# AMD Reveals Ryzen 7 Family, Pricing, and Radeon Vega Logo



## btarunr (Feb 22, 2017)

At a press event by AMD, company CEO Lisa Su unveiled the first three AMD Ryzen desktop processor models, the top-dog Ryzen 7-1800X, the Ryzen 7-1700X, and the Ryzen 7-1700. The R7-1800X is priced at USD $499, followed by the R7-1700X at $399, and the R7-1700 at $329. The three chips will be available for purchase on the 2nd of March, 2017. The R7-1800X is clocked at 3.60 GHz, with a TurboCore frequency of 4.00 GHz, and the XFR (extended frequency range) feature, which further overclocks the chip, depending on the effectiveness of your CPU cooler. 

The Ryzen 7-1700X ships with 3.40 GHz clocks, with 3.80 GHz TurboCore frequency, and the XFR feature. The Ryzen 7-1700 lacks XFR, and comes with slightly lower clocks, at 3.00 GHz core, and 3.70 GHz TurboCore. All three are true 8-core chips, with 512 KB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Also featured are dual-channel DDR4 integrated memory controllers, and an integrated PCI-Express gen 3.0 root complex. The Ryzen 7-1700 has a TDP of just 65W (for a performance 8-core chip that's a kick in the butts of Intel's engineers), and will include an AMD Wraith Max cooling solution, while the 1700X and 1800X have TDP rated at 95W, and will come without coolers. At its media event, CEO Lisa Su stated that at $499, the Ryzen 7-1800X "smokes" the Intel Core i7-6900K eight-core processor. The company also unveiled the branding of its Radeon Vega enthusiast graphics family. Lastly, feast your eyes on the beautiful, 14 nm, Made-in-USA die-shot of Ryzen.



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)

Total number of transistors is a bit worrying (4.8 billion, haswell had 2.6)


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 22, 2017)




----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)




----------



## captainskyhawk (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


> Total number of transistors is a bit worrying (4.8 billion, haswell had 2.6)



A bit worrying... for _Intel_, you mean!


----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)

captainskyhawk said:


> A bit worrying... for _Intel_, you mean!


Mm, nope?


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 22, 2017)

Which Haswell? The mainstream model or HEDT? If mainstream, I mean, this thing has twice as many cores, you'll kinda need more transistors for that. Besides, who cares about transistors count. Delivers the performance? It does. Delivers the price? It does. Delivers amazing TDP? It does. What difference does it make then? You should ask yourself what the hell was Intel doing, by still pushing garbage 4c/8t processors in late 2016, early 2017...


----------



## Evo85 (Feb 22, 2017)

https://memegenerator.net/instance/65053768


----------



## GoldenX (Feb 22, 2017)

Haswell-EX has 2.6 billion transistors, so AMD is wasting a lot of space on caché, or there are plans for a 16 core model.
Remember Deneb CPUs, they had the same (officialy reported) transistor count on dual, tri and quad core models.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)

52% IPC is vs Piledriver... *vs Escavator is 64%.*

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11143/AMD Ryzen Tech Day - Lisa Su Keynote_IanCutress-page-035.jpg



RejZoR said:


> Which Haswell?


Haswel -E, released in 2014, 8 core one.




RejZoR said:


> What difference does it make then?


On one of the slides we can see idle power consumption of chips.
8 core Ryzens consume about 40, 8 core i7's about 60, 4 core i7 30W.

They do not mention actual power consumption under load though.
Possibly because when mentioned performance is achieved there isn't much difference between "140w" intel and "95w" ryzen.

Being on par is still good achievement for AMD, keeping in mind they are still on inferior process node.


----------



## yotano211 (Feb 22, 2017)

Come on Clevo, you need to put one of these in a laptop. I will be all over it.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 22, 2017)

I don't think the Haswell-E can even compete with R7 1800X, considering it destroys a 6900K which is like top of the line Core i7 at the moment. It'll still be a worthy CPU for a near future though, just like my 5820K. These aren't king of the hill (mine wasn't anyway since it's an entry HEDT model hehe) anymore, but still worthy CPU's. I mean, between 6700K and 5820K for the same price, naturally I took the 5820K. Was in doubt about the older manufacturing process, but mature 22nm proved to be very competent.


----------



## Shihab (Feb 22, 2017)

So it's official; affordable, well-performing octa cores are a thing. Time to prep for a new installation, I guess.

I have to admit, though, the 1700 makes the other two irrelevant. XFR might be interesting in theory, but for a 20/50% price premium? Not much., especially when considering all those chips are OC'able, making the clock differences also irrelevant to many. The whole thing doesn't make sense! But I guess that's just the cynicism one acquires after a decade-long monopoly.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> a 6900K


3.6 billion.



Shihabyooo said:


> XFR might be interesting in theory, but for a 20/50% price premium


It's both XFR and base clock.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


> Total number of transistors is a bit worrying (4.8 billion, haswell had 2.6)


What's the source for the transistor count on Ryzen? Haswell-E 8-core is 2.6 billion.


----------



## PerfectWave (Feb 22, 2017)

https://videocardz.com/66300/watch-lisa-su-announcing-amd-ryzen-7


----------



## alucasa (Feb 22, 2017)

AMD has caught up, not suppressed Intel. I reckon Intel will make price adjustment and we will finally see 15% increase which Intel claims for Cannonlake.

How long it took AMD to catch up is what is worrying.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 22, 2017)

If all I get from XFR is 100 MHz boost, I don't want or need it.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What's the source for the transistor count on Ryzen? Haswell-E 8-core is 2.6 billion.



"AMD pointed out that the new 8-core silicon design runs 4.8 billion transistors and features 200m of wiring. "
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143...or-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd


----------



## Slizzo (Feb 22, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> If all I get from XFR is 100 MHz boost, I don't want or need it.



You get stock clock bumps of 100MHz, but if you have good cooling and don't feel like overclocking yourself this should prove out to be a nice "auto" overclocker.

Of course in a weeks' time we will see how much this bares out.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 22, 2017)

PerfectWave said:


> https://videocardz.com/66300/watch-lisa-su-announcing-amd-ryzen-7


So the assumption is that she's talking about the 8-core models (about 6:45 she says it):









So why the billion extra transistors?


----------



## N3M3515 (Feb 22, 2017)

alucasa said:


> AMD has caught up, not suppressed Intel. I reckon Intel will make price adjustment and we will finally see 15% increase which Intel claims for Cannonlake.
> 
> How long it took AMD to catch up is what is worrying.



Considering they have like 1/50 the budget intel has, it's not worrying at all.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 22, 2017)

N3M3515 said:


> Considering they have like 1/50 the budget intel has, it's not worrying at all.



Not worrying for Intel. Worrying for us.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 22, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> You get stock clock bumps of 100MHz, but if you have good cooling and don't feel like overclocking yourself this should prove out to be a nice "auto" overclocker.
> 
> Of course in a weeks' time we will see how much this bares out.



I believe the 100 MHz boost from XFR (the specs show 1800X = 3.6 GHz stock, 4.0 GHz boost, 4.1 GHz XFR) is while using the provided AMD stock cooler so it was low and conservative. I believe better cooling as they promised will yield a better XFR auto OC.

This is why I am waiting for benchmarks like everyone else. If XFR boosts well under a beefy air cooler or AIO, then I might go with the 1700X. But if it doesn't help and manual OC is the way to go, then I will get the 1700 and do it myself.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


> 3.6 billion.
> 
> 
> It's both XFR and base clock.



Well, you also have to look at caches. If they are larger on Ryzen, that will automatically result in more transistors. Besides, Intel has an advantage since they design and "forge" the chips. AMD has to work with what foundries have available and the process might not be as optimized as with Intel. I frankly never cared about transistor count and I won't this time either. Same went for GPU's as well. All I care is what features they offer, what performance and at what price. Everything else doesn't matter. When same performing chip costs more than half the price of competitor's CPU, it can run on fermented bananas for all I care lol.



TheLaughingMan said:


> I believe the 100 MHz boost from XFR (the specs show 1800X = 3.6 GHz stock, 4.0 GHz boost, 4.1 GHz XFR) is while using the provided AMD stock cooler so it was low and conservative. I believe better cooling as they promised will yield a better XFR auto OC.
> 
> This is why I am waiting for benchmarks like everyone else. If XFR boosts well under a beefy air cooler or AIO, then I might go with the 1700X. But if it doesn't help and manual OC is the way to go, then I will get the 1700 and do it myself.



Technically, if you live in colder climate and you use stock cooler, place the case outside on cold and it should boost beyond just 100MHz even on stock cooler... We'll see.


----------



## Jhelms (Feb 22, 2017)

As pointed out, time will tell on the XFR feature panning out. But if I was to throw my money out today, I think the 1700 (non x) looks to be the bang for the buck monster. Already building my new setup on paper - looking forward to the build!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


> Total number of transistors is a bit worrying (4.8 billion, haswell had 2.6)



Why is that worrying at all?


----------



## Convexrook (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


> Mm, nope?


I mean this chip will be hot as F*&k and you know die size and coolers won't sit well, some new coolers on the way.

Intel still has this in the bag [ by the tray load].


----------



## londiste (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


> 3.6 billion.


isn't 6900k technically a cut-down 6950k? that would be 3.6 billion for 10 cores.


----------



## suraswami (Feb 22, 2017)

If I get any tax returns going to ask them to deposit directly into AMD's account   Send me those chips


----------



## N3M3515 (Feb 22, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Not worrying for Intel. Worrying for us.



That will continue to be a problem until a giant like intel either buys amd on enters the scene.


----------



## coolernoob (Feb 22, 2017)

there is no need to compare 1800X vs i7-6900k... you can compare 1700 (no X for 329$) vs i7-6*9*00k and still come to conclusion that even a 50% price drop would still make intels chip look very bad


----------



## HD64G (Feb 22, 2017)

More transistors and still they have an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that is close to 6900K for $329 and with a 65W TDP? Miraculous achievement in my mind then...


----------



## Evo85 (Feb 22, 2017)

AMD doesn't have to beat Intel. All they have to do is be competitive. Intel has done most of the work of being beat. 

Intel isn't going to halve the prices of their processors overnight. That would be a publicity nightmare. And they can't push out a competitive processor at that price overnight either. 

The hard truth is Intel didn't see this coming and they have been caught with their pants down. Which is a good thing. It's good to be humbled from time to time. 

Let the CPU wars begin again!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 22, 2017)

alucasa said:


> AMD has caught up, not suppressed Intel. I reckon Intel will make price adjustment and we will finally see 15% increase which Intel claims for Cannonlake.
> 
> How long it took AMD to catch up is what is worrying.



Intel has no architecture change until whatever in 2019. They have a shrink coming in 2H 2018 for desktop.

Unless you think sky to baby was a change... (Their engineers can whine all they want, they wasted their time).


----------



## DarkHill (Feb 22, 2017)

Evo85 said:


> The hard truth is Intel didn't see this coming and they have been caught with their pants down. Which is a good thing. It's good to be humbled from time to time.
> 
> Let the CPU wars begin again!



ofcourse they did, with spies and leaks, they probably been aware of the ryzen performance for months. I just dont think they care.

The majority will stick to what they trust. I doubt ryzen is going to affect intel a lot in 2017. 

AMD has thrown everything on this bandwagon, and if Intel launch canonlake with agressive pricing and 15%(real this time) improved IPC,  AMD is fucked.

Nobody hopes that will be the case of course, but i will imagine its going to be the case.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 22, 2017)

I think all the reviewers that took part in this event left it with the Ryzen samples, let see gaming benchmarks and OC potential


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 22, 2017)

Be prepared. The next news post from AMD will probably be OCer's breaking the Cinebench world record using an 1800X at 5.14 GHz on all cores using LN2 to get a score of 2449.


----------



## Atnevon (Feb 22, 2017)

Some motherboards showing up on Newegg now


----------



## Fx (Feb 22, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> You get stock clock bumps of 100MHz, but if you have good cooling and don't feel like overclocking yourself this should prove out to be a nice "auto" overclocker.
> 
> Of course in a weeks' time we will see how much this bares out.



Exactly. Which is why I find value in it. I don't overclock anymore these days.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


> Possibly because when mentioned performance is achieved there isn't much difference between "140w" intel and "95w" ryzen.




People often forget intel has never rated the same as AMD and the only thing I have ever seen come out of intel based on TDP is the capability to run higher wattage though the silicon. We have all seen what happens when you try to pull 140w through a 6700/7700k. Not quite the same issue with HEDT chips from them.


----------



## Joss (Feb 22, 2017)

Shihabyooo said:


> I have to admit, though, the 1700 makes the other two irrelevant. XFR might be interesting in theory, but for a 20/50% price premium? Not much., especially when considering all those chips are OC'able, making the clock differences also irrelevant to many. The whole thing doesn't make sense!


I agree with you,

1800x 8c/16t  unlocked   $499
1700x 8c/8t  unlocked     $399
1700 8c/8t  locked           $329

this would make more sense.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 22, 2017)

Joss said:


> I agree with you,
> 
> 1800x 8c/16t  unlocked   $499
> 1700x 8c/8t  unlocked     $399
> ...



They will probably be locked by the TDP.


----------



## Nergal (Feb 22, 2017)

ALL ABOARD....THE HYPETRAIN!!!
Destination: whooping some fanbois

The claims AMD are making are so way beyond expectations that even if the reality is less, it´s still a small wonder what they did. You simply cannot minimize the achievement here.

The complacency that AMD´s rivals had will now be paid in market share.


----------



## natr0n (Feb 22, 2017)

Analogy Time:
Intel is Hulk Hogan/A nobody jabroni
AMD is Iron Sheik/A Legend

And if you know shieky baby
"I will suplex you, put you in the Camel Clutch, break your back and fck your ass make you humble."

Can't wait to upgrade my dinosaur.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (Feb 22, 2017)

It's a shame modern video games are shite and there's no point in upgrading your CPU/GPU any more.


----------



## mcraygsx (Feb 22, 2017)

alucasa said:


> AMD has caught up, not suppressed Intel. I reckon Intel will make price adjustment and we will finally see 15% increase which Intel claims for Cannonlake.
> 
> How long it took AMD to catch up is what is worrying.



Lets see if I can purchase i7 6900k for similar price as 1800X, Not going to happen.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 22, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Lets see if I can purchase i7 6900k for similar price as 1800X, Not going to happen.



I got my 6850K in the same price point as the 1600x is rumored to hit. Intel can price items right there they have made a choice to instead make billions in profit.


----------



## Pure Wop (Feb 22, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Be prepared. The next news post from AMD will probably be OCer's breaking the Cinebench world record using an 1800X at 5.14 GHz on all cores using LN2 to get a score of 2449.



Impressive, but seems no where close to breaking a world record or surpassing a 2679 V4? The 32-core Naples might, though.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 22, 2017)

Happy to see AMD coming out of the gutter with some new chips. I have been eager to update my process for quite sometime now. May preorder the 1800x once I have time to sit down and read a few reviews. 

Not trying to add a nationalist comment here, but love the fact these are made in USA.


----------



## theGryphon (Feb 22, 2017)

I want that 1700 in a laptop.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)

Nergal said:


> ALL ABOARD....THE HYPETRAIN!!!


Let's tone it done a bit.
computerbase guys say it doesn't OC much, without any specifics, so even 4.5 would be a great achievement I guess. (haswell could do, what, 4.3Ghz?)

On the other hand, AMD just entered 14nm scene and at stock clock its 8 core products look very solid, so there is hope for real competition.


----------



## simlariver (Feb 22, 2017)

Keep in mind that Ryzen is cheaper, not only as individual cpu, but as a platform too.

Mobo are cheaper. Way cheaper in the case of X99.
No need for quad channel memory.
USB 3.1 G2 for EVERYONE.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 22, 2017)

simlariver said:


> Keep in mind that Ryzen is cheaper, not only as individual cpu, but as a platform too.
> 
> Mobo are cheaper. Way cheaper in the case of X99.
> No need for quad channel memory.
> USB 3.1 G2 for EVERYONE.



They don't have as much integrated onto the board they should be cheaper by design.


----------



## Casecutter (Feb 22, 2017)

alucasa said:


> AMD has caught up, not *suppressed* Intel.


Suppressed is a odd take... Though it has in many ways surpassed Intel (for the next year) and given what we see here even if Cannonlake (10-nanometer die shrink and final uses of Kaby lake microarchitecture) does provide 15% increase, I'd say AMD still has plenty of revision oomph still in this design.  Being Intel is at least a year away AMD has a good chase to counter.  For the time being the marketing side is all "hand on deck" to counter this direct hit and minimalize what we see in B-M and maintain their long price/monopoly strategy.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 22, 2017)

All I know is my FX-8350 at stock gets roughly 575 in Cinebench R15 and I know it is holding my GTX 1070 from reaching full potential in gaming at the 1440p I play at. Right now AMD is looking like the best bang for your buck to me for things outside of gaming and doesn't look like it will hinder my gaming like I am dealing with now. For me, that's win win.

If Intel wants to do some price shifting after benchmarks come out, I will need to re-evaluate.


----------



## simlariver (Feb 22, 2017)

Casecutter said:


> Suppressed is a odd take... Though it has in many ways surpassed Intel (for the next year) and given what we see here even if Cannonlake (10-nanometer die shrink and final uses of Kaby lake microarchitecture) does provide 15% increase, I'd say AMD still has plenty of revision oomph still in this design.  Being Intel is at least a year away AMD has a good chase to counter.  For the time being the marketing side is all "hand on deck" to counter this direct hit and minimalize what we see in B-M and maintain their long price/monopoly strategy.



Cannonlake will be using 14nm+ lythography, same as KabyLake. Considering that the architecture will be the same again; no IPC gains will be seen.
Then when CoffeeLake will finally be here with 10nm, the architecture will also be the same (new core + die shrink at the same time is a no-no).



			
				[URL='https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-14nm-coffee-lake-release-date']PCGamesn[/URL] said:
			
		

> Nope, Intel made no mention of their 10nm Cannonlake chips when talking about their next-generation CPUs, instead essentially confirmed they've utterly given up on both their yearly tick-tock and process>architecture>optimisation cadences by *sticking to the 14nm lithography for the 8th Gen Core architecture*.





			
				[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonlake']Wikipedia[/URL] said:
			
		

> Due to low 10 nm yields, Cannon Lake will be limited to 15 Watt U and 5.2 Watt Y system-on-chip parts with GT2. Higher power mobile and desktop platforms will receive an update in the form of a 2nd 14 nm process refinement, Coffee Lake, that is said to share Cannon Lake's architectural refinements.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 22, 2017)

Pure Wop said:


> Impressive, but seems no where close to breaking a world record or surpassing a 2679 V4? The 32-core Naples might, though.



I think the category is limited to desktop class CPU's only. That Naples is a server chip.


----------



## Lightofhonor (Feb 22, 2017)

Just pre-ordered the 1700x over at Newegg. Looks like all of them are live there now.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 22, 2017)

It's kinda hilarious, quad channel memory... They're making the industry turn by forcing quad memory on ppl in that class of chip/board. Yet its been shown that you can get by and sometimes faster too with dual. Hmm, kinda makes ya think don't it?


----------



## YautjaLord (Feb 22, 2017)

April 2nd for me or even later, til mobos & R7 1800X become available in Israel - a) still f**kload of time to wait for, which is annoying, but, b) will have enough for both mobo (ASUS's preferably, unless they won't have anything that counters & surpasses ASRock's Fatality X370 Prof. Gaming) & 1800X. Who's gonna review the beasts? bta? Raevenlord?


----------



## Hotobu (Feb 22, 2017)

Lightofhonor said:


> Just pre-ordered the 1700x over at Newegg. Looks like all of them are live there now.



Your choice, but I wouldn't pre-order. I seriously doubt there will be a shortage, official benchmarks are not out, and you still have to figure out which motherboard to get.


----------



## mroofie (Feb 22, 2017)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> It's a shame modern video games are shite and there's no point in upgrading your CPU/GPU any more.


Indeed


----------



## mroofie (Feb 22, 2017)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Why is that worrying at all?


Bigger power consumption (heat maybe?)
One must not forget the FX 9 series 



v12dock said:


> I preordered a 1700X at Microcenter required $0 down however they don't have motherboards on their website yet.



required $0 down wuttt...


----------



## v12dock (Feb 22, 2017)

I preordered a 1700X at Microcenter required $0 down however they don't have motherboards on their website yet.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 22, 2017)

Considering that some of the demo PCs used engineering samples, AMD likely doesn't have that many chips available for sales.



YautjaLord said:


> April 2nd for me or even later, til mobos & R7 1800X become available in Israel - a) still f**kload of time to wait for, which is annoying, but, b) will have enough for both mobo (ASUS's preferably, unless they won't have anything that counters & surpasses ASRock's Fatality X370 Prof. Gaming) & 1800X. Who's gonna review the beasts? bta? Raevenlord?



Why, are they using camels to deliver them?


----------



## Lightofhonor (Feb 22, 2017)

Hotobu said:


> Your choice, but I wouldn't pre-order. I seriously doubt there will be a shortage, official benchmarks are not out, and you still have to figure out which motherboard to get.



Eh. Worst case scenario I send it back, but I need a new computer anyway. A lot of motherboards listed there too, although most say sold-out.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 22, 2017)

Hotobu said:


> Your choice, but I wouldn't pre-order. I seriously doubt there will be a shortage, official benchmarks are not out, and you still have to figure out which motherboard to get.



I'm grabbing the cheap CPU/MB combo from microcenter.


----------



## Jhelms (Feb 22, 2017)

Loving the looks of the ASRock AB350M Pro 4 micro ATX. The lil guy has 2qty of M.2 slots - NICE.   Judging by the low cost of the X370 boards, this should come in at a great price. Perfect for my next low power, compact system. Should be a great match for the 1700. You can find the board buried in this link.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-am4-motherboard-round-up-msi-gigabyte-asrock-asus-x370/


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 22, 2017)

Garage1217 said:


> Loving the looks of the ASRock AB350M micro ATX. The lil guy has 2qty of M.2 slots - NICE.   Judging by the low cost of the X370 boards, this should come in at a great price. Perfect for my next low power, compact system. Should be a great match for the 1700. You can find the board buried in this link.
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-am4-motherboard-round-up-msi-gigabyte-asrock-asus-x370/



Unfortunately, I believe they're only 2x. That's not an issue for current NVMe as they max out around 2GB/s sequential read, but you may be limited with future drives. Overall, not a big deal to me. I doubt many are going to be buying the really expensive NVMe drives.


----------



## HammerON (Feb 22, 2017)

I am anxious to see true reviews on these CPUs.  I do like the pricing


----------



## neatfeatguy (Feb 22, 2017)

I'm not even purchasing one of these CPUs (no reason to at the moment....plus, no monies) and I'm excited to see AMD releasing something that appears to be very competitive with what Intel has to offer. This is exciting!

I can't wait for NDA to lift. I want to see some real world performance. I'm hoping to have something to look forward to in a couple years when I do upgrade my computer.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 22, 2017)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> It's a shame modern video games are shite and there's no point in upgrading your CPU/GPU any more.



There is definitely a reason to upgrade GPUs. CPUs maybe a lot less often.


----------



## Jhelms (Feb 22, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Unfortunately, I believe they're only 2x. That's not an issue for current NVMe as they max out around 2GB/s sequential read, but you may be limited with future drives. Overall, not a big deal to me. I doubt many are going to be buying the really expensive NVMe drives.


The top header shows Ultra M.2 which per current ASRock literature, that means 32Gb/s. However the 2nd slot does not specify. Since it is next to the sata ports, I assume slow.  Look forward to the details! Their timing works great for me so I will take the leap. Due for a new build.


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 22, 2017)

Shihabyooo said:


> So it's official; affordable, well-performing octa cores are a thing. Time to prep for a new installation, I guess.
> 
> I have to admit, though, the 1700 makes the other two irrelevant. XFR might be interesting in theory, but for a 20/50% price premium? Not much., especially when considering all those chips are OC'able, making the clock differences also irrelevant to many. The whole thing doesn't make sense! But I guess that's just the cynicism one acquires after a decade-long monopoly.




Remember that 1700X has a higher base clock so it's a binned chip more likely and would overclock more. That being said I will probably buy the 1700 too, that price is just golden.


----------



## YautjaLord (Feb 22, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> I doubt many are going to be buying the really expensive NVMe drives.



I'm the one of not many that will, along with (still expensive) SATA III SSD.  One for gaming & Blender'ing & other for something undisclosed, for game mods(?) or anything of that type. Both from Samsung. 



> Why, are they using camels to deliver them?



lol, really?  How about that one: PC store has to order these, y'know? lol


----------



## kruk (Feb 22, 2017)

I'm really glad they got rid of the R7, R5 and R3 naming scheme and clearly separated from the GPUs. I'm also surprised that the 3 and 5 series CPUs won't be included at launch - that is probably what the majority of buyers will buy - but maybe the delay will bring higher clocks? One can only hope ...


----------



## JMccovery (Feb 22, 2017)

kruk said:


> I'm really glad they got rid of the R7, R5 and R3 naming scheme and clearly separated from the GPUs. I'm also surprised that the 3 and 5 series CPUs won't be included at launch - that is probably what the majority of buyers will buy - but maybe the delay will bring higher clocks? One can only hope ...



What's the real difference between Ryzen 7-1800X and R7-1800X?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 22, 2017)

Pretty order is up at overclocked .Com in the UK 489 quid for 1800x 389 for 1700x and an Asus crosshair hero will cost 249 quids nice.

My phone thinks pre means pretty, strange.


----------



## Bansaku (Feb 22, 2017)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> It's a shame modern video games are shite and there's no point in upgrading your CPU/GPU any more.



Agreed! I haven't upgraded since 2012 and see no need (yet).


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 22, 2017)

Garage1217 said:


> As pointed out, time will tell on the XFR feature panning out. But if I was to throw my money out today, I think the 1700 (non x) looks to be the bang for the buck monster. Already building my new setup on paper - looking forward to the build!



My thinking too, looking forward to see whether XFR is a help or a hindrance, as it stands the 1700 non-x is what I'm zeroing on pre-reviews.

Don't know if Scan.co.uk prices are typical, but £319.99 looks good to me! https://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/cpu-amd/amd-ryzen-7-socket-am4-processors

Either way, glad I sat on this i7 920 for 7+ years as it's served me brilliantly, but equally when I upgrade I want something that is going last a good few years again, and a 8c/16t CPU is very appealing naturally. Exciting times.


----------



## Casecutter (Feb 22, 2017)

Ok AMD time to do a commercial... I'd get Neil Degrasse Tyson and have him walking intently ponder looking in to the cosmos.  Where he bumps into (that we only see the backside) of Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) lookalike. The Seldon character just is standing almost bewildered looking out the other way almost lost.  

Neil says, "next time probably best to choose the processor that has the performance to calculate a real physicists' dreams or astrophysicists' reality faster, all while a green footprint here on earth.  Real science to those who know... choose Ryzen from AMD"


----------



## pedromvu (Feb 22, 2017)

This shows single core performance to be still a bit lower for Ryzen (4Ghz or 4.1? from X1800 equal to 3.7Ghz of Intel 6900K)

Which is probably the reason they didn't show this benchmark for the other models.

I think Intel is still king for gaming with 7700K going up to 4.5Ghz at $350 range, AMD needs a 4c 8t which can go close to 5Ghz single threaded and at a similar price if they want to compete in that segment.

But I still have to admint the Ryzen 1700 is probably still good enough if it can go up to 3.7Ghz for that price, if you don't need the absolute best for gaming, actual benchmarks can't come soon enough


----------



## kruk (Feb 22, 2017)

JMccovery said:


> What's the real difference between Ryzen 7-1800X and R7-1800X?



The 7, 5 and 3 is there only because it's similar to Intels naming. But if you prepend it with R you get naming similar to the lower tier GPUs, SSDs, RAM, etc. You might not care, but there are people out there that do. And suggesting to them that the 7 series is not top tier (9 series) is bad marketing.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 22, 2017)

Fluffmeister said:


> My thinking too, looking forward to see whether XFR is a help or a hindrance, as it stands the 1700 non-x is what I'm zeroing on pre-reviews.
> 
> Don't know if Scan.co.uk prices are typical, but £319.99 looks good to me! https://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/cpu-amd/amd-ryzen-7-socket-am4-processors
> 
> Either way, glad I sat on this i7 920 for 7+ years as it's served me brilliantly, but equally when I upgrade I want something that is going last a good few years again, and a 8c/16t CPU is very appealing naturally. Exciting times.



Yeah, 8 cores for an IPC (allegedly) similar to Broadwell-E for half the price.  Easy one really.


----------



## CounterSpell (Feb 22, 2017)

this thread is worthless without *game *benchmarks


----------



## Hotobu (Feb 22, 2017)

Shihabyooo said:


> So it's official; affordable, well-performing octa cores are a thing. Time to prep for a new installation, I guess.
> 
> I have to admit, though, the 1700 makes the other two irrelevant. XFR might be interesting in theory, but for a 20/50% price premium? Not much., especially when considering all those chips are OC'able, making the clock differences also irrelevant to many. The whole thing doesn't make sense! But I guess that's just the cynicism one acquires after a decade-long monopoly.



Except if I remember correctly isn't there a TDP difference between the 1700X and the 1700? Wouldn't that mean that the 1700 is going to hit an upper limit even with manual OC that wont hinder the 1700X?


----------



## Grings (Feb 22, 2017)

why the hell is the crosshair hero more than the maximus hero?


----------



## The Von Matrices (Feb 22, 2017)

pedromvu said:


> This shows single core performance to be still a bit lower for Ryzen (4Ghz or 4.1? from X1800 equal to 3.7Ghz of Intel 6900K)
> 
> Which is probably the reason they didn't show this benchmark for the other models.
> 
> ...



I agree.  I would like to see comparisons to the 7700K as well.  All the of the AMD benchmarks compare it to Broadwell based CPUs, so on top of the frequency difference there's also a 5-10% clock-for-clock performance deficit compared to Kaby Lake based cores.  It's stll a monumental improvement compared to Bulldozer based CPUs but it won't be the single threaded performance king by a small margin (probably not enough to matter for most people).


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 22, 2017)

The Von Matrices said:


> I agree.  I would like to see comparisons to the 7700K as well.  All the of the AMD benchmarks compare it to Broadwell based CPUs, so on top of the frequency difference there's also a 5-10% clock-for-clock performance deficit compared to Kaby Lake based cores.  It's stll a monumental improvement compared to Bulldozer based CPUs but it won't be the single threaded performance king by a small margin (probably not enough to matter for most people).


I think benchmarks in known AAA games will decide and it will be a mixed bunch with RyZen X chips doing better in some and not in others but the fact I can pre order one doesn't change the fact we don't know how they game so I'd hold off saying Intel rules until we actually know something , and for what it's worth I think your wrong ,I expect a 1600X to trounce said i7 kaby but I'd hold off saying it's anything but an opinion for now.


----------



## Jhelms (Feb 22, 2017)

Hotobu said:


> Except if I remember correctly isn't there a TDP difference between the 1700X and the 1700? Wouldn't that mean that the 1700 is going to hit an upper limit even with manual OC that wont hinder the 1700X?


Time will tell - but bring the voltage back up to 1700X levels or more and sprinkle on the overclock... should be the budget beast. I have not been this excited about a PC build since Athlon XP days 

I am an AMD fan. And yes, I also have intel processors. But overall I have been running AMD since way before they broke 1ghz. I really do not care if they beat intel. I care about the performance per dollar and that they put their heart and soul into rocking this new processor. With that - they have my cash.


----------



## figuretti (Feb 22, 2017)

CounterSpell said:


> this thread is worthless without *game *benchmarks


Just view the video...


----------



## HD64G (Feb 22, 2017)

Battlefield 1 demo shows R7 faster than 6900K me thinks...


----------



## proxuser (Feb 22, 2017)

Everybody start again talking what intel will do as next. Who cares ? Tbh really who f. cares what intel will do ?
We have a very good product here and good pricing for what is offering. Just let people happy little bit and let them alone to make their choice whatever they want to buy.

I just hate this kind people "Intel will" "What will Intel do?" As were they shareholder from Intel. Just stop being an idiot please.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 22, 2017)

So many butthurt people here from both camps.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 22, 2017)

alucasa said:


> So many butthurt people here from both camps.



That's because recent Intel prices have caused bottom hurting prices and recent AMD CPU performance has hurt bottom pride.  Two butt hurts can come together and rejoice that finally, surely, AMD has a competitive CPU architecture.

Surely.

C'mon.

It has to be true.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 22, 2017)

Dat be true.

You the man.


----------



## Jhelms (Feb 22, 2017)

Pre-orders for Ryzen are up 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...Promo-_-ProductLaunch-AMD-Ryzen-CPUs-_-022217


----------



## jaggerwild (Feb 22, 2017)

medi01 said:


>



 Anybody can post a graph and make any product look good, that's why you need a link if you post a scores.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 22, 2017)

Well I just got pricing for Australia in an Email today...R7 1700 $469, R7 1700X $569, R7 1800X $699. 

Basically where I thought prices would be but even a little cheaper then I predicted.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 22, 2017)

Holy Asus.

The ROG Hero AM4 board is backwards compatible with older AM3+ coolers.  Le Grand Macho and a 1800X, here we come......  Once reviews are in - I never buy without hardware reviews on hand.


----------



## mouacyk (Feb 22, 2017)

Casecutter said:


> Ok AMD time to do a commercial... I'd get Neil Degrasse Tyson and have him walking intently ponder looking in to the cosmos.  Where he bumps into (that we only see the backside) of Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) lookalike. The Seldon character just is standing almost bewildered looking out the other way almost lost.
> 
> Neil says, "next time probably best to choose the processor that has the performance to calculate a real physicists' dreams or astrophysicists' reality faster, all while a green footprint here on earth.  Real science to those who know... choose Ryzen from AMD"



Cool idea, really.  However, AMD can afford neither Neil nor the Sheldon imposter -- not at these pricing scales.


----------



## Aenra (Feb 22, 2017)

- I still haven't heard if we'll be having a Bulldozer Déjà vu, in as far as lane speeds may be concerned. Now maybe you guys know, but personally, _until_ i do, i wouldn't consider a switch. Not without getting the whole picture i mean.
- I'm still not sure why everyone neglects to mention the dual channel RAM only specification. Not saying it's the end of the world by any means, but i _am_ saying that when you pay, you pay. So it's something to consider, paying for a rig that can only have dual channel RAM. Yes, the bandwidth difference is minimal in terms of benefit; _for now_. Most of us don't switch rigs every year or two. So this too i would consider some.
- Unlike i assume a lot of people here, i don't do benchmarks. I don't count transistors, i don't run heavy editing software. The 0.00056452x253855/2635% difference is.. nothing to me. Know what is? Who, when and how often will make the leap to optimize their software for Ryzens. That's what. Because the big bad boy pays more and we know what that relates to (we see it in the GPUs as well). Ethics are good and well, but this particular consumer won't willingly opt to switch to the underhanded part of the equation.

Until i see/know all the above, i cannot share your enthusiasm or your skepticism. Can just wish them the very best, as we do need some competition again, badly. If they actually bring us back to the Athlon days, even better. Again, competition.


----------



## dirtyvu (Feb 22, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Can just wish them the very best, as we do need some competition again, badly. If they actually bring us back to the Athlon days, even better. Again, competition.



Jim Keller, the architect behind AMD's last monster, the Athlon 64 and the author of the X86-X64 spec, came back to AMD in 2012, just in time for startup of the Zen architecture...  We're in for good times ahead.  I needed to build a new 4K video editing rig and Ryzen looks amazing for the price performance ratio.  A few percent greater in IPC for twice the price when talking Intel?  No, thanks.  Ryzen is looking spectacular at multi-threaded workloads and looking extremely competitive in single-threaded situations so at the price points, it's looking phenomenal.


----------



## 20mmrain (Feb 22, 2017)

I still wonder if a 40% increase is to little to late. 

Yes, AMD has made some amazing increases on Ryzen! But they are also releasing it against Intel's 8 month old Broadwell-E lineup. It won't be too long before Intel releases Skylake-e and AMD will start to fall behind again. (Even if Skylake-E's performance increases aren't that big!)
AMD also doesn't refresh their CPU's that often. Which means that unless they get on an aggressive schedule with Ryzen, Intel's lead could get ahead of Ryzen really fast.

AMD's only small chance for the moment is that Intel is having process issues with 10nm and 7nm. These issues could stop Intel from running off with the lead, while AMD plays catch up.
But I would like to see AMD's Ryzen refresh schedule before I go out and chance my motherboard and CPU to AMD parts. I don't want to stay on the 1800X for the next 4 years.


----------



## Imsochobo (Feb 22, 2017)

Aenra said:


> - I still haven't heard if we'll be having a Bulldozer Déjà vu, in as far as lane speeds may be concerned. Now maybe you guys know, but personally, _until_ i do, i wouldn't consider a switch. Not without getting the whole picture i mean.
> - I'm still not sure why everyone neglects to mention the dual channel RAM only specification. Not saying it's the end of the world by any means, but i _am_ saying that when you pay, you pay. So it's something to consider, paying for a rig that can only have dual channel RAM. Yes, the bandwidth difference is minimal in terms of benefit; _for now_. Most of us don't switch rigs every year or two. So this too i would consider some.
> - Unlike i assume a lot of people here, i don't do benchmarks. I don't count transistors, i don't run heavy editing software. The 0.00056452x253855/2635% difference is.. nothing to me. Know what is? Who, when and how often will make the leap to optimize their software for Ryzens. That's what. Because the big bad boy pays more and we know what that relates to (we see it in the GPUs as well). Ethics are good and well, but this particular consumer won't willingly opt to switch to the underhanded part of the equation.
> 
> Until i see/know all the above, i cannot share your enthusiasm or your skepticism. Can just wish them the very best, as we do need some competition again, badly. If they actually bring us back to the Athlon days, even better. Again, competition.




I've had quad channel memory a long time ago, It didn't matter then, it doesn't now.
it got surpassed by new dual channel stuff, again, and again and it always happens!

If you run a VM host with 16 hosts running high load servers, yes it will matter, will you?
NO!

When does software optimize for cpu's ? almost never, Hyperthreading is already taken care of and what else does ryzen have that doesn't already exist ? nothing.
cpu's are designed for software and use, not the other way around!


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 22, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Surely.
> 
> C'mon.
> 
> It has to be true.











20mmrain said:


> But I would like to see AMD's Ryzen refresh schedule before I go out and chance my motherboard and CPU to AMD parts. I don't want to stay on the 1800X for the next 4 years.



Not hard dates but she did hint at the refreshes



			
				Lisa Su said:
			
		

> And we have a multigenerational roadmap that we are working on, including the* Zen 2* and the *Zen 3* follow-on.
> 
> *We are actually in the process of developing now in 7-nanometer*



Worst case scenario Zen 2 2019


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 22, 2017)

20mmrain said:


> I still wonder if a 40% increase is to little to late.
> 
> Yes, AMD has made some amazing increases on Ryzen! But they are also releasing it against Intel's 8 month old Broadwell-E lineup. It won't be too long before Intel releases Skylake-e and AMD will start to fall behind again. (Even if Skylake-E's performance increases aren't that big!)
> AMD also doesn't refresh their CPU's that often. Which means that unless they get on an aggressive schedule with Ryzen, Intel's lead could get ahead of Ryzen really fast.
> ...



I'm still on Sandy-E because it was good enough to last. Ryzen simply has to be up to speed with today's CPU'S from Intel and those people will keep them. 
I haven't bought Intel (upgraded) since 2011 because the huge cost on CPU and platform are still utterly unjustified. But at under £500, I can get an 8 core Broadwell-E equivalent... 
I'm a top end (or close to it) components buyer and Ryzen looks like a phenomenal deal to me.

But I may also buy a 1080ti too because May is too far away.


----------



## Casecutter (Feb 22, 2017)

mouacyk said:


> Cool idea, really.  However, AMD can afford neither Neil nor the Sheldon imposter -- not at these pricing scales.


And while probably the truth, they need to pounce to really gain "mind-share" at this point... I'd say a commercial like that would go a long way!

I found it interesting that for what seem like only the last 4-6 mo's Intel started to ramp-up their use of commercials, to solidify their dominance. While the timing was off by a month, could you have imagine that as a Super bowl commercial, don't ever say never two great comebacks.  It would've been as iconic as Apple Macintosh "1984" ad.


----------



## Aenra (Feb 22, 2017)

Imsochobo said:


> When does software optimize for cpu's?



Is this a rhetorical question or are you for real?
Dude, your wishes are your wishes and as such, respected. But.. you know..

Could name you program after program (not just games) that run badly on AMD CPUs because the devs had only optimized..designed..(?) them for Intels; by their own admission. Said same software that when eventually they optimized for AMDs too, people like me could run it without all the hiccups that the Intel owners never even got to get acquainted with.
Now i may have used the wrong term here, not an expert. But the gist is a fact. And while you can spin it as you like, again, wrong as it may be, i'm a consumer; not an evangelist.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Feb 23, 2017)

Evo85 said:


> AMD doesn't have to beat Intel. All they have to do is be competitive. Intel has done most of the work of being beat.
> 
> Intel isn't going to halve the prices of their processors overnight. That would be a publicity nightmare. And they can't push out a competitive processor at that price overnight either.
> 
> ...


Relax , there are no 3rd party benches yet. If AMD beats the Intel's 8 Cores in Games and Multimedia, then we will talk!


----------



## springs113 (Feb 23, 2017)

A little off topic here, but judging by what Lisa Su said about the demo of Ryzen that we saw before(New Horizon, CES), all along we thought it was the flagship (1800x) version...according to the press release, she stated it was in fact the 1700x.  I will assume that AMD is being coy with Vega in the same manner.  AMD is being very coy, cocky and confident with what they are doing, I wouldn't doubt that the Vega we see is not the full fledged chip and according to Paul(youtuber) that Vega AMD showed was little Vega.  He stated it multiple times and on at least 2 different occasions.  

I cant wait for my next build, my 5930k system will finally see some competition.


----------



## Dethroy (Feb 23, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I believe the 100 MHz boost from XFR (the specs show 1800X = 3.6 GHz stock, 4.0 GHz boost, 4.1 GHz XFR) is while using the provided AMD stock cooler so it was low and conservative. I believe better cooling as they promised will yield a better XFR auto OC.


The 1800X won't ship with a cooler...


btarunr said:


> The Ryzen 7-1700 has a TDP of just 65W [...] and will include an AMD Wraith Max cooling solution, while the 1700X and 1800X have TDP rated at 95W, and will come without coolers.





TheLaughingMan said:


> This is why I am waiting for benchmarks like everyone else. If XFR boosts well under a beefy air cooler or AIO, then I might go with the 1700X. But if it doesn't help and manual OC is the way to go, then I will get the 1700 and do it myself.


The 1700X would need to clock at least to 4.49GHz (+700MHz) in order to reach perf/$ parity with the 1700. I'm pretty certain XFR won't make that much of a difference. But I'm also not opposed to reviews proving said assumption wrong.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 23, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> But I may also buy a 1080ti too because May is too far away.



End of March isn't far off from May (and I would never trust nvidia availability lol).


----------



## WailingDoom (Feb 23, 2017)




----------



## Imsochobo (Feb 23, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Is this a rhetorical question or are you for real?
> Dude, your wishes are your wishes and as such, respected. But.. you know..
> 
> Could name you program after program (not just games) that run badly on AMD CPUs because the devs had only optimized..designed..(?) them for Intels; by their own admission. Said same software that when eventually they optimized for AMDs too, people like me could run it without all the hiccups that the Intel owners never even got to get acquainted with.
> Now i may have used the wrong term here, not an expert. But the gist is a fact. And while you can spin it as you like, again, wrong as it may be, i'm a consumer; not an evangelist.



If we exclude OS as software (end user) Yes, it very rarely happens unless benchmark app and some money from intel or amd is involved.

If you believe non benchmark apps gets updates for cpu's I think you're mistaken cause the cost is too high and to make the code in itself more efficient for all cpu's is not a topic for devs as we throw overpowered pc's at mundane tasks and optimizing cuts their profit margin, world isn't that "kind" unfortunately.

I've had intel and AMD for 20 odd years now, never ever have I experienced anything else than Android studio not working in windows for an amd cpu.
Only difference.
Current systems are AMD 1055T and Intel Xeon 2680 10 core.


----------



## yoyo2004 (Feb 23, 2017)

Way too many partypoopers in here!


----------



## ViperXTR (Feb 23, 2017)

I just realized that the model numbers are similar to the old Athlon XP series


----------



## kruk (Feb 23, 2017)

Ryzen master, a OC tool for CPUs similar to Wattman. It looks superb, I hope it's not fake.






Source: Reddit


----------



## Ebo (Feb 23, 2017)

When I saw the presentation of Ryzen on the web last night, I went into the livingroom telling my wife about this new tech.
She got me down to earth right away, she told me that I could *Ryzen* from my chair, and Ryzen into the gardenshed, if I just as much as thourght about buying  of those systems. Her reasoning was simple, that we allready have 6 computeres in the house, and I have a I7-5820K/X99 system, and were only us two "old" ones living in our house. 4 computers are only for the grandkids to play with when they visit.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 23, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> The 1800X won't ship with a cooler...



Huh? I think there is a chip only option, but you think it will ship with no cooler at all on release. Why?


----------



## Dethroy (Feb 23, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Huh? I think there is a chip only option, but you think it will ship with no cooler at all on release. Why?


That's at least what btarunr's article states:


btarunr said:


> The Ryzen 7-1700 has a TDP of just 65W [...] and will include an AMD Wraith Max cooling solution, while the 1700X and 1800X have TDP rated at 95W, and will come without coolers.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 23, 2017)

Isn't it weird, that "leaked" 4/6 core versions of Ryzen have LOWER frequency than 8 cores?



jaggerwild said:


> that's why you need a link


Because Cinebench benchmark results is such a big secret.
Did those charts somehow hurt you?



20mmrain said:


> I still wonder if a 40% increase is to little to late.


It is 52% or even 64%,, depending which buldozer you take.


----------



## londiste (Feb 23, 2017)

i think amd would benefit greatly from less hype-y communication.
ipc improvement 40-64% is awesome but is bulldozer/excavator/piledriver the comparison we need?

cinebench results from amd-s own slides are interesting in the way that they show single thread result for 1800x being equal to 6900k.
6900k is broadwell running at 3.2/3.7ghz, as opposed to 1800x ryzen at 3.5/4.0+xfr.
4.0 ryzen = 3.7ghz broadwell (xfr being an additional variable here). same result for (at least) 8% clock difference.

edit:
in another thread, someone pointed out i was wrong.
6900k does have 4.0ghz max clock.



medi01 said:


> Isn't it weird, that "leaked" 4/6 core versions of Ryzen have LOWER frequency than 8 cores?


the ipc comparison from single-core cinebench is what sounds concerning when looking at the lower clocks on the 6/4 core ryzens. these will not go against broadwell but against skylake/kabylake that have a small but measurable ipc boost over broadwell in addition to higher clocks.


----------



## heflys20 (Feb 23, 2017)

londiste said:


> i think amd would benefit greatly from less hype-y communication.


Well, tbh, these are first really competitive (IMHO) processors they've put out in years. At least things are pointing at that.



> ipc improvement 40-64% is awesome but is bulldozer/excavator/piledriver the comparison we need?



That's a pretty significant improvement from excavator, I'd wager.  They need to go by their previous architecture.



> 8% clock difference.



With nearly a 55-60% price difference.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 23, 2017)

Im awaiting complete benchmarks, the Ryzen Master overclocking tool looks good. 4.8 billion transisitors is fine since it contains so much on one chip, and that is the crux of it all, if the USB or PCIe drops out while overclocking too far, or corrupts data, or any other issues not brought to light until actual benchmarks are available. I want to see one under LN, the read and write speeds from USB, and a full test of memory overclocking, perhaps the reason they have only shown 8GB is the memory controller is weak.


----------



## londiste (Feb 23, 2017)

Steevo said:


> 4.8 billion transisitors is fine


no, it is not. this is roughly twice the amount comparable intel cpus have.
i am still counting on that being a stupid mistake during the presentation.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 23, 2017)

londiste said:


> no, it is not. this is roughly twice the amount comparable intel cpus have.
> i am still counting on that being a stupid mistake during the presentation.



I appreciate your response, however, the number of transistors is irrelevant to the performance and has more to do with features included on the die. 

"_Intel’s Broadwell-E processors have officially launched, featuring a hefty 3.4 Billion transistor count."_

Think about all the tings AMD have stuffed onto their chip compared to the 6900K, plus over 100 sensors that all take logic to support. 4.8 billion is NOT an issue.


----------



## JMccovery (Feb 23, 2017)

kruk said:


> The 7, 5 and 3 is there only because it's similar to Intels naming. But if you prepend it with R you get naming similar to the lower tier GPUs, SSDs, RAM, etc. You might not care, but there are people out there that do. And suggesting to them that the 7 series is not top tier (9 series) is bad marketing.



It's not all that different if you were to spell out Radeon for the GPUs.

Ryzen 7 1800X
Radeon X 480


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 23, 2017)

JMccovery said:


> It's not all that different if you were to spell out Radeon for the GPUs.
> 
> Ryzen 7 1800X
> Radeon X 480


I wonder if there'd be an R9 CPU in the future, ten core or above? It'll go well with top end Radeon GPU.


----------



## JMccovery (Feb 23, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> I wonder if there'd be an R9 CPU in the future, ten core or above? It'll go well with top end Radeon GPU.



IF (so strong an if, it can be heard worldwide) AMD was to make a single-socket "HEDT" platform based on Naples, I would hope they'd use Ryzen 9, because heaven knows that Intel didn't have the marketing prowess to call their HEDT chips the Core i9 series...


----------



## Steevo (Feb 23, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> I wonder if there'd be an R9 CPU in the future, ten core or above? It'll go well with top end Radeon GPU.




Considering they are working on 7nm stuff, and if their die size is already the limit the R9 may have to wait for the shrink, or may only be server parts.


----------



## londiste (Feb 23, 2017)

Steevo said:


> I appreciate your response, however, the number of transistors is irrelevant to the performance and has more to do with features included on the die.
> "_Intel’s Broadwell-E processors have officially launched, featuring a hefty 3.4 Billion transistor count."_
> Think about all the tings AMD have stuffed onto their chip compared to the 6900K, plus over 100 sensors that all take logic to support. 4.8 billion is NOT an issue.


transistor count is irrelevant to performance, you are right about that. however, it has direct impact on die size, very serious impact on the manufacturing price, yields etc.

broadwell-e is a 10-core chip, 6950x being the fully enabled version. haswell-e (5960x) is intel's latest 8-core chip. haswell-e is 2.6 billion transistors.

it's actually the opposite, amd has stuffed *less *stuff into the chip compared to intel. notably, avx2 that reportedly has been bloating intel chips lately. comparing to 6900k, ryzen should have lower transistor count.
taking that into account, 2.4 billion transistors is roughly what i would expect 8-core ryzen to have. thus the speculation that 4.8 billion number from the announcement is correct, but for 16-core version.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 23, 2017)

londiste said:


> transistor count is irrelevant to performance, you are right about that. however, it has direct impact on die size, very serious impact on the manufacturing price, yields etc.
> 
> broadwell-e is a 10-core chip, 6950x being the fully enabled version. haswell-e (5960x) is intel's latest 8-core chip. haswell-e is 2.6 billion transistors.
> 
> ...


AMDs is a system on a chip ,Intel's is not requiring a south bridge and North bridge AMD do not , AMD have incorporated a north and south bridge in chip to a certain level anyway which is then further filled out by a much reduced south bridge , DDR controllers and pciex controllers use mucho transistors too so I dunno ,there aren't any cores hidden though , that I'm sure of.


----------



## londiste (Feb 24, 2017)

northbridge was for ram and partially pci-e (or other buses back then) controllers or the like. these have been integrated into cpus since athlon64 and nehalem.
southbridge traditionally included everything else. this is what now gets called chipset.

there really is no real difference between amd and intel cpus when it comes to what is integrated into cpu itself.


----------



## Imsochobo (Feb 24, 2017)

londiste said:


> northbridge was for ram and partially pci-e (or other buses back then) controllers or the like. these have been integrated into cpus since athlon64 and nehalem.
> southbridge traditionally included everything else. this is what now gets called chipset.
> 
> there really is no real difference between amd and intel cpus when it comes to what is integrated into cpu itself.



I don't think intel has usb included in cpu ?


----------



## londiste (Feb 24, 2017)

Imsochobo said:


> I don't think intel has usb included in cpu ?


neither does amd.

usb controller, as well as sata controller along with bunch of other things are in chipset.


----------



## N3M3515 (Feb 24, 2017)

*AMD Ryzen CPU pushed beyond 5.2GHz on all 8 cores (video)*

Thought it would be higher....


----------



## kruk (Feb 24, 2017)

N3M3515 said:


> *AMD Ryzen CPU pushed beyond 5.2GHz on all 8 cores (video)*
> 
> Thought it would be higher....



Do the Intels 8C/16T Broadwell-E overclock much better?


----------



## YautjaLord (Feb 24, 2017)

5.2GHz/1.875v under LN2? How high this beast will OC under EK's XE360 type of custom liquid cooling? 4.5GHz/1.45v tops? On all 8 cores/16 threads? Man, it's annoying how slow-paced these stuff kicks in, March 10 or so i'll have cash for mobo & CPU (R7 1800X), f*ckin April 10 - for custom EK loop. It will take close to half a year till i'll build both R7 1800X/X370 & i7 7700K/Z270-based rigs. I'm f*ckin starving for this stuff, ffs. 

P.S. This guy in vid along with Linus, they both annoy me a bit with their high pitched voices, but they have awesome stuff in their channels nevertheless. Thanx for link N3M3515. 

*EDIT*

Who said you can't have top-dog components for 1000$ & still outperform competition, forget about it when OC'd: https://www.ekwb.com/custom-loop-configurator/step9. Approx. 960$ (with CPU) & looks good, this'll be my take on cooling & OC'ing R7 1800X.  Cheers.

P.S. They have Crosshair VI Hero listed in mobos section.


----------



## londiste (Feb 27, 2017)

kruk said:


> Do the Intels 8C/16T Broadwell-E overclock much better?


people have had year or more with intel's chips already but at least when ln2 is concerned they have been clocked higher:

5960x (haswell-e) at 6.1ghz: http://hwbot.org/submission/2627140_sin0822_cpu_frequency_core_i7_5960x_6111.68_mhz
6950x (10-core broadwell-e) at 5.7ghz: http://hwbot.org/submission/3289574_elmor_cpu_frequency_core_i7_6950x_5731.78_mhz
6900k is cut down from 6950x and as such, people really don't care about pushing that one as far as it goes.
ln2 is as far as it gets from actually usable overclock, so...


----------



## johnspack (Feb 28, 2017)

This almost hurts...  I did amd286 to 64x2 before I finally went intel.  Didn't even do intel first run,  got an 8088,  then swapped it for it a v20,  then an 8086,  quickly replaced by a v30
I just quit my x58 setup,  and bought all x79 used.  Dammit!  I could possibly of done 1700x instead....


----------

