AMD's Ryzen 5 1600 Skyrockets To No. 2 On Amazon, Passmark Submissions Increase

[TJ Hooker]

Don't take my word for it, here are all the benches people have done see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700...

And guess what, the R7 1800x at release in March was $499, and now the street price is a still too high $412 on Ebay.

And for the R7 1700X
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700...

It has come down to a still too expensive $307 on EBay. The market and smart money will tell you Ryzen is price gouging their fanboys, doing a massive disservice to AMD, their reputation, and their credibility.

And the i7-7700K is $280 retail in the box at Microcenter. Easy to get reputable place see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K...

And then you get another $30 off at MicroCenter on motherboard of your choice when you get the CPU with the mobo. Tell me why I should pay for more less with AMD Ryzen? Pretty please?

Ah, you're talking synthetic benchmarks. By and large those don't tend to be reflected (proportionally) in real world use. Definitely not in gaming performance, which you seem to place a lot of value on.
For pricing, you chose the most expensive, worst value Ryzen CPUs, and chose to compare a quad core intel to an octo core Ryzen. You also chose to look at the in-store only price for Microcentre, which is irrelevant to anyone who doesn't live close to one.
If you look at something like the R5 1600(X), which has very similar single threaded and gaming performance as the Ryzen 7 CPUs, Ryzen is then cheaper than an i7, while performing nearly as well in games and having an extra 2C/4T for applications that can make use of them.

 

[artk2219]

....
How do you figure Ryzen costs more than an Intel?

And where do you see Ryzen having 30% worse single threaded performance compared to Intel?

Don't take my word for it, here are all the benches people have done see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916

And guess what, the R7 1800x at release in March was $499, and now the street price is a still too high $412 on Ebay.

And for the R7 1700X
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3647vs3915

It has come down to a still too expensive $307 on EBay. The market and smart money will tell you Ryzen is price gouging their fanboys, doing a massive disservice to AMD, their reputation, and their credibility.

And the i7-7700K is $280 retail in the box at Microcenter. Easy to get reputable place see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby_Lake_42_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

And then you get another $30 off at MicroCenter on motherboard of your choice when you get the CPU with the mobo. Tell me why I should pay for more less with AMD Ryzen? Pretty please?

Yeahhhhh I'm definitely not going to go by that random bench site you pulled up. At least throw some legitimate reviews in, or hell even anandtech's bench site. Does the 1700X always win out? Nope, hard to make up a deficit in clock speed and IPC currently. But it is marvelously efficient, and I still don't believe that the chips are priced that badly, they could definitely stand to drop a few bucks on certain SKU's, the 1800X, 1500X, and 1400 mostly. But it gives them room to maneuver if Intel starts playing with their pricing more, or if they introduce new models. Bottom line is that if you don't like it, then don't buy it, but don't tell everyone they shouldn't buy it because you don't like it. Hell even the FX's weren't that bad at certain price points, they just were not going to win any performance crowns. They make great cheap little VM machines though.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1852?vs=1826

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987.html

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8081/amd-ryzen-7-1700-1700x-cpu-review/index.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,1.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700

 

[Antonio_34]

All you folks saying Ryzen is slow for gaming are complete tools. Any game that is optimised for Ryzen is gaming perfectly fine, not to mention that your whole system is more stable due to more threads. The 2-5FPS deficits from running Ryzen are not worth getting the 7700k.

In the end "gamers" don't buy i7s, they buy i5's which is slower than Ryzen and cost similarly too. Buying an i5 for any purpose is just bad mojo at this point in time. All this comparison of a Ryzen to an i7 for gaming is the biggest misconception put forth from the industry.

You're calling ryzen "slower" to an i7 to a bracket of people that never buy and i7 in the first place.

Get over yourself already.

 

[s4fun]

Yeahhhhh I'm definitely not going to go by that random bench site you pulled up. ....

It is not some random site when more that 20 million benchmarks from millions of users have provided a wide variety of solid statics from a wide range of users. Just because you are clueless does NOT make the crowd-sourced data invalid. You on the other hand had made it clear that you are shill for AMD

Bottom line is that if you don't like it, then don't buy it, but don't tell everyone they shouldn't buy it because you don't like it. Hell even the FX's weren't that bad at certain price points, they just were not going to win any performance crowns. They make great cheap little VM machines though.

Why shouldn't I tell people AMD has NOT priced the Ryzen competitively enough to justify the purchase? It is NOT about liking, it is about getting a price war that wins for everyone. And FX for cheap VMs... real desperate effort to shill for AMD now. When FX-51 was released in 2003, it did NOT have to make any apologies, and was a bona fide gaming chip. Recall:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1517/9
FX for VM is sad joke. You go ahead and swallow, hook line and sinker, from AMD's marketing. We do NOT have to be silent about their BS. We have every right to call out AMD for their deceit!

And what is wrong with Microcenter's $280 price. You can order online just fine. You just need to go in store to pick it up. Saves you money on shipping. Is that a terrible thing? There are plenty of Microcenter's around in the U.S.

 

[s4fun]

All you folks saying Ryzen is slow for gaming are complete tools. Any game that is optimised for Ryzen ....

The tool is you, being used and paid by AMD to justify their price gouging. And games for optimized for Ryzen? They said the same crap about bulldozer. By the time they get around to it, it will be 2 year later, there will be a new bang for the buck CPU option at that time.

In the end "gamers" don't buy i7s, they buy i5's which is NOT(fixed it for you) [strike]slower[/strike] than Ryzen and cost similarly too.

See:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3885vs3916

No Ryzen can touch an i5 on single core performance period. This fact is indisputable. And plenty of gamers have and will buy i7s for gaming, because they want that 5 fps gain and to be able to push that high end video card to its full potential and not bottleneck future video cards.

I really wish AMD was back to their Socket939 heyday, but heck I'll settle for Barton/Thoroughbred era when they were the value leader. But Ryzen as it stands with current pricing is totally NOT it. AMD should be ashamed of themselves for pretending to being something else they are NOT. Bottom line it is terrible when after all these years, they can barely match on old sandy bridge on single core performance:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/619vs3917

Why would anyone pay way more to go sideways?!

 

[rush21hit]

s4fun dude have you ever even see and feel how Ryzen performs? I came from 3570K @3,8ghz (can go 4 but only for 2FPS more with risks of overvolting? Nothx). I can tell you this; I'm not going to go back to my i5 again. In fact, going up to i7 K of its socket no longer even occurs to me anymore. On my netcafe that I own, I use 6700 non K for admin PC. And this Ryzen 1600 I just bleed with my wife for it, felt and perform identical as the 6700. I bought it a few weeks after launch, Ryzen's initial issues made me wait a month to call the shot. Guess which cheaper? Like $300 cheaper. The whole thing.

If you openly try to give AMD some bad names, nobody that actually own both Ryzen lineup and Intel SB and above would take your word seriously. No benchmark can beat hands on experience. The only reason people care about the number is to compare to their own, and it doesnt need to be the same, only serves as a ballpark. People that do such benchs understand this. From what I can tell, AMD just make a miracle with their R&D budget. Compared to Intel gargantuan R&D? Astronomical achievement.

But please, do continue your posting about how bad of a job AMD is with Ryzen. It entertains me.

 

[kinggremlin]

In the end "gamers" don't buy i7s, they buy i5's which is slower than Ryzen and cost similarly too. Buying an i5 for any purpose is just bad mojo at this point in time. All this comparison of a Ryzen to an i7 for gaming is the biggest misconception put forth from the industry.

You're calling ryzen "slower" to an i7 to a bracket of people that never buy and i7 in the first place.

Get over yourself already.

7700K has been the #1 on Amazon since it's release. It certainly has been the go to CPU for enthusiast gamers for all of 2017.

No one is saying Ryzen is slow. You're not listening to the point being made. Ryzen is not fast enough for Intel users to switch to it. Ryzen is a perfectly acceptable gaming CPU as you said, but who would be dumb enough to replace their system with a "competitive" but slightly slower system to the one they already have?

 

[s4fun]

..It entertains me.

Thank you for providing the entertainment. ... umm..

...And this Ryzen 1600 I just bleed with my wife for it..

Seriously? Cheetos jesus trump much? Are you abusing your wife? What is it with people like you about women bleeding? Not sure this is even appropriate or related.

Obviously you are a total tryhard for a AMD shill.

Guess which cheaper? Like $300 cheaper. The whole thing.

This a blatant lie. Heck the i7-7700K is around $280 to $300. The i5-7600 is around $180. How do you get $300 cheaper unless you are paid shill by AMD and they gave you a free R5 1600. No wonder you love it so much. Honestly you want to anyone with a brain too believe that you will get a motherboards, SSDs, video cards, PSU, case that will save you $300 because you went with Ryzen? That is utter BS!

I never said Ryzen was bad or I do NOT like it. I always said I do NOT like AMD's pricing on the Ryzen for the performance level they provide. AMD needs to pricing Ryzen like when the priced barton/t-bird/thoroughbreds against the P4s.

They need to be the unequivocal value leader because they are NOT the clear cut faster CPU. They do NOT have the performance crown like the Socket 939 Athlon64 or FX-51 when they were king of their era. They do NOT get to price it higher than intel and deliver less gaming performance even if it just just a few FPS.

If you enjoy bending over for AMD, who am I to convince you otherwise. But the rest of us are NOT idiots. We will NOT be fooled by the bogus AMD marketing. And we will call out their lies and tell them their price is too high.

 

[rush21hit]

Those price gap at release. I'm not from US. The 1600 somehow not too far off from AMD's recommended pricing. The Intel was way off.
Also, I'm the one who bleeds. And I love my wife.

She always right...

 

[WyomingKnott]

OK, folks, let's keep this a civil thread. AMD vs. Intel passions have always run deep, and now that there is once again a performance overlap it's a very interesting subject but one that invites head-butting over differences of interpretation. Disagree respectfully.

 

[g-unit1111]

If you openly try to give AMD some bad names, nobody that actually own both Ryzen lineup and Intel SB and above would take your word seriously. No benchmark can beat hands on experience. The only reason people care about the number is to compare to their own, and it doesnt need to be the same, only serves as a ballpark. People that do such benchs understand this. From what I can tell, AMD just make a miracle with their R&D budget. Compared to Intel gargantuan R&D? Astronomical achievement.

But please, do continue your posting about how bad of a job AMD is with Ryzen. It entertains me.

Trust me, it goes both ways. When Intel is popular, we get accused by AMD fans of being paid Intel shills. When AMD is popular, we get accused of being paid AMD shills by Intel fans. The only thing that is true for both sides is I wish we got paid for this! :lol:

I have two rigs - one runs an i7-6700K with a Z170, and my other rig I'm in the process of upgrading to an X370 and either an R5-1600X or an R7-1700, I'm still in the process of deciding which CPU to get. And most of us moderators and staff members have multiple rigs running multiple platforms, processors, and motherboards. People take stuff like that way too seriously, but if you don't take it personally it will be more beneficial in the long run.

 

[g-unit1111]

The vast majority of Ryzen users are either corporate users who won't show up on Steam, or long time AMD users who refuse to use Intel. 100% of AMD users can upgrade to Ryzen and they aren't going to affect steam market share.

That is very wrong. AMD is aiming for Intel's lion's share of the market with Ryzen. You can buy Intel's 4/8 CPU for $320 or Intel's 4/4 CPU for $240. Considering AMD is offering 8/16 for $320, and 6/12 for $240, without consuming extra power, it suddenly makes them look very attractive vs Intel, doesn't it?

 

[TJ Hooker]

Lol, did @s4fun created a new sockpuppet account just for this thread?

 

[WyomingKnott]

@TJ_Hooker

Probably. Being dealt with by another member of the moderation team.

 

[kinggremlin]

The vast majority of Ryzen users are either corporate users who won't show up on Steam, or long time AMD users who refuse to use Intel. 100% of AMD users can upgrade to Ryzen and they aren't going to affect steam market share.

That is very wrong. AMD is aiming for Intel's lion's share of the market with Ryzen. You can buy Intel's 4/8 CPU for $320 or Intel's 4/4 CPU for $240. Considering AMD is offering 8/16 for $320, and 6/12 for $240, without consuming extra power, it suddenly makes them look very attractive vs Intel, doesn't it?

It's only attractive to those who don't already have an Intel platform from the past 3 or 4 years. There are no mainstream applications that benefit from 8 cores or more, so the cost relative to Intel is irrelevant. When did AMD release their first consumer 8 core, 2012 or something? Anyone buy it? No, because while it was faster than Intel's mainstream 4/6 core offerings in heavily multi threaded applications, none of those applications drive home user sales.

The "lion's share" of Intel's market is not struggling along on dual core Pentiums waiting for AMD to release a cheaper 8 core CPU. There will likely be a temporary boost to AMD's sales market share, but as I already said, most of these are just going to people with outdated AMD's systems that really need an upgrade, so overall user base market share isn't going to see any significant change.

 

[genz]

If you're a gamer, there is no reason to wait for threadripper. Unless you enjoy paying more for a slower cpu. Same goes for the high core Intel I9's. No game is going to run faster on a same clocked 10-18 core cpu than it will on an 8 core. Power limits necesitate that higher core cpus are clocked lower resulting in slower low core application performance.

No one using a recent Intel cpu is going to switch to AMD for gaming unless they just want an AMD platform. The GPU is pretty much always the bottleneck. Current Ryzen cpu's are not going to be optimized to the point that they will outperform Intel by enough to convince people to drop their Haswell or newer Intel platform.

Last year you'd have said there was no point in getting anything above a 4 core for the same reason, and hardly anyone replaces their boxes yearly. Think of the future. There are Sandy 6-core boxes you can game very well on today, but anyone buying a rig at the time that went for that option would have been told it was a useless waste of money until at least the XBO and PS4 were announced as being 8 core. 8 cores is where consoles are at, so expect us to be at 16 and 24 thread standards on PC before console goes up again.

It's only attractive to those who don't already have an Intel platform from the past 3 or 4 years. There are no mainstream applications that benefit from 8 cores or more, so the cost relative to Intel is irrelevant. When did AMD release their first consumer 8 core, 2012 or something? Anyone buy it? No, because while it was faster than Intel's mainstream 4/6 core offerings in heavily multi threaded applications, none of those applications drive home user sales.

The "lion's share" of Intel's market is not struggling along on dual core Pentiums waiting for AMD to release a cheaper 8 core CPU. There will likely be a temporary boost to AMD's sales market share, but as I already said, most of these are just going to people with outdated AMD's systems that really need an upgrade, so overall user base market share isn't going to see any significant change.

Actually this is the most interesting thing about AMD Ryzen period. We have had 10 years of completely static core counts in mainstream. In fact, Intel for some reason haven't wanted consumers to have a single core more since Core 2 Quads. We can chant clockspeed till the cows come home, but the fact is nobody will make more threaded applications for CPUs without many cores in thier customer's boxes, and nobody would make heavily clockspeed dependant games for a market where CPU clockspeed was actually a weakness. Knowing this we can easily argue that you are putting the cart before the horse telling people not to go over 8 cores and assuming that the software market will not just adjust to a more multithreaded landscape in response to an AMD-led influx of extra cores. The console market certainly had no problem doing so.

I think we are seeing from just the raft of Ryzen game updates coming out that a large part of the software industry is plenty capable and willing to multithread over 16 threads now as soon as there's actually a point in doing so. 10 years ago people were moaning about threading being complicated.... not so much now.

 

[Fulgurant]

It's only attractive to those who don't already have an Intel platform from the past 3 or 4 years.

This statement borders on meaningless.

For the most part, people who are content with their hardware don't rush out to upgrade just because some new tech released. That will always be true. But if you are one of the few who upgrade constantly, a potential doubling of your core count is more attractive than Intel's bog-standard ~10% IPC increase every generation. The CPU market's been stagnant for years now. Ryzen's vastly increased core counts (and significant price pressure) are the closest thing we've seen to a major development in recent memory.

The more important point is that people who were looking to upgrade anyway now have many more attractive options. Personally, and as of this moment, I'd say Ryzen's a much better value proposition than Intel. Unless you're a rabidly myopic super gamer or just don't care about money at all, you'd be crazy to buy Intel today. The fact that Intel flinched with its most recent release (desperately cranking clocks on their high-end chips to the sky, making the temperatures ridiculous for workstation environments) only reinforces that conclusion.

Intel was complacent. It happens. I'm sure they'll come back with a vengeance soon. But regardless of who ultimately "wins" this round, we consumers benefit from the competition, eh?

 

[g-unit1111]

It's only attractive to those who don't already have an Intel platform from the past 3 or 4 years. There are no mainstream applications that benefit from 8 cores or more, so the cost relative to Intel is irrelevant. When did AMD release their first consumer 8 core, 2012 or something? Anyone buy it? No, because while it was faster than Intel's mainstream 4/6 core offerings in heavily multi threaded applications, none of those applications drive home user sales.

AMD's first 8 core CPU was a gigantic POS, and I think even the die-hard AMD fans will admit that. Ryzen isn't perfect, and really even Intel's latest offering is far from perfect, but that's usually what happens with the first generation of a new platform.

The "lion's share" of Intel's market is not struggling along on dual core Pentiums waiting for AMD to release a cheaper 8 core CPU. There will likely be a temporary boost to AMD's sales market share, but as I already said, most of these are just going to people with outdated AMD's systems that really need an upgrade, so overall user base market share isn't going to see any significant change.

While I'm normally an Intel supporter, you got to admit that they shot themselves in the foot with X299. AMD's latest gain in the market isn't a huge one, but it's a step in the right direction. These things tend to come and go with each generation. What I think will be a game changer in the low cost market will be the Ryzen APUs and the Ryzen R3s - both of which I'm very interested in, but that remains to be seen. The Intel i3-7350K is a strong CPU, but the Ryzen R3s will offer double the cores and threads, and offer overclocking, on a budget.

 

[Rob1C]

In comparison to Amazon I checked out http://m.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php and there's not a Column that you can Sort which shows the Ryzen 5 1600 anywhere near the top.

I'm not a Statistician but it's like people's Trigger Decision was "Brand X, only paying Y; and I know my Corez".

Sorting Columns at PassMark doesn't make the Ryzen 5 1600 the: Fastest, Best Value, or the Cheapest (or most expensive, if that's 'better').

It's like an overrun of the 'Under U$1K Laptop' crowd defining what constitutes a good purchase.

It's the equally annoying opposite of 'Miners bought all the Graphics Cards' - when you go to buy a Computer at the Store they're 'all priced at under U$1K and there's lots of them'. Gotta shop online or build your own if you want a Computer for someone over the age of 8.

[Being WAY too polite] Take your decisions elsewhere ...

 

[g-unit1111]

In comparison to Amazon I checked out http://m.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php and there's not a Column that you can Sort which shows the Ryzen 5 1600 anywhere near the top.

I'm not a Statistician but it's like people's Trigger Decision was "Brand X, only paying Y; and I know my Corez".

Sorting Columns at PassMark doesn't make the Ryzen 5 1600 the: Fastest, Best Value, or the Cheapest (or most expensive, if that's 'better')..

Yeah it's like the people who read Newegg reviews and all of a sudden they're experts on PC hardware. Trust me, there's a difference between people who know their stuff and fakers.

 

[Jorge Nascimento]

My ryzen 1600X is running at 4.2GHZ all cores (1.356V), air cooled hits a max stress of 68ºC, with flareX 2X8Gb @ 3200 Cl 14. I have ran all the benchmarks and tests using different programs and i am getting better results on single and multi performance vs any recent I5/I7. Only the very few % getting 5.0Ghz on their I5/I7 managed to get better reasults then me on single performance, cause on multi i can get better then those 5.0GHZ clocked KabyintotheLake.

 

[msroadkill612]

"either an R5-1600X or an R7-1700, I'm still in the process of deciding which CPU to get."

As one does.

May we share the bullet points you agonise over?

 

[g-unit1111]

"either an R5-1600X or an R7-1700, I'm still in the process of deciding which CPU to get."

As one does.

May we share the bullet points you agonise over?

Well, I bought an R7-1700. And the build is done.