Ryzen 5 coming April 11th, 6c12t and 4c8t options available

[captain cactus]

EDIT NEW SAUCE: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

 

AMD Ryzen 7 SKUs
	Cores/ Threads	Base/ Turbo	XFR	L3	TDP	Cost	Cooler
Ryzen 7 1800X	8/16	3.6/4.0	+100	16 MB	95 W	$499	-
Ryzen 7 1700X	8/16	3.4/3.8	+100	16 MB	95 W	$399	-
Ryzen 7 1700	8/16	3.0/3.7	+50	16 MB	65 W	$329	Spire RGB

AMD Ryzen 5 SKUs
	Cores/ Threads	Base/ Turbo	XFR	L3	TDP	Cost	Cooler
Ryzen 5 1600X	6/12	3.6/4.0	+100	16 MB	95 W	$249	-
Ryzen 5 1600	6/12	3.2/3.6	+100	16 MB	65 W	$219	Spire
Ryzen 5 1500X	4/8	3.5/3.7	+200	16 MB	65 W	$189	Spire
Ryzen 5 1400	4/8	3.2/3.4	+50	8 MB	65 W	$169	Stealth

 

 

Quote

Whereas Ryzen 7 was AMD’s main attack on high-performance x86 and a shot across the bow against Intel’s high-end desktop platform, Ryzen 5 is targeted more at mainstream users. The goal here is that where Intel has four cores with no hyperthreading, AMD can provide six cores with SMT, effectively offering three times as many threads for the same price and potentially smashing any multithreaded workload.

 

 

Also interesting:

 

Quote

It is worth noting that the Wraith Spire for Ryzen 5 will not have RGB lighting, whereas the Wraith Spire for Ryzen 7 does use an RGB ring. OEMs will be able to use the higher-end Wraith Max stock cooler for their pre-built systems. AMD stated that at present, there are no plans to bring the Wraith coolers to retail as individual units, however they will keep track of how many users want them as individual items and regularly approach the issue internally.

That's a pity.

 

The press deck: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/5516

 

So, hex-core option for $219. That's brilliant and looks like the perfect middle-ground option. But as with Ryzen 7: bench for waitmarks.

[FloRolf]

If that's all true then prices are awesome, but we really need some better clock speeds here, AMD. 

[Droidbot]

Just now, Nicholatian said:

Intel’s pretty much getting smoked until they do something. This is really nice to see.

Nuh uh.. AMD wins for WS, Intel wins for gaming. 

The dual-CPU on one chip thing makes Ryzen suck even with games that take advantage of cores due to bad communication speed. 

However, 4c8t for $169 is bloody good value, and with OC could push to 4.2 and get around i7 4770 stock performance with IPC considered

 

[Megah3rtz]

3 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

we really need some better clock speeds here, AMD. 

I would think with less cores theyll overclock easier.

[dkspooder]

So with the whole kerfuffle about the scheduler, and the CCX rumors, I'd like to say that I want to think positively about the 4c8t models. If AMD manages to significantly improve clock speeds with less cores on the package, we may see their equivalent to the 6700k, or even the 7700k. Ryzen 5 is not meant to compete with the Extreme edition processors, so hopefully it's at least price competitive to the consumer i7. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Why, just why the non-x quad core is 1400? Couldn't they stick to their own naming scheme and just call it 1500, non-x?

OK, enough irrelevance

Also, I don't know who wrote that article, but the idea that TDP ratings imply anything about the internal layout of the CPUs... 

1 minute ago, FloRolf said:

If that's all true then prices are awesome, but we really need some better clock speeds here, AMD. 

They are all unlocked, though.

1 minute ago, Nicholatian said:

Intel’s pretty much getting smoked until they do something. This is really nice to see.

That's a bit of an overstatement. This certainly puts some limits to the pricing of several of Intel's CPUs, but they still retain the highest performers in the segment and can charge a premium for that.

It would be interesting to see what a 6-core consumer chip can do in the current state of software.

[Droidbot]

4 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

Do you think every gamer is going to care more about a few FPS at the cost of a few hundred dollars? It’s a terrible proposition lol

1700 and 7700k are the same price, and they offer totally different things. 1700 has the cores, and is good with WS and mediocre with gaming, whereas 7700k is good for gaming and mediocre for WS tasks.. 

Don't know where you're pulling the 'few hundred dollars' from, care to provide an example?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, dkspooder said:

If AMD manages to significantly improve clock speeds with less cores on the package, we may see their equivalent to the 6700k, or even the 7700k.

Not really, since even matching clocks Ryzen would still lag behind in IPC

This is the kind of hype we need to avoid, instead of blaming AMD when launch day comes and the reviews are out, showing Haswell performance. AMD promised Haswell-E/Broadwell IPC, that's what it achieved, and that's all you are going to get from gen 1 Zen.

The way in which they eat from Intel's profits is not by matching performance, but by being sufficiently close while priced like this. I mean, Intel was trying to sell us an i3 at the same price as the quad core R5 because "unlocked"... 

[Dabombinable]

7 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

Nuh uh.. AMD wins for WS, Intel wins for gaming. 

The dual-CPU on one chip thing makes Ryzen suck even with games that take advantage of cores due to bad communication speed. 

However, 4c8t for $169 is bloody good value, and with OC could push to 4.2 and get around i7 4770 stock performance with IPC considered

 

The communication speed isn't actually that bad. Especially when you consider that it was possible to get over 1.8-1.9x scaling with 2 Pentium III 1000EB on an Abit VP6 over a 133MHz FSB (and that AMD has actually implemented a better method than was used previously in for example the Bulldozer Opteron line - 2x massive 4 module dies in the 1 package).

[Dabombinable]

BTW, if the APU are unlocked as well...I'll be telling my A8 4555M to fuck off (I am constantly having to disable Turbocore to get smooth frame rates in games-fuck TDP throttling, and enable it to get decent performance in normal tasks)

[Droidbot]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

The communication speed isn't actually that bad. Especially when you consider that it was possible to get over 1.8-1.9x scaling with 2 Pentium III 1000EB on an Abit VP6 over a 133MHz FSB (and that AMD has actually implemented a better method than was used previously in for example the Bulldozer Opteron line - 2x massive 4 module dies in the 1 package).

It isn't that bad, but it does bottleneck the performance noticeably. 

1 minute ago, Nicholatian said:

You’re comparing workstation chips to gaming chips. The 1700 is targeted to compete with the 6900K.

Well, X99 in general, since pretty much the entire Ryzen 7 lineup compares to 6850k/6900k. 

 

I know I am, but I'm making the point that "Intel is getting smoked" is untrue. 

[dizmo]

Wtf? I thought the 1600 was supposed to be a 65w chip? Fucking perfect. There does that idea. Yet another disappointment with Ryzen for me. At this rate I'll just go Intel. 

 

17 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

Nuh uh.. AMD wins for WS, Intel wins for gaming. 

The dual-CPU on one chip thing makes Ryzen suck even with games that take advantage of cores due to bad communication speed. 

However, 4c8t for $169 is bloody good value, and with OC could push to 4.2 and get around i7 4770 stock performance with IPC considered

 

It hasn't been that good of an overclocker this far though has it? 

[captain cactus]

21 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

If that's all true then prices are awesome, but we really need some better clock speeds here, AMD. 

Not happening on the current processing node. GloFlo's silicon just won't clock higher no matter how much VCore you throw at it (unless you run it under LN2 but who does that on a daily basis).

[Droidbot]

2 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

You’re not making much of a point by comparing apples and oranges, I’m afraid.

 

You could call AMD the king of value right now, or you could call Intel the king of fleecing… it all depends on how you want to look at it. Personally, I just take a deal for what it is – it’s a shame I’m not putting together a build for a while, ‘cause I’ve got a life to build and all.

I agree that buying X99 at this point is insane, but Ryzen has some competition coming in the form of X299 (since X99 has had its lifespan)

 

Intel doesn't wanna decrease their profit ($$$$) margins tho

[Droidbot]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Wtf? I thought the 1600 was supposed to be a 65w chip? Fucking perfect. There does that idea. Yet another disappointment with Ryzen for me. At this rate I'll just go Intel. 

 

It hasn't been that good of an overclocker this far though has it? 

They're pushed pretty freaking well out of the box iirc

[Taf the Ghost]

Ryzen 5s make sense, as they're core-disabled parts.  However, I'm curious how the 1400/1500 are going to operate, as the L3 cache should be half compared to the 8 core parts.  Be interesting.

 

As for the Ryzen 7 discussion, in the 1700 vs 7700k argument, it's really only a better value to go for the 7700k IF you have a 144hz monitor.  If you're not dropping the money for that, then you can probably sneak out 50-80 USD less for the Ryzen 7 1700 + Board (which comes with a cooler) compared to the 7700k and spend that on an better graphics card.

 

Mindful that while the Ryzen 7 is a really good chip & platform, I wouldn't normally recommend Cutting Edge tech to people.  In a few months when the BIOS issues are worked out (and especially the Memory problems), that's a different issue.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I don't think you two disagree that much. When one says:

22 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

However, 4c8t for $169 is bloody good value, and with OC could push to 4.2 and get around i7 4770 stock performance with IPC considered

it kind of complements that

21 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

Do you think every gamer is going to care more about a few FPS at the cost of a few hundred dollars? It’s a terrible proposition lol

At the end of the day, I think you would both agree that a  $170-190 unlocked, DDR4 Haswell i7 will be preferred to the latest i7 by many gamers, if the latter costs $350. Not to mention how i5s will look like.

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

They're pushed pretty freaking well out of the box iirc

I remember hearing with normal solutions they're having trouble pushing past 4. Seeing their horrid 1080p results stopped me from even bothering digging further with the 8c chips. 

[juri-han]

5 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

I agree that buying X99 at this point is insane, but Ryzen has some competition coming in the form of X299 (since X99 has had its lifespan)

 

Intel doesn't wanna decrease their profit ($$$$) margins tho

and you can thank amd and ryzen for he x299 7950k not costing as much as a new BMW

[Castdeath97]

31 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

If that's all true then prices are awesome, but we really need some better clock speeds here, AMD. 

The i5 7400 only clocks at 3.5 vs the Ryzen 5 1400

the i5 7500 clocks at 3.8 GHZ vs the 3.7 Ryzen 5 1500X

and lastly the i5 7600k only clocks 4.2 vs the 4.0 that the Ryzen 1600X clocks at!

 

This doesn't look bad, and frankly the extra cores might be more helpful at this price point against Intel's 4c/4t CPUs and god forbid the 2c/4t CPUs (looking at you i3 7350K).

[Droidbot]

Just now, Castdeath97 said:

The i5 7400 only clocks at 3.5 vs the Ryzen 5 1400

the i5 7500 clocks at 3.8 GHZ vs the 3.7 Ryzen 5 1500X

and lastly the i5 7600k only clocks 4.2 vs the 4.0 that the Ryzen 1600X clocks at!

 

This doesn't look bad, and frankly the extra cores might be more helpful at this price point versus the 4c/4t CPU and god forbid the 2c/4t CPUs (looking at you i3 7350K).

We need to let duals with HT die. 

This is where Ryzen shall flourish. 

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

We need to let duals with HT die. 

This is where Ryzen shall flourish. 

They've been the bane of every single "i5" laptop that I've seen. From the lowly i5 u470m to the i5 540M and i5 2540M

[Castdeath97]

7 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

We need to let duals with HT die. 

This is where Ryzen shall flourish. 

Hopefully, let's not forget that the only intel chips that are unlocked in the Ryzen R5 price point are the i3 7350K and the G3258 pentium, both meh. This might be a big advantage for AMD even if they only overclock to 100-200 MHz more, that's still better than absolutely nothing!

[juri-han]

i think the 1400 and 1500 lineup will be the go to cpu for any budget build, 1600x looks interesting but it better have some amazing in game performance or the 1700/1800x will still be better value due to just more cores especially if they have the same clock speeds  

[Tam3n]

Cool, though I expected higher clocks for the 4 core parts.