AMD to Release Non-X Ryzen 7000 Series Desktop Processor SKUs Early-January

[btarunr]

AMD is planning to give its Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" Socket AM5 desktop processor lineup a significant expansion in January, as rival Intel plans to do the same with its 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake." AMD's lineup expansion will be in both directions—toward the higher end with its 7000X3D series; and toward the lower end, with its 7000 non-X series. It is now becoming clear that the 7000 non-X series will see a retail-channel launch, and won't be relegated to the OEM/SI channel. This would mean boxed versions of these processors, probably including a stock cooling solution.

The Ryzen 7000 non-X series in the retail channel is expected to include the 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 7600, the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 7700, and the 12-core/24-thread Ryzen 9 7900. The defining feature of these SKUs is their significantly lower TDP of just 65 W, which would put their PPT (package power tracking) value around 90 W. Their maximum boost frequencies are still north of the 5 GHz-mark, with the 7600 boosting up to 5.10 GHz, the 7700 going up to 5.30 GHz and the 7900 up to 5.40 GHz, however their base frequencies are significantly lower, with the 7600 around 3.80 GHz, the 7700 and 7900 between 3.60-3.80 GHz. The three are expected to feature aggressive power-management to meet their lower power limits, which should also lower their cooling requirements. Wccftech predicts that AMD could announce these processors in its January 4 International CES Keynote address, followed by availability on January 10. In related news, the 7000X3D could see an announcement in the same January 4 keynote, but with a slightly later product availability date.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Dyatlov A]

Are these non X versions can be overclocked?

 

[btarunr]

Are these non X versions can be overclocked?

Yes, they should be.

 

[ixi]

3-drama cache for 300e and you will have ma money.

 

[tabascosauz]

with the 7600 boosting up to 5.10 GHz, the 7700 going up to 5.30 GHz and the 7900 up to 5.40 GHz, however their base frequencies are significantly lower, with the 7600 around 3.80 GHz, the 7700 and 7900 between 3.60-3.80 GHz.

Those base clocks seem really low? I thought the existing Zen 4 1CCD parts could already do ~4.5GHz all core at sub-100W with cool thermals, with CPB disabled. I guess there won't be much reason to buy 7600X/7700X after the 7600 and 7700 hit the market; maybe they looked at Ryzen 7000 sales and realized they couldn't milk the market with 7600X/7700X for months like they did 5600X/5800X.

 

[Dyatlov A]

Those base clocks seem really low? I thought the existing Zen 4 1CCD parts could already do ~4.5GHz all core at sub-100W with cool thermals, with CPB disabled. I guess there won't be much reason to buy 7600X/7700X after the 7600 and 7700 hit the market; maybe they looked at Ryzen 7000 sales and realized they couldn't milk the market with 7600X/7700X for months like they did 5600X/5800X.

They expensive for sure, 7600X would have been good buy for $200 and 7700X for $300. And motherboards are super expensive too. Intel 12400+B660, especially which can overclocking is much better value for the money.

 

[MarsM4N]

Those base clocks seem really low? I thought the existing Zen 4 1CCD parts could already do ~4.5GHz all core at sub-100W with cool thermals, with CPB disabled. I guess there won't be much reason to buy 7600X/7700X after the 7600 and 7700 hit the market; maybe they looked at Ryzen 7000 sales and realized they couldn't milk the market with 7600X/7700X for months like they did 5600X/5800X.

So are the base clocks of the Intel 13600K (3.5GHz) vs. 12600K (3.7GHz).

I don't think there will be a notable performance difference between a 7x00(non K) and a 7x00K with a lowered power target. That's something for a review.
If they can hold up they would be great chips for folks who wanted lower TPD. Lower heat, lower power consumption & possibly a boxed coller included. Win.

 

[pressing on]

They expensive for sure, 7600X would have been good buy for $200 and 7700X for $300. And motherboards are super expensive too. Intel 12400+B660, especially which can overclocking is much better value for the money.

Intel 12400+B660 works mainly because it can be a DDR4 platform allowing much cheaper migration costs for those who already have DDR4, or even those building new. Although you can't actually overclock with this combo B660s typically come with power limits set to max and some form of multi-core enhancement enabled. This allows either all core turbo boost to the max speed, or something close to it. And tower air coolers are quite sufficient for the 12400.

CES in January 2023 is also when Intel will be launching its "budget" i5 range which although numbered as 13th gen are likely to be derivatives of the Alder Lake 12600K/12700/12900 die. The 13400(F) will be a 6 Performance (P) core and 4 Efficient (E) core part, effectively a non-K slower version of the 12600K that is also 6P + 4E. The 13500 and 13600 are both 6P + 8E. It is interesting that 8E on Alder Lake is restricted to the i9s - even the 12700K has 8P + 4E. All of these 13th gen i5s will have more L2 and L3 cache, and slight speed bumps, the 13600 will turbo to 5.0 GHz.

We will have to see how the Zen 4 7600 stacks up against this new range of Intel i5s. But in the budget market the availability of cheap DDR4 B660 motherboards is a big deal, and ultimately it is platform cost that is likely to limit the appeal of Zen 4 at this end of the market.

 

[tabascosauz]

So are the base clocks of the Intel 13600K (3.5GHz) vs. 12600K (3.7GHz).

I don't think there will be a notable performance difference between a 7x00(non K) and a 7x00K with a lowered power target. That's something for a review.
If they can hold up they would be great chips for folks who wanted lower TPD. Lower heat, lower power consumption & possibly a boxed coller included. Win.

I didn't say anything about either the 13600K or 12600K...

Point is, the 7600X and 7700X sustain very high all-core clocks relative to single core boost. While base clock isn't indicative of all core freq, usually when base clock and TDP are low on Ryzen, all core freq is also relatively low. If so, then the 7600 and 7700 would be much closer to the efficiency sweet spot of N5, and run some much nicer temps and power.

 

[usiname]

They expensive for sure, 7600X would have been good buy for $200 and 7700X for $300. And motherboards are super expensive too. Intel 12400+B660, especially which can overclocking is much better value for the money.

You throwing in the trash the value part when you want to overcklock non K intel cpu with the expensive motherboards. Your other option is overpriced 12600k.
People will never learn

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Maybe to offset the stupid price of motherboards and give Zen4 some reason to exist.

 

[MarsM4N]

I didn't say anything about either the 13600K or 12600K...

Point is, the 7600X and 7700X sustain very high all-core clocks relative to single core boost. While base clock isn't indicative of all core freq, usually when base clock and TDP are low on Ryzen, all core freq is also relatively low. If so, then the 7600 and 7700 would be much closer to the efficiency sweet spot of N5, and run some much nicer temps and power.

I know, just throwing in that the Intel's also lowered their base clocks without crumbling in performance.

Lower boost clock can impact all core productivity tasks, but it has zero impact on gaming performance. Some games run even better with a lower PPT target:

AMD Ryzen 7 7700X review: Performance that’s great but a price that isn’t

The total cost of buying into AMD's new platform still makes it a tough sell.

arstechnica.com

Question: does lower the PPT on a 7700X also lower the base clocks?

 

[Dirt Chip]

Those non-x can't come soon enough.
Only question remain: will they also get the 95 degree treatment so noise tuning them will be a headache.

 

[AsRock]

Wow is it only me who don't think the 7x00X CPU's are exspenive and it's more about the motherboards and ram.

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Wow is it only me who don't think the 7x00X CPU's are exspenive and it's more about the motherboards and ram.

I agree...we all knew 5nm chips would cost $$$ and that PCIe 5.0 would have a serious effect on motherboard pricing....DDR5 will eventually fall in price once volume ramps up, but the recent reports of memory fabs cutting production doesnt bode well for that....what I thought would be cool is if there were some way to make B650 boards without PCIe 5.0 at all to drive the cost down, but since it's already baked into the CPU and Chipsets, it'd probably actually drive price up to convert them to PCIe4.0, though it'd be kind of cool to see a motherboard that took the 24x 5.0 lanes and converted them to 48x 4.0 lanes, kind of like HEDT PCIe expansion capability on a mainstream platform, but that would again drive the price up for those extra PCIe ICs.

 

[ixi]

Wow is it only me who don't think the 7x00X CPU's are exspenive and it's more about the motherboards and ram.

I guess so. Heeeey, you are AsRock fella, you should be able to get mobos cheap. Right, right?

Personally those prices are high. What the most I hate about this is that there are no 50e or 100e cpu's...

 

[Chrispy_]

Where are the $100 motherboards?
Many potential Zen4 customers don't give a damn about PCIe 5.0
AMD needs an A620 motherboard on the market at a sensible price, post-haste; It's really hard to recommend the platform as a whole with the stupidity of $300 B-series boards.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I agree...we all knew 5nm chips would cost $$$ and that PCIe 5.0 would have a serious effect on motherboard pricing....DDR5 will eventually fall in price once volume ramps up, but the recent reports of memory fabs cutting production doesnt bode well for that....what I thought would be cool is if there were some way to make B650 boards without PCIe 5.0 at all to drive the cost down, but since it's already baked into the CPU and Chipsets, it'd probably actually drive price up to convert them to PCIe4.0, though it'd be kind of cool to see a motherboard that took the 24x 5.0 lanes and converted them to 48x 4.0 lanes, kind of like HEDT PCIe expansion capability on a mainstream platform, but that would again drive the price up for those extra PCIe ICs.

It cant be very expensive. The cheapest A series boards do it, the A 520 was 3.0 after all, and the A620 will be 4.0.

I'd bet good money that the "high cost of PCIe 5.0" is mostly marketing hype to justify higher prices.

 

[AsRock]

I agree...we all knew 5nm chips would cost $$$ and that PCIe 5.0 would have a serious effect on motherboard pricing....DDR5 will eventually fall in price once volume ramps up, but the recent reports of memory fabs cutting production doesnt bode well for that....what I thought would be cool is if there were some way to make B650 boards without PCIe 5.0 at all to drive the cost down, but since it's already baked into the CPU and Chipsets, it'd probably actually drive price up to convert them to PCIe4.0, though it'd be kind of cool to see a motherboard that took the 24x 5.0 lanes and converted them to 48x 4.0 lanes, kind of like HEDT PCIe expansion capability on a mainstream platform, but that would again drive the price up for those extra PCIe ICs.

And the 670 boards already have 2 extra chip sets on them adding ( and cost over 650) a 3rd be kinda crazy and most likely hurt performance. Didn't the PCB layer requirement go up too ?.

I guess so. Heeeey, you are AsRock fella, you should be able to get mobos cheap. Right, right?

Personally those prices are high. What the most I hate about this is that there are no 50e or 100e cpu's...

No and No haha, Your on about ASRock not AsRock which was just a naming chars in games like Diablo 1\2 were the 4 last letter chars to who you were playing.

 

[Dyatlov A]

You throwing in the trash the value part when you want to overcklock non K intel cpu with the expensive motherboards. Your other option is overpriced 12600k.
People will never learn

Overclocking Intel non K processors can be possible with around $200 motherboard, both with ddr4 (msi mortar something) and ddr5 (asus b660-f) boards. And this mentioned Asus even very quality one. For these expensive AMD processors, an ok motherboard at least $250.

So,
Intel 12400F (150usd) +Asus B660F (200usd)= $350,
Amd 7600X (300usd) + Asus B650E-E (350usd)= $650
And you are at same performance level. The DDR5 i did not calculated because both version require. With MSi board, which even cheaper board, running with cheaper ddr4. Than for half price you have the same performance system on Intel side. And AMD should be cheaper…

 

[pressing on]

I see, you're talking about BIOS BCLK overclocking. I know there were some B660s that did this - the MSI B660M Mortar Max WIFI DDR4 for example. An external clock generator was required. Weren't Intel unhappy with motherboard makers doing this, so this feature was deactivated or removed by subsequent BIOS updates or is it still working.

 

[Dyatlov A]

I see, you're talking about BIOS BCLK overclocking. I know there were some B660s that did this - the MSI B660M Mortar Max WIFI DDR4 for example. An external clock generator was required. Weren't Intel unhappy with motherboard makers doing this, so this feature was deactivated or removed by subsequent BIOS updates or is it still working.

Exactly, still working, with MSI even with Raptor Lake. With Asus just with Alder Lake.

 

[AusWolf]

What about the Ryzen 3 7300? It's been ages since we had a decent entry level offering from AMD.

 

[pressing on]

What about the Ryzen 3 7300? It's been ages since we had a decent entry level offering from AMD.

Yes, claimed to be a 4 core/8 thread part with a base clock of 4.5 GHZ and max turbo speed of up to 5.0 GHz. Hopefully the upcoming A620 board could be priced around $100 or less. The price of DDR5 would be the sticking point. OEMs are producing the cheapest desktops with DDR4 combined with the Intel H610 chipset and the i3 12100. Intel will be keeping the H610 as part of the desktop revision from 12th gen to 13th gen. The 13100 will be a 'Raptor Lake refresh', same 4 core/8 thread CPU with a speed bump of only 100 MHz - so there could be a chance for the 7300X which sounds like it would be a somewhat better performer. But its back to the price of DDR5 again. The cheapest OEM machines typically have 8Gb of 3200 speed DDR4 at a mass production price of what - less than $15. 8 Gb of 4800 speed DDR5 would probably be more like $35. Doesn't sound like much but when you're producing hundreds of thousands of machines, if not millions it all adds up.

Outside of the OEM market I think AMD is competing against itself given the current prices of Zen 3 CPUs. The Intel 12100, retail, costs about $140, and the 7300X would probably need to be around that price to succeed. But $140 will buy you a 5600, no problem with $100 motherboards and cheap DDR4 memory. The DDR4/DDR5 transition is well under way, it's just a question of when they reach price parity. It might not be any later than the end of 2023 but who knows.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Wow is it only me who don't think the 7x00X CPU's are exspenive and it's more about the motherboards and ram.

I think they are bit overpriced if you don't just game. They are great for gaming, but other than a handful of software are getting smashed by Raptor Lake for M/T. That's the problem for AMD, Intel is basically giving the E cores for free. 13600K is a much stronger cpu than 7600X for ony $30 more, and 13700K is more than competitive against the 7900X let alone 7700X. The current prices should be the v-cache prices IMO.