Post CFL Ryzen Price drop / SKU shuffle thoughts, predictions?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Yes its more sensitive to lower latency ram, but what it get is typically 3000c15 and its perfectly fine for that performance class (a 1600/1600x).
Next to nobody is testing a ryzen with c12 and strict subtiming for gaming. What we saw was more the oposite; 2133, because the new bios wasnt out before june/july that could run all the standard 3000c15/3200c16 ram.
What gives stutter in gaming (if you are at 2933 and above) and the low fps that really makes your mp experience come to a halt is if the throughput of the cpu cant pull the stuff. Then you are in for problems. The internet is flooded with gamers who dont understand their lower speed i7 or i5 is hammered to 100% in bf1.
Don't you think by now you should've hanged that bf1 nonsense once and for all? Your experience in that game is your experience, it's subjective, probably because of the many variables at play with your setup, so why do you want to shove that on everyone? Moreover, you have guys who play the game also pitching in with experiences far better than yours so why this always bf this, bf1 that? The audacity of an entire minority of 1! Seriously, this is not an attack on you, but I know you know better than to push your subjectivity as fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frozentundra123456

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Gaming play a huge part for how processors is priced, especially at the 200 usd class, so we are spot on.

BF1 is a huge game, and the series have in all years showed where it goes for gaming and performance demand.

Here it becomes relevant if you want a system consisting of a 1600 oc on a cheap 350 board with some 3000c15 standard ram or some Intel cpu in the order of 4c(4/8t) cpu.
I take the 1600 anyday.

And your 2500k dips to 30-35 fps in many situation bf1 mp64, and i can tell you how to get there. I have done that on a fast i5 hundred hrs. Yes its personal how dips affects you, like how much you value high quality textures.

But if you go out and buy a processor that need total cpu grunt in the leading performance game, you bring yourself in a risky position. There is absolutely no need to do that when you can get a cheap 1600 and oc it to 3.8 on a cheap 350 board using the stock cooler using the standard 3000c15 ram you would get for the Intel 4c system anyway.

Get the 1600 as minimum or opt for the 8700k. IMO thats the gaming cpu in a non tdp constrained environment we need. If you game 144 only go 1600 if you are really cheap. But never ever go 4c4t.
Even if we were to take your subjectivities as fact, BF1 is just 1 game, and you're talking a momentary dip in one part of the game. How about almost all the other scenarios where the 4c/8t takes a decisive lead, even in minimum frame rates? Aren't those an even better indication for the future? How did a corner case of a corner case become the poster chip for "total cpu grunt in the leading performance game."? :(
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
Even if we were to take your subjectivities as fact, BF1 is just 1 game, and you're talking a momentary dip in one part of the game. How about almost all the other scenarios where the 4c/8t takes a decisive lead, even in minimum frame rates? Aren't those an even better indication for the future? How did a corner case of a corner case become the poster chip for "total cpu grunt in the leading performance game."? :(
Because BF1 is the be all and end all metric for gaming performance ;)

I like how he totally ignored my video showcasing the relative differences between the 7600K and 7700K in BF1 multiplayer.

We are looking at minimum framerates of 73 for the 7600K and 85 for the 7700K at ultra settings. Gaming on 4C/4T CPUs isn't nearly as dire as he tries to make it out to be. How else could I have held out this long on my i5 2500K if gaming performance was so unsatisfactory on 4C/4T CPUs? I don't exactly enjoy my games running as a slideshow, but apparently that is what happens when you game on 4C/4T CPUs with the latest AAA games ;)

Now, I'm not saying to anyone, go out and buy an i3 8100 or Ryzen 1200/1300 and be done with it, you're all set for gaming. But these chips have their place in budget gaming rigs, and offer more than playable framerates when paired with a reasonably fast GPU.

But seriously, enough of this BF1 talk. This thread is for discussing potential Ryzen price cuts due to the release of CFL.

Some posters seem to think that due to cheaper motherboards, AMD doesn't need to respond to Coffee Lake chips AT ALL. I think that would be a huge mistake if AMD did that, but that is only my opinion.
 
Last edited:

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,951
1,581
136
BF1, Dx 11, MP64 in some dips the 7700k goes above 24ms, while the higher core machinces dont have those dips:

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/4/#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-frametimes-ryzen-7-1800x-gegen-core-i7-7700k

For the 99.9% percentile the frametime for 7700k is 18.2 ms while its aprox 10 ms for the 6900 and 11 ms for the 6850 and 1800x. Cores matters where it counts.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/4/#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-frametimes-in-percentile

You can show whatever fps in bf1 you want. And portray 4c 4t in a good light. Its just depends on where and how you test (and play). Its just a fact you have serious dips on those 4 thread machines on some maps and situations.
 
Last edited:

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,381
511
136
You would have a point if the difference between fast LL RAM and slower RAM wasn't as drastic. You are potentially losing over 15% in gaming performance by using cheaper RAM. That is a huge performance hit. In fact, you're probably better off with a cheaper Ryzen 1400/1500 + LL RAM compared to a Ryzen 1600 with slower RAM, if gaming performance was your primary focus.



I personally don't like the idea of pairing a $200+ CPU with a $60 motherboard, but that is just me. If you are telling me that the majority of AMD Ryzen users will consciously choose the absolute cheapest motherboard to go with their $200+ CPU, then I will concede your point. Matter of the fact is, generally, higher end CPUs get matched with higher end motherboards.


And the performance of a 8600K @ 5GHz + a GTX 1070 would be in a completely different tier to a 1600 @ 4GHz + GTX 1070, especially if you limit the Ryzen to high latency DDR4-3000 (yes, 4GHz is possible if you don't gimp on the cooling and choose the cheapest motherboards with poor VRMs ;))



I disagree. I would be willing to bet that an i3 8100 + GTX 1080 will achieve better framerates than an overclocked 1600 + GTX 1070. Even if the i3 is bottlenecked somewhat, the GTX 1080 is a 20% faster GPU than the GTX 1070. The 1600 is not a 20% faster CPU at gaming compared to the i3 8100. In fact, I'm not even convinced it's actually a faster gaming CPU at all (even when overclocked)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/20.html


The i3 8100 at 3.6GHz will sit in between the i5 7500 and 7600K, it is hardly a 'slow' CPU that will stutter in games. The systems above are using a GTX 1080 btw.

Yes, I chose 720P to highlight the differences in gaming performance before GPU bottlenecking is taken into account. Even at 1080P, the 1600 is behind the i5 7500/7600K, but the margin is less because the GPU would be the limiting factor more often at 1080P.

Still completely debunks your claim that an i3 8100 will 'stutter' with a GTX 1080.
Why even discuss i3-8100 and 1080 jn the same sentence. No one in their right mind will pair a 1080 with i3-8100.
They would go either R7 1700 or 8600k or something along with $150+ Motherboard.
People who will be buying Ryzen 1200/1300X/8100 won't ideally pair it with anything more than 1060/RX570/580 and sub $100 board.
 

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,381
511
136
Also this whole talk of ryzen not performing to its full extent without expensive low latency high speed ram.. Is this true?
Because if my budget only allows for 2400mhz ram like corsair value select or something like that then does that mean that i3-8100 is a better choice than ryzen 3? How much performance degradation are we talking about here if one uses cheaper low speed ram?
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
4,333
3,867
136
Why even discuss i3-8100 and 1080 jn the same sentence. No one in their right mind will pair a 1080 with i3-8100.
They would go either R7 1700 or 8600k or something along with $150+ Motherboard.
People who will be buying Ryzen 1200/1300X/8100 won't ideally pair it with anything more than 1060/RX570/580 and sub $100 board.
Because there is a vocal few who refuse to accept the meaning of "Best for a budget". Thus, for the majority, we get unrealistic pairings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gikaseixas

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
4,333
3,867
136
Also this whole talk of ryzen not performing to its full extent without expensive low latency high speed ram.. Is this true?
Because if my budget only allows for 2400mhz ram like corsair value select or something like that then does that mean that i3-8100 is a better choice than ryzen 3? How much performance degradation are we talking about here if one uses cheaper low speed ram?
I spend X $ to get Y performance. Why does it even matter if it's not the best possible performance?

The best possible value for $ is the key. Some go on forever arguing to extract every last performance delta, but at what cost. In your case, do a comparison estimate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
556
182
116
Also this whole talk of ryzen not performing to its full extent without expensive low latency high speed ram.. Is this true?
Because if my budget only allows for 2400mhz ram like corsair value select or something like that then does that mean that i3-8100 is a better choice than ryzen 3? How much performance degradation are we talking about here if one uses cheaper low speed ram?
It just means you should focus on data using that configuration to base what your expected performance will be and that extrapolating from Ryzen DDR4 3200 vs Coffeelake DDR4 3200 numbers may not apply to your case due to different configurations, as that would make use of the assumption that both are affected equally via different memory.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Some posters seem to think that due to cheaper motherboards, AMD doesn't need to respond to Coffee Lake chips AT ALL. I think that would be a huge mistake if AMD did that, but that is only my opinion.
1800X can drop to $300 and I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole when I can get a 8700K/NK at more or less the same price, better ST and not deal with finicky DDR4 compatibility especially at 2x16GB. Even the 1700 @ $200 is a tough sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
5,257
8,589
136
Also this whole talk of ryzen not performing to its full extent without expensive low latency high speed ram.. Is this true?
This memory requirement was picked out of context: the original discussion was comparing overclocked R5 1600 with overclocked i7 7700K on high end graphics cards. In that context stripping Ryzen of the memory chips it can use to scale in performance makes little sense, especially if we compare the little relative cost this adds to either of the builds.

Because if my budget only allows for 2400mhz ram like corsair value select or something like that then does that mean that i3-8100 is a better choice than ryzen 3?
Using 2400Mhz RAM with Skylake also has a very detrimental effect on performance, are you prepared for that as well? During the Skylake launch some reviewers used low speed DDR4 in their tests and observed only limited gains in gaming over competing Haswell chips. Shocker... isn't it?
 

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,381
511
136
1800X can drop to $300 and I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole when I can get a 8700K/NK at more or less the same price, better ST and not deal with finicky DDR4 compatibility especially at 2x16GB. Even the 1700 @ $200 is a tough sell.
8700k would be close to $400 though.
And R7 1700 for $200 would be like if AMD started giving Christmas presents early.

This memory requirement was picked out of context: the original discussion was comparing overclocked R5 1600 with overclocked i7 7700K on high end graphics cards. In that context stripping Ryzen of the memory chips it can use to scale in performance makes little sense, especially if we compare the little relative cost this adds to either of the builds.


Using 2400Mhz RAM with Skylake also has a very detrimental effect on performance, are you prepared for that as well? During the Skylake launch some reviewers used low speed DDR4 in their tests and observed only limited gains in gaming over competing Haswell chips. Shocker... isn't it?
Didn't know ram had this much effect on cpu performance. I thought this only applied to AMD APUs.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
20,268
9,325
136
12C/24T and lower (with validated ECC)
4C/8T FirePro APU (with 1/2 rate double precision FP on the iGPU. This with ECC enabled HBM2)

Then for most consumers....

8C/16T or 6C/12T with dGPU

Athlon x 4 4C/8T with dGPU.
That's along the lines of my thinking. I do not think AMD will need to offer a 12c/24t CPU on the consumer AM4 desktop, even with Zen2. The case for 12c on the consumer desktop really isn't there, is it? I would probably buy one for $600 or less though, if they will sell in that range.

Why would AMD need to make any price reductions on their Ryzen CPUs ??
To clear out the channel before March 2018, and gain/retain market share. Remember these chips are CHEAP for them to produce. Remember what happened to their sales when they couldn't get old crap out of the channel on AM3+ and FM2/FM2+? Granted the products were less compelling.

Please tell that to IEC, who presented me with this graph to show his point about Ryzen performance scaling with lower latency RAM:
It's well-documented that RAM speed matters on Summit Ridge. No getting around it. Of course the max stable RAM OC you're going to get on MOST Ryzen systems is tight DDR4-3466, with a rare few getting DDR4-3600 stable.

Still doesn't discount the fact that you're using an ultra budget motherboard as a comparison. If AMD users truly don't care for motherboard features and are happy with a low end motherboard for $60 - $70, then you have a point.
Really the only motherboard a 1700 or R5 owner needs is the ASRock B350 Pro4. Assuming you aren't trying for 4 GHz on that 1700.

I actually would like to see the relative performance of both platforms running regular DDR4 3000. Based on the charts above, AMD performance would suffer quite a hit using lower speed/higher latency RAM.
That will be exaggerrated based on the game and other circumstances. Ryzen wants fast DDR to get higher fabric speeds. Software optimized to make use of the CCX design will not have that problem. What you want is software that doesn't thread-hop a lot, and isn't completely dependant on inter-thread communication between CCXs. There are still gains to be had in optimized software from fast RAM, though it looks like overall that Ryzen will be at its best for most users with tight subtimings and DDR4-3200 CAS/CL14 or so. Lower if you can get it. There isn't isn't THAT much room for improvement above DDR4-3200 on Ryzen due to the IMC. I had to fight like hell to get DDR4-3466 on a Taichi + 1800x + DDR4-3733 b-die.

On the flipside, Intel's systems have been RAM-sensitive since Skylake, so I don't see where anyone gets off bagging on Ryzen for wanting fast memory.

Anyway, can we please get back on topic now? I think this thread has been derailed enough.
This is one of the few threads where Intel vs AMD might actually make sense. Sure beats running into this sort of chatter in the Coffeelake thread.

Also this whole talk of ryzen not performing to its full extent without expensive low latency high speed ram.. Is this true?
Because if my budget only allows for 2400mhz ram like corsair value select or something like that then does that mean that i3-8100 is a better choice than ryzen 3? How much performance degradation are we talking about here if one uses cheaper low speed ram?
It could be a lot. Many early Ryzen reviews showed terrible performance with DDR4-2133. You really want DDR4-3200 with tight timings, preferably courtesy of Samsung b-die. But then you ALSO lose performance on Intel rigs using slow RAM! That performance hit will be exacerbated on Intel rigs as core counts go up and demand upon those cores goes up to match. You will not want 6c/12t or 8c/16t Coffeelake with dual-channel DDR4-2133! Hell even Skylake doesn't like DDR4-2133.

1800X can drop to $300 and I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole when I can get a 8700K/NK at more or less the same price, better ST and not deal with finicky DDR4 compatibility especially at 2x16GB. Even the 1700 @ $200 is a tough sell.
What finicky DDR4 compatibility? This isn't March man. You can get just about any kit DDR4-3200 and lower to run at its rated speed now.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
54,510
8,644
126
What finicky DDR4 compatibility? This isn't March man. You can get just about any kit DDR4-3200 and lower to run at its rated speed now.
I wish! Still can't get my Team Vulcan 2x8GB DDR4-3000 kit above 2667 reliably with R5 1600 CPUs in AB350M Pro4 motherboards. WITH the newest UEFI 3.10 / AGESA 1.0.0.6b.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
20,268
9,325
136
Huh. What ICs? They were supposed to have improved Hynix and Micron compatibility, significantly. How much vDIMM are you giving that stuff? 1.45v is trivial.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
54,510
8,644
126
1.45V? My God, man. Isn't that... excessive? My UEFI displays 1.350V in RED, as a warning. I don't really want to go higher that that, and I see no reason to. I see 1.45V as excessive, much like 2.1-2.2V on DDR2 was. (Although, there was overclocking RAM specified to those voltages, but it tended to "burn out", in 6-12mo intervals.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
20,268
9,325
136
I run 1.42v on a regular basis. DDR4 can take more juice that you might expect. Only thing that you should scare you a little is what it'll do to the IMC, if you aren't increasing voltages elsewhere.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,324
3,258
136
Regarding the topic in question, the main shuffling I'd like to see would be the positioning of the quad cores. Inflated prices notwithstanding, I've always felt that there was a gap between the i3s and the Pentiums. The 1200 should move to 80$ while the 1300X should be 100$. That should cover the entry-level Coffee Lake CPUs. AMD should exploit SMT for marketing appeal and price the 1400 at 120$, while the 1500X should be 140$.

Now when it comes to the i5s, I feel AMD should position the X /non-X against Intel's K/non-K. Given how easily people believe SMT to be twice the number of cores according to task manager, AMD has nothing to be concerned about if the 1600 is 180$ and the 1600X is 210$.

The 1700 should come a bit down to around 280$. There is no point in two X SKUs so the 1700X needs to go and the 1800X should be priced at 320$.

That should cover everything as each of the configurations, 4C/4T, 4C/8T, 6C/12T and 8C/16T are clearly positioned with two SKUs for each configuration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,832
3,068
136
The 1700 should come a bit down to around 280$. There is no point in two X SKUs so the 1700X needs to go and the 1800X should be priced at 320$.
You have to remember that not everyone Overclock their CPUs, so both 1700X and 1800X needs to be on the market.
I would also like to see 35W TDP 6C 12T and 8C 16T models at the same price as the 65-95W SKUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,324
3,258
136
You have to remember that not everyone Overclock their CPUs, so both 1700X and 1800X needs to be on the market.
I would also like to see 35W TDP 6C 12T and 8C 16T models at the same price as the 65-95W SKUs.
The 1700X and the 1800X basically serve the same purpose from a overclockers point of view, which is to get to 4GHz more easily than the 1700. So I don't see any reason in having two SKUs for the same purpose. The general public would presumably follow Intel buying habits, even if most of them don't overclock. Some will buy a lower clocked CPU, others will get the higher clocked CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

SpaceBeer

Senior member
Apr 2, 2016
307
100
116
I think nothing will change. Maybe only 1800X price might goes down, but that's it.
* i3-8xxx is better than Ryzen 3, maybe even 4c/8t Ryzen 5 in some tasks, but since you can get good AM4 board for €70-80, and until there are B/H MBs fo CL, cheapest CL boards will be 40-50€ more expensive. Therefore, no reason to go for i3 at this moment. Even if you don't need anything better than IGP, you could get cheapest dGPu for €50 which is better than Intel's IGP.
* Locked i5-8400 will probably have the same retail price as R5 1600. It will be better in some tests, worse in others. But again, for the price difference in MB, you could get R5 1600X which, will be even better than i5-8400 (avg.)
* I think locked i7-8700 will have similar perf. as R7 1700X (better in ST, better in some MT, worse in other MT tasks), and with similar (retail) price. R7 1700 will be even cheaper, but little bit worse.
* Unlocked models will be better, with possibility to reach 5 GHz, but you will need even more expensive MB and cooling, plus the CPU is more expensive, and the whole setup only makes sense for enthusiasts. I mean, for the price of i5-8600K + better Z370 board + high-end air/water cooling, you could get i7-8700 + good board + decent after-market cooler. And latter will be better in every task. So intel's biggest competition will be intel itself.
* By the time CL becomes more affordable (cheaper boards, MSRP prices), AMD will be ready to launch next Zen revision, probably with the same prices and little bit better performance. So maybe only then, they will lower Ryzen 1000 prices, but to clear the shelves, not to make price war
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY