Question Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series pricing

[bsp2020]

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."

 

[Arkaign]

They are testing dozens of CPUs in one go,they can't build the best system for each CPU,they go for the extreme build that will not hinder the best CPUs they have and then just switch out CPUs.

Sure, and that's fine, but it's literally not what they did with these setups.

2600X got a watercooler and OC.
9400f got the stock cooler and stock turbo setup, bouncing between 2.9Ghz and brief 3.9 all core turbo.

With XTU, you can lock them at 4.1 all core. But I don't recommend it on the stock cooler at all, it's really cheesy and not at all a good choice. But the $20 212s and knockoffs can absolutely run XTU at 4.1x6 locked with the setup. Or, in this test I guess if they were interested in doing so : just reusing the h115i.

 

[TheELF]

It's all academic now. Nobody should choose a 2600x or a 9400F over an R5 3600x.

"nobody" ? Like even someone who just want's to check his emails on a PC?

 

[Arkaign]

Yeah, with all due respect, 3600x is $249 for just the CPU.

Can get a 1700+Mobo+RX570 for that price if you have a Micro Center. Even without a Micro Center you can get a 9400f+z370 Mobo for that price.

Zen2 is fantastic. But it's not AMD's value line. It looks like they're using Zen+ for that, while vendors like MC offer tempting doorbusters on OG Zen stuff as well.

 

[Mockingbird]

Yeah, with all due respect, 3600x is $249 for just the CPU.

Can get a 1700+Mobo+RX570 for that price if you have a Micro Center. Even without a Micro Center you can get a 9400f+z370 Mobo for that price.

Zen2 is fantastic. But it's not AMD's value line. It looks like they're using Zen+ for that, while vendors like MC offer tempting doorbusters on OG Zen stuff as well.

R&D costs money

If you want the latest and greatest tech, pay up

 

[DrMrLordX]

"nobody" ? Like even someone who just want's to check his emails on a PC?

Don't be ridiculous. If all you are doing is checking email, then you would not get a 2600x, a 9400F, or a 3600x. You would probably use a smartphone or tablet.

 

[Arkaign]

R&D costs money

If you want the latest and greatest tech, pay up

Exactly, these are all tiered out pretty well.

1000 series, especially with the MC pricing, is crazy good for lower budget.

9400f/2000 series, next rung up.

Then boom 3000 series greatness.

Just depends on budget, wants, needs.

 

[amrnuke]

If each core already runs two threads then it's at full utilization.
You can look at the 4/8 zen part to see how much performance you loose by not having those threads running for your game.

Yes it would, that's what I said,but the 9400f will also have a nice FPS advantage to eat into.
The 8400 is 100Mhz slower then the 9400f and has a 135FPS avg compared to the 109FPS avg of the 2600x ,6 cores vs 6 cores with SMT and the 8400 still has a 24% advantage in avg FPS you can eat into.

Excellent attempts. Your hypothesis about "two threads then it's at full utilization" doesn't bear out, because if the pipeline isn't full, then there's still headroom. The CPU can delegate partial workloads to all 12 threads. This does not equate to full utilization.

In any case, guessing is nice, but benchmarks and reviews are nicer.

There are reviews comparing the 8400 to the 2600 and nearly all state that if you're doing anything more than just gaming, they'd take the 2600 - not even talking about the 2600x. TomsHardware said that the 1600X is a better gaming+streaming platform than the 8600K (which is better than the 8400, of course; and naturally the 2600X is better than the 1600X).

GamersNexus compared the 2600X to the 8600K and recommended the AMD chips for streaming, specifically mentioning that the 8600K often fails to even encode any frames and creating a new metric, 1FENET (one frame every now and then) because the 8600K was so bad at streaming along with gaming ().

Whatever you personally think of how resource utilization works (and you should probably read up on it), it doesn't matter. The proof is in the performance. When measuring streaming + gaming, AMD beats the pants off the 8600K. It would surely do so against the less powerful 8400, but mercifully, no one has felt the need to perform such a bloodbath.

 

[TheELF]

Excellent attempts. Your hypothesis about "two threads then it's at full utilization" doesn't bear out, because if the pipeline isn't full, then there's still headroom. The CPU can delegate partial workloads to all 12 threads. This does not equate to full utilization.

In any case, guessing is nice, but benchmarks and reviews are nicer.

How exactly doesn't it bear out?
the 1600x has twice the threads of the 8600k and still while streaming both of them loose 15% the 1600x does not loose less performance because of it's more threads and the 8600k still has more FPS while streaming.

 

[Hitman928]

How exactly doesn't it bear out?
the 1600x has twice the threads of the 8600k and still while streaming both of them loose 15% the 1600x does not loose less performance because of it's more threads and the 8600k still has more FPS while streaming.

What is the effect when looking at streaming quality though. . .

Or the effect on the 1% lows. . .

 

[TheELF]

The difference in streaming "quality" is ridiculous , 1.5% against 5.5% ?
Other than that,game to game basis...
Anyway my point was that games use more than 6 cores and that you do loose performance no matter how many more threads you have and not to start a discussion about which one streams better.

 

[Hitman928]

The difference in streaming "quality" is ridiculous , 1.5% against 5.5% ?
Other than that,game to game basis...
Anyway my point was that games use more than 6 cores and that you do loose performance no matter how many more threads you have and not to start a discussion about which one streams better.

GTA5 steams well on the 8600k because the game itself doesn't use many cores:

Compared to Battlefield 1:

Most games can't even use 6 cores fully. If a game could properly utilize 8 cores and 16 threads, do you really expect an 8600k to keep up?

 

[ElFenix]

Can you guys keep it vaguely related to the R3k? I'm sure there's threads about the 8600k and R1600x to discuss those processors in.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[TheELF]

GTA5 steams well on the 8600k because the game itself doesn't use many cores:


Compared to Battlefield 1:



Most games can't even use 6 cores fully. If a game could properly utilize 8 cores and 16 threads, do you really expect an 8600k to keep up?

And yet the 1600x looses 30% performance for streaming GTAV instead of the 15% in BF1 although it has even more threads free...

Sorry ElFenix that's it from me, no more talk about it.

 

[Kocicak]

I would still argue that the original leak from AdoredTV - the CPU lineup including prices looks perfectly rational and would generate massive demand and sales. It would be like dropping a bombshell on the market and just capturing it nearly all. It would be a huge and loud AMD comeback. A memorable event.

If AMD would not be able to supply what would be needed (due to unexpected demand for server CPUs and resulting shortage of chiplets for example), the plans just might have changed. If this was the case I feel really sorry that the huge AMD event will not happen as planned.

 

[exquisitechar]

I would still argue that the original leak from AdoredTV - the CPU lineup including prices looks perfectly rational and would generate massive demand and sales. It would be like dropping a bombshell on the market and just capturing it nearly all. It would be a huge and loud AMD comeback. A memorable event.

If AMD would not be able to supply what would be needed (due to unexpected demand for server CPUs and resulting shortage of chiplets for example), the plans just might have changed. If this was the case I feel really sorry that the huge AMD event will not happen as planned.

Nah, it would have lowered their ASP massively. For 90% of people, the $100 6c/12t would be overkill, and most people would buy that. You overestimate the demand those prices would generate too, and it wouldn't even matter with bottom of the barrel margins. AMD is being smart with the pricing. You just want amazing CPUs for pennies so you don't see it.

 

[Kocicak]

For 90% of people, the $100 6c/12t would be overkill, and most people would buy that.

I am not so sure, if you could buy 12 or 16 cores for reasonable price? That is a VERY attractive offer and even a computer non-enthusiast would be very tempted.

I was planning to get a 12 core, it will not happen now for $500.

 

[coercitiv]

I was planning to get a 12 core, it will not happen now for $500.

What's your use case for 12 cores this year?

 

[Kocicak]

What's your use case for 12 cores this year?

I use the same computer (processor) for at least 4 years. 12+ cores is a future proofing for me.

 

[B-Riz]

I would still argue that the original leak from AdoredTV - the CPU lineup including prices looks perfectly rational and would generate massive demand and sales. It would be like dropping a bombshell on the market and just capturing it nearly all. It would be a huge and loud AMD comeback. A memorable event.

If AMD would not be able to supply what would be needed (due to unexpected demand for server CPUs and resulting shortage of chiplets for example), the plans just might have changed. If this was the case I feel really sorry that the huge AMD event will not happen as planned.

AMD negated Intel's x99 HEDT two years ago at the Zen launch, then again with Threadripper.

That is a huge good will / marketing point you seem to be conveniently forgetting.

AM4 Zen2 is fighting the place Intel put all their eggs, the mainstream desktop.

If you really want a 12c / 24t cpu, wait for the holiday sales at the end of the year if you live in the US, I can see it going to $400 ish to really turn the screws on the competition.

 

[B-Riz]

What's your use case for 12 cores this year?

3900X and 64GB of RAM means I can finally have more than one Chrome tab open.

 

[Kocicak]

You just want amazing CPUs for pennies so you don't see it.

Sometimes a technology advancement simply abruptly brings a lot more to the customers for their money than was possible before that.

I think that the time is right now but AMD just refused to do it and priced the CPUs similarly to the previous generation before the advancement. And that is disappointing.

 

[B-Riz]

I am not so sure, if you could buy 12 or 16 cores for reasonable price? That is a VERY attractive offer and even a computer non-enthusiast would be very tempted.

I was planning to get a 12 core, it will not happen now for $500.

The whining about the price is tiring.

Lets go back to the good old days of true Intel dominance.

Behold the Pentium II launch prices.

Pentium II 233 5/7/1997 $636
Pentium II 266 5/7/1997 $775
Pentium II 300 5/7/1997 $1,981

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_II_microprocessors

https://www.anandtech.com/show/55

Imma keep reminding you the 3900X is $700 CHEAPER than what Intel has for 12c / 24t single socket desktop.

 

[Kocicak]

Imma keep reminding you the 3900X is $700 CHEAPER than what Intel has for 12c / 24t single socket desktop.

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.

 

[thigobr]

How do you know the technology enables AMD to sell 3 chiplets for less money than the cheap previous GF process? And that it would make a profit selling for $300...

Of course the consumer always has the right to refuse buying but in this case the prices are good enough for early adopters

 

[Topweasel]

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.

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. I am not a big fan of people who try to say that AMD is selling stuff too cheap and they need more margin to win the war. They are never going to win the war. I think Marketshare wins them what they need. That said just because the 16c chip would push the 12c chip into the <$400 territory doesn't mean AMD can actually get away with that and might be the very reason the 16c version doesn't exist right now. Because they would either have to price it too high or the 12c version too low.