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

[techdookie13]

3 hours 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.

What are you talking about? This looks epic. Valuing an item based on price is a terrible strategy when buying items. I'll give you an example. I believe a while ago Audi built a new car and charged it at $22,000. It was the best deal of a car in recent history. However, because of no premium price tag people didn't buy the car, even thought it was a steal. The car didn't sell and Audi quickly discontinued the car. People who did buy it got lucky, however. 

Now, back to processors. Before making an uneducated decision based on processors, at least wait for the benchmarks. The prices are so low because AMD really needs a home run in this launch. Without one, they will probably go bankrupt.

[Sakkura]

9 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

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

Exactly. Intel is charging the same price per core they did many years ago, but new process nodes has made the cores small and thus a chip with the same number of cores is a lot cheaper to make. Intel could just pocket that difference because there was little competition from AMD. That may be coming to an end now.

[biggiebody]

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.

I find it funny you say you don't base performance off price and yet continue to compare the price to performance.  Seems to me you're basing performance off price....

[done12many2]

So much speculation in this thread.  

 

Has any reviewer even mentioned having one, but waiting to release information once they get the NDA green light?

 

That makes me wonder more than pricing.

[samcool55]

Turns out there are more EU prices floating around  

https://imgur.com/a/ZtBgT

 

1700 = 345.13

1700x = 416.76

1800x = 536.17

 

Cheaper than the prices from centralpoint which makes sense because well, it's centralpoint...

 

[That Norwegian Guy]

1600X here I come

 

-As long as there's an X370 micro ATX motherboard. If they don't supply that then fuck'em, I'll buy a used X99 board and chip.

[Humbug]

22 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

So much speculation in this thread.  

 

Has any reviewer even mentioned having one, but waiting to release information once they get the NDA green light?

 

That makes me wonder more than pricing.

normally the NDA means they can't even admit they have one or hint at when the NDA lifts. I get the impression that folks like pcper and phoronix (Linux site) already have one because they have said look forward to our benchmarks in the coming weeks. That's the closest to an admission which we will get from the big time reviewers, cause they don't want to spoil their relationship with AMD by violating the NDA.

[Orangeator]

If these prices are correct I am going to bite the bullet and get the 1700.

[done12many2]

6 minutes ago, Humbug said:

normally the NDA means they can't even admit they have one or hint at when the NDA lifts. I get the impression that folks like pcper and phoronix (Linux site) already have one because they have said look forward to our benchmarks in the coming weeks. That's the closest to an admission which we will get from the big time reviewers, cause they don't want to spoil their relationship with AMD.

 

I get what a NDA generally means, but I also know that despite NDA, most reviewers drop less than subtle hints that they have the latest release in hand.  They just don't directly say it.

 

I consider pcper stating that we should look forward to benchmarks in the coming weeks as nothing more then an obvious fact as they will be in everyone's hand in the coming weeks.  With that said, I don't necessarily think that they were implying that they had one.

[Dietrichw]

I was excited to get a 1600X until I found out RAM prices have greatly increased since October. Decent 16GB kits were around $70-80, now it is $110-130.  

[-BirdiE-]

3 hours ago, Sakkura said:

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

Sadly, that just seems to be the state of tech jornalism today... I notice it at most sites, not just WCCFTech.

[dizmo]

I can't wait until the end of the month when we can stop seeing these threads pop up every few days.

Part of me almost hopes that the pricing is higher just so people see how pointless rumors are.

 

3 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

If anything hopefully the Intel 8th gen will be more than a polishing.

You can't really change a product like a processor that fast. They work on them for years before release. The only thing they can really change is pricing.

3 hours ago, Thony said:

This is confirmation. What you talk about is the rumour only so go be grumpy elswhere or read properly

It's WCCF...it is not confirmation.

3 hours ago, e23 said:

-snip-
The problem is I don't know if it's worth going for 4 cores at a faster speed or 8 cores at a slower speed. I've been told many games don't utilize more than 4 cores so that i7 7700k might be a better option for gaming to me at least. I'm not entirely sure on this and I'm going to wait to see what happens here. 

 

I'm hoping they start hitting the market in the next couple of months. Going to wait until then at least. 

For gaming, it's very likely that the 7700k is still the stronger choice.

However, it's also twice the price if you're comparing it to the Ryzen offering. The motherboards are also cheaper.

At the end of the day, you'll have to weigh cost vs performance and decide which is more important to you.

Personally I'd rather save hundreds of dollars and see a slight drop in FPS.

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.

I don't think anyone really expects them to have better performance than Intel, and if they do they'll be sorely disappointed. They can't price themselves super close to Intel, even with similar performance, because they're the underdog and they need to claw back market share. To do that you price yourself a good bit lower, and hope that people accept the price difference for the slight performance loss. I don't, however, think they'll be miles ahead in performance. Maybe 15% (thinking gaming here). Which isn't much. They release products on a yearly cycle. They had to release something. Kaby was what we got. Mobile Kaby got a pretty significant improvement. It's been pretty rare that the desktop side saw any drastic improvement. It's not only this gen.

3 hours 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.

As it should. The 1700x isn't really marketed to the same people.

 

They're not in it for a popularity contest. There's no "admitting to loss". They will lower their prices if they see market share disappearing. Nvidia also lowered their pricing to compete with AMD...does that mean they're the lesser company? No. It doesn't. It means they know how to run their business. Intel was smart with their pricing. When there's no competition, you charge what you want.

2 hours ago, Alexokan said:

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).

What? No company is bound to any given pricing model. Intel frequently raises theirs.

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

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. 

Selling processors in bulk to prebuilts isn't poor business practice, it's smart. Not sure why you bothered to include that.

If AMD was struggling, it's really no fault but their own. Intel isn't the only one with x86 patents either, btw.

1 hour 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. 

Motherboard costs are going to be low as they're not as complex (iirc). Definitely lower, AMD has already announced that will be one of their objectives. AMD has to price themselves lower than Intel, it's the only way to regain market share.

9 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Exactly. Intel is charging the same price per core they did many years ago, but new process nodes has made the cores small and thus a chip with the same number of cores is a lot cheaper to make. Intel could just pocket that difference because there was little competition from AMD. That may be coming to an end now.

Yeah, the fabs they build don't cost many billions of dollars or anything...

[Valentyn]

19 minutes ago, Dietrichw said:

I was excited to get a 1600X until I found out RAM prices have greatly increased since October. Decent 16GB kits were around $70-80, now it is $110-130.  

That's so cheap!

I bought my DDR4 the week it came out with the 5820K, and the only RAM in-stock set me back £575 for 32GB for 2400Mhz Corsair Dominators.

Early investor rip off was real! As my 5820K + Asus X99 Deluxe together cost £593

 

 

[done12many2]

Spoiler

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I can't wait until the end of the month when we can stop seeing these threads pop up every few days.

Part of me almost hopes that the pricing is higher just so people see how pointless rumors are.

 

You can't really change a product like a processor that fast. They work on them for years before release. The only thing they can really change is pricing.

It's WCCF...it is not confirmation.

For gaming, it's very likely that the 7700k is still the stronger choice.

However, it's also twice the price if you're comparing it to the Ryzen offering. The motherboards are also cheaper.

At the end of the day, you'll have to weigh cost vs performance and decide which is more important to you.

Personally I'd rather save hundreds of dollars and see a slight drop in FPS.

I don't think anyone really expects them to have better performance than Intel, and if they do they'll be sorely disappointed. They can't price themselves super close to Intel, even with similar performance, because they're the underdog and they need to claw back market share. To do that you price yourself a good bit lower, and hope that people accept the price difference for the slight performance loss. I don't, however, think they'll be miles ahead in performance. Maybe 15% (thinking gaming here). Which isn't much. They release products on a yearly cycle. They had to release something. Kaby was what we got. Mobile Kaby got a pretty significant improvement. It's been pretty rare that the desktop side saw any drastic improvement. It's not only this gen.

As it should. The 1700x isn't really marketed to the same people.

 

They're not in it for a popularity contest. There's no "admitting to loss". They will lower their prices if they see market share disappearing. Nvidia also lowered their pricing to compete with AMD...does that mean they're the lesser company? No. It doesn't. It means they know how to run their business. Intel was smart with their pricing. When there's no competition, you charge what you want.

What? No company is bound to any given pricing model. Intel frequently raises theirs.

Selling processors in bulk to prebuilts isn't poor business practice, it's smart. Not sure why you bothered to include that.

If AMD was struggling, it's really no fault but their own. Intel isn't the only one with x86 patents either, btw.

Motherboard costs are going to be low as they're not as complex (iirc). Definitely lower, AMD has already announced that will be one of their objectives. AMD has to price themselves lower than Intel, it's the only way to regain market share.

Yeah, the fabs they build don't cost many billions of dollars or anything...

 

@dizmo

 

I had to break for lunch while reading this reply.  Lol

[goodtofufriday]

16 minutes ago, dizmo said:

 Selling processors in bulk to prebuilts isn't poor business practice, it's smart. Not sure why you bothered to include that.

If AMD was struggling, it's really no fault but their own. Intel isn't the only one with x86 patents either, btw.

 

They changed their bulk pricing after they hurt amds sales with the malicious x86 code and after scaring companies into only buying intel. 

The bulk price was at times sold at a loss to intel just so that it didnt make sense to buy amd.

 

You mostly require intel x86 license to be able to run a modern windows OS out of the box. So without that you badically arent making a mainstream proc. Which is where intel has gouged pricing. 

[NumLock21]

What is confirmed on 2/28. AMD's exclusive after party!

[AresKrieger]

2 hours ago, Orangeator said:

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.

Consumers don't work that way, brand means something and amd doesn't have a good brand to the average person, I'm not saying the slashed price strategy is a bad idea as it might be their only opportunity to get back in the CPU conversation but it is very risky to the point I consider it somewhat insane. The difference between courage and stupidity is success afterall.

[thenastyjbenny]

Yeah Sandy Bridge FTW guys.  

[Orangeator]

7 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Consumers don't work that way, brand means something and amd doesn't have a good brand to the average person, I'm not saying the slashed price strategy is a bad idea as it might be their only opportunity to get back in the CPU conversation but it is very risky to the point I consider it somewhat insane. The difference between courage and stupidity is success afterall.

I work that way. And I am a consumer. If Intel can more then afford to massively drop their prices on their product due to new competition then I will obviously know that they were abusing their position in the market with no regard to their customers. 

Businesses are businesses, they need to make money, I know that. I know R&D is expensive, but there is a difference of making a profit and abusing a position in a market.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

I work that way. And I am a consumer. If Intel can more then afford to massively drop their prices on their product due to new competition then I will obviously know that they were abusing their position in the market with no regard to their customers. 

And what are you going to do about it?

 

Serious question.

[Orangeator]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

And what are you going to do about it?

 

Serious question.

If other consumers have the ability to critically think, they would stop buying Intel products if they were to pull a stunt like I said.

[AresKrieger]

2 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

I work that way. And I am a consumer.

You're on a tech forum, you are a minority of people, honestly most of the people I know haven't a clue as to what AMD is while I don't know a single person who doesn't know of intel. Marketing is a powerful tool.

 

As I said the strategy could work but the downside is they won't recover R&D cost with lower profit margins if it isn't a resounding success which would put them back in the red again. I honestly think they're going for the motherboard pricing increase strategy as they've done it before and lower cpu prices are a very marketable thing even if based on a lie

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

If other consumers have the ability to critically think, they would stop buying Intel products if they were to pull a stunt like I said.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

Well it does, but it doesn't tell me what you are going to do.

[JoeCoke]

A 8c/16t CPU for 320$? I don't care if the IPC isn't as good as SL/KL, for that price you just can't argue with it. It's a third of Intel's price! In fact, basically every one of these CPUs undercuts Intel by at least half. But imagine, if these are very close to Intel's IPC like they showed in those benchmarks, then this will completely change the whole game. But before I start jumping around and screaming, I wanna see trust worthy benchmarks.

 

Also, can't wait to see budget builds with those 4C CPUs! Four real cores for 130$! This is one step closer to the death of dual cores, and I couldn't be happier.

[Orangeator]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

That doesn't answer my question.

 

Well it does, but it doesn't tell me what you are going to do.

Yeah it does, i'll stop buying Intel products. I don't support companies who abuse their position in a market.