AMD Announces Ryzen Pinnacle Ridge 2000-Series Pre-Orders

Status
Not open for further replies.

Giroro

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
451
9
4,815
13
I can't decide what's more disappointing: the increased price or the increased TDP.

I thought "12nm" was supposed to be a better process. But if it's not better in terms of price or heat, then you might as well overclock an 1800x - which has been steadily available at $319 for quite a while.
 

SkyBill40

Honorable
In my personal opinion and unless there's a truly significant difference in performance over the 1800X, I don't really see the point when you can currently get the 1800X for cheaper (though it does not come with a cooler, so there's that). Now if we were talking regular retail versus sale prices, that's something else. To that, as I'm not a very firm believer in "leaked" benchmarks, I guess I'll be waiting to see how it performs by comparison.

Any word on when the new chipset boards will be available or should we expect those around the same time?
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
547
13
18,995
3


The increase in price comes with a very good cooler, but in general, the price increase is small. The increase in TDP comes from the improved clocks, but on the previous 14nm LPP, probably we would see something like 20W-30W increase for the same clocks, and here we have only 10W. Also, memory controller is better, and a lot has improved in other areas.

You must be disappointed because you expected 25% increase but got 15% instead. Well, they only promised 15% anyway, and delivered on that.
 

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
678
25
5,010
0


We're just listing the L3 cache there, each core comes with a 512KB slice of L2 cache, bringing the aggregate to 20/19.
 

Giroro

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
451
9
4,815
13


I assume you are saying I must be disappointed because the increase (in performance?) is too low, but there no information on performance here. I am complaining about a price hike, combined with disappointment that 12nm does not actually appear to increase efficiency (or possibly die density) over 14nm.
The architecture improvements in Ryzen 2 seem very minor, especially when slight bumps to base frequency and XFR don't actually help to anyone who would overclock Ryzen - which I imagine is most people reading this.

Maybe AMD knows something we don't and Ryzen 2 overclocks way better than Ryzen 1 or something. It does look like you are paying ~10% more for a processor with ~10% faster clocks (including memory) that gets ~10% hotter. So it feels more like you're paying for a factory overclock of the last-gen instead of a real iteration, which is fine I guess .. but not exactly going to win over many of the people who were waiting to hear about Ryzen 2 before going forward with their Intel build.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
469
4
18,785
0
Another sketchy release by AMD. Why do they insist on refusing to allow reviews to be posted until a week after pre-orders are taken? Who else does those two so close to each other? Are they expecting to significantly improve performance of a CPU in a week? If you had any confidence in your product you would allow reviews to show how great it is and then start pre-orders, not the other way around.
 

FD2Raptor

Admirable
Mar 5, 2014
1,205
2
6,460
404


More people may have even more reasons to be disappointed. The 2600 now come with the 65W Stealth that used to come with 1st gen quad cores part rather than the 95W Spire that came with the 1600. This just doesn't inspire great confidence in better out-of-the-box OCability for this main stream value competitor compare to its predecessor.
 

An increase in boost clocks should also equate to an increase in overclocking potential. The original Ryzen processors offer precision boost up to 4.0 GHz, and in general they could be overclocked up to around that level. This new generation offers Precision Boost up to 4.3 GHz, so it is reasonable to assume that they will overclock at least that much higher as well. The first generation processors simply couldn't overclock to that level under normal conditions, so it should be clear that higher overclocks will be possible.

And of course the architectural improvements are minor. Zen+ is mainly a slight process shrink with some adjustments made to improve performance a bit from the first generation and allow for somewhat higher clocks. You shouldn't expect too much from such a minimal die-shrink only a year after Ryzen first launched. It's likely that we will see 7nm CPUs from AMD next year though, which will likely offer much more significant improvements in efficiency. And of course, efficiency of the first generation Ryzen processors was already rather good compared to the competition, so it's not like increasing power use a bit to achieve higher performance is going to make a big difference.

Also, keep in mind that the launch pricing of Ryzen was higher than what is listed in these charts. When Ryzen launched a year ago, the 1600 was $219, the 1600X was $249, the 1700 was $329, the 1700X was $399, and the 1800X was $499. The prices were officially lowered in January, both to remain competitive with Coffee Lake, and in anticipation of the launch of these second generation Ryzen processors. At least going by launch pricing, the prices are actually lower than they were for the previous generation, for more performance at each level. And going by current pricing, these processors may cost more than what the first generation currently does, but that's because they offer higher performance. I would expect these prices to drop over the coming year as well though.


That might be considered a bit disappointing, but anyone following the release of these processors may have heard about that months ago.

Really though, this makes a lot more sense from a product lineup standpoint. The distribution of coolers for the first generation Ryzen processors didn't really seem to follow much logic. The Ryzen 1600 came with a decent cooler, while the 1600X did not come with a cooler at all. Since they both overclocked to a similar level, it made more sense to go with the 1600 for anyone overclocking, yet those were also the people most likely to replace the cooler with something else. The 1600X was practically the same processor, but with higher stock clocks, so it could have theoretically been a better option for someone wanting more performance without having to overclock, except its lack of a stock cooler made it a relatively poor value compared to the 1600. The same goes for the 1700 compared to the 1700X and 1800X. The 1700 came with a decent cooler, and could be overclocked to similar levels as the higher-end parts, so most people didn't see much point in going with anything more.

With this new lineup, those not wanting to overclock can go with any processor, and not worry about buying a separate cooler. Those wanting to overclock and use their own cooling solution can go with the 2600. Considering that these new CPUs can clock higher, and in turn can potentially output a bit more heat, someone who is overclocking might be better off going with a third-party cooler to get the most out of their CPU anyway, since it's possible that you might not be able to get quite as close to the overclocking limits of these processors with the Spire cooler as you could with the first generation processors.

I suppose that the current pricing might make the 2600 less competitive for those seeking a six-core processor on a lower budget though. There will soon be lower-end motherboards available for Intel's Coffee Lake processors, which will remove some of the cost advantage that Ryzen currently has over Intel's locked CPUs. I guess we'll have to see how the performance results compare once proper reviews start coming out.
 

You don't need a PSU with a second 4 or 8-pin connector. Dual power connectors is a feature on some of the X470 motherboards, but I'm fairly sure that the second one is optional, intended for extreme overclocking scenarios.
 

FD2Raptor

Admirable
Mar 5, 2014
1,205
2
6,460
404


Some MB? Try like 70% of the announced X470 so far.

All the ASROCK X470 have 8+4 config.
Most MSI X470 have 8+4 with the top end as 8+8.
Top end Gigabyte have 8+4.
Over half the higher end ASUS have 8+4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS