Leaked AMD Ryzen Pricing Should Give Intel Pause About Kaby Lake Positioning

AMD is going to release its first batch of highly anticipated Ryzen processors to retail in just a few more weeks. Many questions will be answered at that time, including the big one that is one everyone's mind—how much will these new processors cost? Well, you might not have to wait to find out. An online shop seems to have jumped the gun by listing a few of AMD's Ryzen processors, complete with pricing information.

The online vendor supposedly spilling the beans is ShopBLT. It listed three Ryzen SKUs, all of which are part of the Ryzen 7 series. They include the Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 7 1700X, and Ryzen 7 1700. If the accompanying prices turn out to be correct, Intel may want to rethink its Kaby Lake lineup. Here is a look:
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1700: $316.59
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1700X: $381.72
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1800X: $490.29
AMD Headquarters

Each listing on ShopBLT's website contains a manufacturing part number and a UPC code. That doesn't necessarily prove anything, though it does make the price points more believable. It is also worth pointing out that the three Ryzen 7-series processors listed are consistent with a recent leak of AMD's entire Ryzen lineup spanning 17 SKUs, including four-core, six-core, and eight-core processors.

Let's just assume for a moment that these leaks are accurate. AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X sports 8 cores and 16 threads, the same as Intel's Core i7-6900K, which it's supposed to compete against. If so, the price advantage obviously belongs to AMD—the Ryzen 7 1800X is less than half the price of Intel's Core i7-6900K, a part that typically sells for $1,049.

Both processors have similar clockspeeds. If earlier demos of Ryzen reflect the architecture's performance across the board, then the Ryzen 7 1800X will be competitive with the Core i7-6900K, but 70 percent cheaper. With that kind of price gap, AMD wouldn't need to run the tables in benchmarks, it would just need to be within striking distance to make things interesting. After all, who wants to pay twice as much for a processor that is nominally faster?

Via:  Forbes
Show comments blog comments powered by Disqus