AMD Zen Octacore Summit Ridge engineering sample spotted at 3.2/3.5 GHz

Still kinda confused about which part of the market these chips are being aimed at. The suggested price point says to me that AMD are going after Intel's Z170 platform but all the specs suggest that they're being aimed at the X99 platform for a fraction of the price which sounds like AMD would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Am I missing something? Are the chips not performing as advertised or are AMD really pushing a loss leader to try and take a big chunk of the whole high-end market in one fell swoop?

 

Shooting them self in the foot? How about every customer who is being shafted by silly priced, limping i3 and not so special i5? While you can buy cpu and mobo combo for £100 which doesn't even cover cheapest i3 :banana:
And lets not forget that there are more people struggling around the world than are prepared to paid whatever the price.
So I say thank you AMD for an attempt to bring the prices to where they should be and I will be showing that with my wallet as soon as possible.

 

For me it's clear what AMD is aiming at. These CPUs have as target the whole Desktop Market. As we well know AMD now will use the unified AM4 socket for CPUs and APUs. No more FM4 or, Z170, H170, H110 and so on. Just AM4. Which practically means that Zen CPUs will be a choice for mainstream and High end Desktop users at the same time (let's say Z170, X99). The names of the models indicate that. SR3 to SR7. Simple as that. Just one socket to "rule them all". No more confusion. Instead more practical. One Motherboard, many CPU/APU types. No more questions like "which motherboard, supports the x CPU". And on top of that affordable prices (hopefully).

 

There are a few different chipsets, but they should all support all the CPUs.

 

I hope this works, I really do. It was about damn time.

The analogy is obviously like this on the price range:

SR3 -> i3
SR5 -> i5
SR7 -> i7

If they somehow offer double the core count for each category, Intel is in serious trouble. And judging by the confirmation that the smallest Zen core is a quad, then it could easily be:

SR3: 4c/4t vs i3 2c/4t
SR5: 8c/8t vs i5 4c/4t
SR3: 8c/16t vs i7 4c/8t

The only part I really don't know about is the SR5 one. For all we know, it could be a 8c/16t part with lower binning, and the SR7 taking the place of the "Black Edition" CPUs.

 

Hold our horses!

If its real 8 cores CPU then should cost ~500$/EUR.
Im not expecting a perf who will beat or equal Skylake or Broadwell.But if they do then STF and take my moooney.

 

Yea. And well it's not like AMD has any chance of asking the same prices as Intel w/o losing loads of customers at the process even with similar performing chips.

3.2-3.5 with oc on air to 4.2 and ln2 to 5ghz I that would be good for an octacore really good imo. Rather similar to the Intels 6xxx lineup

@Turanis why should it cost 500+? Because Intel has silly margins?

 

my thoughts exactly

 

Because new tech and low production rate.If they dont put on the market(I guess they dont) a large amount of chips then the price will grow.

 

If AMD can deliver chips that are in the same performance ballpark as the Broadwell-E then they could charge €400-500 and still significantly undercut Intel.
Just saying that something smells a bit off about these leaks vs peoples expectations

 

Hmm... Zen just might be my ticket to 8 core/thread world.

If those specs and prices are even 80 % true SR could have very good performance/value and properly compete with Intel counterparts for the first time in years.

Also the single-socket ideology is consumer friendly, get the chipset you need and you're set.

 

It shouldn't. This is about the same size than any quad core Intel chip with igpu. There's pretty much zero reasons why it should cost as much like that. 8 core Zen will almost certainly cost about the same as quad core Core i7. They want to sell chips and gain market share. If it costs 500 € that's not going to happen especially since this will not match nor beat Skylake (or Kaby Lake).

 

They have the potential to shake up the market this time around,Lets see what happens I have high hopes for them.

 

If they are good 8/16 zen can bring true 8cores to consumers for a lot less then Intels charging, this can have a positive affect on the market as a whole.Intel charges way to much for there products but that's what happens when you have no contenders fighting against you.Its real important for Amd to price these in a way most of us can afford to reach them....$300 USD would be a perfect price in my opinion.

 

My only concern is that motherboard manufacturers will cheap out on parts. Then we would end up with boards that will blow up and AMD will fully take the blame even though it would not be their fault. (Or the CPU will throttle like made and make it look like their CPU's are slow and once again, AMD would take the blame.):bang:

 

That screen shot of AMD Zen cpu prices and performance is based on my own analys and is not confirmed by any AMD offical group , but i am glad people can discuss about it.

this is my original post from Reddit:
www(reddit).com/r/Amd/comments/5dl2ho/what_amd_is_up_to_with_zen_disscussion/
(i am new here not allowed to post a link just remove () around reddit .)

obviously who took the picture were missing my opinion about the price of zen , thats what i post under the graph and let me explain again :

All Intel Data based on google and youtube. All AMD Data based on Rumors so far.(could be incorrect when Zen rolls out)
1.Zen 8core/16threads CPU's performance is unknown but some rumors said it should be on par with 5960x(8cores)at first,then recently rumors said it should be on par with 6850k(6cores).And i did some research and found out surprisingly they have both scored 1300ish on Cinebench R15 without OC.And those rumors came from different groups of people,so I thought it might be accurate.And it should be around 250~300 usd. To be more cautious,I just add another 50$.
2.The same chinese saurce point out the summit ridge will be in 3 different level.(SR7,SR5,SR3)I thought it might be like 8c/16t,4c/8t.4/4t.But I remember CEO lisa said muiltiple time that Summit ridge CPUs are for enthusiasts.So I dont think 4c/4t is not in this case.It should be more like 8c/16,6c/12t,4c/8t and all overclockable.
3.Rumors also said there will be a special edition of 8c/16t Cpu for above 500$ ,which is more overclock capable.
Summary: When I finished those data and found something interesting. When someone wants to build a pc and pick up a CPU ,there will be two important factors that matter. Performance and Price.
When someone follow the PRICE,Zen cpu will be the best price you can buy on the market and outperform any other cpu which have same price or above.
When someone follow the Performance, Zen cpu will be the most powerful cpu under 500$(not included 6900k and 6950x which are 1100$ and 1700$)
But summit ridge cpu have no igfx and I think it's right because enthusiasts will buy dGPU anyway ,there is no reason for desktop enthusiastic CPU to included a iGFX. It just doesn't make any sense.
I think what AMD really want is pull the enthusiastic CPU price range to 150~500$ and leave the Zen APU to handle <=150$ cpu market(where amd's iGFX really shines and outperforms Intel's)

 

from what I saw it is double the threads

SR3: 4core 8 thread
SR5: 6core 12thread
SR7: 8core 16thread
SR7 BE: 8core 16thread

 

That's what I understood as well.

I hope these chips ICP is around haswell/skylake. The only question left is the new AMD chipsets.

 

Yes, you are missing something--you don't know AMD... Intel's prices are gouging prices--leaving plenty of headroom for AMD to manufacture chips in the equivalent or better performance range at a fraction of Intel's prices. Looking at Intel's pricing and making assumptions about AMD is doing it backwards. When AMD launched the Athlon and then the A64, it wasn't just pricing Intel had to drop through the floor--Intel had to *drop* the entire 32-bit Pentium architecture!... It was non-competitive with AMD at any price and Intel was forced to can the whole architecture and officially cancelled it. If not for the A64, Core 2 would never have been born. Intel was pushing Itanium for 64-bit performance, along with RDRAM, at huge prices no one was interested in, etc. That fact that Intel's route to 64-bit computing would have made everyone's 32-bit software and hardware *incompatible* didn't help Intel's case, either. The entire market dumped Intel's suggested route and went AMD's x86-64, DDR SDRM route, instead. We are still there today.

Intel may be 10x as big but it has 10x the overhead of AMD, too, never forget. Intel's price gouging is so bad, in fact, that it leaves AMD plenty of room to offer equivalent or better performance for a fraction of the cost, and still make a ton of money. Never try to figure out what AMD is doing by looking at Intel...Gaaaaa.... It only even works for Intel when Intel has no x86 high-end cpu competition.

That said, these are desktop chips, remember--not server chips--where AMD charges much more--but will still provide better value than Intel, there, too.