AMD Ryzen Confirmed Launch Date and Pricing, 28/2/2017!!

[Scruffy90]

Intel wont budge on their prices unless AMD is providing a giant leap in performance over their current chipsets at those prices. Guess we'll find out in a few weeks whether or not the hype was real or not.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Armakar said:

Damn. Really dissapointing. I guess video editors, streamers and the likes of people who will actually use those 16 threads will be pleased. but it seems for enthusiast gamers (Like myself), Ryzen is pretty worthless.. I doubt the 4C/8T will be anything up to par as the 4C/8T i7's, definitley not with those prices.

I'm with you on this. 

 

IPC has to be lackluster for this to make any sense. The undercut is too significant otherwise. 

 

Either way AMD will be a viable option to many consumers and they will be relevant again. 

[Sakkura]

Why does WCCF keep thinking that "confirmed" means rumored/leaked/fictional/BS?

[Humbug]

2 minutes ago, Helly said:

actually i think AMD just skipped a few steps here. If they put the prices just under Intel for close to or better performance then intel would just lower the price. Which they would have to do then again to. A few steps later they would be at the same price point they are now. Might just be a gamble to get people to buy the CPU's because they get so many cores/threads for far less then the Intel equivalent. The few benchmarks that leaked so far show that the CPU's perform very well. So i don't expect that they will be complete shit and as dissapointing as you seem to think they are.

It could also well be a couple of other factors

 

-AMD believes that the fabs are in good shape to product vast quantities of Ryzen. Since it's not a big expensive die to manufacture they can still get good margins and they decided that they want to sell as many units as possible and claw back some market share. If they had priced higher they would have sold fewer units, maybe they would have made a bit more money overall but they decided that this approach would gain them back much more market share with only a relatively smaller sacrifice in revenue. Then they can get people onto their platform and later sell them Zen+ and subsequent generations etc.

 

-AMD believes that their brand name for CPUs has been severely dented because of the last decade. They no longer have the reputation in CPUs amongst general public. So they think they have to price very aggressively to get people's attention.

[samcool55]

Just a note: Centralpoint is where the prices come from. They are known to like to mess with prizes even with stuff that's in stock.

There are more than 1 case out there of someone placing an order and getting a message a few days later they need to pay extra because they sold it too cheap to you.

 

Sooo i don't trust their prices, at all. They are meaningless as far as i'm concerned.

 

edit: before people are complaining i'm just talking trash, here are the reviews for the website, it's in dutch but google translate is your friend

https://be.hardware.info/shops/1156/centralpointbe

[The Benjamins]

10 minutes ago, Alexokan said:

I'm with you on this. 

 

IPC has to be lackluster for this to make any sense. The undercut is too significant otherwise. 

 

Either way AMD will be a viable option to many consumers and they will be relevant again. 

It can be a aggressive business move to rapidly gain back market share. Then once your name and market share has recovered to a point of their liking they can release the next generation at more of a standard price point. AMD is in a spot were it would be smart to try and gain market share and brand image back before trying to compete at price along.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

It can be a aggressive business move to rapidly gain back market share. Then once your name and market share has recovered to a point of their liking they can release the next generation at more of a standard price point. AMD is in a spot were it would be smart to try and gain market share and brand image back before trying to compete at price along.

I disagree. 

 

Once a 4/4 is offered at that price point, they will be bound to charge a relative sum of money for the rest of time (with correction for inflation, of course). 

 

 

[Stefan1024]

Why does the CPU with the highest core count also have the highest clock speed?

Usually the limitation to a TDP target works the other way around...

[Bouzoo]

6 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

Why does the CPU with the highest core count also have the highest clock speed?

Usually the limitation to a TDP target works the other way around...

Perhaps they have a factory OC, like 7700K has over 6700K, for bragging rights, but in reality this could mean people will barely be able to OC them properly?

[Scionyde]

This could very well be correct, but I'd hardly call this "confirmed" judging by the WCCF article.

[goodtofufriday]

54 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Probably there will be a few types of workstation workloads where the 6800k is faster by a good margin.

Otherwise AMD would have priced higher.

 

The pricing indicates that AMD believes 'we are better than Intel mainstream platform but not as good as enthusiast platform'.

I dont think thats true,  at all.  Intels pricing are what they are because there wasnt competition. 

The same with any work done in any field,  someone can provide the exact same service of the same quality and efficiency for a vastly lower price. 

 

Plenty of business in the world where,  because of lack of competition, 0rices are artificially raised. 

[done12many2]

8 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Perhaps they have a factory OC, like 7700K has over 6700K, for bragging rights, but in reality this could mean people will barely be able to OC them properly?

 

Using that logic, that would mean that a 7700k wouldn't overclock much better, but it actually does. 

[michaelocarroll007]

1 hour ago, WolfoftheShadow7465 said:

this is great, if it performs equally, if they equal out in price brackets and have the same performance then it will be just like the 480 vs the 1060, whichever is cheaper for you to get

its been leaked that it will be broadwell like IPC so it should be decently slower but with price in consideration Who Cares it would be a great buy. 

[Bouzoo]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

 

Using that logic, that would mean that a 7700k wouldn't overclock much better, but it actually does. 

That is true, but my point was based on slight OC. Not OCing in general. I'm done speculating. Let's wait 2 more weeks. 

[ZackBarletto]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

That Ryzen 3 is gonna be fantastic for budget gaming builds. 4 real cores for $129 with overclocking... Pair it with a midrange GPU.

I feel the same. Going extreme or just a modest build. This is exciting either way!

[goodtofufriday]

57 minutes ago, Armakar said:

The benchmarks I saw showed the 7700K outperforming the 1700X in most tests.

 

And no, I don't think intel would budge their prices. because it shows they've admitted losing. AMD are the lesser company- they are the ones time and time again bieng beat, they are the ones lowering their prices (ahem RX 470 / 480 ) and they are the ones who haven't made anything better then intel in 10 years. They would have to prove themselves BIG TIME to make Intel loewr their prices, even if Ryzen was better. More people would still buy Intel just because, although they are assholes for their pricing - they have been top dog for years. 

 

Edit : I'd personally buy AMD over Intel if Ryzen was better, but people who don't want to research or just know of AMD's many failures would perhaps be hesitant, which is why I think Intel won't budge in pricing unless Ryzen is absolutley smashing intel in performance.

If i recall correctly and we are thinking of the same benchmark,  then that 7700k was OCd while the 1700x was at base clock without boost. 

 

Amd was also contiually out classing intel. Until intel introduced instruction sets for x86 that purposfully performed slower on amd chips. And then intel scared pre-built makers into no longer buyimg from amd. And then intel sold their proccers to pre-builts at a bulk price that amd couldnt afford. Intel continued this until AMD was struggling,  but still in business to avoid a monopoly.  

 

So who were the ones that knew their processers werent as good? Intel. And they used their weight to shove out every other competitor.  They even stopped licensing out x86. 

Edited February 14, 2017 by goodtofufriday

[WolfoftheShadow7465]

1 minute ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

its been leaked that it will be broadwell like IPC so it should be decently slower but with price in consideration Who Cares it would be a great buy. 

yeah, AMD could make a killing by making cpu competitive but making motherboard cheaper for manafacturers to make, causing them to upset the cost of building a new workstation

[ZackBarletto]

I Believe/hope they just want gaming to be affordable. Imaging a 4k capable machine for the two main parts to be just around $1000.. That is simply amazing to achieve if your on any sort of cost conscious budget....

 

But yet for you to go any other route for the past few years you would be handing your money to the oh so amazing Intel and Nvidia who want you to pay nearly $1000 for each individual component. That is what AMD is trying to bring everyone for nearly half the cost. These are all estimations, but you get the overall point. Even if AMD comes in second yet again like they always have. You can probably also guarantee that they will also hold their position as some of the best price per performance builds you can get your hands on.

 

So Yeah, want the bleeding edge of everything computing? Go ahead and spend all that money to say you got it the best and the first.

 

Ill gladly accept second place (sparing a few FPS, or maybe a minute or two of some exotic rendering.) And spend the rest of my money on a new case, new psu, maybe a second graphics card, a liquid cooling loop, and maybe still have money left over to give to charity. lmfao

 

And yeah i'm an AMD fanboy, but i'm realistic in where they stand. I can not ever argue they they will be the best at everything because they are not. simply put. But AMD has made higher end computers more affordable for me since I could build my first machine.

[ApolloFury]

1 hour ago, Armakar said:

Damn. Really dissapointing. I guess video editors, streamers and the likes of people who will actually use those 16 threads will be pleased. but it seems for enthusiast gamers (Like myself), Ryzen is pretty worthless.. I doubt the 4C/8T will be anything up to par as the 4C/8T i7's, definitley not with those prices.

Are you kidding? We are seeing 90 to 100% performance of a 4C/8T i7 for only $199 when it is usually $349 in a world where most people got i5's which costs $239 at a lower clock speed and thread count. There is no way, especially with these prices, to suggest Ryzen is worthless if we to believe they perform within 10% of recent Intel CPUs. (Again, assuming the official AMD and leaked benchmarks are true.)

[AresKrieger]

Well this means 1 of three things either Ryzen isn't all that powerful, AMD is trying to lowball intel, or the motherboard costs are going to be retarded, if they are indeed trying to lowball intel then they are insane as intel has more money to work with hence they could simply slash pricing, if the motherboards are marked higher on price then the cpu pricing is meaningless and they are simply repeating a failed strategy they tried before. 

[Orangeator]

34 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Well this means 1 of three things either Ryzen isn't all that powerful, AMD is trying to lowball intel, or the motherboard costs are going to be retarded, if they are indeed trying to lowball intel then they are insane as intel has more money to work with hence they could simply slash pricing, if the motherboards are marked higher on price then the cpu pricing is meaningless and they are simply repeating a failed strategy they tried before. 

Yes but if Intel just massively slashed pricing to be competitive then that would send a huge message to consumers that Intel has been intentionally ripping you off.

[PlayStation 2]

Y'ALL LOOK OUT FOR THE HYPE TRAIN

[done12many2]

5 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Y'ALL LOOK OUT FOR THE HYPE TRAIN

 

Like cars sitting on the track waiting to get smashed.  

[Guest Darth Revan]

3 hours ago, Armakar said:

No, I don't base performance off price, but prices THIS cheap reflect something. You don't find a 1080 for $100 because 'oh the brand who makes them is a good brand' - if they had even better performance then intel and were cheaper, they would be closer in price then this, cheaper but not this much cheaper. 

 

People aren't looking at this wisely - they could undercut intel by an amount smaller then this and everyone would be just as happy - IF the performance was up to par to intel. But it's not - that's why the pricing is so much cheaper. I don't think Intel will budge a bit because they know full well they are miles ahead in performance. If they had any reason to believe Ryzen would be better for cheaper, they wouldn't have released this Kaby lake garbage so soon.

Have you ever considered the fact that maybe just maybe the Intel processors are not worth the price that Intel is asking for them?

[Citadelen]

28th of February? Fuck yes! It's releasing on Shrove Tuesday. I'm making me some RYZEN inspired pancakes! ?