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

[Guest]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113428&cm_re=ryzen-_-19-113-428-_-Product

😀

 

[TJ Hooker]

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.

Tom's review of the 7700k found that it maintained 4.5 GHz turbo even with all cores loaded. Also, rather than than trying to calculate some theoretical value for IPC, why not look at the single threaded Cinebench results posted in the article? The 1800X and the 6900K both run at 4.0 GHz under single threaded load, and they got the same score, so that would indicate that they have about the same IPC, at least in that single (potentially cherry-picked) benchmark.

 

[WRXSTIGuy]

I hope that in the next generation of cpu design for both Intel and AMD they can figure out how to speed up single threaded applications. Perhaps integrate a FPGA into the cpu!!

 

[Nintendork]

People with gaming focused rigs are now peasants for AMD. Want a sole gaming cpu? You got the cheapo 4c/4t Ryzen for the price of i3 and performance of i5.

Why should AMD care about less taxing demands?

 

[XxAcydRaynexX]

A lot of haters here... I am personally glad there are more options for CPU now. As far as people praising Kaby Lake, gtfoh.... Intel has been doing what AMD has been doing for a decade. Small tweaks here and there on the same architecture. I just bought a Xeon socket 1366 cpu for 8$ that performs within 85-90% of anything released since from Intel. Clock for clock, and HT or AMD equivalent are good for me. Always been an AMD guy for the most part. Don't get mad that your 700-1000$ cpus you blow money on for a few extra FPS every year is about to be taken by something half the price.

 

[homice]

The fact AMD can match Intel's performance is great. That they do it for half the cost is AMAZING. Then consider AM4 is the ONLY (consumer) socket AMD will have for the forseeable future - Not this "new-motherboard-every-incremental-processor-release" that Intel has always been horrible with. knowing I'll still have a clean upgrade path 3 years from now is what sells me on AMD.

 

[littleleo]

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

Don't they have LCD monitors in the UK? I think your CRT may be broke.

 

[littleleo]

The fact AMD can match Intel's performance is great. That they do it for half the cost is AMAZING. Then consider AM4 is the ONLY (consumer) socket AMD will have for the forseeable future - Not this "new-motherboard-every-incremental-processor-release" that Intel has always been horrible with. knowing I'll still have a clean upgrade path 3 years from now is what sells me on AMD.

Yes that was the great selling point back when AMD came out with the AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3+ after the AM3+ things kind went strange you had the AM3+, FM, FM2, FM2+ and only the FM2+ could run FM CPUs too the rest couldn't use the other sockets. And at the time Intel had the better upgrade path from a Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5 and i7. It was like they switched places.

 

[rwinches]

Tons of real info on wccftech
Answers to many of the questions asked here.

http://wccftech.com/

 

[aquielisunari]

An opinion from Linus Tech Tips https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUndzpdo1I

 

[ttt_2017]

Intel is ready for this anyways ... they have Xeons upto 24 cores and can easy bring down the prices of the current flagships and replace them with 12 ,14, 16 cores i7 ...

even if Intel lowers their prices and introduce new i7 CPU , My next System will be an AMD just to thank AMD for the competition and for forcing Intel to lower their prices and offer more cores for the non Xeon .desktop market.

Good Job AMD . If we dont support AMD this time , Intel will take over forever.

 

[bit_user]

You might want to read this article about dual channel vs quad channel performance....
That]http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html

That test used a 6-core CPU and lacks Cinebench.

The effect of quad-channel depends on the workload and how many cores there are. Memory bandwidth requirements scale with the number & speed of the cores, in a workload with sufficient concurrency (such as Cinebench, which exhibits good multi-core scaling). Beyond concurrency, there's another workload-dependent variable, which is how memory-intensive it is. I think Cinebench might be one of the more memory-intensive tasks, as many of the others with good concurrency (e.g. WinRAR), can operate largely out of L2/L3 cache.

It's one thing to say that gamers needn't worry about quad-channel vs. dual, but it's another thing to say that the dual-channel config isn't hurting the Intel system in this benchmark. I think the latter claim is probably wrong.

Dozens of people must be doing this test, at this very moment. Let's see if we can find any results, and then we can put the debate to rest.

Update: the same benchmark, with quad-channel memory, narrowed Ryzen's lead to just 1.5%. See below.

 

[TJ Hooker]

The fact AMD can match Intel's performance is great. That they do it for half the cost is AMAZING. Then consider AM4 is the ONLY (consumer) socket AMD will have for the forseeable future - Not this "new-motherboard-every-incremental-processor-release" that Intel has always been horrible with. knowing I'll still have a clean upgrade path 3 years from now is what sells me on AMD.

Where have you heard that AMD is going to keep the same socket for 3+ years worth of CPUs? I think they've confirmed that Zen+ is going to be AM4, but I haven't heard anything beyond that (so currently two generations of CPUs confirmed for the socket, which is Intel's historical habit).

 

[RainManBC]

If you stream your gameplay, you are saving a substantial amount by not having to buy a dedicated streaming rig. You'll be able to put those extra cores to some use in that situation.

 

[harly2]

People just order, Toms doesn't get AMD

 

[harly2]

AMD actually left room for reviewers to get better results. All systems were open to invited press. Intel had the premium setups....not AMD Wouldn't surprise me if Toms was left out.

 

[Supporter]

What is said here will have no impact on what people actually going to buy. Wait and see. Intel and AMD are playing the same exact play. Intel overstating its xpoint and AMD is slapping Ryzen on peoples faces. Just pray they don't turn out boogers.

 

[David_106]

I am thinking that most of the people here who don't seem to understand what is going on are probably the same people that say there is no advantage to running quad-channel ram or running an i7 extreme, because you know that a your shiny new kaby lake cpu is definitely faster because it has a higher clock and onboard graphics. I'm pretty sure it can run minecraft faster but let's look beyond and try to look at the big picture, oh and btw competiton is good for us as end users, I'm glad to see AMD with a cpu that compares with an i7 extreme. Let's leave the graphics processor off the cpu where it belongs so that we can have more powerful cpu's and discrete video cards. I can't wait to see how well these overclock, and see actual real world stat's. But please don't insult the intelligence of most of the readers and try to compare the Ryzen to an i5, that's hilarious. Oh well it takes all sorts to make the world go round.

 

[bit_user]

Lisa Su is largely responsible for AMD's turn-around, and probably more qualified than most in the industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Su


That said, I find Nvidia's Jen-Hsun Huang - at least at his overblown launch events - quite cringe-inducing. So, I can sympathize with not wanting to watch someone. But to boycott their products? That's a bit much, no?

In a tech CEO, I'd take competence over charisma, any day of the week.


<MOD EDIT: Removed quoted racist comment>

Update: I apologize for sloppy editing. I always try to avoid the worst bits, when I quote a questionable post.

 

[hannibal]

What this means is that we customers get cheaper multicore cpus in the future from both companies. Competition is good!
Finally we get past 4 cores in consumer segment. Intel could have done reasonable priced 6 and 8 cores for years but chosed to sell 4 cores for bigger price because there were not competition, now there is again, and that is good!

 

[OldSkool_1]

Most of you guys are just comparing it to gaming CPU does a lot more than just gaming

 

[OldSkool_1]

Try gaming, live streaming and recording at the same time then judge the cpu

 

[homice]

What this means is that we customers get cheaper multicore cpus in the future from both companies. Competition is good!
Finally we get past 4 cores in consumer segment. Intel could have done reasonable priced 6 and 8 cores for years but chosed to sell 4 cores for bigger price because there were not competition, now there is again, and that is good!

Hey, I've had 6 cores since the phenom II days

 

[bloodroses]

You might want to read this article about dual channel vs quad channel performance....
That]http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html

That test used a 6-core CPU and lacks Cinebench.

The effect of quad-channel depends on the workload and how many cores there are. Memory bandwidth requirements scale with the number & speed of the cores, in a workload with sufficient concurrency (such as Cinebench, which exhibits good multi-core scaling). Beyond concurrency, there's another workload-dependent variable, which is how memory-intensive it is. I think Cinebench might be one of the more memory-intensive tasks, as many of the others with good concurrency (e.g. WinRAR), can operate largely out of L2/L3 cache.

It's one thing to say that gamers needn't worry about quad-channel vs. dual, but it's another thing to say that the dual-channel config isn't hurting the Intel system in this benchmark. I think the latter claim is probably wrong.

Dozens of people must be doing this test, at this very moment. Let's see if we can find any results, and then we can put the debate to rest.

Ryzen Cinebench tests from 2/22/17

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-world-record/
Impressive, although impractical for anything outside benchmarks.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3172555/computers/amd-ryzen-benchmark-preview-ryzen-7-outperforms-intels-best.html
With this article, they did a hybrid of their Intel benchmarks to the benchmarks given by AMD. It is too bad that they didn't mention whether they were using dual or quad channel memory though. 🙁

This is definitely very promising for AMD.

 

[bit_user]

So, I thought of an easy (if unscientific) way to gauge the effect of quad vs. dual-channel memory. We have the i7 score from AMD's testing: 1474.

And, from this benchmark, the i7-6900k got 1578.

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_6950x_6900k_6850k_cpu_review/9

That narrows Ryzen's lead to just 1.5%. Still impressive.