UPDATED AGAIN: New Ryzen prices and clock speeds rumoured: lowest-end 8c/16t for $322, lowest-end 6c/12t for $223

[Prysin]

50 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Source in Spanish: https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2017/02/precio-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-r7-1700x-r7-1700/

Reddit thread: 

 

 

That's pretty competitive actually. Also says something about the lower-end 6c and 4c CPUs and their pricing.

 

I'm exited. Intel's gonna have a rough time at these prices.

Lol.  Intel has huge margins on their x99 and even desktop i7s. This will not be a problem for intel. 

[Guest Darth Revan]

So what do you guys think the cheapest Ryzen will cost?

[NumLock21]

4 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

So what do you guys think the cheapest Ryzen will cost?

[goodtofufriday]

19 minutes ago, cluelessgenius said:

i mean hope so too but since my "8-Core" 8120 gets pretty much embarrased by every newer intel quad im really sceptical until actual benchmarks and review tell me differently

Are you really complaining about the performance of a 5 year old processor compared to a modern one? 

Thats very silly

[LAwLz]

Why is everyone saying these prices are competitive? We have absolutely no idea how well Ryzen performs.

These prices might be competitive, they might be absolutely crushing everything Intel has to offer at those prices or they might be overpriced as hell.

 

 

11 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Are you really complaining about the performance of a 5 year old processor compared to a modern one? 

Thats very silly

[Doobeedoo]

Check this out:
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/european_pricing_for_amd_s_ryzen_8-core_cpus_has_been_leaked/1

[cluelessgenius]

this is really bugging me just like with bulldozer everybody seems to get hyped over the core count yet im not entirely convinced the single core will be equivalent to a intel core. bulldozer traumatized uder here thinks its gonna repeat itself

[cluelessgenius]

22 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Are you really complaining about the performance of a 5 year old processor compared to a modern one? 

Thats very silly

all im saying is that we dont know yet how well those cores will perform individually so theres no point in hyping the amount of cores youll get for your bucks.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, cluelessgenius said:

all im saying is that we dont know yet how well those cores will perform individually so theres no point in hyping the amount of cores youll get for your bucks.

You'd think that with all the 8 core phones, and the really low performance consoles all being 8 cores, people would have learned that cores are a terrible indicator of performance. Hell, even when all cores can be utilized they still might just flat out suck (see phones vs desktops).

[Revinval]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't nearly all computer parts not convert from Euro-Dollar at the normal conversion rate?

[Sauron]

That seems reasonable - IF they also sell 6 core variants.

[ZackBarletto]

1 hour ago, DnFx91 said:

holy crap i can have 16 threads for like £450 ? Fuck yeah RYZEN

 

Im starting to think that RYZEN+VEGA is gonna be an intel killer. Pretty sure it's the route i'm gonna take. Been sitting on this i7 4790s and R9 390 for too long

I agree. Im on Fx-8350 and a r9 290. Im dying to upgrade without draining the wallet and giving up on team RED!

 

Full hype, Full fanboy, Full whatever.... Im getting RYZEN+VEGA!!!! lol

[grimreeper132]

1 hour ago, cluelessgenius said:

i mean hope so too but since my "8-Core" 8120 gets pretty much embarrased by every newer intel quad im really sceptical until actual benchmarks and review tell me differently

yea, I am waiting for trustworthy bench marks, e.g. ones from linus before I decide whether or not they are any good but it does sound like they are

[ChineseChef]

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

people would have learned

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL   @LAwLz, you are really living up to your name.  People learn, lol.  From past experiences?  lol   Just absolutely hilarious. 

 

May I point you to "insert any preorder here".  Maybe you would like some "insert article about graphene or newest battery tech".  The people have no memory or ability to extrapolate based on prior experience.  Good one LAwLz,

[Spork829]

It seems too good to be true, but I really, really hope not. I'd love to see Intel actually have to try these days.

[captain cactus]

2 hours ago, Ashaira said:

title says one thing article another. so which of you is lying?

Yup, misread a bit there. Fixed now, thanks.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

You'd think that with all the 8 core phones, and the really low performance consoles all being 8 cores, people would have learned that cores are a terrible indicator of performance. Hell, even when all cores can be utilized they still might just flat out suck (see phones vs desktops).

yeah but there are already benchmarks done by amd showing that the 8 core at 3.4ghz is competitive with the 6900k. there could be some cherry picking going on for that test but it should give a ballpark idea of the kind of performance they will have. 

[escape093]

I started panicking when I read the title as "lowest end, 8C/16T, for $389."

 

Commas can change everything.

[Belgarathian]

6 hours ago, TOMPPIX said:

1700: 8/16 @ 3.7Ghz (65W) or is that not how it works?

Intel lists the same figures. That's the max TDP of the chip at default clocks. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

Already knew this from the previously leaked Hyderabad shipping manifests (which obviously people would disbelieve, but those haven't been wrong before)

 

This should also mean that the 6 core is $250-$300

 

Keep calm and laugh at people who thought it'd be priced like Intel's Extreme editions.

[Dabombinable]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yea it would be a bit of a dick move, unlock everything but turn around and do something effectively equivalent to non X SKUs. Can't think of any other explanation for 30W TDP difference for only 100Mhz decrease.

Look at what they did with the FX 8370e. Its probably the same thing all over again.

[Syntaxvgm]

OH COME ON OP ITS NOT 389 USD it's 415. 389 euro. 

[dizmo]

Pricing is cool and all but I'm a lot more excited to see that they do in fact have low TDP chips.

Now there's a much higher chance of an AMD build coming. Though, they also need solid mITX motherboards.

And preferably a SFF Vega card. If only the Nano didn't get so destroyed by the 1070.

 

6 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

TDP =/= power consumption

 

Not directly, but they are related.

6 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

god that would be so shit. That's AMD pissing away any edge right there. 

Not really, for small form factor builds it's pretty useful, especially if it comes in at a lower price.

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yea it would be a bit of a dick move, unlock everything but turn around and do something effectively equivalent to non X SKUs. Can't think of any other explanation for 30W TDP difference for only 100Mhz decrease.

I'm all for it if it means cheaper chips for SFF builds

6 hours ago, alamox said:

if these prices are true then it's very good for 8/16, just need performance to follow...come on AMD no screwups plz

As long as people aren't expecting them to completely destroy Intel performance numbers, then it should be fine.

5 hours ago, RKRiley said:

Makes me wonder how an 8/16 @ 3.8ghz with 95w tdp is equal to a 6850k, but a 8/16 @ 4ghz with 95w tdp is equal to a 6900k, hmm.

Yeah the whole comparison charts that are out are pretty stupid.

5 hours ago, DnFx91 said:

Im starting to think that RYZEN+VEGA is gonna be an intel killer. Pretty sure it's the route i'm gonna take. Been sitting on this i7 4790s and R9 390 for too long

What has Vega got to do with it?

Don't get too disappointed when they don't quite match up to the Intel offerings.

What made you go with an S chip?

5 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

So what do you guys think the cheapest Ryzen will cost?

I'd say $180. Right around the price of a higher level i3.

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You'd think that with all the 8 core phones, and the really low performance consoles all being 8 cores, people would have learned that cores are a terrible indicator of performance. Hell, even when all cores can be utilized they still might just flat out suck (see phones vs desktops).

Kind of a poor comparison to make, no?

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

yeah but there are already benchmarks done by amd showing that the 8 core at 3.4ghz is competitive with the 6900k. there could be some cherry picking going on for that test but it should give a ballpark idea of the kind of performance they will have. 

I've learned never to trust AMD benchmarks

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Pricing is cool and all but I'm a lot more excited to see that they do in fact have low TDP chips.

Now there's a much higher chance of an AMD build coming. Though, they also need solid mITX motherboards.

And preferably a SFF Vega card. If only the Nano didn't get so destroyed by the 1070.

 

Not directly, but they are related.

Not really, for small form factor builds it's pretty useful, especially if it comes in at a lower price.

I'm all for it if it means cheaper chips for SFF builds

As long as people aren't expecting them to completely destroy Intel performance numbers, then it should be fine.

Yeah the whole comparison charts that are out are pretty stupid.

What has Vega got to do with it?

Don't get too disappointed when they don't quite match up to the Intel offerings.

What made you go with an S chip?

I'd say $180. Right around the price of a higher level i3.

Kind of a poor comparison to make, no?

I've learned never to trust AMD benchmarks

it would be shit because one of the AMD advantages is not having arbitrary soft walls to overclocking. In the past, you need to OC the  hell out of an  AMD chip to make it competitive. I imagine it's a lot better now, but it would be shitty to make their budget end not competitive just because they felt like limiting it. It doesn't make it any cheaper, in fact if they don't do this, the more expensive chips will be binned better and will still get better results. 

 

I mean shit ryzen is about to release and intel makes its first overclockable i3. That's no coincidence. 

[grimreeper132]

8 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

it would be shit because one of the AMD advantages is not having arbitrary soft walls to overclocking. In the past, you need to OC the  hell out of an  AMD chip to make it competitive. I imagine it's a lot better now, but it would be shitty to make their budget end not competitive just because they felt like limiting it. It doesn't make it any cheaper, in fact if they don't do this, the more expensive chips will be binned better and will still get better results. 

 

I mean shit ryzen is about to release and intel makes its first overclockable i3. That's no coincidence. 

yea, Intel has seen that zen is going to be overclockable even down at the low ends, so knows that they will be up against a tough comptetor, cause you can overclock a AMD CPU to be better than some of intels CPUs already (just) so this lot of CPUs which have hyper threading and are all overclockable and are (according to AMD) already similar in performance to intels line up and this could hit intel hard, that being said, I am still expecting them to fuck up, cause they have a track record of that, unfortunately.