UK and US prices for AMD R7 Ryzen processors spotted

[Tabbykatze]

UPDATE: The source of the UK pricing image in the article has emailed me to say that the screenshot is from Ingram Micro, rather than Kikatek. Ingram Micro is a worldwide distributor rather than consumer retailer, so we probably can't expect these prices to translate very closely to retail, even with the added 20 per cent VAT.

You're right, I just compared Kikatek and Ingrams' website and it is definitely Ingrams'.

Sh*t

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

UPDATE: The source of the UK pricing image in the article has emailed me to say that the screenshot is from Ingram Micro, rather than Kikatek. Ingram Micro is a worldwide distributor rather than consumer retailer, so we probably can't expect these prices to translate very closely to retail, even with the added 20 per cent VAT.

http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-news/3...ml#post3766606

Look at my post. Kilkatek had prices up before they took them down and another UK company had similar ones.

They were roughly from £307 to £480 IIRC.

[flearider]

so what we looking at ??
£550 ish ?

[nobodyspecial]

Dumbest pricing mistake of the decade if the top chip can really beat i7-6900k. If it wins more than it loses vs. this chip 1800x should be no less than Intel's chip. But thanks AMD (assuming it's a good as they say) for being morons and completely missing why Intel/NV are kicking your arse quarterly. Fire the management for not taking advantage of [probably] the last time they could make a billion for a few years in a row instead of yearly 600mil losses.

That said, I'm not going to pass up the chip just because they're too stupid to price it correctly

I'll wait for benchmarks, because if the chip is really beating 6900k in handbrake etc, and is within 5-10% on everything else (hopefully winning more than losing) then I'm in for sure. That would make management completely retarded though. Why the heck would you sell a chip for $500 when you could EASILY get $1000? What a bunch of idiots if that is the case. They are in business to make MONEY, not do POOR people favors (who should get a better job!). Good job engineers in any case, but you guys should throw out the management for sure.

[nobodyspecial]

Apparently Intel is releasing a version of Kaby Lake which is faster:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9505/s...ckage-analysis

Wow,how interesting - they could have released Skylake and Kaby Lake at faster clockspeeds,but the moment they released AMD has something competitive,now they suddenly find these performance improvements.

OTH,it could be Intel pushing some news out to delay people from buying Ryzen too.

That article is from 2015. I don't quite get your point. They are releasing new ones in 2h2017 but it's possible it took a while of binning to reliably get those chips, no different than NV piling up TitanX chips for 1080ti etc. Business isn't about doing users favors. If you act like that you lose money. See AMD vs. NV/Intel...ROFL. It looks like they blew it again with pricing if they are really 6900k level and charging $500 for something that should be $1000. What morons. They owe SHAREHOLDERS, not you or I That said, I'll merrily pick one up for half off if AMD is this stupid If it beats 6900k in everything I would give $1000 easily. What are your options? Buy the loser for more money? Charge whatever the market will take. PERIOD. Or lose money for another year (1.1B+ losses last two years). It's comic people are always shouting about being screwed.

Get a better job if you can't afford your toys. Business is in business...to make money AMD should remember that or go bankrupt. They've already diluted shares from 700mil-950mil just to get more money they just threw away in the last 2yrs, so they had better start MAKING money instead of pissing it away on cheaper pricing. R&D isn't free, AMD needs money.

[aidanjt]

Dumbest pricing mistake of the decade if the top chip can really beat i7-6900k.

Or maybe AMD better understands marketing than you. They have a lot of market and mind share to claw back, and one of the best ways to do that is underselling Intel. That's good for us too since Intel will be forced to respond.

[imadaily]

Dumbest pricing mistake of the decade...

With equal pricing, OEMs (and a reasonable amount of consumers) would NEVER switch:
They are used to a product that has (generally) worked well for them for the last 5+ years and is produced by a company who will very likely still be in the CPU manufacturing business in 5-10 years time
Why would someone want to change to a new, relatively unproven product made by a company which has a much less solid future as a CPU manufacturer.

If you're an enthusiast then the switch is trivial, people will look at benchmarks and reviews and even a slight imporvment to the price/performance ratio will cause people to switch.
However for normal consumers, the name Intel and associated brands provide 'value', people trust it. They won't switch unless it's lots better or lots cheaper.

OEMs will also need a pretty vast financial incentive to move away from systems that work nicely and have good long term prospects, they're not going to want to redesign parts and setup new supply chains if there is a risk that they will need to move back to Intel in the not very distant future.

So it's not really "The dumbest pricing mistake of the decade" it's more being sensible about what they will need to do to actually sell a decent number of boards and regain a sensible market share!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looks like the coolers have been leaked:

http://i.imgur.com/XSX42gD.png
https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2017/02...i-1000x668.jpg



The Wraith Spire cooler is probably the last one,and it seems to have LEDs. It looks pretty hefty!!

[FRISH]

Dumbest pricing mistake of the decade if the top chip can really beat i7-6900k. If it wins more than it loses vs. this chip 1800x should be no less than Intel's chip. But thanks AMD (assuming it's a good as they say) for being morons and completely missing why Intel/NV are kicking your arse quarterly. Fire the management for not taking advantage of [probably] the last time they could make a billion for a few years in a row instead of yearly 600mil losses.

That said, I'm not going to pass up the chip just because they're too stupid to price it correctly

I'll wait for benchmarks, because if the chip is really beating 6900k in handbrake etc, and is within 5-10% on everything else (hopefully winning more than losing) then I'm in for sure. That would make management completely retarded though. Why the heck would you sell a chip for $500 when you could EASILY get $1000? What a bunch of idiots if that is the case. They are in business to make MONEY, not do POOR people favors (who should get a better job!). Good job engineers in any case, but you guys should throw out the management for sure.

Please tell us more on how superior your intelligence is. If AMD have been known for a long time as being inferior to Intel, why would people swap to AMD if they were on even footing instead of a band they know is a safe bet? A grands worth of cpu isn't going to make consumers favour them unless they're fanboys. I find it quite ridiculous that you take the point of view that AMD are stupid for trying to be more competitive instead of taking the point that Intel are price gouging their customers.

[badass]

I love the way everyone knows the performance, even though the only information out there are a few leaked benchmarks on engineering samples and claims by AMD themselves who don;t exactly have the best record of being honest about performance increases of unreleased processors *cough* Bulldozer *cough*

I'll be waiting for the reviews before judging on their performance personally. Once we know the performance, we can then determine if they are worth the money

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I love the way everyone knows the performance, even though the only information out there are a few leaked benchmarks on engineering samples and claims by AMD themselves who don;t exactly have the best record of being honest about performance increases of unreleased processors *cough* Bulldozer *cough*

I'll be waiting for the reviews before judging on their performance personally. Once we know the performance, we can then determine if they are worth the money

CPC were the same people who leaked the Athlon 64 results months before launch - they were right on the money apart from final clockspeeds which were higher. Its why the leak was taken so seriously - its almost like history repeating itself.

Also,AMD has now said instead of the 40% IPC increase over Excavator,it is 58% and Intel engineers at the recent Ryzen presentation have said it looks a competitive design.

This is nothing like Bulldozer,where there was some leaks beforehand which showed its performance might be a bit meh - some of us thought they were fake(sadly,not),but this looks something far more competitive.

There are areas where Intel might beat it - AVX2 speed and probably ultimately how high the memory controller will go,but AVX2 is an Intel standard IIRC. However,clockspeeds are way above what anyone expected so far - last year nobody expected an 8C/16T Ryzen would even hit anywhere near 4GHZ.

Edit!!

In fact the CPC leak of Ryzen was a worst case scenario - the CPU was in a motherboard with a buggy BIOS,and would barely boost past 3.3GHZ(and was apparently lower in many cases) and apparently SMT was slightly bugged too. The machine would only run older cards - the AMD event used a GTX1080 or Titan X IIRC,they used a Fury X before ReLive was launched. AMD drivers tended to push a single core load more than Nvidia ones.

When compared to the Core i7 6900K running at between 3.5GHZ to 3.7GHZ,it was only 10% faster with almost 10% higher clockspeed. In non-gaming scenarios it was around 15% faster with a similar clockspeed advantage.

So that places Ryzen at between Haswell and BW-E level IPC.

Of the 6 games tested,4 don't use more than 4 cores,don't scale with SMT,one uses upto 8 threads well and the other was reasonably multi-threaded(I actually checked the scaling for the games),so at least for gaming it seems AMD has not far off BW-E.

Why do you think Intel went to all that effort to launch Kaby Lake?? At least for gaming scenarios,its that extra clockspeed which make them look a few percent better in all those low resolution gaming benchmarks.

[DanceswithUnix]

If it beats 6900k in everything I would give $1000 easily.

That's nice for you, but people prepared to splash out $1000 on a cpu is a pretty small market, and cpus just piling up in a warehouse unsold cost money rather than make it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The thing is I don't think it will necessarily beat a Core i7 6900K or Core i7 7700K in everything - I suspect with stuff like AVX2,the Intel chips will pull ahead and relative IPC will be lower,and Intel will probably pull ahead in memory bandwidth with Kaby Lake and BW-E,and Kaby Lake will probably run at higher clockspeeds. Its to be expected since the Intel 14NM process has had more time for Intel to tweak.

However,an 8C/16T CPU at just under £500 between Haswell to Broadwell level IPC in most applications with a 3.6GHZ to 4.0GHZ clockspeed,and no need for nearly £200 motherboards to run it,is a decent CPU all-round if those IPC estimates are what we get(even at Haswell level IPC,considering its 8C against 4C),especially since the CPUs will be running at a decently lower TDP than something like an FX8350.

Ryzen is an SOC too(apparently) and the estimates for the chip are around 200MM2 in size,which makes it smaller than the BW-E CPUs,and since the motherboards are essentially just port extenders,I suspect they should be quite energy efficient and cheap to make,once any bugs on the platform are ironed out.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Edit!!

More stuff from AT forums:

https://s23.postimg.org/tqb06wo0p/9d...4c300b9ea9.jpg


https://s23.postimg.org/nqn939389/14...a50dd6437.jpg#

[qepsilonp]

Tbh even if it's £350 I'm still good with that I had £800 saved for Ryzen + Mobo and RAM which I wanted to buy 2x 16GB so I had about £500 budgeted for the CPU. And I am almost certainly not going to go for the 1800X so even if these are somewhat close it's fine.

@imadaily I don't think it really matters if the company is going to fold for a CPU have you ever tried to RMA a CPU without contacts, say for example you work for a bunisess and you bought like 1000 of them then yeah they will RMA that no problem but to an individual... prepare for a massive headache.

[Nohliife]

There must be some more differences between the models than just a couple of MHz to warrant the price differences? Any ideas?