Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD Ryzen 3000 spec and price leaked

Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,224
edited December 2018 in Hardware
IF this leak is factual ryzen will be a very very nice option which will put it right up their in intel's face.


AMD is allegedly preparing 10 new unbelievable Ryzen 3000 series CPUs, including a 16 core with a mind-boggling 5.1GHz clock speed. More than a month away from CES and just when we least expect it a nuclear bomb of a leak drops on us courtesy of venerable youtuber AdoredTV who has shared a treasure trove of details regarding AMD’s upcoming Zen 2 based Ryzen 3000 series CPUs.

He also dropped a massive leak about the specs, pricing & performance of AMD’s upcoming RX 3080, 3070 & 3060 7nm Navi graphics card lineup, which is set to take on NVIDIA’s RTX 2070, GTX 1070 & GTX 1060.

Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





Comments

  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,620
    And great thing about this is that I will not even need to buy a new motherboard!
    Asm0deus
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,224
    edited December 2018

    The 3600x would be a very nice budget/intermediate gaming machine if these spec are true.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,620
    Asm0deus said:

    The 3600x would be a very nice budget/intermediate gaming machine if these spec are true.
    To me the 3700X is the best overall value out of the box and will be interested to see what overclockers can do.

    I liked the wraith cooler with the 2700X I have but think I will have to finally break down and go liquid with the 3700X.

    3850X is ok but not seeing any need for 16 cores for the next few years even with some light streaming from time to time.

    I am sure Quiz will pop in and prove me wrong though!
    Gdemami
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,422
    I think that leak is too good to be true.
     
  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,620
    Vrika said:
    I think that leak is too good to be true.
    Possibly but AMD is being very aggressive now that Ryzen has really stepped up as a true competitor to Intel so this could very well be the next step for them.  Intel has refreshed and sit on their collective asses that they have let the competition catch up when they really should be the innovators. 
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,250
    edited December 2018
    7nm... Still the clocks look too good. If it's true, then they are pricing too low. The Ryzen 3600 should be around $400 at that level of performance.
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,422
    Vrika said:
    I think that leak is too good to be true.
    Possibly but AMD is being very aggressive now that Ryzen has really stepped up as a true competitor to Intel so this could very well be the next step for them.  Intel has refreshed and sit on their collective asses that they have let the competition catch up when they really should be the innovators. 
    Don't get me wrong, I think next gen Ryzen will be good. I just don't think this leak is believable.
     
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,096
    Looks fake to me.  In AMD's Ryzen desktop CPUs so far, the "G" means graphics.  They'll probably add parts with integrated graphics eventually.  But why would those be clocked massively lower?  If anything, designing against a more mature process node and learning from what went wrong on your first part would allow higher clock speeds.  When AMD launched the Ryzen 5 2400G, its max turbo was 200 MHz higher than any previous Ryzen quad core.

    There's also the question of where those dies come from.  For their Ryzen desktop CPUs so far, they've used exactly the same die for Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC.  It's not clear what they're going to do with their next generation, but the dies for EPYC have 8 CPU cores on them.

    If they feel the need to go with only 8 cores per die for server parts that they can sell for thousands, I can't see them making a 16-core die until much later when the process node is far more mature.  Nor does it seem likely that they'll have two CPU dies on a very cutting edge process node, a third I/O die, and an interposer for a mainstream consumer desktop CPU that they sell for $300.  That also probably wouldn't even be a good consumer part, as always needing multiple hops to reach memory adds latency.  Maybe topology forces that on you for a 64-core server part, but not for a small consumer part.

    It sounds like their EPYC CPU chiplets for Rome will have only CPU cores and infinity fabric, but not memory controllers or PCI Express.  So they might well make a different CPU die for mainstream consumer parts, in order to add the PCI Express and memory controllers and remove the infinity fabric, unless they can somehow make the latter function as the former.  I could see them going chiplets plus a smaller I/O die than EPYC uses for Threadripper, as multiple CPU dies makes more sense as a way to get to 16 or 32 cores--and a $1000 or $2000 price tag readily covers the extra cost of production.

    There's also the issue of timing.  They've been talking about 7 nm Vega for months now.  They've already announced a lot of information about Rome.  But nothing about third generation Ryzen, merely a month before it's supposed to launch?  Other rumors say that the chipset that is supposed to go with the new CPUs is slated for Computex at the end of May.  That rumor could also be wrong, but I'm willing to predict that if AMD does launch a new chipset to accompany third generation Ryzen, it will happen at the same time that they launch the CPUs.

    At least publicly, AMD's focus on their early 7 nm parts is on enterprise stuff.  And rightly so, as they've got a huge opening to pull in literally billions per quarter on server parts, and much more modest but still substantial sums on compute GPUs.  From the paper specs, it looks like a Radeon Instinct MI60 won't be as good as a Tesla V100, but it could still be a very interesting product if it offers 80% of the performance for 20% of the price--and 20% of the price of a Tesla V100 would be considerably more than AMD now charges for their top end Radeon Pro card.

    Because consumer CPUs are much less sensitive to power consumption but more sensitive to clock speed, they don't offer nearly as large of gains from a die shrink as GPUs or server CPUs.  I can't see AMD making consumer CPUs their initial focus on a die shrink.  If Rome is what AMD is trying to convince people it will be, then Intel's Xeon Silver and Xeon Gold lines are toast--but Intel's desktop CPUs will still be competitive.

    And that's before we consider the claimed clock speeds.  Do I really believe that AMD can double the CPU core count and greatly increase clock speed for only a modest bump to TDP?  No.  No, I don't.  I'm personally expecting third generation Ryzen to offer clock speeds and core counts comparable to second generation, but with a significant IPC boost and reduced power consumption.  A modest clock speed increase of a few hundred MHz in lieu of the reduced power consumption wouldn't be surprising.

    But first parts on a new process node tend not to clock that high.  Let's not forget that the highest clocked Broadwell desktop CPU on 14 nm had a max turbo of only 3.7 GHz, though there was an embedded version that reached 3.8 GHz.  That's much lower than a Core i7-4790K that reached 4.4 GHz on 22 nm, much less the 5 GHz that a Core i9-9900K offers today.  Even if AMD eventually does launch a CPU that hits 5 GHz on 7 nm (which likely won't happen), I'd be very surprised if the very first one that they launch clocks that high at stock speeds.
    RidelynnTorvalGdemami
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,060
    edited December 2018
    Agree with Quiz - the G series shouldn’t be frequency restrained - the TDP is a constraint and if you try to push the CPU and GPU you would hit a TDP limit and the CPU would throttle, but that isn’t a reason to so severely restrict the top end turbo speed. I could see a couple hundred MHz, but not nearly a full GHz difference

    I think it’s fake, and when the 3000 does come out and does not break 5Ghz, everyone will act let down based on this rumor, no matter how good it actually is regardless
    TorvalGdemami
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,096
    Gorwe said:
    And this should also make the 2000 series cheaper. When all's done and accounted for, the Windows will be like one of the most expensive parts of my new machine. Provided I don't just, you know, crack them and stuff. Which I just might, Microsoft won't miss my 100$.

    Cheers AMD!
    Why would AMD keep selling the older CPUs at a discount?  Why not just discontinue the older CPUs once you've got the new ones that are better in every way?  Maybe you liquidate some old stock at clearance prices, but once they're gone, they're gone.
    GdemamiRidelynn
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,952
    wccftech and linustech have become a lot more sensationalized and click fluffy in the last year or so. You have to wade through a lot of BS to find anything good.
    RidelynnAmazingAvery
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,060
    Gorwe said:
    Quizzical said:
    Gorwe said:
    And this should also make the 2000 series cheaper. When all's done and accounted for, the Windows will be like one of the most expensive parts of my new machine. Provided I don't just, you know, crack them and stuff. Which I just might, Microsoft won't miss my 100$.

    Cheers AMD!
    Why would AMD keep selling the older CPUs at a discount?  Why not just discontinue the older CPUs once you've got the new ones that are better in every way?  Maybe you liquidate some old stock at clearance prices, but once they're gone, they're gone.
    Why wouldn't they? That way if someone is a special snowflake, they get their money(which they wouldn't otherwise) and they get the money of regular buyers. It's a win / win scenario and your profit margin grows. Besides, even if they wouldn't, other retailers would and seeing how there are "better"(actually more recent and probably more popular) products available, it sinks the costs of the previous models. Of course, they could stop being produced and that would throttle the "Supply" part.

    It depends. But if I can get a Ryzen 2000 or an i5 6-7000 cheaper just because a new line has arrived, I will and I won't look back. Newest and hottest is just a tax on the stupid anyhow. See: Apple. The only thing it has going for it is the design(and the popularity - but that's not rational).
    Because it takes a lot of the same resources to manufacture, and those resources are finite 
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    This looks pretty awesome on paper...
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,096
    Gorwe said:
    Quizzical said:
    Gorwe said:
    And this should also make the 2000 series cheaper. When all's done and accounted for, the Windows will be like one of the most expensive parts of my new machine. Provided I don't just, you know, crack them and stuff. Which I just might, Microsoft won't miss my 100$.

    Cheers AMD!
    Why would AMD keep selling the older CPUs at a discount?  Why not just discontinue the older CPUs once you've got the new ones that are better in every way?  Maybe you liquidate some old stock at clearance prices, but once they're gone, they're gone.
    Why wouldn't they? That way if someone is a special snowflake, they get their money(which they wouldn't otherwise) and they get the money of regular buyers. It's a win / win scenario and your profit margin grows. Besides, even if they wouldn't, other retailers would and seeing how there are "better"(actually more recent and probably more popular) products available, it sinks the costs of the previous models. Of course, they could stop being produced and that would throttle the "Supply" part.

    It depends. But if I can get a Ryzen 2000 or an i5 6-7000 cheaper just because a new line has arrived, I will and I won't look back. Newest and hottest is just a tax on the stupid anyhow. See: Apple. The only thing it has going for it is the design(and the popularity - but that's not rational).
    You can sell three products:

    A costs $40 to build and you can sell it for $150
    B costs $40 to build and you can sell it for $200
    C costs $30 to build and you can sell it for $150

    Why would you build A at all?  Maybe if there are a lot of people dumb enough to pay $200 for it, you sell it for $200.  But there's no point in building it only to sell it at a discount.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,096
    Gorwe said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Gorwe said:
    Quizzical said:
    Gorwe said:
    And this should also make the 2000 series cheaper. When all's done and accounted for, the Windows will be like one of the most expensive parts of my new machine. Provided I don't just, you know, crack them and stuff. Which I just might, Microsoft won't miss my 100$.

    Cheers AMD!
    Why would AMD keep selling the older CPUs at a discount?  Why not just discontinue the older CPUs once you've got the new ones that are better in every way?  Maybe you liquidate some old stock at clearance prices, but once they're gone, they're gone.
    Why wouldn't they? That way if someone is a special snowflake, they get their money(which they wouldn't otherwise) and they get the money of regular buyers. It's a win / win scenario and your profit margin grows. Besides, even if they wouldn't, other retailers would and seeing how there are "better"(actually more recent and probably more popular) products available, it sinks the costs of the previous models. Of course, they could stop being produced and that would throttle the "Supply" part.

    It depends. But if I can get a Ryzen 2000 or an i5 6-7000 cheaper just because a new line has arrived, I will and I won't look back. Newest and hottest is just a tax on the stupid anyhow. See: Apple. The only thing it has going for it is the design(and the popularity - but that's not rational).
    Because it takes a lot of the same resources to manufacture, and those resources are finite 
    Sure. It's a constant balancing act when it comes to economics and profit margin etc. You can discontinue old units, but then you lose a source of revenue and seeing how they're cheaper and more likely to sell(especially during various sales), you lose on the profit margin as well. It's basically a profit vs profit margin question.

    Regardless, I'll quote someone and just say "we'll see what happens".
    How do you lose revenue by discontinuing old units when you have a new unit that is just as good as the old unit but costs less to build?  Why not sell that for the same price that you would have sold the old unit at if you continued to produce it?
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited December 2018
    Quizzical said:
    Gorwe said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Gorwe said:
    Quizzical said:
    Gorwe said:
    And this should also make the 2000 series cheaper. When all's done and accounted for, the Windows will be like one of the most expensive parts of my new machine. Provided I don't just, you know, crack them and stuff. Which I just might, Microsoft won't miss my 100$.

    Cheers AMD!
    Why would AMD keep selling the older CPUs at a discount?  Why not just discontinue the older CPUs once you've got the new ones that are better in every way?  Maybe you liquidate some old stock at clearance prices, but once they're gone, they're gone.
    Why wouldn't they? That way if someone is a special snowflake, they get their money(which they wouldn't otherwise) and they get the money of regular buyers. It's a win / win scenario and your profit margin grows. Besides, even if they wouldn't, other retailers would and seeing how there are "better"(actually more recent and probably more popular) products available, it sinks the costs of the previous models. Of course, they could stop being produced and that would throttle the "Supply" part.

    It depends. But if I can get a Ryzen 2000 or an i5 6-7000 cheaper just because a new line has arrived, I will and I won't look back. Newest and hottest is just a tax on the stupid anyhow. See: Apple. The only thing it has going for it is the design(and the popularity - but that's not rational).
    Because it takes a lot of the same resources to manufacture, and those resources are finite 
    Sure. It's a constant balancing act when it comes to economics and profit margin etc. You can discontinue old units, but then you lose a source of revenue and seeing how they're cheaper and more likely to sell(especially during various sales), you lose on the profit margin as well. It's basically a profit vs profit margin question.

    Regardless, I'll quote someone and just say "we'll see what happens".
    How do you lose revenue by discontinuing old units when you have a new unit that is just as good as the old unit but costs less to build?  Why not sell that for the same price that you would have sold the old unit at if you continued to produce it?
    Any discounts will - usually - not come from the manufacturer but from somewhere else in the supply chain. The build cost is only a part of the unit cost.

    If a consumer has a choice between an older product and a better newer product at the same price then, all else being equal, they will buy the newer product.

    This is when a consumer might see the price of the older model drop; to clear inventory. The cost reduction maybe being borne by the seller, possibly the manufacturer - it depends. Remember only a part of the cost we pay is directly attributable to - in this case - to AMD. (See note.)

    However in "advanced integrated supply chains" manufacturers will work with their distributors, sellers and suppliers to keep excess stock to the absolute minimum. It is not in a manufacturers interest for e.g. a distributor to lose money possibly leading them to go under at some future date. 

    Which is why "Supply Chain Management" is a big deal.

    (Note: the exception would be if there was complete "vertical integration".)


    Post edited by gervaise1 on
    Gorwe
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,060
    No one is arguing against selling excess inventory. 
    Quizzical
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,096
    Gorwe said:
    Quizzical said:
    Gorwe said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Gorwe said:
    Quizzical said:
    Gorwe said:
    And this should also make the 2000 series cheaper. When all's done and accounted for, the Windows will be like one of the most expensive parts of my new machine. Provided I don't just, you know, crack them and stuff. Which I just might, Microsoft won't miss my 100$.

    Cheers AMD!
    Why would AMD keep selling the older CPUs at a discount?  Why not just discontinue the older CPUs once you've got the new ones that are better in every way?  Maybe you liquidate some old stock at clearance prices, but once they're gone, they're gone.
    Why wouldn't they? That way if someone is a special snowflake, they get their money(which they wouldn't otherwise) and they get the money of regular buyers. It's a win / win scenario and your profit margin grows. Besides, even if they wouldn't, other retailers would and seeing how there are "better"(actually more recent and probably more popular) products available, it sinks the costs of the previous models. Of course, they could stop being produced and that would throttle the "Supply" part.

    It depends. But if I can get a Ryzen 2000 or an i5 6-7000 cheaper just because a new line has arrived, I will and I won't look back. Newest and hottest is just a tax on the stupid anyhow. See: Apple. The only thing it has going for it is the design(and the popularity - but that's not rational).
    Because it takes a lot of the same resources to manufacture, and those resources are finite 
    Sure. It's a constant balancing act when it comes to economics and profit margin etc. You can discontinue old units, but then you lose a source of revenue and seeing how they're cheaper and more likely to sell(especially during various sales), you lose on the profit margin as well. It's basically a profit vs profit margin question.

    Regardless, I'll quote someone and just say "we'll see what happens".
    How do you lose revenue by discontinuing old units when you have a new unit that is just as good as the old unit but costs less to build?  Why not sell that for the same price that you would have sold the old unit at if you continued to produce it?
    Because you sell 2x new units for 200$ each as opposed to 2 new units for 200$ and 2 old units for 100$ each. Now, the question is: "Are these old units still worth the hassle?". Often it is, yes they are. Almost free revenue coming from excess inventory. Just an example.
    Except that you also have a new product that is just as good as the old one, except that it costs less to build.  Why not sell 2x new higher end product for $200 each and 2x new lower end product for $100?

    As Ridelynn said, no one is arguing against selling off the excess inventory that you've already built.  What I'm arguing against is continuing to build more of the old.
    RidelynnTorval
Sign In or Register to comment.