AMD’s Eight-Core Ryzen 7 2700X Now Available for $200

36 Comments

View All Comments

• Gondalf - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link

  About R&D costs, this is the real issue at AMD. Until now they have sold server SKUs without a serious software assistance, and this the main reason the market share remain low after a very good first edition of Epyc. Too bad for AMD, as the market share will grow the will are constrained to hire a big army division of engineers dedicated to customer needs, these needs are huge in these days if you consider that Intel has 15.000 engineers dedicated to custom software for server customers.
  So the situation is very fluid and sometimes a company has a too good product for its own capabilities. AMD has to double or triple its staff in order to compete with Intel.

• Opencg - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link

  The reason the market share remains low is it is the SERVER MARKET. You upgrade when you NEED to upgrade not when a new chip comes out. One of intels lowest stock prices came after itanium came out and papers were complaining that not enough servers were upgrading. But it was still a big win for intel to get into 64bit early.

• Gondalf - Thursday, July 18, 2019 - link

  You have not understood my post and apparently you don't know how modern Companies act.
  Modern companies avoid to hire a staff of ten software engineers to dedicate to software optimization; a lot simpler is to ask to Intel or IBM or Fujitsu, this is cheaper than a staff of IT guys.
  AMD can not give thiss service with its tiny 8500 people staff, half of them dedicated to GPUs for gamers.
  
  Yes the server market atc like an elephant and companies are reclutant to change supplier, but the new customers are an intersting fish, still these new customers want a "buy and run" solution, only big tiers can give this, AMD is clearly not one of these.
  So AMD will sell an intersting number of SKUs to some HPC customers and even to some big farm but hardly will reach a decent market share without changing company profile.
  Right now AMD is unable to actively sustain its own server products. It will be a paintful adventure try to catch Intel in Server arena, it will take years and years (many).
  
  Obviously AMD execs say the contrary but they well know to be liars.

• azfacea - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link

  nope a CPU is more than to make plenty money. especially if u are not throwing tens of billions at buying mcafee, paying cell phone makers to use crappy modems and believing marketing can make atom displace arm in tablets.
  
  also 12nm wafers are probly more than 30% cheaper now than they were when 2700x launched.

• Gondalf - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link

  Forget your 30% right now, there isn't any sign that a 14nm wafer is cheaper than years ago. This could be true at TSMC, but definitively nope at GF that is medium volume and not a yields champion.
  It is a fact that ony with 3000 series potentially AMD will begin to make real profit, lets see if Intel will begin a bloody price war.
  Right now Intel is offering the Coffe Lake lineup at an huge discount in Asia, this is a recent move comfirmed by many. Bet the grow AMD in market share gain will stop in present quarter.
  
  After all the average user do not notice any difference between the two cpu lines. I can't see a new K8 around.

• Irata - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link

  I would wager that AMD has a considerably leaner cost structure than Intel just by virtue of being smaller and no longer owning any fabs.
  
  I agree that they need to make money in order to stay relevant (Intel managing to cut AMD off from revenue back in the original Athlon days almost killed them).
  
  That said, if you look at their CPU price range, they are now populating considerably higher ranges than prior to Ryzen's launch. I don't think they had any > $200 CPU on offer back in 2016 and now the cheapest 7nm Ryzen (3600) starts at $200.

• kpb321 - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

  I've got a B350 and 1500X system right now. I'm hoping in a year or two I'll be able to pick up a 3700X at something close to this price point. I doubt I'll really need it but it would still make a pretty solid all around CPU upgrade with better single threaded performance and twice as many cores/threads.

• cl114c0777498d - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

  Better to buy the 2700x or the 3600, since they're the same price at the moment?
  
  From benchmarking comparisons, the 3600 looks still better and has more room for overclocking. Is there any reason to go for the 2700x even at this price?

• sorten - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

  For gaming at least the 3600 would be the better pick. It's faster on single core benchmarks and uses much less power. For heavy multithreaded workloads the 2700x may still over the better overall performance, but less efficiently.

• sorten - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

  *offer
  
  ugh, this sad old commenting system. lol