Read more.Quote:
17 processors listed; quad-, hexa-, and octa-cores, all with unlocked multipliers.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
17 processors listed; quad-, hexa-, and octa-cores, all with unlocked multipliers.
I like how they seem to have directly comparable range names with intel (R3/I3 R5/I5 etc.) it should be less confusing for a lot of consumer than the previous naming schemes.
Now I just hope the prices are competitive enough for me to be able to afford a top end R5 at the very least.
What the "Pro" stands for? Like Xeon (workstation class) or ?
Shouldwe be worried that the 4 core 8 thread is boing up against a i5 7400 and not a simalar spec i7 7700k?
Wild guess, but the Pro's might support ECC ram and have their multiplier locked, this is something that is more useful in a corporate environment where you don't want people tinkering with their machine.
Not if the prices of each are equal... not about matching the performance 1:1, it's about providing the same speed at a price. That's what AMD are good at, usually. We'll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
It's kind of a shame that the top end chip is only "comparable" with an existing rival octa-core chip, that will be getting on for a year old by the time the Ryzens are out.
I guess, for me, price is going to be the big deciding factor.
On a dubious Chinese leak? Doubt it. Given we don't have actual clock speeds, or any actual performance figures from retail silicon, that's obviously a wild assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
Most likely scenario is that the comparison are guesses at pricing - and if AMD do put out 4C/8T chips at i5 prices it's going to be good for the consumer.
If the prices compare, then things don't look good for intel's i3's - a 2C4T design against a 4C4T chip with comparable IPC? Not a chanceQuote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
Even more dubious now it seems the original source, a forum post, has been deleted.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Didn't Lisa Su say Ryzen would ship with 3.4GHZ base clockspeeds as a minimum?? The line-up leaked in the article had no SKUs starting at 3.4GHZ!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by XlucineIf the prices compare, then things don't look good for intel's i3's - a 2C4T design against a 4C4T chip with comparable IPC? Not a chanceQuote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
Remember though that the i3 has an integrated GPU, and getting an extra discrete GPU will take more space, power and money than is necessarily desirable for a low cost home desktop. Great for cheap gaming computers, but I daresay that for now the i3 will still do well.
The true test will be when AMD releases its Zen-based APUs. They should offer good enough CPU performance with vastly improved graphics performance; just right for a general purpose home PC.
I believe the middle column is base clock speed across that range of processors, not base speed and turbo. Engineering samples imply that the top rated chip will be 3.6GHz base 4GHz turbo (and that there is a 3.3/3.7GHz hexcore), though these are obviously leaks about engineering samples so caveat lector.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
R3, R5 and R7. Seems awfully close to the current i3, i5 and i7 that Intel do. Can they get away with something like that?
However, 16 threads running at 3.5GHz, or thereabouts, should provide some lovely numbers.
Will be interesting to see how well these things overclock and if they can push Intel to provide an actual performance increase with their 8th Gen CPUs.
R3, R5, R7 ... OK, I'm sure they want to line up next to Intel but I think this would've been a great moment to simplify the CPU range :
R4 - 4 cores
R6 - 6 cores
R8 - 8 cores
And the added benefit of being "one more" than Intel. Goes to 11 y'know?
And the "X" could be AMD's version of Intel's "K" = unlocked multiplier.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisWragg
Could've sworn that AMD confirmed all of its standard consumer CPUs would be multiplier unlocked. No need for an X or K in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by iworrall
Edit: Here's the link. http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/10129...will-unlocked/
The X could be ones that come with AiO water coolers? For "Xtreme" overclocking.
Depends how carefully reviewers let Intel cherry pick their apps and games for the AMD reviews ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
I do think the new Pentium with hyperthreading is Intel's attempt to make it look like if just a Pentium with a couple of cores is enough for gaming, then more than 8 threads is silly. I don't think that is true, and I think it will be further from the truth as time goes on, but I fully expect to hear it. That required an i3 to be labelled as a Pentium to make the story stick.
Not just R3=i3, etc, but they've also matched model numbers:Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
R5 1400 = i5-7400
R5 1500 = i5-7500
R5 1600 = i5-7600
R7 1700 = i7-7700
I also think the X represents unlocked multiplier, like Intel K. This may well apply to all standard consumer CPU's, with the non-X processors being OEM versions.
I want to believe, but I'll wait to see an official announcement from AMD, especially given the dubious source of the information.
That would make sense, except that AMD has confirmed that all Zen SKUs have unlocked multipliers (although I'd expect there to be caveats when you look at the Pro SKUs).Quote:
Originally Posted by iworrall
I'd say the Pro series should be something along the lines of the Pro APUs of later years - 4-5-year support cycles, probably ECC support, possibly some additional features unlocked (that ARM-based security chip AMD has kicking around?), extensive stability and longevity testing (along with well-binned chips with semi-conservative clocks), and lastly: certification with popular professional applications.
I'm struggling to imagine what X would imply, so I'm leaning towards it simply being an easy way of saying "this is the fastest/best binned SKU in this series". The R7 1700, 1700X and 1800X mess that theory up somewhat, though.
Also, why haven't any sites managed to actually translate the headings in the table? What does the rightmost column say except "Intel"? Does it say "comparable Intel chips"? "Similarly priced Intel chips"? "These are some product names from Intel"? "Just messing with people who don't read Chinese. Intel"?
I think these AMD chips either need to be a fair bit cheaper than the equivalent Intel, or have better performance.
Just releasing a chip that is almost or just about as good as the current Intel for a relatively small saving will just mean that people go with what they know works right now and stick with Intel.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly what AMD wants to do, but if you've seen their financials recently that might not be an option. At least at the top end they will be considerably cheaper, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon861
Missed a trick not just denoting them by processor count. R8 is 1 louder.
Sometimes I think I'm the only sane one, and then I come here and people talk sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy
Dear AMD - your marketing people are rubbish. Just post stuff on Hexus and we'll give you some free ideas. Will accept free motherboard and CPU upgrades as payment :) Your welcome.
I just hope if AMD has a winner here, and it is BEATING Intel in more than half the stuff, they PRICE as BEATING Intel. They have one chance to make a few billion here and pay off debt. Intel WILL respond hard core to being spanked (like last time ~1999-2002), and you need to take all the high-end profits you can for as long as possible here. They are in business to MAKE MONEY, not be everybody's discount shop. I say that as a person who is hoping the posted handbrake victories vs. Intel are REAL and would buy a ZEN chip if that is the case probably (assuming games are within 5-10%, handbrake and watts/heat mean far more to me). I do not mind paying what ZEN is worth, not what some fool wants for free which will simply bankrupt them at some point. Note we went through the last whole round and they never made a dime (bullsnozer, fury, etc).
I hope people realize they need to make money at some point, instead of losing another 500mil like last year. They are still 2-3ys of 1BILLION PROFIT years away from being debt free and having some money to actually hire more engineers to get more competitive ALWAYS in their core stuff. I'd love a great price as much as the next guy, and will take it if they are stupid enough to price a i7-6900 level chip at $330...ROFL. If they win more benchmarks than they lost, PRICE EVEN or even higher until stock is on the shelf unsold. Again, they are a BUSINESS who badly needs to make money and might have a product (or two) worth the actual price!
Freeloaders pushing cheap prices suck. Get a better job if you can't handle a price appropriate sticker. Shareholder should revolt and ask for management's resignation if they don't price where perf says they should! You don't price what people WANT, you price what the market will handle (ask Intel/Nvidia - See both sides record quarters, earnings, margins, etc). Like I said, I'll take the cheap chip myself, but I'll laugh inside and say to myself, "freaking morons, but thanks...LOL - Goodbye R&D for round 2".
Looks like a pricing leak from a UK based distributor:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...e_distributor/
https://i.redd.it/pys3ubnqvpey.png
Edit!!
More pricing leaks from OcUK forums:
http://www.kikatek.com/P893987/YD170...-65W?cPath=438
http://www.kikatek.com/P893986/YD170...GHZ-8-CORE-SKT
http://www.kikatek.com/P893985/YD180...GHZ-8-CORE-SKT
Also a leak from ShopBLT who have tended to be accurate:
http://www.shopblt.com/search/order_...&search=Search
Also,a 4.2GHZ Ryzen SKU spotted in China:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/am...libility.html?
Its priced at $290. It might be the top bin 6C/12T SKU!!
Recent leaks imply that the X indicates a higher TDP part, i.e. the 1700X is a 95W chip whilst the 1700 is 65W.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valantar
So what's the thinking on these higher TDP parts? Higher turbo boost?Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTAIN_ALLCAPS
Probably more like it can maintain its turbo for longer - so the 1700 has a listed turbo of 3.7GHz, but I imagine it can only maintain that boost for a relatively short period of time to stay within the capabilities of a 65W cooling system. The 1700X can probably maintain its 3.8GHz peak turbo almost indefinitely, as long as it has adequate cooling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad77
EDIT: just as an aside though, other AMD processors (particularly mobile ones) can run outside their rated boost clocks and TDP for a very short period of time under certain conditions, and if that's the case with Ryzen then the real world boost on the X processors might be higher than listed...
Well, the "X" rated TDP of 95W is not that high, and the boosts are hardly extreme. Presumably the intention is for the X parts to be better able to boost multiple cores at once as well as get those slightly higher boost speeds, and the 65W parts get most of the performance for a nice cut in power and therefore heat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad77
However I would honestly like the 1800X to ship with a 120W+ TDP. It is hardly unreasonable for a high-clocked octacore CPU, especially when AMD will also offer more energy efficient options. Although having said that, it remains to be seen what the actual power draw of these chips are; TDP is barely more than a marketing number these days.
Ryzen is an SOC,so reviews which isolate CPU only power consumption will not give a fair view of things - it needs to be platform based.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTAIN_ALLCAPS
I suspect overclocking Ryzen might be a bit more complicated with all that functionality on-board. It might explain why AMD is trying to automate it in some way looking at the bumpf so far.
Is this extra headroom (for more concurrent cores running at boost speeds) in the X parts there because the X parts are different in some way or because they are binned?Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTAIN_ALLCAPS
What I'm wondering is that if you are paying more just to remove some inbuilt turbo throttling parameters (and for a handpicked and tested chip), then we may be back to the good old days of overclocking... the days when you could buy a cheaper part (in this case the non-X) and attempt to run it at the speed of the top of the range ones, knowing that physically the chips were identical (and in fact were sometimes higher-end chips that were being downgraded to fill the demand in that lower market segment).
That *would* be nice...
damn, forgot about that - stop pissing on my bonfire!Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Yeah,but TBH does it really matter if Intel gets a few 100MHZ more?? In terms of percentage overclocks its not really that high TBH. It was not like in the past when I could get a 1.8GHZ E4300 to 3.1GHZ fairly easily!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad77
As long as AMD can get to around 4GHZ to 4.5GHZ its still reasonably fine as long as IPC,is reasonably decent,and especially if the CPUs cost less per core/per thread than the Intel ones.
I do miss that very satisfying feeling of watching the benchmarks on your bargain bucket cpu leap upwards by 50% or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH