Ryzen 3 & 5 launch rumor

[suits]

Honestly their chips steady in production already cover the lower tiers well enough for now. They needed to come out big and give intel something to worry about or the rest would be useless. I'd bet almost all of the R&D went to the top end. Now that they have that they'll work on the rest but they aren't in a big hurry as they are in a position to put a real

hurt in intel. 

[suits]

What they need in their next line of GPUs to come out soon and be not terrible. 

[Memories4K]

52 minutes ago, suits said:

What they need in their next line of GPUs to come out soon and be not terrible. 

April is the earliest you can expect Vega

[Misanthrope]

3 hours ago, Pandalf said:

It's not a rumour, it was shown on non-public AMD slides.

On why they are launching them later, the only logical explanation I can find is that the yields are good and they were able to produce fully functional Ryzen 7 chips. Ryzen 3 might be based on a different die, since more than half of the chip would be disabled.

Not more, just half (4 vs 8) i3s have half of the cores from an i7 disabled it's still likely they're bad R7 yields and thus they need to run the foundry for a while to stock some failures for R5s and R3s.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Not more, just half (4 vs 8) i3s have half of the cores from an i7 disabled it's still likely they're bad R7 yields and thus they need to run the foundry for a while to stock some failures for R5s and R3s.

i don't believe that is true anymore. i believe the i3 Pentium and celeron are all on a separate die than the i7 and i5s. 

[patrick3027]

"and they launch the high end first, REEEEE" 

 

This always make me laugh. If they release high end first, low end buyers complain and if they release low end first, high end buyers complain. 

 

A launch in several waves is completely normal for such a hyped product. No point in releasing all the chips today if they will be out of stock until the en d of the year anyway. 

[Techicolors]

i'm honestly not that interested in the R7 lineup. certainly is a pretty good deal, but i don't think i'll be utilizing all 8 cores anytime soon. that said i'm still looking forward to the benchmarks. if it look good, then maybe i'll just get a 1700X. 

 

either way, the R5 and R3 will pretty much be the CPUs most gaming PCs will have

[SansVarnic]

Rumor ≠ News IMO.

[Yog]

They're doing it to maximize their profits. The highest tier is going to have the highest profit margins so they want to release that first so people who originally would have purchased a mid-tier CPU but don't want to wait will buy a high-tier. Then they release the mid-tier to catch some low-tier purchasers. And then the low-tier.

[Squibbies18]

4 hours ago, Memories4K said:

Idk man, there's a lot of incentive to jump on an 8-core (8/16) with the 1700/1700X i see a lot of people getting an 8-core, especially Intel owners who wanted an 8 core but didn't want to shill a cool grand out as well as AMD FX 8-core owners who are looking to step out of AM3+ and trying to maintain having an 8-core for a reasonable price.

don't get me wrong i love my 8350 (brought it late 2015) but i'm not gonna spend that much on a CPU, don't get me wrong they're great CPUs but i'd rather look into the 6 cores myself  

[Vanguardas]

Meanwhile, I'm hoping AMD releases an A4 APU that runs around 15W or less which is good enough for office work.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 hours ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

Regular people wouldn't need 8 cores.... hell most don't even need 6 cores yet..... hell  alot of them still isn't even really working with 4 cores.... Maybe the extreme fans that can actually use 8 cores would buy Amd but currently Nope most people currently would still buy intel cheaper 4 cores and faster  

Except unless intel lowers its prices, a 7700k is more expensive than Ryzen 1700, and the non-k ain't that far. I can see mainstream i7 buyers doubting if prices don't change. It seems to me people may start sharing my view: going over $300 should get you much more than a quad core, otherwise you really go budget and stick to i5s or anything below 200...

5 hours ago, Yog said:

They're doing it to maximize their profits. The highest tier is going to have the highest profit margins so they want to release that first so people who originally would have purchased a mid-tier CPU but don't want to wait will buy a high-tier. Then they release the mid-tier to catch some low-tier purchasers. And then the low-tier.

Plus publicity. They couldn't come back after all these years and just have another budget CPU that pales against the top dogs. By the time they got the higher end out, the impression that "there is no such thing as high end AMD" could have been perpetuated, and new releases met with indifference. They needed what they achieved so far: to convey the idea that they're back and ready for anything, so people look forward to what else they can offer. The impatience many show for Ryzen 3 and 5 is a measure of the success of this strategy. 

 

If you think about it, there weren't many of us looking out for an AM3+ Excavator... 

[Humbug]

The ryzen 5 1600x is gonna be the gamers choice.

3.6Ghz base with 4.0Ghz boost and XFR on top of that.

It will peform the same as the 1800x in games, while being a lot cheaper.

 

Plus you also get 6 real cores and 12 threads which allows you to do other tasks more efficiently than inte's i5 lineup.

[Megah3rtz]

I don't mind the wait, but it better be good by the time it comes out. 

 

[Qwweb]

I just think it is funny (and slightly immature) that AMD copied the Intel naming scheme for SKUs. I also feel a bit pensive about Ryzen (in part due to the hype surrounding it) as I feel that at this point, the only way the specs could go is down, which is a scary thought.

I am also quite worried about Ryzen's consumer OC performance as the reported +1GHz OC achieved by professionals with liquid Nitrogen (I'll call it LNOC for short) was only achievable at over 1.8V which is a very scary voltage to be working with as opposed to the LNOC of the competing 6900K at ~1.57V and +1.5GHz. It should be noted that different CPU configurations will effect OCing. But from what we can tell, Intel's Kabylake process deals with OCs extremely well, resulting in an LNOC of +3.183GHz at ~1.2V.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

45 minutes ago, Qwweb said:

I just think it is funny (and slightly immature) that AMD copied the Intel naming scheme for SKUs. I also feel a bit pensive about Ryzen (in part due to the hype surrounding it) as I feel that at this point, the only way the specs could go is down, which is a scary thought.

I am also quite worried about Ryzen's consumer OC performance as the reported +1GHz OC achieved by professionals with liquid Nitrogen (I'll call it LNOC for short) was only achievable at over 1.8V which is a very scary voltage to be working with as opposed to the LNOC of the competing 6900K at ~1.57V and +1.5GHz. It should be noted that different CPU configurations will effect OCing. But from what we can tell, Intel's Kabylake process deals with OCs extremely well, resulting in an LNOC of +3.183GHz at ~1.2V.

I hear you. But a 6900k is more than double the amount of the R7. That tiny amount of ghz loss is mute if performance is basically identical 

[alexcheetah]

12 hours ago, WMGroomAK said:

Based on this article, the R5s are basically going to be R7s with a core and corresponding L2 cache disabled from each of the Core Complexes.  This might be a result of binning or defects in manufacturing.  I would imagine that the R3s will consist of the same chip, just with the removal of one of the Core Complexes.

 

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-Launching-Ryzen-5-Six-Core-Processors-Soon-Q2-2017

I wonder if Core unlocking motherboards will be a thing again.

[Simon771]

Good yields, and they want to sell Those expencive CPUs first probbably

I feel sorry for those who wanted to have R5 and R3 now, but for me it doesn't matter since I'm interested in R7 1700X or i7 6800k. Still waiting if Intel might lower prices a bit  

[NerdyCoder]

I think many people are waiting for the Ryzen 3 1100, since there are many gamers who have a low bank account.

[Thony]

That is quiet late big time gaps.

 

I like how 4/8 (hopefully !!!) is the low end

[lonestar31]

9 hours ago, Humbug said:

The ryzen 5 1600x is gonna be the gamers choice.

3.6Ghz base with 4.0Ghz boost and XFR on top of that.

It will peform the same as the 1800x in games, while being a lot cheaper.

 

Plus you also get 6 real cores and 12 threads which allows you to do other tasks more efficiently than inte's i5 lineup.

These are the ones I am waiting on! Now I do love my i5-2400, it has been a rock solid little CPU. However it is definitely getting a bit long in the tooth. Been contemplating upgrading to a i5 K Kaby in a year or so. Depending on how AMD does however I may just try them out again. Would be nice to have overclocking and some spare change to upgrade my 960 to maybe a 1070. Or even a Vega if they prove to be competitive and of good quality. Still I am with everyone else and will let a bit of time pass first. There are always a few bumps in the road on new releases. Seems to be the norm on everything these days. ?

[Memories4K]

9 hours ago, Qwweb said:

I just think it is funny (and slightly immature) that AMD copied the Intel naming scheme for SKUs. I also feel a bit pensive about Ryzen (in part due to the hype surrounding it) as I feel that at this point, the only way the specs could go is down, which is a scary thought.

I'm not liking how much AMD seems to be *copying* Intel.
SMT is fine, it's practical and learning from your competitors to make a better, more competitive, product isn't bad.
But the naming scheme bothers me because it's so confusing, i3/i5/i7 aren't standards; i3/i5/i7 are Intel's own branding of tiers, it means nothing outside of Intel.
I wish AMD would've gone R4/R6/R8 because at least then the numbers would make sense to AMD, illustrating the number of cores in each tier.

[rawrdaysgoby]

On 2/24/2017 at 3:13 PM, Memories4K said:

The only real compelling option for regular people right now to choose Intel over AMD is the G4560 (hyper-threaded dualcore) That's it.
AMD's R3 1100 would be a quadcore about as fast as an intel i5 for the price of an i3.
Intel's G4560 is an i3 for the price of a Pentium chip.

I know about the R3 line but that is still 2 quarters away...  they aren't gunning for the mass yet but in 2 quarters 

[Memories4K]

3 hours ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

I know about the R3 line but that is still 2 quarters away...  they aren't gunning for the mass yet but in 2 quarters 

My bad, when the R3 line actually releases

[Guest Darth Revan]

On 24 februarie 2017 at 10:13 PM, Memories4K said:

The only real compelling option for regular people right now to choose Intel over AMD is the G4560 (hyper-threaded dualcore) That's it.
AMD's R3 1100 would be a quadcore about as fast as an intel i5 for the price of an i3.
Intel's G4560 is an i3 for the price of a Pentium chip.

How do you know the R3 will be about as fast as the i5?