[quotemsg=20883216,0,1886042]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.
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.
[quotemsg=20883216,0,1886042]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.
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.