WEEEEEEEEW, LAAAAADS!

First public presentation and announcement is in two weeks from now, at CES. Sales start shortly after that.

>AMD won't be selling 16 core chips for 400$
>they can get away with much higher
You...really never ever bought a single AMD product in your entire miserable goddamn life, huh?

I own a Ryzen 1600
There's just no way AMD will be selling that many cores for that low of a price (at least any time soon). The 1950X is $550 now, way after its launch. The 2950X is $900, and that's already very cheap. Intel can only offer its 16-core chips for $1,500, and that will not change for the next couple years. If the 3800/X or 3900/X really does have 16 cores, it will be priced accordingly, likely in the $700-$900 bracket.

Cool. I. for some reason, thought it would be way later like in march or even in may.

>There's just no way AMD will be selling that many cores for that low of a price
"What are 92% of PERFECT yields"

OY VEY! SHUT IT DOWN

Well, they said Q1. March is Q1, still.

Hahaha funny

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but AMD isn't a charity. They seek to maximize profit wherever possible, and Intel handed them a free ticket to do so. I would love it if prices could come down that far, but with new manufacturing being more expensive and virtually no competition on their 16+ core products, they are already offering very cheap products. Maybe if Intel had 10nm ready today and included a 16-core consumer processor for $900 we would be seeing those sorts of prices, but we are light years away from that.

Hope that 9900k for $600 is serving you well copelet

8 core 2700X is selling for ~240$ here, WTF are you smoking? According to Adored (and he's almost never wrong) 3600X (a new 8 core) will starts at 230$, to facilitate upgrade, then gets price cut later. Again, like AMD always does.

>AMD isn't a charity
They are not, obviously. However, what they ARE is the LITERALLY only good guy left on the market. And they're in dire situation stock/share market-wise, so they can't do it any other way. If they price too high - investors will be pissed.

Lower margins but higher volume is key. If you have 11% market share like AMD you don't squeeze out every last burger you can. Nobody will buy a 16 core for the high prices you are suggesting because let's face it - most are gaymers and ryzen has no PCI-E lanes for real work. The market is gaymers with your average gaymers budget. It's expected to be 2x8 cores so with binning high clockspeeds will be achievable. This isn't a monolithic bingbus turd.

|
|>
|
|
|

I'm not talking about 8-cores. CPU price goes up exponentially once you tack on more and more cores (because of less competition), so a 16-core product is more likely to cost triple or even more than that over an 8-core product.
Unless they charge more than $1,000 for a 16-core chip, they are more than fine in terms of profits.
Nobody is marketing CPUs with more than 8 cores to gamers, that's silly. A 16 core chip would probably perform even worse because running the extra cores will hold back the maximum frequency due to power and heat.
AMD's market share is low in total because of Intel's low-end and previous product lines that people are still using. Among the 16-32 core market, AMD probably has a pretty big lead at this point.

you keep repeating the same shit over and over like a retard

>I'm not talking about 8-cores.
Yet it seems like you cannot into simple counting comprehension, either.

It's hilarious how one dude posts his meme leak and then sites copy it and in the end they just copy fuckin each other.

Attached: 1365371794216.png (400x400, 7K)

>a 16-core product is more likely to cost triple
2+2=6? Drop on that crackpot right now, Brian. It clearly damages your brain cells.

NOOOO DELET OR ELSE

>one dude posts his meme leak
It was from a trusted insider with good record, you dumb fuck. Adored's insiders very rarely make mistakes or are wrong on info.

No matter what context
>WCCFTrash
>ever
Cmon Jow Forums its 2019 when will you learn?

S E E T H I N G
E
E

Attached: 1545772870574.png (549x413, 90K)

Ad hominem isn't getting us anywhere
Pricing for a product is not based on a consistent metric, and it's ignorant to assume that buying something with twice as much performance will be double the price. A 4-core processor usually doesn't cost much more than a 2-core, because there is higher demand and competition in that area of the product line. Similarly, a 16-core costs quite a bit more than double of what an 8-core would, because the market is less competitive in the extremes, and manufacturing costs can be disproportionately higher depending on how the products are made.

I literally own amd shares you quadruple nigger.

>Pricing for a product is not based on a consistent metric
You've been marketing victim cuckold of nGreedia and Inturd for too long, kid.

This is what every company does, AMD included.
Higher profit margins are given for more expensive products, because the people buying them can afford to pay disproportionately. Server products especially cost way more than they should because of ECC validation being a necessity when operating 24/7. Both AMD and Intel could validate consumer products to be ECC compatible (although AMD does at least not completely prevent ECC from being used), but they don't because they know it gives them higher margins on their server lines.

Definitely a marketing victim. This isn't threadripper which is a by far more complex 4 die huge monster, justifying the price increase. It's also only doubling in price going from 16 to 32 cores.

Give me something worth replacing my 1600.

Attached: su.png (1400x1000, 986K)

>from 1600
...2700X?

> price no higher than ~400$ is expected
Doubt. They can go ahead and jack up the price to $499, after all, it's Threadripper tier.

I said worth.

Threadripper really isn't much different from the consumer line, except for how the cores are disabled (and the 2990WX's memory functions). I'll concede to you that the 32 cores are consistent in pricing with the 16 cores, but it's important to note there that you run into a few other bottlenecks that may turn people off from paying disproportionately more over a 2950X, so they can't really charge too much more without looking bad. Needless to say, they aren't giving 16-cores for $400. Maybe $500, maybe $600, but not what the OP said. The margins on that would be profitable, but Intel can't compete AT ALL with that, so AMD is never going to drop prices that low, especially when their current 16-cores are nowhere near that.

>Doubt.
2700X currently goes for as low as 240$. 8 core 3600X will start at 230$ to facilitate upgrade, so 16 core 3800X for ~440$ or ~400$ with deals is not an impossible thing at all. That's what TSMC's 92% of PERFECT 7nm yields allows to do. The binning of Zen 2 is INSANELY good.

You are a retard.

You know, the dollar sign goes before the number. The 2700X also doesn't go below $260, from what I know.
Yield rates have nothing to do with how AMD sets up their products' margins. It would be stupid to sell 16-cores for less than double the price of 8-cores when they have been doing the opposite since Zen launced. The demand is not high enough, and it would cripple their high-end market, especially if this generation uses PCIe 4.0, although that is unlikely.

>2700X currently goes for as low as 240$
On what fucking planet
Here it's still 350€

explain why wccftech is trash. do it.

Same boat.

im gonna get the 3600x or 3700x. as long as i have guaranteed 5GHZ. im happy.

we've moved to 7nm in case you haven't noticed. you're making it sound like this is from ryzen 1 to ryzen 2. things are different, revolutionary even, hopefully.

>the dollar sign goes before the number
Not in non-retarded, well educated countries.

Attached: 1469239712843.jpg (300x218, 8K)

Their sources are fucking garbage. I mean come the fuck on they blatantly stole this from videocards which is even worse than wccf but at least they have a somewhat credible source. Have you not been here long enough to witness all the times when wccf was wrong?

>demand is not high enough

Attached: 4w6457577.png (1323x204, 2.06M)

5GHz is the limit for clock speeds, so it's never guaranteed except on one or two cores, and even that could be a stretch for AMD. IPC matters a whole lot more, anyway.
That doesn't mean AMD is obligated to reduce prices. 7nm could be the most amazing leap ever, but Intel has no footing in this yet, so AMD has less reason to be slashing prices quite yet, even if their products are as cheap as ever.
I didn't make the rules, but it's just how real money is meant to be written.
What is this supposed to prove?

Stable 4.4GHz on all 16 cores or 4.8GHz on all 12 cores >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "MUH GAYMEN 5~5.2 NIGGERHURTZ" with measly 6~8 cores.

>just how real money is meant to be written
Yuan and Yen are written after then number, so are Roubles and Euros. Enjoying DOLLAR FIFTEEN much yet? Because I surely am enjoying my fifteen thousand dollars which I've invested in AMD when it was at 1.8$ per share.

>What is this supposed to prove?
That you're a fucking shitposting retard that doesn't know jack shit on AMD and Zen.

You forgot that it's literally run by pajeets.

>take a comfy shit and eat something
>come back
>this guy, absolutely clueless, is still shiposting
are you being paid?

>5GHz is the limit for clock speeds

No it isnt. it might be the highest boost clock. But until we have a review in. we dont know. it might be lower, it might be higher.

I have no idea how this all works. But news site always report on other sites reports. Every major news org does this.

wccftech has stories it breaks first, but often they do publish other stories from videocardz etc. But they always credit the author and link to the source.

And videocardz gets a ton of shit right. Im just saying that calling them shit based on what you just said isnt good enough really. unless they blatantly lie and deceive there is nothing wrong with a site that posts rumours and news.

CPUs have a physical clock limit around 5.2GHz, going higher requires cooling below room temperature
It's near impossible to push frequency any further

lol you just got BTFO by

It's 300€ here, don't round up like that you double nigger

Paki mudslimes =/= Poo hindu.

He's probably talking about 2700

Just wondering, why? Is that related to the die size or some other physical constraint?

This, shouldn't smaller dies clock higher?

Transistors have succumbed to diminishing returns. As transistors keep shrinking, they don't have as much power savings as they used to, and increased density means that the heat created is even harder to cool because there's less surface area, so you need a more conductive cooling system to deal with the denser heat, which can't be done unless you have a lower room temp or a chiller.
A smaller die is equally as inefficient, the surface area is also consequently less so you can't transfer away more energy.

But smaller dies means electrons take less time to travel

The problem is that each individual transistor gets too hot, a smaller die won't decrease the power that the transistor requires to clock higher or cool it any better.

pakistan split from india, Pookistani.

>still thinks mindshare isn't the most important thing
Nvidia was being anally annihilated by the 4000 series and they still outsold them in the end. These products won't be more than $500, they want people to choose their products when they're superior in every way.

delid

AMD is way behind on market share. The only way to make up that much of a difference is to obliterate Intel on price to performance even more then they did the last few gens.

Mmkay, kiddo, get fucking rekt: techpowerup.com/251129/alleged-amd-ryzen-3000-series-cpu-lineup-leaked-by-russian-e-tailer

>meanwhile, somewhere at Intelaviv HQ

Attached: 1543241975159.png (1327x1222, 69K)

>two weeks
CES starts in six days

>84C on top tier coolers while stock
What the fuck man

It ends on 12-th, you mong. AMD's presentation won't be at the first day.

Attached: 1543201660279.png (631x310, 14K)

Threadripper gives you two more memory channels, ECC compatibility, and more PCIe lanes, even with the 1950X. The new 16 cores will cost less than you can currently get the 1950X for, the question is how much, and I think $450 sounds about right.

That's still only 10 days, not two weeks.

intel in current year, ten times worse then fermi

Attached: bigburn.jpg (1500x1500, 478K)

Threadripper is not a server line and doesn't have proper ECC documentation or guarantees, just like normal Ryzen

>Noctua NH-D15: fail

Attached: download.png (259x194, 5K)

In this thread, has the Jow Forumsanitard set the status quo? The Jow Forumsimp Jow Forumsang must now promote ryzen? Will "god" actually save the queen?

Price goes up exponentially with core count above ~6-8 cores for Intel because yields decrease exponentially for a 300mm^2 die vs a 150mm^2 die, and Intel has not developed any products using MCM packaging. AMD doesn't have this problem, their yields remain the same no matter how many cores they put on a chip.

It is still compatible, and regardless the additional memory and PCIe lanes alone add significant value.

Still has ECC which is more than intel offers
faggot

>doesn't have proper ECC documentation

ECC still works fine with most MoBos since Phenom II

>Threadripper is not a server line
THREADRIPPER has SEV and full ECC support, you dumb fuck. It's a prosumer/enthusiast tier workstation platform which can double as home server just fine.

True, but not over double
Intel has nothing to do with this
In comparison to the Ryzen line, it's the exact same, so it's not an advantage exclusive to Threadripper

English language.

Let me guess. You were also screeching about ryzen 1 with "they can't possibly sell 4/6 cores less than 500 bucks!"?

More likely, intelkikes are out on full force. Trying to damage control even before amd announces their chips.