How much will AM4 Motherboards and Ryzen Processors cost around?

[DigitalHD]

Just curious on how much the new AM4 and Ryzen Chip will cost.

 

[4745454b]

Historically no difference. There will be cheap boards around $50-65, and more featured boards that can cost 300+. Chips will be the same. Dual core/module CPUs that will be cheap, and more expensive multi core parts that should cost around the same as current chips do. (there are rumors that Ryzen will perform better and there will be new high performance parts that cost $300+ which AMD doesn't currently have.) Because computers get faster and cheaper over time you can expect newer CPUs with similar specs to current chips to come in at the same price, just clocked faster. (or having a few more cores.)

 

[boosted1g]

AMD has not released any official prices.
Thus any answer is pure speculization.

They say that the cpu's will be priced with intel cpu's of same performance. So if the AMD platform that wont upgrade for 4 years is the same price and performance as today's intel platform...I see no reason to even get Ryzen

 

[4745454b]

They say that the cpu's will be priced with intel cpu's of same performance. So if the AMD platform that wont upgrade for 4 years is the same price and performance as today's intel platform...I see no reason to even get Ryzen

Not sure I follow your statements. First, AMD historically has been cheaper than Intel. Even when they performed better. I would expect AMD CPUs to be SLIGHTLY cheaper than their similar Intel counterparts. Meaning if there is an Intel CPU at $200 and AMD has one that performs the same, I would expect it to run ~$175-180. Granted they might change their pricing strategy this time but historically they slightly undercut Intel's prices.

How do you know they won't upgrade the platform for 4 years? Isn't that answer "pure speculization"?

 

[boosted1g]

They say that the cpu's will be priced with intel cpu's of same performance. So if the AMD platform that wont upgrade for 4 years is the same price and performance as today's intel platform...I see no reason to even get Ryzen

Not sure I follow your statements. First, AMD historically has been cheaper than Intel. Even when they performed better. I would expect AMD CPUs to be SLIGHTLY cheaper than their similar Intel counterparts. Meaning if there is an Intel CPU at $200 and AMD has one that performs the same, I would expect it to run ~$175-180. Granted they might change their pricing strategy this time but historically they slightly undercut Intel's prices.

How do you know they won't upgrade the platform for 4 years? Isn't that answer "pure speculization"?

Historically yes AMD has been cheaper then its intel equivillant.
The rumor speculization is that prices will be consistant with intel. And in that case it gaves very little incentive to go AMD.

In regards to the 4 years of Ryzen Archeticuture: AMD's CTO said that: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155129/components-processors/amd-says-its-zen-cpu-architecture-is-expected-to-last-four-years.html

 

[4745454b]

Not quite what I took from your statement. Dozer lasted a long time and subtle improvements were made the entire time. He didn't say they were going to sit around and do nothing in the CPU world for the 4 years after it comes out.

Zen is going to be tock, tock, tock...Though AMD has never taken the time to formalize it, a three- to four-year lifespan for its own CPU architectures is about average. For example, the K8 series architecture debuted with the Opteron and Athlon 64 in 2003; with 2007’s mobile Sempron, the K8 trickled out. The K10 series lasted from about 2007 through 2010.

AMD’s last Bulldozer architecture debuted in 2011 and persisted through the Piledriver, Steamroller, and Excavator updates. If Papermaster’s words are to be taken literally, it seems AMD plans to iteratively improve its Ryzen chips through an additional three generations, about one per year.

It's no different than AMD normally does as mentioned at the end of the quote. There will be minor tweaks, but to claim that there is "no reason" to buy AMD seems to me to incorrect. If it performs similar to Intel and either costs the same or slightly less, why not? Not everyone upgrades their CPU every year. And having a 4yo CPU isn't unheard of. We'll have to see what the performance and pricing is, but if the rumors are to be believed this might be the closest AMD has been to Intel in awhile. And if Kaby is any indication Intel isn't exactly pushing the performance envelope right now. We might be looking at small granular improvements from both sides for awhile.

 

[boosted1g]

If it performs similar to Intel and either costs the same or slightly less, why not? Not everyone upgrades their CPU every year.

AMD is competing for marketplace, you dont get marketplace from the industry leader by offering the same performance for the same price (assuming rumor is true).

If that rumor is true then there is much less of a reason to choose #2 over #1, outside of brand loyalty.

 

[4745454b]

AMD is competing for marketplace, you dont get marketplace from the industry leader by offering the same performance for the same price

Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say. AMD wants more market share and because their CPUs aren't as good they sell for less. They will probably sell for more seeing as they are rumored to perform better, but I don't see their 6600 equivalent selling for the same price. It will be more than they charge for the 8320/8350, but less then the 6600. They won't sell for a "consistant" price as Intel chips because they won't increase market share.

I think we've side tracked this enough, so I'm out.