Question Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series pricing

Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series retail pricing

  • 3700X -> 8 cores at $330, 3800X -> 12 cores at $500, 16 core possibly at higher price.

    Votes: 26 40.6%
  • 3700X -> 12 cores at $330, 3800X -> 16 cores at $500

    Votes: 31 48.4%
  • They are both too expensive. AMD's high end can't cost that much because no one will buy it

    Votes: 3 4.7%
  • They are both too cheap. AMD will go after market share at all cost.

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • Total voters
    64
Dec 29, 2015
65
43
61
#1
There has been a lot of post back and forth about what the pricing and core counts will be of Zen2 based Ryzen processors. So, I think it's time to ask people to vote for what they believe AMD's high end AM4 product stack will look like at what prices. I think there are mainly two different opinions about what the high end AM4 offering will be like. So, please, vote for your favorite.

Edit: The extra comment I put at the end of the last choice does not make sense. Please, ignore it.
"They are both too cheap. AMD will go after market share at all cost."
 
Last edited:

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,770
26
126
#2
There has been a lot of post back and forth about what the pricing and core counts will be of Zen2 based Ryzen processors. So, I think it's time to ask people to vote for what they believe AMD's high end AM4 product stack will look like at what prices. I think there are mainly two different opinions about what the high end AM4 offering will be like. So, please, vote for your favorite.

Edit: The extra comment I put at the end of the last choice does not make sense. Please, ignore it.
"They are both too cheap. AMD will go after market share at all cost."
You don't have enough sensible options in your poll. :oops:
 

Mockingbird

Senior member
Feb 12, 2017
639
336
96
#4
Ryzen 3 3200G - 4C/4T - $99

Ryzen 3 3400G - 4C/8T - $149

Ryzen 5 3600 - 6C/12T - $199

Ryzen 5 3600X - 6C/12T - $229

Ryzen 7 3700 - 8C/16T - $299

Ryzen 7 3700X - 8C/16T - $329

Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $499

Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $529

Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $699

Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $729
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,384
337
126
#7
The last option makes no sense:
They are both too cheap. AMD will go after market share at all cost.
Should it be, "they are both too expensive"?
 

AnnoyedGrunt

Senior member
Jan 31, 2004
570
6
81
#8
Ryzen 3 3200G - 4C/4T - $99

Ryzen 3 3400G - 4C/8T - $149

Ryzen 5 3600 - 6C/12T - $199

Ryzen 5 3600X - 6C/12T - $229

Ryzen 7 3700 - 8C/16T - $299

Ryzen 7 3700X - 8C/16T - $329

Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $499

Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $529

Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $699

Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $729
I think the last 4 are all $100 too expensive.

-T
 

Gideon

Senior member
Nov 27, 2007
425
32
136
#10
While I see the logic behind Mockingbird prices, IMO the upper end is too expensive. The sweet-spot for the highest end has long been between 300-350$. With higher core-counts this has somewhat shifted, but very very few people are willing to pay >500$ for a mainstream CPU alone. IMO for the best incentive the 16 core models should not exceed 599$ and 12 core models 499$ (except for the higher clocked, binned black editions or whatnot, should those exist).

Also let's not forget that at launch a top-of-the-line 2700X cost the same as a 1700 (non X) on its launch, 329$, both with coolers, so the price cut from 1800X was quite significant.

If anything, I'd rather believe, that AMD might opt for not bundling the cooler with the highest end 12-16 core CPUs (which will be the most likely to run on higher-end custom cooling anyway) rather than price them to stratosphere.

IMO the best balance inciting people to upgrade to more cores (e.g. from 6->8; 8->12, etc) would be something like this:

Ryzen 5 3600 - 6C/12T - $199
Ryzen 5 3600X - 6C/12T - $229
Ryzen 7 3700 - 8C/16T - $299
Ryzen 7 3700X - 8C/16T - $329
Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $399
Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $429 <- enthusiast sweet-spot
Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $549
Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $599

I wouldn't mind 36xx series to be a bit cheaper (179$ and 199$) but i doubt it will happen initially.

I also don't see the point of selling the 39xx series for any higher prices (as they would probably be without a cooler anyway). People at those ranges would then rather go for Threadripper. Considering AMD is able to sell the much larger die 7nm Vega with its interposer, expensive 16GB of HBM2, Complex board with 300W power delivery, & corresponding cooler for only $799 (with a way smaller production run to remedy development costs) it seems ridiculous to price them that high.

For instance I own a 1700X, and though I'm really itching for an upgrade (part of the reason of building this rig was to update to 7nm at the first place) going to another 8-core seems like a waste. I'd like at least a 12 core, but wouldn't want to pay > $500 for it (especially as I'd probably want a AIO cooler as well, which is another 120$ or so).
 
Apr 27, 2000
10,817
537
126
#11
The sweet-spot for the highest end has long been between 300-350$.
AMD didn't charge any more than that for Zen+, true. With Zen they had only the 1800x as a halo part at $499. So I think we may see at least one SKU reach that price level. I can see AMD releasing CPUs for AM4 in at least three waves - first wave topping out at 3800x (or whatever), then a second wave for lower-price SKUs (basically Zen2 replacements for R3 lineup, which was not refreshed by Zen+), and a final wave for Picasso. Somewhere in the second or third wave, we may see higher core-count AM4 chips at prices above $499. Picasso may hit the market at the same time as the cheaper Zen2 SKUs as well. But that is just my speculation. When it comes to 12c and 16c SKUs, I approach the matter as "I'll believe it when I see it". The 12c rumour has some legs thanks to the 12c ES that is supposed to be floating around out there. I would like to see some CPUz screenshots and benches for it before I pass final judgment.

I have said it before, but I'll say it again: for everything except their Picasso APUs, I expect AM4 CPU prices to range from $110 (low-end R3) to $499 (high-end R7/R9/whatever) with the possible option of a $549 halo chip later in 2019. 8c, 12c, and/or 16c will have to fit in that range. AMD has picked up a lot of market share with that pricing strategy over the past two years, so I expect that they'll continue to follow it. And, of course only a few chips will sell for more than $330, so if 12c and 16c chips are a part of the AM4 lineup, I expect to see them there. Demand won't be that high for such high core counts on AM4.

WRT Intel, AMD has years of experience dealing with their pricing strategies. Intel pushes high margins with high MSRPs, but at the same time, they use backroom deals and price reductions to get chips into the hands of OEMs/system integrators at lower cost. Shareholders seem to approve of the tactic. If AMD publicly lowers their prices (let's say, $350 for a 16c/32t AM4 CPU), Intel won't move their MSRP much at all. Instead OEMs like Dell and HP/Gateway will get deep discounts to keep chips flowing into OE boxes. If you believe what the CEO of MSI said recently, Intel may not even have their desktop/laptop chip supply problems fully ironed out until Q4 2019 (that's one of the reasons why you're paying over MSRP for a 9900k right now, folks), so it's not like Intel chip prices will drop like a rock in response to aggressive pricing from AMD. AMD might pick up more market share in the DiY segment from dropping publicly-stated MSRPs, but in the OEM segment? Maybe not.

OEMs want to see "better support" from AMD, and I think that may be in the form of improved financial incentives to use their chips. They also want to see volume from AMD like Intel of yesteryear (rather than supply-constrained Intel of 2018). AMD's big shot at expanding market share won't be from public pricing schedules; instead they'll get their best opportunity offering "better support" to OEMs along with higher volume. Bickering back and forth about price on this forum won't change much, nor will the MSRPs for box processors. AMD will charge one thing to the DiY market and quite another thing to OEMs/ODMs/integrators . . . assuming they follow in Intel's footsteps. And why wouldn't they?
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
3,959
102
126
#12
Ryzen 7 3700X - 8C/16T - $329
Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $399
Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $429 <- enthusiast sweet-spot
Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $549
Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $599
That can't work. You then get more cores per $ at the high end, eg. the high end being cheaper than mainstream makes little sense. The 12 core has 50% more cores. So the 3800X should be priced roughly as much more. Same fir the 3900x.

I suspect we will not see a 16 core at all on launch. Makes more sense to first sell a 12-core at 9900k prices and wait for the 16-core for a later release.
 
Jun 8, 2003
14,061
93
126
#13
That can't work. You then get more cores per $ at the high end, eg. the high end being cheaper than mainstream makes little sense. The 12 core has 50% more cores. So the 3800X should be priced roughly as much more. Same fir the 3900x.

I suspect we will not see a 16 core at all on launch. Makes more sense to first sell a 12-core at 9900k prices and wait for the 16-core for a later release.
They are launching the 8 core first, not a 12 core. Lisa said so in her interview.
 
Apr 27, 2000
10,817
537
126
#14
That can't work. You then get more cores per $ at the high end, eg. the high end being cheaper than mainstream makes little sense. The 12 core has 50% more cores. So the 3800X should be priced roughly as much more. Same fir the 3900x.
Price/core doesn't make any difference to AMD, and usually it doesn't to the customer, either. There's nothing inherently wrong with selling a top-bin 8c/16t chip for $330 and a 16c/32t chip for $500 if AMD knows that $500 is about the limit of what people will pay for an AM4 chip anyway (too few memory channels, too few PCIe channels for the HEDT users). You can either see the 16c chip as being too cheap or the 8c chip as being too expensive. Either way, it'll work about as well for AMD as if they sold an ultra-high-binned 8c/16t for $500. The only difference would be one chiplet. Big deal. Later on they can sell a higher-binned 16c, and maybe test the limits of AM4 by pricing it higher than $500.

I suspect we will not see a 16 core at all on launch.
Ditto. We may not see one on AM4 at all unless AMD thinks they have to release one to bury 10c Comet Lake.
 

Timorous

Senior member
Oct 27, 2008
365
57
116
#15
Something like this could work. 50% more cores for a similar price vs the 2xxx lineup and in terms of 3x00 pricing it is pretty similar to 1st gen.

Athlon 3xxG - 4c - $50-90

Ryzen 3 3300G - 6c - $119
Ryzen 3 3400 - 6c - $139
Ryzen 3 3400X - 6c - $179

Ryzen 5 3500G - 8c - $199
Ryzen 5 3600 - 8c - $219
Ryzen 5 3600X - 8c - $249

Ryzen 7 3700 - 12c - $329
Ryzen 7 3700X - 12c - $399

Ryzen 9 3800 - 16c - $469
Ryzen 9 3800X - 16c - $549

TR 3900X - 16c - $599
TR 3920X - 24c - $899
TR 3940X - 32c - $1199
TR 3960X - 48c - $1799
TR 3980X - 64c - $2399
 

Gideon

Senior member
Nov 27, 2007
425
32
136
#16
TR 3900X - 16c - $599
TR 3920X - 24c - $899
TR 3940X - 32c - $1199
TR 3960X - 48c - $1799
TR 3980X - 64c - $2399
Interesting, though I wouldn't be surprised if we won't see a 64 core Threadripper on a TR4 platform at all. I'm pretty sure we'll see more than 32c though, e.g. 48c, to warrant some upgrading.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,384
337
126
#17
Something like this could work. 50% more cores for a similar price vs the 2xxx lineup and in terms of 3x00 pricing it is pretty similar to 1st gen.

Athlon 3xxG - 4c - $50-90

Ryzen 3 3300G - 6c - $119
Ryzen 3 3400 - 6c - $139
Ryzen 3 3400X - 6c - $179

Ryzen 5 3500G - 8c - $199
Ryzen 5 3600 - 8c - $219
Ryzen 5 3600X - 8c - $249

Ryzen 7 3700 - 12c - $329
Ryzen 7 3700X - 12c - $399

Ryzen 9 3800 - 16c - $469
Ryzen 9 3800X - 16c - $549

TR 3900X - 16c - $599
TR 3920X - 24c - $899
TR 3940X - 32c - $1199
TR 3960X - 48c - $1799
TR 3980X - 64c - $2399
I think this is the best prediction yet. The only thing that feels off is the wide gap around $300, but maybe that’s just me.

We might not see a 16-core Threadripper though. If they use the same 8 chiplet layout as with Epyc that’s either a lot of dummy dies or a lot of badly defective dies. Maybe some mix of both. 24 core seems more likely, if for no other reason than to offer better product segmentation, but also because it will be easier to make without intentionally disabling itherwise functional silicon.

Similarly, I think that 64-core Threadripper will be much more expensive. Unlike previously, Intel has no competition so AMD could charge a premium for being able to get a 64-core workstation CPU.
 

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,324
286
136
#18
I think this is the best prediction yet. The only thing that feels off is the wide gap around $300, but maybe that’s just me.

We might not see a 16-core Threadripper though. If they use the same 8 chiplet layout as with Epyc that’s either a lot of dummy dies or a lot of badly defective dies. Maybe some mix of both. 24 core seems more likely, if for no other reason than to offer better product segmentation, but also because it will be easier to make without intentionally disabling itherwise functional silicon.

Similarly, I think that 64-core Threadripper will be much more expensive. Unlike previously, Intel has no competition so AMD could charge a premium for being able to get a 64-core workstation CPU.
The Ryzen package shown was asymmetrical in die layout. We would not be too presumptuous to assume that symmetry in a package is no longer required. They must have thought of the waste. We would.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,634
293
136
#19
The Ryzen package shown was asymmetrical in die layout. We would not be too presumptuous to assume that symmetry in a package is no longer required. They must have thought of the waste. We would.
I don't know of truly asymmetric designs. But I though thought the configuration of Epyc was pretty interesting. Pretty sure they can do a 4 chiplet version on top of the 8.
 

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,390
153
126
#20
Ryzen 3 3200G - 4C/4T - $99

Ryzen 3 3400G - 4C/8T - $149

Ryzen 5 3600 - 6C/12T - $199

Ryzen 5 3600X - 6C/12T - $229

Ryzen 7 3700 - 8C/16T - $299

Ryzen 7 3700X - 8C/16T - $329

Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $499

Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $529

Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $699

Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $729
I hope not, the last thing we need right now is for AMD to come forward and increase once again the max tier price on consumer market.
 

NostaSeronx

Platinum Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,252
57
106
#21
I'm voting for cheap. These aren't monolithic chips.

Single die 8c => $179 pls-mns $50
Dual die 12c => $239 pls-mns $100
Dual-die 16c => $359 pls-mns $150
 

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,390
153
126
#22
Something like this could work. 50% more cores for a similar price vs the 2xxx lineup and in terms of 3x00 pricing it is pretty similar to 1st gen.

Athlon 3xxG - 4c - $50-90

Ryzen 3 3300G - 6c - $119
Ryzen 3 3400 - 6c - $139
Ryzen 3 3400X - 6c - $179

Ryzen 5 3500G - 8c - $199
Ryzen 5 3600 - 8c - $219
Ryzen 5 3600X - 8c - $249

Ryzen 7 3700 - 12c - $329
Ryzen 7 3700X - 12c - $399

Ryzen 9 3800 - 16c - $469
Ryzen 9 3800X - 16c - $549

TR 3900X - 16c - $599
TR 3920X - 24c - $899
TR 3940X - 32c - $1199
TR 3960X - 48c - $1799
TR 3980X - 64c - $2399
This is wrong the moment you mention 6C/8C "G" model, there will be no such thing unless the I/O die is hidding something like a Vega 11, and even if thats the case, they may just go forward and call everything G. So remove those 2 G models, add Ryzen 3 3200G 4C/8T Picasso at $99 and it is possible.
 
Last edited:

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,384
337
126
#23
I don't know of truly asymmetric designs. But I though thought the configuration of Epyc was pretty interesting. Pretty sure they can do a 4 chiplet version on top of the 8.
I don't think there's any doubt that they can do such a thing, but if you remember back to the first Threadripper chips, AMD populated them with dead Zen chips. Maybe the reasons they previously used no longer apply, but a 16C Threadripper would have to use 8 chiplets with only 2 cores functioning (seems unlikely), 4 chiplets with only 4 cores functioning and then maybe 4 dead chiplets for stability if that's necessary at all, or 2 fully functional chiplets, and then 2 - 6 dead chiplets for stability.

There are probably other ways you could Frankenstein together a 16 core chip, but it seems like they'd want to avoid weird configurations like 6 + 2 + 4 + 4 even if they're theoretically possible.
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
653
174
96
#24
There are probably other ways you could Frankenstein together a 16 core chip, but it seems like they'd want to avoid weird configurations like 6 + 2 + 4 + 4 even if they're theoretically possible.
Or the IOC could make exactly that possible without its spec diverting from an 8 + 8 config. It probably all depends on the yield. Maybe an Epyc/TR with the server IOC and one chiplet each side of it is stable enough already anyway and a multiple of two chiplets is the only precondition.
 

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,390
153
126
#25
I don't think there's any doubt that they can do such a thing, but if you remember back to the first Threadripper chips, AMD populated them with dead Zen chips. Maybe the reasons they previously used no longer apply, but a 16C Threadripper would have to use 8 chiplets with only 2 cores functioning (seems unlikely), 4 chiplets with only 4 cores functioning and then maybe 4 dead chiplets for stability if that's necessary at all, or 2 fully functional chiplets, and then 2 - 6 dead chiplets for stability.

There are probably other ways you could Frankenstein together a 16 core chip, but it seems like they'd want to avoid weird configurations like 6 + 2 + 4 + 4 even if they're theoretically possible.
I want to belive that AMD is no forced to populate all 8 chips on the big I/O die.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS