• 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 9 - 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

exquisitechar

Senior member
Apr 18, 2017
288
252
106
If a technology advancement enables AMD to sell 12 core for $300 while still making money on it, I simply want it for $300 and not for $500. That is not whining, that is rational thinking of a consumer. I do not care about Intel.
What technology advancement? Cost per transistor went up with 14nm and 7nm, design costs have exploded too. The chiplet design helps, but it's not a miracle. The core count increase at every price tier by Adored was always a pipe dream, AMD's margins would be lower than before and they are aiming to increase them, not decrease them. AMD is not interested in being the budget brand anymore and they have made that clear. You can want cheaper CPUs as a "rational consumer", I "wanted" a slightly cheaper 8 core and I think the 3800x is badly priced too, but Adored's pricing and 12 cores for $300 would not be good for AMD as a company.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,670
91
91
Anyone looking for cheaper prices, just wait a couple months for sales. We were spoiled for a single cycle because of AMD and continue to get great upgrades, how quickly people forget what we were getting from Intel for years.

Also I expect to see a 16 core version released later on, maybe with a price drop on some of the rest of the line.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,314
2,826
136
If a technology advancement enables AMD to sell 12 core for $300 while still making money on it, I simply want it for $300 and not for $500. That is not whining, that is rational thinking of a consumer. I do not care about Intel.
You sort of have a point, as a consumer. Most of what I buy from day to day is a retail product with an expected 40% profit margin to be shared by the manufacturer, distributor, and retailor. It doesn't leave a lot for them to carve up. But we don't know what AMD's profit margin is on these products. As is typical of the semiconductor industry, the high-bin "e-peen" products that only sell in the tens of thousands of units will have insane profit margins, while similar downbinned silicon has a much lower margin.

I mean really, the R9 3900x is just an R5 3600 with an extra chiplet. Does that extra chiplet and all the binning really cost AMD an extra $300? Probably not. Halo products command halo prices. Just be glad they went back to the 2017 playbook instead of trying to match Intel HEDT pricing.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,498
855
136
Just 2 1/2 years ago, pre-Ryzen you were paying $360 for 4/8. Now you can get 8/16 for that same price. Seems like quite a price drop already. Considering what you are getting, the prices don't seem unreasonable. Would I like to get a 3900X for $10, with a free T-shirt? Of course. But that isn't rational or realistic. AMD has debt to pay off, not to mention R&D costs to bring us CPU goodness in the future.
 

Kocicak

Member
Jan 17, 2019
156
110
76
What technology advancement? Cost per transistor went up with 14nm and 7nm, design costs have exploded too. The chiplet design helps, but it's not a miracle.
If you break CPU into building blocks while each block can be manufactured on a different technology (incl. cheap well matured technology) and these blocks are small and much more effective to manufacture than a large monoblock cpu - that brings cost savings in tens of percents compared to old large monoblock design.
 

Kocicak

Member
Jan 17, 2019
156
110
76
No that isn't being rational. There is nothing to suggest such a thing is possible. That might be the very reason there isn't a 16c CPU.
12C is made from 6C chiplets which are broken 8C chiplets. 6C chiplets are essentially a waste product. 16C needs to be made of TWO healthy chiplets and no 16C CPU yet supports my theory that AMD has chiplet shortage possibly due to using them in server CPUs. 8C made of ONE healthy chiplets are announced, but nobody yet knows the real availability of processors after launch. There may be not so many of them available.
 
Last edited:

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,551
745
126
If a technology advancement enables AMD to sell 12 core for $300 while still making money on it, I simply want it for $300 and not for $500. That is not whining, that is rational thinking of a consumer. I do not care about Intel.
12C is made from 6C chiplets which are broken 8C chiplets. 6C chiplets are essentially a waste product. 16C needs to be made of TWO healthy chiplets and no 16C CPU yet supports my theory that AMD has chiplet shortage possibly due to using them in server CPUs. 8C made of ONE healthy chiplets are announced, but nobody yet knows the real availability of processors after launch. There may be not so many of them available.
Dude. Just stop. You want AMD to sell you chips at cost. That is not going to happen.

AMD is undercutting Intel by $100 for 8c16t and by $700 for 12c24t chips with equivalent performance. At this point you sound like a paid shill looking to smear mud all over AMD.

Personal insults and accusations
such as "shill" are not allowed in
the tech forums.


AT Mod Usandthem
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,506
676
126
12C is made from 6C chiplets which are broken 8C chiplets. 6C chiplets are essentially a waste product. 16C needs to be made of TWO healthy chiplets and no 16C CPU yet supports my theory that AMD has chiplet shortage possibly due to using them in server CPUs. 8C made of ONE healthy chiplets are announced, but nobody yet knows the real availability of processors after launch. There may be not so many of them available.
So far it looks like those broken chiplets pack a good punch. I guess once the reviews drop we'll see how broken they are or aren't in the end.
 

H T C

Member
Nov 7, 2018
71
56
51
12C is made from 6C chiplets which are broken 8C chiplets. 6C chiplets are essentially a waste product. 16C needs to be made of TWO healthy chiplets and no 16C CPU yet supports my theory that AMD has chiplet shortage possibly due to using them in server CPUs. 8C made of ONE healthy chiplets are announced, but nobody yet knows the real availability of processors after launch. There may be not so many of them available.
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.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,506
676
126
I mean really, the R9 3900x is just an R5 3600 with an extra chiplet. Does that extra chiplet and all the binning really cost AMD an extra $300? Probably not. Halo products command halo prices. Just be glad they went back to the 2017 playbook instead of trying to match Intel HEDT pricing.
The dual chiplet design has built in price war markup it looks like. Might as well test the market and see how it responds before dropping the gauntlet.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,314
2,826
136
The dual chiplet design has built in price war markup it looks like. Might as well test the market and see how it responds before dropping the gauntlet.
Intel hasn't engaged in a price war in awhile, though. Will they do it now that they're on the ropes? The 9900KS suggests that they won't. Keep an eye on those 9900k street prices . . . and 9700k too. Could get interesting.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,539
743
126
I think it's pretty important to consider what AMD can supply as well. Suppose they did cut prices across the board by $100. Demand would probably be through the roof. Unfortunately if AMD can't supply enough chips to meet that demand, the processors just wind up getting flipped on eBay. We saw exactly the same thing happen with GPUs in recent history when the demand from miners far outstripped supply, causing massive price hikes. AMD didn't collect any of that additional money and I suspect that they don't wan to be in a similar position.

The other thing that needs to be considered is that AMD may well win in terms of average IPC, which I think is something that no one really factored into their considerations. I had assumed that they'd pull closer, but still be behind by a small amount which would mean they don't quite have the performance crown and therefore need to price accordingly. However, if they have snatched the performance crown and the AMD chip turns out to be the best gaming CPU there's not a lot of reason for them to price it like it's an okay second option. This is even more true if they're supply constrained.

If you're more price conscious, then wait a while before buying. We've seen plenty of price cuts over time in AMD's existing Ryzen lineups and there's no reason to think that they won't bring out additional products (e.g. 16C R9) in the future and lower the prices of existing ones. Yields likely still have a ways to go and AMD is likely binning some of their best chips for TR since a 32C TR with a base clock of around 3.8 GHz would certainly command even more money.
 

exquisitechar

Senior member
Apr 18, 2017
288
252
106
I wonder if the biggest question for many will be whether or not to buy a 3600X or a 2700X since both will be available for similar prices.
I think the 3600x will be a no brainer. Actually, even a 3600 could be a better choice - especially if it can overclock decently. Even at stock it will have better ST performance, likely only marginally worse MT performance, it will be much more efficient, and will be much better than the 2700x in workloads with AVX2. Between a Zen+ 6 core vs a discounted Zen 8 core, the situation was different, but Zen 2 is a massive improvement.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
12C is made from 6C chiplets which are broken 8C chiplets. 6C chiplets are essentially a waste product. 16C needs to be made of TWO healthy chiplets and no 16C CPU yet supports my theory that AMD has chiplet shortage possibly due to using them in server CPUs. 8C made of ONE healthy chiplets are announced, but nobody yet knows the real availability of processors after launch. There may be not so many of them available.
This isn't AMD coming out with an X2 and X3 product after a while because the chips would be trash otherwise. These are useful chips through their entire product line and AMD's entire development and profitability relies on them making good use of these chips. It's not a coincidence that the 3900x is 2x the price of the 3600x and only $100 more than 2 much lower performance 3600. 3600,3600x, at least 1 TR3, 2-4 EPYC CPU's will all use this chip.

8C probably has the highest demand in the EPYC lineup as purchase to price ratio flips for data centers. But other things play part in this. Even though the 3600's, 3700x, and 3800x are using in demand chiplets on top of the 3900x it's entirely possible that AMD needs to sell these at a certain price to make them a viable profit center compared to EPYC. AMD tends to sell their CPU's as of lately at a certain price per core on current models all the way up the lineup (including EPYC within reason). We all suspect that the Zen2 will be a datacenter game changer. Assuming that's the case ASP on Ryzen affects AMD's allotment of dies. If they drove down Ryzen prices and too negatively affected their margins, then they would shift more of their dies to EPYC.

The good news is AMD's capabilities is even more fluid then if has ever been before. Which means they can react quicker to shifts in market. Including competition from Intel. I wouldn't assume the introductory prices will hold out for the long run. But there is just soooooo much more in play then just the cost of Ryzen 3k and its profitability. It helps on top of that, that its closest competitor in performance is $700 more expensive. If this was AMD of the Athlon64 days, this would be a 1k Product, just because Intel's is at 1.2k
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
I think the 3600x will be a no brainer. Actually, even a 3600 could be a better choice - especially if it can overclock decently. Even at stock it will have better ST performance, likely only marginally worse MT performance, it will be much more efficient, and will be much better than the 2700x in workloads with AVX2. Between a Zen+ 6 core vs a discounted Zen 8 core, the situation was different, but Zen 2 is a massive improvement.
There is some room and I am not sure the 3600 is going to be as competitive 2700x across the board. But yeah honestly the gains on IPC and clock even on the 3600 is going to put so much pressure on the 2700x that I would go that route unless I needed the threads for VM's. But then the 3700x becomes the better solution, lots less power usage, same thread count, and as good if not better clocks.

Zen 2 looks like it's going to outshine Zen+ at any reasonable price break even if every Zen + CPU drops down two tiers.
 

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,802
1,376
136
Anyone ever thought that one of the reasons Intel became so complacent was the ability to obtain constantly increasing margins. They kept churning out profits in spite of overly ambitious tech purchases. Intel made so much money that they literally could not spend it all wisely and wasted a lot, while becoming used to this state of being lazy and sluggish.

Do we really want AMD to follow this path? I'm their true supporter and suggest that they keep margins as small as possible while still being sufficient for R&D, etc. ;)
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,226
293
136
Anyone ever thought that one of the reasons Intel became so complacent was the ability to obtain constantly increasing margins. They kept churning out profits in spite of overly ambitious tech purchases. Intel made so much money that they literally could not spend it all wisely and wasted a lot, while becoming used to this state of being lazy and sluggish.

Do we really want AMD to follow this path? I'm their true supporter and suggest that they keep margins as small as possible while still being sufficient for R&D, etc. ;)
My thought since Sandy Bridge is that the desktop / HEDT became an after thought after Apple started using more of their chips for all the thin and light products they pushed, Retina and beyond stuff.

AMD got the chiplet / Infinity Fabric thing perfected, which enables "gluing" of chips together, so all they need is one good core that can be binned for what ever power envelope they target.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
Anyone ever thought that one of the reasons Intel became so complacent was the ability to obtain constantly increasing margins. They kept churning out profits in spite of overly ambitious tech purchases. Intel made so much money that they literally could not spend it all wisely and wasted a lot, while becoming used to this state of being lazy and sluggish.

Do we really want AMD to follow this path? I'm their true supporter and suggest that they keep margins as small as possible while still being sufficient for R&D, etc. ;)
Honestly AMD was pretty competitive during the Phenom days. Not class leading like the Athlon64 days but still had a healthy market share and competitive products till Sandy Bridge. Anyways AMD was a quarter away from being in shambles. It's kind of funny without much venture capital money AMD basically survived on 10-15 years of losses with a good quarter here or there. Problem is new AMD is very streamlined outside the CPU business they have the GPU business that they can't divorce themselves from now (no matter how much Raj wanted Intel to purchase it off of AMD) and nothing else. It means they can probably run smaller profits, but they have to have those profits. AMD needs to be healthy AMD right now, which means getting ahead of debts and to start putting money into the bank to take on rough times. Specially ahead of 5nm and 3nm. That's not to say they have to push for every dime they can and it's obvious they are not or TR would have been more expensive and certainly the 3900x would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,594
502
126
The only thing i could say about the prices is that Sony would be getting a 8C CPU plus Navi for a lot less, to the point that the whole PS5 will probably cost around the same money that a 3800X-3900X costs. Even considering bulk prices Sony is getting a bargain, and at the same time next gen APUs are MIA.
But thats more of personal opinion than a complain.

The rest is just people that expected a 8C CPU for less than $200, and 6C for $99, when they just launched a 2C/4T for $80 and the second round of Picasso 4C/8T was confirmed... That was imposible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,023
1,202
136
Why would they even want to? Having both CPU and GPU in one house is an advantage, now more than ever (see semi custom business, see compute in datacenters).
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.
 

fkoehler

Member
Feb 29, 2008
42
34
91
Intel hasn't engaged in a price war in awhile, though. Will they do it now that they're on the ropes? The 9900KS suggests that they won't. Keep an eye on those 9900k street prices . . . and 9700k too. Could get interesting.
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 in the hopes there is an earthquake in ROC or something, because Mgmt also doesn't want to have to have these types of discussions with analysts during Investor calls. I don't think Intel has a deep bench when it comes to knowing how to compete when you don't have a 2-year process advantage, and are losing the ability to 'pursuade' other large ODM's.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS