Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[unseenmorbidity]

12 core SKX-X would have no competition, so it's a "good" value if you really need the cores (i.e. time is money for your use case).



Nah. Bring in a lower-clocked 8 core/16 thread chip with 28 PCIe lanes at $499 to wreck AMD's party, then put an 8 core with 44 PCIe lanes at higher clocks at the $799 price point. Then at the $999 price point, Intel can put out a 10 core/20 thread + 44 PCIe lane part, which would be uncontested. Then, of course, for the really "hardcore" people put out the 12 core/24 thread part with 44 PCIe lanes at $1700.

This way Intel can have its cake and eat it, too. It's really actually straightforward and should be good for the consumer as 6/8 core prices should come down nicely.

Almost no one wants a ten core nvm a 12 core. It has no competition, because there is no consumer market for it.

 

[HBRents]

12 core SKX-X would have no competition, so it's a "good" value if you really need the cores (i.e. time is money for your use case).



Nah. Bring in a lower-clocked 8 core/16 thread chip with 28 PCIe lanes at $499 to wreck AMD's party, then put an 8 core with 44 PCIe lanes at higher clocks at the $799 price point. Then at the $999 price point, Intel can put out a 10 core/20 thread + 44 PCIe lane part, which would be uncontested. Then, of course, for the really "hardcore" people put out the 12 core/24 thread part with 44 PCIe lanes at $1700.

This way Intel can have its cake and eat it, too. It's really actually straightforward and should be good for the consumer as 6/8 core prices should come down nicely.

Huh?! How in the world can you justify a SKU 100% higher than the competition with merely more PCIE lanes to work with? I've read you make posts about how Crossfire and SLI are inferior to single cards. Haven't you also said 7700K is king for gaming with highly clocked 4 cores?.. So are you saying only the consumers that use SLI/CF be forced to pay double the price for their CPU just to have more PCIE lanes? That's literally not straight forward at all. That's asking for THREE HUNDRED dollars more for just more PCIE lanes, nor is it "good for the consumer".

How is that good for consumers? Sure multi-GPU will become more prevalent with DX12 but haven't you said that is an inferior API before?

Not sure how an 8-core/16thread chip with 28 PCIE lanes would wreck AMD at the exact same $499 price point months after release..

 

[Arachnotronic]

This sounds plausible for the HEDT market. But how would this affect mainstream markets, where still a lot of the revenue is coming from?

Two options for Intel:

1. Work with ecosystem to widen the range of price points that X299 can attack so that there is no incentive for enthusiasts/DIY to go with mainstream any longer.

2. Suck it up and wait for the Coffee Lake rescue package

 

[HBRents]

Two options for Intel:

1. Work with ecosystem to widen the range of price points that X299 can attack so that there is no incentive for enthusiasts/DIY to go with mainstream any longer.

2. Suck it up and wait for the Coffee Lake rescue package

I'm just confused. You've gone on record saying that

• CF/SLI are bad alternatives to single card setups.
• DX12 is a bad API for Windows Gaming yet that's the only way multi-gpu gains more support.
• You've also states that 7700K is king for gaming as gaming doesn't use 8-core and gamers are better off with highly clocked quad-core.

Yet you are now saying that Intel should advertise more PCIE lanes for gamers on 10 and 12 core, low clocked CPUs. You're giving out a lot of contradictions and it just begins to sound to me like you are twisting arguments to support Intel no matter what.

 

[cytg111]

This sounds plausible for the HEDT market. But how would this affect mainstream markets, where still a lot of the revenue is coming from?

I think it will be a little while before games will be able to make use of 10 much less 12 cores, which in turn means that those chips would loose every single benchmark outside of synthetics and encoding.

 

[Minkoff]

They are sending the Noctual coolers in their review kits with instructions to the reviewers to use that cooler. They could have just as much consistency with sending out the 140w TDP Wraith cooler. Don't you think at 140 watt TDP cooler would be enough for XFR and overclocking if their chips were really 95 watts?

Wraith is not designed to handle stressful or extreme conditions. It's designed for normal operations and it's not a matter of being confident in Wraith's capability and certainly I don't think it's a matter of TDP here.

Wraith simply cannot handle high overclocking - during stress tests it will accumulate heat that it is simply not design to dissipate.
The TDP of Ryzen can be 95W in normal operation, but during overclock that TDP becomes irrelevant (with your consent) and neither Intel nor AMD provide estimates on what the real number is, considering that not every CPU overclocks the same.

If you look at Noctua coolers, they are all rated at 140W (in the case of LGA2011), do they cool the same though?
http://noctua.at/en/tdp-guide

 

[Arachnotronic]

I'm just confused. You've gone on record saying that

• CF/SLI are bad alternatives to single card setups.
• DX12 is a bad API for Windows Gaming yet that's the only way multi-gpu gains more support.
• You've also states that 7700K is king for gaming as gaming doesn't use 8-core and gamers are better off with highly clocked quad-core.

Yet you are now saying that Intel should advertise more PCIE lanes for gamers on 10 and 12 core, low clocked CPUs. You're giving out a lot of contradictions and it just begins to sound to me like you are twisting arguments to support Intel no matter what.

I'm just saying what SKUs I would put out if I were Intel to try to both keep products available at higher price points while at the same time delivering more performance at lower price points.

I'm not telling you what chip to buy.

Personally, I wouldn't pay extra for an 8 core with 44 lanes, the 28 lane one would be the much better value to me in my hypothetical stack.

 

[cytg111]

Two options for Intel:

1. Work with ecosystem to widen the range of price points that X299 can attack so that there is no incentive for enthusiasts/DIY to go with mainstream any longer.

2. Suck it up and wait for the Coffee Lake rescue package

I dont see 1. working out. The HEDT line is dead-ish IMO, cant see where it fits in a world where 8 cores from the competition is mainstream.
Coffeelake is the cure and it needs to grow an additional pair in the meantime .

 

[Topweasel]

I'm just saying what SKUs I would put out if I were Intel to try to both keep products available at higher price points while at the same time delivering more performance at lower price points.

I'm not telling you what chip to buy.

Personally, I wouldn't pay extra for an 8 core with 44 lanes, the 28 lane one would be the much better value to me in my hypothetical stack.

We have to remember that the HEDT lineup from Intel only exists as a high margin byproduct of their Server and Workstation chips. While I could see price changes for competitive reasons, don't expect the lineup or feature list change in response to AMD. They wouldn't get the returns needed for that expenditure.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I dont see 1. working out. The HEDT line is dead-ish IMO, cant see where it fits in a world where 8 cores from the competition is mainstream.
Coffeelake is the cure and it needs to grow an additional pair in the meantime .

Well that's what I'm saying...the distinction between "mainstream" and "HEDT" is given by:

1. the chips available on the platform
2. cost of the chips and motherboards on the platform

If mobo makers build cheaper/less feature packed X299 boards to go after the price points that some of the Z270 boards go after now, and if Intel has a better/broader product stack for that platform (you are seeing it with Kaby Lake-X, for example), then "HEDT" will become a more viable option.

Right now, the chipset is older than the "mainstream" ones, the CPUs are few, expensive, and use an old architecture, and the boards are all designed with a ton of "enthusiast" features that some DIY people may not want to pay extra for.

For socketed, I think Intel should just kill the "mainstream" line altogether for enthusiasts (i.e. no more "Z" boards) and push everyone onto the X-series (which would require making the changes I outlined).

 

[DrMrLordX]

Huh - I thought that AMD had used a/some Synopsys hard IPs for the memory controller?

You got me. Though didn't AMD use a Synopsys design for Kaveri's memory controller?

 

[zinfamous]

I dont see 1. working out. The HEDT line is dead-ish IMO, cant see where it fits in a world where 8 cores from the competition is mainstream.
Coffeelake is the cure and it needs to grow an additional pair in the meantime .

It wouldn't compete mainstream. It would be nearly exclusive for high-end video encoding workshops and developers. Industry where, you know, MINO. Though, it all depends if an 8 core or possible larger? Zen+ or Zen++ future core is still cheaper than Intel future offerings. I dunno, maybe 8 core Ryzen chips still offer greater value than a potential 10 or 12 core 1%er-priced Intel chip for that market. Maybe a dual-chip Zen board and setup that is still cheaper than such a hypothetical Intel offering. I dunno.

 

[badb0y]

Is embargo on 28 or 2nd? I got my stuff ready in the cart but I am not pulling the trigger until I see some independent reviews.

 

[looncraz]

I dont see 1. working out. The HEDT line is dead-ish IMO, cant see where it fits in a world where 8 cores from the competition is mainstream.
Coffeelake is the cure and it needs to grow an additional pair in the meantime .

HEDT platform will definitely not be dead. Intel can put 8-cores on two platforms, and the higher-end platform will have 10 & 12 core options as well, with a significant upgrade in prices and more PCI-e lanes and quad channel memory. There are enough people stupid enough to buy it make it worthwhile for them to do so - along with maintaining the halo effect.

The problem with them doing it anytime soon is that they would have to have this planned for years already for maximum benefit.

I think we'll see Intel only meeting AMD prices in the middle - but not head-on - in the retail market. OEMs will get massive discounts to "encourage" their loyalty.

Intel's HEDT platform has features AMD's AM4 platform simply doesn't have - it is irrelevant if those features are valuable for most users, they will be genuinely valuable for some people... and there are, as I said, enough idiots that will pay far more than they should just because it makes them feel good.

Assuming AMD pricing as follows and NO Intel performance benefits:

Ryzen 3: 2xxx x4: $130~$200, 4/4
Ryzen 5: 2xxx x4: $250~$350, 4/8, 6/12
Ryzen 7: 2xxx x8: $350~$500, 8/16

i3 9xxx x4: $150~$200, 4/4
i5 9xxx x4: $220~$300, 4/8
i7 9xxx x6: $350~$400, 6/12 (dual platform)
i7 9xxx x8: $550~$700, 8/16 (dual platform)
i7 9xxx x10: $999~$1200, 10/20 (HEDT only)

This is what Intel would do, IMHO, with equal performance, in regards to retail pricing to counter Ryzen. Pentium and Celeron would still be dual core, but Pentium will have hyper-threading.

 

[majord]

The 95w TDP Wraith cooler is for the 1700. The 140w TDP Wraith cooler is for the 1700X and 1800X.

Like I say...this just caught my eye and is something to look for on Tuesday.

HSFs should not be rated by TDP, it confuses people.

If All cpu's had the same tCase Max temp rating then, sure. But they don't so it's pointless.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Well that's what I'm saying...the distinction between "mainstream" and "HEDT" is given by:

1. the chips available on the platform
2. cost of the chips and motherboards on the platform

If mobo makers build cheaper/less feature packed X299 boards to go after the price points that some of the Z270 boards go after now, and if Intel has a better/broader product stack for that platform (you are seeing it with Kaby Lake-X, for example), then "HEDT" will become a more viable option.

Right now, the chipset is older than the "mainstream" ones, the CPUs are few, expensive, and use an old architecture, and the boards are all designed with a ton of "enthusiast" features that some DIY people may not want to pay extra for.

For socketed, I think Intel should just kill the "mainstream" line altogether for enthusiasts (i.e. no more "Z" boards) and push everyone onto the X-series (which would require making the changes I outlined).

The only reason intel released a 10 cores was to make their overpriced 8 core look less like an insane ripoff.

 

[formulav8]

My question what Intel mean it by writing Call us before you write.

Most likely to say something about what Ryzen lacks and Intel has. Maybe that they will have Syklake X out this year, so remind your readers in your reviews, and so on.

When Intel updated their "Customer Rip-off 101" handbook awhile back with Ryzen, there's something they're not happy about.

 

[Doom2pro]

Is embargo on 28 or 2nd? I got my stuff ready in the cart but I am not pulling the trigger until I see some independent reviews.

Embargo'd until the 28th but wont ship until the 2nd... I already pulled the trigger, no regret yet.

 

[Eknex]

What is known about the OC?
I have not read anything for a few days ...

 

[lolfail9001]

What is known about the OC?
I have not read anything for a few days ...

4.2 looks like a safe bet on 1800X, 4.3-4.4 may be pushing it. -200Mhz for each lower SKU.

 

[majord]

Embargo'd until the 28th but wont ship until the 2nd... I already pulled the trigger, no regret yet.

Are you certain? Some sources say 2nd, others 28th

 

[looncraz]

HSFs should not be rated by TDP, it confuses people.

If All cpu's had the same tCase Max temp rating then, sure. But they don't so it's pointless.

__

Once upon a time we used C/W (Celsius over ambient per Watt of heat energy). This would have to be normalized to a given heat load and ambient temperature and would represent an equilibrium temperature rise.

This was nice because you could calculate the likely CPU temperature to expect from a heatsink with your hardware and plan accordingly.

If you had a 95W load and a C/W of 1.0 you would know that you would hit 95C over ambient, for example. C/W of 0.5 would only be 47.5C over ambient.

This worked REALLY well when we had bare die CPUs.. and still works reasonably well with CPUs with soldered IHSes... but not so much with Intel CPUs...

Then the C/W number kept getting smaller... and smaller. 0.05 C/W@95W would make you think that you should only have 4.75C rise over ambient.. but you would see 15C because you now have transient temperature to worry about with an IHS in the middle... and CPUs were increasingly more 'peaky' in their heat output while the heat became increasingly more concentrated in area...

This saw an end to C/W as a standard, now TDP is really the only measure that works reasonably well to describe what to expect from using the heatsink... not sure what standardization AMD is using, but I suspect it's pretty straightforward... and would actually relate back to a C/W rating for the IHS interface itself.

So, the rating may be based on how much heat the heatsink can dissipate with an ambient of 20C with an T-case increase of 40C (so 60C T-case temperature). That's how I would do it, anyway

Using the C/W system...

A 125W TDP CPU would need a C/W rated cooler of 0.32 or better (lower)
A 95W TDP CPU would need a C/W rated cooler of 0.42 or better.
A 65W TDP CPU would need a C/W rated cooler of 0.62 or better.

By using a 140W rated cooler on a 95W part, AMD is saying that the part is more difficult to cool - or works best at lower temperatures - so it needs a lower T-case temperature than a 95W static load would need with an ideal interface between the heat source and the heat sink to keep the CPU cores cool.

...

I've spent decades doing PC cooling (including sub-ambient). It was my first foray into statistical and physical modeling. Then I discovered the joys of programming

 

[HBRents]

I'm just saying what SKUs I would put out if I were Intel to try to both keep products available at higher price points while at the same time delivering more performance at lower price points.

I'm not telling you what chip to buy.

Personally, I wouldn't pay extra for an 8 core with 44 lanes, the 28 lane one would be the much better value to me in my hypothetical stack.

Thank you for the response. You seem to posses a fair bit of Industry knowledge so let me ask your and anyone else's opinion on this.

We have the
1800X at $499.99 retail
1700X at $399 retail
1700 at $329 retail

How much gross revenue do you think AMD makes on each one? I know big box OEM's have razor thin margins on PC's these days (probably a bit skewed by all the $399 beige boxes that these Ryzen CPUs will NOT be in), so for big retailers such as Amazon and Newegg that probably purchase directly from AMD/Intel, how much % do you think AMD gets to keep?

 

[Topweasel]

The only reason intel released a 10 cores was to make their overpriced 8 core look less like an insane ripoff.

Well that and they had bandwidth on their 10c chip production. But they never wanted to make the chips more available to people. It's why 6 has only slightly moved in price and they slotted the 10c that much higher price wise.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Thank you for the response. You seem to posses a fair bit of Industry knowledge so let me ask your and anyone else's opinion on this.

We have the
1800X at $499.99 retail
1700X at $399 retail
1700 at $329 retail

How much gross revenue do you think AMD makes on each one? I know big box OEM's have razor thin margins on PC's these days (probably a bit skewed by all the $399 beige boxes that these Ryzen CPUs will NOT be in), so for big retailers such as Amazon and Newegg that probably purchase directly from AMD/Intel, how much % do you think AMD gets to keep?

Gross revenue or gross margin?

If you are asking for my estimate on average selling price/mix...I would say the 1700X will be the most popular, it's the "sweet spot." Clocked high out of the box, unlocked, and should be able to overclock to match/beat the more expensive 1800X. I can see the 1700 also being popular because of its price (good processor cores, and 8 of them, for $329!) though not as popular frankly as the 1700X since it is clocked much lower out of the box and I'll bet you it's lower quality silicon than the 1700X/1800X use.

As far as how much AMD gets to keep, I'd say that Newegg/Amazon/etc. probably get 15% of that selling price.