the increased font size is annoying as well as excessive capitalization. I know I did it in one post in this thread, but I limited it to one sentence and figured you would see it is annoying, especially if quoting. I could have just said that though, and so that's my bad.

I had hoped you came back to make some points regarding what I said, or @VirtualLarry, @PotatoWithEarsOnSide, @CHADBOGA, or anyone else I may have missed.

I won't speak for others, but I thought my post about Intel having little/no competition in the high end was pretty damning.

Good thing that "money grabbing monster" made all that money so they could double CPU performance in two years. I mean, Intel, when they had no competition took seven years to do the same according to Passmark (2600k till 9700k).

So, as you said earlier, yes competition lowers prices! That doesn't mean a company should price a great product stupidly low though. AMD needs to rake in that profit to continue putting the pressure on Intel and hopefully coming close to 50% of the market share. Should that happen, we all win!

 

[Thunder 57]

Looks like the 3900 is better than expected.

 

[Kocicak]

Setting the world records suggests that the silicon used in 3900 is good, or possibly even better than the one used in 3900X.

Now we have two (not counting the PRO version) 12 core CPUs made from good chiplets, one expensive and the second one little bit less expensive. It is high time to make a third CHEAP one made from worse chiplets.

3600x2 = 12 cores for masses!

And the upcoming 12 core Intel processor from the HEDT platform would have OVER TWO TIMES lower performance/price ratio than this 3600x2 from the mainstream platform. OUCH.

 

[Kocicak]

Nah. The 3700X, at $80 more than your CPU, has the same stock clocks and 200MHz more boost for four less cores. That's nothing, that chip is then DOA. 3800X, 300MHz more but for $150 more and four less cores. Dead. 3900X? 400MHz more at literally twice the price. That's a deal for a sucker.

I understand that the introduction of 3600x2 would decrease sales of the CPUs you mentioned a bit.

I already suggested on the top of this page, that 3600x2 could be locked in its TDP limit.

You have inefficient CPU locked at 105W for $269. You can do A LOT MORE computing with an efficient CPU oveclocked to 180W for example. As I said earlier 3600x2 and 3900 (3900x) could live happily next to each other.