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

[bwcbwc]

It seems that the worst case scenario for AMD is assuming 100% efficient multi-threading on the R1700 vs. i7-7700k. This gives 1410/16 single-threaded performance for R1700 vs. 967/8 for the 7700k. But then the base clock speed on the 7700k is 4.2 GHz vs. 3.7 GHz for the 1700. (I'm assuming that a fully threaded workload will run closer to base clock speed than to boost speed). So IPC single threaded can be estimated at 1410/(16*3.7) = 23.8 for R1700 vs 967/(8*4.2)=28.8 for 7700k. So IPC still lags by about 18% , but they seem to have achieved parity on performance per watt.

 

[ohim]

It seems that the worst case scenario for AMD is assuming 100% efficient multi-threading on the R1700 vs. i7-7700k. This gives 1410/16 single-threaded performance for R1700 vs. 967/8 for the 7700k. But then the base clock speed on the 7700k is 4.2 GHz vs. 3.7 GHz for the 1700. (I'm assuming that a fully threaded workload will run closer to base clock speed than to boost speed). So IPC single threaded can be estimated at 1410/(16*3.7) = 23.8 for R1700 vs 967/(8*4.2)=28.8 for 7700k. So IPC still lags by about 18% , but they seem to have achieved parity on performance per watt.

In the demo shown by Austin in Handbreak, the 7700K running at 4.3 GHz was beaten by the 1700X running at 3.1 Ghz (that is not the CPU`s normal speed)

 

[Malik 722]

finally the competition i've been waiting for.

 

[Guest]

The only thing i am interested in to see is for how much Intel is going to cut the price of their 6 and 8 cores.

 

[bwcbwc]

It seems that the worst case scenario for AMD is assuming 100% efficient multi-threading on the R1700 vs. i7-7700k. This gives 1410/16 single-threaded performance for R1700 vs. 967/8 for the 7700k. But then the base clock speed on the 7700k is 4.2 GHz vs. 3.7 GHz for the 1700. (I'm assuming that a fully threaded workload will run closer to base clock speed than to boost speed). So IPC single threaded can be estimated at 1410/(16*3.7) = 23.8 for R1700 vs 967/(8*4.2)=28.8 for 7700k. So IPC still lags by about 18% , but they seem to have achieved parity on performance per watt.

In the demo shown by Austin in Handbreak, the 7700K running at 4.3 GHz was beaten by the 1700X running at 3.1 Ghz (that is not the CPU`s normal speed)

I was only referring to the Cinebench numbers in AMDs slide for the 1700. Those are for CPUs running at their normal speeds so no hand-waving over "adjustments" is needed. IPC 18% under Kaby Lake is pretty much Haswell/Broadwell territory, so I have no complaints. And if the multi-threading isn't 100% efficient (which it won't be), the single threaded performance will be even closer. For example, if each CPU loses 2% of single-threaded performance per additional thread (so 2 threads give 196% of single threaded, 4 threads give 368% etc.), AMD's single threaded performance could be 1.32 x the estimate I calculated above, while Intel's would only be 1.16x, because the Intel sample is running 1/2 the threads. A lot of hypotheticals until someone runs real independent numbers, but interesting to say the least.

Regarding some other comments about the lack of single-threaded benchmarks, I also have to say that single-threaded performance isn't the constraint it was even 4 years ago. New games are multi-threaded so they can take advantage of the extra cores, while old games are designed for older processors. So the single threaded performance only needs to match Sandy Bridge to perform just fine in older games. And the extra cores offered by AMD are going to be real handy for streamers/Youtubers, etc.

 

[firefoxx04]

I am curious if using quad channel on the intel side would have changed anything. Memory bandwidth rarely has an affect in anything you gamer guys are using lol.

The big thing here is that there is an 8 core with 16 threads for less than I payed for my 4790k. I hope they have all the virtualization and ecc support that past chips have. That thing looks great for my lab environment where I have real workloads that could use all these threads.

 

[refillable]

Actually if you dig in the middle of the video, they showed the 1800X part (the one that boosts up to 4 GHz) achieving the exact same score of 162 of the 6900K (that boosts to 4 GHz as well w/Turbo Boost). My 6600K gets around the same score as well. This is clearly within the Skylake IPC territory.

One gentleman tested a ridiculous Asrock ITX X99 board with dual channel memory with the same processor against a full X99 board. Result? All within the margins of error (google might do better at citing this).

Like I noted before, it is very unlikely that AMD went flat out lied or ridiculously conservative on their PR. If third party benchmarks comes out, it will almost certainly display the same exact performance that they showed us, give or take 3%.

 

[psycore7]

X1800 performs as i5 6600@4.0Ghz in gaming which means Kaby Lake is going to walk over. Besides attractive pricing there is really nothing here to see.

Are we going to see official benchmarks now so people can get disappointed or feel good about their Kaby Lake purchase. It is no mistake AMD is comparing against Intel 2011 v3 socket in gaming where Intel CPU is not even properly overclocked because they know Ryzen is losing big time against Kaby Lake in gaming which is also faster than even 10 Core 2011-V3 CPU.

But i do have to admit, those prices especially for unlocked X1700 are attractive and will push mainstream gaming to utilize more cores 4-6.

Now, waiting for Intel price adjustment so i can update one of the systems to 8 Core.

 

[psycore7]

if you believe that r7 series will perform in gaming as intel's 2011 sockets then you are completely wrong.but let's wait and see

 

[HextorQC]

Wish they would compare the their previous line-up too... yeah benchmarks would help here

 

[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.

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.

I had a feeling you were talking about aftermarket/used prices... to each their own..

 

[psycore7]

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.

 

[Wisecracker]

Look on the bright-side, Intel fans.
Jim Keller, Zen’s chief CPU architect, might be looking for work

Is he The Man, or what?

After launch, I'd love to see an article/interview, THG (...hint...hint...)

 

[psycore7]

Look at many videos in you tube as example now running i7 6700k vs i7 5960x and you will see no difference in gaming and the i7 6700k has significant better single core performance isn't?don't worry so much the R7 will compete in gaming easy with skylake and kabylake

 

[cmi86]

I really love the part where you insert an "edit" to state that the intel platforms were only configured in dual channel and then proceed to speculate that this may be a reason for thier lower performance... AMD also ran their systems with only 16GB compared to the intel platforms packing 32GB but no you don't bother to mention that... Jesus this isn't even a review and Tom's can't be objective lol.

 

[Dmitry Firsov]

why are people mentioning 6600 intel chip when the announcement compared it vs the 6900..

where are these 6600 vs 1800x comparisons

 

[psycore7]

People with R7 we will have the same performance in gaming with skylake, kabylake,and don't worry about single thread so much. The i7 5960x with lower single thread numbers is equal and in modern games like witcher 3 gta v etc with better minimum frames a much serious fact in pc gaming.Anyway for the money of R7 you will have the same performance in gaming with skylake kabylake with far far away better multi threaded performance and for the upcoming games heavily multi threaded like watch dogs 2,and you will have the same or better performance of i7 5960x in other works editing transcoding etc with half of money.Anyway I'm pure pc gamer and I don't worry for the single core performance of R7.But let's wait and see real time benchmarks in a few days for pc gaming either older games utilizing 1or 2 cores or modern games utilizing 4 or more cores and then Intel's fanboys your fanboyism will be down in the ground.I have one advice to you Intel's fanboys sell your cpus now you can

 

[firefoxx04]

The xeons on ebay are engineering samples, not retail. They are not gauranteed to be stable. They work most of the time.

 

[sergiobs]

Put your passion aside and what is left is what you can get for every dollar in your pocket. Today an old competitor is back. Everyone should be happy. Even Intel. It will compel Intel to stop making every tick becoming another generation. Better prices, better products. We all win. Congratuations, AMD. Keep up the good work. You know what is better than achieving goals? It's pursuing resilently them, just like it's not the destination, but the trip. Now it's the passion speaking .

 

[littleleo]

Wow 8 days to go until all will be finally be revealed. Will the AMD Ryzen be a star or a lump of coal? Stay tuned.... already I see the trolls from both sides sharpening their claws and waylaying innocent posters and battling each other. Lighten up guys we will all know what is hype, and what is the truth in 8 days. Just relax and enjoy the ride, and stop all this snipping.

One thing is for sure for AMD to really score with Ryzen they need to go after the i3 to i5 segments those are the bigger volume segments that can help AMD out of the red in to the ..... pink, almost green. I know many customers have always hated being forced to buy Intel and will welcome a competitive performing AMD to use instead of Intel for entry to mid ranged gaming rigs.

Does this have Intel trembling and worrying...... not so much considering they have so much market share. I'm sure they are interested in seeing how it performs on the test bench and in sales, but I don't think they are loosing sleep over it. They have a lot of ways to respond if they choose to. I'm sure one of the 1st AMDs bought will land on Intel's test bench.

 

[captaincharisma]

wait till everyone finds out they are still disabling cores on intels I5 and I7 CPU's to get decent scores

 

[Aspiring techie]

Finally, the CPU market gets interesting!

 

[madmatt30]

Tempted to preorder but the UK prices are a little too high for comfort at the minute.

 

[Slumy__57]

Well I'm glad to see AMD back in the game, the tests are looking to be exactly what I was hoping for. I'm sure real world results will be somewhat less stellar than these early benchmarks, but unless AMD is all aboard the hype train, it looks like they're doing what they do best. Offering similar performance to Intel at a much more reasonable price. Add that to the lower power draw, and you're looking at a pleasant change in the CPU market.

I personally am not expecting AMD to blow Intel's top of the line CPUs out of the water, and I never was. However if AMD can offer a solid competitor to the i5 (and it looks like they're going to) for a good price, I will be very pleased with Ryzen. If they can roll with the Sky/Kabylake i7's like they're claiming, then I will be very impressed with the new Ryzen lineup.

I'll be very interested to see how the rest of this plays out over the next few months. I imagine the release of the Ryzen 5 lineup will disrupt the CPU market the most, assuming it can match the performance of Haswell/Sky/Kabylake i5s. I can't really see the Ryzen 7 disrupting the enthusiast market much, most people willing to spend $300+ on a processor aren't going to abandon the Intel ship for a mere $20 IMO, but it will definitely provide newcomers with a few alternatives to the i7 lineup.

 

[Guest]

AMD Ryzen CPU release completely made pointless stupid Intel deal having two different sockets. Perhaps upcoming 2066 platform is going to be Xeon only and LGA 1151 will get 6 and 8 core variants. In mean time Intel will have to do price adjustment big time along with 6 core Kaby Lake being scheduled late this year. Again they will be lacking 8 core variant so yeah...they will have to scrap out their schedule. Competition is good.

As I already invested in Intel platform i am hoping just for that major price cut which will me allow to update couple systems to 8 or maybe 10 core. AMD caught up with the performance for unbeatable price and that is a point of this. I wish IPC on Ryzen was higher or much higher than Intel's, but can't have everything.