AMD confirms "Early March Launch" for Ryzen, and announces "twice as much L2 cache compared to Intel 6th gen.

[AnonymousGuy]

2 minutes ago, BaalRunz said:

Can someone explain to me in layman / debby downy terms what: "twice as much L2 cache" means?

Better for gaming?

In layman terms: a) rumor.  b) if it made any significant difference Intel would have already done it.

[BaalRunz]

2 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

It means literally nothing as there is no context, until the processor launches all these leaks are pointless

Isn't the context the CPU vs Intel?

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, BaalRunz said:

Isn't the context the CPU vs Intel?

The context is how the cpu uses said cache, is said cache actually fast, is it actually the ln3+ln2 cache etc, the devil is in the details

[BaalRunz]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

The context is how the cpu uses said cache, is said cache actually fast, is it actually the ln3+ln2 cache etc, the devil is in the details

So their claims could just be marketing bologna? Wait for Linus / other big youtubers to actually do tests / benchmarks?

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, BaalRunz said:

So their claims could just be marketing bologna? Wait for Linus / other big youtubers to actually do tests / benchmarks?

Correct, it could be a meaningful difference but we won't know till launch, so yes benches/reviews are what matters and until then assume it is just marketing or baseless rumors

[BaalRunz]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Correct, it could be a meaningful difference but we won't know till launch, so yes benches/reviews are what matters and until then assume it is just marketing or baseless rumors

Alright. Well just gonna wait a few weeks / days after before buying then lol. Not going to hype myself up for failure 

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

Can't say I agree with that assessment of pricing...  Pricing is a bit more complicated than trying to match someone else price/performance.  It should involve other factors such as manufacturing costs and abilities, expected bottom lines and anticipated profits.  Not saying this is the case, but if AMD can produce a 6900k scale processor for half of the price of Intel at a larger scale, then they can decrease the individual profit on each chip to get a larger collective profit from a higher sales volume.

True but customer perception plays a huge part, very huge.

 

There was a TV show I was watching last night where they did a simple test. They got a locksmith to do a replacement of a sliding door lock, he did this two different ways. The first he took about 50 minutes on purpose and commented during the job that it was a little tricky and the customer was very happy with the charged price. The second time he did the job in about 14 minutes as it normally would, the customer (different) was unhappy with the charged amount (same price).

 

The quality of the work was exactly the same, by the same person yet customer perception played the biggest part in their own satisfaction of the job.

 

If the AMD CPU seems too cheap then it is, doesn't matter what the cost of manufacturing is customer impression overrides that.

 

Edit:

I'm not saying AMD can't sell their CPUs for less than Intel, just they can't sell them at half the cost and not expect problems even if they perform exactly the same.

[MidnightBanshi]

The big YouTubers have most likely already done their testing and benchmarks, but are kept under a super-strict hush-hush NDA until the official launch date so people will jump at launch and snap up their stuff before they actually see the testing and benchmarks.  Sorry, but my skepticism alarm is still going off at this point.

[BaalRunz]

3 minutes ago, MidnightBanshi said:

The big YouTubers have most likely already done their testing and benchmarks, but are kept under a super-strict hush-hush NDA until the official launch date so people will jump at launch and snap up their stuff before they actually see the testing and benchmarks.  Sorry, but my skepticism alarm is still going off at this point.

When you say skepticism alarm going off, do you mean a possible Bulldozer 2.0?

[WMGroomAK]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True but customer perception plays a huge part, very huge.

 

There was a TV show I was watching last night where they did a simple test. They got a locksmith to do a replacement of a sliding door lock, he did this two different ways. The first he took about 50 minutes on purpose and commented during the job that it was a little tricky and the customer was very happy with the charged price. The second time he did the job in about 14 minutes as it normally would, the customer (different) was unhappy with the charged amount (same price).

 

The quality of the work was exactly the same, by the same person yet customer perception played the biggest part in their own satisfaction of the job.

 

If the AMD CPU seems too cheap then it is, doesn't matter what the cost of manufacturing is customer impression overrides that.

I'll agree on that part.  The uneducated consumer is definitely a good thing for the company.  

[GangstaRas]

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True but customer perception plays a huge part, very huge.

 

There was a TV show I was watching last night where they did a simple test. They got a locksmith to do a replacement of a sliding door lock, he did this two different ways. The first he took about 50 minutes on purpose and commented during the job that it was a little tricky and the customer was very happy with the charged price. The second time he did the job in about 14 minutes as it normally would, the customer (different) was unhappy with the charged amount (same price).

 

The quality of the work was exactly the same, by the same person yet customer perception played the biggest part in their own satisfaction of the job.

 

If the AMD CPU seems too cheap then it is, doesn't matter what the cost of manufacturing is customer impression overrides that.

Im not quite understanding this example to AMDs detriment. My understanding from your standpoint is that if its cheap then you'd avoid it because it may not be a quality product to the uneducated consumer, fine. But the uneducated consumer would have to come to such a conclusion somehow and I believe that somehow is through looking at the popular demand of the educated consumers.

 

Example why would the $1000 USD 9590 at launch now be in the ballpark of $200 USD? Barely anyone bought it, the uneducated didnt fall for that quality non-sense because it was expensive for no reason. AMD has the chance to also influence the market against Intel in this way, i.e. making Intel look like they are expensive for no reason. So personally I dont think they in a bad position being cheap, because even the uneducated has to have some better informed rationale behind buying computer hardware to get value performance for his money

[MidnightBanshi]

18 minutes ago, BaalRunz said:

When you say skepticism alarm going off, do you mean a possible Bulldozer 2.0?

I'm just hoping that when they come out, it'll be as good as the hype train has been saying.  For right now, I think I'll stick with Intel in mind.

[outercry]

I do think that there is another aspect to this pricing/performance thing as well. If Ryzen isn't significantly better price/performance-wise than all (comparable) of Intel's offerings from, let's say, last couple of years at least, what is the incentive for anyone like that (who owns said Intel product) to buy not only Ryzen, but new motherboard, memory and whatnot as well?

 

If I look at this from my own perspective; if I haven't felt the need to upgrade for quite a few years, because Intel hasn't really done anything to warrant that, if AMD offers more of the same, why would I change my stance on upgrading all of a sudden?

 

Future upgrades definitely, if prices are better, but not just for the hell of it, at least, not for me.

 

And do I think Intel will do drastic price drop, it is possible to a certain degree. If the benchmarks show Ryzen being really competitive performance-wise, perhaps, but probably not as drastic as hoped. It wouldn't surprise my either if almost right after Ryzen launches Intel would say; here's our brand new line-up of CPUs that they have been storing away if this kind of situation arises.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

In layman terms: a) rumor.  b) if it made any significant difference Intel would have already done it.

how is a post by amd about their own cpu a rumor? yeah it could be some clever marketing but that wouldn't make it a rumor. having more cache is nice when working with some CAE programs like ansys but idk how large of a simulation you would need for that extra memory to actually matter. 

[Pample]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

AMD had escapes and options 4 years ago.  Ryzen coming in 2017 is like throwing a fire extinguisher on an oil rig fire.  Intel can take a "see you in hell" approach and sell chips at any price point to destroy AMD.  Look at how much contra revenue was happening with the mobile parts a couple years ago and it didn't even dent Intel.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Chances are they won't put a "brutal price tag" on their processors.

AMD is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

They don't want to be "the cheap solution" anymore. So from that statement we can assume that the price:performance will be similar to what Intel has. If Intel gives you X performance for 500 dollars, then AMD's product that gives you X performance will cost about 500 dollars, if AMD's statement is to be followed.

But then they won't gain any marketshare. Intel has a much stronger brand so AMD has to be better to fight back.

On the other hand, AMD needs money and they need it badly. They are much more desperate than Intel. AMD can't afford to sell processors with next to no margins because that will make them go bankrupt. Intel on the other hand could probably sell CPUs at a loss for quite some time, and that would really kill AMD. Intel can ruin AMD whenever they want, so AMD can't punch back so hard that Intel starts fighting back. But if AMD doesn't fight back hard, what does all the AMD fans get from being loyal and have waited this long? The hype is beyond ridiculous at this point. People think their 400 dollar CPU will beat Intel's 1000 dollar CPU for crying out loud. They have to give their fans something or else they will look like assholes... again.

 

I really don't see how AMD can win at this point. Even IF (and that's a huge if) Zen is good, AMD is in a situation where no matter how they price it, they will be in a bad situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong but AMD does hold 1 wildcard at the moment, 64bit instruction set patent. From my understanding (And again correct me if i'm wrong) it's a bit of a case of MAD, AMD can't survive without Intel and Intel would struggle without AMD. Factor into that the fact that Intel really don't want to be seen as a monopoly, various agency's would look very unfavorably on that and could potentially look to break Intel up, as has been seen recently in other large tech firms. 

 

Basically my take from all of this is Intel actually needs AMD to continue to be competitive.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, GangstaRas said:

Im not quite understanding this example to AMDs detriment. My understanding from your standpoint is that if its cheap then you'd avoid it because it may not be a quality product to the uneducated consumer, fine. But the uneducated consumer would have to come to such a conclusion somehow and I believe that somehow is through looking at the popular demand of the educated consumers.

 

Example why would the $1000 USD 9590 at launch now be in the ballpark of $200 USD? Barely anyone bought it, the uneducated didnt fall for that quality non-sense because it was expensive for no reason. AMD has the chance to also influence the market against Intel in this way, i.e. making Intel look like they are expensive for no reason. So personally I dont think they in a bad position being cheap, because even the uneducated has to have some better informed rationale behind buying computer hardware to get value performance for his money

It's not a simple issue by all means but we as buyers can often be very poor at judging quality or value of workmanship skill/training. It's not exactly an easily directly comparable example, more of a demonstration of how perception plays a big part and straight economics isn't the only pillar in setting a price of a product.

 

The 9590 was terrible value based on performance, AMD lowered the price to entice buyers. However the performance really was just that bad and combined with perception of AMD products being bad reinforced this making it almost an unsaleable item.

 

Intel's market dominance is just that strong and their performance is currently without question, so AMD releasing lower priced products will naturally cause people to question their performance/value and if you can't figure out what is going on it's just easier to default to buying Intel still. This is even an issue for educated buyers, which is being demonstrated on this very forum in most of the Ryzen threads.

 

People are questioning AMD and bringing up issues like bad AVX on nothing more than scarce information and no benchmarks, here in this very thread questions over how legit the L2 cache is even though the architecture diagrams (unverified) show exactly how they are made up. If AMD prices Ryzen too low the default action would be to assume these rumors are true and AMD will have to spend all it's time proving them wrong or not as bad as being made out rather than promoting the product.

[othertomperson]

1 hour ago, WMGroomAK said:

Can't say I agree with that assessment of pricing...  Pricing is a bit more complicated than trying to match someone else price/performance.  It should involve other factors such as manufacturing costs and abilities, expected bottom lines and anticipated profits.  Not saying this is the case, but if AMD can produce a 6900k scale processor for half of the price of Intel at a larger scale, then they can decrease the individual profit on each chip to get a larger collective profit from a higher sales volume.

By rights the 6900k should be the cheaper of the two to produce. Firstly it's on a slightly smaller process node (because 14nm finfet technicalities), but also because the Ryzen CPU will be a native 8-core part. The 6900k is a 10-core with two cores disabled. Intel has a whole host of products across both their Xeon line, and their £1500 6950X that that CPU could have been. Their entire Broadwell-E platform is geared around milking that 10-core for all it is worth.

[BaalRunz]

35 minutes ago, outercry said:

here's our brand new line-up of CPUs that they have been storing away if this kind of situation arises.

Or as you said, just simply cutting prices on some i5's by xx% and they will sell like hot cakes

[Brooksie359]

42 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

By rights the 6900k should be the cheaper of the two to produce. Firstly it's on a slightly smaller process node (because 14nm finfet technicalities), but also because the Ryzen CPU will be a native 8-core part. The 6900k is a 10-core with two cores disabled. Intel has a whole host of products across both their Xeon line, and their £1500 6950X that that CPU could have been. Their entire Broadwell-E platform is geared around milking that 10-core for all it is worth.

there is no way to say something is cheaper to produce just because it uses less silicon. there is still a lot of other things that go into manufacturing costs. industrial engineers would be out of jobs if that's all it took to minimize cost. 

[Brooksie359]

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's not a simple issue by all means but we as buyers can often be very poor at judging quality or value of workmanship skill/training. It's not exactly an easily directly comparable example, more of a demonstration of how perception plays a big part and straight economics isn't the only pillar in setting a price of a product.

 

The 9590 was terrible value based on performance, AMD lowered the price to entice buyers. However the performance really was just that bad and combined with perception of AMD products being bad reinforced this making it almost an unsaleable item.

 

Intel's market dominance is just that strong and their performance is currently without question, so AMD releasing lower priced products will naturally cause people to question their performance/value and if you can't figure out what is going on it's just easier to default to buying Intel still. This is even an issue for educated buyers, which is being demonstrated on this very forum in most of the Ryzen threads.

 

People are questioning AMD and bringing up issues like bad AVX on nothing more than scarce information and no benchmarks, here in this very thread questions over how legit the L2 cache is even though the architecture diagrams (unverified) show exactly how they are made up. If AMD prices Ryzen too low the default action would be to assume these rumors are true and AMD will have to spend all it's time proving them wrong or not as bad as being made out rather than promoting the product.

i agree with this to some extent but this is an enthusiast line of cpus. it stands to reason that the market that they are trying to reach with this new line of processors will be more informed than your average consumer and wont just look at the price and assume that its worse solely based off of that. I'm not saying it wont still happen I'm just saying in the enthusiast market segment it wont be as big of an issue as it will be in the laptop and pre-built market segment.  

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, othertomperson said:

By rights the 6900k should be the cheaper of the two to produce. Firstly it's on a slightly smaller process node (because 14nm finfet technicalities), but also because the Ryzen CPU will be a native 8-core part. The 6900k is a 10-core with two cores disabled. Intel has a whole host of products across both their Xeon line, and their £1500 6950X that that CPU could have been. Their entire Broadwell-E platform is geared around milking that 10-core for all it is worth.

 From what i understand there will be  8 core and 4 core dies.

So yhe 8 core will be arround the same price and the 4 core will be cheaper thanks to the missing graphics

[cj09beira]

16 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

i agree with this to some extent but this is an enthusiast line of cpus. it stands to reason that the market that they are trying to reach with this new line of processors will be more informed than your average consumer and wont just look at the price and assume that its worse solely based off of that. I'm not saying it wont still happen I'm just saying in the enthusiast market segment it wont be as big of an issue as it will be in the laptop and pre-built market segment.  

But this same enthusiast market does stupid things like buying a cpu with more lanes when they will never use them, or look for boards with more sata ports when 4-6 is more than enough.

People tend to overstimate what they need.

And another problem is most people dont remember the time when amd had the upper hand and will not even consider the fact that it might be a good cpu just by looking at the price

[othertomperson]

39 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

there is no way to say something is cheaper to produce just because it uses less silicon. there is still a lot of other things that go into manufacturing costs. industrial engineers would be out of jobs if that's all it took to minimize cost. 

At no point did I ever say that? In fact I actually said the exact opposite -- that the 6900k comes from a bigger 10-core part? I suggest new glasses. Try pressing ctrl+ a few times until you can read it..

 

17 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

 From what i understand there will be  8 core and 4 core dies.

So yhe 8 core will be arround the same price and the 4 core will be cheaper thanks to the missing graphics

The 4 core is irrelevant to this discussion because it won't be competing with the 6900k in either cost or performance.

[Brooksie359]

7 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

But this same enthusiast market does stupid things like buying a cpu with more lanes when they will never use them, or look for boards with more sata ports when 4-6 is more than enough.

People tend to overstimate what they need.

And another problem is most people dont remember the time when amd had the upper hand and will not even consider the fact that it might be a good cpu just by looking at the price

Yes like I said there still will be those people but there are a lot of people who look at benchmarks to figure out what's the best deal or even ask on forums such as this what the best bang for there buck is going to be. I have hope for the enthusiasts market and would say that they are generally more informed in these types of areas compared to the average consumer. 

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

At no point did I ever say that? In fact I actually said the exact opposite -- that the 6900k comes from a bigger 10-core part? I suggest new glasses. Try pressing ctrl+ a few times until you can read it.

You said it was on a smaller process node right after saying the 6900k is cheaper to make. Now please explain to me how that is relevant when talking about the price to manufacture unless you were stating it for just the fun of it. In the end the result is still the same. There is no real way for you to know which is cheaper to produce because there isn't enough information to calculator that. There are so many different aspects of manufacturing a cpu that to say it would cost less to produce one cpu over the other without know all of those aspects is about as accurate as flipping a coin.