AMD Announces Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700 And Pricing, Pre-orders Begin Today

[ohim]

I couldn't help but notice that AMD tested their Ryzen CPU again 6900k by setting up dual channel memory setup for Intel thus crippling the platform...beep sorry people run quad memory channel setup. You can clearly tell where is AMD Ryzen suffering...memory controller, single threaded performance. Also they kept 6900k on stock clock speed...beep all those 6900k are running 4.4/4.5 in peoples machine. As I said i was hopping for 30% IPC over Intel across the board but actually i am seeing -10%. Yes, price is attractive but hey i already invested money in Intel years ago and all AMD did is caught up with Intel after 10 years. Again to me that is f. failure.

Guess what, if you really need CPU for video editing...you can buy 14/28 Xeon Retail running at 2.5Ghz all cores turbo 3.0Ghz and it will eat AMD Ryzen and i7 like there is no tomorrow and cost of CPU is $350. So that argument is really BS.

So your theory is that we should all buy old second hand Xeon cpus and problems solved ... then why do people even buy new intel CPUs when you have this gem of a Xeon so cheap

 

[WFang]

...Guess what, if you really need CPU for video editing...you can buy 14/28 Xeon Retail running at 2.5Ghz all cores turbo 3.0Ghz and it will eat AMD Ryzen and i7 like there is no tomorrow and cost of CPU is $350. So that argument is really BS.

WHAT are you smoking dude? Xeon 14 core (28 with HT) running at 2.5GHz "Retail CPU" for $350?? WTF none of that makes any sense whatsoever...

The cheapest Xeon 14 core (which runs at 1.7GHz btw) costs $1399.99.. the 2.6GHz version runs $2133.99...
There is NO 2.5GHz model (for sale).

You are just full of sheeet. Go troll somewhere else.

 

[ohim]

Why the hell did they use only dual channel?

Because AMD crippled Intel platform as much as they could to make Ryzen look good. They might as well could disable two cores on Intel CPU.

It was an early review sample 3GHz with no Turbo vs the retail one that can Turbo up to 4 GHz and they tried to prove the IPC nothing else, clock for clock, and that was the first ever test, later tests were done with the machines untouched so stop with this crap propaganda.

We get it you like Intel, go buy Intel and let us have fun with Ryzen.

 

[WFang]

To me personally, the question I wish answered ASAP is actually 'What Motherboard provides the best (OC) performance'?

I already know that I'm going to go 'all in' without looking at $/performance for the CPU... I've been saving and holding out since Phenom-II days and I'm getting the 1800X CPU.. I don't need reviews for that (I know, I'm a 'fanboy', so what.

What I -AM- interested in learning is which motherboard provides the best OC stability and features... THAT to me would be interesting.

As such, I hope to see a wide range of MB tests ASAP!! (Hopefully ready by Feb 28th when the embargo lifts!)

 

[George Phillips]

Intel really is running scared! It even sent out professional trolls to make these comments. Everyone is buying AMD Ryzen!

 

[Oranthal]

Wench for Baitmarks trolls

 

[WRXSTIGuy]

I want to congratulate AMD for this CPU. It is not easy to design something so complex and for them to be able to compete with Intel again, consumers will win either with paying a lower price for a similar performance or price reductions by Intel. Not only this, the socket AM4 will be around for some time allowing for future upgrades without having to change out your motherboard plus memory.

 

[JamesSneed]

No single core benchmark for an enthusiast/gamer oriented CPU? How utterly disappointing. So many people have been impatiently waiting for Ryzen as AMD's grand return to CPU competitiveness and AMD won't release a single core benchmark? I hope that testing reveals strong performance or it's mostly over for AMD as they are living on borrowed time today.

There is a single threaded benchmark. In the first benchmark image for the 1800X, there's Cinebench 15 1T, which is the single threaded result. Also, two paragraphs down:

AMD claimed it offers 9% more performance in the Cinebench R15 multi-threaded test (noted as nT) and matches the i7-6900K's single-core score

Obviously we need to wait for independent benchmarks and reviews though before a definitive conclusion can be drawn.

Edit: @JamesSneed Kaby Lake and Skylake have identical IPC, so if Ryzen matches Skylake's IPC, it will match Kaby Lake's as well. Unless you meant to say single threaded performance rather than IPC?

Yes I'm aware of the IPC of Skylake and Kaby Lake I said "That puts there IPC around Skylake levels which means its really close to Kaby Lake" The really close to Kaby Lake was just single threaded performance since Kaby Lake was mostly a clock boost over Skylake, if you ignore the IGPU stuff.

 

[tfitch11]

Where is it being sold? newegg and amazon dont have it listed.

 

[tfitch11]

Disregard... sales begin at 1PM ET

 

[martinisv2]

@FREAK777POWER

Yes Intel will fire back, they changed their roadmap. I understand that you will never buy an AMD chip but you should hope that the new AMD chips do perform very well, even it's not Kaby Lake performance. That will force Intel to lower price and really do a good cpu instead of giving gamers some overpriced cpu.

 

[ohim]

From the video that Austin Evans posted you can see a Ryzen 1800X overclocked at 5144.85 MHz on all cores at 1.853V with a score of 2308 in Cinebench.

And a record of 2449 but no details of what speeds they were running..

 

[ubercake]

Based on the current hype, these AMD processors do seem very attractive. I hope they do push Intel to feel a need to compete again.

I can't wait to see benchmarks from the 3rd-parties with the non-AMD skewed results. I'm not so concerned with seeing their processors versus downclocked this or that. Just stock.

I'd also like to see how my 6 year old 3930k compares to all of these newly-fangled processors.

 

[elbert]

I like the price and Ryzen is without question in the ballpark on performance. What I dont like for the 8 core is dual channel and motherboards limited to only 64GB's of RAM. The 2011-v3 has an advantage but will Intel match CPU prices? My guess is Intel will only full compete once Kabylake-x is out. I may get the AMD 7 1700 and a b350 motherboard if overclocking is shown to be good.

 

[burtman88]

From the video that Austin Evans posted you can see a Ryzen 1800X overclocked at 5144.85 MHz on all cores at 1.853V with a score of 2308 in Cinebench.

And a record of 2449 but no details of what speeds they were running..

Can you post that link, 1.85 Volts !!!?!? lol that's some high voltage, pretty awesome as well. I wonder what he used to cool it at that high of a voltage

 

[Guest]

I couldn't help but notice that AMD tested their Ryzen CPU again 6900k by setting up dual channel memory setup for Intel thus crippling the platform...beep sorry people run quad memory channel setup. You can clearly tell where is AMD Ryzen suffering...memory controller, single threaded performance. Also they kept 6900k on stock clock speed...beep all those 6900k are running 4.4/4.5 in peoples machine. As I said i was hopping for 30% IPC over Intel across the board but actually i am seeing -10%. Yes, price is attractive but hey i already invested money in Intel years ago and all AMD did is caught up with Intel after 10 years. Again to me that is f. failure.

Guess what, if you really need CPU for video editing...you can buy 14/28 Xeon Retail running at 2.5Ghz all cores turbo 3.0Ghz and it will eat AMD Ryzen and i7 like there is no tomorrow and cost of CPU is $350. So that argument is really BS.

So your theory is that we should all buy old second hand Xeon cpus and problems solved ... then why do people even buy new intel CPUs when you have this gem of a Xeon so cheap

Because people are not that smart. You can get Xeon E5 2683 14/28 retail one for $350 on eBay. I bought one myself, running all cores @2.5Ghz with Turbo to 3.0Ghz and for Video editing it is a beast.

 

[Guest]

...Guess what, if you really need CPU for video editing...you can buy 14/28 Xeon Retail running at 2.5Ghz all cores turbo 3.0Ghz and it will eat AMD Ryzen and i7 like there is no tomorrow and cost of CPU is $350. So that argument is really BS.

WHAT are you smoking dude? Xeon 14 core (28 with HT) running at 2.5GHz "Retail CPU" for $350?? WTF none of that makes any sense whatsoever...

The cheapest Xeon 14 core (which runs at 1.7GHz btw) costs $1399.99.. the 2.6GHz version runs $2133.99...
There is NO 2.5GHz model (for sale).

You are just full of sheeet. Go troll somewhere else.

Go check eBay, there are ton of retail Xeon E5 2683 14/28 (NOT ES) 2.0@2.5@3.0 processors for ~ $350. I bought one for myself. I am not a troll but you are just misinformed.

 

[TechyInAZ]

YES WHOO! Finally. I've been getting so sick of the Intel monopoly.

 

[ravewulf]

"AMD did not share the Ryzen 7 1800X's TDP rating"
The TDP (95W) is in the system specs chart directly below this sentence.

 

[alidan]

Ok, here is a list of what we need to know.

1) What the hell is xfr?
There is speculation on what it does, from straight overclocking to small micro overclocks to keep within tdp, to smart overclocking.

My best guess is that amd and their 100+ sensors are able to clock per core to what that core can do at its best, and go to it so long as it can be kept cool enough. The motherboard should tell the cpu the amount of power it can handle so the cpu isn't throttled by 95watts, and thanks to canardpc we know that the es was easily able to hit 5ghz, only limited by the validation board they used.

If this is smart enough to do this on a per core basis, we could see it throttle some cores and boost others durring games to hit the 4.5+ ghz range, now just for some kabby lake fun

78% hit 4.9
59% hit 5.0
28% hit 5.1
7% hit 5.2

Now if this was due to crap thermal paste (considering you can get over 20c cooler by replacing paste, most likely culprit.) or something else, keep in mind most people do not overclock at all something around 95%+ don't, so if xfr can boost the cpu to 4.5, it matches if not exceeds kabylake for normal people.

If its anything less then this, which it very well could be, then its worthless and suddenly negates the benefits of the 1700x and 1800x

2) Is the silicon lottery real?
With xfr, binning could be a real thing, and the 1800x could the cream of the crop with a 1700x or 1700 not able to touch it no matter what you do, same with the 1700x to the 1700. While I personally have no qualms with spending 500$ on a 8 core that will likely take me to the mid 2020's I do want to know if the binning is real and if it is, how much of a difference there is

3) The memory controller, is it good?
One of the leaks put out had the ryzen in passmark with absolute, you can't buy ram this bad ram. The issue is the people who tried to match the ram timings and frequency on their 6700k's could not get the same latency. So this brings up 3 possible issues

A) The ram used was significantly worse than stated
B) There was an issue with the bios
C) There is an issue with the memory controller

Some games are memory bound more so then cpu, I believe witcher 3 is an example of this where a memory overclock boosts fps more than a cpu

4) How far can the cpu be taken on stock coolers?
The wrath is close to a coolermaster 212 in performance, This was a cooler that could keep a piledriver cool at a 4.6ghz oc, curious if it is sufficient for a ryzen and in that case... just how much can a ryzen be taken with xfr?

5) Powerdraw in oc
Kind of a standard thing, if you oc or use xfr, how much more power does it draw then stock, as tdp =/= watts, I know you could see a fx processor pull several hundred watts, some nearing 500 if the people measured the power draw right (seriously doubt it but at a 225watt tdp not putting it passed it)

------

This is all I can think of for unknowns that need to be known before people can make a decision on the cpu...

also as a final note to everyone claiming amd crippled intel by dual channel, funny thing is above in this thread there was someone who showed dual channel most likely improved intels performance.

 

[ohim]

I couldn't help but notice that AMD tested their Ryzen CPU again 6900k by setting up dual channel memory setup for Intel thus crippling the platform...beep sorry people run quad memory channel setup. You can clearly tell where is AMD Ryzen suffering...memory controller, single threaded performance. Also they kept 6900k on stock clock speed...beep all those 6900k are running 4.4/4.5 in peoples machine. As I said i was hopping for 30% IPC over Intel across the board but actually i am seeing -10%. Yes, price is attractive but hey i already invested money in Intel years ago and all AMD did is caught up with Intel after 10 years. Again to me that is f. failure.

Guess what, if you really need CPU for video editing...you can buy 14/28 Xeon Retail running at 2.5Ghz all cores turbo 3.0Ghz and it will eat AMD Ryzen and i7 like there is no tomorrow and cost of CPU is $350. So that argument is really BS.

So your theory is that we should all buy old second hand Xeon cpus and problems solved ... then why do people even buy new intel CPUs when you have this gem of a Xeon so cheap

Because people are not that smart. You can get Xeon E5 2683 14/28 retail one for $350 on eBay. I bought one myself, running all cores @2.5Ghz with Turbo to 3.0Ghz and for Video editing it is a beast.

You talk about a small second hand market, if everybody buys second hand there will be no second hand, it`s about supply and demand. You`re not that smart after all. Also you keep on advocating for Intel like there`s no tomorrow, like it`s your company or something ...

In Austin Evan`s video you can see a Ryzen 1700X downclocked at 3.1 GHz going against a 4.3 GHz i7 7700K in handbreak and the i7 looses the race. The 1700X turbos up to 3.8 Ghz ... so slapping another 700Mhz on 8 cores will increase that gap even more....

 

[jaber2]

I think I will wait for Ver 2.0, let the early adapters deal with the hype.

 

[GoatGuy]

To me?

It looks like AMD has FINALLY done what it used to do regularly: leapfrog Intel.
For awhile.
Intel won't wait long to spring a Cheetah to run past AMD.

But for now, AMD gets the price-performance nod.
For now.

FRANKLY... with the rather astounding performance potential wrapped in an 8-core, 16-thread chip, sitting all pretty at 65 W TDP (or 95 for the 1800 X), one can easily envision that DESKTOP performance will be downright snappy. Clean, sweet, unencumbered under even heavy load. I like it.

GoatGuy

 

[Nei1]

And then, there are people that are willing to spend more money for a CPU that uses less electricity. When AMD's new TDP ratings come out (140 watts? 120 watts?), I expect to be sufficiently un-impressed ,again, to switch. And if AMD comes close, that means Intel will respond with a 16 thread CPU with TDP below 90 watts in 6 months.

 

[ohim]

And then, there are people that are willing to spend more money for a CPU that uses less electricity. When AMD's new TDP ratings come out (140 watts? 120 watts?), I expect to be sufficiently un-impressed ,again, to switch. And if AMD comes close, that means Intel will respond with a 16 thread CPU with TDP below 90 watts in 6 months.

Everybody claps their hands and expect Intel to come up with something with more cores at "reasonable" price ... well... aren`t you kinda mad that in January you get a 4 core at premium price and then later on they sell you more cores for the same price ? They milked you once, now you go and let yourself milked again because you love a company ? How much hate can somebody have towards AMD that they are willing to throw money at Intel for various reasons ...

PS: the TDP is shown in the listing 95W
PS2: Do not confuse TDP (thermal design power) with actual power drawn, as shown in Lisa Su`s demo with the Blender test the 6900K system was 5W more power hungry than the Ryzen system that edged it out in the test.

So i wouldn`t worry that much about the TDP and power consumption which are 2 different things.