During the bulldozer era, it was compulsion. Now it's just a business decision. I think 2 core 4 thread Raven Ridge will come to desktop too as it came for laptop. I'm assuming here that there will be enough defective chips to sustain 2 core 4 thread products. I don't expect that AMD will give that entire market around 50-80$ chips to Intel.Wrong.
This isn't the Bulldozer era any more where AMD has no other choice than but scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel.
100$ CPUs ought to be the minimum for the DIY community. They can make a Pentium equivalent for the OEMs though.
I think 2 core 4 thread Raven Ridge will come to desktop too as it came for laptop. I'm assuming here that there will be enough defective chips to sustain 2 core 4 thread products. I don't expect that AMD will give that entire market around 50-80$ chips to Intel.
Also, How well does the average 3600 RAM stick and average AM4 motherboard work together? I am not under the impression this just works with any stick + MB combination. But requires careful selection. Meaning Extra Premium Samsung B-Dies or some such thing, and then maybe some luck...
In the builds I have seen in this forums I have seen people struggle to get 3200MHz working, and don't remember anyone getting 3600MHz working.
I'm fairly sure you could get up to at least 3600 on the avg x370 as I didn't have much trouble figuring out how to get my 3200 running at 3466 it just took many many many hours of time and tinkering to find the value holding up the ram from running any faster than 2133 or 2666 which in my case was of mem voltage offset which is default .60 had to be bumped up to .72 with 1.39v and in sub timings and change the Hz gradually rising until it worked which came out to be 68.8hz for me or another less effective method was to go into your sub timings and change 1 of the settings to (procodt or something like that) to off and the 68.8.Gigabyte showed off a X470 motherboard at CES. Which supports up to DDR-4000. Quite a jump from X370. Gigabyte AORUS X470.
Wrong.
This isn't the Bulldozer era any more where AMD has no other choice than but scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel.
100$ CPUs ought to be the minimum for the DIY community. They can make a Pentium equivalent for the OEMs though.
What? do you think AMD will give ll all the low-end and entry level to intel? Why do you think Intel does Celerons? -and Pentiums-
They'd have to come up with a smaller die. AMD looks like it really doesn't want to go under $99 with a die as big as RR/SR.
AMD should really come up with a desktop RR APU with 2c/4t and maybe 4 GC instead of refreshing older designs.The roadmap has "Stoney Ridge Refresh" in it, however being an Excavator based part it basically belongs to a landfill.
They'd have to come up with a smaller die. AMD looks like it really doesn't want to go under $99 with a die as big as RR/SR.
They basically already do its the ryzen 2200g 4c 4t which is way better than 2c 4t for speed, gaming and efficiency. Gets released to the public in 30 days.AMD should really come up with a desktop RR APU with 2c/4t and maybe 4 GC instead of refreshing older designs.
Yeah but it is $100, while a good deal for what you are getting, the 2c/4t version would make folks like @Shivansps happy.They basically already do its the ryzen 2200g 4c 4t which is way better than 2c 4t for speed, gaming and efficiency. Gets released to the public in 30 days.
Yeah but it is $100, while a good deal for what you are getting, the 2c/4t version would make folks like @Shivansps happy.
Well if AMD uses the 16nm process instead of 28nm for the rebrand BR along with some other improvements, then it might be worth doing. But I do think that a 2c/4t RR APU will still outperform it.Well they need a decent entry level, but im also really hoping for a sub $100 4/4 to replace the 9600.
But considering what AMD uses to do, they are going to reband BR for sub $100.
Well if AMD uses the 16nm process instead of 28nm for the rebrand BR along with some other improvements, then it might be worth doing. But I do think that a 2c/4t RR APU will still outperform it.
They'd have to come up with a smaller die. AMD looks like it really doesn't want to go under $99 with a die as big as RR/SR.
Couldn't AMD just design a true 2c/4t Ryzen APU using a smaller die? That is what I would do in order to serve the under $100 CPU market.Makes sense.
What really matters is Die Size vs ASP (Average Selling price). If they release cheap 2 core part based on RR, and it becomes popular, then it really drags down the ASP for a fairly big die.
Intel OTOH, makes 2 core parts directly, and they come with smaller iGPU, so it's a much smaller part, so it doesn't drag down ASP of larger die parts. Intel ends up making more $/Silicon area.
Makes sense.
What really matters is Die Size vs ASP (Average Selling price). If they release cheap 2 core part based on RR, and it becomes popular, then it really drags down the ASP for a fairly big die.
Intel OTOH, makes 2 core parts directly, and they come with smaller iGPU, so it's a much smaller part, so it doesn't drag down ASP of larger die parts. Intel ends up making more $/Silicon area.
Couldn't AMD just design a true 2c/4t Ryzen APU using a smaller die? That is what I would do in order to serve the under $100 CPU market.
Absolutely. But it all depends on volume, that feeds into the projection spreadsheet that determines if it is a safe bet to do a tapeout/masking (high up front costs) for the sub $99, 2 core part.
AMD tends to rely on disabled cores much more than Intel for lower core count parts, but that might be changing if AMD volume increases significantly, but then again, is there that much life left in the dual core market?
The problem is they need to offer something at entry level... and that starts at $60 right now with Celeron and A6-9500.
Right now they seems to be aiming at keeping BR below $100.
AMD doesn't want to compete in the race to the bottom.
For years now, AMD has been selling sub-$99.99 processors and look at where AMD is now.
It makes sense for AMD to abandon this cutthroat market in favor of more lucrative markets.
If you want a sub-$99.99 processor, buy an Intel processor: it's simply as that.
Nah what AMD needs to offer isa 4/4 version with 6 CU, effectively reeplacing the 9600, and a 2/4 to reeplace the 9500. Then instead of saying "G4560/A8-9600/X4 950" i would be using the 4/4 with 6CU instead and no one would be complaining to me for the bd cores missing the whole point of this.
That would be a silly move of AMD.... They would own the budget segment against intel if they would continue to support it. But on the other hand.... You could start off with the 1200 and save up for a more powerful AM4 socket CPU.... xD
I have that feeling that AMD will offer a 2C/4T with low CU below the 2200G just to avoid the 1050 eating the 2400/2200 market(someone mentioned a 2/4 with 3CU), and that will still be good vs a 2/4 Pentium. If Intel dosent go 4/4 on pentiums on the next gen we are petty much screwed there.
AM4 needs lower skus than the 2200G, they will still have to replace the 9600 and 9500, that is the $40 and $60, there still the 9700 at $80 but that does not matter. I sure hope so they use the 2/4 with 3CU to replace the 9500, BUT considering what Intel has in those price ranges they may just release it as a $60-70 9600 replacement and just keep the 9500 as entry level. That would not be good for the consumers at all. From a bussiness POV whats what i would do, the competition has nothing better and you just stop from nvidia+ your own $60 cpu killing your own $100 and $170 APUs.
I think its fairly certain we'll see some kind of RR budget part for AM4. As I've said in post #72, a 2C/4T with 256/384SP would make a very nice budget chip*. Release at $59 and AMD would clean up the budget market. There is even room for a 3C/6T at $79. That'd make a particularly interesting chip, and keep with AMDs offer of more cores at a given price point.
AMD could then keep BR around for the ultra budget market.
*It'd almost certainly blow anything BD related out of the water.
Yeah but it is $100, while a good deal for what you are getting, the 2c/4t version would make folks like @Shivansps happy.
Well they need a decent entry level, but im also really hoping for a sub $100 4/4 to replace the 9600.
But considering what AMD uses to do, they are going to reband BR for sub $100.
The problem is they need to offer something at entry level... and that starts at $60 right now with Celeron and A6-9500.
Right now they seems to be aiming at keeping BR below $100.