Wednesday, February 22nd 2017

AMD Reveals Ryzen 7 Family, Pricing, and Radeon Vega Logo

At a press event by AMD, company CEO Lisa Su unveiled the first three AMD Ryzen desktop processor models, the top-dog Ryzen 7-1800X, the Ryzen 7-1700X, and the Ryzen 7-1700. The R7-1800X is priced at USD $499, followed by the R7-1700X at $399, and the R7-1700 at $329. The three chips will be available for purchase on the 2nd of March, 2017. The R7-1800X is clocked at 3.60 GHz, with a TurboCore frequency of 4.00 GHz, and the XFR (extended frequency range) feature, which further overclocks the chip, depending on the effectiveness of your CPU cooler.

The Ryzen 7-1700X ships with 3.40 GHz clocks, with 3.80 GHz TurboCore frequency, and the XFR feature. The Ryzen 7-1700 lacks XFR, and comes with slightly lower clocks, at 3.00 GHz core, and 3.70 GHz TurboCore. All three are true 8-core chips, with 512 KB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Also featured are dual-channel DDR4 integrated memory controllers, and an integrated PCI-Express gen 3.0 root complex. The Ryzen 7-1700 has a TDP of just 65W (for a performance 8-core chip that's a kick in the butts of Intel's engineers), and will include an AMD Wraith Max cooling solution, while the 1700X and 1800X have TDP rated at 95W, and will come without coolers. At its media event, CEO Lisa Su stated that at $499, the Ryzen 7-1800X "smokes" the Intel Core i7-6900K eight-core processor. The company also unveiled the branding of its Radeon Vega enthusiast graphics family. Lastly, feast your eyes on the beautiful, 14 nm, Made-in-USA die-shot of Ryzen.

Source: HotHardware
Add your own comment

141 Comments on AMD Reveals Ryzen 7 Family, Pricing, and Radeon Vega Logo

#1
medi01
Total number of transistors is a bit worrying (4.8 billion, haswell had 2.6)
Posted on Reply
#4
captainskyhawk
medi01 said:
Total number of transistors is a bit worrying (4.8 billion, haswell had 2.6)
A bit worrying... for Intel, you mean! :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#5
medi01
captainskyhawk said:
A bit worrying... for Intel, you mean! :rockout:
Mm, nope?
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
Which Haswell? The mainstream model or HEDT? If mainstream, I mean, this thing has twice as many cores, you'll kinda need more transistors for that. Besides, who cares about transistors count. Delivers the performance? It does. Delivers the price? It does. Delivers amazing TDP? It does. What difference does it make then? You should ask yourself what the hell was Intel doing, by still pushing garbage 4c/8t processors in late 2016, early 2017...
Posted on Reply
#8
GoldenX
Haswell-EX has 2.6 billion transistors, so AMD is wasting a lot of space on caché, or there are plans for a 16 core model.
Remember Deneb CPUs, they had the same (officialy reported) transistor count on dual, tri and quad core models.
Posted on Reply
#9
medi01
52% IPC is vs Piledriver... vs Escavator is 64%.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11143/AMD%20Ryzen%20Tech%20Day%20-%20Lisa%20Su%20Keynote_IanCutress-page-035.jpg

RejZoR said:
Which Haswell?
Haswel -E, released in 2014, 8 core one.


RejZoR said:
What difference does it make then?
On one of the slides we can see idle power consumption of chips.
8 core Ryzens consume about 40, 8 core i7's about 60, 4 core i7 30W.

They do not mention actual power consumption under load though.
Possibly because when mentioned performance is achieved there isn't much difference between "140w" intel and "95w" ryzen.

Being on par is still good achievement for AMD, keeping in mind they are still on inferior process node.
Posted on Reply
#10
yotano211
Come on Clevo, you need to put one of these in a laptop. I will be all over it.
Posted on Reply
#11
RejZoR
I don't think the Haswell-E can even compete with R7 1800X, considering it destroys a 6900K which is like top of the line Core i7 at the moment. It'll still be a worthy CPU for a near future though, just like my 5820K. These aren't king of the hill (mine wasn't anyway since it's an entry HEDT model hehe) anymore, but still worthy CPU's. I mean, between 6700K and 5820K for the same price, naturally I took the 5820K. Was in doubt about the older manufacturing process, but mature 22nm proved to be very competent.
Posted on Reply
#12
Shihabyooo
So it's official; affordable, well-performing octa cores are a thing. Time to prep for a new installation, I guess.

I have to admit, though, the 1700 makes the other two irrelevant. XFR might be interesting in theory, but for a 20/50% price premium? Not much., especially when considering all those chips are OC'able, making the clock differences also irrelevant to many. The whole thing doesn't make sense! But I guess that's just the cynicism one acquires after a decade-long monopoly.
Posted on Reply
#13
medi01
RejZoR said:
a 6900K
3.6 billion.

Shihabyooo said:
XFR might be interesting in theory, but for a 20/50% price premium
It's both XFR and base clock.
Posted on Reply
#16
alucasa
AMD has caught up, not suppressed Intel. I reckon Intel will make price adjustment and we will finally see 15% increase which Intel claims for Cannonlake.

How long it took AMD to catch up is what is worrying.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheLaughingMan
If all I get from XFR is 100 MHz boost, I don't want or need it.
Posted on Reply
#19
Slizzo
TheLaughingMan said:
If all I get from XFR is 100 MHz boost, I don't want or need it.
You get stock clock bumps of 100MHz, but if you have good cooling and don't feel like overclocking yourself this should prove out to be a nice "auto" overclocker.

Of course in a weeks' time we will see how much this bares out.
Posted on Reply
#21
N3M3515
alucasa said:
AMD has caught up, not suppressed Intel. I reckon Intel will make price adjustment and we will finally see 15% increase which Intel claims for Cannonlake.

How long it took AMD to catch up is what is worrying.
Considering they have like 1/50 the budget intel has, it's not worrying at all.
Posted on Reply
#22
alucasa
N3M3515 said:
Considering they have like 1/50 the budget intel has, it's not worrying at all.
Not worrying for Intel. Worrying for us.
Posted on Reply
#23
TheLaughingMan
Slizzo said:
You get stock clock bumps of 100MHz, but if you have good cooling and don't feel like overclocking yourself this should prove out to be a nice "auto" overclocker.

Of course in a weeks' time we will see how much this bares out.
I believe the 100 MHz boost from XFR (the specs show 1800X = 3.6 GHz stock, 4.0 GHz boost, 4.1 GHz XFR) is while using the provided AMD stock cooler so it was low and conservative. I believe better cooling as they promised will yield a better XFR auto OC.

This is why I am waiting for benchmarks like everyone else. If XFR boosts well under a beefy air cooler or AIO, then I might go with the 1700X. But if it doesn't help and manual OC is the way to go, then I will get the 1700 and do it myself.
Posted on Reply
#24
RejZoR
medi01 said:
3.6 billion.


It's both XFR and base clock.
Well, you also have to look at caches. If they are larger on Ryzen, that will automatically result in more transistors. Besides, Intel has an advantage since they design and "forge" the chips. AMD has to work with what foundries have available and the process might not be as optimized as with Intel. I frankly never cared about transistor count and I won't this time either. Same went for GPU's as well. All I care is what features they offer, what performance and at what price. Everything else doesn't matter. When same performing chip costs more than half the price of competitor's CPU, it can run on fermented bananas for all I care lol.

TheLaughingMan said:
I believe the 100 MHz boost from XFR (the specs show 1800X = 3.6 GHz stock, 4.0 GHz boost, 4.1 GHz XFR) is while using the provided AMD stock cooler so it was low and conservative. I believe better cooling as they promised will yield a better XFR auto OC.

This is why I am waiting for benchmarks like everyone else. If XFR boosts well under a beefy air cooler or AIO, then I might go with the 1700X. But if it doesn't help and manual OC is the way to go, then I will get the 1700 and do it myself.
Technically, if you live in colder climate and you use stock cooler, place the case outside on cold and it should boost beyond just 100MHz even on stock cooler... We'll see.
Posted on Reply
#25
Jhelms
As pointed out, time will tell on the XFR feature panning out. But if I was to throw my money out today, I think the 1700 (non x) looks to be the bang for the buck monster. Already building my new setup on paper - looking forward to the build!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment