AMD Ryzen 7 "2800X" Not Part of First Wave

[bug]

About the TDP, 1st gen ryzen all core boost was only +100mhz, and it still stayed with the 95w , so I wonder if the 105w doesn't indicate a more aggressive all core boost ? If the leaked cinebench score is true (1780), then the all core boost is above 4Ghz.

I think you're talking about XFR, boost was already substantially better than 100MHz.
However, boost speeds are of secondary importance to the average user, because there's no specification how and for how long you can benefit from them.

 

[nemesis.ie]

They could also be saving some "FX" 2800X as a surprise for launch day.

 

[dyonoctis]

I think you're talking about XFR, boost was already substantially better than 100MHz.
However, boost speeds are of secondary importance to the average user, because there's no specification how and for how long you can benefit from them.

No, XFR is the 1-2 core boost, i'm talking about the all core one. My 1700x can only reach 3.5Ghz on all core, 3.8 on 2 core, and XFR is only 3.9Ghz at best. Even when I had a "small" pure rock slim the all core boost had a good sustain.

I said that because at 4Ghz on all core my 1700x is only doing 1733 on cinebench, and the leak suggest that a stock 2700x can do 1780, wich is why i think that the all core boost is more aggresive because that's not a score that a 3.7Ghz Ryzen could do. But it's all based on a leak, so i could be wrong.

 

[Vya Domus]

Wow, they need 105W to get that 2700X to 4.35 Ghz

That is quite significant and kinda kills any dreams of a higher clocked version popping up soon. These TDP bumps clearly indicate they're pushing Ryzen beyond its comfort zone, just like Intel's CFL is right now.

Meanwhile, the 7820X , which is the only 8 core consumer CPU you can get from Intel right now is rated at 140W , granted it runs at higher clocks. It's also worth mentioning that this on a node which is objectively superior. This 12nm AMD is using right now isn't even a proper node shrink and still optimized for low power.

With all that being said , what sort of miracle TDP did you expect AMD could pull off which not even their competitor can properly achieve ?

 

[r9]

4.35 GHz is not bad at all. The 2800X is going to be cherry picked parts that can do 4.4 - 4.5 GHz would be my guess. It will sell like crap if the price is too much higher if that is the case. It would need to push at least 4.5 GHz all cores and 4.65 GHz on 4 cores to justify any reasonable price difference to the 2700X.

2800X it's not meant to sell great anyways. Like you said its just cherry picked 2700X. AMD just gonna put it there for good bench numbers and to make Ryzen architecture looks better on paper. I don't think they can push the frequency much past 2700X even on picked ones.
I assume they will try to justify on higher base clocks.
I still think its a descent improvement from a node shrink with some miner memory latency improvements.
Should bring them closer for Gaming compared to Intel.

 

[yotano211]

Why not lets just wait until reviews come out and all of you can say something about this processor. Too many people say blah blah this and that when the product isnt even out yet.

 

[iO]

I say this is their final line up. No 2800X to differentiate more between AM4 and TR4 and quad cores consist of only APUs.

 

[bug]

Why not lets just wait until reviews come out and all of you can say something about this processor. Too many people say blah blah this and that when the product isnt even out yet.

What would reviews tell you more than you already know? It's the same CPU that was released last year. New node was supposed to make it faster. It didn't. End of story.

At the end of the day, the same amount of $$$ buys you a slightly faster CPU than last years, so it's not all bad. In fact, it's only bad if you were hoping to see significant more performance from this year's batch.

 

[Xajel]

Maybe they do have chips capable of faster speeds but those are being stockpiled for the TR SKUs and will only be released for a 2800(X) when those needs are met, or as discussed, competition requires it.

Top 5% of chips go to TR or or something? A TR 2950X hitting 3.9+ base and a matching boost/XFR increase would certainly be interesting.

Then there is the question of how much production ends up in Epyc.

As far as the roadmaps go, EPYC won't be updated with the second gen. & 12nm... it will wait till 2019 with 7nm

So the 12nm 2000 series will all go for Ryzen Desktop & Ryzen TR...

 

[rav]

These is little point of a 2800X. Just like there were little point of 1900X.

Hmmm.... just as there is no point to the i7-8700K. Actually even less of a point as it costs considerably more.

 

[Dimi]

Hmmm.... just there is no point to the i7-8700K. Actually even less of a point as it costs considerably more.

My 8700K is very fast at everything i ask it to do. I don't need 8 slower cores ty. Those 2 extra cores are pointless to me.

Also what do you mean costs considerably more? I paid 320$ for my 8700K.

 

[BeepBeep2]

The 1800X only hits 4.1 GHz with XFR. The 2700X has been rumored to have a 4.2 GHz turbo too, are we sure it isn't 4.35 XFR2?

 

[bug]

The 1800X only hits 4.1 GHz with XFR. The 2700X has been rumored to have a 4.2 GHz turbo too, are we sure it isn't 4.35 XFR2?

Again, if it hits 4.35GHz for 10 seconds, it's not going to make much of a difference. There's a reason neither intel nor AMD are willing to give us numbers when it comes to their boost speeds

 

[ensabrenoir]

.....am I the only one excited that there is actually legitimate competition again? Such great times!!!!!!!! Now if we can only bring the gpus back down to earth.....

 

[ssdpro]

.....am I the only one excited that there is actually legitimate competition again? Such great times!!!!!!!! Now if we can only bring the gpus back down to earth.....

No, plenty of excitement. This is good news - a relatively quick stable release with improvements. The value of the 2600X is staggering if you think about the cost of a Intel counterpart just 3 years ago.

 

[dyonoctis]

The magazine is already out in france (paper only), but close to nobody want to do a "proper leak" the last comment on this forum is the best thing until the online review comes out.
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/a...otted-to-be-released-over-the-weekend.420079/
But I'm surprised at the powerconsumption figures, that node shrink had literaly 0 impact on efficiency, 142 w is already what an oc R7 can pull at 3.9-4Ghz.

 

[rav]

My 8700K is very fast at everything i ask it to do. I don't need 8 slower cores ty. Those 2 extra cores are pointless to me.

Also what do you mean costs considerably more? I paid 320$ for my 8700K.

You didn't pay $320. Newegg and Amazon have them for $349. Considerably more than 1800x.

Furthermore CPU World shows them for $359 OEM and $370 white box.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core i7 i7-8700K.html

In fact you don't even have an i7-8700k. If you did then you would have known what the correct price was.

Besides 6 cores moves far less data than 8 cores and software that IS optimized for 8+ cores does run considerably faster.

The only true thing you did say was "2 extra cores are pointless for" YOU.

 

[bug]

You didn't pay $320. Newegg and Amazon have them for $349.

Actually: https://camelcamelcamel.com/Intel-B...K-Processor/product/B07598VZR8?context=search
And he didn't say he bought from Amazon either.

 

[R0H1T]

Again, if it hits 4.35GHz for 10 seconds, it's not going to make much of a difference. There's a reason neither intel nor AMD are willing to give us numbers when it comes to their boost speeds

Pretty sure it can hit 4.35 for more than 10 seconds if there's a good cooler installed.

 

[bug]

Pretty sure it can hit 4.35 for more than 10 seconds if there's a good cooler installed.

Define "good cooler". Because we're drifting into opinion territory.

 

[R0H1T]

Define "good cooler". Because we're drifting into opinion territory.

Water coolers, like H100(i) or better. Also not just an opinion, with better cooling comes longer turbos.

 

[zeloutre]

First post here but very long time lurker. Logged in to say that since I live in Paris, right after reading this news I went to a kiosk and bought the magazine...
Interesting results for sure. Without spoiling the journalists’ work, performance is higher but so is power consumption...and it’s bit more than 105W!
Clocks are really good though, and turbo behavior is much better with 3+ cores active. Definitely puts more pressure on Intel.
Won’t make me retire my 1700@4GHz however, I’ll happily wait for the 3000 series

 

[SDR82]

As soon as I see TDP in the comments I'm like : "Yip, here we go (again)...they think TDP = Power draw". CPU TDP is the maximum amount of heat generated by that CPU. Higher TDP = Needs better cooling. The i5-8600K and the i7-8700K both have a TDP of 95W, but during wPrime testing the i5 consumes 114W while the i7 consumes 150W. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600K/16.html

 

[zeloutre]

You’re right! I was actually thinking about TDP and not power consumption, they say in the magazine that it’s higher than 105W.

 

[jabbadap]

Hmmm.... just as there is no point to the i7-8700K. Actually even less of a point as it costs considerably more.

Uhm what. If not i7 8700k there would not be unlocked 6c/12t processor from intel. If not R7 2800x there would still be two 8c/16t unlocked processors from amd. So there's more point on the former one and less point on the latter. And what are you talking about price? i7 8700k msrp was $380, while R7 1800x msrp was $499. Yes I know it does not cost that much anymore, which is kind of the point not releasing Ryzen 7 2800x: There is no prize range to put that cpu anymore.