• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series pricing

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series retail pricing

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

    Votes: 42 44.7%
  • 3700X -> 12 cores at $330, 3800X -> 16 cores at $500

    Votes: 42 44.7%
  • They are both too expensive. AMD's high end can't cost that much because no one will buy it

    Votes: 5 5.3%
  • They are both too cheap. AMD will go after market share at all cost.

    Votes: 5 5.3%

  • Total voters
    94

prtskg

Senior member
Oct 26, 2015
231
75
71
Until just the other day, Intel had a rational-ish reason not to engage in a price war.
Now, if they don't engage, they will lose more than single percentage points of marketshare, possibly very significant points considering the continuing mitigation hell.
Intel can minimally engage until they start see their fab's utilization rate start to drop, which costs $$$'s along with reduced income from loss of market share sales.
I think Intel will bluff as long as they can, because Mgmt also doesn't want to have to have these types of discussions with analysts during Investor calls.
Considering the volume of DYI market, I doubt Intel will decrease price of existing products. New processors from Intel might come at more value though.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,430
364
126
Remember we haven't seen all the sku's yet. There could be a lower tier 8 core. Perhaps a 3700. Afterall there is a 3600.
 

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,014
782
106
Because AMD of old had to sell everything bit by bit to stay solvent. But at this point the two are too intertwined and to much of their business relies on both of them to even think it about it.
I'm confused, why are you talking about the AMD of over a decade ago? The one that e.g. sold Adreno to Qualcomm (what a great idea that was in hindsight)? It's not only that the two are too intertwined now, much of the sales back then were a bad idea full stop and would still be bad ideas even today even if they were still possible.
 

Kocicak

Member
Jan 17, 2019
156
110
76
You're forgetting the binning for AM4 VS Epyc is different: for AM4 they are looking for performance while for Epyc they are looking for efficiency. It could be true only if the binning type were the same, which is not.
I do not believe that a good chip with low leakage and high energy efficiency has anything intrinsically wrong with it for "high performance (frequency)". I believe that there is just one main binning concerned with leakage, and the whole line-up of server CPUS can accomodate wider range of chip bins. And that there can be pretty wide chiplet interchangeability between server and desktop CPUs.
 

H T C

Member
Nov 7, 2018
71
56
51
I do not believe that a good chip with low leakage and high energy efficiency has anything intrinsically wrong with it for "high performance (frequency)". I believe that there is just one main binning concerned with leakage, and the whole line-up of server CPUS can accomodate wider range of chip bins. And that there can be pretty wide chiplet interchangeability between server and desktop CPUs.
Actually, the AM4 Binning does have some "competition": it's called Threadripper.

Because Epyc's what more expensive, AMD bins for those 1st. Whatever is left either goes to AM4 or goes to Threadripper, in their various types: full, 1 core disabled or 2 cores disabled (don't think there will be chiplets with 3 cores disabled)). Obviously, Threadripper will get the very best of those.

Of all chiplets made, very few will make the cut for Epyc: think along the lines of 2-3%, if that. Unless ofc Zen 2's yields and quality are a lot higher then previous generation, in which case, that percentage may be higher.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
I'm confused, why are you talking about the AMD of over a decade ago? The one that e.g. sold Adreno to Qualcomm (what a great idea that was in hindsight)? It's not only that the two are too intertwined now, much of the sales back then were a bad idea full stop and would still be bad ideas even today even if they were still possible.
Read the original post I made and the response back to you. I was talking about how while I don't subscribe to the idea that AMD has to price their hardware to match Intel to be competitive and make X profit. that Kocicak's idea that just because AMD can make some measure of a profit at lets say a 12c chip at $300. That AMD isn't the company they were when they went 12 years on losses and that while much smaller and more nimble they are less capable then they were before to asborb losses and making a healthy profit where they can get ahead of their debts and store money is just as important as pricing these to sell more. It's why I am not the hugest fan of taking one part of a quote. The idea was that AMD is CPU+RTG right now and nothing else. In the past they sold just about everything to stay afloat and the one thing that they have that isn't CPU's (RTG) they can't sell.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
What??? You probably forgot 2 zeros there.
Yeah that is off. For starters EPYC and Threadripper aren't in competition for dies. There is a lot more margin for selection when looking for dies that run at low clocks at lower power. Now AMD did say Threadripper got the 5% best dies for clock speeds. That's believable because the product is a much lower volume.
 

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,014
782
106
Read the original post I made and the response back to you. I was talking about how while I don't subscribe to the idea that AMD has to price their hardware to match Intel to be competitive and make X profit. that Kocicak's idea that just because AMD can make some measure of a profit at lets say a 12c chip at $300. That AMD isn't the company they were when they went 12 years on losses and that while much smaller and more nimble they are less capable then they were before to asborb losses and making a healthy profit where they can get ahead of their debts and store money is just as important as pricing these to sell more. It's why I am not the hugest fan of taking one part of a quote. The idea was that AMD is CPU+RTG right now and nothing else. In the past they sold just about everything to stay afloat and the one thing that they have that isn't CPU's (RTG) they can't sell.
Ah sorry, alright. The funny part about the losses is that all of them before and after are dwarfed by the losses AMD posted right after the acquisition of ATi in 2007 and 2008. ATi cost them $5.4 bil in 2006, and they posted losses of $3.3 bil in 2007 and $3.1 bil in 2008, it looks like $2.5 bil of that are write-off of the ATi price tag.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
Ah sorry, alright. The funny part about the losses is that all of them before and after are dwarfed by the losses AMD posted right after the acquisition of ATi in 2007 and 2008. ATi cost them $5.4 bil in 2006, and they posted losses of $3.3 bil in 2007 and $3.1 bil in 2008, it looks like $2.5 bil of that are write-off of the ATi price tag.
If I remember correctly AMD eventually wrote off all of ATI and part of the reason they dropped the name. Its some of the Tax dodging stuff. Microsoft did the same with Nokia. By saying that they lost in value the sum total of ATI and that ATI at that point was "worthless" they owed like nothing in taxes for like 4 years.
 

H T C

Member
Nov 7, 2018
71
56
51
What??? You probably forgot 2 zeros there.
To clarify, i meant for the best Epyc Zen 2 chip (the fastest one with 64 cores): not for the whole Epyc lineup.

Obviously there will be a few percent "here and there" for each of the Zen 2 Epyc CPUs (dunno how many different ones there will be) and that makes the total percentage of chiplets destined for Epyc much much higher.
 

Kocicak

Member
Jan 17, 2019
156
110
76
The price of 16C is $749 then. This is not a cheap desktop processor at all.

Perhaps it is time to get used to the fact that "mainstream desktop computers" will share the same platform and processor product line as "high performance desktop computers".
 
Last edited:

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
As a Desktop CPU it's expensive. It is an absolute crazy bargain that doesn't require almost as expensive platform to run it. Even if X570 boards are mostly hefty priced enthusiast boards. AM4 and Zen 2 are really pushing the boundaries of what is a consumer platform. But at it's heart that is what it is and even if the boards aren't a great value the 3950x is sure to be one.
 

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,868
437
136
As a Desktop CPU it's expensive. It is an absolute crazy bargain that doesn't require almost as expensive platform to run it. Even if X570 boards are mostly hefty priced enthusiast boards. AM4 and Zen 2 are really pushing the boundaries of what is a consumer platform. But at it's heart that is what it is and even if the boards aren't a great value the 3950x is sure to be one.
I think the real bargain is the 12 core.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
I think the real bargain is the 12 core.
That might be the real bang for the buck. $130 for 50% more cores and a clock bump. Less than half it's next closest real competitor. The 3950x is a lot more for those Four extra cores but it's still a value selection at that price. Not necessarily an economical purchase. But no one would be a fool for getting it.
 
Last edited:

amd6502

Senior member
Apr 21, 2017
648
162
86
I think the real bargain is the 12 core.
Definitely. The flagship is just a slightly eliter binning, and four more cores (33% increase). It's almost like that killer guitar amp with 11 volume on Spinal tap; there isn't going to be anything better than it, at least on AM4.

If you're going to clock down near peak perf/watt (server clockspeeds ~2.4GHz) then I don't think the AM4 bandwidth limit (versus TR4) is going to affect most loads dramatically. So, for home servers this could be really popular and is overlapping quite a bit with Threatripper.

So the price premium is 50%, versus 33% more cores. If one accounts other hardware in a build (say 16gb ram+mobo+storage+video) then this price premium comes in-line 1:1 (or better) with multithread performance of the system. So, probably worth it to some.
 

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,902
1,305
136
There was always a premium to be paid for top performance parts, the price hike is never linear. It's an expensive SKU but it has to be due to value it brings to the table. It's highest performing desktop 16C part and will likely beat 18C intel HEDT part in majority of workloads( will lack quad ch. support tho).
 

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,868
437
136
There was always a premium to be paid for top performance parts, the price hike is never linear. It's an expensive SKU but it has to be due to value it brings to the table. It's highest performing desktop 16C part and will likely beat 18C intel HEDT part in majority of workloads( will lack quad ch. support tho).
People need to stop comparing to Intel's HEDT line, as that was always an irrelevant product for 99.5% of users and compare instead to AM4 and 1151 offerings.

I can't help but wonder how supply constrained AMD is going to be, offering new CPU's and GPU's at the same time, hence why their prices are much higher than many had hoped for.

If and when Intel ever come out with 7nm(I have lost all hope for 10nm products), then I expect a 16 core Zen 3 or Zen 4 product to be much more affordable, which will suit me just fine, as it will probably be time for me to upgrade to a new system by then. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
19,818
337
126
I could say I told you so lol :) Corporatism 101, charge what the market will bear. Shareholders run the show.
 

amd6502

Senior member
Apr 21, 2017
648
162
86
People need to stop comparing to Intel's HEDT line, as that was always an irrelevant product for 99.5% of users and compare instead to AM4 and 1151 offerings.

I can't help but wonder how supply constrained AMD is going to be, offering new CPU's and GPU's at the same time, hence why their prices are much higher than many had hoped for.
They are basically bringing TR4 to AM4 to this, so AM4 is now as far reaching into stratospheric HEDT. 1800/1800x and 2700/2700x was already HEDT. Now it is beyond HEDT. 32 threads and you can run these with one command line run these as server loads with insane perf/watt.

The prices have surprised me on the low side. I don't think you can say they've disappointed on the high side. Those few that were actually influenced by the totally unrealistic fanfiction AdoredTV clickbat scam, yes, I suppose they were destined for dramatic disappointment. Should we blame AMD for that??!

So prices on a number of times undershot my expectations:

$110 3200g 3.6-4.0 4c/4t 8CU ryzen 3
$125 3300g 3.3-3.7 4c/8t 8CU ryzen 3
$160 3400g 3.7-4.2 4c/8t 11CU ryzen 5
TBA
$210 6c 3600 4.0-4.4 6c/12t 7nm ryzen 7
$250 6c 3700 4.2-4.7 6c/12t 7nm ryzen 7
$280 8c 3800 4.0-4.6 8c/16t 7nm ryzen 7
$340 8c 3800x 4.3-4.7 8c/16t 7nm ryzen 7
$400 12c 3910 4.0 -4.6 12c/24t 7nm ryzen 9
$500 12c 3920x 4.2-4.8 12c/24t 7nm ryzen 9
TBA

TBA = Aug-Nov launches and releases:
$140 8c 3385x 3.4-4.1 8c/8t 12nm ryzen 3
$150 6c 3565 3.5-4.0 6c/12t 12nm ryzen 5
$160 8c 3585 3.0-4.0 8c/16t 12nm ryzen 7
$145 4c 3500 3.8-4.1 4c/8t 7nm ryzen 5
$175 4c 3500x 4.0-4.4 4c/8t 7nm ryzen 5
$600 16c 3950 3.8-4.5 16c/32t 7nm ryzen 9
$750 16c 3960x 4.1-4.7 16c/32t 7nm ryzen 9
The 3200g+3400g beat on freq and prices ($99, $149).

The 6c low bin ($199) and medium high bin ($249) met expectation and prices.

8c overshot prices a bit and I suspect AMD marketing is involved in this; particularly the 3800x seems to me lower binning than 3700x but run at maximum wattage. So if you consider 3700x as 8c high bin it met my expectations, while 3800x is a non-sequitor conjured up by marketing; I believe those street prices of 3800x should come down to 3700x level super fast.

12c elite bin is right on with price prediction while the 12c low bin is a no-show.

16c elite bin is right on with price prediction and beat timing expectation by months.

And yes I was totally surprised like most with the wider pipeline (3AGU) and overestimated freqs (which the higher IPC more than make up for).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA and guachi

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS