Singaporean Retailer Lists Purported Ryzen 3000 Pricing

[SL2]

I ask why in return?

You pay LESS.

Remember when the difference between the least and the most expensive CPU was clock speed, and maybe cache size? Looking back now, THAT was annoying.

This hard to read list comes from Anandtech. The fastest cost around $800. Just look at the specs, kind of hard to see the justification for paying x 4 more for a bit higher clock speed and cache..

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

They can argue thanks to the magical IPC sauce.

Can't wait to get hands on 3000 series to do some benchmarking.

True. But if Zen2 matches skylake clock for clock (especially in games, which I'm concerned about IMC latency - what with the off-chip controllers) then they lose the final argument for the price-markup at a given thread count vs Ryzen. I wonder if Intel will lower prices or rely on their brand image to sell objectively inferior products at higher prices. Cuz atm I do admit the Intel lineup have the gaming/IPC edge vs Ryzen.

I am excited too but I have pretty much lost all interest in CPU overclocking these days. So I wont be pushing any limits or records :/ I may have a fiddle but I will run stock for most things. (X parts are pretty much maxed out of the box anyway).

 

[Vayra86]

I don't need any of this but somehow do want it. That 3700X looks absolutely mental. Its like a double 8700K

 

[EarthDog]

Look how many years were sat on 4 cores just because there were no competition, software will catch up.

Again, weve been waiting for 10 years. Just now 4c/8t is being used by the masses... and that has been out for well over a decade. Good job software catching up!

You pay LESS.

Remember when the difference between the least and the most expensive CPU was price, clock speed, and maybe cache size? Looking back now, THAT was annoying.
View attachment 117868
This hard to read list comes from Anandtech. The fastest cost around $800. Just look at the specs, kind of hard to see the justification for paying x 4 more for a bit higher clock speed and cache..

I pay less for things I do not use... Cool beans. Lower pricing and actual competition is always good.. but, again, 95% of users don't need anything more than 6c/12t on the mainstream platform.

You think my Volture Battleship is cute? CUTE? That thing can wipe out entire cities from orbit. It's not cute!

Yes. Its cute.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

Again, weve been waiting for 10 years. Just now 4c/8t is being used by the masses... and that has been out for well over a decade. Good job software catching up!

I pay less for things I do not use... Cool beans. Lower pricing and actual competition is always good.. but, again, 95% of users don't need anything more than 6c/12t on the mainstream platform.

Can you at least be excited by the potential IPC and clock rate gains from Ryzen 3000? Go on I dare you to say something positive :'3

Yes. Its cute.

Hey, thanks. I guess. I like cute things. I want a Plushie VC battleship now :3

 

[SL2]

I pay less for things I do not use... Cool beans.

No, you pay less for that 6C as well, which you do have use for.

Would you prefer that the 2600X was up there with the FX-55 at $800? Or, more realistically, $350?

 

[cucker tarlson]

Wonder how the 135W part, especially overclocked, will work in some of these midrange X470/B450 mobos...I'm imagining some it may not like... like the FX days...

This. I could care less about more than 6c/12t (like the VAST majority of users). So yay.. more cores and threads.


And.....quoting from wccftech... bleh.

I had some fun with da vinci studio with my 4c/8t cpu,and it never seemed like it can't cope.Sure,real time preview is not as fluid as it would be on a higher core count cpu,but it's still not even the slightest of problems to do whatever you wish to do with your video.Unless you're a content creator,having 16/20 threads is mostly sothethig you'll never need.Not now,now in foreseeable future.It'd be much better if they released a higher binner 6c/12t instead of just 4.3GHz turbo one.

 

[EarthDog]

Can you at least be excited by the potential IPC and clock rate gains from Ryzen 3000? Go on I dare you to say something positive :'3

????

I don't have anything negative to say about the CPUs outside of the annoying core count race between both parties (that AMD started because they couldn't compete in IPC or clocks). The higher clocks (though I still don't buy 5.1 GHz on that part) and IPC are huge. I just wish they kept thins 8c+ on HEDT instead of mainstream. Because people will see a higher core/thread count and think it's better.... when in reality, it isn't unless they can be used.

No, you pay less for that 6C as well, which you do have use for.

This, yes. But see the last line above, regardless of price.

 

[kastriot]

More cores, more complex games, faster applications, efficient multitasking, they have reached max speed for silicone @5GHz so now we get more&more cores and with time slower speeds to reduce power requirements so for example 3-5nm 128 core cpu will be clocked only 2-4Ghz but hey time will tell.

 

[SL2]

Because people will see a higher core/thread count and think it's better...

The progress of adding more cores is the very reason why you'll pay less for a 6C. No matter what you think about more cores, you will benefit from it.

 

[EarthDog]

Again, the need isn't there.... that is my biggest problem with HCC on mainstream. I couldn't care much that it is cheaper... I mean don't misundestand me, cheaper is good for everyone, and I see that, but, why not stop at 8c on mainstream and drop these into TR (HEDT)? Same with Intel... surely their next gen will have more than 8c parts on mainstream... baby jesus cries over this. LOLOLOL

 

[neatfeatguy]

The 3600x looks good to me. Seems priced well, if it holds around $250. That'd be right around the price of my 4670k, I'm comfortable with that.

I've been using my 4670k for almost 5.5 years now. Certainly a great CPU, but I'd like to see if something with more cores can muscle through converting large mkv files to mp4 in a much shorter duration. Right now a 25-30GB Blu-Ray mkv files to mp4 takes my 4.4GHz 4670k around 1.5-2 hours. I certainly would be interested in seeing how much time I could trim off.

I guess we play the waiting game to see what pricing and performance AMD will really offer us.

 

[SL2]

I mean don't misundestand me, cheaper is good for everyone, and I see that, but, why not stop at 8c on mainstream and drop these into TR (HEDT)?

Which user will benefit from paying more for a TR? If you stay at 8C for mainstream, this suddenly makes the 6C the next most expensive thing.
You can't limit the core count and expect the prices to keep on dropping. Case in point: Compare the launch price of the 2700K and the 6700K.


This is how competition works, AMD can't stop at 8C because their competition won't do it.

Intel used to stay at 4C for years because of the lack of competition and a failing new process, I guess you were the only one who liked that.

 

[Vayra86]

Again, the need isn't there.... that is my biggest problem with HCC on mainstream. I couldn't care much that it is cheaper... I mean don't misundestand me, cheaper is good for everyone, and I see that, but, why not stop at 8c on mainstream and drop these into TR (HEDT)? Same with Intel... surely their next gen will have more than 8c parts on mainstream... baby jesus cries over this. LOLOLOL

While true today, this is only the case because the software isn't there to utilize it. And that is because we came from a pretty stagnant core count world not too long ago. Now that the hardware is mainstream, also for gaming (consoles) the likelihood of software advancing to use the extra power is going up.

That's progress, to me. There are still many CPU tasks that can and must be done more quickly and more Ghz won't get us there no its own. Developers are far more likely to integrate multi threading on a very basic level now. Additionally, low power / mobile devices are semi-forced into high core counts because frequency takes too much power. ARM and x86 are also moving closer together in terms of functionality, and cross compatibility will also introduce new ways to use many cores.

However, still a case of 'tomorrow', and not so much today.

 

[EarthDog]

Which user will benefit from paying more for a TR? If you stay at 8C for mainstream, this suddenly makes the 6C the next most expensive thing. You can't limit the core count and expect the prices to keep on dropping.


This is how competition works, AMD can't stop at 8C because their competition won't do it.

Intel used to stay at 4C for years because of the lack of competition and a failing new process, I guess you were the only one who liked that.

Sure I can.. and just did. I just moved the lines of delineation.... marketing.

AMD started this core race...

Just give me a call when as majority of software can utilize (not use) more than 8c... it will be years down the road when it becomes a norm. More than 4c has been around for nearly 10 years from BOTH parties. Inexpensive options have been around for a decade and software hasn't caught up. I have few reasons to believe it will snowball and pick up the pace... but am hopeful (and won't hold my breath either).

 

[cucker tarlson]

While true today, this is only the case because the software isn't there to utilize it. And that is because we came from a pretty stagnant core count world not too long ago. Now that the hardware is mainstream, also for gaming (consoles) the likelihood of software advancing to use the extra power is going up.

That's progress, to me. There are still many CPU tasks that can and must be done more quickly and more Ghz won't get us there no its own. Developers are far more likely to integrate multi threading on a very basic level now. Additionally, low power / mobile devices are semi-forced into high core counts because frequency takes too much power. ARM and x86 are also moving closer together in terms of functionality, and cross compatibility will also introduce new ways to use many cores.

However, still a case of 'tomorrow', and not so much today.

there's a point of diminishing returns for everything,and I think he got it right.why push for 24 threads for mainstream for now.
12c/24t for mainstream doesn't excite me at all. I'm much more interested in the redesigned architecture,IPC gains and efficiency for Ryzen 3xxx

 

[EarthDog]

I'm much more interested in the redesigned architecture,IPC gains and efficiency for Ryzen 3xxx

Yep, I would have been just as happy if they left it at 8c for mainstream and left the rest for TR or EPYC.

I wonder how many users will buy a level or two up or buy more c/t than the intel has expecting more, but not getting it because they don't utilize the cores/threads?

 

[SL2]

Sure I can.. and just did. I just moved the lines of delineation.... marketing.

I still don't see the point. If the upper limit for mainstream performance is beyond what i need, great. Why change that? I know why AMD and Intel would like to do that, but I don't represent any of them.

Again, you can't keep a core limit for mainstream and expect the prices to drop. See my edited post.

 

[EarthDog]

I still don't see the point.

Respectfully, I didn't ask you to. its just my opinion on things. It's ok.

Again, you can't keep a core limit for mainstream and expect the prices to drop. See my edited post.

Sure you can... already saw your edit.

 

[SL2]

I wonder how many users will buy a level or two up or buy more c/t than the intel has expecting more, but not getting it because they don't utilize the cores/threads?

As if that is anything new? People have been buying more that they need for decades, long before dual core showed up.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Yep, I would have been just as happy if they left it at 8c for mainstream and left the rest for TR or EPYC.

I wonder how many users will buy a level or two up or buy more c/t than the intel has expecting more, but not getting it because they don't utilize the cores/threads?

well,I see nothing wrong in that as long as they have the money to do so without cutting the budget somewhere else.
but in case of many users that'll likely come at the expense of e.g. faster/lower latency ram,just to get more cores than 9900k has,cause they're giving them away half price,would be such a shame to let them corez go to waste

 

[EarthDog]

As if that is anything new? People have been buying more that they need for decades, long before dual core showed up.

You aren't getting my point then.

People will see its cheaper, THINK more c/t is better, pay MORE for something they don't need. This happens already indeed, but, when an uneducated consumer sees more cores and threads, they expect it to better, regardless... and it is only better in situations that use all those c/t. Which is years away.


Im getting a bit dizzy... you don't have to agree with my opinion.. its just that. Let's just agree to disagree, eh?

 

[Vayra86]

there's a point of diminishing returns for everything,and I think he got it right.why push for 24 threads for mainstream for now.
12c/24t for mainstream doesn't excite me at all. I'm much more interested in the redesigned architecture,IPC gains and efficiency for Ryzen 3xxx

But that is just the thing, we didn't lose anything in the meantime. Zen is not really an architecture of compromises in that sense, we get a very lean CPU now that can clock high (not the case with earlier iterations), can clock individual cores higher (XFR is much better than Intel's turbo in that sense) and has an IPC boost alongside all those extra threads.

I really look forward to the day we can stop looking at that one super-heavy single thread bogging the game FPS down while 11 others sit there at 20% utilization. If we pursue high refresh / actually making use of for example 240hz, this is the only way forward. The API's are there. The hardware's there...

You aren't getting my point then.

People will see its cheaper, THINK more c/t is better, pay MORE for something they don't need. This happens already indeed, but, when an uneducated consumer sees more cores and threads, they expect it to better, regardless... and it is only better in situations that use all those c/t. Which is years away.


Im getting a bit dizzy... you don't have to agree with my opinion.. its just that. Let's just agree to disagree, eh?

People that want to pay more than what they need already do it today, higher core counts won't make a single difference I think. This is as old as 'install more RAM, make it more faster' which most of the time also isn't the case.

 

[SL2]

Sure you can... already saw your edit.

Care to give any examples? I don't expect you to.

The limit you're talking about would hurt consumers, because we would have to pay more for the same. If you want to use a marketing perspective, well, that's another thing.

People will see its cheaper, THINK more c/t is better, pay MORE for something they don't need.

Exactly. The same thing happened with clock speed back in the day, hence my example with the $800 FX-55. Yes, easier to utilize those extra MHz, but still a waste compared to the price premium.

Edit: You're right, maybe we're done.

 

[cucker tarlson]

But that is just the thing, we didn't lose anything in the meantime. Zen is not really an architecture of compromises in that sense, we get a very lean CPU now that can clock high (not the case with earlier iterations), can clock individual cores higher (XFR is much better than Intel's turbo in that sense) and has an IPC boost alongside all those extra threads.

I really look forward to the day we can stop looking at that one super-heavy single thread bogging the game FPS down while 11 others sit there at 20% utilization.

it does look promising on many dimensions.but I think the main question is the I/O die design.has this ever been done before ?
zen 2 is supposed to be on par with skylake in single core performance.and it probably is,when measuring each core individually.it's the mutli-core desing of having ccx's conntected by IF that is the reason for e.g. 2700x getting beaten by 8400 is many instances of single core heavy games.