Question Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series pricing

[bsp2020]

There has been a lot of post back and forth about what the pricing and core counts will be of Zen2 based Ryzen processors. So, I think it's time to ask people to vote for what they believe AMD's high end AM4 product stack will look like at what prices. I think there are mainly two different opinions about what the high end AM4 offering will be like. So, please, vote for your favorite.

Edit: The extra comment I put at the end of the last choice does not make sense. Please, ignore it.
"They are both too cheap. AMD will go after market share at all cost."

 

[piesquared]

AMD has a big problem called I5-9400F at around 150-180, the 3400G a Zen+ is just not enoght, even at a lower price, you can get a 9400F for as little has $150 right now and AMD cant hope to compite with that with the 3400G.

I think they need the 6c/6t at $150.

They have a big problem with budget processors? All hail intel, the new budget brand! lol

 

[VirtualLarry]

No need.

Just drop the price of the Ryzen 5 2600 to $139

At some point, they won't be mfg those wafers anymore. What then?

7nm chiplets and cores are far too in demand this year. A more economical option would be a 2700 rebin with SMT disabled: 8c/8t, XFR enabled, and possibly a 100MHz frequency upgrade. (Or alternately: the same for 2600, 6c/6t but with 2700's freqs). A PR refresh and adjustments on binning with a few new SKUs just makes a lot of sense; PR is a very very good design. I'll go further and say it's a classic that may remain very relevant and in production for the next few years.

Hmm, sounds good to me.

I guess I'm so used to Intel. I didn't realize that AMD was going to continue to produce their 12nm Ryzen CPU dies, alongside the 7nm new chiplets. I guess that makes sense.

 

[DrMrLordX]

They have a big problem with budget processors? All hail intel, the new budget brand! lol

The 9400F, of all things? If that's AMD's biggest problem, they're doin alright.

 

[Mockingbird]

At some point, they won't be mfg those wafers anymore. What then?

That's so distance in the future that we would have 4th gen Ryzen, maybe even 5th gen Ryzen, by then.

It's definitely not in AMD's immediate concern.

 

[jpiniero]

I guess I'm so used to Intel. I didn't realize that AMD was going to continue to produce their 12nm Ryzen CPU dies, alongside the 7nm new chiplets. I guess that makes sense.

Intel does actually produce a generation for several years, but only so many models. It's mostly aimed at the embedded market. K tends to get a quick hook.

 

[Asterox]

No need.

Just drop the price of the Ryzen 5 2600 to $139

Well great, until you see that Microcenter at least for several months sales R5 1600 for 80$.

Zen 2 6/12 for 150$ is good price, but when you see that "green frog".................

https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

Intel will sell 6/12 CPU for 80$ very soon, "roughly within the time when we see that Superman has return to the Earth".

 

[Mockingbird]

AMD has a big problem called I5-9400F at around 150-180, the 3400G a Zen+ is just not enough, even at a lower price, you can get a 9400F for as little has $150 right now and AMD cant hope to compite with that with the 3400G.

I think they need the 6c/6t at $150.

AMD did something similar with the Ryzen 5 2400G supposedly competing with the Core i5-8400

 

[Markfw]

AMD has a big problem called I5-9400F at around 150-180, the 3400G a Zen+ is just not enoght, even at a lower price, you can get a 9400F for as little has $150 right now and AMD cant hope to compite with that with the 3400G.

I think they need the 6c/6t at $150.

They have a 6c/6t @ $119 , the Ryzen 1600 and the base freq (all-core) is 3.2, where as the 9400f is 2.9 ghz. So AMD is still the value,

What problem ?

 

[Shivansps]

Everyone is kinda right, they could very well use older Ryzens to plug the hole. Maybe until Zen 2 APU arrives to take the $100 to $200 área.

They have a 6c/6t @ $119 , the Ryzen 1600 and the base freq (all-core) is 3.2, where as the 9400f is 2.9 ghz. So AMD is still the value,

What problem ?

Just like Intel has tons of unsold i3-7350K that no one wants, i do not belive having unsold 1600s to be a good thing. At any rate, the 1600 stock will dry out eventually, probably sooner than later because AMD wants to sell Zen 2 not 1st gen Ryzens. Having cheap 2600 and 2700 covering the sub $200 seems more likely, the 2600 is already very very cheap.

 

[Topweasel]

I expect first gen stock to last longer than 2nd gen. OEMs require a certain availability range and it's much worse on servers. With EPYC 7k being Zen CPUs and them skipping Zen + in EPYC, AMD will keep production going on Zen longer. Which means AMD needs a spot for non EPYC quality dies to go.

 

[Markfw]

Everyone is kinda right, they could very well use older Ryzens to plug the hole. Maybe until Zen 2 APU arrives to take the $100 to $200 área.



Just like Intel has tons of unsold i3-7350K that no one wants, i do not belive having unsold 1600s to be a good thing. At any rate, the 1600 stock will dry out eventually, probably sooner than later because AMD wants to sell Zen 2 not 1st gen Ryzens. Having cheap 2600 and 2700 covering the sub $200 seems more likely, the 2600 is already very very cheap.

I was only addressing the point that someone said that AMD needed to compete with that 9400f , as it was a winner, but its not as pricey as the 1600 and slower (except single core by a few mhz), and I was pointing out that NO, AMD has the 6 core winner.

 

[Arkaign]

I was only addressing the point that someone said that AMD needed to compete with that 9400f , as it was a winner, but its not as pricey as the 1600 and slower (except single core by a few mhz), and I was pointing out that NO, AMD has the 6 core winner.

9400f is a 6C/6T 3.9-4.1Ghz Turbo CPU (6C Turbo 3.9, 1C-2,C 4.1, with all core lock if you have a decent Z Mobo).

While I think the Ryzen has definite worth for general purpose/encoding, the 9400F benches ahead of 2700X in almost every game, to say nothing of the 1600.

Reviews are slim, but check Tom's as well as YouTube roundups.

 

[Markfw]

9400f is a 6C/6T 3.9-4.1Ghz Turbo CPU (6C Turbo 3.9, 1C-2,C 4.1, with all core lock if you have a decent Z Mobo).

While I think the Ryzen has definite worth for general purpose/encoding, the 9400F benches ahead of 2700X in almost every game, to say nothing of the 1600.

Reviews are slim, but check Tom's as well as YouTube roundups.

Newegg says its a 2.9 4.1 turbo, where as the 1600 is 3.2 3.6 turbo. I was only looking at clockspeed, and nothing about gaming benchmarks. in ALL benchmarks, I would have to look.

I found one, and the 1600 wins
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3397vs2984
And this one says "no clear winner"
http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i5-9400-vs-amd-ryzen-5-1600

And one more that says the 1600 wins,
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/24/AMD_Ryzen_5_1600_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-9400F.html

Thats enough for me... And its cheaper.

 

[amd6502]

Well great, until you see that Microcenter at least for several months sales R5 1600 for 80$.

Zen 2 6/12 for 150$ is good price, but when you see that "green frog".................

https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

Intel will sell 6/12 CPU for 80$ very soon, "roughly within the time when we see that Superman has return to the Earth".

Or the FX 8350 at $60. I've seen that once or twice.

At any rate, the 1600 stock will dry out eventually, probably sooner than later because AMD wants to sell Zen 2 not 1st gen Ryzens. Having cheap 2600 and 2700 covering the sub $200 seems more likely, the 2600 is already very very cheap.

Yes, I think 1000 series will clear pretty soon, as well as FX series. They can't be unlimited supplies. RAM is also coming down in price a little, so that should help.

 

[Thunder 57]

Newegg says its a 2.9 4.1 turbo, where as the 1600 is 3.2 3.6 turbo. I was only looking at clockspeed, and nothing about gaming benchmarks. in ALL benchmarks, I would have to look.

I found one, and the 1600 wins
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3397vs2984
And this one says "no clear winner"
http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i5-9400-vs-amd-ryzen-5-1600

And one more that says the 1600 wins,
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/24/AMD_Ryzen_5_1600_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-9400F.html

Thats enough for me... And its cheaper.

Whoever is responsible for the "features" section in that second link let some blatant errors though. So Zen doesn't support SSSE3, SSE4, AVX(2), but good thing it supports 3DNow!

Talk about misinformation.

And I forgot about AES-NI. And how about listing XD bit and NX bit? Buffoonery.

 

[Markfw]

Whoever is responsible for the "features" section in that second link let some blatant errors though. So Zen doesn't support SSSE3, SSE4, AVX(2), but good thing it supports 3DNow!

Talk about misinformation.

I just did a quick google search. First they said that Intel has a 6c/6t for $150 and AMD did not. So I found the 1600 for $119 at 6c/12t. Then they said the 9400f beat it in benchmarks, so I did a quick google and found those. AMD wins and is cheaper and more threads.

OK, I am done argueing the point, I think I made my point. And this thread is about Ryzen 3000, not 1000.

 

[Arkaign]

Newegg says its a 2.9 4.1 turbo, where as the 1600 is 3.2 3.6 turbo. I was only looking at clockspeed, and nothing about gaming benchmarks. in ALL benchmarks, I would have to look.

I found one, and the 1600 wins
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3397vs2984
And this one says "no clear winner"
http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i5-9400-vs-amd-ryzen-5-1600

And one more that says the 1600 wins,
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/24/AMD_Ryzen_5_1600_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-9400F.html

Thats enough for me... And its cheaper.

None of those are actual benchmarks. Look up the Tom's review.

Ryzen better for MP/General purpose. 9400f better than even 2700x for gaming.

I'm on mobile so just throwing the first bench up. All the gaming ones look like this basically. All the productivity generally favors Ryzen. Basically depends on what a user needs. Someone who just games is better served with the 9400, basically everyone else the Ryzen 1600 or other Zen family

 

[Thunder 57]

I just did a quick google search. First they said that Intel has a 6c/6t for $150 and AMD did not. So I found the 1600 for $119 at 6c/12t. Then they said the 9400f beat it in benchmarks, so I did a quick google and found those. AMD wins and is cheaper and more threads.

OK, I am done argueing the point, I think I made my point. And this thread is about Ryzen 3000, not 1000.

In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just found it funny that a website that claims to know what it's talking about is so wrong on the basics. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but a pretty large one.

None of those are actual benchmarks. Look up the Tom's review.

Ryzen better for MP/General purpose. 9400f better than even 2700x for gaming.

I'm on mobile so just throwing the first bench up. All the gaming ones look like this basically. All the productivity generally favors Ryzen. Basically depends on what a user needs. Someone who just games is better served with the 9400, basically everyone else the Ryzen 1600 or other Zen family

And that is basically the argument whenever someone wants to show Intel CPU's in a better light. They mention gaming. What you said is true, but the difference in fps is rarely enough to make a difference unless gaming at high refresh rates. When Extremetech wrote an article about Intel losing 5x more performance than AMD with all of the recent exploit patches, some of the comments were comical. One guy wrote 3-4 times that those patches don't games. We get it. The people who are concerned with those patches are big businesses and data center types, who actually do use software other than games.

Here is a 9400f vs 2600X in 18 games:

From Techspot.

I'm not going to lose sleep over that. But the 2600X is more expensive one will then say, OK, so buy the 2600 at the same price which performs similarly and if you want you can OC it to 2600X levels.

Hopefully Zen 2 will win enough to stop these pseudo-arguments. Intel has been on top for a long time. Let AMD have the top spot and make some money for awhile. It'll get Intel off their ass and competition is great for all of us.

 

[Arkaign]

Well, not only that, but the 1600 isn't very far behind at all, and if you're lucky enough to be near a MC, for the price of the 9400f you can get a Mobo and 1600 That leaves more $ on the table for a better GPU. If it's say a $100 gap, that could mean the difference between a 1660 and a 2060. 1600+2060 is absolutely better than a 9400f+1660.

Funny you mention high refresh. That is a case in why I game @ 144hz Gsync on 8086k with DDR4-4000, yet GP on a 2700X (3200 B die).

 

[Thunder 57]

Well, not only that, but the 1600 isn't very far behind at all, and if you're lucky enough to be near a MC, for the price of the 9400f you can get a Mobo and 1600 That leaves more $ on the table for a better GPU. If it's say a $100 gap, that could mean the difference between a 1660 and a 2060. 1600+2060 is absolutely better than a 9400f+1660.

Funny you mention high refresh. That is a case in why I game @ 144hz Gsync on 8086k with DDR4-4000, yet GP on a 2700X (3200 B die).

I went to 1440p over higher refresh rates. I'd love both but, I'd love a lot of things I can't have for one reason or another.

 

[Arkaign]

I went to 1440p over higher refresh rates. I'd love both but, I'd love a lot of things I can't have for one reason or another.

It's coming down to do 1440 high refresh I paired a 3440x1440 120hz w/1080ti Aorus OC. I also have a 27" 144hz 1440p 16:9, but the trade-off for UW was way worth it, so I use my UW most of the time.

To be honest, even 75hz value Freesync 32" @ $200-$250 is fantastic as an option! It gives flexibility to have extremely smooth gameplay between 40-75hz with no tearing/double frames, and my buddy with a 580OC is super happy with it.

I had previously given him my 10-bit IPS HP 1440p 60hz display, but it was better as a Photoshop/Desktop monitor. But he has always loved Battlefield games, and recently got into Apex, and holding perfect 60fps @ 1440 was not working very well.

 

[Arkaign]

This is the one, really nice quality. There are some super no-name faster ones, but tbqh, I don't feel comfortable with the really shady brands.

 

[TheELF]

And that is basically the argument whenever someone wants to show Intel CPU's in a better light. They mention gaming. What you said is true, but the difference in fps is rarely enough to make a difference unless gaming at high refresh rates.

It's not about the frame rates,it's about the number of cores/threads.
If you argue that no game scales beyond 6 cores then the results aren't all that exiting but there is scaling between the 6 core and 8 core zens and a 6/6 cpu beating a 8/16 is pretty telling and it's still matching it even when the 8/16 is overclocked to 4.2 on all cores.
Why would any casual PC user choose a 16t CPU that can't match a 6c one in the only demanding thing that person is ever going to do?

 

[Thunder 57]

Why would any casual PC user choose a 16t CPU that can't match a 6c one in the only demanding thing that person is ever going to do?

Odd, I didn't know I was visiting GamingTech.com

The 2700X is barely faster than the 2600X most of the time. The 2700X also boosts higher, accounting for some difference. Most games really don't use more than 6T, but that will inevitably change. And there is certainly software that will take all the threads you can throw at it. Plus, having those extra threads means I don't really have to worry about other things running should I decide to start up a game. Probably wouldn't with just 6T either, but a 12T CPU will last longer in the end. It's like how a lot of people who got 4C4T i5's eventually (fairly recently IIRC) wished they had just paid a bit more for the 4C8T i7 available at the time when they bought it. I know I did.

 

[beginner99]

Why would any casual PC user choose a 16t CPU that can't match a 6c one in the only demanding thing that person is ever going to do?

Because the benchmarks only show single-player and core-count can have a noticeable effect in multiplayer.