AMD Reveals First ThreadRipper Prices, Early August Launch

[phoronix]

Phoronix: AMD Reveals First ThreadRipper Prices, Early August Launch

AMD has announced the first ThreadRipper SKUs and more...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-ThreadRipper-Prices

[bug77]

As I have always said: the moment AMD approaches Intel's performance, they'll approach Intel's prices, too. First, because that's how a business works and second, because they could really use the cash.

Of course, the price/performance ratio is still better, depending on your needs, but we're still talking $1k CPUs here.

[chuckula]

The usual suspect of Cinebench being shown off yet again, which is basically the best-case scenario for Threadripper considering it doesn't stress any inter-core IPC and Cinebench is intentionally written to never even turn on the AVX units (which is pretty bizarre for a rendering program).

I'd really like to see how it does in something a little more intense like Open Porous Media where the actual features of a high-performance processor are stressed.

[schmidtbag]

As I have always said: the moment AMD approaches Intel's performance, they'll approach Intel's prices, too. First, because that's how a business works and second, because they could really use the cash.

Of course, the price/performance ratio is still better, depending on your needs, but we're still talking $1k CPUs here.

So you're telling me the 1950X is on par with the 7900X? The 1950X has 16 more PCIe lanes, 6 more cores (12 more threads), a lower TDP, and yet costs over $100 less than the 7900X.

AMD is not approaching Intel prices. AMD will approach Intel prices if/when they handily defeat them. Due to Ryzen's overall worse IPC and worse overclocking, AMD is not in a position to reach Intel's prices. Right now, they're struggling to keep stockholders to take them seriously.

[bug77]

So you're telling me the 1950X is on par with the 7900X? The 1950X has 16 more PCIe lanes, 6 more cores (12 more threads), a lower TDP, and yet costs over $100 less than the 7900X.

Whatever, I'm not in the mood to argue.

AMD is not approaching Intel prices. AMD will approach Intel prices if/when they handily defeat them. Due to Ryzen's overall worse IPC and worse overclocking, AMD is not in a position to reach Intel's prices. Right now, they're struggling to keep stockholders to take them seriously.

Intel's best consumer chip sold at $999 for years, until they figured they can actually charge more. That's right where the fastest Threadripper is announced now.

Also, Ryzen's IPC is not worse than Skylake's, they're neck and neck.

[jrch2k8]

Cinebench is intentionally written to never even turn on the AVX units

I would really like some proof of this especially because unless cinebench is compiled without any optimization(-O0 equivalent for ICC/VC) the compiler will use at the very minimum SSE2+ for a shitload of operations including cache managing and prefetch, etc. and this is done is any optimization pass by any decent compiler(never as efficient as hand code vectors but it does it).

Also remember SSE(128 bits), AVX(256 bits) and AVX512(512bits) are pretty much identical beside the amount of registers for integers and floating points respectively(and some extensions here and there) and as far as I know most modern architectures don't care that much which one you end up using since the hardware will schedule it automatically to fit the hardware registers(being filling with zeroes the missing bits or joining smaller request of the same operation until all registers are filled or dividing the job between N cores to match the requested registers when the request is bigger than what a single APU/FPU can handle)

I've heard this rumors from Intel fanboys time and time again but never seen proof, hence I'm curious

[schmidtbag]

Intel's best consumer chip sold at $999 for years, until they figured they can actually charge more. That's right where the fastest Threadripper is announced now.

I suspect the price changed for a few reasons:
1. Back when those chips were still $1K, there were still more enticing options, like Xeons or 12-core Opterons.
2. Software is evolving - we're now reaching a point where having 12+ threads is actually practical. In other words, supply and demand. A few years ago, Intel couldn't have charged more than $1K for a CPU that offered little to no real-world performance difference compared to lesser models.
3. The economy is evolving - some things just suddenly get more expensive overnight without an obvious reason. I remember back when brand new games were a maximum price of $50, and many could be bought for $40. Now, $60 is pretty much the lowest price of a new AAA title.

Anyway, AMD bases their prices relative to Intel's current market, not what the market was or should be. That being said, I do think it's crappy Intel charges so much more for their top-tier models (despite not being any different than previous years other than a higher clock).

Also, Ryzen's IPC is not worse than Skylake's, they're neck and neck.

They're close to neck-and-neck, but Ryzen still tends to fall short in more tests. I'm not criticizing them, BTW. I own a Ryzen myself and am happy with it, and I'd recommend it to others. I suspect the next generation will handily outperform Kaby Lake.

[ResponseWriter]

Phoronix: AMD Reveals First ThreadRipper Prices, Early August Launch

AMD has announced the first ThreadRipper SKUs and more...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dRipper-Prices

Typo: "Ryzen 3 SKUs of the Ryzen 7 1200"

[torsionbar28]

As I have always said: the moment AMD approaches Intel's performance, they'll approach Intel's prices, too. First, because that's how a business works and second, because they could really use the cash.

Of course, the price/performance ratio is still better, depending on your needs, but we're still talking $1k CPUs here.

A Ferrari costs more than a Honda. Of course you're going to pay more, to get relatively more performance. Even within a vendor, this is the model - An i7 costs more than an i3. This should surprise no one.

Healthy competition however, which is what we finally have again with AMD producing competitive products, results in a win-win situation for consumers. The prices come down, AND the performance goes up. Since Ryzen was released, we've seen intel slash prices across the board to make the price/performance ratio of their products more competitive. Your dollar buys a LOT more performance here in mid-2017 than it did last year at this time, and healthy market competition from AMD is the reason.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

Whatever, I'm not in the mood to argue.



Intel's best consumer chip sold at $999 for years, until they figured they can actually charge more. That's right where the fastest Threadripper is announced now.

Also, Ryzen's IPC is not worse than Skylake's, they're neck and neck.

And you will not see Intel competing against Threadripper at its price points. Their costs for their chip line includes exclusive bribes to third party OEMs for choosing them over several years. It's legal kickbacks. Now that the big OEMs are building Threadripper systems and the costs of Fab production has skyrocketed for Intel [AMD has no debt wrt Fabs anymore] they have to keep those prices higher to offset that balance sheet.