AMD Trims Prices of the Ryzen 7 1700 and 1700X

[Nihilus]

AMD is starting to realalize that > 95% of people out there don't give a flying f*ck about content creation (encoding and rendering) - but they do care about IPC which you cannot replace with 1000 cores for single threaded applications.

Two weeks ago I built a system based on Intel Core i5 7400 along with 240GB SSD and 8GB DDR4 2400MHz for $500. A Ryzen 1600 based one would have cost at least $200 more.

I guess I am in the 5%. How a system performs in real world scenarios matters more to me than an arbitrary IPC number. I know, weird.

Curious how a Ryzen could cost more than an i5 based sysetem when the motherboards are generally cheaper.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

Really now AMD? cutting prices again at products that doesn't seem to sell well? I thought the RyZen chip was already good & whooped Intel's corporate ass in terms of value? Guess I was wrong... Intel just gave the whooping back at ya with Kaby Lake-X & Skylake-X release.

 

[geon2k2]

Yeah, I do. I also remember, in 2017 prior to zens release, 8 core AMD parts getting spanked by intel in every application, and barely selling at all. And 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Then suddenly, zen comes out, is competitive core for core, and suddenly boom! sales increase. If it were due to moar coars, then the FX line wouldnt have bombed so abysmally.

The best selling DIY parts were 4 core i7 and i5 parts, not 6 core i7s, and not 8 core FX units. It's performance, not core count, that sells. Look at the steam hardware survey. 2-4 cores makes up 90+% of CPUs. 49% 4 cores, 45% dual cores, 4.25% more than 4 cores. There is 0 evidence that moar coars sells for anything but a niche market.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear it. Sales numbers, shipments, ece.

Actually I agree with R0H1T, people didn't buy the FX because it was bashed in all the forums and there was this perception that intel is good and amd is bad, but guess what the FXs are still decent CPUs.

I just checked now for the sake of the argument the last 3 games bechmarked by the the guys at techspot as they do also cpu tests and the results are:
- For Honor - 113 fps average
- Battlefield 1 - 102 fps in dx12, 83 in dx11
- Titanfall 2 - 122 fps

http://www.techspot.com/features/gaming-benchmarks/

That's more than decent, so perception and brand sells, not pure performance. Its easier when you go to work and say ... yeah ... i bought that new i7 ... instead of justifying to colleagues what is Amd and why did you buy that one, when everybody is saying it is a bad cpu ...

BTW 4 core parts sell because they are cheaper, not because people wouldn't want more cores and I really think 2 cores should be only for the ultra low power devices. In 2017 there should not be any desktop with 2 cores.

 

[Fouquin]

Yeah, I do. I also remember, in 2017 prior to zens release, 8 core AMD parts getting spanked by intel in every application, and barely selling at all. And 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Then suddenly, zen comes out, is competitive core for core, and suddenly boom! sales increase. If it were due to moar coars, then the FX line wouldnt have bombed so abysmally.

The best selling DIY parts were 4 core i7 and i5 parts, not 6 core i7s, and not 8 core FX units. It's performance, not core count, that sells. Look at the steam hardware survey. 2-4 cores makes up 90+% of CPUs. 49% 4 cores, 45% dual cores, 4.25% more than 4 cores. There is 0 evidence that moar coars sells for anything but a niche market.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear it. Sales numbers, shipments, ece.

"Computing Solutions net revenue of $5.0 billion in 2011 increased 4% compared to net revenue of 4.8 billion in 2010, primarily as a result of a 16% increase in unit shipments partially offset by an 11% decrease in average selling price. The increase in unit shipments was attributable to an increase in unit shipments of our microprocessors, including APU products for mobile devices, as well as our chipset products. Unit shipments of our microprocessors, including APU products for mobile devices increased due to strong demand for our Brazos and Llano-based APU platforms. However, the increase in unit shipments in 2011 was limited by supply constraints with respect to certain microprocessor products manufactured using the 32nm technology node." - 2012 AMD Annual Report, Page 56

Interesting that for chips that DIDN'T sell they sold enough to turn a profit and couldn't keep up with manufacturing during the first year. Now you can read the reports yourself and see that shipments decreased in 2012 and 2013, but that does not mean they sold zero units. They were still selling units at expected rates while also having to maintain contractual orders with GF that exceeded shipments, which meant a net loss due to inventory and ordering costs.

 

[ratirt]

Really now AMD? cutting prices again at products that doesn't seem to sell well? I thought the RyZen chip was already good & whooped Intel's corporate ass in terms of value? Guess I was wrong... Intel just gave the whooping back at ya with Kaby Lake-X & Skylake-X release.

I don't think that price cut is an indication for bad sales. There's other stuff that can affect price cuts and bad sales may have nothing to do with it.

 

[Raevenlord]

I don't think that price cut is an indication for bad sales. There's other stuff that can affect price cuts and bad sales may have nothing to do with it.

Like keeping momentum, or yields being even better than initially expected, as it seems to be the case. Better yields = more volume = Lower pricing, which ends up helping AMD in capturing marketshare, mindshare, and higher profits through higher volume with slightly lower pricing.

Either that or Intel's hold and pedestal presence in buyer's minds is so great that even Ryzen is facing somewhat low sales. And that has nothing to do with the quality of the product, which is, as we know, excellent.

 

[Octavean]

Perhaps its just to allow for price adjustments for the upcoming AMD Threadripper line.

Based on AMD RyZen 7 release pricing:

RyZen 7 - 1700 (8 core) = $350
RyZen 7 - 1700X (8 core) = $399
RyZen 7 - 1800X (8 core) = $499

We see a simple pattern. $100 difference between adjacent processors designated with "X" suffix and a $50 difference between processors of the same number with / without the "X" suffix.

In order to predict (i.e speculate) AMD Threadripper pricing we can continue that pattern working our way up from the 1800X:

RyZen 9 - 1955 (10 core) = $550
RyZen 9 - 1955X (10 core) = $599

RyZen 9 - 1956 (12 core) = $650
RyZen 9 - 1956X (12 core) = $699

RyZen 9 - 1976X (14 core) = $799
RyZen 9 - 1977 (14 core) = $850
RyZen 9 - 1977x (14 core) = $899

RyZen 9 - 1998 (16 core) = $950
RyZen 9 - 1998X (16 core) = $999

We can then price adjust with the recent price drop. However, it might still be too early to say if AMD is done adjusting prices downward for the RyZen 7 line.

Part of AMD's problem though is that even though the RyZen 7 1800X launched with a very reasonable price with respect to its performance and competition (Core i7 6800K / Core i7 6850K) you have to consider the target audience. Most enthusiasts aren't enthused about the idea of spending ~$500+ on a processor. Those willing buy AMD processors understand that they can buy either the 1700 or 1700X for a lower price and still achieve about the same performance as the 1800X when OCed.

That makes the 1800X a poor choice for most enthusiasts. So its reasonable to assume that the 1800X isn't selling well among those who have more sense then money.

I'd speculate that the OC potential for AMD Threadripper will be no greater then RyZen 7. So clocks significantly over 4.3GHz on air are unlikely IMO and IPC will likely be no different as well.

People are really going to have to have a legitimate need for all those cores and threads for it to make sense to spend north of ~$500 USD (possibly starting at ~$550 / ~$600 USD) on a CPU alone.

Especially so if all they want to do is play games and they are well served by a ~$330 Intel Core i7 7700K with 4.2 base and 4.5 turbo boost (that can OC beyond default).

But this is something we already knew. The Intel HEDT line wasn't really intended for gaming and thus would have been an expensive choice. The same is likely true for Threadripper which would probably be better suited for server and workstations uses.

 

[xenocide]

I don't think that price cut is an indication for bad sales. There's other stuff that can affect price cuts and bad sales may have nothing to do with it.

You don't cut prices on products that are selling incredibly well. That just wouldn't make sense, and goes against basic economics.

 

[R-T-B]

You don't cut prices on products that are selling incredibly well. That just wouldn't make sense, and goes against basic economics.

You do if your competitor changes the landscape in a way that you anticipate will reduce sales. In economics, it pays to anticipate the future. If you wait for sales to falter before a price slash, you've already lost.

 

[suraswami]

Actually I agree with R0H1T, people didn't buy the FX because it was bashed in all the forums and there was this perception that intel is good and amd is bad, but guess what the FXs are still decent CPUs.

I just checked now for the sake of the argument the last 3 games bechmarked by the the guys at techspot as they do also cpu tests and the results are:
- For Honor - 113 fps average
- Battlefield 1 - 102 fps in dx12, 83 in dx11
- Titanfall 2 - 122 fps

http://www.techspot.com/features/gaming-benchmarks/

That's more than decent, so perception and brand sells, not pure performance. Its easier when you go to work and say ... yeah ... i bought that new i7 ... instead of justifying to colleagues what is Amd and why did you buy that one, when everybody is saying it is a bad cpu ...

BTW 4 core parts sell because they are cheaper, not because people wouldn't want more cores and I really think 2 cores should be only for the ultra low power devices. In 2017 there should not be any desktop with 2 cores.

Well Said

 

[phanbuey]

Actually I agree with R0H1T, people didn't buy the FX because it was bashed in all the forums and there was this perception that intel is good and amd is bad, but guess what the FXs are still decent CPUs.

I just checked now for the sake of the argument the last 3 games bechmarked by the the guys at techspot as they do also cpu tests and the results are:
- For Honor - 113 fps average
- Battlefield 1 - 102 fps in dx12, 83 in dx11
- Titanfall 2 - 122 fps

http://www.techspot.com/features/gaming-benchmarks/

That's more than decent, so perception and brand sells, not pure performance. Its easier when you go to work and say ... yeah ... i bought that new i7 ... instead of justifying to colleagues what is Amd and why did you buy that one, when everybody is saying it is a bad cpu ...

BTW 4 core parts sell because they are cheaper, not because people wouldn't want more cores and I really think 2 cores should be only for the ultra low power devices. In 2017 there should not be any desktop with 2 cores.

average is not the problem... it's the lows.

 

[Fx]

AMD is starting to realalize that > 95% of people out there don't give a flying f*ck about content creation (encoding and rendering)

I stopped reading after this. Nonsense.

 

[Casecutter]

Seeing today a i7 7700k is found for $278 what AMD is doing is just shadowing Intel as it competes.
http://bensbargains.com/bargain/intel-core-i7-7700k-4-2ghz-quad-core-kaby-lake-cpu-543724/

An i7 7700K about 6 months ago was $400, then 2 months later (Feb/March) it went to $350, then found over and over for $300, what AMD is normal given the market disruptions. Intel has dumped price >25% in a two quarters, and folk have a have a problem with AMD chasing them...