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

[rawrdaysgoby]

10 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

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

what he said.... Seriously people Wait until the actual thing until we get some solid benchmarks 

[Dabombinable]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You'd think that with all the *BIGlittle* 8 core phones, and the really low performance consoles all being 8 cores, people would have learned that *AMD* 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).

*both are technically true, operationally they aren't*

[suits]

If the best one is $641 (599.99 euros as stated in the article) count me in. 

[RezChi]

1 hour ago, suits said:

If the best one is $641 (599.99 euros as stated in the article) count me in. 

Might be actually much less

[xAcid9]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Priced pretty aggressively. However knowing AMD, they don't undercut by large amounts at the same price/perf. So I expect IPC to not be as good as they have portrayed. 

I'm concern as well if this is true, maybe another Bulldozer or not as bad as Bulldozer but not that good either.

[dizmo]

8 hours 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. 

But if you want to OC you can buy the OC ready chip. This could just be for low powered systems, much like the T and S series Intel has. Something that won't go over a certain wattage because it becomes detrimental to the performance of the system.

They did say that all of their chips would be overclockable though, so who knows. I can't think of another logical reason for the price difference.

 

Granted this is all speculation and no one knows what the different tiers of the same chip even mean.

[DnFx91]

11 hours 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

s chip cos it was free

[dizmo]

26 minutes ago, DnFx91 said:

s chip cos it was free

Definitely a good reason!
In the future, just snip out the parts that don't relate to you, makes quoting less cluttered

[Humbug]

3 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

I'm concern as well if this is true, maybe another Bulldozer or not as bad as Bulldozer but not that good either.

The top bulldozer fx-8150 launched at $245 with cheaper variants at about $210. So the top 8 core ryzen is going to launch at well over twice that price! And whats more even the cheapest 8 core ryzen is going to be like $150 higher than the most expensive bulldozer at launch.

 

if you were thinking AMD would charge $900 well they have not done that since the athlon64 glory days and maybe  AMD thinks that they do not have the reputation which they once had to charge that premium. So they could be trying to maintain a good price/performance even in the high end parts which intel does not.

 

Also yields... If they are very confident that they can produce Zen in large quantities then maybe they figure that they can make almost as much money by selling more quantities at $400 to $600 and simultaneously gain some market share.

[Dabombinable]

9 minutes ago, Humbug said:

The top bulldozer fx-8150 launched at $245 with cheaper variants at about $210. So the top 8 core ryzen is going to launch at well over twice that price! And whats more even the cheapest 8 core ryzen is going to be like $150 higher than the most expensive bulldozer at launch.

 

if you were thinking AMD would charge $900 well they have not done that since the athlon64 glory days and maybe  AMD thinks that they do not have the reputation which they once had to charge that premium.

 

Also yields... If they are very confident that they can produce Zen in large quantities then maybe they figure that they can make almost as much money by selling more quantities at $400 to $600 and simultaneously gain some market share.

Remember, The FX 8150 was a 4 module 8 core/ALU design. So its price can't be compared fairly to an 8 core 16 thread CPU.

[Humbug]

14 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Remember, The FX 8150 was a 4 module 8 core/ALU design.

ya it was at best* 8 cores 8 threads. Whereas ryzen is clearly 8 cores 16 threads.

 

my point was overall AMD thinks they have a flagship CPU worth $600... Which I think is not a bad sign.

 

[Thony]

Just purely looking at the TLDR; Im shaking my head looking at Mhz increase resulting in such high cost rise.

 

I hope there is lot more to it than just Mhz.

 

I love the base price. Very good starting point and if it does compete with intel like 90% of the time even with i7-7700k then bravo AMD u are back !

[Elehat]

5 minutes ago, Thony said:

Just purely looking at the TLDR; Im shaking my head looking at Mhz increase resulting in such high cost rise.

 

I hope there is lot more to it than just Mhz.

Why not be excited that a Mhz reduction results in such great cost saving? :-)

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

ya it was at best* 8 cores 8 threads. Whereas ryzen is clearly 8 cores 16 threads.

 

my point was overall AMD thinks they have a flagship CPU worth $600... Which I think is not a bad sign.

 

Wanna bet? http://www.tweaktown.com/news/31127/amd-5ghz-fx-9590-cpu-pricing-info-spotted-seems-a-bit-too-high/index.html

If anything, we should be frightened of what they are going to release since they originally thought ^ that bloody thing was worth almost $1000 USD with people overclocking FX 8320 and 8350 to the same speeds.

[WelshDdraig]

While the pricing is very eye-catching, we don't have any solid numbers on the performance. I'm hoping its going to be competitive, but holding out on the hype until reliable benchmarks are out. If its as good as what people say - then great, but it could all go down hill for the lower end chips as the only one we've seen in action is the top of the line one. 

That being said, I'm not ruling Ryzen out of my next computer upgrade.

[Ramaddil]

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-lineup-pricing-confirmed-8-cores-low-320/ 

 

Just found this.... 

 

These prices are insane for Ryzen

[PianoPlayer88Key]

I was hoping the Ryzen lineup's pricing (for example on the "X" CPUs) would reflect the prices MicroCenter had for LGA1150 CPUs on the 2014/2015 Black Fridays.

 

For example:

R7 1800X = i7-4790K MC BF price

R7 1700X = i5-4690K MC BF price

R5 1600X = i3-4170 MC BF price

R5 1400X = Pentium G3258 MC BF price

R3 1200X = Celeron G1840 MC BF price

 

Even so, the prices @Ramaddil linked from WCCFtech do sound pretty good compared to what Intel's offering now.

 

I was just hoping AMD would be more aggressive, and cause Intel to drop the prices on their entire lineup (within days of Ryzen's release) by at least the same percentage that the Q6600 had price cuts over its life.  (And if Intel could drop the current i7-x9xx and Xeon E5/E7 CPUs by the same percentage that LGA771 & LGA1366 era Xeons have dropped to on ebay, that'd be awesome.  AMD, step up the competition please! )

[NumLock21]

 

[porina]

Saw that chart elsewhere. Made me sad. Gonna be weak FPU again, even if no longer shared.

[Scruffy90]

I'm not holding my breathe with Ryzen anymore. They keep teasing us, but giving us nothing and confirming very little. Heres to hoping it doesnt turn out to be another bulldozer.

[Dabombinable]

7 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

I'm not holding my breathe with Ryzen anymore. They keep teasing us, but giving us nothing and confirming very little. Heres to hoping it doesnt turn out to be another bulldozer.

Bulldozer was worse than the previous architecture (K10) though. AMD would have to be utter retards to repeat that again.

[Thony]

2 hours ago, Elehat said:

Why not be excited that a Mhz reduction results in such great cost saving? :-)

I thinks other way round....

[StealthArsenal]

Saw this on OC3D just a bit ago.  Shows US Pricing.

 

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/uk_and_us_pricing_for_amd_s_high-end_ryzen_lineup_has_leaked/1

 

 

[EminentSun]

I don't get that pricing scheme, $200 more dollars for 300mhz. If these chips are all overclockable as many have suggested the 1800x will never sell.

[NumLock21]

9 minutes ago, EminentSun said:

I don't get that pricing scheme, $200 more dollars for 300mhz. If these chips are all overclockable as many have suggested the 1800x will never sell.

All you're thinking is, why get a expensive zen, when you can get a cheap one and oc to match the expensive one. Have you ever thought, the expensive zen has a higher base clock, and can oc a lot higher than a cheap one. 1800x will sell.