US Prices of AMD Ryzen Processors Surface

[EarthDog]

Easy enough.. look at tdp. While not exact, it gives a great idea of the max power used at stock.

 

[rruff]

Think about it. Will Intel cut price of 6900 by half? What about investors or customers which have already bought it? What about business which has already signed contracts for those CPU's. the price can be lower but can't go down by half. What they can do is to release different processors.

If AMD sells a processor that is really as good for half as much, then anybody who paid double for the Intel processor is screwed regardless. But why would the customer want to keep getting screwed? Intel can't keep customers unless they are real competitive on performance/cost. That's the number 1 first rule they have to satisfy.

 

[eidairaman1]

If AMD sells a processor that is really as good for half as much, then anybody who paid double for the Intel processor is screwed regardless. But why would the customer want to keep getting screwed? Intel can't keep customers unless they are real competitive on performance/cost. That's the number 1 first rule they have to satisfy.

Because most are sheep/cattle

 

[rruff]

Because most are sheep/cattle

The public perception of AMD will change in a hurry if reality warrants it. Reality has been a bitch for a long time:

 

[eidairaman1]

The public perception of AMD will change in a hurry if reality warrants it. Reality has been a bitch for a long time:

Even when AMD was ontop during the AXP and A64 days people still didn't know who AMD was.

 

[Bones]

Even when AMD was ontop during the AXP and A64 days people still didn't know who AMD was.

It's largely because AMD didn't really do any advertising of their brand but Intel did with those little aliens (Peeentiuuuummmm), then moved on from there.

I can recall only one ad for AMD processors that I've ever seen and it wasn't that memorable, just an ad if you will.

 

[ratirt]

It's largely because AMD didn't really do any advertising of their brand but Intel did with those little aliens (Peeentiuuuummmm), then moved on from there.

I can recall only one ad for AMD processors that I've ever seen and it wasn't that memorable, just an ad if you will.

Best advertising for me is product itself not cheap catchy words on tv screen or else. Intel is releasing new batch of CPU's and that's his play for AMD's products. intel will never cut the price down by half of the current products that's for sure.

 

[medi01]

Guys, TDP numbers are COMPLETELY out of whack.

95W "3.4Ghz' Ryzen that beat 145W i7 in blender demo, was consuming rougthly the same.
What I suspect is that "XFR" was actually out there and AMD chip was boosting its clock beyond 3.4Ghz.
Which is cool and all (considering it still was both faster and consumed a tad less than Intel), but it also means that Intel still has superior IPC.

All combined, AMD is looking fantastic right now

Looks shinyish on CPU front, poor on GPU front.

Global Foundaries catching up to Intel fabs? That made me chuckle a bit.

Let's not pretend as if GF is the only foundry out there.
While Intel indeed has fab superiority it also costs them a fortune (big chunk of that 10+ times bigger R&D budget), as progress is slowing down, TSMC and Samsung are clearly cat

Ryzen has Falyn.

Underdog hate, mind boggling.

Easy enough.. look at tdp. While not exact, it gives a great idea of the max power used at stock.

Except in our case it clearly doesn't (blender demo with 95W and 145W chips consuming rougthly the same, I could swear AMD was doing the XFR thing)



--------------------

New benchmarks, AMD is indeed still behind, although competitive:

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Looks shinyish on CPU front, poor on GPU front.

RX 480, RX 470, and RX 460 cards are fantastic. It's sad AMD doesn't have anything to hold to the Titan but the money is in the mainstream cards so AMD made the right business decision.

Vega is going to be good. The question is "how good?"

New benchmarks, AMD is indeed still behind, although competitive:

Except that we already knew physics was Ryzen's weak spot compared to Intel:

Of eight Passmark tests, 1700X only lost to 6900K in Prime Numbers, Physics, and Compression (very slim margin, 1800X would beat it). 1700X won Integer Math, Floating Point Math (razor thin margin), Sorting, Encryption, and Extended Instructions (SSE):
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/

The ironic thing is that AMD could sell a 32-core Ryzen for the price of 6950X ($1800) and blow it out of the water in all of the benchmarks.

 

[medi01]

RX 480, RX 470, and RX 460 cards are fantastic.

480 is merely ok-ish, 470 rocks, 460 is poor.

All of that now. When released, 480 suffered from thermal throttling (no AIBs either) and pulling too much over PCIe.
Shortages of even a reference card, while nVida, which, according to Raja, was "at least 2 month behind" somehow managed to not only roll out 1070/1080 (at insane price points, thanks for bending over), but also have solid 1060 launch with AIBs being there upfront.

But what's worse, 490 is terrible (absent, I know) and so is Polaris Fury/Fury X (again absent, so that competitor has free reign for nearly a year).

It would be ok-ish, had AMD trounced nVidia in lower end, however, 480 failed to do so (I'm being generous towards Raja here).


Oh, and what we have heard about Vega so far is hardly impressive, 500mm^2 chip with HBM2 memory that is... just faster than 317mm^2 1080, looks bad.

Except that we already knew physics was Ryzen's weak spot compared to Intel:

I'd wait for benchmarks here. Even just solid mid range is still so much better than situation that we had for nearly a decade.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

RX 480 8 GB goes for about $220
GTX 1060 6 GB goes for about $280 $230.

Performance between the two is inside of 2% at all resolutions. Not to mention, the more DX12/Vulkan titles come out, the more the needle moves in RX 480's favor. Might as well save that $60 $10.

 

[ratirt]

480 is merely ok-ish, 470 rocks, 460 is poor.

All of that now. When released, 480 suffered from thermal throttling (no AIBs either) and pulling too much over PCIe.
Shortages of even a reference card, while nVida, which, according to Raja, was "at least 2 month behind" somehow managed to not only roll out 1070/1080 (at insane price points, thanks for bending over), but also have solid 1060 launch with AIBs being there upfront.

But what's worse, 490 is terrible (absent, I know) and so is Polaris Fury/Fury X (again absent, so that competitor has free reign for nearly a year).

It would be ok-ish, had AMD trounced nVidia in lower end, however, 480 failed to do so (I'm being generous towards Raja here).


Oh, and what we have heard about Vega so far is hardly impressive, 500mm^2 chip with HBM2 memory that is... just faster than 317mm^2 1080, looks bad.

Why do you put 1070/1080 in the same basket with rx GPU's? RX 480 was released to compete with the mid range cards which that time was 970 and 480 did that tremendously. I also think that rx family is a brilliant batch of cards even knowing that they had issues( which in fact were all fixed). Not like cut down 970's memory which can't be fixed since it was based only on hardware not a driver tweak.
According to plan they are not absent they haven't been released yet. Nobody said they will come up now or would in 2016. AMD planned the releases and presented them. Saying absent is not right.

About Vega - don't put into account the chip size but the performance it delivers. If chip size matter maybe Atom would be the best option for you. I'm sure a lot of users think there's more that matter than just chip size. Really.

 

[EarthDog]

RX 480 8 GB goes for about $220
GTX 1060 6 GB goes for about $280

Performance between the two is inside of 2% at all resolutions. Not to mention, the more DX12/Vulkan titles come out, the more the needle moves in RX 480's favor. Might as well save that $60.

The lowest for each I have seen on newegg (just now) is $215 and $230. Might was well save the $15..?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It was filtering Featured, my bad. Point is, price is similar and performance is similar. People in that market will be happy with either card.

 

[EarthDog]

Point is, price is similar and performance is similar.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your first post encouraging the purchase of an 480 because of $60 difference and future dx12 support...it's a different story when the price is $15 apart at the low end. Then one needs to hang their hat on dx12/Vulcan support and also playing those games for it to be a better value in the end. Only time will tell.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For 2% difference at 1080p, 1% at 1440p, and 1% at 4K, really? Unless you're benchmarking, you're not going to be able to tell the difference.

 

[medi01]

RX 480 was released to compete with the mid range cards which that time was 970

No, it was released to compete with Pascal and that is 1060 (how big a delay did we have? 2-4 weeks? And if we take into account product availability not even that? Jeez)


FreeSync (ok, also FineWine) is the major thing going for 480 vs 1060 (and I personally sure would choose 480 over 1060, also because f*ck nvidia's filthy business practices, that's why), but that"s not the point.

People asked why AMD GPU was in poor state at the moment.
Because, dear Raja, it looks miserable:
1) You are not even present in mid and hi end
2) Your power consumption figures are not that great, barely beating 28nm products by competitor, you are basically non-existent in notebook market, thanks to it. (I'm looking for a gaming notebook and the only AMD option that I have is some bizarre 470 Alienware build, which is, wait for it, actually not even available in Germany)
3) Your low end is outsold into oblivion by competitor, thanks for releasing crappy ref cards, PCIe f*ckup.


AMD's GPU business does not look screwed not because it isn't screwed, but because CPU business is screwed even more (hopefully Zen will address it)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Pretty sure the only reason why they launched Polaris by itself is because Global Foundries needs to improve their process before making a massive chip like Vega. I'm expecting Vega to have better power consumption relative to performance compared to Polaris.

 

[ratirt]

No, it was released to compete with Pascal and that is 1060 (how big a delay did we have? 2-4 weeks? And if we take into account product availability not even that? Jeez)


FreeSync (ok, also FineWine) is the major thing going for 480 vs 1060 (and I personally sure would choose 480 over 1060, also because f*ck nvidia's filthy business practices, that's why), but that"s not the point.

People asked why AMD GPU was in poor state at the moment.
Because, dear Raja, it looks miserable:
1) You are not even present in mid and hi end
2) Your power consumption figures are not that great, barely beating 28nm products by competitor, you are basically non-existent in notebook market, thanks to it. (I'm looking for a gaming notebook and the only AMD option that I have is some bizarre 470 Alienware build, which is, wait for it, actually not even available in Germany)
3) Your low end is outsold into oblivion by competitor, thanks for releasing crappy ref cards, PCIe f*ckup.


AMD's GPU business does not look screwed not because it isn't screwed, but because CPU business is screwed even more (hopefully Zen will address it)

Wrong. First showed up RX 480 and than Nvidia released 1060 bro. RX was to compete with 970 and it did and then Nvidia released 1060 to compete with RX 480.. So you got it a bit wrong.
You are stating the obvious. I'm sure Raja knows that. Why they are not releasing the mid and high range GPU's now is probably because they don't want to screw this up. Maybe they could have released Vega earlier but they want to get us much out of it as possible since the competition is good.
Instead of calling names and cursing just go with NVidia and shut if AMD rx's family doesn't suit you dude.

 

[medi01]

Wrong. First showed up RX 480 and than Nvidia released 1060 bro.

Nobody gives a flying feck about who "showed" first, it's about when you can buy it.

You are stating the obvious. I'm sure Raja knows that.

No, I'm saying Raja has actually failed so far, I don't care what excuses there are, this is a fact.

I'm expecting Vega to have better power consumption relative to performance compared to Polaris.

Well, anyhow they are on TSMC, not GloFo to my knowledge. (if that really matters).

If we trust Toms, Apple's chips manufactured at Samsung (14nm) were better than TSMCs, but who knows, if it also applies to GloFo (I don't see why not, but heh).

 

[ratirt]

Nobody gives a flying feck about who "showed" first, it's about when you can buy it.


No, I'm saying Raja has actually failed so far, I don't care what excuses there are, this is a fact.


Well, anyhow they are on TSMC, not GloFo to my knowledge. (if that really matters).

If we trust Toms, Apple's chips manufactured at Samsung (14nm) were better than TSMCs, but who knows, if it also applies to GloFo (I don't see why not, but heh).

Fact is that you are not an expert but only sharing your thoughts and lets stick to that especially when somebody thinks differently like I do but at least I'm not so confident and arrogant in what I say.

You could buy RX 480 before 1060 bro. So yeah it does matter who showed first and your statement makes no sense First you say it doesn't matter who showed first and then when you can buy it? Don't you think those 2 are related? Besides the discussion about this started when you said rx 480 was released to compete with 1060 which is wrong so it does matter when it showed up dude. rx 480 showed up and then NV releases 1060 to compete with AMD's 480 and that's the fact not assumption or thought of mine.

 

[medi01]

Fact is that you are not an expert

You don't need to be an expert to see that AMD has nothing to compete with 1070/1080/Ti and that even in low end AMD is losing miserable.
Neither do you need to be an expert to see that ref 480 sucked on multiple fronts.

You could buy AIB 1060 back in August, when even getting reference 480 was a problem.

What one needs a special expertise in, is to see how Raja somehow achieved anything (for AMD) so far.

 

[ratirt]

You don't need to be an expert to see that AMD has nothing to compete with 1070/1080/Ti and that even in low end AMD is losing miserable.
Neither do you need to be an expert to see that ref 480 sucked on multiple fronts.

You could buy AIB 1060 back in August, when even getting reference 480 was a problem.

What one needs a special expertise in, is to see how Raja somehow achieved anything (for AMD) so far.

Maybe where you are from it was a problem, Still not the point dude. You don't release a card to compete with other when other is not here. That's the only thing that I noticed in your flawed thinking. For me RX 480 are awesome. Deliver everything that is there to deliver within the price point.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well, anyhow they are on TSMC, not GloFo to my knowledge. (if that really matters).

Nope. High end could easily mean Vega. There's been no confirmation of a Polaris TSMC chip in existence.

If we trust Toms, Apple's chips manufactured at Samsung (14nm) were better than TSMCs, but who knows, if it also applies to GloFo (I don't see why not, but heh).

Backwards. Even though TSMC's chips are bigger than Samsung's, they generally perform better.

 

[EarthDog]

Opinions... aholes... a lot of them...!!!

(Not calling anyone an ahole...just paraphrasing the quote... since this is all about opinions and no facts)