Thursday, June 1st 2017

AMD Trims Prices of the Ryzen 7 1700 and 1700X

AMD recently cut the price of its current flagship desktop processor Ryzen 7 1800X from its USD $499 launch price to $469. At the time, it left prices of the Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 1700X untouched. It looks like the two received small price-cuts as well. The Ryzen 7 1700X is now priced at $349 in leading online stores, down from its launch price of $399. The Ryzen 7 1700 (non-X), on the other hand, is now selling for $319, down from its launch price of $329. The two cuts may seem minor, but could help AMD turn up the heat against Intel's Core i7-7700K and its upcoming "Kaby Lake-X" Core i7-7740X and i5-7640X.

Based on the 14 nm "Summit Ridge" silicon, the Ryzen 7 1700 and 1700X are eight-core processors. The 1700 ships with clock speeds of 3.00 GHz, with 3.70 GHz boost, while the 1700X ships with higher 3.40 GHz clocks, with 3.80 GHz boost, and XFR, which adds a further 200 MHz to the boost clock. The Ryzen 7 1700 includes an AMD Wraith Spire RGB cooling solution, while the 1700X lacks a stock cooling solution.

Update 03/06: AMD reached out to us and commented that this is not an official price-change. It could be implemented by local retailers or distributors.
Add your own comment

37 Comments on AMD Trims Prices of the Ryzen 7 1700 and 1700X

#1
Chaitanya
50$ price drop is not small, it makes that 1700x a very attractive proposition for pc builders.
Posted on Reply
#2
Raevenlord
News Editor
Harder and harder to resist the upgrade itch, but I must not relent!
Posted on Reply
#3
meirb111
the Core i7-7740X and i5-7640X aren't so "cost effective" as the leaks suggested a few weeks ago combined with the added price of the x299 motherboard ,not that attractive.
Posted on Reply
#4
HD64G
My thought on this price cut is that while Ryzen is excelling on the price/performance chart, the mindset is still strong on Intel CPUs and the retailers needed some discount more to dare and order more Ryzen's in order to build more systems. Let's hope Ryzen gen 1 succeeds as a product in sale count and give money for AMD R&D to get us an even better 2nd gen and an even more 3rd one. We need competition!
Posted on Reply
#5
yogurt_21
Sales Manager "The 1800X and 1700X aren't hitting our sales estimates, you think we should cut prices?"
Exec "Cut the 1800X by 30$ and the 1700X by 50$, it was way off our estimations"
Sales Manager " What about the plain 1700? it'll only be 20$ cheaper than the 1700X"
Exec "Dang, that one's selling well...Meh just lower it by 10$ to give some room"
Posted on Reply
#6
phanbuey


Worstation at work... total cost of parts... $800... with a 1TB ssd... that was impossible 4 months ago.
Posted on Reply
#7
birdie
AMD is starting to realalize that > 95% of people out there don't give a flying f*ck about content creation (encoding and rendering) - but they do care about IPC which you cannot replace with 1000 cores for single threaded applications.

phanbuey said:
Worstation at work... total cost of parts... $800... with a 1TB ssd... that was impossible 4 months ago.
Two weeks ago I built a system based on Intel Core i5 7400 along with 240GB SSD and 8GB DDR4 2400MHz for $500. A Ryzen 1600 based one would have cost at least $200 more.
Posted on Reply
#8
phanbuey
birdie said:
AMD is starting to realalize that > 95% of people out there don't give a flying f*ck about content creation (encoding and rendering) - but they do care about IPC which you cannot replace with 1000 cores for single threaded applications.



Two weeks ago I built a system based on Intel Core i5 7400 along with 240GB SSD and 8GB DDR4 2400MHz for $500. A Ryzen 1600 based one would have cost at least $200 more.
That's a SQL datamining box with 32GB of ram... two of those i5 systems glued together still wouldn't can't hold a candle to it... hell our xeon server can't hold a candle to it. Granted i used a ton of cheap / and secondhand stuff but still.

yogurt_21 said:
Sales Manager "The 1800X and 1700X aren't hitting our sales estimates, you think we should cut prices?"
Exec "Cut the 1800X by 30$ and the 1700X by 50$, it was way off our estimations"
Sales Manager " What about the plain 1700? it'll only be 20$ cheaper than the 1700X"
Exec "Dang, that one's selling well...Meh just lower it by 10$ to give some room"
:roll::roll::roll:

Man, careful, they're gonna start sweeping the conference room for bugs if they see that.
Posted on Reply
#9
R0H1T
birdie said:
AMD is starting to realalize that > 95% of people out there don't give a flying f*ck about content creation (encoding and rendering) - but they do care about IPC which you cannot replace with 1000 cores for single threaded applications.



Two weeks ago I built a system based on Intel Core i5 7400 along with 240GB SSD for $500. A Ryzen 1600 based one would have cost at least $200 more.
Say what, 99% of the people out there don't know what's IPC, or for that matter TDP! They see more cores & that's what sells, it does help though that Ryzen's IPC is within 5% of Skylake (best case) & power consumption is well within limits.
Posted on Reply
#10
phanbuey
R0H1T said:
Say what, 99% of the people out there don't know what's IPC, or for that matter TDP! They see more cores & that's what sells, it does help though that Ryzen's IPC is within 5% of Skylake (best case) & power consumption is well within limits.
Also if you do want to futureproof your grandma's PC, core count is better since she is going to keep it until it dies. I just replaced my parents' Q6600 rig not that long ago. And I built that way back when everyone was clocking the pants off conroe/allendales and yelling about how stupid buying a quad is.

I wish Intel would bring back a 5775C type variant with the gobs of cache... Would be awesome to have 8/16 with 256MB ED RAM
Posted on Reply
#11
TheGuruStud
birdie said:
AMD is starting to realalize that > 95% of people out there don't give a flying f*ck about content creation (encoding and rendering) - but they do care about IPC which you cannot replace with 1000 cores for single threaded applications.



Two weeks ago I built a system based on Intel Core i5 7400 along with 240GB SSD and 8GB DDR4 2400MHz for $500. A Ryzen 1600 based one would have cost at least $200 more.
You need new eyeballs if you shop that poorly. 1600 was 193 a couple days ago. If I want a MB with it, then it's 250 (plus tax unfortunately).
Posted on Reply
#12
Casecutter
TheGuruStud said:
You need new eyeballs if you shop that poorly. 1600 was 193 a couple days ago. If I want a MB with it, then it's 250 (plus tax unfortunately).
Mircrocenter... A 1600 bundle with a ASUS PRIME B350-PLUS AM4 ATX =$250. I' go to the 1600X bundled with a ASRock AB350 Pro4 AM4 ATX AMD = $266 and just find/run a nice cooler.
Posted on Reply
#13
TheLaughingMan
I got my 1800X for $400, so I am not mad. This is a good move by AMD and makes me think the bottom of the new Threadripper line will start at the $500 to $575 price range.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheLostSwede
HD64G said:
My thought on this price cut is that while Ryzen is excelling on the price/performance chart, the mindset is still strong on Intel CPUs and the retailers needed some discount more to dare and order more Ryzen's in order to build more systems. Let's hope Ryzen gen 1 succeeds as a product in sale count and give money for AMD R&D to get us an even better 2nd gen and an even more 3rd one. We need competition!
You couldn't be more right from what I've heard at Computex. DIY sales are good, but SI sales are really weak.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheLostSwede
phanbuey said:


Worstation at work... total cost of parts... $800... with a 1TB ssd... that was impossible 4 months ago.
Only 3.7GHz... You should be able to hit at least 3.8 with decent cooling.
Posted on Reply
#16
gupsterg
@btarunr

The R7 1700 does have XFR. It has half what X CPU has, so +50MHz. X CPU is +100MHz.







For example, for the 1800X SKU the clock configuration is following:

3.6GHz all core frequency (MACF)
4.0GHz single core frequency (MSCF)
3.7GHz maximum all core XFR ceiling (ACXFRC)
4.1GHz maximum single core XFR ceiling (SCXFRC).


For example, for the 1700X SKU the clock configuration is following:

3.4GHz all core frequency (MACF)
3.8GHz single core frequency (MSCF)
3.5GHz maximum all core XFR ceiling (ACXFRC)
3.9GHz maximum single core XFR ceiling (SCXFRC).


For example, for the 1700 SKU the clock configuration is following:

3.0GHz all core frequency (MACF)
3.7GHz single core frequency (MSCF)
3.2GHz maximum all core XFR ceiling (ACXFRC)
3.75GHz maximum single core XFR ceiling (SCXFRC).
Posted on Reply
#17
phanbuey
TheLostSwede said:
Only 3.7GHz... You should be able to hit at least 3.8 with decent cooling.
Its on the stock cooler... I can do 3.8 but the temps get crazy. 3.7 ghz is plenty for what we do - also it's a 24/7 box.
Posted on Reply
#18
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
phanbuey said:

I wish Intel would bring back a 5775C type variant with the gobs of cache... Would be awesome to have 8/16 with 256MB ED RAM
So much this, or the very least put that IGP in a Pentium G4560.
Posted on Reply
#19
theeldest
TheLaughingMan said:
I got my 1800X for $400, so I am not mad. This is a good move by AMD and makes me think the bottom of the new Threadripper line will start at the $500 to $575 price range.
I'm pretty sure the drops are to make room for Threadripper when it releases. The initial prices were never intended to be the permanent prices but the early adopter prices.
Posted on Reply
#20
TheinsanegamerN
R0H1T said:
Say what, 99% of the people out there don't know what's IPC, or for that matter TDP! They see more cores & that's what sells, it does help though that Ryzen's IPC is within 5% of Skylake (best case) & power consumption is well within limits.
More cores doesnt sell. See the six core phenom and the FX line.

Being competitive is what sells. Realistically, 99% of people dont care about number of cores as long as it does what they need it to do.
Posted on Reply
#21
R0H1T
TheinsanegamerN said:
More cores doesnt sell. See the six core phenom and the FX line.

Being competitive is what sells. Realistically, 99% of people dont care about number of cores as long as it does what they need it to do.
Actually it does, certainly for people who go shopping for parts, the ones who buy prebuilts are not included. And we're talking about 2017 not 2007, remember octa/deca cores in phones?

A couple of things to keep in mind, it's GHz vs cores & then the Intel brand name that sells. In other words, people who're familiar with AMD (I know enigneers who did't hear of AMD until after they joined the workforce) look at the (competitive) clock speeds & the core count. As someone else said above, the DIY market is on the uptick partially because we have more cores on sale in the mainstream arena. The prebuilts are continually going down, that trend will not change IMO.
Posted on Reply
#22
R-T-B
Raevenlord said:
Harder and harder to resist the upgrade itch, but I must not relent!
Do it, then we can both be poor together.
More cores doesnt sell. See the six core phenom and the FX line.
The fact that they sold any of those frankly is proof that more cores does sell.
Posted on Reply
#23
TheLostSwede
phanbuey said:
Its on the stock cooler... I can do 3.8 but the temps get crazy. 3.7 ghz is plenty for what we do - also it's a 24/7 box.
Right, the stock cooler isn't particularly nice or good, so that makes sense.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheinsanegamerN
R0H1T said:
Actually it does, certainly for people who go shopping for parts, the ones who buy prebuilts are not included. And we're talking about 2017 not 2007, remember octa/deca cores in phones?

A couple of things to keep in mind, it's GHz vs cores & then the Intel brand name that sells. In other words, people who're familiar with AMD (I know enigneers who did't hear of AMD until after they joined the workforce) look at the (competitive) clock speeds & the core count. As someone else said above, the DIY market is on the uptick partially because we have more cores on sale in the mainstream arena. The prebuilts are continually going down, that trend will not change IMO.
Yeah, I do. I also remember, in 2017 prior to zens release, 8 core AMD parts getting spanked by intel in every application, and barely selling at all. And 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Then suddenly, zen comes out, is competitive core for core, and suddenly boom! sales increase. If it were due to moar coars, then the FX line wouldnt have bombed so abysmally.

The best selling DIY parts were 4 core i7 and i5 parts, not 6 core i7s, and not 8 core FX units. It's performance, not core count, that sells. Look at the steam hardware survey. 2-4 cores makes up 90+% of CPUs. 49% 4 cores, 45% dual cores, 4.25% more than 4 cores. There is 0 evidence that moar coars sells for anything but a niche market.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear it. Sales numbers, shipments, ece.
Posted on Reply
#25
Nihilus
birdie said:
AMD is starting to realalize that > 95% of people out there don't give a flying f*ck about content creation (encoding and rendering) - but they do care about IPC which you cannot replace with 1000 cores for single threaded applications.

Two weeks ago I built a system based on Intel Core i5 7400 along with 240GB SSD and 8GB DDR4 2400MHz for $500. A Ryzen 1600 based one would have cost at least $200 more.
I guess I am in the 5%. How a system performs in real world scenarios matters more to me than an arbitrary IPC number. I know, weird.

Curious how a Ryzen could cost more than an i5 based sysetem when the motherboards are generally cheaper.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment