Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
AMD Ryzen 3000 spec and price leaked
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
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.
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.
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
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
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".)
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.