Wednesday, February 8th 2017

AMD's Ryzen R7 8-core, 16-thread Processor Prices Outed for Europe

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (73 Comments)
A Spanish-based hardware site has just outed what they claim to be AMD's upcoming R7 Ryzen chips' pricing, and if true, these seem to spell a spectacular amount of value (if performance is at the rumored and expected range, naturally).

As it is, the prices cover only three models of AMD's overall Ryzen line-up, namely, the R7 1800X, the R7 1700X and the non-X, R7 1700 (all 8-core, 16-thread parts). According to the source, these chips will feature base clocks in the order of 4 GHz for the 1800X; 3.8 GHz for the 1700X; and 3.7 GHz for the 1700. Overall european pricing (including taxes) is set at €599.99 for the 1800X; €469.99 for the 1700X; and a "measly" €389.95 for the 1700. As always, you can expect US pricing to be even more competitive; perhaps a $349 pricing for the 1700 chip (which also carries a 65W TDP to boot).

From this, and considering all AMD Ryzen processors will be multiplier-unlocked, we can surmise that the 1700 should be quite a steal at this pricing. And this also bodes well for AMD's upcoming 6-core, 12-thread R5 processors - status-quo upsetting at an affordable price-point, anyone?
Sources: elchapuzasinformatico, Reddit user pheder

Related News

Add your own comment

73 Comments on AMD's Ryzen R7 8-core, 16-thread Processor Prices Outed for Europe

#51
R0H1T
figurettiwww.shopblt.com/search/order_id=!ORDERID!&s_max=25&t_all=1&s_all=AMD+AM4&search=Search
Apparently the pre-order price has a 6-7% increase over MSRP, based on the previous preorders of Kaby Lake... that put the price in the range of..

1800x: 459 USD
1700x: 359 USD
1700: 299 USD

And... there's something that it's making some reddit users to scratch their head...
In some sites, they listed the clock for the 1800X as 4 Ghz BASE CLOCK...

Example:


This month is going be full of fun
Apparently that's just the wholesale price ~ www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5svsva/amd_ryzen_cpus_for_preorder_prices_may_be_legit

You can add a bit of retailer margins in there, it'd still be way less than HEDT Broadwell or Haswell but could be around 500~600$ on the top end. Still excellent VFM obviously.
Posted on Reply
#52
lemonadesoda
I think the pricing will be even lower than what was announced today. The currently disclosed "fair pricing" is IMO to appear relevant and competitive and to stop Intel from pre-discounting Intel CPUs before the launch of Ryzen. I think AMD have found they have received a little too much interest and excitement from the market, probably are wondering about their fab and manufacturing capacity (demand outstrips supply) and Intel is responding with their announcement of soon to be available super overclocked Kaby-Lake-X. AMD needs to make sure Intel doesnt discount and steal AMDs window to return into the enthusiasts market.

Good luck AMD in making this a successful launch. Mid 2017 is going to be a very competitive time for CPUs and I will be upgrading then.
Posted on Reply
#53
Mirkoskji
Could it be that AMD used low frequency cpus on show during their events as a strategy not to disclose their real potential until last few days before launch? I don't think it's easy to get the same 95 watts at 4.0ghz out of the same cpu that had a base clock of 3.4ghz after only 2 or three months before. even 65w out of 3.6, 3.8 is insane for an octacore, based on today's standards.
Posted on Reply
#54
R0H1T
MirkoskjiCould it be that AMD used low frequency cpus on show during their events as a strategy not to disclose their real potential until last few days before launch? I don't think it's easy to get the same 95 watts at 4.0ghz out of the same cpu that had a base clock of 3.4ghz after only 2 or three months before. even 65w out of 3.6, 3.8 is insane for an octacore, based on today's standards.
The 4GHz clocks is the boost speed, the same goes for 3.6 or 3.8 for the 65W TDP part. Also TDP is not power consumption, it could be lower than 95W, or indeed higher, depending on the CPU load.
Posted on Reply
#55
Mirkoskji
R0H1TThe 4GHz clocks is the boost speed, the same goes for 3.6 or 3.8 for the 65W TDP part. Also TDP is not power consumption, it could be lower than 95W, or indeed higher, depending on the CPU load.
In the links seems to be advertised as base clock. So there are misleading informations about what is base and what is turbo now. Regarding TDP I know, but AMD and intel, if I well remember, measured TDP in two different ways (maybe Intel's is maximum TDP and AMD is typical TDP). Today even the i7 6950x in an intense multithreaded workload seems to draw much less than advertised 130 or 140W. TDP wars can become interesting, AMD is claiming that it will offer an octacore with a performance somewere near the 6900k for half the advertised TDP...
Posted on Reply
#56
SkOrPn
TheMailMan78If this is true and the prices are this "low" then I wouldn't expect much out of these CPU's.
Then you don't much anyway.
Posted on Reply
#57
SkOrPn
thebluebumblebeeDoes not make sense or cents. €599.99 for a CPU that is to compete against Intel's €1,200 offering? €999.99? That's more like it.
Look, AMD is a corporation. A corporation that has been losing money for years. Their stock holders will demand that they sell their processors at the highest price they can get, which means just slightly less than similarly performing Intel offerings. I see the 1400X competing with the 7700K, (yes, I think that chart is wacked) so I think its price will be around $/€295. Then just scale from there. The thing is, Intel has nothing to compete with the 6/8 core AMD offerings, unless the user goes to the (expensive) HEDT platform.

Unless AMD is trying to make a case that Intel has been anti-competitive and over charging for their stuff for years........

Of course, this is all speculation...
And you were saying?

AMD's stock holders demanded years ago that AMD find a way to regain market share. Their first step was the re-hiring of Jim Keller, their second step was the promotion of Lisa Su, which by the way could have been their best decision to date, and third, to under cut Intel so drastically that they will regain Market Share no doubts about it. 70% cheaper does not mean they have cut corners, it just means they are not price gouging us. Intel very well can price their parts just as cheaply, if they wanted to.

The Ryzen prices are exactly what I have been expecting all along. Now I hope they manage to do something similar with Vega, haha. Now we wait to see what actual demand looks like, not to mention performance numbers. I wish it was one Month from now already.
Posted on Reply
#58
r9
I want to see 95w ryzen quad core @5GHz.
If 8c/16t can achieve 4GHz at such a low TDP, 4c@5GHz+@95W should not be a problem.
Posted on Reply
#59
ratirt
r9I want to see 95w ryzen quad core @5GHz.
If 8c/16t can achieve 4GHz at such a low TDP, 4c@5GHz+@95W should not be a problem.
It's a stock frequency who knows how much can you OC it. I wouldn't be surprised if it can go 4.5Ghz easily.
Posted on Reply
#62
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
ratirtIt's a stock frequency who knows how much can you OC it. I wouldn't be surprised if it can go 4.5Ghz easily.
Better refined than bulldozer, I'm just fortunate to hold 5.0GHz.
Posted on Reply
#63
SkOrPn
Hitler's response to Ryzen

WARNING: At the 3:10 mark make sure there is NO coffee, tea, milk, juices, water, beer, food, cigarettes, NO NOTHING obstructing your airways please. Again at the 3:10 mark. I almost swallowed my tongue by accident though.
Posted on Reply
#64
Parn
If true, it'll be time for me to upgrade my current AMD box to this and then use it as my primary.
Posted on Reply
#65
SkOrPn
ParnIf true, it'll be time for me to upgrade my current AMD box to this and then use it as my primary.
If not true, its still time for me to upgrade. Even 20% slower than a 6900K and I am buying it, just because I want to switch teams and support AMD until they are out of the danger zone of collapsing as a company. Once they have decent market share back, then I will go back to my usual best bang for this enthusiasts buck. Which I suspect will be Intel again in short order, especially once Intel's 7nm parts hit in 3-5 years just in time for AMD's Zen+ architecture. Right now everything rests on Intel's shoulders and if they can get their costs and chips to make sense in this new PC world that is being born in 2017.

I'm buying Ryzen in mid May to June once decent reviews and joe public verifies there are no show stoppers.
Posted on Reply
#66
xorbe
I want to see Phenom II X4 vs Ryzen 4/4 benchmarks at the same clock speed, say 3GHz. (And don't cripple the X4 with single channel DDR3-1333 at CL11 ...)
Posted on Reply
#67
SkOrPn
xorbeI want to see Phenom II X4 vs Ryzen 4/4 benchmarks at the same clock speed, say 3GHz. (And don't cripple the X4 with single channel DDR3-1333 at CL11 ...)
Lol, your joking right? I will assume this is a joke, but if its not...

1. 14nm vs 45nm = REALLY?
2. 40+ IPC increase, and more like 43% over the previous generation = REALLY?
3. 65 watt vs 125 watt = REALLY?
With what we already know Ryzen will destroy Phenom II. So again, you must be joking around with us.

Why would you need any further comparison other then what we already know? that's like comparing a Volkswagen Beetle with racing stripes, to a Tesla Model S fully charged.
Posted on Reply
#68
uuuaaaaaa
SkOrPnLol, your joking right? I will assume this is a joke, but if its not...

1. 14nm vs 45nm = REALLY?
2. 40+ IPC increase, and more like 43% over the previous generation = REALLY?
3. 65 watt vs 125 watt = REALLY?
With what we already know Ryzen will destroy Phenom II. So again, you must be joking around with us.

Why would you need any further comparison other then what we already know? that's like comparing a Volkswagen Beetle with racing stripes, to a Tesla Model S fully charged.
In passmark cpu single core it is twice as fast as the Thuban.
Posted on Reply
#70
xorbe
SkOrPnLol, your joking right? I will assume this is a joke, but if its not...

1. 14nm vs 45nm = REALLY?
2. 40+ IPC increase, and more like 43% over the previous generation = REALLY?
3. 65 watt vs 125 watt = REALLY?
With what we already know Ryzen will destroy Phenom II. So again, you must be joking around with us.

Why would you need any further comparison other then what we already know? that's like comparing a Volkswagen Beetle with racing stripes, to a Tesla Model S fully charged.
Right, I want to bask in the glory of progress, that's all. I have a Phenom II X4 box (among others).
Posted on Reply
#71
SkOrPn
xorbeRight, I want to bask in the glory of progress, that's all. I have a Phenom II X4 box (among others).
Haha yeah agreed, it would be interesting to see for sure. Let us know what you find between the two. My guess is double the performance, but it's actually probably more than that...
Posted on Reply
#72
xorbe
SkOrPnHaha yeah agreed, it would be interesting to see for sure. Let us know what you find between the two. My guess is double the performance, but it's actually probably more than that...
Problem is, if I build a new box with ryzen, it's gonna be the 8/16 chip!
Posted on Reply
#73
SkOrPn
xorbeProblem is, if I build a new box with ryzen, it's gonna be the 8/16 chip!
Oh shit, than yeah I bet someone else's life that you would get at least double the performance... lol
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 22nd, 2025 21:39 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts