Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mattiasnyc

Senior member
Mar 30, 2017
356
337
136
Now that it's clear what can be concluded, our exchange si indeed over.

I defer to your decisions of course. You're the authority here.

Indeed which is why its good to focus on a particular subject/assertion and supporting arguments instead of making things personal. It's the only way you can have a constructive and intelligent exchange. I'd be disappointed if it was about anything else.

Glad my sarcasm wasn't lost on you.

It was never about you or me.

Ok, let's see if you'll talk about you any more then...:

Logically as a consumer, if AMD doesn't price their Ryzen 3 processors correctly, it will make perfect sense to buy their 1st or 2nd generation for better value. Intel's value is horrible enough not to be considered. So, the only upcoming decision I have to make is whether or not to buy a Ryzen 1,2, or 3rd gen. AMD and any person with business sense understands this. So, i'd be pleasantly surprised if they do something as silly as price a 3rd generation 8 core at the same price as a 1st gen 16 core. Ryzen 2 provided no value or reason to upgrade. So, it's on them to capture me now and make a sale... tick/tock/tick. Or, I'll be buying a 16 core 1st gen for $400 bucks or less, consolidating, and selling off my Ryzen 1700s. Down the road, I'll consolidate to a 64 core Rome once the prices come back to reality. Really nothing more to consider as a consumer... I look for the best valued product in line w/ my needs (not wants or desires).


Other than that, there's pure excitement simply for the technological advancement Ryzen 3rd gen presents w/ 7nm/pcie 4.0/ and the I/O Chip. We can all agree on that. As is always, as an intelligent consumer, it comes down to price/performance after that.

Most consumers aren't particularly intelligent in general in their purchasing decisions.

Secondly I still don't understand why you keep saying all of this. You claim you only care about official announcements, yet here you are spending all this energy on convincing me that AMD is going to release a CPU that is better than the 9900K yet is priced at 50% of it. Why is that so important to you? I conceded to you and deferred to your expertise and yet here you are still yapping about it...

Seriously, what gives?

Give it a rest. We'll see soon enough how the upcoming parts are priced and what Intel's possible response is.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
Most consumers aren't particularly intelligent in general in their purchasing decisions.
Which is why people end up broke, live pay check to pay check, and crashes happen. Of course, I'm guessing overpaying for a 9900k and other such brilliant decisions is a good consolation prize.

Secondly I still don't understand why you keep saying all of this. You claim you only care about official announcements, yet here you are spending all this energy on convincing me that AMD is going to release a CPU that is better than the 9900K yet is priced at 50% of it. Why is that so important to you? I conceded to you and deferred to your expertise and yet here you are still yapping about it...
Tone down emotions. There's none involved on my part.
There were multiple assertions. Some held up to critique. Some didn't.
Which concludes the exchange.

I try to be impartial and put my best foot forward in a discussion. If a person has better arguments and supports, I concede and inquire further. It's how i learn. Accuracy and skill forms over time if you take this approach. I had these same discussions over a year ago. It informed a profitable pair trade (-) Intel/ (-) Nvidia / (+) AMD. Take a look at where we are today. It helps to know a market/consumers. It helps to converse with them and bring out the best arguments for/against a particular viewpoint. When a person presses a body of people and they have no supports or sound arguments for their position nor can break down a contrarian view point, it tells you all you need to know. It's valuable.

Seriously, what gives?

Give it a rest. We'll see soon enough how the upcoming parts are priced and what Intel's possible response is.
Less emotions...
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,808
11,165
136
My prediction

top 8C/16T ryzen 3 - turbo 4,3GHz 65W power, turbo 4,8GHz 115W real power
top 16C/32T ryzen 3- turbo 4,4GHz 150W, turbo 4,8GHz 165W real power draw

4.4 GHz? Nahhh. AMD is looking to up clocks. They already have a 4.4 GHz turbo target on their 12nm chips (2950X; 4.3 GHz on 2700x). Turbos will go higher. 4.7 GHz actually doesn't sound THAT unrealistic. My prediction was 4.6 GHz.

Not really, even if AMD beats the crap out of Intel for two years they’ll get lazy and intel will comeback hard. That’s the way things work.
Good to see new processors with actual new technology in them instead of the steady intel tweaks we’ve been seeing for the last 5 years.

If AMD really delivers with Zen2 and Zen3 to the point that Zen3 wipes out most of Intel's offerings, then it will not be Intel threatening them at that point. AMD will be facing the ARMy, all alone.

I don't really see why AMD would choose to beat a 9900K with a 3600X for half the price.

If AMD has any common sense, they'll realize that Intel isn't their only competition. Beating the 9900k is only important to a few forum warriors.
 

mattiasnyc

Senior member
Mar 30, 2017
356
337
136
Which is why people end up broke, live pay check to pay check, and crashes happen.

Which is why the logical ub4ty can't be used as a measure of the general population, which is why I implied that your egocentricity doesn't necessarily generalize to the general population.

Tone down emotions. There's none involved on my part.

You're wrong. You're being very emotional. You need to tone it down.

There were multiple assertions. Some held up to critique. Some didn't.
Which concludes the exchange.

Well I'm more than happy to allow you to be the judge of what held up to critique and what didn't, and then conclude the exchange.

I guess I can't wrap my head around you continuing this exchange after having judged it was concluded due to you proving yourself right. I guess you talking is its own reward. I don't disagree, maybe.

I try to be impartial and put my best foot forward in a discussion. If a person has better arguments and supports, I concede and inquire further. It's how i learn. Accuracy and skill forms over time if you take this approach. I had these same discussions over a year ago. It informed a profitable pair trade (-) Intel/ (-) Nvidia / (+) AMD. Take a look at where we are today. It helps to know a market/consumers. It helps to converse with them and bring out the best arguments for/against a particular viewpoint. When a person presses a body of people and they have no supports or sound arguments for their position nor can break down a contrarian view point, it tells you all you need to know. It's valuable.

Again, please: Less emotions.
 

mattiasnyc

Senior member
Mar 30, 2017
356
337
136
If AMD has any common sense, they'll realize that Intel isn't their only competition. Beating the 9900k is only important to a few forum warriors.

Sure, I absolutely agree. I'm guessing however that AMD sees the value in continuing market segmentation, and that it'll be difficult to maintain that without allowing for higher prices higher in the product lineup. To me that indicates that it'll be "difficult" to do what was proposed.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,808
11,165
136
Sure, I absolutely agree. I'm guessing however that AMD sees the value in continuing market segmentation, and that it'll be difficult to maintain that without allowing for higher prices higher in the product lineup. To me that indicates that it'll be "difficult" to do what was proposed.

They aren't going to charge $550 for a fast 8c chip and then turn around and charge more for the 16c product - if it exists on AM4. They have a frame of price points from 2017 for AM4 that they will probably follow: $499 for the top-end chip (3800x; 3850x may cost more) and then other prices will go down from there. It just depends on WHAT the 3800x really is, that's all. Is it a 16c product? I'm still not 100% convinced. We'll find out in a few days.

Remember in 2017 when the 1800x competed against a $1000 Intel HEDT chip at $499? I do. AMD does, too.
 

mattiasnyc

Senior member
Mar 30, 2017
356
337
136
I do remember when the 1800x came out, of course I do. But the people that bought the 1800x weren't really into buying HEDT chips/motherboards to begin with. The market segmentation is beneficial not just to Intel, it's also beneficial to AMD to an extent.

So you're right, they're not going to charge 550 for a fast octa core and charge more for a 16 core if that doesn't work in the market. But you have to consider what gains they can make and what happens to the lineup if you introduce a new chip better than the 9900K at 270 dollars. What do you end up with below that? What happens to all the current generation chips?

And also quite importantly: What happens to AMD's X399 platform if you're rolling out a 16 core chip at about $550?

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying I don't think it's likely, and I think it's leaving some money on the table. If AMD is selling like hot-cakes then all the more incentive to find a middle ground between charging what you can and being reasonable (from our perspective).
I'd LOVE it if they came out with a product lineup as proposed here because it'd be fantastic for everyone... (except Intel, which makes me happy)
 

Kippa

Senior member
Dec 12, 2011
392
1
81
Out of curiosity what do you think the core count is going to be on Thread Ripper 3? 48 cores? 64 cores? I have a 10 core intel but am going to skip a generation or two and am thinking of Threadripper 3 when it is released for 3d rendering.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,808
11,165
136
I do remember when the 1800x came out, of course I do. But the people that bought the 1800x weren't really into buying HEDT chips/motherboards to begin with. The market segmentation is beneficial not just to Intel, it's also beneficial to AMD to an extent.

There were plenty of people who felt trapped by Intel's HEDT lineup at the time that saved a bunch of money going AM4 in 2017.

What happens to all the current generation chips?

And also quite importantly: What happens to AMD's X399 platform if you're rolling out a 16 core chip at about $550?

They EoL quickly and go bargain basement. Just like what happened with AMD's AM3+ and FM2+ products in 2017. AMD can't afford to be picky about what happens to yesterday's products when they have a lean and hungry monster chasing them from the back. They need to be positioned against their next competitor. Not just Intel. Hector Ruiz is the kind of a guy who would say, "ehh let's hold back on consumer Zen2 so we can clear out the channel a bit and protect Threadripper". Look at what he did with the x2. Lisa Su can not afford to make the same mistake, albeit for different reasons. The challenges that face AMD in 2021/2022 may be more difficult to overcome than what they saw in 2006. Now is the time to prepare, not only technologically but also in terms of market share and mindshare.

As an aside, I do not think x399 will be hampered as much as people think, since the platform will still offer two more RAM channels and more-robust I/O for the users that need it. And I still am a BIT skeptical about 16c chips appearing on AM4. But I am convinced that whatever will sell as the 3800x will probably be $499, and the 3850x that comes later will be $549 or so.

If AMD is selling like hot-cakes

I think AMD would like to be selling like hotcakes. The 2700x may not be selling THAT well by now, though. I don't have numbers in front of me so it's impossible for me to say. Logically one would expect sales on Pinnacle Ridge to be slowing down by now, not only from news about Zen2 but also from products reaching the end of their realistic market cycle. Protecting those flagging sales just doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure you'll strand some product in the channel, or lose money on discounts trying to clear out product. But 7nm is coming, and it doesn't make any sense to hold back now.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
There were plenty of people who felt trapped by Intel's HEDT lineup at the time that saved a bunch of money going AM4 in 2017.



They EoL quickly and go bargain basement. Just like what happened with AMD's AM3+ and FM2+ products in 2017. AMD can't afford to be picky about what happens to yesterday's products when they have a lean and hungry monster chasing them from the back. They need to be positioned against their next competitor. Not just Intel. Hector Ruiz is the kind of a guy who would say, "ehh let's hold back on consumer Zen2 so we can clear out the channel a bit and protect Threadripper". Look at what he did with the x2. Lisa Su can not afford to make the same mistake, albeit for different reasons. The challenges that face AMD in 2021/2022 may be more difficult to overcome than what they saw in 2006. Now is the time to prepare, not only technologically but also in terms of market share and mindshare.

As an aside, I do not think x399 will be hampered as much as people think, since the platform will still offer two more RAM channels and more-robust I/O for the users that need it. And I still am a BIT skeptical about 16c chips appearing on AM4. But I am convinced that whatever will sell as the 3800x will probably be $499, and the 3850x that comes later will be $549 or so.



I think AMD would like to be selling like hotcakes. The 2700x may not be selling THAT well by now, though. I don't have numbers in front of me so it's impossible for me to say. Logically one would expect sales on Pinnacle Ridge to be slowing down by now, not only from news about Zen2 but also from products reaching the end of their realistic market cycle. Protecting those flagging sales just doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure you'll strand some product in the channel, or lose money on discounts trying to clear out product. But 7nm is coming, and it doesn't make any sense to hold back now.
Exactly..
Innovate and move on. Intel, Nvidia, and Apple all tried the milking strategy recently and it has failed/is failing in epic fashion and is allowing their competition to catch up/eat their lunch and/or stoking resentment and demand collapse. If you can't innovate any longer and provide increased value, you're dead anyway. Thread-ripper has far more I/O than AM4. It's going to hold its own simply for that reason. 16 core on AM4 sounds a little absurd... Anything north of 8 core is a new market for that platform anyway... So, there's no reason why they should ramp price on the existing line from dual to eight core. They could allow a 12/16 core AM4 to go into the $500+ range. The 2950x is at the $800 price point currently and the 1950x debuted at $1,000. The I/O capacity is what will make people shift into HEDT. So, with quick back hand analysis, AMD actually has a pretty robust line across current pricing and can hit new segments w/ AM4s 8+ core count.

I'd actually like to see AMD do even more I/O with their HEDT platform. However, it really seems like antiquated board sizes are restricting that. I can't imagine how they can keep squeezing things on ATX or even E-ATX boards as they climb in core count. It's starting to look like a new form factor and interconnects are needed. I want 16 dimm slots just like EPYC but that clearly conflicts with full length PCIE :
At these core counts and I/O capacity, they really need a new board form factor. Does anyone know whether or not optical interconnects (PCIE over fiber) is becoming a thing in PCIE 4.0/5.0 to shrink and extend the foot print of PCIE beyond these board restricted paradigms?



I reflect on rigs like :


And I start to feel like you need something like this to properly exploit a 64 core count processor. It's begging for more I/O and how do you do that with such board restricted PCIE slot clearance?

Meanwhile, there's :


Nothing exciting about this slide deck.
There better be something ground breaking on these new processors.
PCIE 4.0 @ TBD, nothing for threadripper, and X570? (more nvme slots)? Hmmm, if this is just a die shrink, power utilization drop, and clock bump w/o i/o expansion, I can see why prices would be similar to what we've already seen. This wouldn't cause me to upgrade from 1st gen.
 
Last edited:

Adawy

Member
Sep 9, 2017
79
24
81
I do remember when the 1800x came out, of course I do. But the people that bought the 1800x weren't really into buying HEDT chips/motherboards to begin with. The market segmentation is beneficial not just to Intel, it's also beneficial to AMD to an extent.

So you're right, they're not going to charge 550 for a fast octa core and charge more for a 16 core if that doesn't work in the market. But you have to consider what gains they can make and what happens to the lineup if you introduce a new chip better than the 9900K at 270 dollars. What do you end up with below that? What happens to all the current generation chips?

And also quite importantly: What happens to AMD's X399 platform if you're rolling out a 16 core chip at about $550?

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying I don't think it's likely, and I think it's leaving some money on the table. If AMD is selling like hot-cakes then all the more incentive to find a middle ground between charging what you can and being reasonable (from our perspective).
I'd LOVE it if they came out with a product lineup as proposed here because it'd be fantastic for everyone... (except Intel, which makes me happy)

I agree with you, at the same time we don't want AMD to dominate either, complacency is the enemy here. I wanna see a fierce battle between AMD and Intel, with both of them bringing out the torpedoes.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: dlerious

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
I agree with you, at the same time we don't want AMD to dominate either, complacency is the enemy here. I wanna see a fierce battle between AMD and Intel, with both of them bringing out the torpedoes
I feel that battle has yet to come and will occur on architectures and paradigms we haven't even seen yet. For now, it's all about topping out the existing architectures we've grown used to with high core count and I/O. AMD is clearly going to win this with their roadmap. The next stage is in HSA, high speed interconnects, new chiplet combo architectures, maybe intel actually starts making interesting chips w/ some of their acquisitions, and exotic memory technology. AMD has infinity fabric which they aim to eventually open up and own a GPU company. Intel essentially needs to start doing something different and innovative with the huge portfolio of IP their sitting on. Until then, this is just a race to max out cores. Intel frankly has lost that battle. AMD isn't dominating until they get market share and in order to get it they have to keep pricing in order. So, AMD is competing against themselves and market forces. Things seem fairly priced so far.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,808
11,165
136
Apple all tried the milking strategy recently and it has failed/is failing in epic fashion

Don't be so quick to bag on Apple. They are seeing reduced shipments of phones and tablets; on the other hand, their CPU division continues to produce stunning improvements that are almost ignored by their core market. AMD will face A-series chips sometime in the future, possibly 3-4 years from now. But I do not think it will be a direct challenge from Apple. Apple is first-and-foremost a company that sells digital lifestyles. They do not want to make internal changes that will disrupt their corporate culture or force them to recreate divisions that have atrophied in recent years (notably their server division, which is now non-existent). So I suspect they will license A-series tech to companies that want to challenge AMD and Intel for marketshare. It will open up new revenue sources for Apple without forcing them to restructure their organization. The A12x is already a scary, scary chip. AMD is not ready to face it today, and they have to keep the pedal to the metal to stay ahead.

PCIE 4.0 @ TBD, nothing for threadripper, and X570? (more nvme slots)? Hmmm, if this is just a die shrink, power utilization drop, and clock bump w/o i/o expansion, I can see why prices would be similar to what we've already seen. This wouldn't cause me to upgrade from 1st gen.

That slide deck is a bit weird. No update to A320 or B450. Threadripper should see an update in July/August so don't worry about that so much. I/O is not really AMD's weak point right now, since they are mostly ahead of all current and future competition in that regard on AM4 (and definitely ahead on I/O on Threadripper). I would not be too quick to ask for more DIMM slots until AMD can produce an IMC that can elegantly handle more than 2 8GB DIMMs on their consumer socket.

I agree with you, at the same time we don't want AMD to dominate either, complacency is the enemy here. I wanna see a fierce battle between AMD and Intel, with both of them bringing out the torpedoes

We can want a knock-down, drag-out fight all we want, but right now Intel is suffering from a lull. I don't see them re-emerging until 2021 when their 7nm comes online. That may be their last shot before they have to start rethinking their business strategy. I can see them giving themselves an out by shifting towards their products like Loihi as well . . .

[QUOTE="ub4ty, post: 39692830, member: 390236" The next stage is in HSA[/QUOTE]

A few points here:

The original HSA paradigm as sold during the Kaveri era was a developer-facing set of confusing APIs that could be used to achieve SVM (Shared Virtual Memory). The idea was simple: if you give your GPU local access to system memory at the same basic latency as the CPU, then you can avoid all data copy between CPU and GPU. Data duplication between memory blocks made GPGPU something only useful in massively-parallel operations that had no branching behavior at all, period. You loaded a slew of data, GB at a time, onto the GPU over the PCIe bus, you performed a set of operations on the data using a kernel you'd have to build for the GPU, and then you'd sit back and let it all run. SVM meant being able to build kernels for one or two waveforms at a time, send them to the GPU, and return a result to the program with barely a hiccup. With Carrizo/Bristol Ridge you could even send multiple kernels and let the GPU return results in a non-sequential fashion (GPGPU task switching). That was really handy for sending kernels to the GPU from multiple threads.

Sadly it never went anywhere.

That is not coming back. OpenCL2.0 duplicates most (if not all) of what AMD was trying to do back then, assuming there is base driver support for it. AMD appears to have used their kernel fusion driver (amdkfd) model as a part of their OpenCL driver stack for SVM operations. So HSA isn't dead, it's just in the background . . . I guess. Sadly there still isn't a working kfd for Windows yet of which I am aware. If you want to do anything SVM-related on an AMD APU, you have to do it under Linux.

The hope that there would be off-the-shelf "big" APUs from AMD based on Vega and Zen is basically dead, too. To date we have had Raven Ridge and that's it. In 2019 it's Picasso. Snowy Owl or whatever "big" server APU we read about in past rumours either never materialized or only exists for select customers willing to pay well for AMD to produce such products as semi-custom projects.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
So you're right, they're not going to charge 550 for a fast octa core and charge more for a 16 core if that doesn't work in the market. But you have to consider what gains they can make and what happens to the lineup if you introduce a new chip better than the 9900K at 270 dollars. What do you end up with below that? What happens to all the current generation chips?

With a 8C 16T Ryzen 3 with a price of $250-270 and with the same performance as Core i9 9900K, AMD will immediately devalue 4 Intel high price/high margin CPUs at once.
The Core i7 8700K currently selling at $370, the Core i7 8086K currently selling at $470, the new 9th Gen 8C 8T Core i7 9700K currently selling at $400 and the flagship 8C 16T Core i9 9900K currently selling at $540.

Intel will either have to release new higher count CPUs to maintain their ASPs and Margins or lower the prices of the entire current lineup of mainstream CPUs. Or they keep selling the same CPUs at the same prices BUT at lower volumes (im betting this is what will happen).

All current CPU prices will fall, much like Ryzen 1/TR 1 CPU prices fell once Ryzen 2/TR2 CPUs launched. This is progression, old CPU values are falling and new CPUs take their place.

And also quite importantly: What happens to AMD's X399 platform if you're rolling out a 16 core chip at about $550?

TR2 16C 32T 2950X currently selling for $900, when Ryzen 3 16C 32T will launch it will be on the market for at least 6 months, its price will start to fall to the $600 price level. Also remember that TR platform offers more features than AM4 (Quad Memory Channel, more Cores, more PCI-e lanes etc), so even if you have a 16C 32T AM4 CPU at $499, a TR2 16C 32T CPU can easily be priced at $599. Also users of TR platform will be able to upgrade up to 64C 128T 32C 64T TR3 some time in the future and that is another selling point for the TR platform.
 
Last edited:

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
701
106
No I think one of us is missing something;

The proposition was that the new AMD chip would outperform the 9900K and then be priced at half that at the same time. It wasn't that AMD sells some chips at half of what some of Intel's chips are priced at.

You're basically just reinforcing my point: They currently have a CPU that's roughly half of what the 9900K is, but does not perform better. If this logic was all correct the 2700x should be priced lower right now.

In addition you're saying that AMD upped the price for the 1800x because there was no competition for that market segment from Intel. Well if AMD's next CPU can outperform the 9900K and Intel has nothing else in that segment then that again gives the incentive for AMD to price it high.

And comparing the HEDT platform to AMD's AM4 makes zero sense. If you want to go down that road then compare AMD's 8-core x399 to Intel's offerings.

In other words: History shows us AMD won't release a CPU that outperforms the 9900K at half its price.
I think you're missing something big here in your analysis. AMD will beat the 9900K with its own 8c 3600X, and this will be the CPU that is priced at half the 9900K price. The 3600X will not be the best CPU that AMD will be offering on AM4, so it cannot then command the premium for being the best.
IMO, AMD will price the 12c 3700X below the 9900K, and the 16c 3800X at 9900K pricing.
We're not saying that the best CPU will be at half the price of a 9900K, only that AMD's most comparable CPU will be. That's what matters. That's what kills Intel completely outside of OEMs.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
Don't be so quick to bag on Apple. They are seeing reduced shipments of phones and tablets; on the other hand, their CPU division continues to produce stunning improvements that are almost ignored by their core market. AMD will face A-series chips sometime in the future, possibly 3-4 years from now. But I do not think it will be a direct challenge from Apple. Apple is first-and-foremost a company that sells digital lifestyles. They do not want to make internal changes that will disrupt their corporate culture or force them to recreate divisions that have atrophied in recent years (notably their server division, which is now non-existent). So I suspect they will license A-series tech to companies that want to challenge AMD and Intel for marketshare. It will open up new revenue sources for Apple without forcing them to restructure their organization. The A12x is already a scary, scary chip. AMD is not ready to face it today, and they have to keep the pedal to the metal to stay ahead.
That chip is a dual core/quad core x86 at best. That won't be disrupting anything other than the laptop and low-end desktop market (if that and if they somehow get smart enough to license it and make it available at a competitive price). ARM has its place in the market and that will grow, but they are nowhere near being a threat to the traditional PC market and nonexistent in the server market. Apple is going to get bagged on because they made a clear cut decision to milk the snot out of their customers w/ insane margins and that has consequences Clearly as we head into a global economic down turn. The core market for those chips is disintegrating at the stupid levels they've priced their phones :
https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/1...-9-billion-in-iphone-sales-due-to-weak-demand
9 Billion? What is that, like 9 iPhones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess they should have realized they were pricing themselves out of the market earlier.

^Everyone can see this and its become a common joke...

Intel did the same thing and is paying for it and so is Nvidia whose stock price has been cut in half towards 2/3rds from October of 2018. Never take a dump on your core market. Never do so while simultaneously jacking prices. Never do both of these while also chasing new non-existent markets based on hype. Apple deserves to get bagged on. They have managed to milk the snot out of people for some time w/ no consequences. Like everyone else, gravity will eventually catch up w/ them. The longer they avoid it, the harder it will come down on them. The hype has died down and they have to start accepting lower margins or they're going to get crushed. It's a global market not a milk americans market. Huwaei has surpassed them and they have yet to prove what you suggest with the A-series chip.

That slide deck is a bit weird. No update to A320 or B450. Threadripper should see an update in July/August so don't worry about that so much. I/O is not really AMD's weak point right now, since they are mostly ahead of all current and future competition in that regard on AM4 (and definitely ahead on I/O on Threadripper). I would not be too quick to ask for more DIMM slots until AMD can produce an IMC that can elegantly handle more than 2 8GB DIMMs on their consumer socket.
At higher core counts, I feel they very much have to do something about I/O. A 16 core on existing I/O capacity on AM4 would be quite weird. Threadripper, while ahead of competition is a balanced platform. North of 16 cores, clearly things got weird, silly, and I/O starved. So, again, they need to also do something w/ I/O if they ramp the core count on threadripper. The only thing that makes sense on Threadripper is 16 core (max). The other combos north of that core count have significant reductions in efficiency and sensibility. As far as how they do that, it's the same socket as EPYC.. time to stop gimping it and as I detailed in length, it's time to get past these stupid and antiquated form factors for motherboards. ATX and even E-ATX were never meant for the current core counts, I/O capacity, and fully featured dual slot full length cards that need better spacing for air flow.


We can want a knock-down, drag-out fight all we want, but right now Intel is suffering from a lull. I don't see them re-emerging until 2021 when their 7nm comes online. That may be their last shot before they have to start rethinking their business strategy. I can see them giving themselves an out by shifting towards their products like Loihi as well . . .
Agreed. They're irrelevant until they do something majorly different towards 2021 and fix their stupid prices.

A few points here:

The original HSA paradigm as sold during the Kaveri era was a developer-facing set of confusing APIs that could be used to achieve SVM (Shared Virtual Memory). The idea was simple: if you give your GPU local access to system memory at the same basic latency as the CPU, then you can avoid all data copy between CPU and GPU. Data duplication between memory blocks made GPGPU something only useful in massively-parallel operations that had no branching behavior at all, period. You loaded a slew of data, GB at a time, onto the GPU over the PCIe bus, you performed a set of operations on the data using a kernel you'd have to build for the GPU, and then you'd sit back and let it all run. SVM meant being able to build kernels for one or two waveforms at a time, send them to the GPU, and return a result to the program with barely a hiccup. With Carrizo/Bristol Ridge you could even send multiple kernels and let the GPU return results in a non-sequential fashion (GPGPU task switching). That was really handy for sending kernels to the GPU from multiple threads.

Sadly it never went anywhere.
It better down the road because 7nm and Rome concludes the innovation based on the antiquated computer architecture we've been riding on. There's nothing left to drive the break neck pace of sales. RDMA and other great scaling technology has been expertly kept away from the desktop and its time they cut out the shenanigans. As I said, software has driven the market and now its time for hardware to do the same. Maybe there will come a point in the very near future then where software will have to set a brand new path for hardware because HSA is a must.

That is not coming back. OpenCL2.0 duplicates most (if not all) of what AMD was trying to do back then, assuming there is base driver support for it. AMD appears to have used their kernel fusion driver (amdkfd) model as a part of their OpenCL driver stack for SVM operations. So HSA isn't dead, it's just in the background . . . I guess. Sadly there still isn't a working kfd for Windows yet of which I am aware. If you want to do anything SVM-related on an AMD APU, you have to do it under Linux.
AMD has always had issues in this area. I think its due to resource starvation. Something that will be resolved as their CPU sales become much more established. OpenCL is a joke and their driver/dev stack has a long way to go to even reach parity with Nvidia's CUDA. As far as windows support, no one does any major development for such compute on windows. Everything major happens on Linux. So, that's not surprising. The future is Linux oriented. Even Microsoft gets that and is aligning accordingly.

The hope that there would be off-the-shelf "big" APUs from AMD based on Vega and Zen is basically dead, too. To date we have had Raven Ridge and that's it. In 2019 it's Picasso. Snowy Owl or whatever "big" server APU we read about in past rumours either never materialized or only exists for select customers willing to pay well for AMD to produce such products as semi-custom projects.
My commentary centers moreso around AMD opening up infinity fabric like they said they would to outside third party devices. There's a limit to my understanding of this area technically. I recall a user corrected and detailed this to me earlier in this thread regarding CCIX/Gen Z which allows AMD to do so over PCIE-4.0. But i'm referring to :


Also, as just detailed :
https://www.servethehome.com/xilinx-alveo-u280-launched-possibly-with-amd-epyc-ccix-support/

The U280 acceleration card includes CCIX support to leverage existing server interconnect infrastructure for high bandwidth, low latency cache coherent shared memory access with CCIX enabled processors including Arm and AMD. (Source: Xilinx Alveo U280 whitepaper WP50 (v1.0) accessed 16 November 2018)

So, we are very much enroute to a much different architecture and paradigm in the future.
There's no reason for the CPU to be loaded down so much with cross traffic communication between PCIE devices and memory OPs to and from I/O devices. The pipe needs to become bigger, openly standardized, lower latency, and accessible to all. This needed to be resolved yesterday. The CPU will become one of many citizens hanging off of a big pipe. It will no longer be the center of attention. It's already trending that way and established.
 
Last edited:

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
With a 8C 16T Ryzen 3 with a price of $250-270 and with the same performance as Core i9 9900K, AMD will immediately devalue 4 Intel high price/high margin CPUs at once.
The Core i7 8700K currently selling at $370, the Core i7 8086K currently selling at $470, the new 9th Gen 8C 8T Core i7 9700K currently selling at $400 and the flagship 8C 16T Core i9 9900K currently selling at $540.

Intel will either have to release new higher count CPUs to maintain their ASPs and Margins or lower the prices of the entire current lineup of mainstream CPUs. Or they keep selling the same CPUs at the same prices BUT at lower volumes (im betting this is what will happen).

All current CPU prices will fall, much like Ryzen 1/TR 1 CPU prices fell once Ryzen 2/TR2 CPUs launched. This is progression, old CPU values are falling and new CPUs take their place.



TR2 16C 32T 2950X currently selling for $900, when Ryzen 3 16C 32T will launch it will be on the market for at least 6 months, its price will start to fall to the $600 price level. Also remember that TR platform offers more features than AM4 (Quad Memory Channel, more Cores, more PCI-e lanes etc), so even if you have a 16C 32T AM4 CPU at $499, a TR2 16C 32T CPU can easily be priced at $599. Also users of TR platform will be able to upgrade up to 64C 128T TR3 some time in the future and that is another selling point for the TR platform.
Agreed. However, If I go anything north of 16 core on threadripper, until they get the dies fed properly, I'm looking at EPYC. Threadripper is best balanced at the 16 core point until they sort out the wonky I/O. AM4 also seems best balanced at 8-core. I am most intrigued by what is to be announced as to how they will magically change this for their new lineup that is supposed to be a drop-in. 64 cores on threadripper would be hilariously weird.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
Agreed. However, If I go anything north of 16 core on threadripper, until they get the dies fed properly, I'm looking at EPYC. Threadripper is best balanced at the 16 core point until they sort out the wonky I/O. AM4 also seems best balanced at 8-core. I am most intrigued by what is to be announced as to how they will magically change this for their new lineup that is supposed to be a drop-in. 64 cores on threadripper would be hilariously weird.

Ahh yes my bad, wanted to say 32C 64T for TR3
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
Ahh yes my bad, wanted to say 32C 64T for TR3
I mean, the new EPYC goes up to 64 cores and will effectively make the I/O universally accessible by all of the compute cores ... So, thread-ripper could effectively run much better and..

Wew ... I just noticed something in that statement that I've been missing as it relates to the wonky nature of Threadripper processors north of 16 cores and 4 active dies. The new architecture solves the problem of two dies being locked out of I/O....
The new chiplet design with Rome centralizes it so all cores have equal access to I/O.

May anyone with deep technical knowledge chime in on this being a game changer for threadripper in that the I/O is centralized and all compute cores will now have equal access? What are the implications of this being a huge solution to core scaling on threadripper. Also, may anyone detail how the heck they do this physically? That new chiplet is a drop-in to existing sockets. So, it has the same pinouts to connect to the mobo. Do they just route them differently on the CPU package to the dies?

omg, I can't wait until they do a tech talk on that thing.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
Also, what the heck is Intel doing?

They're not a cosortia member on any of these interconnect technologies.


Are these clowns sticking to their proprietary QPI interconnect and other proprietary tecnologies for future interconnects?


https://www.servethehome.com/intel-shows-off-10nm-server-soc-with-100gbps-and-h265-offload/
(100gbps offload.. assisted by some new proprietary tech)?

Jesus, it seems like they want to commit suicide in all markets w/ proprietary gambles.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Lodix
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |