Tuesday, May 14th 2024

AMD Launches the Ryzen 7 8700F ($270) and Ryzen 5 8400F ($170)

by
btarunr
 Discuss (19 Comments)
AMD formally launched the Ryzen 7 8700F and Ryzen 5 8400F Socket AM5 desktop processors. These are variants based on the Ryzen 8000-series desktop APUs, but with their integrated graphics disabled. The 8700F may lack integrated graphics, but includes the Ryzen AI NPU, with up to 16 AI TOPS performance. The 8400F lacks an NPU. Much like the 8700G, the 8700F packs an 8-core/16-thread CPU based on the current "Zen 4" architecture, but with a 100 MHz lower maximum boost frequency of 5.00 GHz. The TDP is the same, at 65 W, and the retail package includes a Wraith Stealth cooler.

The Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core/12-thread processor, but much like the 8500G, it is based on the "Phoenix 2" silicon, which has two "Zen 4" cores that can achieve the maximum 4.70 GHz boost frequency for this chip, and four "Zen 4c" that boost lower. Both kinds of cores feature an identical IPC and ISA, and so AMD Chipset Software uses UEFI CPPC preferred cores software flags to prioritize workload to the "Zen 4" cores. AMD in its launch presentation claims that the 8700F should offer competitive gaming and productivity performance to an Intel Core i5-14400F, and that the 8400F should offer gaming performance in the league of an i5-13400F. The company is pricing the 8700F at $269, or $60 cheaper than the 8700G; while the 8400F is priced at $169, or $10 less than the 8500G.

Related News

Add your own comment

19 Comments on AMD Launches the Ryzen 7 8700F ($270) and Ryzen 5 8400F ($170)

#1
_JP_
Are these laser cut, anyone knows?
Posted on Reply
#2
GenericUsername2001
Those prices are pretty unappealing; being cut down mobile dies these chips have half the L3 cache as the 7000 series chips, and a six core 7600 is only $185 right now on Newgg, and the eight core 7700 $282 on Amazon. And aside from the extra L3 cache those chips also have built in basic iGPUs too. If you are a bit more adventurous and willing to wait a couple weeks for shipping, the Ryzen 7500F is like $130 on Aliexpress.
Posted on Reply
#3
SL2
Just get a 7500F instead of the 8400F.
Posted on Reply
#4
Chaitanya
_JP_Are these laser cut, anyone knows?
wont be surprised to find they are rejected with failed iGPU while binning.
Posted on Reply
#5
Cifu
For 10$ more you can buy a Ryzen 7700 with +300Mhz, full Gen5 PCI-Express support, 16 lanes to the VGA (compared to the x8 for the Ryzen 8700F) and working IGP.
Oh, you won't get the NPU but you can use that only with Radeon 7000 series VGA card so this not a selling point anyway...
Posted on Reply
#6
dj-electric
As mentioned before - cheap CPUs are not the roadblock to higher adoption of AM5 users.
more affordable and wider selection of available AM5 boards is.
Posted on Reply
#7
Dragokar
CifuFor 10$ more you can buy a Ryzen 7700 with +300Mhz, full Gen5 PCI-Express support, 16 lanes to the VGA (compared to the x8 for the Ryzen 8700F) and working IGP.
Oh, you won't get the NPU but you can use that only with Radeon 7000 series VGA card so this not a selling point anyway...
Just compare them when both of them have matured street prices and not street price vs new msrp release tag....
Posted on Reply
#8
Lew Zealand
dj-electricAs mentioned before - cheap CPUs are not the roadblock to higher adoption of AM5 users.
more affordable and wider selection of available AM5 boards is.
PCPartPicker lists about 2x the Mobos available for LGA1700 vs. AM5 and way more $99 and below bare-VRM DDR4 options so for those scraping the bottom, LGA1700 has many more options for the Core i3/Pentium/Celeron buyers. But when you restrict to DDR5 to make the most of your Core i3 and better, the choices for both are almost identical.
Posted on Reply
#9
maximumterror
Lew ZealandPCPartPicker lists about 2x the Mobos available for LGA1700 vs. AM5 and way more $99 and below bare-VRM DDR4 options so for those scraping the bottom, LGA1700 has many more options for the Core i3/Pentium/Celeron buyers. But when you restrict to DDR5 to make the most of your Core i3 and better, the choices for both are almost identical.
wow! many Atom processors and a couple of normal ones from intel. Probably top deal.
Posted on Reply
#10
Chrispy_
Ugh, missing cache = hard pass.

I hate these laptop APUs in a desktop package, The 8400F is doubly pointless because it's more expensive than the 7500F based on the full-fat Raphael cores, whilst also being slower.

Sacrificing half the cache seems to be a necessary compromise to make room for the beefy IGP on the G-series processors, so then getting an F variant with no IGP is a real headscratcher at anything other than bargain-bin prices.
Posted on Reply
#11
Lew Zealand
Chrispy_Ugh, missing cache = hard pass.

I hate these laptop APUs in a desktop package, The 8400F is doubly pointless because it's more expensive than the 7500F based on the full-fat Raphael cores, whilst also being slower.

Sacrificing half the cache seems to be a necessary compromise to make room for the beefy IGP on the G-series processors, so then getting an F variant with no IGP is a real headscratcher at anything other than bargain-bin prices.
IF (big if) you want the lowest idle power usage and the mobile monolithic design delivers enough performance then they are good options. Ok and/or they're considerably cheaper. My kid has an R5 5500 (based on the 5600g monolithic mobile design, cost $94) and it runs cool with just the box Wraith Stealth cooler where my other kid's R5 1600AF does NOT with the same cooler. The difference is dramatic though I need to upgrade other kid's 1600AF to my "old" 5600 when I get the time to do a real 1:1 as it'll get the box cooler too.
Posted on Reply
#12
Carillon
Most probably these CPUs come with unsoldered IHS, like previous APUs
Posted on Reply
#13
Cifu
DragokarJust compare them when both of them have matured street prices and not street price vs new msrp release tag....
At the time theAmazon sell the 8700F at 299$.
When the price dropped around 250$ then the statement can be reconsidered.
But nor 269 and especially not 299 dollar is valid price for such a CPU.
Posted on Reply
#14
Dragokar
CifuAt the time theAmazon sell the 8700F at 299$.
When the price dropped around 250$ then the statement can be reconsidered.
But nor 269 and especially not 299 dollar is valid price for such a CPU.
Just wait for proper street prices. Anything compared now is not the way it should be done.
Posted on Reply
#15
azrael
Personally, I don't care one bit about these CPUs. And that's not even taking their underwhelming nature into account. However, I'm still waiting for those new AM4 CPUs they announced some weeks back. The comeback of the XT models, apparently. Right now we're in this ridiculous situation, at least here in Denmark, where the 5800X3D has risen in price while the 5900X has fallen, after both had a price parity until about a month ago. The 5800X3D now costs a whopping 55€ more than the 5900X and even 75€ more than the 5700X3D. It's insane.
Posted on Reply
#16
Chrispy_
Lew ZealandIF (big if) you want the lowest idle power usage and the mobile monolithic design delivers enough performance then they are good options. Ok and/or they're considerably cheaper. My kid has an R5 5500 (based on the 5600g monolithic mobile design, cost $94) and it runs cool with just the box Wraith Stealth cooler where my other kid's R5 1600AF does NOT with the same cooler. The difference is dramatic though I need to upgrade other kid's 1600AF to my "old" 5600 when I get the time to do a real 1:1 as it'll get the box cooler too.
Yes, that's true - and useful for those tiny NUC-sized prebuilt PCs from Minisforum - but the real issue is that you're worried about something running cool. 90C isn't actually a problem, and the Wraith Stealth is supposed to be a minimum-viable-product for the "65W" CPUs that's as small and easy to ship as possible. AMD roughly calculate what size cooler they need to keep the 88W power draw of those "65W" CPUs at juuuuust under the throttle temperature given a 50-60C delta to work with and they came up with the Stealth which does the job exactly as intended.

If you take laptop silicon designed to operate at 28W and put the same Stealth cooler designed for 88W PPT on it, then yes, it'll run cool - but that's not really gaining you any performance - and if you want silence from a 65W CPU I believe $15-20 will get you a massive, capable cooler like the TR Burst Assassin 120 that will cool an all-core torture test at 900rpm if you set the fan curve not to aggressively hunt lower temperatures.
Posted on Reply
#17
Beginner Macro Device
Wake me up when AMD stop releasing questionable mass market products. Their latest reasonable value release was almost two years ago, namely the AM5 platform (RDNA3 is a joke all around).
Posted on Reply
#18
Random_User
Lew ZealandIF (big if) you want the lowest idle power usage and the mobile monolithic design delivers enough performance then they are good options. Ok and/or they're considerably cheaper. My kid has an R5 5500 (based on the 5600g monolithic mobile design, cost $94) and it runs cool with just the box Wraith Stealth cooler where my other kid's R5 1600AF does NOT with the same cooler. The difference is dramatic though I need to upgrade other kid's 1600AF to my "old" 5600 when I get the time to do a real 1:1 as it'll get the box cooler too.
This is true. These can be fine for the very cheap-end PC building on very tight budgets, where the availability of chiplet based models is bad. But only if the pricing is correct. I don't see the 8700F even clearly viable at $270-300. $200-220 at max. The SKU has so many stuff shaved off, that the attactiveness for it is almost nought. And the 8400F is only viable as some custom built NAS/router.
Posted on Reply
#19
Lew Zealand
Random_UserThis is true. These can be fine for the very cheap-end PC building on very tight budgets, where the availability of chiplet based models is bad. But only if the pricing is correct. I don't see the 8700F even clearly viable at $270-300. $200-220 at max. The SKU has so many stuff shaved off, that the attactiveness for it is almost nought. And the 8400F is only viable as some custom built NAS/router.
Yes, the 5500 was not competitive at it's initial price but the market adjusted it pretty quickly and when doing comparisons on FPS from the 3600, 5500 and 5600, the 5500 was the clear winner for price when it came down under $100. I assume the 8700F will follow suit but who knows what kinds of market pressures are on its segment right now? Yeah I don't see where the 8400F will be competitive but benchmarks will prove interesting.
Chrispy_Yes, that's true - and useful for those tiny NUC-sized prebuilt PCs from Minisforum - but the real issue is that you're worried about something running cool. 90C isn't actually a problem, and the Wraith Stealth is supposed to be a minimum-viable-product for the "65W" CPUs that's as small and easy to ship as possible. AMD roughly calculate what size cooler they need to keep the 88W power draw of those "65W" CPUs at juuuuust under the throttle temperature given a 50-60C delta to work with and they came up with the Stealth which does the job exactly as intended.

If you take laptop silicon designed to operate at 28W and put the same Stealth cooler designed for 88W PPT on it, then yes, it'll run cool - but that's not really gaining you any performance - and if you want silence from a 65W CPU I believe $15-20 will get you a massive, capable cooler like the TR Burst Assassin 120 that will cool an all-core torture test at 900rpm if you set the fan curve not to aggressively hunt lower temperatures.
The Ryzen 5600H the 5500 is derived from is 54W part, not 28W, so the 65W 5500 isn't far off that design spec. But I'm more interested in power use than load temps. This is something I very much appreciate in a PC that's always on on weekends and still on for many hours on weekdays.

Based on the 2 computers' usage patterns, the 5500 in it's current PC is great because it gets bursty workloads and is idling a lot so the monolithic design can power down well. The other computer gets a higher base level of use all the time so the 5600 may be better as it won't often be sitting at that low power state so the extra power use of the IO chiplet won't stand out as much.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 28th, 2024 21:52 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts