# AMD CEO Talks Ryzen Threadripper and Ryzen 3 Series in Latest Company Video



## btarunr (Jul 13, 2017)

In a video presentation posted on the company's official YouTube channel, AMD CEO Lisa Su talked at length about the two new lines of Ryzen desktop processors the company plans to launch later this month. This includes the Ryzen Threadripper HEDT socket TR4 processor at the higher-end of the lineup, and the new Ryzen 3 series socket AM4 processors at the lower-end. AMD is announcing market-availability of two SKUs for each of the two brands. To begin with, AMD will launch two quad-core SKUs in the Ryzen 3 series, beginning with the Ryzen 3 1200 and the Ryzen 3 1300X. Both of these are quad-core parts which lack SMT, leaving them with just four threads. AMD is expected to price them on par with Intel's dual-core "Kaby Lake" Core i3 SKUs.

The Ryzen 3 1200 is clocked at 3.10 GHz, with 3.40 GHz boost, the 1300X is clocked higher, at 3.50 GHz, with 3.70 GHz boost, and XFR (extended frequency range) enabling higher clocks depending on the efficacy of your cooling. Both parts will be available worldwide on July 27. The Ryzen Threadripper HEDT processor lineup is designed to take Intel's Core X series head-on, and will launch with two SKUs, initially. This includes the 12-core Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, and the 16-core Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Both parts further feature SMT and XFR. The 12-core/24-thread 1920X features clock speeds of 3.50 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost; while the 16-core/32-thread 1950X ticks at 3.40 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost. AMD also ran live demos of the Threadripper chips, in which the 12-core 1920X was shown to beat 10-core Intel Core i9-7900X at Cinebench R15 multi-threaded benchmark. The 16-core 1950X was shown to be close to 50% faster than the i9-7900X. The company also confirmed pricing.



 

 

 




The Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is priced at USD $799, while the Threadripper 1950X goes for a stunning $999. Both chips feature 32 MB of L3 cache, a 64-lane PCI-Express root complex, which enables full x16 bandwidth for up to 3 graphics cards; and a quad-channel DDR4 memory interface. Of course, both SKUs are completely unlocked. Both Threadripper parts will be available in the market by "early August" alongside a wave of compatible socket TR4 motherboards based on the AMD X399 chipset. At its SIGGRAPH 2017 event held on July 27, the company will formally launch the Ryzen 3 series, the Ryzen Threadripper series, and the Radeon RX Vega family of high-end graphics cards.



 

 

The video presentation follows:










*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## kruk (Jul 13, 2017)

Whoa, at 3.5/3.7 GHz (+XFR) the Ryzen 3 1300X will be extremely close to Ryzen 5 1400, making the latter obsolete.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 13, 2017)

AMD effectively murdered the entire Intel Core X lineup below the i9-7900X. Even if the i7-7800X or i7-7850X somehow scrape through in CPU performance using Intel's latest spate of PR bullshit; they still can't get away with crippled PCIe (28-lane).


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 13, 2017)

pricing is too high... at least on the x models... hopefully they release a variant like the r7 1700 that will make more sense.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 13, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> pricing is too high... at least on the x models... hopefully they release a variant like the r7 1700 that will make more sense.



I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $999 for a 16-core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart. 

What does AMD have to do, give their CPUs away for free to make people happy? Yet Intel can apparently ask whatever they want for their chips and everyone's cheering...


----------



## ironwolf (Jul 13, 2017)

Come on Ryzen APUs, come on...


----------



## Estaric (Jul 13, 2017)

all I can say is those are some impressive scores for that "cheap" of a cpu


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 13, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> pricing is too high... at least on the x models... hopefully they release a variant like the r7 1700 that will make more sense.



Lol what? Yes of course it would be better to purchase the non X versions of those CPU's but saying pricing is to high is ridiculous. 

Btw TheLostSwede, you made a typo, $999 not $99, if only that was the case


----------



## Particle (Jul 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $99 for a 16 core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart.
> 
> What does AMD have to do, give their CPUs away for free to make people happy? Yet Intel can apparently ask whatever they want for their chips and everyone's cheering...



Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jul 13, 2017)

Threadripper is awesome!!!!! 16-core is definitely the better value chip for just 999 dollars!!!! I was a bit worried I might have to buy skylake-x, but the clockspeeds are high enough I won't have to!!!!! 

Just a shame I can't use the cooler as a toaster


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.



They're only overpriced to people wanting them as gaming CPU's.

For the audience they're aimed at, professionals with a genuine need for the cores, these prices will be an absolute bargain.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.



wake me up when you can slap those two on an AM4 socket then you can justify your $850 pricing


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.


 Absolutely not. TR brings more pcie lanes and quad cannel. 
I honestly expected the top part to be $1200.


But given its rather cheap for them to produce the dies compared to Intel, it kinda makes sense


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 13, 2017)

kruk said:


> Whoa, at 3.5/3.7 GHz (+XFR) the Ryzen 3 1300X will be extremely close to Ryzen 5 1400, making the latter obsolete.



R3 1300x is 4c/4t while r5 1400 has 4c/8t, so no it does not make it obsolete(both can be OC anyway, so it's more like that R3 1200 makes R3 1300x obsolete). It's like saying i5s makes i7s obsolete. If there's software that needs more threads higher clocks won't help.

But yeah I'm looking forward on those R3 and how it compares to that cheap gaming price/perf king 2c/4t pentium.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jul 13, 2017)

The Quim Reaper said:


> They're only overpriced to people wanting them as gaming CPU's.
> 
> For the audience they're aimed at, professionals with a genuine need for the cores, these prices will be an absolute bargain.


Sticking them together and getting everything to work for you is well worth the premium. At least the drivers should work this time and it is a bargain for professionals! Servers, workstations or whatever you would need 16 cores for!

Intel is going to have some serious competition in the low-end as well now with ryzen 3!


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.



I'm sorry, but how is this "two of those" stuck together? As far as I'm aware, the 1800X has a total of 24 PCIe lanes, which would make this a 44+4 lanes, which it's not, it's 60+4 for starters. 

Secondly, is this retail price? The MSRP for the 1800X is $499, not $420 and this is MSRP, so retail might very well be lower, or higher, depending on the retailers selling the chips.

Seriously people, get a grip...


----------



## iO (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.



Totally flawless logic. So a 1800X should be $120 because the $480 8 core EPYC consists of 4 dies?


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jul 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I'm sorry, but how is this "two of those" stuck together? As far as I'm aware, the 1800X has a total of 24 PCIe lanes, which would make this a 44+4 lanes, which it's not, it's 60+4 for starters.
> 
> Secondly, is this retail price? The MSRP for the 1800X is $499, not $420 and this is MSRP, so retail might very well be lower, or higher, depending on the retailers selling the chips.
> 
> Seriously people, get a grip...


Retailers will get them for much lower prices and even with taxes, shipping, etc. that leaves a decent profit margin for both AMD and retailers if the chips are as cheap to produce as predicted, so retailers could drop prices a bit.


----------



## Fx (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.



This isn't like a fast food joint where you save money the larger size of soda you get.

This is a premium CPU and demands a premium price and yet it still isn't anywhere near Intel's pricing.


----------



## dozenfury (Jul 13, 2017)

It'd cost a kidney, but fun to think about a 1950X and a couple Vegas in x-fire with that bandwidth in a couple months.  Holy smokes that would (or at least should) fly.


----------



## Trxd (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.


well by your logic its pricing is fine as 1800x retail price announced by AMD was 499$..so if i am not wrong it does justify your logic of two cpu glued together and the retail price also..


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 13, 2017)

The R3 1200 and a B350 combo, overclock the cpu a bit, get a Hyper 212, and you have a solid foundation for a budget gaming rig.


----------



## silentbogo (Jul 13, 2017)

3.4-4.0GHz? That's insane!
One of those 1950x could probably replace our entire server closet.


----------



## Countryside (Jul 13, 2017)

I have been waiting for this a long time my beautiful 12 cores 24 threads and a extramly nice cinebench score.


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (Jul 13, 2017)

So no single-CCX quad core CPUs from AMD with SMT. Why not? The current quad cores they have suffer from too much L3 cache and cross-core latency because of the interconnect fabric that glues CCXes together. Mainstream users consume well-priced 4/6- core CPUs that perform well in games. Intel has that, AMD... not so much.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Jul 13, 2017)

I think the're reasonably priced for the amount of features they have, curious to see prices for the motherboards


----------



## efikkan (Jul 13, 2017)

btarunr said:


> AMD effectively murdered the entire Intel Core X lineup below the i9-7900X. Even if the i7-7800X or i7-7850X somehow scrape through in CPU performance using Intel's latest spate of PR bullshit; they still can't get away with crippled PCIe (28-lane).


Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.



TheLostSwede said:


> I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $999 for a 16-core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart.


You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 13, 2017)

Man I'm really interested in these


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.
> 
> 
> *You know very well Intel has higher IPC* and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.


You should also know that SKL-X dropped the ball on IPC, it isn't consistently faster than BDW-E across the board.
TR should be +5 to -15% clock for clock against it depending on the application being run atm, that's without more Zen specific optimizations that Linux or Windows may bring to the table.


----------



## Countryside (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.
> 
> You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.



You are trying to throw shite against the wall and hoping that it will stick.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.
> 
> 
> You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.


----------



## Estaric (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.
> 
> 
> You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.


No offense but I'm not seeing the AMD PR bullshit, as with most announced products they showed scores and how it stakes up against the competition. Of course a company when announcing there products arnt gonna be like "oh yeah BTW our cpu doesn't stand a chance against Intel in single core performance" it wouldn't be smart for a company to come straight out with the flaws of there products


----------



## Particle (Jul 13, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> wake me up when you can slap those two on an AM4 socket then you can justify your $850 pricing



It's two of the same dies on a different PCB.  Your point is nonsense.



ShurikN said:


> Absolutely not. TR brings more pcie lanes and quad cannel.



It just connects all of the things that two of what is already on an 1800X already has.  The 1800X has some of its PCIe lanes disabled.



TheLostSwede said:


> I'm sorry, but how is this "two of those" stuck together? As far as I'm aware, the 1800X has a total of 24 PCIe lanes, which would make this a 44+4 lanes, which it's not, it's 60+4 for starters.
> 
> Secondly, is this retail price? The MSRP for the 1800X is $499, not $420 and this is MSRP, so retail might very well be lower, or higher, depending on the retailers selling the chips.
> 
> Seriously people, get a grip...



It is _literally _two of the same dies stuck together.  The 1800X you're referencing has the same PCIe root hub inside of it.  It's just not fully exposed.  If anything, you should be complaining about how the 1800X is artificially limited.

MSRP doesn't matter, only what you can actually buy it for does.  At launch, retailers are going to charge TR's full MSRP and it will fall over time as the 1800X's price has.



iO said:


> Totally flawless logic. So a 1800X should be $120 because the $480 8 core EPYC consists of 4 dies?



The 1800X is a fully enabled and fully functional die while the same is not true of the dies on an 8-core EPYC.  Your point is nonsense.



Fx said:


> This isn't like a fast food joint where you save money the larger size of soda you get.
> 
> This is a premium CPU and demands a premium price and yet it still isn't anywhere near Intel's pricing.



I agree that it's a good value compared to Intel's offerings, but that isn't the point I was making.  I'm also not suggesting a savings where you get more cores per dollar with the high end, just not gouging where you get less.



Trxd said:


> well by your logic its pricing is fine as 1800x retail price announced by AMD was 499$..so if i am not wrong it does justify your logic of two cpu glued together and the retail price also..



The 1800X launched in the past obviously.  It doesn't matter what it sold for back then, just what it sells for now.  Double the current market price would be fine.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.



You're aware that it's two different writers that wrote the stories, right? Makes you bashing the writer of this story a bit unfair and unbiased as well...



efikkan said:


> You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.



Uhm, Intel doesn't have higher clocks when the core count goes up. Assuming (although maybe a bit pre-maturely) that the i9-7980XE will be based on the Xeon Gold 6150, we have a base clock of 2.7 vs 3.4GHz. I doubt Intel can scare up the base clock 700MHz, although in all fairness there's a two core advantage in this case to Intel, but also a $1,999 price tag. The boost clock is 3.7GHz vs 4GHz, so again, advantage AMD. Let's assume Intel gets their boost clock up to 4GHz as well and you might be right that Intel performs slightly better, but will it really be worth the extra money?

Also, what are "real workloads" to you? Admittedly we've only seen a single benchmark so far for Threadripper and it's not a core to core comparison (as Intel has as yet deliver its higher core count parts), but if you were to spend $999 on a CPU, Threadripper looks like a much more attractive option to me compared to the i9-7900X, but each to their own.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 13, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> You should also know that SKL-X dropped the ball on IPC, it isn't consistently faster than BDW-E across the board.
> TR should be +5 to -15% clock for clock against it depending on the application being run atm, that's without more Zen specific optimizations that Linux or Windows may bring to the table.


You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment.
There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.

And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.


----------



## refillable (Jul 13, 2017)

How is this one not "PR Bullshit" and Intel's one "clearly" was?


----------



## dir_d (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment.
> There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.
> 
> And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.


You forget 1 Major factor and that is price.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

Well now it is a race to whom can deliver a matx board that is good first. I am really leaning towards this threadripper setup it will be a nice swap out for my x99 build I think. Hopefully Asus can deliver something with quality like the x99m-ws


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment.
> There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.
> 
> And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.


Considering threadripper's clockspeeds and the fact it has 64 working pcie lanes, AMD must have done at least some optimizing.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 13, 2017)

dir_d said:


> You forget 1 Major factor and that is price.


No I did not. i9-7900X and 1950X cost the same, so they are within the same range.



Hugh Mungus said:


> Considering threadripper's clockspeeds and the fact it has 64 working pcie lanes, AMD must have done at least some optimizing.


PCIe lanes have *nothing* to do with optimizations.


----------



## Gasaraki (Jul 13, 2017)

btarunr said:


> AMD effectively murdered the entire Intel Core X lineup below the i9-7900X. Even if the i7-7800X or i7-7850X somehow scrape through in CPU performance using Intel's latest spate of PR bullshit; they still can't get away with crippled PCIe (28-lane).



Oh come on. Crippled the entire Core X lineup? Who running i5s and i3 care about more than 28 lanes of PCIe? If you are not running SLI 28 lanes is plenty. Ask the Ryzen users they only have 24.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> *You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment*.
> There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.
> 
> And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.


It;s not, SKL-X is not better than BDW-E across the board clock for clock, stop misrepresenting facts, also IPC depends on the application.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-8.html

What BS are you talking about did you not see the ROTR or AoS patches, what they did for Zen? That's just for two games, you're telling me win10 is running the best it can on Zen, when the chip itself was unveiled this year? How about SKL-X & that AVX 512, do programs simply run AVX (512) code without having SKL-X specific path as if it was Broadwell?


----------



## f22a4bandit (Jul 13, 2017)

efikkan said:


> No I did not. i9-7900X and 1950X cost the same, so they are within the same range.



That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> It is _literally _two of the same dies stuck together.  The 1800X you're referencing has the same PCIe root hub inside of it.  It's just not fully exposed.  If anything, you should be complaining about how the 1800X is artificially limited.
> 
> MSRP doesn't matter, only what you can actually buy it for does.  At launch, retailers are going to charge TR's full MSRP and it will fall over time as the 1800X's price has.



Ok, please go ahead and make things up, because you clearly knows best. Got any proof that it's "literally two of the same dies stuck together"? How do you know AMD limited the PCIe root hub? Do you have side by side die shots to prove that? If anything, it's "literally" the same as the Epyc 7351P but at higher clocks and with half the PCIe lanes. Until we had die shots of all three side by side, no-one can say that they're the same part.

If you have a look at some of my Ryzen posts, I did point out that it should've had more PCIe lanes, as it's the one thing that disappointed me about it, but hey, I guess you didn't notice that as you were too busy bitching.

What do you mean MSRP doesn't matter? You just complained that AMD charged too much and then say it doesn't matter. Your logic is very confusing. So are you saying Intel's MSRP doesn't matter as well then, as their prices will maybe also drop over time? The only thing anyone can go by at launch is MSRP's until we see what the actual retail prices are. I think you need some serious help dude


----------



## Countryside (Jul 13, 2017)

Time to open my beer and the popcorn will be ready in a few this is getting really interesting here.


----------



## 5DVX0130 (Jul 13, 2017)

This thread at the moment. 






Just ignore them, and try to actually comment on the news.

This year has been amazing so far, well at least in the CPU field. It truly reminds of the golden age of computing. 
You know when changing the CPU actually made a difference, and you didn’t only do it because you wanted a new chipset.

Competition and innovation FTW


----------



## efikkan (Jul 13, 2017)

f22a4bandit said:


> That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?


Overpricing in shops is not the maker's fault. At times the Fury X was sold for a 50% premium.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 13, 2017)

f22a4bandit said:


> That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?


7900x msrp (tray) is 1000. TR is (rumored) to be the same. It will see the same new cpu i flation as 7900x.

TR is a good value there if you can use more than 10c/20t.  Otherwise, you are piling on cores for no reason. Id go for the 'generally' faster ipc chip too... especially since it can overclock to 4ghz+ with relative ease. I can run mine at 4.5ghz (custom loop 3x120mm rad)


----------



## Particle (Jul 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Ok, please go ahead and make things up, because you clearly knows best. Got any proof that it's "literally two of the same dies stuck together"? How do you know AMD limited the PCIe root hub? Do you have side by side die shots to prove that? If anything, it's "literally" the same as the Epyc 7351P but at higher clocks and with half the PCIe lanes. Until we had die shots of all three side by side, no-one can say that they're the same part.
> 
> If you have a look at some of my Ryzen posts, I did point out that it should've had more PCIe lanes, as it's the one thing that disappointed me about it, but hey, I guess you didn't notice that as you were too busy bitching.
> 
> What do you mean MSRP doesn't matter? You just complained that AMD charged too much and then say it doesn't matter. Your logic is very confusing. So are you saying Intel's MSRP doesn't matter as well then, as their prices will maybe also drop over time? The only thing anyone can go by at launch is MSRP's until we see what the actual retail prices are. I think you need some serious help dude



I would encourage you to re-read my post as you have somehow managed to misunderstand the point I made about MSRP.  I'd explain it to you again, but correcting your reading comprehension failure is not my job.

As for the dies being the same, what evidence do you have that they are not?  AMD has talked extensively about how part of the beauty of their new product lineup is their extensive use of MCMs with Infinity Fabric since they can produce the smaller dies with much higher yields and then create products in their various product segments from that common stock at lower costs.  I would say that your assertion that the dies would not be the same would less follow from common logic, and as such the burden of proof is yours.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 13, 2017)

Attacking the writer was a big mistake... this thread is about AMD not intel, bias needs to be left at the door.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> As for the dies being the same, what evidence do you have that they are not?  AMD has talked extensively about how part of the beauty of their new product lineup is their extensive use of MCMs with Infinity Fabric since they can produce the smaller dies with much higher yields and then create products in their various product segments from that common stock at lower costs.  I would say that your assertion that the dies would not be the same would less follow from common logic, and as such the burden of proof is yours.



For cores, yes, not the PCIe root complex which takes up a HUGE die area. It simply doesn't make sense that they use the same cores when you have 28, 64 and 128 PCIe lanes. That said, I have as much proof as you do, so let's wait for the die shots...

However, looking at the Ryzen die shot, it doesn't look like there's any unused PCIe lanes in there.


----------



## Nosada (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.


By that logic, Intel CPU's should cost no more than the 50 euros I spent on my cousins G4560 times 2 or 4, depending on the number of cores they have.

Pushing more silicon into one package has never, and will never, be cheaper.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 13, 2017)

I have to say the fanboism is strong in that guy, spitting out so-called facts without backing it them up, that magic crystal ball must be doing overtime at 120% warp speed. 


All I really want is a 1950X for gaming, maybe a little crunching too.


----------



## ironwolf (Jul 13, 2017)

f22a4bandit said:


> That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?


That i9-7900X price is a bit flimsy:

Intel: Recommended Customer Price $989.00 - $999.0
Newegg (antonline): $1186.96 (OOS)
Amazon: $1049.99 (OOS)


----------



## Particle (Jul 13, 2017)

Nosada said:


> By that logic, Intel CPU's should cost no more than the 50 euros I spent on my cousins G4560 times 2 or 4, depending on the number of cores they have.
> 
> Pushing more silicon into one package has never, and will never, be cheaper.



The scenario we're discussing here is where there are two products which consist of either one or two of the same dies in theory.  Your anecdote about different monolithic products with different feature sets doesn't really follow that thread of discussion.


----------



## PowerPC (Jul 13, 2017)

Now please give normal non-professional users some actual applications for 16-core CPUs. Ryzen has made it possible, now make it practical for us please.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 13, 2017)

Can you feel the beat..






Throwaway your any fanboyism sh** into the ...

This is why we love competition as a consumers, tech lovers etc.

Today AMD maybe is the smarter choice, next day we never know, face it..

2017 so far AMD ripped intel for value/performance, let's hope stay like this, they do the best as they can to give us the best products with reasonable price, just pick it one which the best for you.


----------



## wiyosaya (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.


Absolutely agree with this. As I see it, the only reason that AMD is charging $999 for this proc is because of Intel's pricing. Unfortunately, without this kind of competition in the recent past from AMD, Intel was easily able to bloat the price of the 6950 to the ridiculous level approaching $1,700 US, thus, Intel was able set the "baseline" for HEDT at that level. Now, we have to live with it. If Intel had not been able to set the baseline at that level (the thing is stupendously expensive considering it only has two more cores than a proc costing $500 less), we would probably be seeing pricing closer to 2X the 1800X or perhaps less.


----------



## Franzen4Real (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> It just connects all of the things that two of what is already on an 1800X already has.  *The 1800X has some of its PCIe lanes disabled.*
> THEN--
> It is _literally _two of the same dies stuck together.  The 1800X you're referencing has the same PCIe root hub inside of it.  It's just not fully exposed.  *If anything, you should be complaining about how the 1800X is artificially limited.*
> BUT THEN--
> *The 1800X is a fully enabled and fully functional die* while the same is not true of the dies on an 8-core EPYC.  Your point is nonsense..



lol


----------



## silentbogo (Jul 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> However, looking at the Ryzen die shot, it doesn't look like there's any unused PCIe lanes in there.


I had a crazy theory in my head that 8 of the PCIe lanes from each module are used as a transport media for InfinityFabric. Both the number of "unused" lanes and the max. bandwidth roughly match.
E.g. a desktop version of Ryzen 7 has 24 lanes. A 16-core Threadripper has 64 lanes(which is 16 per 4C module). The missing 8 lanes provide a bandwidth of 40GB/s max, while InfinityFabric presentations mentioned numbers like 42GB/s die-to-die or 37GB/s MCM-to-MCM.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 13, 2017)

silentbogo said:


> PCIe lanes from each module are used as a transport media for InfinityFabric


At least on Epyc they are a completely different technology. PCIe uses differential pairs, InfinityFabric is single-ended.


----------



## r9 (Jul 13, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.


Forgetting the glue, it's $149.


----------



## Particle (Jul 13, 2017)

Franzen4Real said:


> lol


 
I was mindful of that when posting it, but I actively chose to omit that in order to be more concise since we were talking primarily about cores and frequencies.


----------



## Ebo (Jul 13, 2017)

TR looks like a good replacement for my old I7-5820K.


----------



## Particle (Jul 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> For cores, yes, not the PCIe root complex which takes up a HUGE die area. It simply doesn't make sense that they use the same cores when you have 28, 64 and 128 PCIe lanes. That said, I have as much proof as you do, so let's wait for the die shots...
> 
> However, looking at the Ryzen die shot, it doesn't look like there's any unused PCIe lanes in there.



I'm happy enough to wait for die shots, but we've already been told that Epyc consists of four Zeppelin dies (revealed during the AMD Financial Analyst Day).  These are same dies used in the desktop Ryzen processors.  There have been discussions at length elsewhere about how each Zeppelin die has 32 PCIe lanes with only 24 exposed for the Ryzen desktop parts.

I can find lots of talk about Ryzen desktop processors being made from Zeppelin but absolutely nothing about it being a different die.  One example would be Melvin Dionio (an AMD product development engineer) showing on his LinkedIn profile that part of his recent duties have been to "support system level test (SLT) test program development for all Zeppelin (Summit Ridge, Naples, Snowy Owl) packages".  We know that Summit Ridge is desktop Ryzen and Naples is server Ryzen.  Why would Threadripper stand out with a different die?


----------



## prtskg (Jul 13, 2017)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> So no single-CCX quad core CPUs from AMD with SMT. Why not? The current quad cores they have suffer from too much L3 cache and cross-core latency because of the interconnect fabric that glues CCXes together. Mainstream users consume well-priced 4/6- core CPUs that perform well in games. Intel has that, AMD... not so much.


They'll come from apu dies as Athlon series.


----------



## evernessince (Jul 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $999 for a 16-core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart.
> 
> What does AMD have to do, give their CPUs away for free to make people happy? Yet Intel can apparently ask whatever they want for their chips and everyone's cheering...



Essentially, yes.  There are a few PC enthusiasts who have that "The best or nothing" mentality, where even a 1% increase in gaming performance will make them look at the competition like it's trash.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 13, 2017)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Warning issued.

I for one am excited to see how well TR will be at crunching for WCG.  Might have to invest in 1950X...


----------



## Nuno Lourenço (Jul 13, 2017)

wiyosaya said:


> Absolutely agree with this. As I see it, the only reason that AMD is charging $999 for this proc is because of Intel's pricing. Unfortunately, without this kind of competition in the recent past from AMD, Intel was easily able to bloat the price of the 6950 to the ridiculous level approaching $1,700 US, thus, Intel was able set the "baseline" for HEDT at that level. Now, we have to live with it. If Intel had not been able to set the baseline at that level (the thing is stupendously expensive considering it only has two more cores than a proc costing $500 less), we would probably be seeing pricing closer to 2X the 1800X or perhaps less.



Let me if I'm getting this straigth. Until a few months ago Intel was charging 1700$ for a CPU which is now outperformed by more than 60% by a CPU that costs 700$ less and you keep saying that its too expensive? I don't get it, really...


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jul 13, 2017)

Nuno Lourenço said:


> Let me if I'm getting this straigth. Until a few months ago Intel was charging 1700$ for a CPU which is now outperformed by more than 60% by a CPU that costs 700$ less and you keep saying that its too expensive? I don't get it, really...


If AMD can get 16 cores at the same price with realistically the same stock performance per core on anything below a really good 240mm AIO, which it has, then intel is still overpriced. 4.0-4.1ghz on all cores and you won't notice the difference at a decent resolution like (U)WQHD or higher and in multi-thread optimized tasks and especially multitasking you get much better bang for your buck from AMD. The fact is, clockspeed won't save skylake-x in 2017 when 1440p is considered the minimum for a HEDT.


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (Jul 13, 2017)

prtskg said:


> They'll come from apu dies as Athlon series.



There's something going on here. AMD does not want to release properly clocked single-CCX quads with SMT. I'll tell why: Because such CPUs would outperform their current 8-core CPUs in games and certain other tests.


----------



## Frick (Jul 13, 2017)

Yeah AMD has made me a fool a lot lately. I guessed the top Ryzen be $800ish, and I could not imagine the 16c/32t Threadripper being $999. Go!


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 13, 2017)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> There's something going on here. AMD does not want to release properly clocked single-CCX quads with SMT. I'll tell why: Because such CPUs would outperform their current 8-core CPUs in games and certain other tests.



Most likely, but they can cripple that by reducing or removing the L3 cache.


----------



## Frick (Jul 13, 2017)

wiyosaya said:


> Absolutely agree with this. As I see it, the only reason that AMD is charging $999 for this proc is because of Intel's pricing. Unfortunately, without this kind of competition in the recent past from AMD, Intel was easily able to bloat the price of the 6950 to the ridiculous level approaching $1,700 US, thus, Intel was able set the "baseline" for HEDT at that level. Now, we have to live with it. If Intel had not been able to set the baseline at that level (the thing is stupendously expensive considering it only has two more cores than a proc costing $500 less), we would probably be seeing pricing closer to 2X the 1800X or perhaps less.



This is accurate. No one knowing their history can deny it. So is ">3Ghz 16c/32t CPU for $999 is AWESOME". One can argue theoretical scenarious in which AMD didn't make Bulldozer and Intel didn't reigned alone for a long while all day long but here we are. AMD is damned near disruptive at the moment, at least CPU-side and from a viewpoint many users share. They are competitive in a duopoly, which is the important thing. I wish VIA would amaze us once again (and make some nanoITX boards while they're at it, preferebly with two NICs), but again theoreticals.


----------



## wiyosaya (Jul 13, 2017)

Nuno Lourenço said:


> Let me if I'm getting this straigth. Until a few months ago Intel was charging 1700$ for a CPU which is now outperformed by more than 60% by a CPU that costs 700$ less and you keep saying that its too expensive? I don't get it, really...


What I am saying is that Intel set the bar for current processor pricing and that AMD is almost certainly pricing against that bar. If the bar were at $1,200 or less, AMD may have similarly priced their new entry at a correspondingly high discount - say $700.

So, the lack of competition, at least as I see it, has inflated prices.

No, the AMD offerings are far from overpriced when compared against Intel and Intel's prices, however, if Intel chooses to be aggressive in its future pricing, we might see prices on procs like this come down to lower levels.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 13, 2017)

At least intel was right for one thing, the amd glue is perfectly working for doubled the performance from Ryzen R7 series..

AMD done it, a crossfire with their CPU, why not .. 

Still curious about the power and temp..







Bring it the coffe lake x and canon lake x soon intel... give us much more happines.


----------



## wiyosaya (Jul 13, 2017)

Frick said:


> This is accurate. No one knowing their history can deny it. So is ">3Ghz 16c/32t CPU for $999 is AWESOME". One can argue theoretical scenarious in which AMD didn't make Bulldozer and Intel didn't reigned alone for a long while all day long but here we are. AMD is damned near disruptive at the moment, at least CPU-side and from a viewpoint many users share. They are competitive in a duopoly, which is the important thing. I wish VIA would amaze us once again (and make some nanoITX boards while they're at it, preferebly with two NICs), but again theoreticals.


I would up "damned near" to "definitely disruptive" to Intel, at least. That is likely why Intel is crying GLUE!


----------



## Dave65 (Jul 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $999 for a 16-core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart.
> 
> What does AMD have to do, give their CPUs away for free to make people happy? Yet Intel can apparently ask whatever they want for their chips and everyone's cheering...



I was going to ask the same thing


----------



## Camm (Jul 13, 2017)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> There's something going on here. AMD does not want to release properly clocked single-CCX quads with SMT. I'll tell why: Because such CPUs would outperform their current 8-core CPUs in games and certain other tests.



The more likely answer is that it stops them from being able to scavenge parts from defective chips, AMD has focused on their 8 cores as being the high end rather than what we are used to with Quads, and the fact that whenever the hell their APU's actually release, that they will be a single 4 core CCX.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

wiyosaya said:


> What I am saying is that Intel set the bar for current processor pricing and that AMD is almost certainly pricing against that bar. If the bar were at $1,200 or less, AMD may have similarly priced their new entry at a correspondingly high discount - say $700.
> 
> So, the lack of competition, at least as I see it, has inflated prices.
> 
> No, the AMD offerings are far from overpriced when compared against Intel and Intel's prices, however, if Intel chooses to be aggressive in its future pricing, we might see prices on procs like this come down to lower levels.



These are flagship products. They are priced substantially lower than old AMD flagship products once inflation is accounted for.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 13, 2017)

My 3820 is starting to feel a little dated.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 13, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> I was going to ask the same thing



why is that so crazy?  8 core 3.0 to 3.7 for 269... 12 core for 799?





Not nearly the same level of disruption, and in the enterprise space... I am just imagining trying to convince a cio to switch.  

These are definitely fair prices; but amd's goal was to gobble up market share as fast as possible before intel  reacts, and these will slow them down vs a $699 12 core and a $799 16 core (hopefully they do have lower end variants that can be had for this).


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 13, 2017)

Bring on the core war.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 13, 2017)

AMD sure has done a nice job with scaling Ryzen with minimal efforts all the way from consumer entry level desktop to data center. Threadripper is no exception. MCM has its disadvantages, and I personally am very interested what impact it has to gaming performance and VM usage (oh yes, people do like to game on their HEDT machines too). 

I am confident enough with Ryzen/EPYC offerings that I did something I have never done before: bought some stocks (AMD), which at the current price still seem rather undervalued. I believe AMD has bright near to mid term future regardless how the graphics solutions work out.


----------



## Mirkoskji (Jul 13, 2017)

Camm said:


> The more likely answer is that it stops them from being able to scavenge parts from defective chips, AMD has focused on their 8 cores as being the high end rather than what we are used to with Quads, and the fact that whenever the hell their APU's actually release, that they will be a single 4 core CCX.


Sure, they can scavenge to produce ryzen 3 and 5. But when their APUs will come out, they can still sell their quad cores with no graphics to OEMs. And even better, they can use defective 8 cores to make lower core count threadrippers and epyc processors.  So a successful strategy can be to gradually swap r3 and r5 with apus and even increase profit margins over damaged chips. This mcm design can become a gold mine


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 13, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> why is that so crazy?  8 core 3.0 to 3.7 for 269... 12 core for 799?
> 
> View attachment 90137
> 
> ...



Mother of god *takes off shades*

Just look at that value. My head is going to assplode.  270? Pinch me. Is this real life?


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 14, 2017)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> At least intel was right for one thing, the amd glue is perfectly working for doubled the performance from Ryzen R7 series..
> 
> AMD done it, a crossfire with their CPU, why not ..
> 
> ...



I like how he/they put gaming first on a 16c32t chip



			
				PCPerspective said:
			
		

> There is a lot more to test, including *gaming performance *and boat-loads more applications and workflows,


----------



## btarunr (Jul 14, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.



Except I posted my opinion as a comment, and not part of the article. Next time you pull something like this, you meet the banstick.


----------



## ShockG (Jul 14, 2017)

Ah the war has started.
16 cores for $999 not bad, plus the cooler of course as not a single cooler you have right now will work on SP3r2 socket. So it's $999 and at least $100 for the AIO.
I wonder what the power draw will be for this? Should be pretty high at 300W+ with all cores at 4GHz. Interesting times ahead.


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 14, 2017)

Are there any speculations or rumors about the pricing of Ryzen3?


----------



## Jism (Jul 14, 2017)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> AMD sure has done a nice job with scaling Ryzen with minimal efforts all the way from consumer entry level desktop to data center. Threadripper is no exception. MCM has its disadvantages, and I personally am very interested *what impact it has to gaming performance* and VM usage (oh yes, people do like to game on their HEDT machines too).



Who cares. Your missing a few FPS here and there, but once paired with a decent videocard your usually above 60FPS or much more.

Point being is that AMD plants a CPU for a very very decent price where intel milked their top tier products for years. Competition is good for all of us.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 14, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> I like how he/they put gaming first on a 16c32t chip



Same, if it can doubled too.. just wow then.


----------



## Caelestis (Jul 14, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> Are there any speculations or rumors about the pricing of Ryzen3?



The prices probably won't be be published before the 27th. But looking at the MSRP from Ryzen 5 1400 ($169), I would estimate $129-139 for the Ryzen 3 1300X and $99-109 for Ryzen 3 1200.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 14, 2017)

Jism said:


> Who cares. Your missing a few FPS here and there, but once paired with a decent videocard your usually above 60FPS or much more.
> 
> Point being is that AMD plants a CPU for a very very decent price where intel milked their top tier products for years. Competition is good for all of us.



Who cares about performance? Only few FPS here and there, based on what? 
Right, I have had enough of blind fanboys who can not look products based on numbers, but instead resort to emotions.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 14, 2017)

Pretty damn impressive
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11636/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-1950x-16-cores-4g-turbo-799-999-usd



Rahmat Sofyan said:


> Still curious about the power and temp..


Check anand's link.



GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> Who cares about performance? Only few FPS here and there, based on what?


Based on most "impressive" differences in FPS are when using 1080Ti like cards at bloody 200-ish fps.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jul 14, 2017)

I'm just here to say.

Niceeee.


----------



## TheTechGuy1337 (Jul 14, 2017)

I think some of you are reading too far into the 1300X model not selling well. That cpu is going to be marketed for users that are either newer to pc building or that do not want to overclock their systems. There are plenty of people in the world that do not want to mess with the overclock settings. 

AMD is a business and they cater to the market. Most enthusiasts will buy the non x models and overclock to save money where as the rest will not.


----------



## r9 (Jul 14, 2017)

Anyone needing that many core I can only assume it will also need a lot of ram.
Ryzen RAM support is been kind of shady.
It should not have issue supporting 64GB+ of RAM with no issues.


----------



## Frick (Jul 14, 2017)

medi01 said:


> Pretty damn impressive
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11636/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-1950x-16-cores-4g-turbo-799-999-usd



"By virtue of being sixteen cores, AMD is seemingly carving a new consumer category above HEDT/High-End Desktop, which we’ve coined the ‘Super High-End Desktop’, or SHED for short."

Good grief.


----------



## wiyosaya (Jul 14, 2017)

cdawall said:


> These are flagship products. They are priced substantially lower than old AMD flagship products once inflation is accounted for.


 Did it sound like I was complaining? 

Honestly, I viewed my comment as 1) speculation, 2) concern that AMD and Intel might find a way to artificially inflate prices even more given Intel, due to the lack of competition, inflated an 8-core HEDT proc to a price approximately 50% more than a 6-core HEDT proc. IMO, that kind of practice is nuts, but when an entity can do something and get away with it, most likely it will.

If I put myself in Intel's place, they may also have seen "enthusiasts" as a cash cow, and thus, if customers wanted the bragging rights, customers would have to pay for them even though there was no technical basis for that price. Yes, they are free to set prices as they want, but when is the constant milking going to end?

Agree with me or not as you please, this move may be a good thing in that it might bring back true competition and price parity - in other words follow the natural course of economics and technology.

And also agree with me or not as you please, another possible course is that this might just devolve into price fixing. Intel and AMD have done it before.

Time will tell, but my hope is that AMD and Intel will let things evolve naturally.


----------



## Kenneth Waycaster (Jul 14, 2017)

AMD is a bargain bin purchase, not worth these prices.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 14, 2017)

So, speaking of price/performance, Ryzen 7 kills the i7, Ryzen 5 the i5, Ryzen 3 is going to kill the i3 and Threadripper the HEDT i7 and i9 line. We are only left with the G4560, that Intel killed himself.
Either we see some serious price cuts from Intel, or they start to lose market share.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 14, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> So, speaking of price/performance, Ryzen 7 kills the i7, Ryzen 5 the i5, Ryzen 3 is going to kill the i3 and Threadripper the HEDT i7 and i9 line. We are only left with the G4560, that Intel killed himself.
> Either we see some serious price cuts from Intel, or they start to lose market share.



They'll take that chance rather than tank profit outlook by cutting prices across the board (and admitting to competition). This isn't much different than the athlon XP era except they don't own all the publications, anymore, and it remains to be seen if they go back into full illegal biz mode, again.


----------



## Konceptz (Jul 14, 2017)

efikkan said:


> You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.



So by your logic, it makes sense to pay 70% more for a CPU that is only at best maybe 15% faster?


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 14, 2017)

Konceptz said:


> So by your logic, it makes sense to pay 70% more for a CPU that is only at best maybe 15% faster?



Consumerism and brand recognition at it's finest.
Intel prices were low during the Pentium D/Athlon 64 X2 and early Core 2 Duo era, maybe we will see something similar? Just hoping, in the past we used to have hexa cores at i5 prices and quad cores at i3/Pentium prices.


----------



## Foobario (Jul 15, 2017)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> So no single-CCX quad core CPUs from AMD with SMT. Why not? The current quad cores they have suffer from too much L3 cache and cross-core latency because of the interconnect fabric that glues CCXes together. Mainstream users consume well-priced 4/6- core CPUs that perform well in games. Intel has that, AMD... not so much.



A little early to be regurgitating Intel "glue" criticisms, don't you think?

"Mainstream users consume well-priced 4/6- core CPUs that perform well in games. Intel has that, AMD... not so much."

Does it not seem logical that these "mainstream users" probably have a 60hz monitor that makes any Intel "benchmark advantage" moot in  the real world where humans can only see 60 frames per second?  Not to mention the urban myth that gains more credibility each day regarding how much more smooth the gaming performance on Ryzen is superior to Intel. :/


----------



## prtskg (Jul 15, 2017)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> There's something going on here. AMD does not want to release properly clocked single-CCX quads with SMT. I'll tell why: Because such CPUs would outperform their current 8-core CPUs in games and certain other tests.


The 4GHz limit is due to foundry. Also the present cores are such that each CCX is linked with single channel ram. This would have resulted in quite an inferior product i.e. a quad core with 4ghz limit and single channel ram. In order to have a better product AMD would have to use a new die in other foundry, perhaps TSMC. That means at least half a billion in investment. I don't think AMD has that kind of money just for a quad core, which would have been replaced by Athlons in almost 3 quarters. I doubt AMD would even have recouped their investment in such a scenario i.e. in such a small time frame. This is reality that AMD doesn't have money to do multiple dies or use multiple foundries. I expect them to do so in future when they have more money but it's not happening now. In AMD words 'they are doing pin-pointed investment in fields of maximum return'.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 15, 2017)

Konceptz said:


> So by your logic, it makes sense to pay 70% more for a CPU that is only at best maybe 15% faster?


No, my point is that you should at least compare comparable products, comparable in real performance and price.
Ryzen 1950X ($1000) will compete with i9-7900X($1000) and i9-7920X($1200). We already know Skylake-X have much higher IPC and scales very well, and we know the rough performance range of Ryzen, but we'll still have to see the exact value of these three contenders when the all arrive. i9-7960X will outperform Ryzen 1950X by more than 15%, but as always, the highest models will not be the highest value in the Skylake-X series.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jul 15, 2017)

efikkan said:


> No, my point is that you should at least compare comparable products, comparable in real performance and price.
> Ryzen 1950X ($1000) will compete with i9-7900X($1000) and i9-7920X($1200). We already know Skylake-X have much higher IPC and scales very well, and we know the rough performance range of Ryzen, but we'll still have to see the exact value of these three contenders when the all arrive. i9-7960X will outperform Ryzen 1950X by more than 15%, but as always, the highest models will not be the highest value in the Skylake-X series.



It will have the same IPC as all other Intel's current processors. I.e 8-10% Better IPC than AMDs current line of products. ( Except a really specific couple scenarios where ryzens IPC is 50% higher than Intel's and vice Versa) The majority of the performance uplift you see in intel processors are from higher clock speeds ( IPC stays the same regardless of clock speed, you are just increasing the frequency that the clock cycles occur)

I doubt intel can pull much more IPC out as everyone has kinda hit a wall( hence higher core counts / higher efficiency becoming more popular specs), it may be possible for AMD to close that 8% gap how ever and it's certainly possible for them to tweak the process to allow for higher clock speeds, Ryzen even with no IPC uplift and intel clock speeds would be killer.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 16, 2017)

prtskg said:


> The 4GHz limit is due to foundry.



I think this is only partially true. I have an odd feeling that threadripper and epyc received all of the dies worth a shit. Remember Ryzen itself has cut down dies from the get go (pcie root complex) I believe that has heavily to do with a bad foundry allowing piss poor products out. It is quite easy for amd to bin those garbage chips as the mainstream consumer level products while salvaging the good dies for threadripper and epyc that they sell at much higher margins ($200 glue if you will) I have already seen rumors of 5ghz on threadripper which I very much hope to be true.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 16, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I think this is only partially true. I have an odd feeling that threadripper and epyc received all of the dies worth a shit. Remember Ryzen itself has cut down dies from the get go (pcie root complex) I believe that has heavily to do with a bad foundry allowing piss poor products out. It is quite easy for amd to bin those garbage chips as the mainstream consumer level products while salvaging the good dies for threadripper and epyc that they sell at much higher margins ($200 glue if you will) I have already seen rumors of 5ghz on threadripper which I very much hope to be true.



OC limit is the only concern for me. I want ripper, but I also don't want to spend 900 on the 16 core (I'm assuming it'll fall like the 1800x), then the refresh comes out next year and (hypothetically) OCs 400 MHz higher.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 16, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> OC limit is the only concern for me. I want ripper, but I also don't want to spend 900 on the 16 core (I'm assuming it'll fall like the 1800x), then the refresh comes out next year and (hypothetically) OCs 400 MHz higher.



If it walks out the door at 5ghz it will handily hand my 5960X it's ass.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 16, 2017)

cdawall said:


> If it walks out the door at 5ghz it will handily hand my 5960X it's ass.



If that happens, gaming will be done on workstations in the near future.

Not so sure if that's a positive TBH


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 16, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> OC limit is the only concern for me. I want ripper, but I also don't want to spend 900 on the 16 core (I'm assuming it'll fall like the 1800x), then the refresh comes out next year and (hypothetically) OCs 400 MHz higher.


you arent new here...

If you are ready to buy...buy. otherwise keep waiting for the next best thing as its always around the corner...

5ghz thread ripper.....lolhahahahaha maybe they will include a 120mm aio to cool 375w+...oh shoot, sorry thats vega xtx...but maybe.....!


----------



## cdawall (Jul 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> you arent new here...
> 
> If you are ready to buy...buy. otherwise keep waiting for the next best thing as its always around the corner...
> 
> 5ghz thread ripper.....lolhahahahaha maybe they will include a 120mm aio to cool 375w+...oh shoot, sorry thats vega xtx...but maybe.....!



It really depends on global foundries. Remwmber the rx480 only consumes 95 full pcb and memory in the more expensive models (for professionals stuff). They can make good products, production is just limited. Maybe we will get lucky and Ryzen is literally all the crap being thrown away. I doubt it, but I love the idea of a 5ghz 16 core with good up and great multi threading.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 16, 2017)

I like the idea too...

I also like the idea of me hitting the lottery... two things which wont happen.


----------



## Frick (Jul 16, 2017)

Ain't no thang on Ln2. 

Aaanyway some ryzen 3 prices from Reddit (can't access the thread though): USD 129 for the 1300x, 109$ for the 1200. Seems plausible.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 17, 2017)

Frick said:


> Ain't no thang on *Ln2*.
> 
> Aaanyway some ryzen 3 prices from Reddit (can't access the thread though): USD 129 for the 1300x, 109$ for the 1200. Seems plausible.


You were saying 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen-ln2,5116.html

Ryzen is pretty good for a first gen, completely new uarch on a LPP(?) process, that coming from 28nm. If GF, along with IBM & Samsung, are close to their estimates on 7nm then Intel is gonna be in a world of pain.
We haven't even scratched the surface yet with Zen, long it may *reign*. Also GoT S7 Ep01 was slow, almost nothing happened


----------



## pleaseno (Jul 20, 2017)

Particle said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together.  Pricing should be more like $850.



You know, to have this world offer an 1800x for $420, someone has to buy threadripper for $999...


----------

