• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 255 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
moonbogg said:
Article right there. Should I have not shared the article with you guys? Have I made an error? I feel I do not have favor in your eyes.
Click to expand...

The B&C guy made a guess on Twitter and Wcc turned it into fake news, as they always do.
https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/870397480848031746

IMO 799$ makes sense ,if they have at least a couple of higher clocked SKUs, if they manage to get the cheapest mobos to 200$ and if they got no 10 and 14 cores SKUs. That way , one can fit mobo+CPU in 1000$.
If they have 10 and 14 cores SKUs, the pricing distance between SKUs would be too small to fit 16 cores at 799$ so they might have to go with 999$ for the cheapest 16 cores.Ofc in that case, the cheapest 16 cores SKU will be Epyc at lower clocks.
 
My God. $850 for that monster? All I can think of is, that thing is a small datacenter in a single socket. Imagine what you could do in a 2U case with Naples variants of this...
 
If its actually $850 then it might compete with Intel's 10 core 7900X in price because some expect the X399 boards to possibly be more expensive than X299. The X399 boards are complex and loaded with no compromise features and tons of I/O, so the overall price for the board and CPU may be close to that of a 7900X and an X299 board. The 7900X would have a single core speed advantage while the 16 core Ryzen should have a multi core performance advantage. That's where the interesting competition stops though because Intel's prices start to run away after that. Can't wait for it all to pan out.
 
imported_jjj said:
The B&C guy made a guess on Twitter and Wcc turned it into fake news, as they always do.
https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/870397480848031746

IMO 799$ makes sense ,if they have at least a couple of higher clocked SKUs, if they manage to get the cheapest mobos to 200$ and if they got no 10 and 14 cores SKUs. That way , one can fit mobo+CPU in 1000$.
If they have 10 and 14 cores SKUs, the pricing distance between SKUs would be too small to fit 16 cores at 799$ so they might have to go with 999$ for the cheapest 16 cores.Ofc in that case, the cheapest 16 cores SKU will be Epyc at lower clocks.
Click to expand...
Fott's speculation is about 12C high end chip to be more expensive than entry level 16C. Not that it will cost 850$.

This price point is information from his sources.

P.S. How many times it has to be repeated: there will not be any 10 and 14 cores from AMD. 8, 12, 16. There is not possible any other configuration.
 
moonbogg said:
If its actually $850 then it might compete with Intel's 10 core 7900X in price because some expect the X399 boards to possibly be more expensive than X299. The X399 boards are complex and loaded with no compromise features and tons of I/O, so the overall price for the board and CPU may be close to that of a 7900X and an X299 board. The 7900X would have a single core speed advantage while the 16 core Ryzen should have a multi core performance advantage. That's where the interesting competition stops though because Intel's prices start to run away after that. Can't wait for it all to pan out.
Click to expand...

Some expect very high prices based on the high end boards shown so far but they can't kill the platform with 400$ and up mobos.Not every mobo needs 10G NIC, WiFi ad, 40 USB ports and 400 LEDs. Prices will be higher than X370 mobos ofc but the mobo makers can't afford to go crazy if they want to earn a buck.
 
Last edited:
Glo. said:
Fott's speculation is about 12C high end chip to be more expensive than entry level 16C. Not that it will cost 850$.

This price point is information from his sources.

P.S. How many times it has to be repeated: there will not be any 10 and 14 cores from AMD. 8, 12, 16. There is not possible any other configuration.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you are fixated on that guy and HBM and neither is healthy or reasonable.
 
imported_jjj said:
You do realize that you are fixated on that guy and HBM and neither is healthy or reasonable.
Click to expand...
And what that has to do with what I wrote? And in whose eyes is it?

I will quote, and bold the most important you missed from that TT, which completely changes the meaning of it:
This is just a my speculation: best 12 core (Very high freq) will be priced higher than basic 16 core (Low freq). So: 16c-12c-16c-12c.

Where is there speculation about price of 16C CPU? Or is it about 12C being more expensive than 16C?
 
moonbogg said:
Article right there. Should I have not shared the article with you guys? Have I made an error? I feel I do not have favor in your eyes.
Click to expand...
Ah, the wccftech one. For all i know they're bsing as they were back in Polaris 10 pre-launch days with "1600mhz overclock is totally real boys". So, cut me some slack if i ignore that article's existence in it's entirety
 
I can smell fake news a mile away.

AMD on June 7th said:
"We have noted some speculative articles appearing commenting on AMD's pricing following Computex and would like to reiterate that Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 pricing remains unchanged," the company told PCWorld.
Click to expand...

Source: No, AMD didn't slash Ryzen prices ahead of Threadripper launch [PCWorld]

IEC on June 1st said:
It's an official price cut:
https://www.techpowerup.com/233966/amd-trims-prices-of-the-ryzen-7-1700-and-1700x
Click to expand...

T1beriu on June 1st said:
How can you tell from that article that is an official price cut? Shouldn't everyone report it?

TPU transforms itself day by day into w-junk-tech. That's why I'm asking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, junk sites are going all the way on the fake news money grabbing strategy.
 
Refresher of context that is very important when I made that comment, for everyone else:
csbin said:
Intel Core i7 7800X @ 5755MHz （1918 cb ）
http://hwbot.org/submission/3563200_shimizu_cinebench___r15_core_i7_7800x_1918_cb

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X @ 5148MHz （1784 cb ）
http://hwbot.org/submission/3561222_johan45_cinebench___r15_ryzen_5_1600x_1784_cb/
Click to expand...

You're right. In Cinebench, in ST, Slylake is 9% faster than Ryzen, but because of better SMT the classification switches.
Source: The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Review: Now and Zen [PCPer] (2nd of March).
Memory was running at 2400 with unknown timings on both systems (oh, the professionalism of pcper)

LE: Cancel that, I'm dumb, this is Broadwell, not Skylake.

clock-cb15-1.png


clock-cb15-2.png
 
Last edited:
I found The Stilt's tests vs Kaby Lake (no IPC improvement vs Skylake in Cinebench). I can't seem to find the memory speed & timings.

  • ST - SL/KL is 8.5% faster
  • 4/4 MT - SL/KL 6.4% faster
  • 4/8 MT SMT - SL/KL is 1% slower
  • 6/12 MT SMT extreme OC from above - SL-X is 4% slower.
One thing to note is that Skylake-X has it's L2/L3 cache ratio changed compared to regular Skylake.
Memory timings for extreme OC results:
  • Skylake-X 7800X - 3230 Mhz @ CL12
  • Ryzen 1600X - 3270 Mhz @ CL14
The new cache ratio in Skylake-X seems to have a negative impact on Cinebench, but it's not an apples to apples comparison.

mdhQBPt.png


8f2MmTB.png


3nNIFyW.png
 
Last edited:
Phynaz said:
Dang, price cuts two months after release are not an indicator that things are well for Ryzen.
Click to expand...
Or that Intel is "bringing the heat", with more competitive chips. (Coffee Lake 6C/12T "K" SKU, with higher IPC and clocks / OCed than Ryzen 1600X).

Maybe AMD wants to get as many people onto the AM4 platform as possible, NOW, rather than having potential customers hold off and wait until Intel's CPUs are out, so that they can compare reviews.

I know, if I were AMD, that's what I would do. I would offer unbeatable value for the platform, to make customers "an offer that they can't refuse", so to speak.

I actually went out and bought a Ryzen 5 1600 rig with an ASRock B350 mATX board, for roughly $300 total between the two. Ryzen is THAT GOOD, that it got me to upgrade from my usual Celeron / Pentium fare.

Even though I already own a couple of Z170 and B150 boards that can BLCK OC a locked Skylake i5 CPU. Which, is the same price (roughly) as a Ryzen 5 1600, which is 6C/12T, and UNLOCKED.
 
VirtualLarry said:
Or that Intel is "bringing the heat", with more competitive chips. (Coffee Lake 6C/12T "K" SKU, with higher IPC and clocks / OCed than Ryzen 1600X).
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt they'll come cheaper. Base frequency is also likely to be a bit lower then the 7700K, due to the two extra cores. Single core turbo would likely be similar though.

Anyway who cares? We consumers win... 😀
 
IEC said:
eBay with 10% off coupon code PJUNESAVINGS10 (I have an alert set up to notify me if anything is posted related to Ryzen 1700 in r/buildapcsales):
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/6g21t7/cpu_ryzen_7_1700_price_dropped_260_code/

Don't let the seller name scare you, last time I ordered a processor from them it was brand new. They're slow as dirt on the shipping but at that price I can wait.
Click to expand...

Argh, ordered 🙄 I've been thinking about side-grading from Skylake since release and with that price + the Asrock mATX board I was looking at finally available, might as well. Hope I can get rid of my 6700k + board and roughly break even.
 
Quick question. Does anyone know what LLVM is measuring on Geekbench 4? When I run Geekbench my system does well at pretty much everything but LLVM is usually half what other Ryzen systems are. I can't find any info on it so I don't even know what to begin diagnosing.
 
I'm surprised to see Dell incorporating Ryzen so early. Securing exclusive ThreadRipper and now Ryzen in gaming desktops. As a long time big partner with Intel, this is a very good sign.

If we see EPYC servers soon from Dell then truly Intel has its big competitor back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top