Review AMD Ryzen 9 7900X Review: Zen 4 Has a Pricing Problem

[Admin]

AMD's Zen 4 Ryzen 9 7900X comes packing 12 cores and 24 threads etched on the 5nm process node. We put the chip through our extensive tests to see how it stacks up.

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X Review: Zen 4 Has a Pricing Problem : Read more

 

[chalabam]

The charts are hard to read. The fonts are too small, and the lines and dashes are very difficult to tell apart.

 

[ddcservices]

Yet more nonsense in a supposedly unbiased review. Motherboards aren't really all that much more expensive than what came out for previous generations, outside of the boards that have far too many features or just add things that will cost a lot. PCI Express 5.0 support for example...a single PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot would be normal, and you will get it from all of the AM5 motherboards. Add a x16 slot with PCIe 5.0, and that adds to the prices.

So, beyond this, boards like the Asus x670e Hero for $700...three M.2 slots with PCIe 5.0 speeds, the number of ports, this and that...yep, excessive, but the number of PCIe 5.0 slots are going to do that, along with Asus just charging a lot. The ASRock boards are NOT overpriced, and many of the other motherboards aren't overpriced really. So, no reason to complain about prices.

DDR5...$70 more than good DDR4 memory, compare the price of DDR4-3600 to DDR5-6000, yea, a bit of a price premium for DDR5, but it's new, and DDR5 prices are NOT really horrible. So, "pricing problem" seems to be more about an Intel bias, because other than, "it's new and hasn't been discounted". The pure gaming performance people will be happy with older AM4 for this generation and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but for those who do more than play games, honestly, motherboard+CPU+RAM all at the same time, CPU prices are NOT at a premium compared to previous generations, motherboards are generally at a comparable price, outside of a lack of cheap/low end boards that have no features, and B650 will cover that for the most part. RAM, don't compare DDR4-3000 to DDR5-6000 for price, because that's not a fair comparison. As I said, G.skill Trident Z5 Neo 6000CL30 vs. DDR4-3600CL14, what's the real price difference? Not really enough to complain about.

I may be biased, but not pointing out how Intel boards with similar features and on DDR5(not the cheaper DDR4 versions) are only cheaper because Intel is willing to give away chipsets at this point.

 

[TechieTwo]

According to reviews from those building AM5 systems the performance and value is fine from those not buying the extortion model mobos.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

Yet more nonsense in a supposedly unbiased review. Motherboards aren't really all that much more expensive than what came out for previous generations

uhm, yes they are

The motherboards are a lot more expensive in nominal terms. Add in the depreciation of many currencies, and these AMD motherboards are extremely expensive. Add in the cost of DDR5.

The result is an outrageously expensive Zen 4 platform that doesn't even perform that well in games.

Zen 4 is going to need a massive price cut when Raptor lake arrives in a few days. Price / performance, Zen 4 is a disaster. The review is spot on.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

DDR5 prices are NOT really horrible

Yes they are. Regardless, you have to buy new memory. It's not just about how much more DDR5 costs compared to DDR4, it's about needing to throw away DDR4 because AMD had the bright idea that dropping DDR4 compatbility was a smart move. This foolish decision is going to cost them a lot in sales.

 

[fybyfyby]

Yet more nonsense in a supposedly unbiased review. Motherboards aren't really all that much more expensive than what came out for previous generations, outside of the boards that have far too many features or just add things that will cost a lot. PCI Express 5.0 support for example...a single PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot would be normal, and you will get it from all of the AM5 motherboards. Add a x16 slot with PCIe 5.0, and that adds to the prices.

So, beyond this, boards like the Asus x670e Hero for $700...three M.2 slots with PCIe 5.0 speeds, the number of ports, this and that...yep, excessive, but the number of PCIe 5.0 slots are going to do that, along with Asus just charging a lot. The ASRock boards are NOT overpriced, and many of the other motherboards aren't overpriced really. So, no reason to complain about prices.

DDR5...$70 more than good DDR4 memory, compare the price of DDR4-3600 to DDR5-6000, yea, a bit of a price premium for DDR5, but it's new, and DDR5 prices are NOT really horrible. So, "pricing problem" seems to be more about an Intel bias, because other than, "it's new and hasn't been discounted". The pure gaming performance people will be happy with older AM4 for this generation and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but for those who do more than play games, honestly, motherboard+CPU+RAM all at the same time, CPU prices are NOT at a premium compared to previous generations, motherboards are generally at a comparable price, outside of a lack of cheap/low end boards that have no features, and B650 will cover that for the most part. RAM, don't compare DDR4-3000 to DDR5-6000 for price, because that's not a fair comparison. As I said, G.skill Trident Z5 Neo 6000CL30 vs. DDR4-3600CL14, what's the real price difference? Not really enough to complain about.

I may be biased, but not pointing out how Intel boards with similar features and on DDR5(not the cheaper DDR4 versions) are only cheaper because Intel is willing to give away chipsets at this point.

I agree with some of your statements. I bought new platform and it was worth it. But if I compare prices, DDR5 6000 EXPO costs nearly double the DDR4. Motherboard - ASUS B650 - E costs 9500 CZK and AM4 version (B550 - E) cost me 6500 CZK - but I didnt buy it at the start of the chipset. It was during the chipset lifetime. anyway, its more expensive. It may be due to PCIex5 added cost, I dont know. Also, DDR5 are new. Every gen, new DDR memories are "expensive".

So nothing to whine about. CPUs are great and if for someone AM5 is expensive, he or she can buy AM4 and it will last several years without a problem.

 

[somebassplayer]

The "pricing problem" is early adopter tax. People who want to be the first on their block to get onto 7xxxx series should expect to pay high(er) prices. The rest of us will wait until prices come down before
upgrading.

 

[ikernelpro4]

The "pricing problem" is early adopter tax. People who want to be the first on their block to get onto 7xxxx series should expect to pay high(er) prices. The rest of us will wait until prices come down before
upgrading.

I don't know about you but AM4 compatibility would've been clever to at least get more people / "early adopters".

Yes they are. Regardless, you have to buy new memory. It's not just about how much more DDR5 costs compared to DDR4, it's about needing to throw away DDR4 because AMD had the bright idea that dropping DDR4 compatbility was a smart move. This foolish decision is going to cost them a lot in sales.

100%. A lot of folks bought fast, perhaps even premium, DDR4 RAM in the past year or two, especially during the crazy-price pandemic.
I bought DDR4 3200 RAM and I do not plan to upgrade any time soon regardless what chip manufacturers present.

AMD simply bet on the wrong horse.
This is not a new platform that people who want to build complete new systems will fall onto, the price is not allowing that.

DDR5 is fast but you know what's also BLAZING fast? DDR4. Especially +3200 MHz. This is not a noticeble, jump like you PC unfreezes or suddenly memory intensive operations run like a night-day difference.

We have reached a point where "old" aka current hardware is so fast, that even many(!) years from now, they'll be fast and viable enough to substain.
This is not a jump from 5MB of DDR2 RAM to 16GB DDR4, this isn't a completely new platform. There's no incentive.

 

[Pyrostemplar]

uhm, yes they are

The motherboards are a lot more expensive in nominal terms. Add in the depreciation of many currencies, and these AMD motherboards are extremely expensive. Add in the cost of DDR5.

The result is an outrageously expensive Zen 4 platform that doesn't even perform that well in games.

Zen 4 is going to need a massive price cut when Raptor lake arrives in a few days. Price / performance, Zen 4 is a disaster. The review is spot on.

No, it is a rather poor review, as it bases most (if not all) of its conclusion on the price of other components. In itself it wouldn't unreasonable if there was anything structurally definitive about the price of those said components: e.g. 4 channel server class motherboards. But no, AM5 mobos and DDR5 are the mainstream solutions going forward, so this review - and its conclusion - will age really badly.

AM5 X670E motherboards are already available under 300USD, and DDR5 is dropping price by the day. They won't go under DDR4 solutions pricing, but with inflation as it is, that is not really surprising, is it?

Zen 4 itself doesn't need a price cut unless Raptor outperforms its price/performance. If it does, then price cuts will be forthcoming - all the better for me

 

[cirdecus]

This is really not a good review. You don't knock off two stars for a product that is an excellent performer, priced well and uses the latest platform and technology. If you're upset that DD5 and AM5 costs a lot of money, that's a completely different article.

Also, every new technology has come with a cost premium. Right now, you're intersecting a new socket, with new RAM technology and new PCI 5.0 tech all into one upgrade cycle. I don't care whether you go with an Intel platform or AMD platform, you're paying a lot for DD5, regardless. If you downgrade to DDR4, great, you can go with intel.


Complaining that DDR 5200 (6000 is actually what AMD recommends) is only supported by one channel and filling out the banks with 4 sticks drops the speed, is a relatively decent complaint. However, it's half a star at best. You're not going to win an argument that people need more than 64GB of highspeed memory in a system like this. If you need more, then this isn't the right platform. Users should be steered towards AMD's HEDT Thread-rippers. Mainstream processors simply don't need more than 64GB of memory. That's the equivalent of knocking an automobile manufacturer for not offering a 15000lbs towing capacity for their mid-sized trucks.

 

[cirdecus]

Is it me, or does Tom's Hardware seem weirdly biased with Intel and Apple?

 

[BogdanH]

Expensive or not, worth or not... are always personal opinions, which also depend on wallet thickness and important: do these opinions comes from someone who already decided for AM5, or it comes from someone who hoped to upgrade from AM4... or from someone, who currently still runs an old-timer and so really needs a new PC.

Regardless how we calculate, latest tech or not (there has always been "latest tech" in the past!), fact is, PC hardware is noticeable more expensive than it was in past 10-15 years. And so my guess is, AM5 will be adopted mostly by those who can afford it comfortably.. or those who are ready to eat only bean for lunch every day for next few months.

Those who have decent AM4 (or Intel's pendant) system, probably aren't ready to pay that much to gain 10-15%. And those, who have much older PC's, well... there's obvious reason why they didn't/couldn't keep up -and so they will look after more affordable solution.

I don't say AMD (or Intel) has bad product. The problem is (at least I see it that way), considering current market prices, it's bad timing to ask for "full" upgrade.

Just sharing my thoughts,
Bogdan