AMD X399 ！！！！！

[Glo.]

I do not want to say more, but supposedly the pricing is extremely disrupting for X399 CPUs.

 

[jpiniero]

I do not want to say more, but supposedly the pricing is extremely disrupting.

AMD hates money, don't they.

 

[krumme]

I do not want to say more, but supposedly the pricing is extremely disrupting for X399 CPUs.

Great. 16c for 800 usd.

Edit. Damn. This was written with a pinch of sarcasm but it seems virtual larry beat me to it in another thread. And not as a joke. Cool.
1700 usd cpu for entusiast is the wrong way 100%.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Great. 16c for 800 usd.

That's exactly the price point that I'm personally hoping for. That won't be the top bin, most likely, but hopefully they have a 16C for that price.

 

[DrMrLordX]

AMD hates money, don't they.

Why do you think they keep losing so much of it?

 

[krumme]

That's exactly the price point that I'm personally hoping for. That won't be the top bin, most likely, but hopefully they have a 16C for that price.

Agree. Everyone can be disruptive when the compettition is 1700 for 10 cores. Takes a lot of bs to defend. 800 for low end 16c bin sounds right.

 

[krumme]

If Intel is bringing some 24 lanes pci 8 core to this fight its like they didnt get the memo.
The segmentation crap is over.
We get compettitive stuff on both sides so old-style-beancouter-margin-crappyfood, is not accepted.

 

[itsmydamnation]

AMD hates money, don't they.

People haven't understood the point of the Zepplin SOC, I expected HEDT pricing to be disruptive because look at the price of a 1600,1600x,1700,1700x. Double that RRP + some cream is still significantly below intel HEDT pricing. Doubling RRP is more then doubling AMD margin because there are a lot of fixed costs.


AMD have lost so much money over time because BD was a failure, that hit in two ways, 1 was the massive revenue loss the second was the amount of money they have had to pay GF, both of those problems are now fixed.

 

[jpiniero]

People haven't understood the point of the Zepplin SOC, I expected HEDT pricing to be disruptive because look at the price of a 1600,1600x,1700,1700x. Double that RRP + some cream is still significantly below intel HEDT pricing. Doubling RRP is more then doubling AMD margin because there are a lot of fixed costs.

That's if they actually convert sales though, adding cores isn't going to help gaming at all (esp vs Intel) so it's like who's going to buy it. Going cheap on HEDT means they will have to cut prices on the cheaper models. I suppose you could argue it's going to happen anyway but by going cheap on HEDT it's only going to hurt the products that actually generate sales (ie: the 1600 and 1700).

Could be great for workstations that could use the threads if it has proper ECC support.

 

[formulav8]

Threadripper could also suffer from 4 CCX design making it only suitable for servers.

My understanding is most who buy's Intel's HEDT setup doesn't have gaming as their main, or even only gaming in mind, at least the ones I know and do not know personally. 7700k shows up Intel's $1K cpu quite a bit in gaming. I am not aware of anyone who buys HEDT for outright gaming performance. To each their own I guess though if its true.

 

[Abwx]

the rumoured SKUs are too good to be true on 14LPP from a TDP point of view. But the 14LPU process mentioned here is a real wild card. I am not sure if 14LPU is in production yet.

https://news.samsung.com/global/sam...ndry-offerings-with-14lpu-and-10lpu-processes

LPU is 4th gen while LPP is 2nd gen...

Samsung’s fourth-generation 14nm process technology, 14LPU, delivers higher performance at the same power and design rules compared to its third-generation 14nm process (14LPC)

That being said LPP is adequate assuming some trivial and generic improvements.

 

[farosis]

interesting, suddenly, lower product price become AMD's problem, 1000$ product will hurt sales for 1600 and 1700? seriously? may Intel live long and prosper for their 10 core 1200$ CPUs!

 

[maddie]

That's if they actually convert sales though, adding cores isn't going to help gaming at all (esp vs Intel) so it's like who's going to buy it. Going cheap on HEDT means they will have to cut prices on the cheaper models. I suppose you could argue it's going to happen anyway but by going cheap on HEDT it's only going to hurt the products that actually generate sales (ie: the 1600 and 1700).

Could be great for workstations that could use the threads if it has proper ECC support.

Once they get more than double a 1600 for a 12 core, and double a 1700, for a 16 core, they're ahead. As for a gaming machine on 16 cores, a waste of money, but a workstation heaven for most.independent professionals.

I remember you writing that Polaris could never be close to $200 and Zen could never be $400-500. Why the hate for reasonable prices?

 

[bauerbrazil2014]

https://twitter.com/WikiChip/status/863874789622022145

 

[blue11]

Looking bad for Intel there.

i9-7920X: 12 * 3.3 = 39.6 GHz
R9-1998X: 16 * 3.5 = 56 GHz

And it's all at the same TDP.

EDIT: If it's real. I can't find this any source for this information.

 

[Topweasel]

Once they get more than double a 1600 for a 12 core, and double a 1700, for a 16 core, they're ahead. As for a gaming machine on 16 cores, a waste of money, but a workstation heaven for most.independent professionals.

I remember you writing that Polaris could never be close to $200 and Zen could never be $400-500. Why the hate for reasonable prices?

It's the kind of nonsense that people shout out because of standard retail pricing you learn from econ class. It's the set target amount of money you should charge at minimum for a product that costs x amount. That is a in perfect world calculation when everything is equal. The projections on Polaris weren't based on it being $200 or more to produce. It was on it being $50-$60 a chip. AMD need to stay in the market and keep as much market share as possible had a chip that they could still sell at a profit even if it was a reduced one. Same thing with Ryzen, cept and this HEDT lineup. Considering the overall die size sure AMD in a perfect world would price it higher. But it's not like they aren't making a healthier profit off of Ryzen already adding two for double the price with the same distribution and packaging cost means increased profits anyways and gets them market penetration into a market they evacuated (pun not intended) 5 years ago.

 

[formulav8]

bauerbrazil2014,

My understanding is Ryzen's setup is 64 PCI-Express lanes, a bit higher than Intel's.

 

[maddie]

bauerbrazil2014,

My understanding is Ryzen's setup is 64 PCI-Express lanes, a bit higher than Intel's.

I remember reading that some lanes would be used for inter-die comms connecting to the infinity fabric on each.

 

[itsmydamnation]

I remember reading that some lanes would be used for inter-die comms connecting to the infinity fabric on each.

There are two types of infinity fabric connections on a Zepplin SOC, GMI and GMIx. GMI has its own physical dedicated interface ( this can be seen both in die shots and in the developer guide) GMI is used for the on package interconnect. GMIx uses the 12g phy's which is what pcie,10gbe,SATA,etc all share, GMIx is used for inter socket links. If the HEDT only has 44 lanes, that means 20 lanes are being used for other services ( chipset, SATA, NVME, 10gbe etc) or its an artificial limitation.

cheers

 

[moonbogg]

If AMD offers two versions of each chip, one being a better value, then Intel is just screwed here. I fully expect X399 to put X299 on blast, hard. These are productivity chips where threads matter. Gamers need not apply here and individual core performance is less critical. And yeah, if Intel seriously offers an 8 core with less lanes on it, then holy crap they just lost this fight unless that chip cost $400-$500. Everyone seems to have forgotten about the R7 1700. How in the &^$%^ is Intel going to counter the value of that chip? Someone please splain.

 

[Glo.]

Great. 16c for 800 usd.

Edit. Damn. This was written with a pinch of sarcasm but it seems virtual larry beat me to it in another thread. And not as a joke. Cool.
1700 usd cpu for entusiast is the wrong way 100%.

If we are lucky we should expect 10C/20T at 800$ price point.

Overall, price for top end CPU is much lower than Intel top offering, but it is over 1000$.

 

[Rngwn]

I am curious about one thing. The R9 SKUs are supposed to be in 4CCX configuration (with 4 cores in each) and the disabling of the cores should be uniform across all CCX's they amalgamated together. Now, that means the existence of 10 and 14 cores do not possible unless AMD is actually using two 8-core CCX, or simply not equally disabling the core in each of the four 4-core CCXs.

 

[itsmydamnation]

I am curious about one thing. The R9 SKUs are supposed to be in 4CCX configuration (with 4 cores in each) and the disabling of the cores should be uniform across all CCX's they amalgamated together. Now, that means the existence of 10 and 14 cores do not possible unless AMD is actually using two 8-core CCX, or simply not equally disabling the core in each of the four 4-core CCXs.

We dont know yet but it could just need to be symmetrical on the SOC, .So you end up with combinations like 3+3+4+4 and 3+3+2+2. Or they could all be fake and we only get 8,12,16 core parts

 

[The Stilt]

https://twitter.com/WikiChip/status/863874789622022145

Seems legit as it isn't technically possible to have 10C or 14C configurations with Zen.

 

[flash-gordon]

Can an APU land on this socket? Not that it would make much sense...