I believe this is literally exactly the same pricing structure that the Ryzen 1xxx series launched at. You have a very skewed perspective if you think this is anywhere close to Intel prices. AMD compared their 12-core to an intel 12-core that cost $1200 during the keynote. Only $500 for a 12-core cpu with 64 MB of L3 seems like quite a bargain to me. AMD has a 32 MB L3 part for $200 dollars. You probably would have to pay thousands of dollars for an Intel Xeon with more than 32 MB L3.
I guess it’s the branding that bothers me. It seems like AMD feels a need to offer an edge over Intel in its flagship offering, and since it can’t offer more perf-per-core, in a classic move, it offers more cores, but then again, as pointed out above, it can’t offer 12c/24t for $300-400, so it jacks up the price to match Intel’s i9, which itself is priced higher than usual because Intel apparently feels it’s justified to ask an extra premium for an 8c/16t CPU because of the little IPC gain they can offer; and the whole thing just starts to shift the established perception of how much a flagship CPU costs. I don’t like that because we all saw where it led in the GPU space; I don’t want to have Nvidia’s Titan equivalent in the consumer CPU space, ever. Besides, was it all necessary? AMD’s new 8c/16t CPU is cheaper than Intel’s. And if we assume that a general consumer wouldn’t need more than 8 cores, why offer 12 in a consumer product at all? I guess they wanted some of that i9 pie, I just wish they offered the $500 CPU as a pro-sumer product, Threadripper, whatever, and kept thr consumer offerings below $400.
if it was up to intel.. we would still be stuck at quad core.. cause of amd . we have 8 and 12... cant offer more perfirmance per core ? you sure ? seems zen 2 is offering just that.. and at 300 to 400 mhz less then intel to boot
I remember when AMD announced the Excavator platform and their benchmarks. I wrote on their Facebook page "What have you done?!?!". They more than made up for it today. What an announcement. Can't wait for the reviews. Please, please, do compare it against previous generations as well (core 7*** and 8***, and ryzen 1*** and 2***).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
307 Comments
View All Comments
Allan_Hundeboll - Thursday, May 30, 2019 - link
I'm going to upgrade my I5 2500k with Ryzen 3000 -Jusy need to decide what model to go for. It will probably be one of the 65w versionmaroon1 - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
It is not twice as fast on average. Just almost 2x in cinebenchNot only cinebench scale with cores, but it also benefits greatly from upgrading FP on 7nm Ryzen. Most of other benchmarks won't see the same boost .
jamescox - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
I believe this is literally exactly the same pricing structure that the Ryzen 1xxx series launched at. You have a very skewed perspective if you think this is anywhere close to Intel prices. AMD compared their 12-core to an intel 12-core that cost $1200 during the keynote. Only $500 for a 12-core cpu with 64 MB of L3 seems like quite a bargain to me. AMD has a 32 MB L3 part for $200 dollars. You probably would have to pay thousands of dollars for an Intel Xeon with more than 32 MB L3.yhselp - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
I guess it’s the branding that bothers me. It seems like AMD feels a need to offer an edge over Intel in its flagship offering, and since it can’t offer more perf-per-core, in a classic move, it offers more cores, but then again, as pointed out above, it can’t offer 12c/24t for $300-400, so it jacks up the price to match Intel’s i9, which itself is priced higher than usual because Intel apparently feels it’s justified to ask an extra premium for an 8c/16t CPU because of the little IPC gain they can offer; and the whole thing just starts to shift the established perception of how much a flagship CPU costs. I don’t like that because we all saw where it led in the GPU space; I don’t want to have Nvidia’s Titan equivalent in the consumer CPU space, ever. Besides, was it all necessary? AMD’s new 8c/16t CPU is cheaper than Intel’s. And if we assume that a general consumer wouldn’t need more than 8 cores, why offer 12 in a consumer product at all? I guess they wanted some of that i9 pie, I just wish they offered the $500 CPU as a pro-sumer product, Threadripper, whatever, and kept thr consumer offerings below $400.mikato - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
Yeah I'm not buying a GPU until there is a major change there.Korguz - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
if it was up to intel.. we would still be stuck at quad core.. cause of amd. we have 8 and 12... cant offer more perfirmance per core ? you sure ? seems zen 2 is offering just that.. and at 300 to 400 mhz less then intel to boot
Brodz - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
Suggestion: A page for the core to core IPC comparison for 2nd gen to 3rd gen please.schujj07 - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
Zen+ was 3% better IPC than Zen, so Zen 2 should be 12% higher IPC than Zen+plonk420 - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
seconded. and comparisons for Haswell, Sandy, Nehalem, and at least one of the chips from 6000 to 9000yankeeDDL - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
I remember when AMD announced the Excavator platform and their benchmarks. I wrote on their Facebook page "What have you done?!?!".They more than made up for it today. What an announcement. Can't wait for the reviews.
Please, please, do compare it against previous generations as well (core 7*** and 8***, and ryzen 1*** and 2***).