AMD Lowers Prices On Ryzen 7, 5, 3, And Threadripper CPUs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow those prices. Guess Intel shelves are going to remain stocked for a while.
The 1700 is getting down towards the 8600k which is crazy. 16 Threads vs 6.
You would have to be a pretty hard core intel fanboy to buy one of their chips right now. A case could still be made for the 8700k just for top dog status but outside of that Intel are dead in the water right now.
edit: Oh damn a r5 1600 is the same price as a i5 8400. Lol. GG Intel.
 

Last time I looked, many Intel 8000-series CPUs were out of stock or only available as bundles with motherboard. If retailers were stuck with too many CPUs, they wouldn't have the luxury of forcing bundles, so I'm guessing Intel's Coffee Lake sales have been doing fine.
 
Good to see!

Looking forward to dumping Intel, but I don't think it's quite time. I am most definitely not a fan of Intel, but I certainly feel trapped. This is why...

An I5-8600K is $369 here. To surpass it's performance it appears we need a 1920X, and it still lags in gaming and desktop performance. Assuming the cpu.userbenchmark results of typical of the AMD CPU performance (http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1920X/3941vs3934). So, if Australian Retailers passed on 100% of the price drop (Which would be highly unlikely - Aussie retailers love to gouge consumers)... Then there's no difference for the 1920x as AMD has not dropped the price of that CPU. So it's $369 vs $1,099. If we look at the 1800X which still falls behind the 8600K then we'd be looking at $369 vs $489 for the 1800X...

Stock of Intel doesn't seem to be a major problem at present.

There are a couple of motherboards that are cheaper, but for the most part they are not much cheaper than the Intel boards. And they don't support onboard graphics (and subsequently), SGX

Disclaimer: I've not got any AMD CPUs at this point, so I'm only going by what bench mark sites say.
 


I think you meant 16 vs 12 threads not 6 lol you are comparing threads to cores there
 

The 8600K is a 6 core/6 thread CPU...
 
Love the transformation AMD has done, they are a complete competitor from A-Z, really amazing. One thing they dont compete with intel is someone who wants to build a fast desktop system without the need for discrete graphics, you get built in gpu (slow as crap, but its still there)
 
When I am looking to buy my next computer, all I am really interested in is gaming speed. AMD should take some of those large CPU chips and put a lower cores/threads in them, roughly 6 or 8 cores with 12 to 16 threads. Then use all that extra real estate to make the chip run cooler so that it gets incredible overclocks.
 

Reducing the core count will still not give you any better overclocks than what the architecture and process are able to provide. Most Ryzen chips are incapable of sustaining overclocks beyond about 4.2GHz (several won't even break 4GHz) without extreme cooling. You don't get a systematic brick wall like that unless there is something intrinsic to the architecture and process combination limiting clock frequencies.

If you want faster Ryzen chips, you need AMD to figure out what the timing and process bottlenecks are so they can be addressed appropriately. Zen+ may do some of that.
 

In most systems, games tend to be limited more by graphics card performance, and I'd be surprised if anyone could differentiate any performance difference between any of these current-generation, 4+core processors in typical desktop applications. And while Intel's current CPUs may offer a bit more performance per-core, allowing them to get slightly higher frame rates in moderately-threaded, CPU-limited scenarios, it doesn't matter much for anyone gaming on a 60Hz screen, since any of these processors should have no problem maintaining 60+fps in nearly all games. There can be a bit of a difference when using a 144Hz screen combined with a capable graphics card that can maintain frame rates in the 100+fps range, but at those frame rates the differences should be less noticeable anyway.

And comparing a processor like a 1920X with an 8600K for gaming is a bit silly. The 1920X is not really intended for gaming, and since today's games only make use of a handful of threads, most of the processor's 12 cores and 24 threads won't even be getting used. The reason to buy a Threadripper processor is for heavily multi-threaded applications like video encoding and 3D rendering, not for using a small portion of its cores for gaming on. As far as gaming is concerned, you could get a comparable level of performance by overclocking a $190 Ryzen 1600 on its stock cooler.

Also, UserBench can be great for doing quick, rough comparisons of the capabilities between pieces of hardware, but you can't just look at the "Effective Speed" percentage to compare processors with, and say that a Threadripper is similar in performance to an 8600K. They are very different processors, intended for different purposes. Scroll down a bit, and you'll see that much like the rest of the current Ryzen lineup, the 8600K outperforms the Threadripper CPUs in single and quad-core benchmarks, but the 1920X far outperforms it in heavily multithreaded tasks. The same goes for the Ryzen 1600, which is similarly outperformed in lightly threaded scenarios, but can pull ahead of the 8600K in applications that make full use of its 12 threads. You also have to keep in mind that the synthetic benchmarks used by UserBench for their comparisons can exaggerate performance differences, and the actual differences in gaming tend to be smaller.

I agree that the 8600K is a good processor when it comes to the majority of today's applications and games, and AMD currently doesn't have anything that quite matches its 144Hz gaming performance. Ultimately though, most gaming setups won't likely see a significant performance difference whether they have an 8600K, or a Ryzen 1600 that costs significantly less. Going by the suggested pricing listed here, it's possible to get a Ryzen 1600 with an AM4 motherboard starting at around USD $250, including a stock cooler that's capable of a decent amount of overclocking. By comparison, the 8600K with a motherboard and a lower-end tower cooler will set you back at least around $400. For a gaming system being built on a budget, that extra $150 could go toward the graphics card, which would make a large performance difference, compared to the minimal performance gains possible from going with the 8600K. Now, if someone is building a high-end system where cost isn't much of a concern, and they are getting a high refresh rate screen with a high-end graphics card to push those frame rates, then the 8600K or 8700K are probably reasonable choices. For most upper mid-range builds though, they demand too much of a price premium.

And of course, the second-generation Ryzen CPUs will be coming out in just a few months. I don't expect them to outperform the 8600K in games, but they will probably narrow the performance gap a bit more.


They already have those, released last summer. What you describe are their 32 core, 64 thread Epyc CPUs for servers. It's even possible to install 2 of them together in certain motherboards for a total of 64 cores and 128 threads. Their prices start around a few thousand dollars each though, and they aren't intended for home use. Threadripper is pretty much just a pared down Epyc CPU with up to half its cores in place. There have been rumors that AMD is working on Epyc CPUs with double the cores and threads though, so maybe there will be a second generation Threadripper with more cores as well. Unless you have really specialized needs for heavily multithreaded performance though, even the existing Threadripper is probably excessive.
 


A bit harsh.

I'm well aware of what the Threadripper's target audience is. I think you totally missed my point. I definitely do more tasks that the Threadripper is designed for, but even then the I5-8600K on paper seems to outperform it.

My point was in terms of overall performance for dollar, the price changes by AMD (a). Probably won't reach Australia and (b). The AMD here would still be more expensive than the Intel, regardless of what AMD chip you choose.

 
Coffee Lake is great (especially the i5 lineup and the locked i3) but supply is still tight and pricing is a tad above what it should be, depending on model. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone on a budget until the cheaper boards come out.

But CPU pricing overall is good (especially given the recent leaps in performance at almost every price point), in no small part due to the increased competition. Meanwhile even altcoin-fueled GPU prices pale in comparison to RAM pricing. We've got higher-density DDR4 selling for 50+% more than what I paid for high-end DDR3 a few years ago. I can't wait for more capacity to come online.
 
after the melt down issues wont be touching Intel but i say the price drop is just a sting in intels tail for them trying to drop AMD into the specter meltdown debarkle. Atm be lucky with the intel issues if intels seem to sell many cpu's. The good thing is AMD is on the way up & still going strong. The Ryzens been the best cpu release in years for AMD & with the 2nd gen Ryzens coming out expect Intel to be scared as i suspect instead of Intel owning the desktop market AMD will finally be in a place where it should been years ago & end up taking 50% of the market in sales if the new cpu's preform. With the new issues with Intel be lucky if alot of people unless fan boys be buying them unless the are filthy cheap. With the AMD price drop i suspect its the big middle finger to Intel coz of the specter/ meltdown bebarkle & a good chance to get some more sales in while people are up in arms with Intel with the new 7nm process AMD be releasing in the next while if Intel dont sharpen their pencil with pricing & quality going take them along time to get back into the position they once were. I hope AMD doing exceedingly well in the next few months great Intel got a strong competiton again & give them that kick inthe nuts they been needing for a long time. Next build be AMD for me as in the next few years they are going to grow in leaps & bounds haha wouldn't wana be intel right now go cry me a river karma cound have happened to such an ass of a company.
 

If you are referring to 5-6 years ago where you could buy 16GB of RAM for $80, DRAM chip manufacturers were selling chips at a loss back then just to avoid shutting down fabs. Whenever sales slow down, DRAM manufacturers have to take a gamble between maintaining production (albeit at a reduced pace) and risking an over-stock situation or shutting down production lines. Why do chip manufacturers often prefer risking losses on over-stock over shutting down fabs? Because many components in wafer processing equipment breaks (mainly high-temperature glass/quartz) or goes out of calibration during cooling. It costs millions of dollars in replacement parts, labor and test wafers to get the fabrication line back in working order and a few months to fully dial it back in to where it was before shutdown, which adds tens to hundreds of millions of dollars more in opportunity costs.

With the RAM/NAND/3D-XPoint/whatever storage craze, it is difficult to imagine chip manufacturers ever facing such an over-supply issue but if it ever happens again, it'll hurt them on a scale we've never seen before.
 

I got 16GB of DDR4 for 87 CAD like a year and a half ago.
 


You dont even have to go that far back, I got 16GB for $95 USD back in may. It's only been really bad for the past few months. Heck even back at the end of September you could pick up 16GB for around $120.
 
Why should 16gig DDR4 RAM and the GPU cost more than the combined cost of the MB, 8 core CPU and Cooler.

Deep discounts don't bring a the cost of a system to below $1000.00 . Sales of high end systems will stall, even though there are deferred demands for thousands of replacement desktops or laptops
 
The only reason Intel is even mentioned in this release was because they did a Paper Launch of the 8700k where you couldn't even find them in stock anywhere. If you did get an "in stock" notification, they only had a handful of processors on hand and distributors were out by the time you clicked the link. Intel was smart to do this to slow the AMD sales, but overall, I think it shows they didn't have a solid plan and AMD came out of nowhere and put them on notice. I personally love my 1700x build.
 
I think they choose to cut prices before the scope of Meltdown and Specter were known. If they did, I don't think they should have reduced prices a penny. The subsequent CPUs created after the initial run do not have the same issues the early adopters had with memory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom