AMD Ryzen Full Lineup Prices, Specs & Clock Speeds Leaked

[79wjd]

7 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Yes but they'll get more sales for having it to be significantly cheaper. Instead of someone saying "hmm. They're the same price but the motherboard is cheaper" and having to really think through their decision they can just say "Jesus christ it's like half the price. Buy buy buy! " 

Intel will also adjust their prices if it's competitive. So any significant pricing advantage won't last long.

[YoloSwag]

I'd gladly sell my system this month or the next if that 6C/12T is legit.

 

$260!!!

 

I feel like a DMX song is appropriate... WAT!

[Thinkfreely]

22 hours ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Because you're used to Intel's stupidly high prices. That's what you get with no competition.

 

Also, kind of a retoast: 

 

Exactly, Intel has always charged more. This whole Ryzen thing is about performance for much lower cost. What excites me is in that line up there is

AMD Ryzen 3 1200X

4/4

8MB

65W

3.4GHz

3.8GHz

3.8GHz+

Yes

$149 . This is almost the same  as the i7 6700k for less than half the cost? Yest please.

[Me1z]

That R5 1600X is suddenly looking really nice. A mainstream 6 core, 12 thread processor is what we've wanted for so long, and holy shit this could be it. I have negative 5 money to spend right now, but if these prices are accurate, I might be able to scrape something together. All aboard the Hype Train, someone wake me up on March 2nd.

[goodtofufriday]

You know what I've heard nothing about. Multi-socket. Any rumors on Ryzen multi-socket support?

[TidaLWaveZ]

40 minutes ago, Thinkfreely said:

Exactly, Intel has always charged more. This whole Ryzen thing is about performance for much lower cost. What excites me is in that line up there is

AMD Ryzen 3 1200X

4/4

8MB

65W

3.4GHz

3.8GHz

3.8GHz+

Yes

$149 . This is almost the same  as the i7 6700k for less than half the cost? Yest please.

Incorrect as far as intel always charging more, when AMD has anything to compete, intel has offered comparable or better prices. Of course this dates back to when they did compare, like Athlon 64 era when AMD gained some ground.

 

The thing is that for the past so many years intel has been releasing new technologies and better performance years ahead of AMD. So maybe, just maybe intel is putting a lot of money into R&D.

 

Don't get me wrong intel probably carries the same corporate greed as any other huge corporation, but this idea that's spreading that intel is just screwing the world over while AMD is truly looking out for the public is just absurd. They're both businesses and they exist to make money not perform a service to the community. 

[Sreno1]

22 hours ago, Wikiforce said:

AMD is not greedy, unlike Intel.

Intel isn't greedy, they just don't have any competition. You should blame AMD for Intel's high prices. If AMD or any other company had made substantial improvement while Intel was, Intel wouldn't have a monopoly.

These are companies trying to make as much money as possible, not enthusiasts who do it for the betterment of the industry.

[Scionyde]

I know these are still rumored, unverified prices, but why's there such a high price difference between the 1700X and the 1800X?

[DEVVY]

The last AMD CPU i used did overheat a lot, for almost no reason. Since then i became Intel user and..i honestly want to believe that these prices are true and if they're Intel will have to answer, which will result in either them dropping prices or most likely just bumping their existing Kaby lake. I personally am afraid to go for Ryzen simply because of.. well their old cpu's, had bad experience with them, only because of that i'm going to wait for Reviews and overall market change from Intel's side. Waiting, waiting and once again waiting.

[Guest Darth Revan]

Just one question, when the bloody hell are they supposed to come out?

[Techstorm970]

44 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Just one question, when the bloody hell are they supposed to come out?

March 2nd.

[Guest Darth Revan]

3 minutes ago, techstorm970 said:

March 2nd.

Thank you.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, goodtofufriday said:

You know what I've heard nothing about. Multi-socket. Any rumors on Ryzen multi-socket support?

because no one gives a shit when you can have a 8c/16t chip on a consumer board it's alright...

AMD will most likely launch an opteron line of CPU's with quad-channel memory support and ECC RAM support with Multi-socket server grade motherboards at a later date.

 

They will also most likely have low power parts for laptops and stuff...they will certainly try to flood every segments of the market with zen core based products in the upcoming year.

[The Benjamins]

9 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

because no one gives a shit when you can have a 8c/16t chip on a consumer board it's alright...

AMD will most likely launch an opteron line of CPU's with quad-channel memory support and ECC RAM support with Multi-socket server grade motherboards at a later date.

 

They will also most likely have low power parts for laptops and stuff...they will certainly try to flood every segments of the market with zen core based products in the upcoming year.

AMD plans on up to octa channel support for their server line

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

AMD plans on up to octa channel support for their server line

lol say what!? do you have a source for this claim?

that would be a world first i believe...and inventing new stuff ain't in AMD's pedigree...

[Orangeator]

Okay so I am interested in buying the R7 1700x or the R7 1800x, my question is will there really be that big of a difference in performance to justify $110 more?

[The Benjamins]

21 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

lol say what!? do you have a source for this claim?

that would be a world first i believe...and inventing new stuff ain't in AMD's pedigree...

It's on their old road maps I am on my phone so I can't look it up till later today. AMD has made new stuff in the past like 64 bit was a AMD thing they license to Intel

 

Edit: this is a source I found http://www.techspot.com/news/63796-amd-zen-cpu-up-32-cores.html

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

It's on their old road maps I am on my phone so I can't look it up till later today. AMD has made new stuff in the past like 64 bit was a AMD thing they license to Intel

lol when you have to go back in time 15 years to remember what their last innovation was...you know

[Arc_Jester]

14 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

lol when you have to go back in time 15 years to remember what their last innovation was...you know

s shown at by an engineer at CERN last year.

 

[MageTank]

13 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

lol say what!? do you have a source for this claim?

that would be a world first i believe...and inventing new stuff ain't in AMD's pedigree...

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-zen-will-get-8-channel-ddr4-support-and-smt.html

https://www.top500.org/news/amd-readies-naples-cpus-to-do-battle-with-intel-skylake-xeons/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10581/early-amd-zen-server-cpu-and-motherboard-details-codename-naples-32cores-dual-socket-platforms-q2-2017

http://www.techspot.com/news/63796-amd-zen-cpu-up-32-cores.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture)#Memory

 

Some of the sources are dated by over a year, and I know people also hate the use of wikipedia as a credible source, but I figured I'd link you the sources I've seen pop up over time. What I can say however, is that we will not be seeing 8 channels on the consumer lineup, probably never. First of all, more memory channels requires even more threads, as dual cores already bottleneck dual channel bandwidth, and quad cores (the 2011-3 Xeons) bottleneck peak quad-channel memory. 

 

Another issue besides the potential bottleneck due to lack of threads, is the bandwidth efficiency issue. As more channels are added and used, you lose efficiency. Let's use my ram as an example:

 

 

In dual channel, the peak theoretical memory bandwidth of my DDR4 3600 in dual channel is 57.6GB/s. I am hitting 54.4GB/s in write, meaning my write efficiency is roughly 95%. My read efficiency is only 93%. In quad channel, people struggle to hit 80% of their peak theoretical bandwidth. 

This guy achieved 80% efficiency on his writes, but only achieved 70% on his reads. (Peak theoretical bandwidth of quad channel 2800mhz is 89.6GB/s).

[alexcheetah]

We don't even know if the pricing is for actual retailers or just bulk prices from the factory.

[Techstorm970]

1 hour ago, Orangeator said:

Okay so I am interested in buying the R7 1700x or the R7 1800x, my question is will there really be that big of a difference in performance to justify $110 more?

I would say no at this point.  The performance difference between 1700X and 1800X is basically the difference between an i7-5960X and an i7-6900K.  Both of those i7 processors are still workstation beasts, so yeah just get the R7-1700X.  

[rawrdaysgoby]

On 2/12/2017 at 3:19 PM, techstorm970 said:

 

 

From what I've been seeing, AMD Ryzen will make every consumer processor except the i5-7600k, i7-7700k, and maybe the Kaby Lake Pentiums pointless to buy for the majority of the market.  The value is just too darn good!

But that is what I basically meant in my post oh wells

[rawrdaysgoby]

On 2/12/2017 at 5:46 PM, cj09beira said:

we are assuming its all core turbo, base clock doesn't matter if it stays above that when loaded 

Huh I didn't realize most of the community takes the turbo clock speed over the quoting base clock speed... Ehhh it will be decently competitive with intel on the normal sometimes gaming people. The hardcores might just take intels i5s/7s instead... I guess this is for people that just want to have a decently price quad core just really not over the top I guess that is fine very good for decently price computers at a budget can use it more for a gpu I guess assuming they will still go with Amd  

[leadeater]

On 2/14/2017 at 4:23 AM, TidaLWaveZ said:

Incorrect as far as intel always charging more, when AMD has anything to compete, intel has offered comparable or better prices. Of course this dates back to when they did compare, like Athlon 64 era when AMD gained some ground.

 

The thing is that for the past so many years intel has been releasing new technologies and better performance years ahead of AMD. So maybe, just maybe intel is putting a lot of money into R&D.

 

Don't get me wrong intel probably carries the same corporate greed as any other huge corporation, but this idea that's spreading that intel is just screwing the world over while AMD is truly looking out for the public is just absurd. They're both businesses and they exist to make money not perform a service to the community. 

This and AMD started the $1000+ enthusiast CPU thing with the original FX processors, at a time when $1000 was a heck of a lot more money than now. It is equally feasible looking back to the past that we could be right now complaining about AMD having extremely high CPU prices and not Intel.