TR Forums

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleath ... 996177f9c7

If this is true, I'm actually happy about this move, which makes perfect sense.  It would then cement that 4 core parts are the new norm.  Most people needing a real CPU (NOT SoC) could at some point utilize true 4 core hardware, especially with the push for VR, ect.  Although not 100% comparable, even phone SoCs are quad core.  Then it makes the higher end SR5 and SR7 perfectly in line with Intel's i5/i7 only double everything.  Intel's i5 offerings (desktop) have been the 4 physical cores with no H/T and i7 with 4 core physical with 4 threads of H/T.  This puts AMD in line with that design philosophy but doubling everything.  I'd be perfectly happy with an SR5 for gaming from the looks of it... 8 Physical cores over a 4 physical 4 h/t... yes please.

SR3 - $160
SR5 - $275
SR7 - $399

One can hope   This would mean they are going to push APUs or lower end parts for the low end/office builds.

My new nickname for Ryzen is "Double Stuffed"

I'd guess they've delayed the six core parts just to have more stock of the stuff people are more likely to buy right away.

LostCat wrote:

I'd guess they've delayed the six core parts just to have more stock of the stuff people are more likely to buy right away.

Personally I don't see the point of even having a 6 core CPU if the 8 is just two 4 core processors glued together. Just have a 4 and 8 core ones 

Welch wrote:

It would then cement that 4 core parts are the new norm.

Did you mean "It would then cement that 8 core parts are the new norm"?

sophisticles wrote:

Welch wrote:

It would then cement that 4 core parts are the new norm.

Did you mean "It would then cement that 8 core parts are the new norm"?

Well if the 8C/8T part is only $275, then it could become the new norm. For AMD builds anyway.

I hate to be be that guy but: Cores and threads are meaningless without knowing how they perform individually or grouped and we all know what apps actually use multicore cpu's effectively. Even then, we're not buying the CPU on raw numbers: what added parts like AVX does it support? VT-d? FBRAM? The linked article doesn't even specify how many lanes of PCIE or where they're coming from (chipset or cpu), just that (which is that they're 3.0 but in reality it's going to be a mix of 2 and 3.)

You're not just buying a cpu, you're buying the motherboard it sits in and both of those give you a feature-set and performance, buy accordingly.

zzz wrote:

I hate to be be that guy but: Cores and threads are meaningless without knowing how they perform individually or grouped and we all know what apps actually use multicore cpu's effectively. Even then, we're not buying the CPU on raw numbers: what added parts like AVX does it support? VT-d? FBRAM? The linked article doesn't even specify how many lanes of PCIE or where they're coming from (chipset or cpu), just that (which is that they're 3.0 but in reality it's going to be a mix of 2 and 3.)

You're not just buying a cpu, you're buying the motherboard it sits in and both of those give you a feature-set and performance, buy accordingly.

People buy what they need.  I couldn't care less about AVX or VT-d or lanes or whatever, if my games and storage perform well I'm good.

Bleh. I'd rather buy 6C12T than 8C8T (not that it matters since I'll probably go 8C16T anyway), and even if it were still a stupid market segmentation move, at least with a 6C option they've got plausible deniability that it's just binning. (I presume that the absence of a 6C option means yields are good.)

400 for SR7. I hope not, unless it's the lowest end part of SR7, for AMD's sake...

To my mind no 6 core parts means yields are good and almost all the chips are coming out capable of running all 8 cores.

Perhaps they'll accumulate those bad chips and in a few months we'll have a limited supply of 6-core parts, but if 8-core yields are good I'd rather AMD start a small price war in order to gain more marketshare rather than start cripping fully functional 8-core parts to make up for 6-core supply.

Seems to me this would leave a hole in their lineup and make it harder to compete with Intel at certain price points. If they don't release a 6C part they'll need to fill that hole with lower-clocked 8C parts, which will be bad for margins since they'll be selling a fully functional 8C part for a 6C price.

If I read the linked article table correctly that would be...

SR3 4C/8T - $160
SR5 8C/8T - $275
SR7 8C/16T - $399

I guess we will find out later if its a process thing or something. I think the SR5 8C/8T sounds like a great price point for $275. However, Its hard to see how there can be a 4C/8T and for that matter how they have more threads than cores for both the SR3 and SR7. Either the Forbes article is confused, or there is someway that each thread can be EITHER supported by one core OR somehow if some cores are dead, one core can somehow support two threads.

I suppose there is the implication that 16C/16T is reserved for servers and the SR7 8C/16T has some number of physical cores disabled AND/OR Simultaneous multithreading disabled.

ZEN CONFIRMED!!!
[To not launch with a 6 core variant?]

Those prices just make no sense. If their IPC was on par with what we saw in the demos (caveats included), why on Earth would they be selling an 8C/16T part for 400 bucks? It just doesn't compute.

Also, has anyone heard ANYTHING about die size for an 8C/16T part? I can't imagine that's a small die, and Intel is still selling its cheapest 6C/12T part for over 400. AMD needs to stop playing the budget game with their top parts unless of course they suck.

whm1974 wrote:

LostCat wrote:

I'd guess they've delayed the six core parts just to have more stock of the stuff people are more likely to buy right away.

Personally I don't see the point of even having a 6 core CPU if the 8 is just two 4 core processors glued together. Just have a 4 and 8 core ones 

Die Harvesting. It's a thing, and some people would pay for the 2 "extra" cores in any case.

DancinJack wrote:

Those prices just make no sense.  If their IPC was on par with what we saw in the demos (caveats included), why on Earth would they be selling an 8C/16T part for 400 bucks?  It just doesn't compute.  

Also, has anyone heard ANYTHING about die size for an 8C/16T part?  I can't imagine that's a small die, and Intel is still selling its cheapest 6C/12T part for over 400.  AMD needs to stop playing the budget game with their top parts unless of course they suck.

(Initial Release) RyZen doesn't have a iGPU. That means that the final die size could be a lot smaller than we've come to expect from Intel.

Reports are coming out that  prices are more likely to be from $580 to $720. IMHO there's no way AMD would be able to offer any Ryzen chips at  the prices the OP is stating.

synthtel2 wrote:

Bleh. I'd rather buy 6C12T than 8C8T (not that it matters since I'll probably go 8C16T anyway), and even if it were still a stupid market segmentation move, at least with a 6C option they've got plausible deniability that it's just binning. (I presume that the absence of a 6C option means yields are good.)

It's a good opportunity to see how efficient AMD's HT is. I can't imagine that anyone would want 8C/8T when there are the other options, but it should be nice to see them for benchmarking purposes. 

Assuming AMD HT isn't horrible (which I understand is a real concern), 4C/8T and 8C/16T already have most use cases covered.

Vhalidictes wrote:

(Initial Release) RyZen doesn't have a iGPU. That means that the final die size could be a lot smaller than we've come to expect from Intel.

I'm not so sure about that. Consider that the only 6, 8, and 10 core parts from Intel don't have GPUs either. And there is NO WAY that GF has a better 14nm process than Intel. So we can at least start with Intel as a baseline.

edit: I suppose for the 4C parts what you said could totally be true. We shall see!

Lordhawkwind wrote:

Reports are coming out that  prices are more likely to be from $580 to $720. IMHO there's no way AMD would be able to offer any Ryzen chips at  the prices the OP is stating.

I haven't seen any credible report that prices would be that high or what's in the OP.  At this point it seems more like everyone wants to speculate without any actual data to go off of.

There will still be dual-core, quad-thread parts. They'll just be Raven Ridge APUs where that configuration makes more sense.

Also, where did the prices in the OP come from? Wet dreams? They don't appear in the article. Just someone else in a hurry to run AMD out of money, it seems.

LostCat wrote:

Lordhawkwind wrote:

Reports are coming out that  prices are more likely to be from $580 to $720. IMHO there's no way AMD would be able to offer any Ryzen chips at  the prices the OP is stating.

I haven't seen any credible report that prices would be that high or what's in the OP.  At this point it seems more like everyone wants to speculate without any actual data to go off of.

AMD is gunning for Broadwell-E, right? We have low-ish clocks, purportedly similar IPC, and the same number of cores. IMO that means the best case scenario is that we get 6800K performance for $350, 6850K for $550 and 6900K for $999. I think that's going to leave a lot of people doing what I already have, picking up a high-clock quad from Intel for gaming. If you're not as concerned with gaming, or if you believe the Vulkan/DX12 will save the world, then Ryzen could be a good option for heavy-lifting and "good enough" for gaming. We'll see...

Yeah, the lack of 6c parts probably has to do with good yeild, not to mention trying to simplify a lineup/release. Later as refinements are released and they get clock bumps I'm guessing we will see some 6c parts too.

The article referring to threads is a TOTAL number of threads. So if it says 4c/8t it means 4 physical cores and 8 total threads (aka 4 virtual threads). Nothing is running twice the virtual threads of its physical.

My pricing I list of course is a wet dream guys... I never claimed it was fact or was true speculation. Don't get the panties in a bunch. Yes, we are playing the guessing game over actual fact because it is fun to speculate since we can do nothing else but wait.

I'd say that at least the SR3 and SR7 will be close to what I was saying in price though, otherwise they are trying to make a market all their own. The SR7 part may come at a premium bear 499.99 then. Any higher and it isnt even competing with Intels I7-6800k, it becomes a class of its own.

These CPUs are taking on Broadwell-E due to key features missing... no 4 channel memory. Most run of the mill enthusiasts are fine with i7-6800k type cpus.. we dont need E series.

derFunkenstein wrote:

There will still be dual-core, quad-thread parts. They'll just be Raven Ridge APUs where that configuration makes more sense.

Also, where did the prices in the OP come from? Wet dreams? They don't appear in the article. Just someone else in a hurry to run AMD out of money, it seems.

Oh, I thought those prices came from the previous article by the author linked in the article... But I see they are different...

The prices

The top end 8-core parts, similar to Intel's $1,000 Core i7-6900K, are expected to retail between $580 and $720, I've seen rumors of 6-core parts with 12 threads, similar to Intel's $600 Core i7-6850K retailing for around $250 and the SR3 - potentially a 4-core part with 8 threads has been rumored to land at around $150, with Intel's current equivalent being the Core i5-7600K, which retails for $100 more.

Heh, check out that 1111 post count! I'm binary.

drfish wrote:

AMD is gunning for Broadwell-E, right? We have low-ish clocks, purportedly similar IPC, and the same number of cores. IMO that means the best case scenario is that we get 6800K performance for $350, 6850K for $550 and 6900K for $999. I think that's going to leave a lot of people doing what I already have, picking up a high-clock quad from Intel for gaming. If you're not as concerned with gaming, or if you believe the Vulkan/DX12 will save the world, then Ryzen could be a good option for heavy-lifting and "good enough" for gaming. We'll see...

No matter what they're gunning for technologically they still have to sell the processors in the first place, and anyone coming into the market in the next six months is going to be like 'AMD?  Who cares?'
I expect they'll have to have lower prices than people expect to get people buying in the first place.

Mr Bill wrote:

Either the Forbes article is confused, or

I think we have a winner. I don't dislike the author, but he doesn't have any information that the readers here don't have. Just more conjecture and headlining.

MOSFET wrote:

Mr Bill wrote:

Either the Forbes article is confused, or

I think we have a winner. I don't dislike the author, but he doesn't have any information that the readers here don't have. Just more conjecture and headlining.

Yeah it is possible, I want to say the "No 6c parts" was also reported by others first but I can't confirm that.

It is possible that "6-core" chips aren't feasible due to how the Ryzen silicon is built.

Krogoth wrote:

It is possible that "6-core" chips aren't feasible due to how the Ryzen silicon is built.

I suppose that is a possibility, but it seems unlikely to me.

Krogoth wrote:

It is possible that "6-core" chips aren't feasible due to how the Ryzen silicon is built.

Just Keep On Krogothing, dude.