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?

 

[fkoehler]

If AMD has any surplus of defective chiplets, is anyone dumb enough to think they're not going to find a way to make use of them?

I think that should close out this thread nicely.

 

[DrMrLordX]

@fkoehler

Seconded.

 

[Kocicak]

Are you guys going vote or sign petition so that moderator without any real reason closes this thread, just because you do not like what I write? Are you kidding???

Even if I was just mentally challenged person making nonsensical noises in your opinion, well behaved and nice people just would not voluntarilly visit the room with such a person, if they could not stand the noises. Only bad people would try to silence the poor person.






Mod callouts are not allowed.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[rbk123]

Kocicak seems a little on edge this morning. Poor guy must have had a rough weekend.

 

[Asterox]

No, come on! He wants a 65W 3600x2 12C24T with an all-core boost of 4.8GHz with an in-package AIO cooler for $99.98. If AMD are just using their lowest-binned chiplets it won't really cost them anything!!!

Well it is expected, because Ryzen 1000 or 2000 6/12 CPU-s have very poor price-performance ratio.

We need 6/12 CPU for 50$, until then we cant sleep in peace.

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1600BBAEBOX/dp/B06XNRQHG4

AMD Ryzen 5 2nd Gen - RYZEN 5 2600 Pinnacle Ridge (Zen+) 6-Core 3.4 GHz (3.9 GHz Max Boost) Socket AM4 65W YD2600BBAFBOX Desktop Processor - Newegg.com

Buy AMD Ryzen 5 2nd Gen - RYZEN 5 2600 Pinnacle Ridge (Zen+) 6-Core 3.4 GHz (3.9 GHz Max Boost) Socket AM4 65W YD2600BBAFBOX Desktop Processor with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

 

[scannall]

Well it is expected, because Ryzen 1000 or 2000 6/12 CPU-s have very poor price-performance ratio.

We need 6/12 CPU for 50$, until then we cant sleep in peace.

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1600BBAEBOX/dp/B06XNRQHG4

AMD Ryzen 5 2nd Gen - RYZEN 5 2600 Pinnacle Ridge (Zen+) 6-Core 3.4 GHz (3.9 GHz Max Boost) Socket AM4 65W YD2600BBAFBOX Desktop Processor - Newegg.com

Buy AMD Ryzen 5 2nd Gen - RYZEN 5 2600 Pinnacle Ridge (Zen+) 6-Core 3.4 GHz (3.9 GHz Max Boost) Socket AM4 65W YD2600BBAFBOX Desktop Processor with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

Just bought a 2600 for $108. Pretty amazing performance for the little money it cost to buy.

 

[Thunder 57]

Are you guys going vote or sign petition so that moderator without any real reason closes this thread, just because you do not like what I write? Are you kidding???

Even if I was just mentally challenged person making nonsensical noises in your opinion, well behaved and nice people just would not voluntarilly visit the room with such a person, if they could not stand the noises. Only bad people would try to silence the poor person.

I would never try to silence anyone. It's not that I don't like what you write, it's that what you write is misguided. Instead of accusing others of conspiring to get your thread locked, how about you actually make some arguments? A nice place to start would be by replying to @DrMrLordX's highly liked post. My guess is that you have no argument, and that's why you conveniently ignored it, and, instead, come up with this conspiracy theory.

BTW, the only person I recall being warned in your threads is yourself. Don't try to blame others for that. Also, a well behaved nice person would correct someone who is saying things that don't add up, so that they can not continue to say misinformed things to others.

 

[Zucker2k]

This forum is not AMD-biased. It has spent most of its history being Intel-biased, since Intel has had the faster CPUs throughout that period. Every time AMD pulls ahead, heads start to explode.

Did you type that with a straight face? Never mind, you'll never find out with your pro AMD posts.

Where are the "Intel lies about their power usage!!!!" controversy threads? There aren't any.

Those are well covered between you and @Abwx in mostly Intel threads. Is there a need for more?

Where are the "Intel betrayed me, where are my 10nm dekstop CPUS!!!!!" threads? There aren't any.

Are you trying to be ridiculous with this statement?

Where are the "Intel won't unlock all their parts!!!!!" controversy threads? There aren't any.

Is AMD not the value friendly tech messiah who is here to show Intel the benevolent way of doing business?

Where are the "Intel CPUs can't run AVX2 at full clockspeed!!!" threads? Nope, none of those either.

Intel chips are running AVX2 loads and stress testing at 5GHz and beyond (P95) so there's that.


On the OP, I'm particularly intrigued by the continued absence of the 3950x, a chip AMD is marketing as a gaming chip, considering they're still trailing Intel 6 cores in gaming, let alone 8 cores. That 4.7GHz advertised single core boost of the 3950x must be proving rather difficult to bin in sufficient quantities, I suspect.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Did you type that with a straight face?

Yes. Read the last 20 years of the CPU forum. Look for all the cat-faced avatars. You can't miss em.

Is there a need for more?

Sure, why not? If your'e going to ask for AMD to sell a $250 12c/24t chip, may as well gripe about Intel power usage too!

Are you trying to be ridiculous with this statement?

Not at all. Intel 10nm was initially due in 2015. Don't you think someone, somewhere, should be upset that they can't buy 10nm desktop chips from Intel in 2019? As opposed to . . . I don't know, a $250 12c chip from AMD?

Is AMD not the value friendly tech messiah who is here to show Intel the benevolent way of doing business?

Maybe they are, or maybe they aren't. Intel is still not the friendly tech messiah by locking down all their parts as they did in the past, which they really only got away with due to performance and market dominance. Kinda makes you wonder why they think they can still get away with it today.

Intel chips are running AVX2 loads and stress testing at 5GHz and beyond (P95) so there's that.

chips, plural? Wrong. Exactly one chip can (sort of) do that. One. And can you buy one for MSRP? Nope!

On the OP, I'm particularly intrigued by the continued absence of the 3950x

Heh. Should launch alongside Threadripper. Not like the OP wants a 3950x! He wants a $250 "3600x2".

 

[maddie]

Yes. Read the last 20 years of the CPU forum. Look for all the cat-faced avatars. You can't miss em.



Sure, why not? If your'e going to ask for AMD to sell a $250 12c/24t chip, may as well gripe about Intel power usage too!



Not at all. Intel 10nm was initially due in 2015. Don't you think someone, somewhere, should be upset that they can't buy 10nm desktop chips from Intel in 2019? As opposed to . . . I don't know, a $250 12c chip from AMD?



Maybe they are, or maybe they aren't. Intel is still not the friendly tech messiah by locking down all their parts as they did in the past, which they really only got away with due to performance and market dominance. Kinda makes you wonder why they think they can still get away with it today.



chips, plural? Wrong. Exactly one chip can (sort of) do that. One. And can you buy one for MSRP? Nope!



Heh. Should launch alongside Threadripper. Not like the OP wants a 3950x! He wants a $250 "3600x2".

Shintai was truly a phenomenon.

 

[Zucker2k]

Yes. Read the last 20 years of the CPU forum. Look for all the cat-faced avatars. You can't miss em.

20 years! That's a long time to be on the receiving end.

Shintai was truly a phenomenon.

Sounds like he's scarred a few for life

Maybe they are, or maybe they aren't. Intel is still not the friendly tech messiah by locking down all their parts as they did in the past, which they really only got away with due to performance and market dominance. Kinda makes you wonder why they think they can still get away with it today.

Because they're still competitive? I mean, on the one hand, we're all glad AMD is back in the game because competition is good for the consumer, but we turn around and act as if AMD wouldn't have been dead and buried by now had Intel released 10nm chips in 2017. And what has AMD been doing all these years if their latest and greatest is still only on par with Intel's 2015 architecture, ipc-wise? They can play the core game for so long before Intel works out its process issues, then the real engineering would have to start. Exciting times ahead.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Shintai was truly a phenomenon.

That would be a . . . charitable term. But yes, he was.

Because they're still competitive?

For now. But again, think about it this way: Intel launched the world's fastest desktop (read: non-HEDT) computer CPU in the world last year: the 9900K. What did they launch this year? The same chip, with a clockspeed bump. When they launch Comet Lake-S (which may be their only desktop launch for all of 2020; not sure if they can pull Rocket Lake-S forward fast enough), they still won't have anything as fast as the 3900x. And then Zen3 hits in Q3 2020.

The only way anyone posts stuff like this thread is if they want AMD to commit public suicide to keep Intel in the game. Never mind that Intel and AMD have broadly ignored forum warriors when it comes to "helpful suggestions" about what they should or should not sell (go back and read some of the amusing BD/PD-era AMD threads; creative ideas abound!). But AMD would have to be daft to start undercutting their own pricing when they've got a hot hand. One that's about to get hotter.

 

[Zucker2k]

When they launch Comet Lake-S (which may be their only desktop launch for all of 2020; not sure if they can pull Rocket Lake-S forward fast enough), they still won't have anything as fast as the 3900x.

In fp heavy multithreaded workloads, to a large extent, yes. In most workloads, 12 threads and fewer, which happens to cover the vast majority of desktop workloads - including gaming, Intel is still faster, thanks to 4.7-5GHz on all cores. As powerful as 3900x, and by extension, 3950x are in throughput grunt, they are much more suited to rendering and production tasks. Maybe Zen 3 would prove to be different but until then, Intel still has the more competitive overall "desktop" chip in the 9900K(S), in my opinion.

 

[Markfw]

In fp heavy multithreaded workloads, to a large extent, yes. In most workloads, 12 threads and fewer, which happens to cover the vast majority of desktop workloads - including gaming, Intel is still faster, thanks to 4.7-5GHz on all cores. As powerful as 3900x, and by extension, 3950x are in throughput grunt, they are much more suited to rendering and production tasks. Maybe Zen 3 would prove to be different but until then, Intel still has the more competitive overall "desktop" chip in the 9900K(S), in my opinion.

Yes, the 9900k(s) are the fastest gaming chips. But anywhere other than the top (read expensive, $500-$600) AMd has chips that are far less expensive and within 5%. Not everybody needs the fastest chip alive. And the 3700x (as an example) is very close in most respects, but at almost 1/2 the price !

And in HEDT ? The new threadripper3 (days away) will blow anything that Intel has away. 24-32 cores ? Not handicapped like TR1 and TR2 for memory above 16 cores. With quad channel memory, it might even be suitable for gaming, we will see.

And as @DrMrLordX says, wait until Zen3 next fall. Will Intel have a competitor for that ? I wouldn't put money on it.

 

[Thunder 57]

In fp heavy multithreaded workloads, to a large extent, yes. In most workloads, 12 threads and fewer, which happens to cover the vast majority of desktop workloads - including gaming, Intel is still faster, thanks to 4.7-5GHz on all cores. As powerful as 3900x, and by extension, 3950x are in throughput grunt, they are much more suited to rendering and production tasks. Maybe Zen 3 would prove to be different but until then, Intel still has the more competitive overall "desktop" chip in the 9900K(S), in my opinion.

Well you know what they say about opinions . Gaming is the one thing where Intel still holds a small lead in, and that's why the pro Intel crowd now acts as if people only build PC's for gaming . As far as AMD only recently surpassing Skylake IPC, well, Intel is still at Skylake IPC years later, so what difference does it make? Sure, there is Ice Lake, but it runs at such lower frequencies the IPC advantage is essentially negated.

When Intel has a 4.5GHz Ice Lake on desktop, then that will be interesting. Until then, AMD has had all the momentum. That's good, as they may need it if Intel does start executing again, which it appears they will.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Yes. Read the last 20 years of the CPU forum. Look for all the cat-faced avatars. You can't miss em.

Where are they now?

 

[RetroZombie]

Yes, the 9900k(s) are the fastest gaming chips. But anywhere other than the top (read expensive, $500-$600) AMd has chips that are far less expensive and within 5%. Not everybody needs the fastest chip alive. And the 3700x (as an example) is very close in most respects, but at almost 1/2 the price !

And in HEDT ? The new threadripper3 (days away) will blow anything that Intel has away. 24-32 cores ? Not handicapped like TR1 and TR2 for memory above 16 cores. With quad channel memory, it might even be suitable for gaming, we will see.

I agree with what you say Mark but I think the Intel 9900 any of them are not the fastest gaming chip. That belongs to the Amd 1920(X) and 1950X and let me explain why:
I always like to look into the future so when I see something today I tend analyze where it will be, and it tells me that software will evolve and use more threads, so by 2022 the 9900 versions will be slower and will slowdown faster, and slower not only at games but at everything else.
I know my thinking is not consensus, and before someone disagrees, see the intel 6700/7700 vs amd 1600/1700 in 2017 and what some of you guys typed and reread in again in 2020 (the ones that recommended the intel systems are wrong). Even intel employees agree with their internal memos how amd is ahead not only from the marketing stand point (more cores) but also technology (more cores).

Who thinks the future is cpus with less cores, o.s. doing less multitasking, o.s. running fewer services, less background tasks, less antivirus load,… resuming how magically one cpu with eight cores will be faster than one with twelve feel free to enlighten me.
I would only consider one of the intels 9900 if it cost the same of the 3700X, because it would be slightly faster but since it requires to invest in a big cooler ($$$), better motherboard ($$$) and better PSU($$$), not so sure...


Just a small presentation:
I’m a big follower of anandtech forums for many years, never posted here because of the huge lack of time to do so, my favorites here are markfw because he is a very truthfully person his opinions are very similar to mine, virtual larry also very rightful and its budged builds and his obsolete hardware choices match mines, and drmrlordx for his immense knowledge and great explanations for the error wings, there are more but the top three is enough
English is my third language so sorry for the errors, typos, grammar, …

 

[Thunder 57]

I agree with what you say Mark but I think the Intel 9900 any of them are not the fastest gaming chip. That belongs to the Amd 1920(X) and 1950X and let me explain why:
I always like to look into the future so when I see something today I tend analyze where it will be, and it tells me that software will evolve and use more threads, so by 2022 the 9900 versions will be slower and will slowdown faster, and slower not only at games but at everything else.
I know my thinking is not consensus, and before someone disagrees, see the intel 6700/7700 vs amd 1600/1700 in 2017 and what some of you guys typed and reread in again in 2020 (the ones that recommended the intel systems are wrong). Even intel employees agree with their internal memos how amd is ahead not only from the marketing stand point (more cores) but also technology (more cores).

Who thinks the future is cpus with less cores, o.s. doing less multitasking, o.s. running fewer services, less background tasks, less antivirus load,… resuming how magically one cpu with eight cores will be faster than one with twelve feel free to enlighten me.
I would only consider one of the intels 9900 if it cost the same of the 3700X, because it would be slightly faster but since it requires to invest in a big cooler ($$$), better motherboard ($$$) and better PSU($$$), not so sure...


Just a small presentation:
I’m a big follower of anandtech forums for many years, never posted here because of the huge lack of time to do so, my favorites here are markfw because he is a very truthfully person his opinions are very similar to mine, virtual larry also very rightful and its budged builds and his obsolete hardware choices match mines, and drmrlordx for his immense knowledge and great explanations for the error wings, there are more but the top three is enough
English is my third language so sorry for the errors, typos, grammar, …

Welcome , and not bad for a third language!

 

[Markfw]

Just a small presentation:
I’m a big follower of anandtech forums for many years, never posted here because of the huge lack of time to do so, my favorites here are markfw because he is a very truthfully person his opinions are very similar to mine, virtual larry also very rightful and its budged builds and his obsolete hardware choices match mines, and drmrlordx for his immense knowledge and great explanations for the error wings, there are more but the top three is enough
English is my third language so sorry for the errors, typos, grammar, …

Thanks for the compliment @RetroZombie !

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thanks, @RetroZombie , and welcome to our forums!

 

[DrMrLordX]

In fp heavy multithreaded workloads, to a large extent, yes.

In int-based workloads, I suspect the 3900x will also be faster. And we still haven't dealt with the issue of the 3950x . . .

@RetroZombie

Hope you enjoy the dying medium of proper Internet forums. It's good to see a little bit of new blood around here every now and then. Now maybe I know what HAM radio operators felt like 30 years ago when a new kid showed up wanting to learn more. Or BBS Sysops of any stripe getting a new user after about 1995.

Where are they now?

Gone but not forgotten. Actually I think Felix is still around here somewhere. He's always good for a laugh. Shintai may be on semiaccurate now? I do see someone posting with his name on some gaming forums.

Rest assured that when some 7nm Golden Cove CPU shows up in January 2022, they'll be back. Or not, depending on how well that thing stacks up against Zen4 and (later) Zen5.

 

[amd6502]

No doubt, I'm just saying that nobody needs a 24 core beast for strictly gaming. If you use it for work and game on the side then great. I doubt AMD would mix CCD's with different max frequencies though. And yes, let's wait and see the real lineup before we speculate about another "that would be great" CPU.

Okay, you called this 100% correctly Thunder. They are making 3000 threatripper and TR4+ strictly a > $1000 elite HEDT platform, starting with the 24c (4x 6c), and probably incrementing by 8c (32c, 40c?, 48c?). Aiming at film studios, enterprise, and media creators.

According to Robert Hallock they are giving 2000 threatripper the role of ~$1000 HEDT. So this would where enthusiasts and HEDT gamers might go, esp'lly if budget sensitive to dropping $1400 on a 24c/48t CPU.

2000 series is still in production according to Robert, and we can expect the 2000 series to dramatically undercut the 3000 series in pricing,

 

[Markfw]

What I don't get, is why everybody is so surprised at the price. Maybe because none of you bought a 2970wx or a 2990wx ? They are only a couple of hundred more, but way faster.

 

[amd6502]

What I don't get, is why everybody is so surprised at the price. Maybe because none of you bought a 2970wx or a 2990wx ? They are only a couple of hundred more, but way faster.

The 2970wx (24c) seems steeply discounted already (~$900) while the 2990wx doesn't ($1700). I would think the 3960x would be just about fast as the 2990wx (maybe slightly behind in MT while considerably ahead in ST).

 

[Markfw]

The 2970wx (24c) seems steeply discounted already (~$900) while the 2990wx doesn't ($1700). I would think the 3960x would be just about fast as the 2990wx (maybe slightly behind in MT while considerably ahead in ST).

I can get a 2990wx for $1150 on ebay, but the 2970wx the best I can get so far is 750. Biding my time.....