Why are AMD cpus prices being slashed to heavily?

[DominionSeraph]

ryzen 5 1600: cpu benchmark score cpuz = 444
intel i5 3rd gen: cpu benchmark score cpuz = 375 (with an overclock no less).

For me. So mine's atleast 18% faster in the real world.

My three i7 3770 systems cost $575 in total. What did your one Ryzen 5 1600 one cost?
And it's not even unfair to use those 3770's since they're the worst price/performance in my stable. The 4790 was $150, the 2700k was $150 and does 4.7GHz stock volts, the 4440 was $100, and the 860 was thrown in for free.
So sell me on Ryzen.

 

[coercitiv]

...........redacted.......

Don't enable, you'll live longer, better.




Please don't quote the profanity in tech.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Indus]

My three i7 3770 systems cost $575 in total. What did your one Ryzen 5 1600 one cost?
And it's not even unfair to use those 3770's since they're the worst price/performance in my stable. The 4790 was $150, the 2700k was $150 and does 4.7GHz stock volts, the 4440 was $100, and the 860 was thrown in for free.
So sell me on Ryzen.

3rd gen costed me same as Ryzen now when I bought it. Motherboard costed me same roughly as before.. less actually with rebate now. Video card costed me ridiculously more now than before.

Maybe you don't understand that people can be happy with AMD. It's not all benchmarks with nothing in background. Real world is gaming with browser windows open in background and spreadsheets and usually some lightroom export working on dual monitors.

So you try selling me on intel when I have an awesome Ryzen system which gives me 120 fps at 1440p in black desert online and does my work for me than I ever did before on my intel.

And why should I downgrade?

 

[DominionSeraph]

3rd gen costed me same as Ryzen now when I bought it. Motherboard costed me same roughly as before.. less actually with rebate now. Video card costed me ridiculously more now than before.

Maybe you don't understand that people can be happy with AMD. It's not all benchmarks with nothing in background. Real world is gaming with browser windows open in background and spreadsheets and usually some lightroom export working on dual monitors.

Hint: a browser or spreadsheet open in the background only takes RAM. Also, most people don't heavily CPU multitask on a single system, and when they do it's amenable to process prioritization (I game on my main while encoding and it doesn't affect the game one bit). If it's not you're still open to multiple PCs. So sell me on buying an 8 core Ryzen when I can easily sling encodes across 24 dedicated cores while gaming on another 4, all for right around the same cost as 1800X system.

This thread is about Ryzen being overpriced. It was and still is.

 

[Indus]

LMAO and intel 8700k isn't overpriced?

Intel is overpriced for what maybe 12% more performance you're paying double what I did? So sad!

 

[DominionSeraph]

8700k trounces Ryzen in single-PC tasks.
Used PCs trounce Ryzen in multiple-PC tasks

I wouldn't buy 8700k's for my cluster, but if I wanted top performance for my main I'd have no other choice.
Ryzen... fits nowhere. Its only market seems to be as a budget option for proprietary workstation apps that license by the socket.

How does anyone know whether the 1200 die is a defective one or a disabled one?

I mean AMD had disabled cores in the past but where is the proof that they are doing the same this time as well?

Didn't AMD confirm all the hexes were 3x3 and the quads 2x2 -- that there'd be no cherry ones? So a die with two bad cores on one CCX would have to be sold as a quad even though it has six good cores.

 

[tamz_msc]

My three i7 3770 systems cost $575 in total. What did your one Ryzen 5 1600 one cost?
And it's not even unfair to use those 3770's since they're the worst price/performance in my stable. The 4790 was $150, the 2700k was $150 and does 4.7GHz stock volts, the 4440 was $100, and the 860 was thrown in for free.
So sell me on Ryzen.

Yes please, keep arguing about how a couple of used systems when combined are faster than a single new system. If doing that makes the AMD chips look overpriced, it must make the Intel ones ridiculously overpriced - like why pay 1500$ for a 7900X+RAM+Motherboard when your three 3770s can do the same amount of x264 encoding per unit of time at a third of the price, right?

 

[Indus]

Yeah by his logic we need a 1080ti for solitaire or a few tnt rivas. It's pointless to play it on a vega.. what <redacted> ever.

And he's making a total fanboy argument. Trounce? Seriously? the Ryzen trounces Intel 3rd gen.. hell it totally trounces my core 2 duo which I gave away as e-waste.

And I'm supposed to trust a company that screwed over its fanboys twice this year with no motherboard compatibility? LMAO. No thanks. I'll take my ryzen compatibility into 2020 and overclock to 6 ghz on a 7nm chip over that.

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums
Markfw
Ananadtech Moderator

 

[TheELF]

Yes please, keep arguing about how a couple of used systems when combined are faster than a single new system.

Huh? But that's the one thing that ZEN does.
The CCXs are quad cores with smt, with lower than "new system" IPC,connected by infinity.
It's the equivalent of two old i7s on a single chip.
Jet every AMD fanboy is proud as heck that it can beat a single current i7,at least in completely parallel workloads.

And yes, everything X that intel releases is extremely overpriced but than again it's the only thing in the world that will give you the best parallel plus the best serial execution times for the amount of cores.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Yes please, keep arguing about how a couple of used systems when combined are faster than a single new system. If doing that makes the AMD chips look overpriced, it must make the Intel ones ridiculously overpriced - like why pay 1500$ for a 7900X+RAM+Motherboard when your three 3770s can do the same amount of x264 encoding per unit of time at a third of the price, right?

That seems to be the consensus, yes. How much of an AMD fanboi are you that you're making ridiculous pro-Intel strawmen in your head?
7900X is even more niche than Ryzen.

 

[TahoeDust]

I'll take my ryzen compatibility into 2020 and overclock to 6 ghz on a 7nm chip over that.

Yeah...good luck with that.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Used PCs trounce Ryzen in multiple-PC tasks

By that logic, there's no reason to buy anything new, since "used PCs" are also going to trounce anything Intel has released in the last two years in "multiple-PC tasks". Since, you know, I'm sure you don't want that shiny new 7980XE either.

Sorry, I do not want a "stable" of PCs chewing up every damn wall outlet in the house using up who-knows-how-much power to do everything my 1P desktop is supposed to do on its own. That job belongs to my mining rigs.

If you're suggesting clusters or multiple non-clustered PCs as an alternative to a 1P power user box, then sorry, but very few people will take that suggestion. Most people - even enthusiasts - want a concentration of cores operating within a relatively sane power budget in one socket. Maybe two sockets on one board if they're really hardcore. But that is uncommon to find people who want that these days.

If power and space are no concern, I could get by better with a slew of used 8350s since people will give those away for practically nothing.

 

[DominionSeraph]

By that logic, there's no reason to buy anything new, since "used PCs" are also going to trounce anything Intel has released in the last two years in "multiple-PC tasks".

No. Try reading the rest of the post you quoted.

If power and space are no concern, I could get by better with a slew of used 8350s since people will give those away for practically nothing.

I haven't found that. Intel's success was such that the market is absolutely flooded with OEM PCs with 2nd and 3rd gen i7's so they go for nothing. People want a premium for their dinky custom Faildozer rigs.
You can get the processors for cheap but you can't put a PC together for cheaper than an Intel prebuilt.
Oh, and two i7's don't pull much more than a single Ryzen. Ryzen is full 95W, while the "77W" 3770 only pulls around 50W. My undervolted 4790 is 48W full load. There are other system draws but they're not much.

 

[DrMrLordX]

No. Try reading the rest of the post you quoted.

I did. My point still stands. That you're suggesting clusters as an alternative to Ryzen for anything is ridiculous. If you want to argue that the 8700k is better than the 1800x then go ahead, 1800x had a 8-month lead on it so AMD isn't crying any tears with Pinnacle Ridge just around the corner. And their sales have been phenomenal so hey, good for AMD.

But AMD isn't losing any sales because some "power" forum user figured out how to use a slew of old Ivy and Haswell hardware in a cluster instead of buying an AMD 8c/16t chip. Pure nonsense.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I did. My point still stands. That you're suggesting clusters as an alternative to Ryzen for anything is ridiculous.

Yet here I am with a cluster of Intel systems and here AMD is lowering prices.
You really think I'm the only person to figure this out? I picked mine up from a guy upgrading his cluster.
There aren't many workloads that can utilize a ridiculous amount of cores that aren't amenable to clustering. AMD thought stuffing more cores in a single box was worth a price premium when it's not. If I had picked up a dual E5-2670 system like I was musing, would I have used it as my main? No, since my 4790 is considerably faster for pretty much any single-user task. So even though 16 Sandy cores would have more overall crunching power than 4 Haswell, the 4 Haswell wins out.
The 7700k beats Ryzen 1800X for single-user tasks, the 8700k beats it by more, and the 1800X costs more than both. If I would use an i7 4790 over a dual E5-2670 system for my main (which vies with the 1920X), what makes you think anyone wants Ryzen over the 7700k/8700k for their main?

 

[chrisjames61]

What a tiny chain like Microcenter does has no effect whatsoever on what WalMart or Amazon do. To think so is insane. That is like saying toothpaste is on sale at your mom and pop store that WalMart, the biggest retailer in the world is going to drop their prices in response.

 

[VirtualLarry]

What a tiny chain like Microcenter does has no effect whatsoever on what WalMart or Amazon do. To think so is insane. That is like saying toothpaste is on sale at your mom and pop store that WalMart, the biggest retailer in the world is going to drop their prices in response.

Actually, that's exactly what they do to local Mom'N'Pops stores, to drive them out of business.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yet here I am with a cluster of Intel systems and here AMD is lowering prices.
You really think I'm the only person to figure this out? I picked mine up from a guy upgrading his cluster.

But you are blithely ignoring the significant increase in infrastructure and power costs involved in moving away from a single 1P Ryzen system to a bunch of used Intel gear.

Go ahead, run clusters, have fun. Some of us are shopping on a socket-by-socket basis, trying to keep the total number of sockets down and reduce redundancy (multiple motherboards, multiple PSUs, etc).

Yet here are countless users with 1P Ryzen/TR systems. Do you think I'm the only person to figure this out?

 

[tamz_msc]

That seems to be the consensus, yes. How much of an AMD fanboi are you that you're making ridiculous pro-Intel strawmen in your head?
7900X is even more niche than Ryzen.

Ya I bet that if a 1700 came labelled as a 5960X but at less than 300$, it would be amazing for you right?

And you know what? That "not many things use 8 cores" argument is pretty old at this point.

Huh? But that's the one thing that ZEN does.
The CCXs are quad cores with smt, with lower than "new system" IPC,connected by infinity.
It's the equivalent of two old i7s on a single chip.
Jet every AMD fanboy is proud as heck that it can beat a single current i7,at least in completely parallel workloads.

And yes, everything X that intel releases is extremely overpriced but than again it's the only thing in the world that will give you the best parallel plus the best serial execution times for the amount of cores.

As far as performance is concerned -
2x i7 7700 at 300$ each equals one 7820X at 600$

2x used i7 3770 at 150$ each equals one Ryzen 7 1700 at 300$.

So when Intel does it(create the 7820X) it's called making progress, but when AMD does it, it doesn't matter because old i7s are still cheaper?

What does Intel have at 300$ that's worth two 3770s, if you can please elaborate?

 

[TahoeDust]

I feel like this thread has jumped the shark.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Ya I bet that if a 1700 came labelled as a 5960X but at less than 300$, it would be amazing for you right?

It would have to be a lot less than $300. You can get a Precision T5600 with dual E5-2670's and 32GB RAM for $607 shipped.

I'd pay $110 for a 1700 and maybe $140 for a 5960X. They're simply not worth more.

And you know what? That "not many things use 8 cores" argument is pretty old at this point.

The post-purchase rationalization is strong in this one.

2x used i7 3770 at 150$ each equals one Ryzen 7 1700 at 300$.

Actually it's two used i7 3770 systems = one Ryzen 1700 system, with the former costing $400 total and the latter $700.

What does Intel have at 300$ that's worth two 3770s, if you can please elaborate?

It has the 8700k at $400 that has no equal anywhere. No matter how many 2700k's, 3770's, E5-2670's, Ryzens, Threadrippers, or EPYCs I line up, they will not have the single-threaded performance of an 8700k.

 

[tamz_msc]

It would have to be a lot less than $300. You can get a Precision T5600 with dual E5-2670's and 32GB RAM for $607 shipped.

So let me parse your logic here - paying Intel 300$ for fast single-threaded performance is OK. Paying AMD the same for fast multi-threaded performance is not OK because used Ivy Bridge/Haswell quads and Sandy Bridge Xeons are much cheaper? That's dumb - other way to put it. The same thing can be said about Intel's 8+ core offerings you know?

The post-purchase rationalization is strong in this one.

I'm sorry that you can't find much use for more cores except encoding. Oh, and aren't you trying to rationalize your second-hand purchases too?

The irony is strong in this one.

 

[Markfw]

It would have to be a lot less than $300. You can get a Precision T5600 with dual E5-2670's and 32GB RAM for $607 shipped.

I'd pay $110 for a 1700 and maybe $140 for a 5960X. They're simply not worth more.



The post-purchase rationalization is strong in this one.


Actually it's two used i7 3770 systems = one Ryzen 1700 system, with the former costing $400 total and the latter $700.



It has the 8700k at $400 that has no equal anywhere. No matter how many 2700k's, 3770's, E5-2670's, Ryzens, Threadrippers, or EPYCs I line up, they will not have the single-threaded performance of an 8700k.

OK, so I saw this https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Preci...547988?hash=item3d31534d94:g:kWwAAOSwjDZYho3h
Looks interesting, except the memory is probably 2133, and its all non-upgradable, and the video card and OS are a joke.
And the 2 8 core CPU's are 2.6 ghz, again, no overclocking. The power usage is probably off the charts compared to a TR system, and the performance is probably half. The SSD is most likely NOT an M.2

And now TR is $880 ?

WOW, you really are trying hard to sell us on this old crap aren't you ?

 

[eek2121]

The 1800X's were massively overpriced on release. Most people's workloads are single-thread limited so the i7 7700k was trouncing it where it mattered for 95% of people, and out of those who have massive multithreaded workloads, most are amenable to clustering. I'm not going to buy an 1800X CPU for $500 when I can get two i7 3770/12GB systems with legit copies of Windows for $400.

The 1700 was the only somewhat interesting one, but once AMD showed just how big a screw-job that was by selling the exact same die in the 1200 for $110 that became uninteresting as well. Give me an unlockable 1200 like the old Phenom II X2 and X3's and I'll jump on it, but I'm not going to pay extra for the same silicon just because AMD thinks I'm a fool who'll fall for their artificial segmentation.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1826?vs=1950

 

[DominionSeraph]

OK, so I saw this https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Preci...547988?hash=item3d31534d94:g:kWwAAOSwjDZYho3h
Looks interesting, except the memory is probably 2133, and its all non-upgradable, and the video card and OS are a joke.
And the 2 8 core CPU's are 2.6 ghz, again, no overclocking. The power usage is probably off the charts compared to a TR system, and the performance is probably half. The SSD is most likely NOT an M.2

And now TR is $880 ?

WOW, you really are trying hard to sell us on this old crap aren't you ?

You are bad at this.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Build-Your...-2-60GHz-E5-2670-No-OS-Wholesale/382029040949

They're 115W each vs 180W for a TR 1920X. Nobody overclocks work machines.
Performance?
TR 1920X: Passmark of 19665
Dual E5-2670: 18303
The dual E5-2670 is $200 less for a system than the TR is for the CPU alone. The cheapest TR mobo is what, $300? You're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of $1400 to get a TR system that compares to that $607 T5600.
Guess how it will compare to two?