Ryzen Price Drops

[TVwazhere]

Anyone else think Ryzen + should have been 1X50 (1650, 1750, 1750x, etc)? That way Ryzen 2 could have utilized the 2X00 serial series and not 3X00

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, TVwazhere said:

Anyone else think Ryzen + should have been 1X50 (1650, 1750, 1750x, etc)? That way Ryzen 2 could have utilized the 2X00 serial series and not 3X00

Do we know for sure that Ryzen+ will use the 2000 series nomenclature?

I agree though, your choice would be the best. I really hope they don't keep the same name and just bump the spec up.

If they did use a 2000 series scheme I'm going to go down and slap the marketing team at AMD. First, on right side of their faces for blatantly ripping off Intel's branding, and then on the left for Ryzen+.

[TVwazhere]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Do we know for sure that Ryzen+ will use the 2000 series nomenclature?.

I dont know if we do, I just saw a lot of people using that literature as placeholders for the Ryzen series, and since it was more than a couple of people I was under the asumption it could be the leading scheme moving forward, which makes less logistical sense. 

 

Then again, Nvidia did release a GTX 1080, which of course, everyone assumed was for 1080p gaming, so...

[MyName13]

So r3 will be APUs now?

[Misanthrope]

Why are the 1500x and 1300x more expensive still than their APU counterparts?

 

It seems to me like they do basically the same on the CPU side (Might have less cache but that's about it, negligible at best difference) So you basically get GPU cores for not only free but less money.

 

[dizmo]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Why are the 1500x and 1300x more expensive still than their APU counterparts?

 

It seems to me like they do basically the same on the CPU side (Might have less cache but that's about it, negligible at best difference) So you basically get GPU cores for not only free but less money.

 

They replace the 1400 and 1200. So, it makes sense....stack wise. Though I'd seriously question why I'm paying $30 more and the guy below me has a fucking graphics card attached to his.

...when are these supposed to release? I was about to buy a 1400 but I might just wait for these.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

They replace the 1400 and 1200. So, it makes sense....stack wise. Though I'd seriously question why I'm paying $30 more and the guy below me has a fucking graphics card attached to his.

...when are these supposed to release? I was about to buy a 1400 but I might just wait for these.

But I think the clocks for the CPU are not within spitting distance. There was a small chunk behind previously (3.4-3.7 vs 3.6-3.7) but now it's like "The cheaper SKU has basically the same clocks an Vega cores on top"

 

I mean technically distinguishable but this is even worst than intel and their nonsensical SKUs since anybody should trade 100mhz that could get back with a simple overclock to get the Vega cores.

 

 

[dizmo]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

But I think the clocks for the CPU are not within spitting distance. There was a small chunk behind previously (3.4-3.7 vs 3.6-3.7) but now it's like "The cheaper SKU has basically the same clocks an Vega cores on top"

 

I mean technically distinguishable but this is even worst than intel and their nonsensical SKUs since anybody should trade 100mhz that could get back with a simple overclock to get the Vega cores.

They're really pushing that AFR (was that what it was called). Which frankly I don't think is worth it. IIRC you'll see marginally better performance with the x chip (when paired with a flagship GPU) in the R5 stack (perhaps because of the higher cache?) but with a midrange card they're dead even.

 

Shhh. Don't say such things. You'll upset everyone. All of their pitchforks are currently painted red, and are looking to shiv blue. Cuz you know, AMD can do no wrong I completely agree though.

 

TL;DR - AMD is getting a little extra cash for people that like higher numbers and an X attached to the name of their purchase.

[Taf the Ghost]

44 minutes ago, dizmo said:

They're really pushing that AFR (was that what it was called). Which frankly I don't think is worth it. IIRC you'll see marginally better performance with the x chip (when paired with a flagship GPU) in the R5 stack (perhaps because of the higher cache?) but with a midrange card they're dead even.

 

Shhh. Don't say such things. You'll upset everyone. All of their pitchforks are currently painted red, and are looking to shiv blue. Cuz you know, AMD can do no wrong I completely agree though.

 

TL;DR - AMD is getting a little extra cash for people that like higher numbers and an X attached to the name of their purchase.

X CPUs were the better binned/higher base clocked parts. That matters for OEMs more than it does for consumers.

[Doobeedoo]

This is really awesome. 1800X is really looking great with such price.

[DrDerp]

The 2200G looks to have excellent value. A decent graphics chip with an already great value CPU, what a deal for people who are shopping budget! If the performance is similar to the GT 1030 like they say, that is a huge value! 

[AlTech]

52 minutes ago, dizmo said:

They're really pushing that AFR (was that what it was called). Which frankly I don't think is worth it. IIRC you'll see marginally better performance with the x chip (when paired with a flagship GPU) in the R5 stack (perhaps because of the higher cache?) but with a midrange card they're dead even.

*XFR

52 minutes ago, dizmo said:

 

Shhh. Don't say such things. You'll upset everyone. All of their pitchforks are currently painted red, and are looking to shiv blue. Cuz you know, AMD can do no wrong I completely agree though.

 

TL;DR - AMD is getting a little extra cash for people that like higher numbers and an X attached to the name of their purchase.

the X SKUs are basically guaranteed overclocks and have higher TDPs.

 

Overclocking done by the end user causes warranty to be voided. Overclocking or binning on the part of the manufacturer does not void warranty.

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Why are the 1500x and 1300x more expensive still than their APU counterparts?

 

It seems to me like they do basically the same on the CPU side (Might have less cache but that's about it, negligible at best difference) So you basically get GPU cores for not only free but less money.

 

XFR.

Also, how else is AMD gonna make all them monies if they aren't profiting heavily off of Ryzen?

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, DrDerp said:

The 2200G looks to have excellent value. A decent graphics chip with an already great value CPU, what a deal for people who are shopping budget! If the performance is similar to the GT 1030 like they say, that is a huge value! 

That price is also pretty aggressive, which suggests to me it's a big OEM play, along with attempting to run Intel out of the Budget Build segment at $100 USD.

[DrDerp]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

That price is also pretty aggressive, which suggests to me it's a big OEM play, along with attempting to run Intel out of the Budget Build segment at $100 USD.

It puts the Pentium G4560 to shame. Sure, its a higher price, but the G4560 already has a boosted price of about 70 dollars the last time I checked. That along without the need for a graphics card (in budget systems of course) makes it a highly valued chip to me.

[ApolloFury]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

When comparing CPUs you can't simply look at clock speed, there's a lot more to it than that.

I know there is more to clockspeed, I mentioned numerous times that if it can overclock atleast 4.3GHz then it may compensate for the Haswell/Broadwell IPC of Ryzen, if it can go beyond 4.3 then it may perform better single-threaded wise since the i5-8400 is a locked processor (with a much lower base clock). I inferred that Ryzen will need atleast 300-400MHz advantage to consider it to tie with Coffeelake for the same IPC level.

5 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

None of the Ryzen CPU's are locked, it depends only on the chipset...

I never said any are locked (see below), I theorise that if Ryzen can be overclocked past 4.2 then it may help it catchup to i5-8400 in gaming performance.

5 hours ago, ApolloFury said:

No I mean if it can be overclocked, let's say 4.2 4c/8t (OC'd) vs 4.0 6c/6t (locked)? 4.3 maybe?

I could be all wrong but I am just curious. AMD needs Ryzen+ to be able to overclock around 4.5GHz to stand a chance in gaming.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, DrDerp said:

It puts the Pentium G4560 to shame. Sure, its a higher price, but the G4560 already has a boosted price of about 70 dollars the last time I checked. That along without the need for a graphics card (in budget systems of course) makes it a highly valued chip to me.

4c/4t ~99USD with good clocks and a Gaming capable GPU built in, along with being on a platform with new CPUs still coming. Intel hasn't even announced the replacement for the 4000 series parts yet. Oh, and the G4560 and similar are between 80-120 on Newegg, so there's that as well.

[Taf the Ghost]

8 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

I know there is more to clockspeed, I mentioned numerous times that if it can overclock atleast 4.3GHz then it may compensate for the Haswell/Broadwell IPC of Ryzen, if it can go beyond 4.3 then it may perform better single-threaded wise since the i5-8400 is a locked processor (with a much lower base clock). I inferred that Ryzen will need atleast 300-400MHz advantage to consider it to tie with Coffeelake for the same IPC level.

 

I never said any are locked (see below), I theorise that if Ryzen can be overclocked past 4.2 then it may help it catchup to i5-8400 in gaming performance.

 

I could be all wrong but I am just curious. AMD needs Ryzen+ to be able to overclock around 4.5GHz to stand a chance in gaming.

Clocks will only matter to around 4.3-4.4 Ghz. It's really quite questionable to say there is an IPC difference between Intel & AMD when it comes to Gaming. The difference is architectural & optimization not IPC. AMD will saturate what it can on Nvidia's driver at some level of single-threaded clocks. This really only matters for the 1080 Ti class right, as well.

 

We generally expect normal turbo clocks to be in the mid-4 Ghz. It might OC a good bit further. We'll find out soon enough.

[Me1z]

I'd love you get a Ryzen CPU, but I can't. And its definitely not the price tag thats holding me back. Not a single mobo manufacturer has managed to release an x370 M-ATX board yet, so my hands are tied. You can take my PCIE lanes from my cold dead hands, My first board was an SR-2 with 64 lanes and I'll be damned before I buy a B350 mainstream disaster that manages to choke a simple 2-way xfire setup...

[dizmo]

3 minutes ago, Me1z said:

I'd love you get a Ryzen CPU, but I can't. And its definitely not the price tag thats holding me back. Not a single mobo manufacturer has managed to release an x370 M-ATX board yet, so my hands are tied. You can take my PCIE lanes from my cold dead hands, My first board was an SR-2 with 64 lanes and I'll be damned before I buy a B350 mainstream disaster that manages to choke a simple 2-way xfire setup...

Says the guy who runs...a single GPU?

[Me1z]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Says the guy who runs...a single GPU?

Because the Z87 chipset is so unstable that it can't electrically handle my second R9 295x2. It's been sitting gathering dust forever. Intel's fuckup with Z87 and first gen haswell, (z97 and devils canyon being second gen) is the main reason that I'll never purchace another intel CPU for my own personal use. They litterally said "oops" 6 months after release and burried us under z97 and devils canyon with not so much as an apology

[dizmo]

8 minutes ago, Me1z said:

Because the Z87 chipset is so unstable that it can't electrically handle my second R9 295x2. It's been sitting gathering dust forever. Intel's fuckup with Z87 and first gen haswell, (z97 and devils canyon being second gen) is the main reason that I'll never purchace another intel CPU for my own personal use. They litterally said "oops" 6 months after release and burried us under z97 and devils canyon with not so much as an apology

So you're going to simply go without? You have to pick one or the other.

[Me1z]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

So you're going to simply go without? You have to pick one or the other.

Not that I'm desperate for an upgrade, my current performance is... acceptable, but like I said, I'd love to get a Ryzen CPU. All I'm waiting for is the first decently made X370 M-ATX board

[InertiaSelling]

10 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

yes but the 2400G is a 4c/8t part rather than a 6c/6t part.

I think it is safe to expect similar multi-threaded performance and a 5 to 10% difference in single-threaded performance in favor of the $20 more expensive 8400 then. Not too bad.

 

EDIT: Looks like I have missed a few pages there. I still mean it tho.

[Techstorm970]

10 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

yes but the 2400G is a 4c/8t part rather than a 6c/6t part.

Yeah, comparing a 4c/8t CPU to a 6c/6t CPU is like comparing apples and oranges.  I'd say we wait until April benchmarks.