AMD Ryzen 1700X, 1600X & 1300 Benchmarks Leaked

[kruk]

Why you think Intel will not be happy if price drop? They charge much more than real value and they have huge profit even if they ask 800$ for i7-6950X and 500$ for i7-6900K.

They will have less profit than now and that is all that matters to the shareholders ... Also, if they dramatically drop prices, they will accumulate a lot of angry customers.

 

[rruff]

They will have less profit than now and that is all that matters to the shareholders.

Actually no, I explained this earlier. Intel designed their product stack and pricing to maximize total profit with a weak competitor. Even with Intel's "inflated" prices, AMD was nearly bankrupt. If the competition gets better, they can increase production of the high end chips and make them mainstream. Since the incremental cost of producing them is trivial compared to retail, this is something they can easily do. Losing market share is definitely a bigger problem for Intel than rearranging their product stack.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Actually no, I explained this earlier. Intel designed their product stack and pricing to maximize total profit with a weak competitor. Even with Intel's "inflated" prices, AMD was nearly bankrupt. If the competition gets better, they can increase production of the high end chips and make them mainstream. Since the incremental cost of producing them is trivial compared to retail, this is something they can easily do. Losing market share is definitely a bigger problem for Intel than rearranging their product stack.

But there's not millions of people that are just waiting for Intel to drop prices to buy X99 stuff. The high end desktop market isn't some infinite consumer land.

 

[rruff]

But there's not millions of people that are just waiting for Intel to drop prices to buy X99 stuff. The high end desktop market isn't some infinite consumer land.

Then I guess there aren't millions of people waiting for AMD to sell 8c16t CPUs either?

The implication is that Intel will just sit there and let AMD beat them on performance/price and lose half their market share in a hurry? That would be stupid, and there is no reason why they need to do that. If they don't have something new and better waiting in the wings, then reorganizing the placement of their chips and the volumes produced is the best solution. Ramp up production of the better i5s and i7s and drop them down a tier in price, assuming that Ryzen makes this necessary.

 

[nemesis.ie]

Customers will be very satisfied and happy to see that same chipset old almost 3 years give them opportunity to beat AMD premium Ryzen
People love such things when life time of one generation is longer,

The bold bits are true, but not the blue. An upgrade in perrformance makes sense not to "beat Ryzen".

What kind of fool upgrades just to wave their epeen at others saying their system is faster than another company's product? Especially if said product is dramatically cheaper.

You should only upgrade for needed performance or if you want a new system to tinker with or for a different form factor or some tangible benefit. Anything else is like diamonds on a mobile phone; bling/pose/wasteful nonsense (IMO of course).

And price/performance is a real factor too of course.

Historically it is AMD who has given these things to customers. How often have AMD changed socket/cooler support versus Intel? And it's not just changes (in Intel's case) needed to add new features, it's only been to force extra spend. Not very environmentally sound either.

AM4 looks to continue that trend.

I'm thinking you are just trolling TBH!

 

[TheGuruStud]

Then I guess there aren't millions of people waiting for AMD to sell 8c16t CPUs either?

The implication is that Intel will just sit there and let AMD beat them on performance/price and lose half their market share in a hurry? That would be stupid, and there is no reason why they need to do that. If they don't have something new and better waiting in the wings, then reorganizing the placement of their chips and the volumes produced is the best solution. Ramp up production of the better i5s and i7s and drop them down a tier in price, assuming that Ryzen makes this necessary.

There may be millions waiting to upgrade, but they're not going to spend X99 money and X99 ppl aren't upgrading. That's why AMD has the better position.

 

[ivicagmc]

Sorry for my countrymen Vlada. He is having some intel based hallucinations. He probably spent much money on that intel premium motherboard and processor he has (about 2 average salaries in Serbia just for that) and now he is sorry for AMD kicking intel ass ruining his investment (ode mast u propast hehe). Intel fans or not we all should be very pleased with upcoming price drops and finally getting some really better hardware for the same price.

 

[Vlada011]

You are badly wrong... I never made mistake choosing platform and people who followed me as well. I had sixth sense that Haswell i7-4770K could be only worse OCer than Ivy and hit better platform, later I estimate that when AMD show up whole 4 core generation will have problems and only X99 have chance for competition.
How I could affraid from AMD when my motherboard could hold more than 10 models stronger than premium AMDs Ryzen.
AMD should feel bad because after 5 years of reasearch after he finally launch chipset and CPU in 2017 I will be able to outperform him with Intel chipset from 2014 and processor from 2016.
How I could feel bad, and someone would say OK you can offer same performance but AMD have probably some newer and better features, but Noooo, we haver better features and WE are in advantage and he will choke with DDR4...
I only wait price optimization and many loyal Intel customers.
If owner of X99 platform install i7-6950X and OC he could extend life time of platform from 4 on 7 years easy and still to be competitive. Who knows when AMD will outperform i7-6950X. His high price was result of monopoly, that's not real price, tomorrow if situation allow he could cost 700$, what then? Than Intel could sell more i7-6950X than AMD Ryzens.

How X99 chipset can't beat premium AMD.
Did you saw how perform Intel 10 core i7-6950X after 1.0 GHz OC.
Who will outperform him? 8 core Ryzen?

 

[nemesis.ie]

"We"? Now I'm almost certain you are just trolling, never mind that you have not even seen the AMD product yet to make the comparison.

 

[Raevenlord]

Hey Raevenlord, can I give you some advice bro? I know you're new, and you're doing a good job, but you need to improve your sentence structure.

It's something I've noticed in many of your news posts. You have too many run-on sentences.

This is a good example of what I mean:

"Taking into account some metrics (which you should, naturally, take with some grains of salt), and comparing Intel's and AMD's Ryzen offerings on 3DMark's Fire Strike Physics scores, we can see that a $389 Ryzen 7 1700X (8 cores, 16 threads) at its base clock of 3.4 GHz manages to surpass Intel's competing (in thread count alone, since it retails for $1089) 6900K running at its base 3.2 GHz frequency - with the Ryzen processor scoring 17,878 points versus the 6900K's 17,100. "

That's one sentence, its way too long. It reads very clumsily and it sounds awkward. It's a whole paragraph in one sentence. You need more full stops, and less run-on sentences.

Also, less information in brackets in the one sentence. No more than one or two brackets in the same sentence, three is too much. Unless it's just basic information like CPU clockspeeds (3.4Ghz) or something, but if the brackets contain whole sentences, try to keep them to a minimum in the one sentence.

I hope you dont take this personally, it's meant to be constructive criticizm.

Hey buggalugs!

Of course I take it personally, that's my writing you're talking about But that doesn't mean I take it the wrong way.

What you say is something I am keenly aware of that I need to improve. For me, the sentences read just fine, even aloud, but I sometimes look at the graphical blot of my posts and I see that there probably should be some more stops.

Thanks for the constructive criticism, and it's something I will try and increase awareness for in the future =)

Thumbs up.

 

[kruk]

More 1700X benchmarks appeared: https://videocardz.com/66182/amd-radeon-7-1700x-pictured-and-tested
Benchmarks include CPU-Z shots.

 

[EarthDog]

Lol, love the ryzen 8 core mention... that's new...legit?

 

[efikkan]

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49 This was how most (if not virtually all) things ran before. It was intentional.
Using old code paths means lower performance.

Oh, what's a day without some conspiracy theories!?
Well for starters, that compiler is not even used for any of the benchmarks in question.
Of course, every time AMD fails to deliver on performance it's the competitor's fault.

 

[Relayer]

Why you think Intel will not be happy if price drop? They charge much more than real value and they have huge profit even if they ask 800$ for i7-6950X and 500$ for i7-6900K.
That's almost as they didn't change nothing from previous years. They usually ask 1000$ for Xtreme... this year they have chance for 700$ more per Processor. Such profit give them oportunity to drop price later. Intel could sell a lot of Broadwell-EX if drop price, they could start again production and sell one more circle for lower price and don't need to launch nothing in premium segment next 18 months, until Skylake Xtreme is not ready.
Customers will be very satisfied and happy to see that same chipset old almost 3 years give them opportunity to beat AMD premium Ryzen.
People love such things when life time of one generation is longer, no situation or feature where AMD is in advantage to Broadwell-EX.
OK Intel don't need to sell only 8 and 10 cores. Whole Broadwell-EX line price will drop...
Example 200, 280, 450 and 800$. And they are in game, prices are only little reduced compare to Nehalem, Sandy Bridge-E, Ivy Bridge-E and Haswell-E, just little.

I will not allow you to enjoy in Ryzen completely... hahahaa hahahaa.

I said why in my post. They have gigantic overhead costs compared to AMD and they can't just lop off a huge percentage of their profits. What do you think that would do to their share prices? While on the other hand AMD just getting profitable will make their share prices soar.

 

[nemesis.ie]

I've ordered the parts, went for the Asrock Gaming pro despite the Fatality nonsense, as it seemed to have the most future proof "extras" like the built in WiFi and 5Gbit networking and still cheaper than the "top" MSI. 16 phase power too even if it doesn't have the extra feeds, the 8 pin via 16 phases should still work well.

 

[R0H1T]

Then I guess there aren't millions of people waiting for AMD to sell 8c16t CPUs either?

The implication is that Intel will just sit there and let AMD beat them on performance/price and lose half their market share in a hurry? That would be stupid, and there is no reason why they need to do that. If they don't have something new and better waiting in the wings, then reorganizing the placement of their chips and the volumes produced is the best solution. Ramp up production of the better i5s and i7s and drop them down a tier in price, assuming that Ryzen makes this necessary.

There are millions who are willing to buy (AMD) 8 cores at a reasonable price, you can't say the same about Intel since they've artificially jacked up prices & created segmentation detrimental for a mainstream (LGA 11xx) user who wants to get a hex/octa core CPU. When the people who want/need 8 cores get the R7 that'll be lost sales for Intel, they ain't getting it back no matter what.

 

[Mescalamba]

Kinda hard to imagine plenty of ppl wanting hexa or octa cores.

For what exactly?

For very long time now, max users might want is quad. And for not much shorter future, its all they will buy and want. Apart very specific applications, 6 or 8 core CPU is useless for regular users.

 

[R0H1T]

Kinda hard to imagine plenty of ppl wanting hexa or octa cores.

For what exactly?

For very long time now, max users might want is quad. And for not much shorter future, its all they will buy and want. Apart very specific applications, 6 or 8 core CPU is useless for regular users.

That's your opinion, if I'm getting an octa core (R7 1700) AMD which costs or will cost less than a quad core i7 7700k in most parts around the world, then the octa is more VFM objectively.
I know what I'll pick & most other users here would agree with that choice, it seems more logical to me & much more bang for buck besides the fact that it's much better in MT tasks.

 

[Mescalamba]

That's your opinion, if I'm getting an octa core (R7 1700) AMD which costs or will cost less than a quad core i7 7700k in most parts around the world, then the octa is more VFM objectively.
I know what I'll pick & most other users here would agree with that choice, it seems more logical to me & much more bang for buck besides the fact that it's much better in MT tasks.

Cause more cores equals, what more.. power?

Just out of curiosity, what you plan to run on that?

 

[kruk]

There are a lot of scenarios where 8 or more cored CPUs shine: video/image/audio editing, compiling, CAD, virtual machines, servers, etc.
Gamers might not need them yet, but in the future this might change ...

 

[R0H1T]

Cause more cores equals, what more.. power?

Just out of curiosity, what you plan to run on that?

Yes, contrary to some of the popular misconceptions still floating on the web, single core performance isn't everything.

I need more cores for encoding, archiving & audio file conversion. The file archiving part is essential since I want to move away from HDD completely & need a copy of important files for SSD. The cloud is not a viable option since the broadband plans are prohibitively expensive & ISP connection is unreliable at times.

 

[medi01]

Kinda hard to imagine plenty of ppl wanting hexa or octa cores.

For what exactly?

Most games out there are multiplatform.
And what CPUs do we have in major consoles? Weak 8 cores.

Consequences? A number of newer games can utilize more than 4 cores. (Overwatch, Battlfield 1, Tomb Raider to name a couple)
It should be a point to consider even for people frequently upgrading, even more so for those who normally upgrade once in 3-5 years.

 

[medi01]

From MSI manual, weirdo weirdo weirdo clocks on 6/4 cores (lower than on 8 core)

for comparison, Intel 4 cores (note that they have higher base frequency):

 

[nemesis.ie]

It makes sense if the higher default speed chips (e.g. the 1800x) are better binned parts I think?

 

[EarthDog]

Yes, contrary to some of the popular misconceptions still floating on the web, single core performance isn't everything..

TRuth!

However, it's a big part. We've seen what deplorable IPC can do with more cores (read bulldozer).

The reality of things is many have a 4c8t cpu already. Many of those can't use more than 8t. For those that can, this is a great part. For those that can't, I'm sure 3 years down the road, an 8t processor is going to do juuuuust fine. The real benefit, for those that don't encode/render use more than 8t, is the unreleased R5 parts.

Rmemeber, people have been saying, with what they thought were good reason, you should go quad since Q6600 days... that has only paned out recently, really... especially in a gaming context. How many threads here with a budget in mind recommend quads over quads with ht?? So really it depends on the user and how they use their machine.

I think people are going to be pretty sad when they figure out there is barely any overclocking headroom and when they see the base turbo is only 2c4t...XFR is single core 100mhz up. I have a feeling you will again need beefy board and beefy cooling to use all cores much above 4.2ghz...I think these will top out on ambient well under 4.5ghz.