More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges

[las]

Compared to Coffee Lake ... sure. But apples and oranges and all that.

Compared to 10-15 year old x86 chips too.

Could be, I would still like to see the sources.

Search the Internet then. Not sure how this comes as a surprise.

 

[Fouquin]

Search the Internet then.

You bear the burden of proof in the situation as the one who presented information without citing a source. "Go search it yourself" is not providing proof of your claims, and is a waste of everyone else's time simply to keep them occupied long enough to ensure you retain the last word. This is counterproductive to discussion.

 

[john_]

You don't need to explain it to me. I get this...

You need to take a step back and look at which companies are successful and leading the marketplace versus those who are not. AMD is notorious for undercutting itself and cannibalizing its own product stack. It has done so on CPU, it has done so on GPU, and it has happened quite often that they're stuck with lots of old stock as a result of it. From three rebrands of the same GPU to Ryzens that have zero OC headroom and just boost to cap out of the box - it may be good for the end user, but it is utter crap for AMD's profit margins.

And guess what, AMD needs profit to spend on R&D.

Did the penny drop yet??? Now look at Nvidia, that just releases a whole new gen at inflated pricing to keep Pascal afloat so they can clear stock. Smart business. Oh, and while you're at it, take note of their market share.

AMD is trying to get market share. Going for profits would have been a bad idea. They would have plenty of Ryzen stock that they wouldn't be able to sell, because OEMs wouldn't jeopardize their relationship with Intel and gamers would keep going for the CPU that gives higher fps. And not being able to sell Ryzens would meen extra penalties from GlobalFoundries. Let's just assume that they know their job better than we think we are.

Nvidia increases their prices because they don't have competition. Go back at AMD's HD 4870 and especially HD 4850 introduction and you will see what happened when Nvidia thought they where playing alone. $50 rebate to all early GTX 280 and GTX 260 buyers if i remember correctly. And you know something? AMD doesn't need to do a thing about it. Because Nvidia creating higher price points will also benefit AMD in the future. Just not us.

 

[Vayra86]

Search the Internet then. Not sure how this comes as a surprise.

Hey you had to re-iterate nonsense about B-die memory more than three times and now you can't provide a source for 2nd gen Ryzen?

Come on man. This is weak - at least just admit you're wrong then. Let's keep to facts.

AMD is trying to get market share. Going for profits would have been a bad idea. They would have plenty of Ryzen stock that they wouldn't be able to sell, because OEMs wouldn't jeopardize their relationship with Intel and gamers would keep going for the CPU that gives higher fps. And not being able to sell Ryzens would meen extra penalties from GlobalFoundries. Let's just assume that they know their job better than we think we are.

Nvidia increases their prices because they don't have competition. Go back at AMD's HD 4870 and especially HD 4850 introduction and you will see what happened when Nvidia thought they where playing alone. $50 rebate to all early GTX 280 and GTX 260 buyers if i remember correctly. And you know something? AMD doesn't need to do a thing about it. Because Nvidia creating higher price points will also benefit AMD in the future. Just not us.

Again, no need to tell me all this - it still doesn't change what was said, which you still don't seem to grasp. Going back to whatever point in time, AMD has never turned a profit off their GPU division and we all know what CPU has done in the past. Even when they DID have performance crowns with CPU, they failed to really cash in on that and they made silly marketing and product placement choices. Its in their culture, in their blood, and its completely ridiculous and works against them in the long run. That lack of funding on R&D is a long term issue that they have created for themselves by not cashing in on design wins.

It still happens too. Look at the console deals - AMD was the cheapest option and what have they got for it? LOTS of units moved with minimal profit. Here's hoping they struck a better deal for the successors. Full fat Vega is a GPU so hard to make that they have to sell it at premium to break even. The list goes on...

 

[sepheronx]

At that price point, no way!

Canadian prices on hardware is too much as is. I would have to soon take a second mortgage out just to pay for the processor + ram and mobo.

 

[john_]

Again, no need to tell me all this - it still doesn't change what was said, which you still don't seem to grasp.

I understand just fine. We just see it from different perspectives. AMD can't be Intel in just 2 years and it doesn't address the market as Intel does. AMD will make you see the cheaper product as a huge opportunity because it needs market share. Intel will make the lesser products look worst because it needs to sell those with higher profit margins. But I guess, this is again something I don't have to explain to you, you already knew it etc etc etc....

 

[Frick]

Search the Internet then. Not sure how this comes as a surprise.

I have, and I still don't see the great difference that makes those sticks "needed". What games should I look at?

 

[Vayra86]

I understand just fine. We just see it from different perspectives. AMD can't be Intel in just 2 years and it doesn't address the market as Intel does. AMD will make you see the cheaper product as a huge opportunity because it needs market share. Intel will make the lesser products look worst because it needs to sell those with higher profit margins. But I guess, this is again something I don't have to explain to you, you already knew it etc etc etc....

When the market share was 60-40, they didnt do anything different than what they're doing today. Meanwhile, all they have done is lost more market share - even with products that consistently were cheaper than the competition. Surely you can't be this blind... your perspective is simply not supported by any data ever.

 

[las]

You bear the burden of proof in the situation as the one who presented information without citing a source. "Go search it yourself" is not providing proof of your claims, and is a waste of everyone else's time simply to keep them occupied long enough to ensure you retain the last word. This is counterproductive to discussion.

Nah I really don't. If you have been reading reviews and tests since Ryzen release you would know.
This is why 99.9% of 120-240 Hz owners are using Intel. CPU is the limiting factor for high fps gaming.

 

[Frick]

Nah I really don't. If you have been reading reviews and tests since Ryzen release you would know.

That is what I have, and I still fail to see the great importance for the B-dies on even budget Ryzen systems.

 

[john_]

When the market share was 60-40, they didnt do anything different than what they're doing today. Meanwhile, all they have done is lost more market share - even with products that consistently were cheaper than the competition. Surely you can't be this blind... your perspective is simply not supported by any data ever.

When the market share was 60-40, they tried to show that they are better than Intel. So they throw every resource they had to create the first native quad core. They lost so much time, that by the time Barcelona was ready, Intel had taken back much of the market share it has lost. This time AMD did the opposite. Created a simpler chip and used glue to make CPUs with more cores. After Barcelona and that nice TLB bug, AMD though that they are Intel. So they created their own version of Pentium 4. Bulldozer. A CPU with much lower IPC and higher frequencies, in a module design that could be promoted as double number of cores, something that couldn't be done with a simple hyper/multi threading technology. AMD is doing the opposite it was doing when the market share was 60-40.

You can talk about blindness and perspective that is not supported by any data, but you are in fact describing your posts not mine.
I think I lost enough time here. Have a nice day.

 

[Fouquin]

Nah I really don't. If you have been reading reviews and tests since Ryzen release you would know.

I have, and as a matter of fact have already provided information contrary to yours (with sources provided by our favorite wizard) in a post on the previous page, and now quoted below for your convenience.

It seems the last thing you read about Ryzen was the 1800X launch reviews and have that forever ingrained on your brain as the indelible truth. Let me present you with some more current information, so you may offer more accurate advice regarding DDR4 and Ryzen.

AGESA 1.0.0.6 was released in May of last year to address memory compatibility and performance issues with the initial Ryzen launch SKUs.

In W1zzard's own words from his review of DDR4 scaling on Ryzen - "We are happy to report that you can save some money by choosing a slower DDR4-2133 or DDR4-2666 memory, at least until DDR4-3200 or higher memory becomes more affordable. You lose practically no performance to slower memory on the Ryzen platform, when averaged across our CPU tests. The fastest memory configuration in our bench, DDR4-3200 CL14, is about 3.1 percent faster than the slowest DDR4-2133 configuration. ... The story repeats in our game-tests, where the biggest difference, all of 5.5 percent, takes place at the lowest resolution (1920 x 1080), while the difference is a meager 0.8 percent at 4K Ultra HD. ... It came as a bit of surprise to us that memory speed didn't even affect performance of CPU-intensive tests, such as video-encoding in which large data streams are being pushed in and out of the main memory."

Furthering compatibility and performance is the hardware changes made to Zen+ in regards to the IMC, allowing the current generation of Ryzen CPUs to run a wider range of faster RAM. There is still a need to cherry pick for the ultra-fast (DDR4-3466+) but for 2666-3200 just about any off-the-shelf kit will do. I personally run a kit of Corsair DDR4-3200 that is not rated for Ryzen compatibility (predates Ryzen, as a matter of fact) and yet still runs at the default 3200/CL16 XMP profile on a post-AGESA 1.0.0.6 UEFI.

 

[Vayra86]

When the market share was 60-40, they tried to show that they are better than Intel. So they throw every resource they had to create the first native quad core. They lost so much time, that by the time Barcelona was ready, Intel had taken back much of the market share it has lost. This time AMD did the opposite. Created a simpler chip and used glue to make CPUs with more cores. After Barcelona and that nice TLB bug, AMD though that they are Intel. So they created their own version of Pentium 4. Bulldozer. A CPU with much lower IPC and higher frequencies, in a module design that could be promoted as double number of cores, something that couldn't be done with a simple hyper/multi threading technology. AMD is doing the opposite it was doing when the market share was 60-40.

You can talk about blindness and perspective that is not supported by any data, but you are in fact describing your posts not mine.
I think I lost enough time here. Have a nice day.

Hate to keep going at it, but all that you describe here has nothing to do with raking in profit or creating a solid product stack that you can extract profit from. Which was what we started this discussion off with.

You've just described a bunch of missteps AMD made after they had some success, which has put them in a dreadful position on CPU for many years and one they have only now recovered from - and then we come full circle to Ryzen: which has a product stack that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you want to extract profit. I understand they want their market share back. But one does not exclude the other. There are no signs of anything changing here.

Perspective...

Design of a chip and marketing it / placing it as a product are two different things. Intel's non-K CPUs can overclock if they'd really wanted them to. But by not allowing them to, they create more value within their existing design. XFR on the Ryzen side doesn't really do the same when non-XFR enabled CPUs can be overclocked to virtually the same performance - hence the 'bad deal' statement. And when your top-end most profitable product is considered a 'bad deal' for consumers, that won't get you much profit, rendering the higher price point useless.

You provided GPU bound tests. Useless.

When chasing high fps, as in 120+, CPU and Memory becomes the limiting factor.

This is where Ryzen chokes. Especially when using non B-die memory because of the crappy latencies.

So far you've provided literally zero, which is far more useless altogether. Repeating yourself doesn't make a false statement true, it just harms your credibility. Similarly, not willing to admit you're wrong but still repeating yourself, makes you a troll.

On both counts you can prove us wrong...

By refering to "high fps gaming", he means E-sport titles (CS:GO etc.) with high-refresh-rate (120/144Hz) monitor. He should have clarified it earlier to you. For this kind of game, CPU and memory are limiting factors.

Nah, that was clear as day from the get-go. Read back. Also, you can play any game at 120-144 FPS, not just some weak shooters that all run royally above 120 fps anyway and are the least vulnerable to CPU bottlenecking, in fact, compared to other game types like strategy.

 

[las]

I have, and as a matter of fact have already provided information contrary to yours (with sources provided by our favorite wizard) in a post on the previous page, and now quoted below for your convenience.

You provided GPU bound tests. Useless.

When chasing high fps, as in 120+, CPU and Memory becomes the limiting factor.

This is where Ryzen chokes. Especially when using non B-die memory because of the crappy latencies.

 

[First Strike]

I have, and as a matter of fact have already provided information contrary to yours (with sources provided by our favorite wizard) in a post on the previous page, and now quoted below for your convenience.

By refering to "high fps gaming", he means E-sport titles (CS:GO etc.) with high-refresh-rate (120/144Hz) monitor. He should have clarified it earlier to you. For this kind of game, CPU and memory are limiting factors.

 

[Fouquin]

You provided GPU bound tests. Useless.

By refering to "high fps gaming", he means E-sport titles (CS:GO etc.) with high-refresh-rate (120/144Hz) monitor. He should have clarified it earlier to you. For this kind of game, CPU and memory are limiting factors.

Do you often play these games at resolutions lower than 1080p, the same such resolution that all three pages of games in that review were tested at? I must be missing something here, are people buying $500 CPUs and $700 GPUs just to run games such as CS:GO at 720p?

If so, yes. Yes I absolutely misjudged your argument, and I have to apologize that I have been defending AMD's performance as it stands in the larger scope of gaming, and not focusing the entirety of my argument on the niche of a niche market that you reside in.

On second thought, no, I don't need to apologize. As the conclusion to that review (which I quoted parts of) very, very clearly states; the difference in raw CPU performance, whether that be in games or pure arithmetic, was minimal at best. Topping out at a mere 5.5% increase in only a fraction of the tests. Bear in mind that is before the AGESA patch rolled out with improved performance, and before the hardware changes within Zen+ that alleviated the issue almost entirely.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." is a wonderful joke, but let it remain a joke.

 

[nemesis.ie]

More likely we would have been closer to quantum computing on regular laptops because they have held back progress so much, just for profits.

Yes and we'd have had IBM and Motorola fighting each other for top spot. I still lovingly remember the 68060.

 

[las]

Do you often play these games at resolutions lower than 1080p, the same such resolution that all three pages of games in that review were tested at? I must be missing something here, are people buying $500 CPUs and $700 GPUs just to run games such as CS:GO at 720p?

If so, yes. Yes I absolutely misjudged your argument, and I have to apologize that I have been defending AMD's performance as it stands in the larger scope of gaming, and not focusing the entirety of my argument on the niche of a niche market that you reside in.

High fps = CPU bound, regardless of resolution...

I play at 2560x1440 165 Hz Gsync. So I prefer 150+ fps.

 

[randomUser]

Many of you people compare and are trying to find reasons why one would want to replace a cpu that was launched 1-2-3 year ago with this one.

Your point is very valid. When you compare recent cpus, it doesn't make big sense to buy a new CPU every year, because advancement is really not that big.

However i myself have a PC with a 10 year old, dual core CPU and i want an upgrade.
You may compare this cpu everyway you want, and it will suck at everything compared to todays chips.
This means i am looking at todays deals, not last year or older, and today, this Intel chip meets my needs.

I have a 5 year old cpu at work, which is core i7, and this cpu is good enough for todays jobs that need to be done. If i compare this i7 with new chips, then i would say that upgrade is really not worth the money, but in 5 more years, the progress will be big enough to reconsider and buy new chip.

 

[ratirt]

Nah I really don't. If you have been reading reviews and tests since Ryzen release you would know.
This is why 99.9% of 120-240 Hz owners are using Intel. CPU is the limiting factor for high fps gaming.

I wonder how many of these 120-240 Hz users is there. What like 10% of all the gamers? More ? Less?
If you consider only games then sure intel is doing well. Not all is just games you know. I'm sure the server industry or workstations look so much to how much FPS they can get It's way more in the core and threads and multitasking capabilities for applications handling than gamers and their 120+ fps count. Especially when most od them are moving to consoles.

 

[las]

I wonder how many of these 120-240 Hz users is there. What like 10% of all the gamers? More ? Less?
If you consider only games then sure intel is doing well. Not all is just games you know. I'm sure the server industry or workstations look so much to how much FPS they can get It's way more in the core and threads and multitasking capabilities for applications handling than gamers and their 120+ fps count. Especially when most od them are moving to consoles.

Most gamers are not moving to consoles. Did you just make that up? PC gaming market saw an increase lately. Search Google. eSport is bigger than ever. No-one is using 60 Hz here. No-one is using Ryzen either.

Intel sits on pretty much all enterprise. AMD is viable tho, but this does not mean that the market shifts. Most people don't trust AMD hardware.

 

[Vya Domus]

are people buying $500 CPUs and $700 GPUs just to run games such as CS:GO at 720p?

Apparently yes. And because of that their own anecdotal evidence trumps everything else.

And their argument is that they are "pro gamers". You, a peasant, that doesn't play the same game for hours on end for no gain would never understand that.

MLG and all that, what the hell do we know.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

It can’t be a deal when it’s a reskinned 1700 along with Lisa Su lying about Ryzen being an “overclockers dream.” 9900k is the one that deserves the $500 price tag but we get it for less than that. Great job Intel. Continue leading us forward.

Obvious troll is obvious. "overclockers dream" was in reference to fury X, NOT ryzen.

 

[B-Real]

No, he's quite right, for most games that run into CPU performance constraints, Intel CPUs will push a lot more than 10% extra. And there is more to that than just high refresh gaming. The 10% gap is *average* across a large number of titles where a lot of them do not run into CPU performance bottlenecks. Oh, and I hate to say this, but there was a similar situation when it was FX- procs going up against Sandy Bridge. Some outliers, but the 'average' gap wasn't huge. It doesn't have to be huge - its still a gap.

If we speak of high refresh gaming, it's only a little portion of the PC gaming community. Just check Steam surveys. Most PCs have GTX 1050-1060 like GPUs. And I speak of same level CPUs like 2600-8400, 2600x-8600k, 2700x-8700k. You can't really get more difference than 10% on average. And when you get a balanced setup, the CPU will be the weakest bottleneck. I mean, most people get a 1070 or 1080 for 1440P, not FHD, and a 1080Ti for 4K-1440P-21:9. In these circumstances the CPU is of the lower priority out of hardwares.

PC gaming market saw an increase lately.

No. Check latest reports.

Most people don't trust AMD hardware.

Because of idiot fetishes, yes. But that could change if Intel keeps up last year's "good work".

I wonder how many of these 120-240 Hz users is there. What like 10% of all the gamers? More ? Less?
If you consider only games then sure intel is doing well. Not all is just games you know. I'm sure the server industry or workstations look so much to how much FPS they can get It's way more in the core and threads and multitasking capabilities for applications handling than gamers and their 120+ fps count. Especially when most od them are moving to consoles.

Pretty sure it's less than 10%. More like <5%.

 

[ratirt]

Most gamers are not moving to consoles. Did you just make that up? PC gaming market saw an increase lately. Search Google. eSport is bigger than ever. No-one is using 60 Hz here. No-one is using Ryzen either.

Intel sits on pretty much all enterprise. AMD is viable tho, but this does not mean that the market shifts. Most people don't trust AMD hardware.

It's not just consoles but other gaming platforms which are swelling now.
This is the one I found just now but I'm sure there are articles or statistics with more numbers and details.
2015 market share https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/global-games-market-will-grow-9-4-to-91-5bn-in-2015/
2018 market share https://newzoo.com/insights/article...137-9-billion-in-2018-mobile-games-take-half/

I'll try to find more relevant data but focus on PC games and show me that increase you've mentioned.

"Most people don't trust AMD hardware". Can you get me, I don't know, statistics, articles that would clearly state that "most people" (hopefully a number), supporting what you just stated?

I guess I'm this no one here since I use 4k 60Hz There's a lot of people using Ryzen and I'm going to be one of them too

Pretty sure it's less than 10%. More like <5%.

There it is. I was just curious if the other guy knows about it but he didn't wanted to share his own statistics