News AMD Zen 4 CPU Pricing Leaked: Ryzen 9 7950X May Cost Over $800

[Admin]

An anonymous source has provided news outlet VideoCardz with the alleged packaging and pricing for AMD's Ryzen 7000 processors.

AMD Zen 4 CPU Pricing Leaked: Ryzen 9 7950X May Cost Over $800 : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

I think most people would be ok with the 7900X and 7950X being the pricy siblings compared to the 7700X and 7600X, for sure. They can leave a huge gap in between that can be easily filled with a 7800X and/or a 7800X3D (I wish they just call it 7850X >_>) later on as needed and accoriding to market conditions. DDR5 is going to be a real pain for AMD, so they need to equalize or Raptor Lake, even if it is late, will sweep the biggest selling brackets at a time where each CPU sold counts for both camps; this is me saying as we're going into recession, each item sold will be important.

Well, that's my take at least.

Regards.

 

[cryoburner]

I question the likelihood that these would be the prices. So, we are to believe that AMD will release an 8-core, 16-thread 7700X for $300, but then they are also releasing a 7800X with the same amount of cores, threads and cache for more than $450? What exactly is the 7800X going to have to offer that would justify a more than $150 price premium over the 7700X? With the last generation, there was a difference in core count, with the $300 part only getting six cores, but not apparently this time, at least according to this data.

The only ways I could see that happening would be if the 7800X were actually a 7800X3D with an additional cache chip. Or if it were a 12-core part, to better compete with Intel's additional E-cores. Or maybe if the chips were highly binned, and managed to get into the 6GHz range, with performance that can surpass RaptorLake. At the very least, competition from Raptor Lake is likely to be strong, with the i7 parts having the same number of performance cores and threads, but also 8 low-power E-cores for improved multithreaded performance, with overall performance that will likely be better than the current i9s. So I doubt AMD would regain the lead in at least multithreaded performance with an 8-core, 16-thread part at that price point.

However, if the Ryzen 7 7700X does end up debuting for under $300, the Ryzen 5 7600X could launch at $250, so budget gamers should probably keep a close eye on the latter.

I also suspect there will be a bigger price difference than that between the 7700X and the 7600X. If the 7700X ends up being $300, why would anyone go with the 7600X with fewer cores for just a $50 difference? There would have to be more like a $70+ difference for that part to make much sense,

 

[-Fran-]

I question the likelihood that these would be the prices. So, we are to believe that AMD will release an 8-core, 16-thread 7700X for $300, but then they are also releasing a 7800X with the same amount of cores, threads and cache for more than $450? What exactly is the 7800X going to have to offer that would justify a more than $150 price premium over the 7700X? With the last generation, there was a difference in core count, with the $300 part only getting six cores, but not apparently this time, at least according to this data.

The only ways I could see that happening would be if the 7800X were actually a 7800X3D with an additional cache chip. Or if it were a 12-core part, to better compete with Intel's additional E-cores. Or maybe if the chips were highly binned, and managed to get into the 6GHz range, with performance that can surpass RaptorLake. At the very least, competition from Raptor Lake is likely to be strong, with the i7 parts having the same number of performance cores and threads, but also 8 low-power E-cores for improved multithreaded performance, with overall performance that will likely be better than the current i9s. So I doubt AMD would regain the lead in at least multithreaded performance with an 8-core, 16-thread part at that price point.


I also suspect there will be a bigger price difference than that between the 7700X and the 7600X. If the 7700X ends up being $300, why would anyone go with the 7600X with fewer cores for just a $50 difference? There would have to be more like a $70+ difference for that part to make much sense,

Do not forget the DDR5-only restriction on AM5.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

I question the likelihood that these would be the prices. So, we are to believe that AMD will release an 8-core, 16-thread 7700X for $300, but then they are also releasing a 7800X with the same amount of cores, threads and cache for more than $450? What exactly is the 7800X going to have to offer that would justify a more than $150 price premium over the 7700X?

They did the same thing with the 5700x and 5800x so why does it look weird to you now?
The 5800x is a 105W "TDP" CPU while the 5700x is 65W so no matter how close the base numbers look, actual performance will be different especially when using PBO.
Intel calls it K and non-k so that you know there will be a difference, with AMD you have to look that stuff up because "all the CPUs are "unlocked" " .

 

[logainofhades]

Yea DDR5 is still stubbornly expensive. Close to twice the cost, for the same capacity of ddr4.

PCPartPicker Part List

Memory: TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-5200 CL40 Memory ($169.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($84.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $254.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2022-08-09 18:56 EDT-0400

 

[cryoburner]

They did the same thing with the 5700x and 5800x so why does it look weird to you now?

That's not the same at all. The 5700X didn't launch until just several months ago, a year and a half after the 5800X came out, and by then the 5800X had been priced under $400 for quite a while already. The 5700X was more or less released as a price-reduced version of the 5800X, to better compete with Intel after Alder Lake retook the performance lead. When the 5000-series first came out, it made some sense for AMD to charge a premium, as those processors were outperforming Intel at the high-end all around, so demand outpaced their supply. By the time the 5700X came out though, that was no longer the case.

There's also the 5800X3D that launched alongside the 5700X, though that incorporated additional hardware in the form of a cache chip bonded to the processor that allowed it to match or in some cases outperform Intel's top-end processor in gaming. So again, it's going to be in high demand, at least in the short-term. In order for the 7800X to command an even larger premium over the 7700X, it's pretty much going to need to outperform Intel, at least in certain tasks like gaming, while the 7700X would need to perform enough behind to justify the price difference.

The 5800x is a 105W "TDP" CPU while the 5700x is 65W so no matter how close the base numbers look, actual performance will be different especially when using PBO.

Not really. If anything, PBO makes the two chips perform even closer to one another, within a few percent at most, and the two tend to offer virtually identical performance in games, either with or without it enabled. And as far as power consumption goes, PBO can push the 5700X up to 5800X levels.

 

[wifiburger]

too expensive, they will have to drop prices since you need new mobo + ddr5

if not Intel 13th gen + keep ddr4 will come out cheaper if you want the latest cpu

 

[daworstplaya]

too expensive, they will have to drop prices since you need new mobo + ddr5

if not Intel 13th gen + keep ddr4 will come out cheaper if you want the latest cpu

^This! I think most people will just skip upgrading the CPU until the prices become a little more sane. As the CPU usually isn't the bottleneck in most gaming instances. Not to mention Intel will put the price pressure on AMD. Would be shocked if the 7600X costs more than $199 being a budget chip.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

^This! I think most people will just skip upgrading the CPU until the prices become a little more sane. As the CPU usually isn't the bottleneck in most gaming instances. Not to mention Intel will put the price pressure on AMD.

Agreed. I'm imagining at least waiting until DDR5 prices are more reasonable.

Would be shocked if the 7600X costs more than $199 being a budget chip.

I'd be nice if it were, but I can see a world where AMD decides it can charge $250 for one reason or another. Was considering upgrading to AM5 from i7-4790k, but now I'm gonna wait till Raptor-Lake at least, probably until DDR5 becomes more mainstream with Zen 5? and whatever socket and Lake Intel puts out after this one that only supports DDR5.

Hopefully by then, we'll have a better price for DDR5, more maturity with AM5 motherboards, and a better idea of how future AM5 CPUs and next-gen Lakes compare with each other.

 

[spongiemaster]

The name of this website should be changed to TomsPinchOfSalt.com. Seriously, is there some requirement by the owners of this site to include that phrase in every news article that is posted here?

 

[peachpuff]

The name of this website should be changed to TomsPinchOfSalt.com. Seriously, is there some requirement by the owners of this site to include that phrase in every news article that is posted here?

I vote for TomsJustBuyIt.com

 

[escksu]

I think pricing is still ok for 7950 since its 16 cores.

Most people will be going for 6-8 core variants instead.

One thing which I feel don't make sense is 7700 vs 7800.... I am not sure it that tiny speed difference is worth it. I doubt AMD will launch 7700x.

 

[escksu]

That's not the same at all. The 5700X didn't launch until just several months ago, a year and a half after the 5800X came out, and by then the 5800X had been priced under $400 for quite a while already. The 5700X was more or less released as a price-reduced version of the 5800X, to better compete with Intel after Alder Lake retook the performance lead. When the 5000-series first came out, it made some sense for AMD to charge a premium, as those processors were outperforming Intel at the high-end all around, so demand outpaced their supply. By the time the 5700X came out though, that was no longer the case.

There's also the 5800X3D that launched alongside the 5700X, though that incorporated additional hardware in the form of a cache chip bonded to the processor that allowed it to match or in some cases outperform Intel's top-end processor in gaming. So again, it's going to be in high demand, at least in the short-term. In order for the 7800X to command an even larger premium over the 7700X, it's pretty much going to need to outperform Intel, at least in certain tasks like gaming, while the 7700X would need to perform enough behind to justify the price difference.


Not really. If anything, PBO makes the two chips perform even closer to one another, within a few percent at most, and the two tend to offer virtually identical performance in games, either with or without it enabled. And as far as power consumption goes, PBO can push the 5700X up to 5800X levels.

YUp, agreed. 5700x and 5600 came out much later than 5800x and 5600x.

 

[shady28]

Sorry, this pricing is nuts above the 7700X. 7700X looks like the sweet spot at $299.

I'm sure AMD has factored in a relatively slow adoption rate due to MB + RAM upgrade cost.

I would bet a lot of people will walk in thinking Zen 4 or Raptor Lake, and walk out holding Zen 3 or Alder Lake as those are both comparatively cheap.

 

[kanewolf]

^This! I think most people will just skip upgrading the CPU until the prices become a little more sane. As the CPU usually isn't the bottleneck in most gaming instances. Not to mention Intel will put the price pressure on AMD. Would be shocked if the 7600X costs more than $199 being a budget chip.

It depends on what you are upgrading from. I still run a first gen Ryzen. My 5 year refresh cycle is due. 7700X pricing is similar to what I spent on the 1700 (non-X) in 2017.

 

[lmcnabney]

Far too expensive and the PC market is contracting. They need to undercut Intel by $50-100 at each segment to balance for the high cost of DDR5. If they don't system builders will do the math and build cheaper Alder Lake and premium Raptor Lake systems that perform on par with Zen 4 for a couple hundred less.
Maybe they can offer a DDR5 rebate or bundle?

I can't believe that after waiting for Zen 4 I am going to end up with another Intel system because AMD bungled the memory.

 

[ottonis]

Quite a few of those looking for a 16 core CPU will likely be deterred by a price of >800 USD, considering that the current top of the line Ryzen 5950 can be had for as low as 500 USD.
I am quite sure that AMD will considerably lower prices of the 7950 as soon as Rocket Lake gets released, if RL delivers similar or better performance at a comparable or lower price.
Long live competition!

 

[hannibal]

Far too expensive and the PC market is contracting. They need to undercut Intel by $50-100 at each segment to balance for the high cost of DDR5. If they don't system builders will do the math and build cheaper Alder Lake and premium Raptor Lake systems that perform on par with Zen 4 for a couple hundred less.
Maybe they can offer a DDR5 rebate or bundle?

I can't believe that after waiting for Zen 4 I am going to end up with another Intel system because AMD bungled the memory.

No need. They will continue to sell Zen3 parts with DDR4 to those who can not afford DDR5!
And when considering inflation these prices seems to be too low. Also intel is planning to increase the price of current gen CPUs so these leaks are far too low in price wise!

 

[escksu]

Yea DDR5 is still stubbornly expensive. Close to twice the cost, for the same capacity of ddr4.

PCPartPicker Part List

Memory: TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-5200 CL40 Memory ($169.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($84.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $254.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2022-08-09 18:56 EDT-0400

Will take some time for prices to come down. DDR3/4 was very expensive when it was first released as well.

 

[KyaraM]

Sounds as expected, looking at previous pricing. Maybe on the low side considering that TSMC raises prices, too. Let's see what Intel does.

 

[watzupken]

They did the same thing with the 5700x and 5800x so why does it look weird to you now?
The 5800x is a 105W "TDP" CPU while the 5700x is 65W so no matter how close the base numbers look, actual performance will be different especially when using PBO.
Intel calls it K and non-k so that you know there will be a difference, with AMD you have to look that stuff up because "all the CPUs are "unlocked" " .

Actually if you observed the Zen 3 product stack, you can clearly tell that they are trying not to get into the same 3700X vs 3800X problem. The problem being that 90% or more people will buy the 3700X over the more expensive 3800X. Other than the 3800X utilizing a better binned chip, there is really nothing that the 3700X cannot match despite the TDP difference. AMD released the 5700X likely as a knee jerk reaction to Intel's Alder Lake based on the timing of the release. Just so that they have a product that they can compete with the Alder Lake i5. Almost every review of the 5700X concludes that it is a 5800X at a lower price tag.
Intel's method of segregating their products cannot be compared with the free OC for all AMD approach. The former is a cash grab by Intel, and the latter segregates their product with # of cores, or in the case of the 5800X3D, a massive increase in cache.

 

[watzupken]

Sorry, this pricing is nuts above the 7700X. 7700X looks like the sweet spot at $299.

I'm sure AMD has factored in a relatively slow adoption rate due to MB + RAM upgrade cost.

I would bet a lot of people will walk in thinking Zen 4 or Raptor Lake, and walk out holding Zen 3 or Alder Lake as those are both comparatively cheap.

For users of existing generation of CPUs, there is usually very little reason to upgrade to the next gen immediately. But having said that, the jump from Zen 3 to 4 is likely going to have a good performance bump in single and multi threaded performance. Whereas the jump from Alder to Raptor Lake is going to see improvement mostly on the multithreaded performance due to the extra E-cores. Single thread performance should see a small bump as a result of the increased cache and higher clockspeed. But do expect a sizeable increase in PL2 TDP as well.

 

[watzupken]

Far too expensive and the PC market is contracting. They need to undercut Intel by $50-100 at each segment to balance for the high cost of DDR5. If they don't system builders will do the math and build cheaper Alder Lake and premium Raptor Lake systems that perform on par with Zen 4 for a couple hundred less.
Maybe they can offer a DDR5 rebate or bundle?

I can't believe that after waiting for Zen 4 I am going to end up with another Intel system because AMD bungled the memory.

It sounds expensive, but honestly, people that buy these halo products will not feel the pinch. Most users will be happy with an 8 core processor for their usage. Consider that Intel used to sell anything more than 4 cores at a steep premium, along with the need for an expensive motherboard, I actually don't think the asking price here to be that bad.

 

[hasten]

The name of this website should be changed to TomsPinchOfSalt.com. Seriously, is there some requirement by the owners of this site to include that phrase in every news article that is posted here?

I cringe when I read it. But you have to write down to your readers who lack critical thinking skills to decipher that something in an article on the internet is hearsay.