UPDATED AGAIN: New Ryzen prices and clock speeds rumoured: lowest-end 8c/16t for $322, lowest-end 6c/12t for $223

[Crossbred]

Found this:

[JoeCoke]

If this is true then I wonder how cheap the quad cores will be! Will this finally be the death of dual cores? God I hope so. Wouldn't that be amazing if AMD had 4c/8t at the same price point as the i3 7100u?

[StealthArsenal]

I tend to agree with @NumLock21.  They are likely going to same route as gpus (well at least previous generations other than Pascal).  They seem to be more or less binning the cpu's and based on the yield classifying it as the different SKUs.  In this case the 1700 vs, 1700x vs 1800x.  My guess is that the 1700x and 1800x will be fairly close to one another and I think that would be the comparison between which CPU to buy. Especially when we are talking $109 USD difference. 

[DrMikeNZ]

4 hours ago, EminentSun said:

I don't get that pricing scheme, $200 more dollars for 300mhz. If these chips are all overclockable as many have suggested the 1800x will never sell.

Possibly they are cutting Cache as well as base clock, there is no guarantee that the 1700/1700X would OC to match the 1800X.

[Citadelen]

On ‎08‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 3:38 PM, ZackBarletto said:

-snip-

As much as I want to upgrade, and I really, REALLY, want to, I don't have enough money this year which crushes me.

Looks like I'll be getting Zen+ next year then.

[Brooksie359]

I'm not sure why they would price their chips that low if they are planning on continuing manufacturing fx series chips even after zen comes out. That would mean that the lowest priced zen would have to be more expensive than the fx high end to not make them completely obsolete. Granted they already kinda are obsolete. I would say disregard these price rumors because it is not good to get everyone's hopes up and then get disappointed when they come out and are more expensive.

[79wjd]

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I'm not sure why they would price their chips that low if they are planning on continuing manufacturing fx series chips even after zen comes out. That would mean that the lowest priced zen would have to be more expensive than the fx high end to not make them completely obsolete. Granted they already kinda are obsolete. I would say disregard these price rumors because it is not good to get everyone's hopes up and then get disappointed when they come out and are more expensive.

Why are they continuing to produce FX chips? It's cheaper for them to completely stop producing the FX chips and just produce Zen.

[porina]

The clock differences between the models mentioned aren't that great, and I'd be surprised if the lower one couldn't be OC'd to match the highest one AT STOCK. It may be fair to assume the highest one could OC higher. We have points for value seekers, as well as higher end performance seekers.

 

There was some discussion on the latest PCPer Podcast about Zen's FPU. https://youtu.be/7ZxvaPnbWDo

 

Just past 29 minutes or so. They pretty much confirmed AMD chose not to make the FPU match Intel's as it wasn't so often used. So for this type of application at least, it will remain significantly behind Intel.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

They pretty much confirmed AMD chose not to make the FPU match Intel's as it wasn't so often used. So for this type of application at least, it will remain significantly behind Intel.

Yay Bulldozer 2.0!

[vanished]

5 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

All you're thinking is, why get a expensive zen, when you can get a cheap one and oc to match the expensive one. Have you ever thought, the expensive zen has a higher base clock, and can oc a lot higher than a cheap one. 1800x will sell.

and no over clock is ever guaranteed 

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

and no over clock is ever guaranteed 

Unless it is 1998 and everyone is getting Celeron 300A.....450MHz all day every day.

[NovusBal]

Ow dear the uncontrollable hyping some users are doing..

 

In the realms of being more reasonable, I can't wait to see performance benchmarks to assess where these actually sit.

[Mr.Meerkat]

5 hours ago, 2Buck said:

If this is true then I wonder how cheap the quad cores will be! Will this finally be the death of dual cores? God I hope so. Wouldn't that be amazing if AMD had 4c/8t at the same price point as the i3 7100u?

But with the pricing of the pentium G4560, dual cores aren't that likely to die with it almost costing half as much...

[Ramaddil]

If these prices are correct, and they hype is real regarding their performance Intel will be shitting a brick.  Their prices will fall dramatically.. No way Intel can offer a cpu for $1000 that is maybe barely beating a $500 cpu.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, Ramaddil said:

If these prices are correct, and they hype is real regarding their performance Intel will be shitting a brick.  Their prices will fall dramatically.. No way Intel can offer a cpu for $1000 that is maybe barely beating a $500 cpu.

Well, so far the FPU portion of the CPU is already significantly behind Intel.....so we'll see how things turn out in about a month.

[vanished]

9 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, so far the FPU portion of the CPU is already significantly behind Intel.....so we'll see how things turn out in about a month.

That seems like an important component... do we know what kinds of tasks typically use it the most heavily?

[Ramaddil]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, so far the FPU portion of the CPU is already significantly behind Intel.....so we'll see how things turn out in about a month.

Yea I agree, I have been wanting to upgrade my server to a 8 core 16 thread for awhile, but I am not spending $1000 on a CPU and $300-500 on Motherboard and ram... Its just crazy.  I have nothing against Intel but we can all be honest they have been gouging prices because of a lack of competition.  Business wise it is smart simple supply and demand, also not everyone needs this CPU.  i think if these prices hold that AMD is actually trying to give people a semi affordable option.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I'm not sure why they would price their chips that low if they are planning on continuing manufacturing fx series chips even after zen comes out. That would mean that the lowest priced zen would have to be more expensive than the fx high end to not make them completely obsolete. Granted they already kinda are obsolete. I would say disregard these price rumors because it is not good to get everyone's hopes up and then get disappointed when they come out and are more expensive.

But... why would they continue to manufacture FX series CPU's? That makes literally no sense at all. FX CPU's are large, and expensive to manufacture, and they sell for very little profit. AMD would want to stop FX production as soon as physically possible. The only thing they'll probably continue to manufacture are the APU's, at least until Ryzen APU's are out (We're probably still 6-12 months away from that).

37 minutes ago, Ramaddil said:

If these prices are correct, and they hype is real regarding their performance Intel will be shitting a brick.  Their prices will fall dramatically.. No way Intel can offer a cpu for $1000 that is maybe barely beating a $500 cpu.

Intel would actually be really happy if this were true.

 

Why? Because a pricing war only benefits Intel. AMD needs big fat margins to make lots of money. They need to price their Ryzen CPU's in such a manner, so that Intel won't try to undercut them. Just low enough that maybe Intel drops their prices a bit, but not enough to make Intel drop their prices under what Ryzen sells for.

 

Why? Because Intel can afford to sell below cost. AMD cannot. A pricing war would destroy AMD. Intel could just sell below cost for 12+ months, and wait it out until AMD runs out of money.

 

This is why I've been skeptical from the start about these low prices. I could certainly be wrong. I just can't see AMD's reasoning behind undercutting Intel pricing so drastically.

[79wjd]

46 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That seems like an important component... do we know what kinds of tasks typically use it the most heavily?

No idea, but pcper was saying something along the lines of AVX being doable in 1 cycle on Kaby Lake/modern Intel CPUs while it would take several on Zen.

[Ramaddil]

I hope I am right about Ryzen I think it will change the industry and make pricing more affordable for all.  I think AMD has been behind for along time but to be honest their pricing was way more affordable then intel's ever was.  I have pretty much always bought AMD because of the affordability and decent performance.  I think people need to wait until Ryzen actually comes out and people use it before jumping to any conclusions about its actual performance.  

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That seems like an important component... do we know what kinds of tasks typically use it the most heavily?

Games, CAD and similar. AKA, if Ryzen has a pathetic FPU design like their CMT architectures, and their older ones-they'll probably have to bring back the 3DNow! instruction set if they want the CPU to be used in more than basic office machines.

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Why are they continuing to produce FX chips? It's cheaper for them to completely stop producing the FX chips and just produce Zen.

 

50 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But... why would they continue to manufacture FX series CPU's? That makes literally no sense at all. FX CPU's are large, and expensive to manufacture, and they sell for very little profit. AMD would want to stop FX production as soon as physically possible. The only thing they'll probably continue to manufacture are the APU's, at least until Ryzen APU's are out (We're probably still 6-12 months away from that).

Intel would actually be really happy if this were true.

 

Why? Because a pricing war only benefits Intel. AMD needs big fat margins to make lots of money. They need to price their Ryzen CPU's in such a manner, so that Intel won't try to undercut them. Just low enough that maybe Intel drops their prices a bit, but not enough to make Intel drop their prices under what Ryzen sells for.

 

Why? Because Intel can afford to sell below cost. AMD cannot. A pricing war would destroy AMD. Intel could just sell below cost for 12+ months, and wait it out until AMD runs out of money.

 

This is why I've been skeptical from the start about these low prices. I could certainly be wrong. I just can't see AMD's reasoning behind undercutting Intel pricing so drastically.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167671/components-processors/after-ryzen-amd-has-no-immediate-plan-to-purge-its-other-pc-chips.html idk why they plan on continuing to manufacture fx processors but if amd says they are then I would probably take their word for it.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167671/components-processors/after-ryzen-amd-has-no-immediate-plan-to-purge-its-other-pc-chips.html idk why they plan on continuing to manufacture fx processors but if amd says they are then I would probably take their word for it.

32nm CPU being manufactured when current CPU, GPU and APU are at 28nm and 14nm-with 10nm and 7nm on the way...WTF.

[MageTank]

39 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No idea, but pcper was saying something along the lines of AVX being doable in 1 cycle on Kaby Lake/modern Intel CPUs while it would take several on Zen.

My question is, how can pcper extrapolate that kind of information? Did AMD come out and say this? Or are they just guessing how it works? I've not really heard much about their FPU performance since the original rumors. After reading the pcper article, I can't seem to find any source for the AVX claims.

 

Might need someone to spell it out for me, lol.

[Ramaddil]

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-Details-Zen-ISSCC

 

From that link

In some of the basic measurements of the different processes we see that Intel has advantages throughout.  This is not surprising as Intel has been well known to push process technology beyond what others are able to do.  In theory their products will have denser logic throughout, including the SRAM cells.  When looking at this information we wonder how AMD has been able to make their cores and caches smaller.  Part of that is due to the likely setup of cache control and access.

 

One of the most likely culprits of this smaller size is that the less advanced FPU/SSE/AVX units that AMD has in Zen.  They support AVX-256, but it has to be done in double the cycles.  They can do single cycle AVX-128, but Intel’s throughput is much higher than what AMD can achieve.  AVX is not the end-all, be-all but it is gaining in importance in high performance computing and editing applications.  David Kanter in his article covering the architecture explicitly said that AMD made this decision to lower the die size and power constraints for this product.

 

Basically it seems like its a educated guess given the die size of the CPU.