• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)

Page 670 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
coercitiv said:
We all know it was your cousin, don't try to take the credit now!
Click to expand...
Been arguing in favor of lower pricing for a while before Frank's store got stock -
Hail The Brain Slug said:
All I see here is a bunch of hot air.

Meanwhile, Zen 4 closeout is getting even hotter. $470 7950X3D at Amazon for prime members. IIRC this has been an even hotter fire sale leading to the launch than Zen 3 did for Zen 4. Really lends more credibility to the MSRP cut for Zen 5 skus.

Personally I have the idea that 9950X will be $499.
Click to expand...

Hail The Brain Slug said:
I think those prices are too high. There would be no reason to keep high pricing a secret so close to launch, those prices won't meaningfully eat into the fire sale prices of Zen 4, like the $465 7950X3D, $310 7900X3D, etc.

I would think they're keeping the pricing a secret because it's low enough it will affect Zen 4 sales.

Intel is in such a weak position thanks to the current debacle, competitive pricing out the gate for the new gen would probably turn a lot of heads.
Click to expand...

Hail The Brain Slug said:
Even though Zen 4 X3D launched 5 months after Zen 4, they didn't change MSRP on any of the Zen 4 SKU's, only retailer discounts. I believe if AMD is going to launch Zen 5 X3D in September as rumored, they will not price up Zen 5 and price cut/aggressively discount only 2 months later. I think they're going to price the Zen 5 SKU's in their final place in the lineup around where the X3D SKU's will land.

If this is the case, 9950X will be priced at or below $600. I am going extremely optimistically with $499 and know that will be unlikely unless I can manifest it hard enough. I've got my copy of The Secret on my desk and I try to re-read parts of it every day.
Click to expand...
 
Markfw said:
If there is any way those prices are real, they will be so backordered I will never get one until I am old and dead. The 7950x is down to $522, and that less than that.
Click to expand...
Both the 7950X and 7950X3D have been frequently dipping to the mid 400's in the last few weeks. They just keep yoyo pricing it.

The delay does conveniently give them a bit more time to try and move old Zen 4 stock before the Zen 5 pricing is even announced, much less sales start.
 
Hail The Brain Slug said:
Both the 7950X and 7950X3D have been frequently dipping to the mid 400's in the last few weeks. They just keep yoyo pricing it.

The delay does conveniently give them a bit more time to try and move old Zen 4 stock before the Zen 5 pricing is even announced, much less sales start.
Click to expand...
Obviously just speculation, but I just can’t see the 9950X being anything less than $549. My guess is it’ll start out at $599 or $649. Just a hunch.

I mean if its predecessor is on sale right now for $522 (a couple of days ago it was $565). Anything under $599 seems like a stretch. Particularly since the 7950X started off at $699.
 
Joe NYC said:
The costs are actually driven up by NVidia. Nvidia has the highest margins and is urging TSMC to increase prices. Which does not hurt NVidia, but hurts all NVidia competitors.
Click to expand...
NV due to pre purchasing so much supply whether wafers or packaging is being charged extra.
Everyone else is paying a bit less on average for the same stuff.
 
coercitiv said:
AMD also tested with 7900XTX instead of 4090 used by most outlets. Keep in mind this can also skew results.
Click to expand...

AMD had to send all their 4090s in for RMA for burned-out power connectors. They dug a 7900XTX out of some engineer's kid's machine and benched that.

. . .

biostud said:
Maybe they really are waiting for the 14900K fix so they truly can obliterate them in launch benchmarks.
Click to expand...

That's some expensive gamesmanship if true. AMD cost themselves millions (most likely) by stalling the launch.
 
So after the recent tech brief, it's known that all Zen 5 APUs wil have 16 PCIe lanes. That's 4 less than in Phoenix.

8500G's curse of only 4 GPU lanes will come to 9700G and 9600G.

Edit: Unless they do a thing they did with Cezanne/Renoir, and just left 4 extra PCIe lanes for Desktop only, and fused them off for mobile. Which I doubt, since AMD took out those 4 lanes from strix to minimize power draw.
Edit #2:They didn't do a thing
 
Last edited:
SteinFG said:
So after the recent tech brief, it's known that all Zen 5 APUs wil have 16 PCIe lanes. That's 4 less than in Phoenix.

8500G's curse of only 4 GPU lanes will come to 9700G and 9600G.

Edit: Unless they do a thing they did with Cezanne/Renoir, and just left 4 extra PCIe lanes for Desktop only, and fused them off for mobile. Which I doubt, since AMD took out those 4 lanes from strix to minimize power draw.
Click to expand...

I may have missed this. Is anything known about Zen 5 based APUs in AM5 socket or is this just related to the notebook chips?
 
It could be that AMD simply does not test SOC chips with anything above JEDEC, which is fairly easy to run, but when the reviewers tried XMP 6000/6400 they've got troubles, who knows.
 
Joe NYC said:
I may have missed this. Is anything known about Zen 5 based APUs in AM5 socket or is this just related to the notebook chips?
Click to expand...
Date is unknown, but I'm almost certain that it'll use an 8-core Zen 5 Kraken die (Strix is less likely, as almost no one wil buy 12-core R9 9900G with 4+8 configuration and 2 split CCXs)
 
Last edited:
Some interesting info from the Chinese shop owner who posted prices (sorry, link is to wccftech article)

"In addition to the prices, the shopkeeper also shares some of his personal performance metrics & compares the Ryzen 9 9950X, Ryzen 7 9700X & Ryzen 5 9600X against Intel's 14th Gen offerings. He states that the Ryzen 9 9950X offers lower power consumption, lower temperatures, and higher multi-threading performance versus the 14900K with an average 20% performance increase in a wide variety of applications. Without PBO, the gaming performance is said to be 15% ahead of the 14900K.

For the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, the CPU offers an average 70W power consumption in gaming and runs at around 60-65C using a standard 6-heatpipe air cooler. With PBO, the Ryzen 7 9700X can beat the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and its single-core performance is also higher versus the Intel Core i7-14700K. Lastly, the Ryzen 5 9600X is said to lead over the Core i5-14600K by 10-20% in games and can even outperform the Ryzen 9 9950X in certain titles."

9600X outperforming a much higher boosting 9950x looks like dual CCD vs single CCD issues.
 
inf64 said:
Some interesting info from the Chinese shop owner who posted prices (sorry, link is to wccftech article)
Click to expand...
Well I got other Infos and I trust them more than just some random Chinese shopowner. Also his gaming data is basically the AMD official data and makes no sense too. 9950X 15% faster than 14900K, but slower than 9600X when 9700X can only beat 7800X3D with PBO. This doesn't add up, same like AMDs 1st Party benchmarks.
 
Philste said:
Well I got other Infos and I trust them more than just some random Chinese shopowner. Also his gaming data is basically the AMD official data and makes no sense too. 9950X 15% faster than 14900K, but slower than 9600X when 9700X can only beat 7800X3D with PBO. This doesn't add up, same like AMDs 1st Party benchmarks.
Click to expand...
And what do your other sources you trust more say?
 
MS_AT said:
And what do your other sources you trust more say?
Click to expand...
Taxxor, one of the most respected members in Computerbase Forum and Developer of CapframeX (not the one running the Twitter Account) wrote that he have seen benchmarks from partners, where 9900X is 15-20% slower than 7800X3D. Which also means barely faster than Vanilla ZEN4.

Beitrag im Thema 'Gaming-Leistung: Möglich, dass der Ryzen 7 9700X den 7800X3D doch schlägt' https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...n-7800x3d-doch-schlaegt.2203048/post-29617287
 
Philste said:
Taxxor, one of the most respected members in Computerbase Forum and Developer of CapframeX (not the one running the Twitter Account) wrote that he have seen benchmarks from partners, where 9900X is 15-20% slower than 7800X3D. Which also means barely faster than Vanilla ZEN4.

Beitrag im Thema 'Gaming-Leistung: Möglich, dass der Ryzen 7 9700X den 7800X3D doch schlägt' https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...n-7800x3d-doch-schlaegt.2203048/post-29617287
Click to expand...
Maybe this review unit was one of those affected by the soc packaging error?
 
igor_kavinski said:
Possible I guess. Still, it would have been better if AMD had disclosed the exact nature of the issue and how an improperly validated CPU was gonna behave because quite a few people out there may have paid full or even more than full price for their CPUs that weren't supposed to be on sale yet and they will live with them and encounter some weird issue and think AMD sucks and the retailer isn't gonna bother about calling the customer to get that CPU back because they already got what they wanted: the customer's cold hard cash!
Click to expand...
The two or three people who bought chips from sellers who broke AMD's sales embargo most certainly don't figure into AMD's communications strategy. Not one bit.

Besides, AMD said they recalled the first batch. Thereby these two or three people now know that they ought to get in touch with their seller (who ought to correct his mistake). Likewise, the seller now knows that he needs to inform his two or three customers about the recall. All is fine. AMD gave all the information required, even to those who apparently broke their obligations with AMD.
 
Philste said:
Taxxor, one of the most respected members in Computerbase Forum and Developer of CapframeX (not the one running the Twitter Account) wrote that he have seen benchmarks from partners, where 9900X is 15-20% slower than 7800X3D. Which also means barely faster than Vanilla ZEN4.

Beitrag im Thema 'Gaming-Leistung: Möglich, dass der Ryzen 7 9700X den 7800X3D doch schlägt' https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...n-7800x3d-doch-schlaegt.2203048/post-29617287
Click to expand...
Does that make any sense ? Think logically. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is very unlikely the data represents retail products. Like others pointed out, there was a reason for the last minute recall.
 
FlanK3r said:
View attachment 103889
Click to expand...
That would require that some reviewers were sampled weeks before the planned sampling of other, major reviewers.

While it is possible that tests outside AMD's own were involved, I take issue with the term "reviewers" in this rumor.

Edit, possible, but not overly likely. All points to some sort of mishap with the first production lot(s), be it a defect or insufficient checks for defects. Either way it would be a sort of thing which is arguably more easily discovered by the OSAT's and/or AMD's QA than by external folks who received specimen from that production lot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top