Rumor: full Ryzen spec and price list leaks

The smoke around AMD's Ryzen chips grows ever thicker. Today's rumor concerns the entire Ryzen lineup from top to bottom. WCCFTech claims to have obtained the entire Ryzen spec and price list from a Chinese retailer, and it's removed what it believes to be the taxes and fees that retailer adds to its chips to arrive in the ballpark of final USA pricing for the Ryzen lineup. As always, grab a pallet of salt and enjoy what could be the most complete leak of Ryzen info yet.

Model Cores/threads L3 cache TDP Base/turbo clocks XFR Price
Ryzen 7 1800X 8/16 16MB 95W 3.6 GHz/4.0 GHz Yes $499
Ryzen 7 1700X 8/16 16MB 95W 3.4 GHz/3.8 GHz Yes $389
Ryzen 7 1700 8/16 16MB 65W 3.0 GHz/3.7 GHz No $319
Ryzen 5 1600X 6/12 16MB 95W 3.3 GHz/3.7 GHz Yes $259
Ryzen 5 1500 6/12 16MB 65W 3.2 GHz/3.4 GHz No $229
Ryzen 5 1400X 4/8 16MB 65W 3.5 GHz/3.9 GHz Yes $199
Ryzen 5 1300 4/8 16MB 65W 3.3 GHz/3.6 GHz No $175
Ryzen 3 1200X 4/4 8MB 65W 3.4 GHz/3.8 GHz Yes $149
Ryzen 3 1100 4/4 8MB 65W 3.2 GHz/3.5 GHz No $129

Table data: wccftech

We didn't note as much in the table, but according to our conversations with AMD, all of these chips will have unlocked multipliers for easy overclocking. We'll defer deeper analysis of this information until it's official, but even if it's just in the ballpark, we see plenty of reasons to be excited in the table above. Assuming AMD's performance guidance for Ryzen is on target, builders could enjoy a major boost in performance in budget systems with those parts. For now, however, we'll just have to wait and see.

Comments closed
    • Shobai
    • 2 years ago

    [url=https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_ryzen_7_1700x_has_been_priced_at_389_99_by_frys_us/1<]OC3D is reporting[/url<] that Fry's has listed the Ryzen 7 1700X at $389.99. Apparently you can even call them with the PLU and have the price confirmed over the phone, at least according to Reddit

    • liamtech
    • 2 years ago

    Licking my chops and wanting that 6 core at yeah price! (pray the performance is there)

    • gmskking
    • 3 years ago

    Benchmarks should be out soon I would think if it is supposed to launch in a couple weeks.

    • ultima_trev
    • 3 years ago

    The negativity on these comments utterly flabbergasts me. I can sum it into the following categories:

    “ZOMG, IT CAN’T MATCH A 5GHZ KABY LAKE IN SINGLE THREADED PERFORMANCE, THEREFORE IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    “HASWELL IPC????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MIGHT AS WELL BE BULLDOZER IPC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    “IT DOESN’T EVEN HAVE 256-BIT AVX2 REGISTERS????????????!!!!!!! EVEN THOUGH MOST GAMES DON’T BENEFIT FROM 256-BIT AVX AND LIKELY NEVER WILL… IT STILL SUCKS COMPARED TO THE BRUTAL POWER OF THE SIX MONTH OUT SKYLAKE-X WHICH WILL COST 30-50% MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    • Shobai
    • 3 years ago

    Oooh! Apparently a local [Aussie] retailer, eyo, has leaked some of Asus’ AM4 release lineup with AUD pricing. Google-fu should find it if you’re keen; I won’t link it because it’s WWCF.

    eyo listed a Crosshair VI Hero board, using the X370 chipset, for AU$380. Given that eyo sells for $240 a motherboard I bought recently for $199 from Umart, the prices quoted may be a touch high even before you correct for AUD->USD.

    • f0d
    • 3 years ago

    the prices are almost exactly 1/2 intels prices on the low end and even more than half intel when you go up to 8 core and will most likely have much cheaper motherboards to go with it

    cheapest overclockable 4/4 (Ryzen 3 1100) is $129
    intels (i5-7600K) is $239

    cheapest overclockable 4/8 (Ryzen 5 1300) is $175
    intels (i7-7700K) is $349

    6/12 (Ryzen 5 1500) $229
    6800k $424

    8/16 (Ryzen 7 1700) $319
    6900k $1049

    you could probably build a similar ryzen system for the same price as the intel cpu alone
    or you can go up in multithreaded performance – 4/4 intel i5 7600k $239 vs 6/12 ryzen $229

    most people wont mind trading a little single threaded performance for up to 3X more threads (4/4 intel vs 6/12 ryzen) as long as the rumours hold true about ryzen having roughly haswell level of performance

    • albundy
    • 3 years ago

    The Ryzen 5 1600X seems to be in the pricepoint that I paid for my 6700k. cant wait to see the benchmarks.

    • 1sh
    • 3 years ago

    I am assuming a 8 core Ryzen with SMT disabled should be able to OC bit higher as well.

    There are cases of HT hurting performance in certain games with the core i7.
    [url<]https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/[/url<]

    • blastdoor
    • 3 years ago

    For people whose work scales well with cores (mine does) the 7-series is pretty compelling.

    6 Core Broadwell-E at 3.6 GHz is $609

    8 Core Broadwell-E at 3.2 GHz is $1049.

    [url<]https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007671%2050001157%20600030238%20600213784[/url<] The worst case (yet still slightly plausible) scenario for AMD is that the 1800X performs no better than the 3.6 GHz 6 core Broadwell. But even then AMD is still offering a competitive product for the price. Given the performance "leaks" we've seen so far, though, the more likely scenario is that the 1800X is far more than just competitive for the price -- it looks like it might be a real steal. While it's true that many people don't benefit from multithreaded performance, it's also true that many people don't benefit from faster single threaded performance either. It's also true that people can't eat microprocessors or drive to work in them. So yeah -- this product will not meet all the needs of all the people. But it's looking like a very strong product for a specific market segment.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      6 Core Broadwell E at 3.4 GHz (and fully unlocked for overclocking) is $420.

      [url<]https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-6800K-Processor-FC-LGA14A-BX80671I76800K/dp/B01FJLA8NI[/url<] Incidentally that chip, non-overclocked, was basically in a tie with an 8 core RyZen that had similar clockspeeds in some online leaks.

    • unclesharkey
    • 3 years ago

    I heard that February 24th is the launch date? Anyone know if this is true?

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      YES!

      Lisa Su said an early March release for RyZen and February 24 is definitely early as far as March is concerned!

        • unclesharkey
        • 3 years ago

        Wow by all of the negative votes you get on a consistent basis I can see that you are very popular around here. 😉

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          Let’s just say that some people around here don’t like being told things they don’t want to hear.
          Even if those things are accurate.

      • HERETIC
      • 3 years ago

      Reading few sites-NDA lifts 28FEB-full availability 3MARCH

    • rudimentary_lathe
    • 3 years ago

    Curious as to what explains the very significant difference in TDP between 1700X and 1700.

    Also that’s a significant difference in price from the 1700 to the X parts for a very small frequency delta. Unless the 1700 has no overclocking room whatsoever, can’t see many shelling out the extra for the X parts.

    The 1300 looks like a downright steal at $175, as does the 1100 at $129. Hopefully these prices prove accurate, and single threaded performance proves to be in the Haswell range or better. If true on both counts, I predict the 1300 and 1100 will sell like hot cakes.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]Curious as to what explains the very significant difference in TDP between 1700X and 1700. [/quote<] Market segmentation more than real-world wattage differences. Repeat after me: TDP != real-world power usage. It's roughly indicative of the thermal dissipation (hence the "T" in "TDP") that a platform requires, but that isn't the same thing as what you will measure at various times during operation of the chip.

      • [+Duracell-]
      • 3 years ago

      From what I understand, 1700X has XFR whereas 1700 does not. XFR lets the chip boost higher if the CPU isn’t hitting any thermal or power limits.

      So theoretically, 1700X should be able to boost higher than 3.8Ghz (especially with the higher 95W TDP) whereas 3.7Ghz is the max the 1700 will boost.

      Of course, all this goes out the window when you overclock.

    • f0d
    • 3 years ago

    im buying one as long as it has decent ipc (roughly broadwell/haswell) and can overclock to around 4.5ghz

    already sold my 3930k system – i wanted to step up to an 8 core intel but the cost of entry was just too damn high for 2 more cores but it seems ryzen is going to be a pretty good price for 8 decent SMT cores

    over $1k for 8 intel cores as well as an arm and a leg (and a liver and a lung) for the motherboard
    $319 for 8 amd cores and most likely a much cheaper motherboard
    i would most likely be able to buy ryzen cpu/mobo/ram for cheaper than the price of just an intel 8 core

    it will just come down to how good the motherboards for ryzen are

    • Kougar
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]We didn't note as much in the table, but according to our conversations with AMD, all of these chips will have unlocked multipliers for easy overclocking. [/quote<] Thank you! Out of all the rumors nobody was answering this so it's great to see it confirmed. Since this is the case I would think the 1700 would be severely undercutting sales of the higher models though... Also nice to see that "PRO" branding rubbish gone, dunno how anyone was taking that seriously.

    • TheEmrys
    • 3 years ago

    Nice work, Damage! Man, so glad he is turning AMD around to the company some of us irrationally loved (486dx4-120), rationally (Athlon 64 X2), and then irrationally again (Phenom…. And just about everything since).

    Hope this is a winner, AMD.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    FORUM ADMINS: UNLEASH THE SPAM HAMMER on “arya vivekanand”

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      “BAMMMM!!!!”

      And that folks, is how we do that.

    • anotherengineer
    • 3 years ago

    I wonder if TR’s review will have an old 955BE in the charts so I can compare it to what I am using?? 😉

      • dragosmp
      • 3 years ago

      940BE here

      +1 for an old Phenom2 in the benches

        • Concupiscence
        • 3 years ago

        Absolutely onboard with this too, let’s see the last AMD design considered formidable at its release date compared to the new stuff.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      ATOM! ATOM! ATOM!

        • dragosmp
        • 3 years ago

        You mean Jaguar Jaguar!

        …have a 5350 too in box somewhere

        • Mr Bill
        • 3 years ago

        Lets see if we can make the Atom Bomb.

      • maasenstodt
      • 3 years ago

      Still using a 1060T Thuban here. I’d love to see that included!

      • Welch
      • 3 years ago

      965BE M please 😉

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      i seriously hope the do. i am very curious to find out how it performs.

    • arya vivekanand
    • 3 years ago
      • zamb
      • 3 years ago

      Spam. User joined today, and the link has no relation to the topic.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        Lemme guess.. Was it one of those ‘Google gives $200 per hour’ kind of spam?

          • Meadows
          • 3 years ago

          They do?! Holy moly, sign me up!

            • Concupiscence
            • 3 years ago

            Don’t Bait the Bots™

    • Krogoth
    • 3 years ago

    It looks like Phenom II again with Intel striking back the HEDT market their next generation HEDT platform a.k.a Skylake-E and Skylane-EP in the next fiscal quarter or two.

    • synthtel2
    • 3 years ago

    At only 8MB of cache per CCX, the 16MB on the 4C8T parts says these are all 8C dies. Now, normally this would say they’ve just got really terrible yields or are segmenting too aggressively, but what if it’s a clock target thing?

    We’ve seen that AMD GPUs on the same process have pretty variable clock/voltage curves. OC headroom is pretty weak all around, but some chips undervolt like a boss and others definitely don’t.

    Zen needs the single-thread performance to still exist on the lower-end chips. The people who need lots of cores know they need lots of cores and mostly are willing to pay for it. Everyone can use more single-thread performance, but budget buyers will be fine with 4C.

    What if yields are excellent, but some cores can clock a lot higher than others while sticking to the power targets? The obvious way to bin that would just be by clocks and power, but that doesn’t fit the market goals. Disabling the low-performing cores to keep the clocks high on the remaining ones might make a lot more sense as far as what will sell.

    This is probably going to be a much smaller chip than Polaris 10, and P10 sells for $200-odd with memory/power/cooling/etc attached. I don’t doubt that an R3 1100 based on an 8C die can still turn in a marginal profit, and all those higher-priced SKUs are around to make up the R&D (and hopefully more).

    I should probably know this, but what’s XFR?

      • astrotech66
      • 3 years ago

      Extended Frequency Range

      As explained in an article on techpowerup.com, “Think of it as a second stage boost that rewards good CPU cooling with higher CPU clocks set automatically.”

      Referenced article: [url<]https://www.techpowerup.com/230609/amd-ryzen-xfr-frequencies-revealed[/url<]

        • synthtel2
        • 3 years ago

        Thanks. I’ll be curious to see how that one behaves in practice.

        Edit to respond to your edit, I just forgot the acronym, not the tech. Thanks anyway tho.

          • ChicagoDave
          • 3 years ago

          Yeah I’m curious to see how these processors behave…sometimes I don’t want my CPU maxing out my cooling (read: making my fans all run at full blast). Also curious if this is just available for quick bursts or if it will increase the frequency for a sustained workload.

          My first thought it is won’t be a that big of deal (kind of like Intel’s Speed Shift 2 vs Speed Shift 1; it was measurable but not really groundbreaking. But if those prices are even close to correct, AMD is going to actually charge anywhere from $20 to $70 for that feature (comparing to the nearest same core chip. The difference in baseclock/turbo should hopefully be a moot point if all chips are overclockable. For the top end chip, really interested to see if this XFR is worth $70 more.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Watching all these Zen rumors come out is not so different from the campaign trail last year. Promises, hopes, confusion, disappointments, rumors…. And the promise to Make AMD Great Again.

    • Wonders
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]according to our conversations with AMD[/quote<] [url<]https://youtu.be/sYGngLcS0u4?t=4s[/url<]

    • sophisticles
    • 3 years ago

    This chart can’t be anywhere near accurate, think about it a $180 difference between the fastest and slowest 8C/16C, for what amounts to a 600Mhz difference?

    Not to mention, based on this pricing and naming scheme it seems that AMD is positioning these processors as competitors for Intel chips that they should easily be able to beat:

    Ryzen 7’s seem to target Intel’s i7’s, quad core and 6 core.
    Ryzen 5’s seem to target Intel’s i5’s.
    Ryzen 3’s seem to target Intel’s i3’s.

    I have seen the supposed benchmarks, Blender and Handbrake, the sad truth is they don’t fill me with much hope. According to AMD the Ryzen 7 was able to complete that Blender render in 36 seconds, my Xeon E3-1241 v3 completes it in 51 seconds and if I modify the settings to allow Blender to use GPU rendering my GTX960 finishes it in 29 seconds.

    I think the fact that Intel responded to all the AMD leaks by releasing an unlocked dual core with HT that can clock up to 4.5Ghz with no sweat and 5Ghz is easily achievable speaks volumes of what they think of Ryzen.

    Prepare for another disappointing AMD offering.

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 3 years ago

      And Intel talking about lower margins on DCG because Zen is bad?
      Also rumors of those i5/i7 K series with a bit more clockspeed.

      I expect Intel, like most of us, did not expect prices so low. Raise all Zen prices $50-75, and it is not nearly so threatening.

      Maybe on the consumer side due to not high enough clockspeed, but I do not think so for most users.

      Looks like AMD is delivering what they tried to with Bulldozer and failed. Nearly equal ST performance and much better MT performance per dollar.

        • DavidC1
        • 3 years ago

        Problem isn’t the price but what the expected levels of performance is. Up until Ryzen, Intel had an unchallenged lead. That means they can get away with charging halo prices. If the difference from Ryzen is only 5% compared to the latest and greatest Kabylake in per clock per core performance, then that’s a big problem.

        And Intel only released a decent priced Pentium with HT not because they knew Ryzen would suck. Even if they knew it, it would still be late. Their real answer won’t be here for another 3 or more years. Ryzen has lot of signs being like the original Athlon. It wasn’t an absolute leader like their X2 chips, but it would put people on alert.

        I think servers would fare far better for Intel, just because customers are more knowledgeable and technology matters and Intel made the chips accordingly. Some of their efforts in server are actually brilliant, compared to desktops boring, dull, and overpriced.Though I would have to assume AMD would do more than zero share they have now.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    I hope they drastically ramp those clocks down the road. This is reminiscent of the last few new CPU generation launches. AMD always seems to not have the clocks they need. They need to hit the ground running.

    • torquer
    • 3 years ago

    I remember another 8 core CPU from AMD that was preceded by breathless proclamations/predictions from the enthusiast community. I hope this story ends better than that one did.

      • Klimax
      • 3 years ago

      Hype got bit out of hand again. One of best outcomes is neutral. (Aka survival)

    • ozzuneoj
    • 3 years ago

    It’ll be interesting to see how the R3 1100’s 4 cores (with overclocking potential) compare to the G4560’s 2 cores with SMT (and no overclocking) for half the price.

    Personally, I like the looks of the R5 1300 at $175. If XFR ends up being a big deal, then the 1400X models will probably be the go-to chip for gamers, but if similar overclocking results can be had with manual tweaking, I think the 1300 could be quite a bargain. Assuming per-thread performance is similar to the leaked 1700X passmark benchmarks, an R5 1300 overclocked to 4.2Ghz (just an arbitrary number that seems like it’d be reachable) may perform similarly to an i7 6700K or 7700 for only $175.

    • Goty
    • 3 years ago

    You know, I’ve decided that I don’t even care if these processors are any good; it’s just fun to watch the hardcore Intel fans sweat at the possibility.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      I myself am just curious to see how it does but I feel no excitement to upgrade. I must be getting old.

      • nanoflower
      • 3 years ago

      Why would any Intel fan sweat at the possibility of AMD having a good product? Maybe if they owned Intel stock but at best AMD may match Intel on a per core/clock performance. Given that most Intel fans will already be running on a system that meets their needs Ryzen isn’t going to hurt them. The people that don’t have a system that meets their needs should be happy as they will either have a cheaper Ryzen solution available to them or a reduced price Intel solution.

      Also if Rzyen is a good product then it will provide extra incentive for Intel to work on their price and performance. That’s a good thing for all customers.

        • Goty
        • 3 years ago

        I should clarify; I’m not talking about rational people, I’m talking about the kind of people that bought a P4EE over an Athlon 64.

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          In that case you aren’t talking about me then!

          Also, as far as “rational” goes: Anybody & everybody who insulted Haswell when it came out 4 years ago loses the right to call RyZen some sort of miracle for matching Haswell some of the time and losing some of the time.

            • Goty
            • 3 years ago

            It doesn’t really count if you bought a Prescott instead of the P4EE…

            • jts888
            • 3 years ago

            I was slightly (but silently) underwhelmed with Haswell following the performance miracle that was Sandy Bridge, but I think some of my most downvoted comments are from expressing disapproval of Skylake and Kaby Lake before and at their releases.

            Ever since AMD fell off the map, Intel’s CPU perf/$ growth ground to a halt, but surprisingly large segments of the tech community get upset at the point being brought up.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]surprisingly large segments of the tech community get upset at the point being brought up[/quote<] Its getting harder to surprise me when it comes to apparently irrational behavior.

      • tipoo
      • 3 years ago

      So far even the Intel staff we know are excited, not sweating 😉

      It’s been a long, loong time.

        • blastdoor
        • 3 years ago

        Interesting point…

        It probably would be more fun for Intel designers/engineers to be given free reign by management to use process shrinks as an opportunity to improve performance rather than just shrink the die in order to suck out more profit.

        Perhaps the old axiom about the tradeoffs between power, performance, and area should be updated to include “profit” as one of the factors.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    “Alright folks, time to start working on a completely new core and I want it completed by March 3!!”

    -Brian Krzawhatchamacallit

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Given the small clock speed difference between the 1700X and the 1800X and $110 separating them makes the 1800X almost too silly, even if it’s meant to be the diamond on top of the crown.

      • tipoo
      • 3 years ago

      Also 21% cost increase for 13% base and 2% (!) turbo difference between the 1700 and 1700X, so once you get to a certain core count, 8 in this case, value tapers off it seems.

      • astrotech66
      • 3 years ago

      I see a 1700X with my name on it, with the hope that I can OC it to 1800X levels. There’s no way I’m paying an extra $110 for 200 MHz.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Give those clock speeds and given how Ryzen probably won’t match Skylake IPC, I see no reason why anyone would be excited because of the performance. Skylake and earlier Intel cores already have been giving us that for a while now. What is exciting though, are those price points and TDPs, because this is reminiscent of the RX480 that, while it didn’t break new ground in terms of performance when it came out, gave you what the competition had for a while then at a much lower price, making it compelling to those who were wanting a GTX 970 but thought it was a bit too expensive. The conservative clock speeds here are a bit worrying but could also be forgivable given the TDPs, and one has to wonder how power draw is gonna creep up when you OC these things to stock Intel numbers and beyond. Even if they prove to suck more power I would think people would be willing to put up with them because of the lower prices.

    At any rate, I would think TR already has a couple Ryzen rigs going through its paces in the lab, filling out Excel tables. Would be exciting to finally see how Ryzen does, exactly.

      • dodozoid
      • 3 years ago

      Well, time for another Buffalo, Jeff?

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        If he’s got one, he’s too busy for that.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 3 years ago

          But if he has one he shouldn’t respond. That’s how the canary works. So it works out, and if he doesn’t respond then…

          RYZEN CONFIRMED?

        • ptsant
        • 3 years ago

        Oddly silent, Jeff.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      It’s a different set of standards.
      Skylake not massively faster than last year’s model? INTEL HATES INNOVATION!!

      8 core RyZen comes close to aggregate performance of 6 core 6800K [that was called a piece of crap when it launched a year ago] in a synthetic benchmark: OMG INNOVATION MIRACLE.

      • Kougar
      • 3 years ago

      When AMD is delivering twice as many cores/threads versus Intel at the same price points a minor difference in IPC isn’t going to matter much anyway. Especially if Intel’s IPC doesn’t change for two generations in a row, which appears to be the case with Kaby & Coffee Lake.

        • Concupiscence
        • 3 years ago

        That Ryzen 5 1300 at $175 has my full attention. In a quality mATX motherboard with a 65W TDP, it’d be a monster for a home theater PC, and would probably eat my i3 4170 alive. God, I hope the motherboards are good.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 3 years ago

        Isn’t that exactly what they did with Excavator etc?

        Multiple cores is great, but for many users (especially gamers) it’s still single thread performance that is most critical. Until the software that users actually use is multi-thread optimized, providing more cores is basically answering a question the market didn’t ask.

          • Kougar
          • 3 years ago

          Yes, but the IPC wasn’t even close and they drew more power. Regardless of how they designed Ryzen’s uArch the 8-core part is going to have an equal or greater amount of instruction hardware to the Intel quadcore part this time around.

          A large part of the market did ask. Minimize them as much as you like, but by Intel’s own figures gamers, enthusiasts, and professionals are why the high-end processor section of the PC market has spent the last four years rapidly growing when the overall market is shrinking. Many of those still upgrading are the very people that need extra cores.

          As for games, they tend to be quadcore optimized as compared to ten years ago and sites have long concluded a hot-clocked dual core is no longer sufficient. At these prices AMD’s quads should win out in games against Core i3. Hopefully it will force Intel to finally relegate those dual-core chips deep into budget territory. It will be very interesting to see if games will begin to maximize their code and use of DX12 to take advantage of >4 cores this time around, as until now they had minimal reason to do so.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        I wonder if the alarm bells are going off at Intel HQ, or if perhaps they already have a [i<]cunning plan[/i<]... seems strange that they would sit on their hands as AMD closes in.

      • ultima_trev
      • 3 years ago

      It doesn’t need to match Skylake to be good.

      They went from having IPC like Conroe to IPC like Haswell, which is essentially a 50% gain.

      You might not be excited about getting $1,000 i7 5960X performance at $400… But some of us are very excited about it.

    • slowriot
    • 3 years ago

    $319 for 16 threads and 65W TDP sounds good to me. Definitely think I’ll be building a home server around it barring some disaster once official benchmarks are available.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 3 years ago

    Lower speeds and lower IPC is unfortunate. That said, the pricing seems in line with what you’re getting and it’s definitely changing the argument from quadcore with hyperthreading to greater-than-quadcore and that’s awesome. Finally, Intel will have to advance the mainstream or risk looking behind on a bullet list with CPU’s that are in the running against them.

    AMD really should thank Intel for basically sitting on their hands in terms of not advancing CPU performance for YEARS. If they hadn’t, Intel would probably have lapped this, too.

    I’d not buy in until a year after they were out because I remember the last time I owned an AMD CPU. Back in those days, it was routine to talk about “Intel quality” in motherboards. Remember that? When people would lament not being able to use AMD-quality CPU’s on Intel-quality chipsets?

    Let’s hope AMD doesn’t have any chipset-related horror shows coming…

      • thedosbox
      • 3 years ago

      Relevant:

      [url<]https://techreport.com/news/30307/rumor-amd-zen-chipsets-suffering-usb-3-1-setback[/url<] [url<]https://techreport.com/review/20241/a-quick-look-at-chipset-pci-express-performance[/url<]

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      I’d wait for Zen 2.0 either. Maybe even Zen 3.0. I just don’t need the added performance and I can’t justify the expense. By that time they would’ve ironed out any kinks and tweaked the core. I would feel much better buying what I know is an improved and ironed out iteration of any piece of tech.

      • ultima_trev
      • 3 years ago

      Not low enough to be unfortunate, really. i7 5960X performance for half the price is a win. Going from IPC like Conroe to IPC like Haswell (roughly 50%) is pretty damn impressive too.

      Maybe you were hoping for a 5 GHz i7 6950X with AVX512? Maybe Skylake-X will be more your thing?

    • Pancake
    • 3 years ago

    If those prices are in the ballpark then sign me up for a 1700X. Because I’m enough of a geek to love MOAR COARZ! Also, love the fact it’s viable new tech in comparison the the tediously boring iteration of Intel processors.

    But, really, I would expect Skylake to perform 20% better on gaming and most real world workloads. The low clocks of the 4 core Ryzen 5 units are a big disappointment. I would have hoped half the cores would have given some thermal headroom to clock up into 4+ GHz. At this rate Intel will still have its boot firmly on the throat of AMD.

      • DoomGuy64
      • 3 years ago

      Intel hasn’t improved gaming performance since broadwell, and in some instances had performance regression. They probably perform better in video encoding, but from what it looks like Ryzen will compete very well in gaming benchmarks, especially with their new memory controller.

      So far, that’s what the leaks have indicated, but the only way to know for sure is to wait for the official benchmarks.

        • Pancake
        • 3 years ago

        Well, this erstwhile website offers the following benchmark results for the best video game in the world ever (Grand Theft Auto V) as copied from the Baby Cake review:

        i7-3770K = 78 fps
        i7-7700 = 108 fps

        Zen is supposed to be around Ivy Bridge level of performance (and is clocked similarly too). So, 108/78 = 1.38. My 20% is probably conservative especially given AVX2 optimisation of DirectX drivers and game engines.

        Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! That’s a spanking and a half of full cream dairy milk right there. But I don’t really care. I still gonna buy it because it’s interesting and… MOAR COARZ!

          • DoomGuy64
          • 3 years ago

          First off straw man, I never said Intel hadn’t improved since Ivy Bridge, but Broadwell. You didn’t even attempt to address that, and went instead for a false comparison that I never made.

          Second, Zen is NOT around Ivy Bridge level of performance in gaming. There have already been [url=http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-ryzen-benchmarked/<]benchmarks[/url<] out that clearly put Zen in competition with current Intel CPUs. Third, AVX2 is not some magical pixie dust that gives Intel an edge across the board. Thats an inductive fallacy. AVX2 is not indicative of general performance, only the performance of AVX2. [url<]https://cpugrade.com/amd-ryzen-thoughts.php[/url<] [quote<]The list of software supporting AVX2 instructions is small, even three years after their introduction, and the number of programs relying on them is even smaller. Certainly, video games are one common example that don't care for these instructions. So, what kind of performance can you expect from Zen? It entirely depends on the workload as I'm sure you understand, but the general consesus is that it should be between the i7-6850K and i7-5960X in most scenarios, and between the i7-5960X and i7-6900K in best-case scenarios. Not too shabby at all.[/quote<] Also, I have seen reports of AVX2 only giving an [url=https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-integrated-performance-primitives/topic/472528<]8% improvement[/url<] over standard AVX. AVX2 is not some magical unicorn that makes Intel better across the board, it is a niche scenario performance boost. Stop parroting false propaganda, because all it does is make me laugh at how pathetic your argument is.

            • Pancake
            • 3 years ago

            I have read an analysis that speculates Zen performance would be on the level of Ivy Bridge. That’s pretty impressive. Then you link to some AMD marketing material which only reference to gaming is that “Star Wars New Horizons runs smoothly on Vega on 4K”. 0_o

            You fail to understand my point about AVX2 deliberately. It’s application in video card drivers and gaming engines could give a boost to general 3D gaming into the future. That’s nice to have in the kitty. However, I don’t even care that much about gaming.

            Look, I have no doubt in some scenarios the 8 cores of Zen will monster a 4 core Baby Cake. No doubt at all. Maybe you’re looking to build a killer Ashes of the Singularity rig. Whatever floats your boat.

            Anyway, I’m looking forward to building a Zen rig – probably running Linux. Not used for gaming but multi-threaded computing (geospatial analysis). Because – MOAR COARZ.

            • ultima_trev
            • 3 years ago

            Most games do not currently used AVX. The only major ones that do to my knowledge are Watch Dogs 2 and Ashes of the Singularity.

            It’s more likely to be used in professional or HPC apps.

            • Pancake
            • 2 years ago

            You’ve just made up your own alternative facts. You know nothing about what games use or don’t use yet it hasn’t stopped you from being steadfastly strong in your opinion.

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          +3 for use of Baby Cake.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 3 years ago

            Figures you’re the +/-3 vote abuse troll.

            If you can’t refute the argument, downvote. Never fails. Here’s a suggestion: Keep an open mind, and don’t be such an obnoxious fanboy. The obnoxious and toxic nature of your posts move people away from accepting your arguments. That goes for the Chuck clones as well.

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            Blah Blah Blah.

            I would have upvoted you, but I detected pro-Intel shilling because nowhere in your post did you accuse Intel of intentionally gimping Sandy Bridge to make Skylake look better. I can’t take you seriously if you can’t be bothered to accusing Intel of gimping.

          • tipoo
          • 3 years ago

          [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm_iv_lUh6Y[/url<]

      • ultima_trev
      • 3 years ago

      20%? Given the leaks, most likely not.

      Maybe closer to 10-15% if you overclock your Skylake enough.

    • gerryg
    • 3 years ago

    [b<]TR System Guide, AMD Fantasy Edition[/b<] [i<]Rules of the road:[/i<] none [b<]The Sweetspot:[/b<] [i<]Processor:[/i<] Ryzen 5 1400X - $199 [i<]Cooler:[/i<] Cooler Master Hyper D92 - $39 [i<]Motherboard:[/i<] Gigabyte GA-F5A4X-THX-1138-NaN-D6HP AM4 - $109 [i<]Memory:[/i<] G.Skill Ripjaws V 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4-3200 - $104 [i<]Graphics:[/i<] MSI Radeon RX 480 8GB Armor OC - $219 [i<]Storage:[/i<] Samsung 850 EVO 500GB - $178; WD Blue 3TB - $94 [i<]Enclosure:[/i<] Fractal Design Define C (Window, of course) - $89 [i<]PSU:[/i<] Seasonic SSR-550RM - $69 Total: $932 🙂

      • flip-mode
      • 3 years ago

      1400X? Fantasy a little better dude.

      Edit: 16GB? RX480? What kind of low grade fantasy is this?

        • gerryg
        • 3 years ago

        Tried to keep it around $1k, so I ripped most of the items from TR system guide for existing sweet spot, threw in 1400X and fake mobo with reasonable expectation of price. Mostly did it to convince myself it’s cheaper than the Intel comparable. If performance is equivalent, then it’s a winner. BTW, I did say “AMD Fantasy”, right? 😉

      • slowriot
      • 3 years ago

      Not bad. Rather save money by using the stock HSF and a cheaper case to get more CPU or GPU.

        • flip-mode
        • 3 years ago

        Why does “fantasy edition” mean something so different to me than it seems to mean to other people? It don’t mean using a stock HSF and a cheaper case to me.

          • thedosbox
          • 3 years ago

          Yeah, this is weird ass fantasy if no rules apply and you only get low-end components.

          • VincentHanna
          • 3 years ago

          I don’t know. According to the list, you are using a 65watt CPU, so the stock cooler seems reasonable. Changing the label doesn’t necessarily change the reasonableness of the upgrade.

          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            • gerryg
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah, I would most likely go for stock myself, their new ones are decent, but if really overclockable, need to upgrade a bit.

          • gerryg
          • 3 years ago

          Fantasy as in “not real”.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        Not exciting compared to the other Ryzen chips but it’s still in line with a 6700K with some overclocking, I would think. And at $199 it’s almost a no brainer.

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      Spend $30 more and get 50% more cores. Instead of XFR, OC manually.

      • MOSFET
      • 3 years ago

      Nice! If only that EVO was on sale like the friday of blackness. I did recently pick up 2x D92s from Newegg, new, for less than $39 though ($17 ea).

      Good grief, is that a real product name? [b<]Gigabyte GA-F5A4X-THX-1138-NaN-D6HP AM4[/b<]

        • gerryg
        • 3 years ago

        LOL I hate their product IDs even though good boards, just made it up since boards not out yet, only a couple announced and prolly not ones I would buy anyway (I won’t buy till Christmas, should be many more available by then)

    • GrimDanfango
    • 3 years ago

    I’ve not followed closely at all, but I presume the speculated big deal with Ryzen is that 2 of its cores will have an aggregate performance that’s significantly better than 1 of Intel’s on their latest quad-core.
    In which case – the 95W TDP seems surprising… are they really likely to be so efficient that they can get substantially better whole-chip-performance-per-watt than the 91W top-end Kaby Lake quad core? Or is that TDP likely leaning on the conservative-estimate side, and they’ll actually draw significantly more than Intel quads?

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      TDP numbers from different CPU manufacturers are not comparable. AMD has been using ACP as a stand-in for TDP for years with Dozer/Excavator etc.

      While I expect Ryzen will have much better performance per watt than the construction line of CPUs, I think we’ll have to wait till reviews to see what the real-world performance, TDP and efficiency are like.

        • GrimDanfango
        • 3 years ago

        Ah right… well, I await the first reviews with bated breath! I get the feeling I’m going to end up down the Broadwell-E route for an imminent new build regardless, but I’ll certainly hold off for the moment to see what comes of Ryzen.

      • synthtel2
      • 3 years ago

      Full-speed AVX/FMA drives up Intel’s TDP figures a fair bit, and Zen doesn’t have so much of that hardware. It makes for a big gap in the peak power draw, but task energy probably isn’t better than SKL/KBL.

        • Klimax
        • 3 years ago

        More precisely, it doesn’t have any of it. They have according to Kanter only 128-bit units and AVX(2) takes double of everything beside getting cracked into 2×128-workunits.

        And Xeon have dual frequency targets depending on presence or absence of AVX instructions.

          • synthtel2
          • 3 years ago

          Zen can still handle all the instructions, just at half rate.

          HEDT doesn’t have the two frequencies, but the fact that Xeons do illustrates my point about power use nicely.

    • bfar
    • 3 years ago

    I’ve only glanced at this, but assuming single core performance is up to snuff, this renders swaths of Intel’s lineup irrelevant. The entire i3 and HEDT lineups look seriously overpriced next to these. Only the higher clocked Intel chips look in any way compelling, and that could be wiped out be overclocking potential.

      • Klimax
      • 3 years ago

      Incorrect on HEDT. Zen doesn’t have full support for AVX(2). Also memory subsystem will likely ensure that.

      And lastly you forget one critical thing: AMD cannot price too low if performance is there, because they need money, they cannot wage price war with Intel and as high margins as is possible to fund R&D and pay off debts. Those prices tells us everything about performance. And it is not relay good message.

      Reminder: AMD will price as high as they can, see initial Bulldozer prices or Black Edition of Athlons ibn NetBurst era.

        • ChicagoDave
        • 3 years ago

        I can’t remember if they’ve announced this – how many PCIe lanes do Zen CPU’s have vs how many come from the chipset? That’s another big area that separates HEDT from regular Intel processors, especially in the age of m.2/pcie ssd’s.

        • AnotherReader
        • 3 years ago

        Perhaps you need the reminder; [url=https://techreport.com/review/21813/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-processor/4<]Bulldozer debuted at $245[/url<] for the top-end FX-8150. Moreover, AMD has supported [url=http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/50742_15h_Models_60h-6Fh_BKDG.pdf<]AVX2 since Carrizo[/url<]. Perhaps you meant to say that the throughput of AVX2 code would probably be half of a Haswell derived core.

      • ultima_trev
      • 3 years ago

      Most likely won’t beat the i7 6900K (or 6950X) but it should give the i7 5960X a run for its money, considering it’s priced at roughly half and all leaks point to it performing similarly.

      If you need 256-bit AVX registers and quad channel memory however, Intel is still the only game in town. However that won’t affect most desktop apps/game.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 3 years ago

        How many gamers use the 5960X as their gaming platform? Most gamers use systems with 4 physical cores (Sandy / Ivy / Haswell / Skylake). The price delta to those isn’t nearly as large.

        True, RyZen will have up to double the cores, but games aren’t really geared up to make full use of those yet. There are benefits to going 4 core instead of 2 core, but beyond that the gain of moving from 4 to 6 or 8 isn’t enormous. Improving single core IPC is still more beneficial in games than adding more cores.

          • ultima_trev
          • 3 years ago

          I’d argue a lot more people would be using the HEDT platform if it was more affordable. If it were more affordable, it would have more market share. If it had more market share, highly multi-threaded games or apps would be more common place.

          But let’s not forget that gaming isn’t the only thing this will be useful for. Encoding/ripping/converting video and recording Twitch/YouTube streams will also benefit from this.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 3 years ago

            No question that there are activities that benefit from parallelism — my only point was that to date gaming hasn’t been one of them. People who record / convert / rip will of course benefit from as many threads as they can get.

            Of course, that itself is a niche area — most computer users don’t do those things enough to make that capability a significant factor in buying decisions. To put it another way, having 16 virtual threads available may make Twitch streaming more accessible, but that doesn’t mean more people will actually be interested in doing so.

            The other thing to remember is that adding parallelism to application execution increases the complexity of the code, especially on the debugging side. This is especially true for things like games where the sequence in which things occur matters. For encoding for example, it’s easy to break the job up into groups of frames and have each group be processed in parallel then put the whole thing together later — it’s the type of process that can handle out-of-order execution. However, in a game you need to make sure that events happen in proper sequence — otherwise you get things like the player being killed by a shot before the game renders the enemy actually shooting. Keeping everything in a single thread makes it much easier to control the sequencing.

    • Tristan
    • 3 years ago

    While Ryzen is good CPU (based on leaks), Intel still have many advantages:
    – highest clock 4.5 GHz
    – 2x faster AVX2
    – very good OC – Ryzen OC is unknown, OC of Polaris was pretty poor
    – integrated graphics – Ryzen won’t be only for gamers
    – TSX-NI – transactional instructions, with Kaby Lake available even for Celeron, which accelerate usage by apps
    – still highest IPC
    – Intel brand – for many consumers that matter, and AMD is perceived as cheaper replacement

    Ryzen advantage is low prices, low power, and cheaper mobos

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      Nobody actually knows the IPC and whether clock speeds matter.

      • Goty
      • 3 years ago

      You have some valid points there, but the fact that polaris is a poor overclocker has no bearing on how Ryzen will overclock.

        • jihadjoe
        • 3 years ago

        Rather, Ryzen’s OC potential will finally spill the beans on whether Polaris’ rather bad clocks are down to manufacturing or design. Nvidia did mention they did a lot of optimization on Pascal to get it to clock as high as it does, but since they’re on a different process than Polaris it’s hard to tell which is which.

          • jts888
          • 3 years ago

          Polaris is a holdover from a pretty geriatric GCN architecture, which was designed for 28 nm TSMC. Given the modesty of its clock-for-clock improvements, I would be hard pressed to believe that AMD put much effort in whatsoever to rework the core pipelines for higher clocking.

          Vega’s purported higher clocking potential leads me to believe its a design issue, not a manufacturing process one.

      • jts888
      • 3 years ago

      I can agree with you on AVX, IPC, clock, and brand strength, but everything else is questionable IMO. [list<] [*<]Overclocking - early leaks point to Ryzen being mostly VRM-limited here. I don't expect 5 GHz on air, but it won't be exactly shabby. [/*<][*<]TSX - this is something that accelerates enterprise databases a few percent and gives nobody else almost anything whatsoever. [/*<][*<]iGPU - I can't even tell if you're being serious here. These tend to be so underpowered that they're probably better at turning users away from gaming.[/*<][/list<]

        • AnotherReader
        • 3 years ago

        TSX is [url=http://webkit.org/wp-content/uploads/microcontention_versus_threads_novellocks_small.png<]inferior to fine grained locking from a performance perspective[/url<], but it will enable less-skilled developers to gain some of the performance benefits of fine grained locking while spending less effort. That is a win.

          • jts888
          • 3 years ago

          I thought that all the TSX functionality required fallback code paths into traditional locking anyway?
          Between that and transaction complexity being limited by L1D cache line eviction or whatever, I wouldn’t have assumed that it was mostly a play on making concurrent programming easier for simpletons.

            • AnotherReader
            • 3 years ago

            You are right; TSX requires a non-transactional fallback path. Concurrent programming is hard and making the creation of better performing concurrent software is good. AMD tried to create its own transactional memory implementation: ASF. Unlike TSX, ASF guaranteed forward progress. However, I am not sure of its current state.

            • jts888
            • 3 years ago

            OK, I didn’t catch at first that you were speaking more to HLE primarily that to TSX as a whole including RTM. I’ve seen benchmarks with RTM doing a bit better than traditional spinlocks (for smaller-sized transactions at least) but never really paid attention to HLE stuff, since as you said, fine grained locks can perform better without risk of spurious aborts/fallbacks.

            All that said, I still haven’t had somebody make a really compelling case to me where any of it can be compellingly used outside of a few select enterprise applications. I recall Tim Sweeney arguing a decade ago that TM could parallelize game simulations where traditional locking would flounder (thousands of objects each interacting with tens of a few hundred others each tick), but I’ve not heard a single word about UE4 adopting TSX.

            • AnotherReader
            • 3 years ago

            Tim Sweeney’s example would be the ideal case for HLE. HLE is best used when there is frequent contention for the lock but not for the actual protected data. As far as use cases are concerned, you are right. It also doesn’ help matters when Intel plays its usual market segmentation games with TSX.

      • freebird
      • 3 years ago

      If we are going to bring up TSX, then what about the features that ZEN has where as Intel does not?

      [url<]http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-encryption-sme-sev-hw-based-sha/[/url<] and the could provide quite a boost to AMD in VM Server/Cloud market.

    • jensend
    • 3 years ago

    That leaves one question that really needs to be answered before launch:

    Which kinds of condiments go best with each kind of hat?

    A straw hat is probably easiest; plenty of other mammals would happily eat that stuff regardless of AMD launch pricing. Little hard on human digestion if consumed raw, but boil it or fry it and put it in some kind of sauce, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad.

      • gerryg
      • 3 years ago

      I’m thinking marinated and broiled. But what kind of side dish would work best?

        • jensend
        • 3 years ago

        Looking around to see if anyone had culinary expert advice regarding straw hats, all I found was a man with bravado in Ernest Hemingway’s 1936 short story “There She Breaches! – or, Moby Dick off the Morro”:

        [quote<]"Last night," said Lopez Mendez, who is very thin and distinguished looking, "Enrique ate only a straw hat and three candles." "I don't care for eating straw hats," said Enrique. "But if some one proposes it, naturally I will eat them." ... "Why in God's name does he eat a straw hat?" asked the Maestro. "Listen, Maestro," said Lopez Mendez. "In Venezuela we have many great eaters. Late in the evening when a man wishes to perform an unusual feat of courage and show his disdain for consequences he will eat unusual and inedible objects."[/quote<]

          • Pancake
          • 3 years ago

          I think a straw hat would be best used to smoke a kipper. I also saw some crazy Japanese guy on tv carbonise some vegetation and use the ground up remains to season a steak. That might also work.

            • Smeghead
            • 3 years ago

            Stoke me a Clipper. I’ll be back for Christmas.

            Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

            More seriously, if these come even close to Intel’s performance and support ECC (or if the Opteron versions receive similarly reasonable pricing), all those cores would make for a solid VM host. My home server’s in dire need of a refresh, and I’m definitely holding fire to see how the 65W Ryzen 7 works out…

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      I think you need to get derFunk and bitterman in on this.

        • Wonders
        • 3 years ago

        Pics or it didn’t happen 😉

        • jensend
        • 3 years ago

        That’s the idea.

        derFunk was silly to make the original statement. Of course AMD would like to roll out a full top-to-bottom lineup if possible. Of course the underdog is likely to try to undercut the competition. Even if his prediction had been (or should still turn out to be) accurate, he shouldn’t have been so arrogantly sure of himself.

        Both he and bitterman escalated the argument, and then bitterman lost control. He got to the point where it wasn’t just insults, it was the kind of dreadful and vulgar stuff the TR terms of use are meant to prohibit.

        Both of these gentlemen are better than this, and a bet concerning the eating of hats can be conducted in a civil fashion.

          • ronch
          • 3 years ago

          I bet they can conduct the actual eating of hats in a civil (and formal) fashion as well. No insults or derisive attitudes, just sit down at a formal fine dining restaurant, get spoon and fork, and proceed to eat hat.

      • smilingcrow
      • 3 years ago

      With Trump making president AMD making a decent CPU just doesn’t seem that far fetched anymore.
      Now VIA making a chip to match Intel at the high end is the new mission impossible.

        • Concupiscence
        • 3 years ago

        Unironic question: is VIA still alive?

          • DrDominodog51
          • 3 years ago

          Yes. They focus on embedded these days.

          • smilingcrow
          • 3 years ago

          It hardly impacts the odds on them making a comparable CPU I suspect. 🙂

    • confusedpenguin
    • 3 years ago

    It might be time to consider building another pc with an AMD processor, now that the performance seems to be good for the price. My last AMD pc build was with a Phenom II X4 955. It sucked bad compared to the Intel processors at the time. Hopefully AMD can keep the price points down in comparison to the Intel processors. That is how they will sell.

    • Meadows
    • 3 years ago

    I have absolutely no idea why they’re using the “3/5/7” suffix or why this industry loves odd numbers so much in the first place. If anything, it would’ve made more sense to add a number based on how many cores it has, but nooo.

    According to the table, the 1700X is where it’s at. Now I just need a release date and I can plot my next major upgrade.

      • tipoo
      • 3 years ago

      Ryzen 3 *cough cough* i3
      Ryzen 5 *cough cough* i5
      Ryzen 7 *cough cough* i7

      -The AMD marketing department

        • willmore
        • 3 years ago

        r-eye-zen. Message received.

        • slowriot
        • 3 years ago

        Yep. Though it seems to me it would have been a good opportunity to be +1 of Intel and have your number match core count. I’m sure there’s some dark magic marketing research on the power of odd numbers though.

          • nico1982
          • 3 years ago

          R8, R6 and R4? I like it.

        • Wirko
        • 3 years ago

        Are we in for Ryzantium and R[url=http://www.rizla.com<]i[/url<]zleron?

          • gerryg
          • 3 years ago

          Or maybe Ratom

            • just brew it!
            • 3 years ago

            Rathlon?

            • LostCat
            • 3 years ago

            Championed by Robert Rath?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            The Wrathlon of AMD

        • Meadows
        • 3 years ago

        Even the blind can see that, Captain Obvious, and do take a bloody throat lozenge or two.

          • tipoo
          • 3 years ago

          It was a joke at their marketing train of thought, not at you. I’ll take my lozenge and you take your Xanax.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        Could’ve been “Core Ry5-1600X”. They were so close.

          • tipoo
          • 3 years ago

          Core RyZeven

      • drfish
      • 3 years ago

      It’s all so that the marketing staff can claim that, no matter what you buy, you’re getting something [i<]prime[/i<].

      • Welch
      • 3 years ago

      Prime numbers… Engineers have an affinity for that sort of thing.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      3/5/7 obviously are meant to position different Ryzen models against their respective Intel counterparts, perhaps not in terms of performance per core but price. If we redefine the competition this way, AMD actually comes out winning because they are redefining how much you can get for your money.

        • VincentHanna
        • 3 years ago

        I agree with Nico and Riot,

        R8, R6, R4 would just have effectively pitted each variant against an intel counterpart, except with the subliminal messages attached that “we did them one better” and “our numbers actually mean [b<] [i<] something [/b<] [/i<]" and "hey, technology is moving on, time to go out and buy people." Instead, the marketing says the opposite. A missed opportunity.

      • VincentHanna
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]According to the table, the 1700X is where it's at.[/quote<] I'd actually take the 1600x. I don't see the extra cores being especially helpful in most workloads, and they should overclock better. Save a little green.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 3 years ago

      I note that BMW and Audi have long used the 3/5/7 thing, other carmakers also to some extent.

        • chuckula
        • 3 years ago

        RyZen in self-driving cars…. CONFIRMED!

      • jts888
      • 3 years ago

      The number 4 is to a lot of East Asian cultures what 13 is to Western ones, since it’s a (near?) homophone in Chinese and Japanese if not others as well to “death”.

      So if you want to sell stuff there, it’s best to avoid prominently labeling it with 4s.

      Also, their lucky number is 8 instead of 7 due to some other linguistic (or pictographic?) connection with wealth.

        • Meadows
        • 3 years ago

        …Doesn’t that make 8 better than 7?

    • CampinCarl
    • 3 years ago

    If those holds true I’m pretty excited. Depending on how things go, I should be able to increase the number of physical cores by either two or four! (Still on an i7-3770).

    • tipoo
    • 3 years ago

    Interesting too that for the 17% jump in price bingo to the 1300 from the 1200, you get SMT, but also a doubling of cache to 16MB. I would take that as meaning they’re expecting their SMT implementation to be pretty capable, for needing twice as much cache at the same core count.

      • willmore
      • 3 years ago

      Or some side effect of how they die harvest?

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        I guess if the 4 cores are 8 core dies that are binned, but that would be some extreme binning and failure rate to have half the cores disabled. The 6 core is probably the 8 core die with 2 cores disabled since the CPU complexes come in groups of four.

        [url<]https://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploads/2016/12/AMD_Zen_cache-617x279.jpg[/url<]

      • nico1982
      • 3 years ago

      Looks like the 1200 and 1100 are just the “dumpster” for the most crippled units on the wafer.

        • willmore
        • 3 years ago

        The lack of SMT in those parts as well as the half sized L3 seems strange.

          • nico1982
          • 3 years ago

          I don’t think is strange. AMD can likely harvest enough units to have a 6C/6T model with 8MB of working cache, or a 4C/4T with 16MB but it does not make sense to pollute the lineup. They just pick a minijum common denominator and be done with it.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    Do we know if Ryzen is launching with two parts (a large 8C die and a smaller 4C die) or are the lower models just salvaged dies with defects for the moment?

      • credible
      • 3 years ago

      Its quite possible I would think considering AMD are using a smaller die size for the first time which allows them to use the ones that don’t make the ‘grade’.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      AMD has pretty much confirmed that RyZen is a single 8-core die with various things turned on & off to give you different models.

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        Ryzen core complexes come in groups of four, you mean each 4 core die would be two core complexes with four cores disabled? That would be some extreme binning and would need a pretty high failure rate…I’m thinking 4C is native, 8C is 2 complexes, 6 cores is the 8 core with two cores disabled.

        [url<]https://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploads/2016/12/AMD_Zen_cache-617x279.jpg[/url<]

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 3 years ago

          Rumor says there was a stepping with SMT being buggy. They could be using those?

          And only one die currently.

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          So what. I’m talking about actual pieces of silicon they are making and selling.
          Intel’s 6 core parts aren’t made on 6 core dies either.

          Furthermore, once upon a time AMD made these chips with these amazing “2 core modules”. They theoretically could have made bulldozer chips with 2 cores dies, 4 core dies, 6 core dies, 8 core dies, etc. They never did.

            • tipoo
            • 3 years ago

            What do you mean so what? I wasn’t saying it was a negative, just replied with what we know about the core complexes making the 6 core the likely binning candidate, as you brought it up.

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            As I accurately pointed out above, once upon a time AMD made an architecture with these awesome 2-core modules. But they actually manufactured 8-core chips [non-APU chips that is] and die harvested everything else. I never said there’s some law of physics preventing AMD from making a 4-core part and they [b<]will[/b<] be making them in the future for APUs. I just made a practical observation about what is being made in the real-world.

      • tipoo
      • 3 years ago

      From their core complex slide deck, they come in complexes of 4 cores, so if anything the 6C model may be where we see disabled cores.

      It would look something like this, and any of two could be disabled for the 6C
      [url<]https://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploads/2016/12/AMD_Zen_cache-617x279.jpg[/url<]

      • nanoflower
      • 3 years ago

      Given the number of options they are offering I would expect that the 4 core dies are just that. They may salvage some 8C and sell them as 4c but it would seem likely that most 4c will truly have just 4 cores.

      Yeah, salvaging 6 cores and selling them a 4 cores makes much more sense than salvaging 8 cores to make up the 4 core line.

        • chuckula
        • 3 years ago

        Sorry, AMD has made clear statements that there is only one RyZen die.
        They will eventually get a 4 core die out on the market but that will be paired with an IGP.

          • nanoflower
          • 3 years ago

          Then either they will be leaving a lot of people wanting parts but won’t be able to get them (because I expect the demand for 4 core parts to be fairly high) or they will end up needing to disable working cores on the 6/8 core units to deliver 4 core products. Either option seems wasteful.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            Not sure why Chucky’s getting downvoted; He’s the only one that has actually answered the question with any certainty.
            Does anyone have a link to the AMD statement saying that Ryzen is a single silicon design?

            It matters, because if all these lesser models are salvaged “big” cores, it’s potentially signs of terrible yields and will eat into AMD profitability on these parts. Selling a Ryzen 3 1100 is practically one quarter of the product for one quarter the cost, but it still costs AMD exactly as much to make as a Ryzen 7 1800X (potentially more, since the lower model will have to be castrated and re-tested).

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            I think at launch, AMD will be perfectly happy to sell a few dies with 50% of the cores disabled. Its not a good long term strategy, but then again 4 cores without a GPU is also not a winning strategy in the big picture. This is just the launch lineup. More later.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah, I guess at this stage they have to sell anything that comes out of the oven, no matter how broken it is they need to salvage it.

            I would expect to see a smaller part later in the year. Probably the best samples will be the low-TDP ones for mobile and the leaky ones will go on to compete against i3 and i5 models more profitably than the harvested 8C/16T dies.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            I’m relatively certain that everything save for the Ryzen 3 on the table in the post at least needs the cache from both modules. Don’t they only have 8MB of cache each? Even the 4C8T Ryzen 5 would need two modules that way, probably with a pair of cores disabled per module.

            The difference between a Ryzen 3 and a Ryzen 5 is the difference between two partially working modules and a mostly-working module (sans SMT) paired with a total dud.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            Good catch, I hadn’t spotted the cache differences.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 3 years ago

    Nine different models makes much more sense than the 17 that was reported a couple days ago. Those prices are lower than I expected, which is good for consumers. If they perform like their Intel price-counterparts, that’s good for AMD. They’re probably built relatively small dies (dice)? since there’s no on-board graphics, too.

    I keep wanting to believe and keep intentionally holding myself back, but makes my intentional jadedness very difficult, indeed. An unlocked 1400X for $200 or 1600X with six cores for $260 looks like a revelation if single-thread performance is as good as AMD says it is.

      • Goty
      • 3 years ago

      That R5 1400X seems like it could the gamer’s sweet spot in this lineup, with the rumored price and high base/turbo clocks.

        • drfish
        • 3 years ago

        Six years later, 100 MHz faster, and probably slightly better IPC than an i7-2600K? At least it’s potentially cheaper and uses less power…

          • Demetri
          • 3 years ago

          What’s Intel done for us lately?

            • Shobai
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, [s<]what have the Romans[/s<] what has [i<]Intel[/i<] ever done for us?[/quote<]

            • K-L-Waster
            • 3 years ago

            Intel provides *wine*? I got ripped off the last couple of CPUs I bought then….

            • freebird
            • 3 years ago

            I think he meant whine… from the chip or user, take your pick… 😀

            • Shobai
            • 3 years ago

            It does kind of amuse/sadden me that out of all the benefits misattributed to Intel, ‘wine’ was the one to run with =P

            • K-L-Waster
            • 3 years ago

            You must admit it’s more plausible than “women and song.”

            • Shobai
            • 3 years ago

            OK, self, it appears that not everyone appreciated Monty Python misquotes… =P

      • credible
      • 3 years ago

      I agree and its a shame that I have updated everything around my home but I do believe AMD has finally done it ‘right’ to the chagrin no doubt of one Chuck of TR.

        • NovusBogus
        • 3 years ago

        I’m a total pro at Doing It Wrong so I like to think that my recent Broadwell-E build paved the way for this. Someone had to take one for the team, right?

      • Klimax
      • 3 years ago

      It’s not that hard. Just memory of Bulldozer should be enough and if for some crazy reason not, Fury and Polaris takes care of rest. And memory of Black Edition Athlons takes care of pricing.

    • Stochastic
    • 3 years ago

    It will be exciting to finally have decent quadcore options below $150.

    I haven’t been following Ryzen rumors too closely. Will all of these parts be unlocked? If the cheaper chips can overclock to 4.0 GHz, the possibilities are very tantalizing.

    EDIT: Nevermind, answered my own question: [url<]http://wccftech.com/amd-confirms-ryzen-cpus-unlocked-overclocking/[/url<]

    • tipoo
    • 3 years ago

    Bottom Ryzen 5 should be Ryzen 3 I believe.

    Looks promising through the line though, from i3 budget builds to as many cores as you can get your hands on, it looks very competitively priced if we’re expecting at least IVB IPC. But, wccftech is, well…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This