AMD Ryzen Gen 2 Set For Q2 2018

[Topweasel]

The only thing I can think of was that the 1900x was a late addition to the lineup and they were disappointed they couldn't use 1800x for it.

That's it, or they decided 2 skus per teir were enough. Or that they aren't holding back the 2800x for Intel but they want to have that sku available as the process matures if it allows them to get a faster CPU or more cherry dies.

Ok so I can think of 3 reasons.

 

[krumme]

The only thing I can think of was that the 1900x was a late addition to the lineup and they were disappointed they couldn't use 1800x for it.

That's it, or they decided 2 skus per teir were enough. Or that they aren't holding back the 2800x for Intel but they want to have that sku available as the process matures if it allows them to get a faster CPU or more cherry dies.

Ok so I can think of 3 reasons.

Never edit such posts. Lol

 

[PeterScott]

The only thing I can think of was that the 1900x was a late addition to the lineup and they were disappointed they couldn't use 1800x for it.

That's it, or they decided 2 skus per teir were enough. Or that they aren't holding back the 2800x for Intel but they want to have that sku available as the process matures if it allows them to get a faster CPU or more cherry dies.

Ok so I can think of 3 reasons.

Of those, it's most likely the 3 SKUs per tier was too much. There were lots of big sales on the 1800X, indicating it wasn't selling well.

Holding off for Intel? What does that even mean?

 

[Topweasel]

Of those, it's most likely the 3 SKUs per tier was too much. There were lots of big sales on the 1800X, indicating it wasn't selling well.

Holding off for Intel? What does that even mean?

Someone mentioned waiting out Intel's Coffee Lake 8 core i9 that was rumored to be coming out for z370. That's doubtful because why would you wait releasing a chip that wasn't going to beat that. At least a high clocked 2800x would could compete on compute against the 8700k and would make it worth the bonus cost over a 2700x. If the 8 core coffee lake existed it would just be better than the 2800x in pretty much every way. So why not offer it first for a higher ASP?

 

[PeterScott]

Someone mentioned waiting out Intel's Coffee Lake 8 core i9 that was rumored to be coming out for z370. That's doubtful because why would you wait releasing a chip that wasn't going to beat that. At least a high clocked 2800x would could compete on compute against the 8700k and would make it worth the bonus cost over a 2700x. If the 8 core coffee lake existed it would just be better than the 2800x in pretty much every way. So why not offer it first for a higher ASP?

Exactly. Sitting on something top end makes no sense, as you get maximum premium the sooner you release it. Waiting just devalues it.

 

[xblax]

Someone mentioned waiting out Intel's Coffee Lake 8 core i9 that was rumored to be coming out for z370. That's doubtful because why would you wait releasing a chip that wasn't going to beat that. At least a high clocked 2800x would could compete on compute against the 8700k and would make it worth the bonus cost over a 2700x. If the 8 core coffee lake existed it would just be better than the 2800x in pretty much every way. So why not offer it first for a higher ASP?

8-core Coffee Lake would probably be slower in some workloads compared to i7-8700k, especially in gaming because base clocks would be lower to stay within reasonable TDP and cache/memory latency increases. I assume that Ryzen 2700X and i7-7820X (Skylake 8-Core) will be on par in gaming and compute performance on average. Slightly better single core for Intel but better multi core performance for AMD.

Probably Intel can gain a few percent with a native 8-core design over i7-7820X. But I can't see them releasing an 8-core Coffee Lake before their 9th gen is released and that is probably when AMD would introduce 2800X and lower the price of their existing SKUs.

 

[jpiniero]

The 8 core Coffee Lake would be part of 9th gen. It's not something that would be coming out soon if that is what you are asking.

 

[Topweasel]

8-core Coffee Lake would probably be slower in some workloads compared to i7-8700k, especially in gaming because base clocks would be lower to stay within reasonable TDP and cache/memory latency increases. I assume that Ryzen 2700X and i7-7820X (Skylake 8-Core) will be on par in gaming and compute performance on average. Slightly better single core for Intel but better multi core performance for AMD.

Probably Intel can gain a few percent with a native 8-core design over i7-7820X. But I can't see them releasing an 8-core Coffee Lake before their 9th gen is released and that is probably when AMD would introduce 2800X and lower the price of their existing SKUs.

I don't know why AMD would have an advantage on MT workloads. We have enough information on both, we can be pretty confident Intel will maintain an IPC lead, that worst case scenario it will be clocked similar, and Intel would no longer have a core deficiency on the consumer CPUs.

This CPU would be better than what AMD could pull off with a secret 2800x. It would be nice for AMD to have an awesome ace up their sleeve. This wouldn't be it. So why wait to release it till after Intel comes out with a CPU that would outshine it? Wouldn't it be more profitable to offer it as a more expensive than the 2700x CPU, while they could get away with saying the 2700x or 2800x is better than the 8700k because of compute?

 

[HurleyBird]

I don't know why AMD would have an advantage on MT workloads.

It's not as simple as IPC * frequency * cores. AMD has significantly better SMT scaling for one, and seems to scale a bit better for MT workloads in general. On top of that, leaks so far show that Pinnacle Ridge gains more from MT than it does ST.

 

[Topweasel]

It's not as simple as IPC * frequency * number of cores. AMD has significantly better SMT scaling, and scales a bit better in MT works in general. Leaks so far show that Pinnacle Ridge gains more from MT than ST.

It's kind of pointless to debate this, but either way a a slightly faster 2800x over the 2700x is going to look like a better buy before an 8 core consumer Intel chip comes out then after. This isn't 2000 and one upping the other by 100mhz means you get all the sales. It would be stupid for AMD to wait until Intel realeases a CPU that would cause AMD to lower prices for competitive sales to sell CPU that would need to be priced lower as well. Better to offer it as a top sku right away and sell it at a premium.


Thought of a fourth and highly likely reason and that last line probably sealed the deal that it probably is right. AMD knows they can't a Premium priced $400+ Ryzen 2800 this gen, so what would offering really do? It would push down the 2700 and 2700x pricing even lower. By not releasing that they can keep the price of the those up a little bit higher and maintain it longer. Also leaves the door open to release a faster one later if they can get enough good dies if sales starts to falter and they want to renew interest.

 

[xblax]

I don't know why AMD would have an advantage on MT workloads. We have enough information on both, we can be pretty confident Intel will maintain an IPC lead, that worst case scenario it will be clocked similar, and Intel would no longer have a core deficiency on the consumer CPUs.

Because afaik AMD's SMT/HT scaling advantage over Intel compensates their deficit in single threaded IPC. Leaked Ryzen 2600 Geekbench result has a ~20.000 multi core score. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6690641

i7-8700k scores about ~2300 on stock settings: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Coffee-Lake-i7-8700K-and-i5-8400-Review.257500.0.html
i7-7820x apparently about ~26.000 https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6891154 (not much Geekbench 4.0.x samples available)

2600X could already come close to 8700k in Geekbench multi core, and I wouldn't be too surprised if 2700X could beat i7-7820X. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

This CPU would be better than what AMD could pull off with a secret 2800x. It would be nice for AMD to have an awesome ace up their sleeve. This wouldn't be it. So why wait to release it till after Intel comes out with a CPU that would outshine it? Wouldn't it be more profitable to offer it as a more expensive than the 2700x CPU, while they could get away with saying the 2700x or 2800x is better than the 8700k because of compute?

*If* the leaks are real, AMD would obviously not release the 2800x because they can't right now but are confident they can release a SKU with higher clocks later this year.

But I still think the leaks are fake to some degree. There are too many things that just don't make sense.

 

[wanderica]

No, it's definitely that they are holding back. You don't create a nomenclature for the first generation of a product series that will exist for at least half a decade only to change that nomenclature with the second generation of products. If what you said was accurate, AMD would've simply labeled the 2700X as the 2800X and then further bifurcated the 2700 into two different skus with different clock speeds. It makes no sense to simply drop the 2800X nomenclature.

Also, I can recall other instances where AMD did this (during the Athlon-FX days) where they would release the "top" sku but keep the next sku secret until intel released its competitor.

That was my thought as well. The 1800X was the flagship Ryzen processor, even though the 1700 was more popular. It just doesn't make sense to remove the x800X variant entirely. It might have been redundant on the new process, as one poster mentioned, but unless they plan to release the 2800X with Threadripper (easier to bin, maybe?), then it just doesn't make sense to me from a marketing perspective.

 

[FIVR]

That was my thought as well. The 1800X was the flagship Ryzen processor, even though the 1700 was more popular. It just doesn't make sense to remove the x800X variant entirely. It might have been redundant on the new process, as one poster mentioned, but unless they plan to release the 2800X with Threadripper (easier to bin, maybe?), then it just doesn't make sense to me from a marketing perspective.

It makes perfect sense if you know your competitor still has a an unreleased 8 core up its sleeve.

 

[exquisitechar]

It makes perfect sense if you know your competitor still has a an unreleased 8 core up its sleeve.

An Intel 8 core would be ahead of 2800X in probably the vast majority of workloads, it would be smarter for AMD to release it as soon as possible and get closer to the 8700k in single thread performance while attaining as large as possible of a lead in multi threaded performance. Maybe they are building up stock that is good enough to become 2800Xs, or even waiting for the process to mature, though. It went from risk to volume production very quickly, after all.

 

[JPB]

I guess Ill finally be upgrading to a R5 2600X from a FX-8120. Should be a great upgrade :O

 

[krumme]

I think i will get the 2700x model as a plug in replacement for 1700 in a cheap 350. Just for fun. Actually a 8700 fits my need better but it really is more or less same stuff this round as i can tell. Intel tad better for gaming ryzen a little better for heavy mt loads.
Was first AT user on ryzen last time. Will beat you all this time also
If anyone thinks the 2700x is boring i can get the 2700 or even 2600 an oc the hell out of it. That have its charm too.
Will plug in the 7nm 3000 next year for sure. And beat you guys 3 times in a row ! Lol

 

[The Stilt]

Is there any real indication that Intel would have an imminent launch capability for a 8-core 1151V2 part (design wise)?

I'd say that it is more likely that they'll respond with a higher clocked CFL SKU, if they respond at all.
There is plenty of margin to increase the multicore boost speeds over what the 8700K currently ships at. 115-125W TDP rating should allow them to
ship a 6-core SKU with 4.6 - 4.7GHz all core boost for non 256-bit workloads. Not much they can do for the single core boost, but I don't think it will be even necessary.

 

[krumme]

A 8c Intel solution this april would be fun too but 125w isn't that a stretch for the current packaging?

 

[AtenRa]

Is there any real indication that Intel would have an imminent launch capability for a 8-core 1151V2 part (design wise)?

I dont think before Q3 2018

 

[The Stilt]

A 8c Intel solution this april would be fun too but 125w isn't that a stretch for the current packaging?

Not even remotely.
Might be a stretch for the poorest motherboard designs, but not for the socket itself.

 

[jpiniero]

It makes perfect sense if you know your competitor still has a an unreleased 8 core up its sleeve.

I would think anyway that they would want to save the 1% dies for Threadripper.

 

[krumme]

Not even remotely.
Might be a stretch for the poorest motherboard designs, but not for the socket itself.

Upgraded bios on my Asus b350M from agesa 1006 (august) to the new 1000a (!) from the 26 january
It says "support for upcomming processors" is that the ryzen+ or the apu models?

Aparently there is perhaps a rewrite of the agesa from the prior 1006 because earlier i couldnt run this variant of corsair lpx 3000 out the gate at 2933 using standard settings, but now it runs 3000 just plug and play using standard settings. Or is it just more internal settings for different types of ram? (we have a different pair of lpx 3000 that runs 2933 with standard settings on same 350m mb)

 

[formulav8]

Upgraded bios on my Asus b350M from agesa 1006 (august) to the new 1000a (!) from the 26 january
It says "support for upcomming processors" is that the ryzen+ or the apu models?

1000a AGESA means the 'upcoming processors' are Ryzen 2nd. So you're good to go with the new series coming in April.

 

[The Stilt]

Upgraded bios on my Asus b350M from agesa 1006 (august) to the new 1000a (!) from the 26 january
It says "support for upcomming processors" is that the ryzen+ or the apu models?

1.0.0.0a is PinnaclePI, meaning it will support both (Raven and Pinnacle).

 

[Atari2600]

Perhaps the explanation is quite simple - they expect a minor respin to yield them enough improvement for a clock bump later on, so can launch a 2800X in 6 months time.