Pricing for Intel’s entire Kaby Lake X and Skylake X Core i9, i7 & i5 CPU leak

[TimoneX]

If Intel were to drop pricing significantly in response, it would hurt AMD more than it does Intel.

Not sure how you get there, can you explain? The information I've seen indicates that AMD's margins are better than Intel's on HEDT parts. This stands to reason as a couple zeppelin dies(threadripper) will likely cost significantly less to manufacture than Intel's high core count monolithic designs. As I said, I do agree that Intel will continue to prioritize profits, hey you don't end up battling regulators all over the planet for sleazy business practices if your execs don't love their bonuses, but I think the reason Intel won't drop prices is because they'll know they cannot win a HEDT pricing war with AMD at this time. AMD is firing the shots in the price war out of necessity while Intel, with the exception of some grade school level snipes in a power point presentation, are publicly ignoring the competition while reorganizing their product lines to address the very real threat they face.

Seems like use case is fairly self explanatory. I mean, sure there'll be a few guys buying high core count skylake x and threadripper cpus to play games and boast about e-peen size, but I suspect the vast majority of these chips will end up in rigs running VMs, processing video, rendering content, distributed computing, and other highly threaded tasks. These are applications where zen's lower clocks won't matter as much as more cores for fewer dead presidents. Also if the 7900x results are any indication, the rest of the x-series chips, 12, 14, 16, and 18 cores are not going to be clocking nearly high enough to justify their high premiums over AMD's offerings.

 

[mackerel]

I think we have different impressions on margins. Care to share where you read about AMD's and Intel's margins? I'm not sure AMD are in as comfortable a position as you think, but I don't have evidence either way. HEDT is possibly the least significant market segment also, behind servers and mainstream desktop/laptops. If you were to make similar arguments about server, I could possibly buy that, but we're not there yet. The battle being fought now is more about image and hero products than technical specs, and in recent image Intel are definitely losing.

 

[TimoneX]

According to my sources, a ThreadRipper 16C/32T (Dies+Package+Testing) cost AMD about 110-120$.

https://twitter.com/x/status/870388109812355072

This is one example of the numbers being thrown around, there are many others with similar guidance, but I think the gist is that zen is cheap to produce and AMD isn't leaving much on the table when you consider that they're using variations on the same die in every ryzen and epyc product they ship. Compared to intel's monolithic approach, I think it's clear which approach will allow for greater yields and pricing flexibility. A die that fails to qualify for inclusion in an epyc 7000 series processor could potentially show up in a lowly ryzen 3 product...at least in theory.

...and I am making the same arguments about the server line matchups, because both companies are using server products in their HEDT product lines, but this thread is specifically about kaby lake x and skylake x pricing.

 

[wingman99]

Do you have the production cost for Intel skylake-X?

 

[TimoneX]

Do you have the production cost for Intel skylake-X?

Nothing so neat and tidy, but there are bits and pieces of info around to help illuminate the problems intel will face if they get into a pricing war with AMD here. These guys speculated that a broadwell-e die was around $83ish.

Based on this analysis, the raw die cost of the 14-nanometer part should be around $83.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/03/the-economics-of-intel-corporations-broadwell-e.aspx

This is relevant because skylake-x is a refresh of broadwell-e, though the new core is chubbier at 308mm2 vs 246mm2, but still on LCC silicon...so far.

Things get uglier for intel with the 12 core part and up however as they'll likely have to transition to HCC wafers. Meanwhile AMD will go right on using the same dies across their entire ryzen product line..."gluing" them together as intel claims.

So that means that the 12-core SKU, the Core i9-7920X, is likely derived from the HCC 18-core silicon. Which also explains why that CPU has been delayed until August.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/6

All this is why I say, this isn't a great spot for Intel to be in. It also explains why they're unlikely to engage in a price war at this time...at least on the high end. Where they can make some hay is on the low end i3 parts with IGP...at least until Zen based APUs show up and spoil that party as well.

 

[TimoneX]

As expected AMD appears to have an 8 core x399 part in the pipeline. This will, imo, make x299 an even tougher sell as you compare HEDT products along each company's product stacks. This situation will only worsen if intel continues to maintain their price premiums while AMD rolls out non "x" variants of the 1900, 1920, & 1950. If that previously rumored $850 1950 turns out to be accurate, then that product in particular will be an attractive option for anyone that wants lots of fast cores + lots of I/O options at a previously unheard of price. Assuming $850 holds up, that's just $53.13/core for the 1950.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 8 Core HEDT CPU Officially Confirmed – Will Cost $549 US and Feature 64 PCIe Lanes

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x-1920x-1950x-official/



So cost per core for directly competing products looks like so:

7960x = $106.19
7920x = $99.92
7820x = $74.88

1950x = $62.44
1920x = $66.58
1900x = $68.63

Intel's x299 products climb in cost/core as you go up the product stack, while x399 CPUs provide more bang/buck as you move up in cores. Given that these products are ideally suited for people that can use as many cores as they can get their hands on, I think intel's pricing structure is a serious mistake. It worked fine while there wasn't any competition in the HEDT space, but now they'll be forced to lower prices or sell far fewer processors on their enthusiast line. This may have been fine with intel in the past as they'd just sell those products as higher margin xeon server chips, but epyc stands ready to eat intel's lunch there as well.

For people that don't see the point to the 8 core x399 product or all the I/O that 64 or 44 PCIe lanes can provide, consider that dual, full bandwidth, GPUs + dual NVME drives(source + scratch for video editing) would already consume 40(16+16+4+4) PCIe lanes. These things aren't nearly as overkill in I/O as some people make out, particularly for people providing content for 4k streaming.

 

[Woomack]

Intel's x299 products climb in cost/core as you go up the product stack, while x399 CPUs provide more bang/buck as you move up in cores. Given that these products are ideally suited for people that can use as many cores as they can get their hands on, I think intel's pricing structure is a serious mistake. It worked fine while there wasn't any competition in the HEDT space, but now they'll be forced to lower prices or sell far fewer processors on their enthusiast line. This may have been fine with intel in the past as they'd just sell those products as higher margin xeon server chips, but epyc stands ready to eat intel's lunch there as well.

Intel pricing isn't good but there is still no competition on the HEDT market. Ryzen is more like a competition for 7700k and lower chips than 10c+ series and TR isn't even in stores yet. Till we see full platforms available in stores then there is not much to say about prices comparison.
Price per core doesn't look good for Intel but their cores run much faster. Recently I see that faster cores count more than more cores ( there has to be some balance ). Even in servers I more often offer higher clocked 6 cores than 8 or 10c at lower frequency.
I guess that whole platform cost and motherboard quality will have something to say in next months. Somehow I doubt we will see TR in stores in declared MSRP.

 

[TimoneX]

Intel pricing isn't good but there is still no competition on the HEDT market. Ryzen is more like a competition for 7700k and lower chips than 10c+ series and TR isn't even in stores yet. Till we see full platforms available in stores then there is not much to say about prices comparison.

...say hello to threadripper. 999 & 799 available August 10...and 549 for the 8 core 1900x...end of August. Intel's HEDT platform is almost entirely vaporware at this point as well as it consists of the $1k$1240 7900x and not much else. The 7820x offers very little beyond what one can get for half the price with a ryzen 7 rig. I suspect the 7820x would be a good seller if it had the full compliment of 44 PCIe lanes. Sales of that chip will probably go right into the tank when the 1900x becomes widely available.

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Threadri...8&qid=1501491897&sr=1-6&keywords=threadripper

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Threadri...8&qid=1501491897&sr=1-5&keywords=threadripper

Silicon lottery is gearing up to offer binned parts as well.

https://siliconlottery.com/collections/lga-4094

I don't know that these are going to overclock any better than Ryzen 7, but there's a recent threadripper result over 5Ghz on exotic cooling making the rounds...so who knows. The way they're constructed with the huge IHS, solder instead of toothpaste, and multiple smaller dies could lend itself to being cooled far easier than intel's parts. I've delidded a few CPUs in my time, but I won't be ripping the IHS off a $2k CPU I expect to use to put bread on my table for the next several years anytime soon.

Price per core doesn't look good for Intel but their cores run much faster. Recently I see that faster cores count more than more cores ( there has to be some balance ). Even in servers I more often offer higher clocked 6 cores than 8 or 10c at lower frequency.
I guess that whole platform cost and motherboard quality will have something to say in next months. Somehow I doubt we will see TR in stores in declared MSRP.

Intel does maintain a small IPC advantage, and on some mainstream parts...a sizeable clockspeed advantage vs their AMD counterparts, but they're going to look really bad on the HEDT platform imo. It looks like the XFR on threadripper will reach up to 4.2Ghz, so I really don't see a huge win in the offing for intel on the per core speed front either. The intel chips with more than 12 cores are going to be slow to market and as we've already seen the base clocks are not impressive. It's going to be very difficult to justify the significantly higher price tags that the skylake-x parts command.

Edit: the 7900x is actually $1240 on amazon at this time and out of stock at newegg($1050). Way above MSRP...what a horrendous value. One can build an entire Ryzen 7 system around the 1700 for the cost of the 7900x CPU alone.

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX8067...?ie=UTF8&qid=1501494681&sr=8-1&keywords=7900x

 

[mackerel]

I'll be that guy... "but AVX!"

Different optimisations for different uses. Feels like we're going in circles with arguments at this point.

 

[Woomack]

@TimoneX
You sound like AMD marketing department. Sorry but you see only price per core.
You are talking about CPU which will be released in about 2 weeks ( if there won't be delay ... again in AMD style ). We know nothing about whole platform price or how it really performs.
Early LN2 tests are showing that TR is overclocking the same as 1700/1700X/1800X and for these chips XFR was max boost on single cores, not all. 1800X can't even OC to its max XFR clock at all cores and even the best water cooling where any Skylake-X can make 4.5GHz at nearly stock voltages.
I got my 7900X for about $950+ VAT and it's retail CPU. I had no issues with this CPU or motherboard but somehow I see that Intel haters are spamming web with comments based on 2-3 websites ( all quote the same 2-3 people who had a chance to test it on 2-3 motherboards ). Barely anyone has Skylake-X but all have something to say and almost all say only negative things.

Regardless how much Intel costs, it's still cheaper than last generation and it's improved. AMD entered the market with cheaper processors looking at core/price but it doesn't mean that their new platform is for all users. I highly doubt it will be popular because if anyone can spend $2k just like that for CPU+mobo+RAM then it won't matter much if it will be Intel or AMD. For most both options are way to expensive and if anyone wants PC for gaming then will pick 1700/1700X ... not even 1800X as it's waste of money.

I'm not on any side and I own Ryzen but all I see is that Intel is bad and AMD is good. Whole this year the same. Constant comparisons between these 2 brands and in most cases between processors designed for different user groups. What's worse most people who comment that have no clue how it really works.

I work with business clients. Everything like production, logistics, sales, graphics designing ( TV commercials included ) ... Some big corporations, some small. Many international. Somehow so far 1 client asked for Ryzen and bought it for work ... 1.
Only 6 core ryzens are selling good. Where in this situation will be threadripper ?

Number of sales from one of the biggest online stores in this part of EU:
7700K - 1429
7600K - 1366
Ryzen 1700 - 276
Ryzen 1700X - 85
Ryzen 1800X - 29
Ryzen 1600 - 681 ... released 2 months later
7900X no numbers so I guess below 10 ... maybe 5, I'm not expecting more but what it shows is that barely anyone buys 8c+ platforms so we can talk how great can be threadripper but who will buy it ? ...

 

[TimoneX]

Hey thanks for the subtle diss bud. Appreciate it if you keep the conversation about the products in question and not about me or your perception thereof.

No we obviously don't know everything about threadripper/x399 pricing or performance yet, but come on, it's a couple zeppelin dies sewn together. We have lots of information about R7 and even test results centering on Epyc so it's not like we're flying totally blind here.

...and btw:

where any Skylake-X can make 4.5GHz at nearly stock voltages.

There's only one real skylake-x product that's theoretically available at this time and that competes directly with TR(the 7900x) and it's obviously in such short supply that major vendors are out and prices are well above MSRP. Delighted you got one at a good price, but you seem focused on what can be purchased right this minute, so by that metric the 7900x costs $1240. The rest of the product stack is complete vaporware, most of which won't even be available for months...Intel style.

I'm not on any side and I own Ryzen but all I see is that Intel is bad and AMD is good. Whole this year the same. Constant comparisons between these 2 brands and in most cases between processors designed for different user groups. What's worse most people who comment that have no clue how it really works.

Really not even sure why this paragraph is included. Dunno what other people are saying about Intel and I won't be held responsible for their words. I've made no bones about my disdain for their pricing structure and their decision to use TIM instead of solder on their HEDT products, but if they had a product that did what I wanted at a price that I thought was fair, I'd probably have purchased it already. They don't and they clearly have no intention of doing so in the near future.

Enjoy the thread, I'm done with it.

 

[wingman99]

i9 7900x $1,061.99 with prime membership at Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-lis...s=Intel+Core+i9-7900X+Processor&condition=new

 

[wingman99]

@TimoneX
You sound like AMD marketing department. Sorry but you see only price per core.
You are talking about CPU which will be released in about 2 weeks ( if there won't be delay ... again in AMD style ). We know nothing about whole platform price or how it really performs.
Early LN2 tests are showing that TR is overclocking the same as 1700/1700X/1800X and for these chips XFR was max boost on single cores, not all. 1800X can't even OC to its max XFR clock at all cores and even the best water cooling where any Skylake-X can make 4.5GHz at nearly stock voltages.
I got my 7900X for about $950+ VAT and it's retail CPU. I had no issues with this CPU or motherboard but somehow I see that Intel haters are spamming web with comments based on 2-3 websites ( all quote the same 2-3 people who had a chance to test it on 2-3 motherboards ). Barely anyone has Skylake-X but all have something to say and almost all say only negative things.

Regardless how much Intel costs, it's still cheaper than last generation and it's improved. AMD entered the market with cheaper processors looking at core/price but it doesn't mean that their new platform is for all users. I highly doubt it will be popular because if anyone can spend $2k just like that for CPU+mobo+RAM then it won't matter much if it will be Intel or AMD. For most both options are way to expensive and if anyone wants PC for gaming then will pick 1700/1700X ... not even 1800X as it's waste of money.

I'm not on any side and I own Ryzen but all I see is that Intel is bad and AMD is good. Whole this year the same. Constant comparisons between these 2 brands and in most cases between processors designed for different user groups. What's worse most people who comment that have no clue how it really works.

I work with business clients. Everything like production, logistics, sales, graphics designing ( TV commercials included ) ... Some big corporations, some small. Many international. Somehow so far 1 client asked for Ryzen and bought it for work ... 1.
Only 6 core ryzens are selling good. Where in this situation will be threadripper ?

Number of sales from one of the biggest online stores in this part of EU:
7700K - 1429
7600K - 1366
Ryzen 1700 - 276
Ryzen 1700X - 85
Ryzen 1800X - 29
Ryzen 1600 - 681 ... released 2 months later
7900X no numbers so I guess below 10 ... maybe 5, I'm not expecting more but what it shows is that barely anyone buys 8c+ platforms so we can talk how great can be threadripper but who will buy it ? ...

What are the meaning of the sale figures your showing.