News Why AMD’s Ryzen 7000 and Motherboards Cost So Damn Much

[SSGBryan]

As far as CPU prices - outside of the 7950, the 7000 series are the same as the 5000 series, are they not?

MLiD has also reported that all of those expensive AM5 motherboards were air shipped from Asia to the America's and Europe, rather than put on a slow boat to Bremerhaven.

 

[-Fran-]

The problem with your analogy is I can sit in a 300 dollar lawn chair for the rest of my life, but I can only use my CPU/Hardware for as long as it is useful and that varies from person to person, however, 10+ years is usually longer than hardware remains useful.

My Core i7 2700K would like to have a word with you 🤣

Regards xD

 

[tennis2]

My Core i7 2700K would like to have a word with you 🤣

Regards xD

Depends on your definition of "useful". You don't need a latest gen CPU if your usage is adequately fulfilled by a 2700K....or you're just in denial.

 

[-Fran-]

Depends on your definition of "useful". You don't need a latest gen CPU if your usage is adequately fulfilled by a 2700K....or you're just in denial.

I was using the i7 2700K (OC'ed to 4.4Ghz) for VR and it did surprisingly well. I ended up swapping it and gifting it to a friend and they're still using it for games.

I'm absolutely not being delusional, you'd just be impressed how well certain PCs age with good forward thinking. I had from day 1: SSDs, 16GB DDR3 1600 and properly maintained Windows. Sometimes people loses a lot of performance with bloat, so there's also that.

Regards.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Something undervalued. Intel changes the socket every generation or two. AMD gives you 5 years and 4 generations.

Isn't AM4 the only socket that is true for (so far anyway)? AFAIK AMD has only guaranteed AM5 support through 2025 (although they left the door open for longer support IIRC), and Zen 5 is supposedly only coming out in 2024. 5 years/4 generations seems far from certain for AM5 (except maybe if you count refreshes/V-cache SKUs as new generations).

 

[-Fran-]

I think Lisa Su, on stage, just confirmed that AM4 will be alive for a while longer... I wonder if that hints at a new CPU for it?

Dang, so curious!

Regards.

 

[gggplaya]

I'm a B550 owner and when/if I upgrade, I'm not going to buy 32gb of memory. Can Tom's show the difference in price between 16gb of ddr 4 and 5?

Maybe not. But I still think the U.S. could stand to have more high quality journalistic investigation.
Well that depends on your usage. If you keep Chrome open when you game, 16GB could be limiting. 32GB will typically handle any ordinary simultaneously opened programs. As far as I know, 16GB should game the same as 32GB, so the comparison should hold up.

With Ryzen 7000, I think the supported DDR5 clock speed is DDR5 3600mhz for 2 dimms per channel(4 ram sticks) and DDR5 5200mhz with 1 dimm per channel(2 ram sticks). The board has 2 channels. So if you buy 16GB now, then decide you need more later, you will take a memory bandwidth hit of 31%. So you have to put some thought into how much ram you need now, and how much ram you'll need in the future.

Also, with my RTX 3080 12GB, some games like COD/Warzone use up 20GB of total system ram, without any other programs open. It will run fine on 16GB of ram, but you may get times with assets popping in and out which may cause a slight stutter.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

It's not only that they cost so much, it's the fact they're heavily segmented (no PCIe 5.0 slots except on X670E boards, for example), and the number of PCIe lanes is extremely limited and most every board, even X670E boards, are hardwired to drop to x8/x8 electrical if a second PCIe card is present (only a couple do x16/x4).

I'll say it again, AMD is a lightyear past screwed, and their posted client revenue crater shows how much they are suffering, but instead of using that as a wakeup call and instead of biting the bullet, axing prices to be competitive with Intel, they're continuing to ignore it.

 

[baboma]

MSRP

No need to quibble about prices. Just use Amazon/NewEgg as qty.1 pricing benchmark. For 13600K, it's currently $300, same as 7600X.

Cooling: this needs to be it's own investigation, since AMD can get away with paltry cooling and still perform really well, but Intel can't quite do the same.

Some folks have used $25 air coolers on a cheap B660 board + CL16 DDR4, with a 13600K and the combo works fine, albeit a bit hot (96C @ 5.1GHz in Cinebench R23) w/o undervolting. Much of the "you need superexpensive cooling" comes from partisan fans badmouthing.

View: https://youtu.be/Qklb9pm4hdk

I'm not too big on making this a central point, but worth pointing out anyway. AM5 is the better platform vs Z690 and Z790, period.

Stop passing personal opinions as facts. Whatever theoretical "better" you have in mind, being a value builder I'll take the real dollar savings here and now.

Business strategy for AMD is clearly maximizing their higher margin parts and see if they can do something with the mid-tier range.

No need for armchair quarterbacking. Whatever AMD has in mind, we as consumers can only judge what's offered in front of us, which is that AM5 is simply not competitive, in any way, shape or form.

Keep in mind they haven't even announced any lower tier CPUs and Intel is doing an Alder Lake rebrand for almost everything under the i5 13600K.

Yes, I'm looking forward to see AMD's "lower-end" system cost. Going from their B670 cost thus far, it'll be a proverbial bloodbath.

Let's admit it, the main reason Intel cleaned AMD's clock is because of e-cores. Which is why I'm excited to see the non-K chips in action. Unlike Alder Lake's 12500/12600, which are just clocked-bumped 12400, the 13500 & 13600 both have 8 e-cores, same as the 13600K's, and improving over the 13400's 4 e-cores. My prospective target buy is the 13500.

 

[helper800]

My Core i7 2700K would like to have a word with you 🤣

Regards xD

You are correct that anything no matter the age can be useful at something. How useful it is at what it is doing is also important to look at. In my example I used a lawn chair to represent something that will always be just as good and efficient as the day it was purchased for the purposes of sitting. Technology does not work in this manner. The 13900K of today will be laughable in 10+ years for most things just as the 2700k is today. My cellphone has a more powerful CPU (single and multi) than a 2700k to put things in perspective.

 

[-Fran-]

No need to quibble about prices. Just use Amazon/NewEgg as qty.1 pricing benchmark. For 13600K, it's currently $300, same as 7600X.

That's a 1-source. And lookie look: the 7600X's MSRP is exactly $300 and the 13600K's 1K-TP is $320. Who's lying then? As I said, AMD is being 100% straight there, but seems like it's being punished for being truthful.

Some folks have used $25 air coolers on a cheap B660 board + CL16 DDR4, with a 13600K and the combo works fine, albeit a bit hot (96C @ 5.1GHz in Cinebench R23) w/o undervolting. Much of the "you need superexpensive cooling" comes from partisan fans badmouthing.

View: https://youtu.be/Qklb9pm4hdk

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poo82SUm934

Stop passing personal opinions as facts. Whatever theoretical "better" you have in mind, being a value builder I'll take the real dollar savings here and now.

It's not a personal opinion. The connectivity of AM5's X670E is just better than both Z790 and Z690. Everything else being equal, X670E provides better high end features. Nothing opinionated about that. It's a fact.

No need for armchair quarterbacking. Whatever AMD has in mind, we as consumers can only judge what's offered in front of us, which is that AM5 is simply not competitive, in any way, shape or form.

I mean, AMD wants to sell and they're not lowering prices. What does that say to you then? Intel prices are a bit all over the place (in a good way for us), if you ask me. Maybe AMD is trying to find a way to lower prices indirectly (bundles, promotions with games, etc), but not the front up cost. It means they're looking to keep BOM costs where they are now with minimal margin loss.

Yes, I'm looking forward to see AMD's "lower-end" system cost. Going from their B670 cost thus far, it'll be a proverbial bloodbath.

B650 you mean? But yes. It is not looking too good for AM5's lower end. From what Lisa Su said in stage, they may keep AM4 for the lower end for a good while.

Let's admit it, the main reason Intel cleaned AMD's clock is because of e-cores. Which is why I'm excited to see the non-K chips in action. Unlike Alder Lake's 12500/12600, which are just clocked-bumped 12400, the 13500 & 13600 both have 8 e-cores, same as the 13600K's, and improving over the 13400's 4 e-cores. My prospective target buy is the 13500.

Yes, but more importantly price. Intel is cheaper in most comparable segments. Period. Intel doesn't like being "the cheaper option" without being the top performer. There's plenty asterisks to Intel as there are for AMD, so...

Regards.

 

[TJ Hooker]

It's not only that they cost so much, it's the fact they're heavily segmented (no PCIe 5.0 slots except on X670E boards, for example), and the number of PCIe lanes is extremely limited and most every board, even X670E boards, are hardwired to drop to x8/x8 electrical if a second PCIe card is present (only a couple do x16/x4).

I'll say it again, AMD is a lightyear past screwed, and their posted client revenue crater shows how much they are suffering, but instead of using that as a wakeup call and instead of biting the bullet, axing prices to be competitive with Intel, they're continuing to ignore it.

B650E also provides PCIe 5.0 slot(s).

The limitation of only 16 general purpose PCIe lanes from the CPU has been standard for all non-HEDT products from both AMD and Intel for years (including Raptor Lake). Why is it suddenly an issue now for AM5/Ryzen 7K?

Edit: AM5/Ryzen 7K actually has more general purpose lanes from the CPU than past generations (and latest from Intel): 20 lanes (plus 4 for NVMe, and another 4 to connect to the chipset). Sounds like it's up to the mobo manufacturer to decide how/if to use those 4 extra lanes though.

 

[baboma]

That's a 1-source.

As a consumer, that's what's relevant.

And lookie look: the 7600X's MSRP is exactly $300 and the 13600K's 1K-TP is $320. Who's lying then? As I said, AMD is being 100% straight there, but seems like it's being punished for being truthful.

Sorry, what's with all the "lying/truthful" melodrama? Who cares? I certainly don't.

Re: 7600X using the old Wraith Stealth cooler - Yes, very good. We've both established that air coolers are viable for these new-gen CPUs.

The connectivity of AM5's X670E is just better than both Z790 and Z690. Everything else being equal, X670E provides better high end features. Nothing opinionated about that. It's a fact.

X feature isn't "better" when you have no plans to use it for the life of the product. In fact, it is definitely worse because you are paying for something you will not use. That is a fact.

Being a value builder means weighing the pros and cons of features vs cost. It applies to most everyone, to varying degrees, or else we'd all buy the most expensive parts. I know very well what I/O capabilities were cut from the Z boards to B boards, and for me, B boards are "better" because I won't use them, or at least won't miss them.

You need to understand what "better" means. It does not equate to "more features." The term itself denotes subjectivity, because what's "better" for you is not universal.

I mean, AMD wants to sell and they're not lowering prices. What does that say to you then?

Again, who cares? Why pontificate about what multi-billion-dollar corporations do or don't do? Just focus on your needs.

From what Lisa Su said in stage, they may keep AM4 for the lower end for a good while.

Yep, would be a good strategy for AMD. AM4 is still selling well. But again, it's irrelevant to us as consumers. I just focus on what's the best deal for me at the moment I buy.

Yes, but more importantly price. Intel is cheaper in most comparable segments. Period. Intel doesn't like being "the cheaper option" without being the top performer. There's plenty asterisks to Intel as there are for AMD, so...

We agree on something. Yes, we've seen Intel bumped 13600K's price by $30 (10%), and given the overwhelming perf of RPL over AM5, I'm expecting there'll be a proportional price bump for the value parts as well, now that the competition is much weaker. So, yeah, probably a 10% bump for the non-K parts.

But if the non-K RPL parts has as much of a perf boost over the ADL parts as the K parts, the +$20 would be worthwhile.

 

[btmedic04]

Well, the issue is that the Intel chips are power locked for those comparisons, so I don't think it would be fair to use uncapped Ryzen vs. power-capped Intel. I also have to always be cognizant that our slides are shared with zero context around the net, so these custom test pools need to be constrained to prevent misinterpretation when shared to forums/Twitter/Facebook, etc.

I capped Intel power for DDR4/DDR5 tests because otherwise the motherboard power delivery would influence the test results more than the memory.

However, you can use the 4% average reduction in gaming performance as a measuring stick for the cumulative measurements in the full testing in the first section.

I understand the need for clinical settings in a benchmarking scenario, however the same power caps could be applied to both zen 3 and zen 4 parts regarding stock operation with their PPT, TDC and EDC limits. Realistically speaking though, thats not how the average consumer is going to use these components. theyre more than likely going to install them, load optimized defaults, xmp/xpo and enjoy their new system. I did scroll back up to look at performance numbers for the 5800x3d and ryzen 7000 series and found it interesting to see that a 13900k with ddr4 3800 matches the 5800x3d more or less in games, however it still makes more sense for a purely budget gaming build to go with the 5800x3d. What im more interested in is how does raptor lake with ddr4 stack up against zen 4 with ddr5 in productivity. If raptor lake + ddr4 matches zen 4 + ddr5, then theres no case to be made for the latter configuration other than future upgradability, lower power useage and cooling requirements 👍

 

[gggplaya]

B650E also provides PCIe 5.0 slot(s).

The limitation of only 16 general purpose PCIe lanes from the CPU has been standard for all non-HEDT products from both AMD and Intel for years (including Raptor Lake). Why is it suddenly an issue now for AM5/Ryzen 7K?

For me it's an issue because I'm stacking up on 1TB NVME ssd's. These new motherboards can now come with up to 4 M.2 PCIe slots. Running out of lanes!!!!

 

[baboma]

however it still makes more sense for a purely budget gaming build to go with the 5800x3d.

Disagree. It's always better to spend more on the GPU for gaming, because most games are GPU-bound. The 5800X3D only makes sense when you have maxed out on the GPU, which obviously is beyond the bounds of a "budget gaming build."

A budget gaming build is the 12400F (or if you prefer 5600/5600X) + the best GPU your budget allows for. The 5800X3D makes no sense, as even with the latest markdown, it costs more than the 13600K, which has roughly same gaming perf, and multiple times better productivity. Use the money toward the GPU, and ignore the "best gaming CPU" hype.

This said, I'm well aware that 5800X3D is a hot seller right now. I think it just satisfies the upgrade itch that AMD owners have, and were turned off by AM5.

 

[Arbie]

The problem with your analogy is I can sit in a 300 dollar lawn chair for the rest of my life

A lawn chair in my climate will last about 5 years. And get used a few hours a week at most.

But (obviously, duh) the point is that the sheer value of modern PC tech, especially the core bits like mobo, CPU, RAM, disks, and display is phenomenal, dwarfing anything else. By "value" I mean the depth and tech level of industrial infrastructure required to produce it, vs cost to you. In those terms it's probably five orders of magnitude more difficult to put a $500 PC on your table than a $500 set of dishware.

We are simply spoiled. Spoiled by 10,000x. The good news is... that we are. And can even complain about a mobo costing $300 vs $200 with a straight face and no brain implosion.

 

[TJ Hooker]

For me it's an issue because I'm stacking up on 1TB NVME ssd's. These new motherboards can now come with up to 4 M.2 PCIe slots. Running out of lanes!!!!

B650E provides eight PCIe 5.0 and eight 4.0 (in addition to the main x16), not to mention some 3.0. So it should be able to handle up to four high speed 5.0/4.0 NVMe drives, so long as the mobo manufacturer chooses to use them that way. Going up to X670(E) increases that by one, going down to B650 seems to decrease that by one (extra four CPU lanes are listed as optional).

And of course there's the possibility for PCI 3.0 M.2 slots on top of that.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

Intel’s 13th-Gen Raptor Lake processors hold a convincing performance and pricing lead, and they are also an immensely better value when we factor in platform costs.

This is AMD's own fault for relying on a monopolist industry in Taiwan and monopolist like TSMC.

TSMC knows AMD has no alternative and TSMC will keep raising prices.

Intel has factories all over the world and is much more diversified.

Intel offers way better performance per $ now.

 

[-Fran-]

As a consumer, that's what's relevant.

It is relevant for the discussion; you just moved the goal post. Just because to you (as an individual) you get a particular price, you can't guarantee that price will be assured for another (hence why Paul doesn't use Street Pricing). It is important from a communication point of view and to draw value analysis. So, in this context, you (a particular individual) does not matter and irrelevant to the main discussion point, sorry.

Sorry, what's with all the "lying/truthful" melodrama? Who cares? I certainly don't.

Same reasoning as above. If you're lucky to find a good deal, that doesn't make it so everyone can. That's the point and if you don't care, everyone else cares.

Re: 7600X using the old Wraith Stealth cooler - Yes, very good. We've both established that air coolers are viable for these new-gen CPUs.

The wraith coolers are rated for ~65W.

X feature isn't "better" when you have no plans to use it for the life of the product. In fact, it is definitely worse because you are paying for something you will not use. That is a fact.

Being a value builder means weighing the pros and cons of features vs cost. It applies to most everyone, to varying degrees, or else we'd all buy the most expensive parts. I know very well what I/O capabilities were cut from the Z boards to B boards, and for me, B boards are "better" because I won't use them, or at least won't miss them.

You need to understand what "better" means. It does not equate to "more features." The term itself denotes subjectivity, because what's "better" for you is not universal.

You're confusing things here. Like really bad. Just because (again) to you a feature is not important, does not make it non-existent for the platform. I mean, if you don't need X, Y or Z feature a platform offers, well, good for you. That doesn't make the platform that offers it "featureless" because you just don't want it. That's... Egocentric?

Again, who cares? Why pontificate about what multi-billion-dollar corporations do or don't do? Just focus on your needs.

I am not "pontificating" any Company here. I am trying to analyze the behavior and overall situation. I'm not preaching or "giving excuses" for AMD nor Intel. Understanding a situation does not equate to... Whatever it is you think I'm doing.

I'll stop here.

Regards.

 

[baboma]

It is relevant for the discussion; you just moved the goal post.

Are we at the point where we start accusing the other of things? Does winning an online argument matter that much to you?

I have read you as a reasonable adult. I hope that you would behave as one. If not, then this will be my last reply.

Just because to you (as an individual) you get a particular price, you can't guarantee that price will be assured for another...If you're lucky to find a good deal, that doesn't make it so everyone can.

The Amazon/NewEgg price point isn't a "good deal," nor is it restricted to any one region. Yes, perforce I'm speaking of mainly for the US, which applies to most every pricing discussion.

Yes, the $300 13600K price is obviously a promotional price. But for any pricing discussion to be relevant, it has to be about the here and now, not what 2 months or 6 months or some nebulous "in the future." AFAIK, the $300 price (for 13600K) will be around for the near future (at least until past BF).

I don't understand why I have to explain these basics to you, or why you are being so argumentative...about "lying/truth"?? WTF dude.

I mean, if you don't need X, Y or Z feature a platform offers, well, good for you.

No, better for me. That's what "better" means. For each individual. There is no "better" for everybody.

Again, slowly this time. "Better" does not equate to "more features."

I am trying to analyze the behavior and overall situation. I'm not preaching or "giving excuses" for AMD nor Intel. Understanding a situation does not equate to... Whatever it is you think I'm doing.

Are you analyzing, or are you guessing? I know why TomsHardware posts a piece on this. It makes for conversation, but they're guessing, based on IMO pretty paltry reasoning. That's fine. But don't mistake one for the other. It's just armchair quarterbacking.

I'll stop here.

Hey we agree on something.

 

[martinezkier.dacoville]

One thing you will be able to with AMD but, not Intel though, is buy a new and up to date CPU in four years time and, slot into the same motherboard, without any additional hardware needed.

I built an all new PC, except case, in 2018 using an R7 2700, then late last year I fitted an R7 5800X. Quite the step up in performance and, the only extra cost was a new tube of TIM.

Doesn't happen in my country lol you are forced to buy a bundle cpu+mobo unless i get to find a used one from a seller who aren't gonna force you to buy bundle. Sometimes you can find a non bundle cpu but at a very high mark up price.

 

[TR909]

Some quotes from this article:

"AMD also has less room to maneuver on pricing than it has in the past. In the slides above, we can see that chip design and manufacturing costs have skyrocketed with the latest nodes"
According to Dr. Ian Cutress which is well informed and very reliable a 7950X has a "cost to manufacture" of 70 USD.

"We’re told that a single B650 chipset costs roughly the same as Intel’s Z790 chipset"
Promontory21 is a product of ASMedia (ASUS) same as the B550 is - I don't see B550 being so expensive. Also rumor has it than 2x Promontory are cheaper than one X570.
Would help a lot more to have exact costs for what is a typical "southbridge chip" (or 2x daisy chained).

"AMD’s power delivery subsystem has also become a pricing pain point, and much of that is due to the new design."
Intel who has enormous power requirements (since Coffee Lake and onwards) doesn't have those "pricing pain points" in their motherboards' cost? And if we assume the "SVI3 vs IMVP9.1 higher cost" is true, then why Z790 boards follow a similar pricing to X670?

"Because they have to meet the TDP threshold as a minimum, motherboard makers also have to spend slightly more on VRM heatsinks"
Can we have exact costs? I find it hard to believe that heatsinks add that much.

As it stands now yes AMD has to drop prices in their AM5 CPUs lineup. They don't really care as AM4 is going strong still. That is a correct assumption. DDR5's cost will finally get to decent levels but motherboards' cost doesn't make any sense. At all.

 

[baboma]

As it stands now yes AMD has to drop prices in their AM5 CPUs lineup.

OK let's wade into this "should they or shouldn't they" beeswax.

Much of the discussion, as well as the THW piece, have pegged pricing as a function of cost, ie higher cost == hard to lower price. That's not how product positioning works for most products.

AMD has positioned its CPUs to be at least the equivalent of Intel's. Thus the rough pricing parity. It has worked long and hard toward this goal, and there is a psychological importance to this. By lowering the price, AMD would signal that its products are inferior to the competition's, and that alone would destroy its product positioning that it has worked years to strengthen. Think of it as brand equity. AMD would in effect destroy its brand strength by admitting that it has inferior products. AMD won't lower the price for this important reason alone.

There are other ways to "lower" prices without chopping the official MSRP. You can do promos. You can incentivize 3rd parties with spiffs. Maybe AMD will head down this route.

Second, we need to realize that retail desktop CPU sales is only a tiny part of AMD's overall sales volume. The majority of it goes to mobile, and the majority of what remains goes to OEMs. I've no doubt that OEMs will be able to negotiate much better prices than what you see at retail. Ditto for boards. If AMD is willing to take a haircut anywhere, it would be here and not retail. In the grand scheme of things, the retail DIY market is not that important to AMD, monetarily speaking.

Third, it's a truism that it's easy to lower prices, but it's damned hard to raise them back up. Say that AMD dropped the 7600X to $200. Think of the hue and cry when it wants to bump the 8600X back to $300. You think there won't be people crying bloody murder when AMD "RAISES ITS CPU PRICES BY 50%"?

So, yeah, maybe a holidays promo, say, $50 drop, or maybe some sort of bundling deal. But officially cutting the price is never in the picture.

 

[dalauder]

To be more precise:

Intel changes every 2x CPU Product SKU cycles.
e.g.
LGA1156 = 1st Gen (Nahalem)
LGA1155 = 2nd & 3rd Gen (Sandy Bridge & Ivy Bridge)
LGA1150 = 4th & 5th Gen (Haswell, & Haswell Refresh)
...
LGA1200 = 10th & 11th Gen (Comet Lake & Rocket Lake)
LGA1700 = 12th & 13th Gen (Alder Lake & Raptor Lake)

The last time you got Intel giving you more than 2x generations was:
LGA1151 = 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Gen ( SkyLake, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Coffee Lake Refresh).

AMD seems to be moving to 3x Zen Generations per Socket.
Socket AM4 = Zen 1, Zen 1+, Zen 2, Zen 3.
Socket AM5 = Zen 4, Zen 5, Zen 6 + (Any Minor refreshes that may occur).

MLiD has interviewed vendors who work at the MoBo companies & Intel.
The big MoBo makers LIKE when Intel sticks to 2x Generations per Socket, gives the MoBo makers something new to make.

AMD is driving Zen along it's own path, that's by design and MoBo makers are accomodating AMD's wishes.

I think the 1150 socket was two different sockets between 4th & 5th Gen with identical names. Still, excellent list. Thanks.

That makes sense that Mobo manufacturers actually prefer Intel's system. Users don't. It was pretty cool using AM2 from 2002 to 2009 (AM2+), AM3 from 2008 to 2016, and AM4 from 2016 to 2022.