QOTW: Which AMD Ryzen CPU has caught your eye?

[HEXUS]

Going by recent leaks, is there a particular model that's tickling your fancy?

Read more.

[sykobee]

1600X - although I believe it will be a 95W $299 SKU, and what your table shows as a 1600X is in fact a 1600.
If not, then hey, $259, sweet.

[GinoLatino]

Ryzen 7 1700... the 65w is my main interest, but I like to see some benchmark first.

[Corky34]

If money was no object it would obviously be the most expensive, as it is i think the 1400X could give a good cost/performance ratio.

[eviling]

Ryzen 5 1400X looks nice to me.
Currently using a core i7 2600k, so it would pretty much be the same performance, which is still enough for me. And i assume i can always pick one of the top tier ones later if i should need it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Ryzen 5 1400X or the Ryzen 5 1600X.

[LSG501]

1700 or above... so basically any with the 8/16 cores
The 1700 if it overclocks well would be the obvious one to pick because the rest of it is likely the same, especially if it can 'boost' to 3.7 from 3 versus 3.8 from 3.4 of the 1700x

Mind you I'm not really into overclocking these days so I'd likely just pick the 1800x lol, compared with the intel 8 core offerings it's still a considerable saving

[Marcassin]

R7 1700X sounds like a proper replacement for my good old hexacore Xeon x5675

[[DW]Cougho]

The whole range has caught my eye. I was originally thinking of going 'all-in' and getting a 16 thread monster (1700X most likely) but I don't think I need that much power. Everything from the 1400X upwards would be a great upgrade for me.

I'll likely see how the early adopters get on with clocks before making any decision. Plus I don't want to be dealing with REV 1.0 BIOSes.

[DanceswithUnix]

I just spent the cost of a 1700X on dental surgery. Had to be done, but all that toy money gone along with my broken tooth

1600X looks like the sweet spot, but knowing me I will either be building a cheap machine and go for a 1200X or splurge on an 1800X. After all, I need a motherboard and DDR4 ram so the incremental cost of a complete platform refresh isn't that big a percentage.

[ColinP]

None of them. If recent cpu history has taught us anything, then you wait for the second iteration of a new arch. Sandy, Phenom II, Piledriver were all significantly better than their immediate predecessors but only marginally improved with each successive generation.

[zsde]

Have a 4/8 at the moment, so the 1400X would be an attractive replacement at that price. The next one I would consider in terms of my requirements would be the 1600X. Anything more would be a total overkill for my usage. Welcome back AMD. I am glad I now have a competitive alternate again.

[Airwave]

1600X as it seems the have the best price-performance ratio, unless the 1400X proves to be the much better overclocker.

[pastymuncher]

None of them yet. I want to see independant reviews before I make my mind up. All we have at the moment is rumour and speculation.

[deepblue08]

1700X, Max cores and overclockable.

[FRISH]

I want to wait for benchmarks really, though I agree that the 1600X seems to fit a nice spot for price/performance. I'm not sure if the 1700X is worth almost twice the price when there's still a fair amount of applications that don't make the most out of multithreading. No idea if I'll upgrade, things are going fine but there is a little itch I have