BitsAndChips: entry-level Threadripper 16c/32t to come at the nice low price of $849

[leadeater]

15 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Each CCX has its own memory controller and cache.

Actually they share the IMC, a lot of the die layouts for Ryzen are not correctly labeled. I was caught out by that also.

 

Quote

The CCXes also share the same memory controller.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014-2.html

 

Also if you think the cross CCX latency is that huge of an issue spare a though for the already years of existing dual CPU Intel servers with much higher latency between cores on CPUs packages.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

One tester had the Infinity Fabric as adding between 20 to 25 ns of latency.  Which is insanely impressive.  The stuff is just cool tech and I'm glad it's working.

 

Relatedly, while total IPC for Ryzen cores is a little above Broadwell/right around Haswell, that's only in total.  In quite a lot of functions it's faster than Intel cores.  It also does SMT more efficiently, which is a real shocker. It's the reason why the Handbrake and Cinebench scores are so nutty.

[Doobeedoo]

Woah that would be really aggressive pricing, be it entry 16c still. But if so pretty awesome.

[Prysin]

6 hours ago, laminutederire said:

That falls into them not being able to produce cheaper

It's a new platform so you never know! Of we ask for it we may have it. 

10nM and below should provide intel with cheaper chips. Its been so PITA to all the manufacturers taht they started pooling funding to make it happen. Intel cannot drop prices pre 10nM. Production RnD, tooling and yields arent good enough

[laminutederire]

51 minutes ago, Prysin said:

10nM and below should provide intel with cheaper chips. Its been so PITA to all the manufacturers taht they started pooling funding to make it happen. Intel cannot drop prices pre 10nM. Production RnD, tooling and yields arent good enough

<10nm isn't so much the future to be fair, so we'll see if that pays out for post silicon chips

[79wjd]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Actually they share the IMC, a lot of the die layouts for Ryzen are not correctly labeled. I was caught out by that also.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014-2.html

 

Also if you think the cross CCX latency is that huge of an issue spare a though for the already years of existing dual CPU Intel servers with much higher latency between cores on CPUs packages.

 

I don't necessarily consider the latency to be such a problem but that was always one of the biggest problems with multi die chips. So I would still consider ryzen to essentially be a dual die chip since it still suffers from all the pitfalls of one.

[NumLock21]

16 core is not entry level. 10 core is, so 10 core will cost $849.

[tom_w141]

6 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

16 core is not entry level. 10 core is, so 10 core will cost $849.

They mean entry level 16 core as in the 1700 is the entry level 8 core but there are 3 8 cores total (1700, 1700X and 1800X with ~ $180 between top and bottom). This indicates the lowest clocked at stock 16 core will be $849 so using Ryzen 7 as an estimate the top 16 core could realistically be $1000

Edited June 3, 2017 by tom_w141

[NumLock21]

3 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

They mean entry level 16 core as in the 1700 is the entry level 8 core but there are 3 8 cores total (1700, 1700X and 1800X with ~ $180 between top and bottom). This indicates the lowest clocked at stock 16 core will be $849 so using Ryzen 7 as an estimate the top 16 core could realistically be $1000

So a 1080 is entry level compared to 1080ti. Best to wait when official prices comes out.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

So a 1080 is entry level compared to 1080ti. Best to wait when official prices comes out.

They're different and you know it... They're clearly talking about the 16c and not the 10c. Also it wouldn't make any sense for the 10c to cost $850.

[laminutederire]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

They're different and you know it... They're clearly talking about the 16c and not the 10c. Also it wouldn't make any sense for the 10c to cost $850.

Intel 10c will probably, maybe he was talking about that one?

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Intel 10c will probably, maybe he was talking about that one?

If the R7 1800X is $469 then double that is $938. The per core cost will be less on the 16c CPU so the price will go down, at a little extra for the increased PCIe lanes and interconnect for two die the $850 is plausible.

[Taf the Ghost]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If the R7 1800X is $469 then double that is $938. The per core cost will be less on the 16c CPU so the price will go down, at a little extra for the increased PCIe lanes and interconnect for two die the $850 is plausible.

I'm still pulling for $998, just to throw some shade at Intel.

[laminutederire]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If the R7 1800X is $469 then double that is $938. The per core cost will be less on the 16c CPU so the price will go down, at a little extra for the increased PCIe lanes and interconnect for two die the $850 is plausible.

Ahah yes of course, I don't deny that, the sad part I think Intel will try to shove their 10c at the same price.

The 16c from amd will surely be in the 800-1000 range anyway, but since they don't have the best of the best anymore since intel 18c will beat their 16c, they won't try to price it up too high, regardless of the margins 

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Ahah yes of course, I don't deny that, the sad part I think Intel will try to shove their 10c at the same price.

The 16c from amd will surely be in the 800-1000 range anyway, but since they don't have the best of the best anymore since intel 18c will beat their 16c, they won't try to price it up too high, regardless of the margins 

The 7900x, skylake-x ten core, has already been officially announced at $1000.

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

The 7900x, skylake-x ten core, has already been officially announced at $1000.

How can they sell that seriously ?  They'll have to reduce the price at some point 

[leadeater]

I think AMD should sell their TR CPUs at the highest possible price that consumers would find acceptable and buy in decent volumes. Get some of that sweet cash coming in to invest in Zen+ etc.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

How can they sell that seriously ?  They'll have to reduce the price at some point 

Unlikely they will. Plus the platform might be out before Threadripper, as I don't think we have exact dates on either platform at the moment.  It's still Intel's "market" for the time being, so they can charge a premium.  It would take several generations before AMD has eaten up enough market share for Intel to really need to cut their prices too deep.  They brought them down because they only had a $1700 part because they could charge that with no competition.

 

Now that the Ryzen 8c/16t part compares favorably to a CPU that was over 3x as expensive, they'll bring the volume (ish) chips down to competitive. The 18c36t chip has a really tiny use case, as is, but they still need to eek out that spot as the Premium seller.

[tom_w141]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I think AMD should sell their TR CPUs at the highest possible price that consumers would find acceptable and buy in decent volumes. Get some of that sweet cash coming in to invest in Zen+ etc.

They have a large margin on these so the more they undercut Intel the more egg they leave on Intel's face. Gaining market share means more to AMD right now than raw profit.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

They have a large margin on these so the more they undercut Intel the more egg they leave on Intel's face. Gaining market share means more to AMD right now than raw profit.

they need both, the product is there, now they need to focus on being profitable again so that they can increase R&D in both markets (cpu and gpu)

[tom_w141]

18 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

How can they sell that seriously ?  They'll have to reduce the price at some point 

That won't happen. Intel is the Apple of the CPU sector. It doesn't matter if you have a strong competitor to the iPhone at a lower price Apple keep their prices high because they know some people will just pay it. Intel will likely see reduced sales compared to X99 but they will still sell them and with those crazy margins and corner cutting (e.g. not soldering) they are going to be well ahead of AMD on profit per sale. One of my favourite things about X299 is that some marketing genius put "great for VR" on the box  

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

they need both, the product is there, now they need to focus on being profitable again so that they can increase R&D in both markets (cpu and gpu)

The successful yield on these chips is reported at 80% someone elsewhere posted an estimated profit per chip so even at $849 there were several hundred dollars of profit there. HEDT and Server are where AMD currently have 0 market share so I think their primary concern is aggressive pricing to get some of that sweet HEDT/Server money.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

The successful yield on these chips is reported at 80% someone elsewhere posted an estimated profit per chip so even at $849 there were several hundred dollars of profit there. HEDT and Server are where AMD currently have 0 market share so I think their primary concern is aggressive pricing to get some of that sweet HEDT/Server money.

Yup, which is why Epyc launches in just a few weeks. And, in many ways, Zen is actually a server platform that they've managed to make some really good consumer-level products from.  The Engineers at AMD have done some wonderful work lately.  Too bad they're having to dig out of the mess AMD was put in.

[cj09beira]

@Taf the Ghost

the idea of covering almost the entire cpu market with a single die is pure genius.

all made possible by their infinity fabric. 

from 160 dollars 4 core to 32 core server beast all with the same core.

this strategy is what will allow amd to come back to action as making multiple dies would cost too much and they would not be able to afford it.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I think AMD should sell their TR CPUs at the highest possible price that consumers would find acceptable and buy in decent volumes. Get some of that sweet cash coming in to invest in Zen+ etc.

They don't have to. Right now they have about 0% market share in the high end enterprise market and the HEDT markets. What they need to do is capture market share. That always costs money, and as such it would be fine for AMD to cut, say 20% of the profit margin, so they could be cheaper. If the prices are holding up, a 16 core TR will beat the crap out of Intel's 10 core, at a lower cost, and render ALL higher core Intel CPU's completely pointless. Having a lower profit margin but selling a lot more chips will increase the overall revenue and in the end profits as well.