AMD's Entry-Level 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper to Reportedly Cost $849

[Ruru]

About Pricing agree, competition nah, however, i am fine with Intel's prices.

This ain't FX.

 

[notb]

If this is true (which I doubt), why would they do it?
It would be enough to price it 10-20% below Intel's counterpart.
Instead this is priced at roughly half of Intel's rumored 16C/32T.

So my first question would be: just how bad is the performance? Because from the price point of view, they're putting this against the 10-core Skylake-X.
Or maybe they already know Intel is going to drop prices even before the launch?

 

[Static~Charge]

simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.

You're the type of customer that Intel is begging for: brand-loyal and price-blind. The people who can put all those threads to good use will get a much better cost/performance ratio from the AMD processor.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Its about damn time Intel gets to sit on teh backseat, good for nothing company.
Stops doing anything the moment the competition has no answer.

Die Intel die, Ryz AMD RYZZZZ

moar liek intelripper.

(apparently these kind of fanboy posts are allowed now so might as well join in)

 

[notb]

You're the type of customer that Intel is begging for: brand-loyal and price-blind. The people who can put all those threads to good use will get a much better cost/performance ratio from the AMD processor.

But he could also be the type of customer who will actually use all his cores for work or fun most of the time.
Think how much time people spend comparing benchmarks, choosing the perfect Zen CPU, finding gear that'll support it and so on.

Most AMD users are geeks, they love choosing and tweaking their CPUs.
Most Intel users don't know what "a socket" is. Pfff. Most aren't even allowed to open the PCs they use.

You have to take this into consideration when comparing their products.

 

[Static~Charge]

Most AMD users are geeks, they love choosing and tweaking their CPUs.
Most Intel users don't know what "a socket" is. Pfff. Most aren't even allowed to open the PCs they use.

You have to take this into consideration when comparing their products.

That is a highly inaccurate description. The title of "geek" doesn't apply to any particular brand of component. I know plenty of Intel geeks who obsess over the minutiae of their system configurations. It boils down to the matter of pride in the computer that you've created.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.

They make things for when Intel fanbois are on the edge of a meltdown, others call it a Klenex tissue.

 

[ZoneDymo]

That is a highly inaccurate description. The title of "geek" doesn't apply to any particular brand of component. I know plenty of Intel geeks who obsess over the minutiae of their system configurations. It boils down to the matter of pride in the computer that you've created.

both of you are just generalizing which is...rather unintelligent.
That is unless one of you can back it up with actual data showing percentages on both sides and which group does more overclocking for example.

 

[Tomgang]

For years i have been an Intel supporter. Better CPU´s, great performence and overclock. I remember AMD´s awful first gen Phenom (Phenom 2 whas deffently better) with bad performence, hard to oc over 3 GHz and so on and because of AMD lack of new and fast CPU. Intel had the hig-end market for them them self.

Intel released some great CPU back in the days with X58 line up and Sandy brigde with good IPC over the gen before. But then Intel got lazy because of no real competision from AMD. So the commen years after that intel released CPU every year with maybe 3-5 % IPC performence gain and pissed on there costumers and let prices slowly but for sure getting higher over the years. But after some time intel not only godt lazy but also greedy so from the before 999 USD for and extreme CPU they charged 1500 USD and that got to 1700 USD with I7 6950X and now 1999 USD with i9-7980XE. then does this madness ends.

But finnaly AMD come out with Ryzen Threadripper and Intel got scared taken with there lazy pants down. Rushed 14, 16 and 18 cores out that where event plant or ready at Computex 2017 and it also looks lige Coofee lake gona be rushed and because X299 is rushed som features lags. Just se Linus Tech Tips video about it.

So Intel has gone from great to lazy greedy fags that got taken hard by AMD. After all this mess from intel the special the last 2-3 years. It is getting harder and harder to support Intel at the time being. And if AMD thread ripper lands around 999 USD for the 16 core X top model, intel is really gonna lose supporters and costumers this round specialy with those priced they claim for the biggest models.

Here is a short story on how intel im my mind has gone from great to greedy panicked lazy bums that rips your wallet.

The good old serious days of intel.

Then AMD came with Bulldozer...

And after Intels panicked reaction to AMD threadripper. It can not be other than this here in 2017.

I still support Intel but not as much as i used to do and i am not bying there new CPU cause i am staying on X58, But i also have to say this time AMD has something special that can get intel go in panic mode and properly some good prices aswell. Where AMD still dissapoint me throw is Ryzen OC capabilety cause OC is an importent factor for me then i chose a platform. There is intel still a winner, but AMD wins in other areas in return.

But what holds the future for intel and AMD then.

For AMD some good years in the near future.

For intel a loss in sales, consumers and supporters. I even been told that intel is no longer sending ES models to EU any more for test.

Rumors also tells that the future code names for Intels up comming CPU´s is this.

For the small socket code name is: Money lake

For the big socket: Wallet ripper

Well i hope you guys find this funny all throw some of it is true aswell.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

simple answer: rather i pay 1000€ for an Intel CPU than 300€ for an AMD one.

Take a good look girls and boys, here we have what is known as intellus fanboyis in the animal kingdom, in his natural habitat he can be found trolling AMD threads and making ridiculous starments like the one above, however the under attack Ryzena's are quick to group and pounce on the predator who is quickly outnumbered and outfacted before he retreats to his own den to lick his wounds and his bruised ego

 

[phanbuey]

that is a great deal... esp at those clocks - not sure how it will sell though since...

"no one's ever been fired for buying intel"

 

[Patriot]

AMD APU's only really go up to 4 cores.

Server APU on naples socket. VEGA, HBM2 and 16-32 cores...
In the EHP (exascale heterogeneous processor) AMD detailed what they were planning back in 2015.

 

[efikkan]

Intel 2066 is also limited to single socket and will only launch with up to 12 cores... the 14/16/18 xeon transplants won't be available this year, they were a pure kneejerk response to threadripper.

You do know that there will be Xeon Gold/Platinum, offering up to 8 socket scalability, with at least up to 28 cores per socket?
There wouldn't be a 1:1 match in comparable CPU models from AMD and Intel in mainstream, HEDT and server, so don't limit your scope to one line of CPUs.

And no, you're wrong. The planning of 18 core Skylake-X took place years before the rumors of Threadripper.

 

[Patriot]

You do know that there will be Xeon Gold/Platinum, offering up to 8 socket scalability, with at least up to 28 cores per socket?
There wouldn't be a 1:1 match in comparable CPU models from AMD and Intel in mainstream, HEDT and server, so don't limit your scope to one line of CPUs.

And no, you're wrong. The planning of 18 core Skylake-X took place years before the rumors of Threadripper.

I am overly aware of both companies entire lineup.... but you are missing the point.
Threadripper SP3r2 and 2066 are single socket only. SP3 is 1p/2p and 3647 is 2p-8p.
The price jump up in board cost is huge going from 2066 to 3647. I don't expect threadripper boards to be cheap but knowing AMD it will be nicer than 3647.

This gen is just painful from the gap between 1p and 2p. I can have 22 cores in a desktop x99 board right now, and buy a second and a $300 board and have a 2p with 44c/88t.
1p is limited to 18 cores in 2066 and those wont even be out this year. Now moving to 2p requires new chips and boards on both teams. IMO, SP3 seems to be the winner.
Side note... any arch question from 1366 to now... I have a solid chance of knowing... I can id an intel chip gen from its underbelly.

All I can say is... competition is fun!

 

[notb]

both of you are just generalizing which is...rather unintelligent.
That is unless one of you can back it up with actual data showing percentages on both sides and which group does more overclocking for example.

Well... we can make a pool on TPU (which is already hugely biased and the share of AMD here is way above average). You'd like that? I'll have to think about the question for a moment.

 

[tbris84]

Where have these 10 and 14 core Threadripper chips been officially announced? I thought we learned from AMD when Ryzen 5 launched that they were disabling cores in symmetrical pairs only. Leaving us with 4:4/3:3/2:2 CCX arrangements for Ryzen and 4:4:4:4(16core)/3:3:3:3(12core) for Threadripper. Has this changed with Threadripper? Ifso, why and source?

(Source: Google "AMD Ryzen Cores Are Disabled in Symmetrical Pairs" there are dozens.)

 

[HTC]

If this is true (which I doubt), why would they do it?
It would be enough to price it 10-20% below Intel's counterpart.
Instead this is priced at roughly half of Intel's rumored 16C/32T.

So my first question would be: just how bad is the performance? Because from the price point of view, they're putting this against the 10-core Skylake-X.
Or maybe they already know Intel is going to drop prices even before the launch?

I have my doubts of whether or not this is true but the reason why seems logical for me: by seriously undercutting Intel's pricing, they'll bring more customers right away. This would not be possible if prices were much closer to Intel's offerings, IMO.

 

[Steevo]

I read the tea leaves and what was on the wall and it said, AMD has screwed over people before with big claims and not much to back them up when the smoke clears, but...... and its a bit but...... Zen architecture seems to be good, and it it scales as well as the 8 cores do with power and performance, and possibly being even better silicon. Unicorns would still have to bless it before some will buy it at prices equal to the performance it offers. The pricing is to buy customers back, not to directly compete with Intel at this point.

 

[thesmokingman]

Excellent pricing.

 

[warrior420]

Also, 7900X = 44 PCI-E lanes, versus 64 PCI-E lanes on ALL of the Threadripper CPUs. That's huge to me...

 

[Aquinus]

Lets just wait and see what happens, shall we? Patience is a virtue.

 

[TheGuruStud]

And no, you're wrong. The planning of 18 core Skylake-X took place years before the rumors of Threadripper.

That's not what MB vendors said. They said they had no knowledge of such a product.

 

[Camm]

I've been saying for quite a while that AMD will price its highest core part at the old Intel halo $999 price point.

AMD won't price higher as its aggressively after market share and to bring people into AMD's ecosystem before Intel can launch a decent counterpunch.

 

[notb]

I have my doubts of whether or not this is true but the reason why seems logical for me: by seriously undercutting Intel's pricing, they'll bring more customers right away. This would not be possible if prices were much closer to Intel's offerings, IMO.

But what does this strategy get them?
Basically there is no gain in having a customer - there is no paid plan or apps or whatever. There is hardly any cross-selling, because nothing (apart from chipset) is only usable with AMD CPU.

I don't know what would be the profit for AMD in a $850 16-core CPU (it could be similar to Ryzen 7).
Let's assume it is $200. Why not sell for $1400 and get another $550? Intel's 16C/32T is expected at $1700.
Few weeks back AMD was commenting on the mediocre Q1 results and they said that high-profit products will get a higher priority. What happened to that?!

Looking at historical AMD/Intel price ratios (for the same performance) and Ryzen pricing, I'd expect that a $850 CPU would be put against a $1100-1200 Intel model in performance. 16-core Threadripper VS 12-core 7920X? If they're comparable, just how far ahead is the 18-core i9?
But more importantly, how big will be the gap between Xeon and EPYC?

That's not what MB vendors said. They said they had no knowledge of such a product.

Source?
Also, how many weeks before launch had they learned final Ryzen specs?

Also, 7900X = 44 PCI-E lanes, versus 64 PCI-E lanes on ALL of the Threadripper CPUs. That's huge to me...

This is interesting, since a Ryzen 8-core CPU has only 24 lanes. That gives 48 for two chips, so where did they get the extra 16?

 

[Rockarola]

Well... we can make a pool on TPU (which is already hugely biased and the share of AMD here is way above average). You'd like that? I'll have to think about the question for a moment.

I'd like you to prove said bias, otherwise the bias must be inherent in the observer not in factual reality.
(to put it in a simpler way: yeah right, prove it!)