Thursday, July 13th 2017

AMD CEO Talks Ryzen Threadripper and Ryzen 3 Series in Latest Company Video

In a video presentation posted on the company's official YouTube channel, AMD CEO Lisa Su talked at length about the two new lines of Ryzen desktop processors the company plans to launch later this month. This includes the Ryzen Threadripper HEDT socket TR4 processor at the higher-end of the lineup, and the new Ryzen 3 series socket AM4 processors at the lower-end. AMD is announcing market-availability of two SKUs for each of the two brands. To begin with, AMD will launch two quad-core SKUs in the Ryzen 3 series, beginning with the Ryzen 3 1200 and the Ryzen 3 1300X. Both of these are quad-core parts which lack SMT, leaving them with just four threads. AMD is expected to price them on par with Intel's dual-core "Kaby Lake" Core i3 SKUs.

The Ryzen 3 1200 is clocked at 3.10 GHz, with 3.40 GHz boost, the 1300X is clocked higher, at 3.50 GHz, with 3.70 GHz boost, and XFR (extended frequency range) enabling higher clocks depending on the efficacy of your cooling. Both parts will be available worldwide on July 27. The Ryzen Threadripper HEDT processor lineup is designed to take Intel's Core X series head-on, and will launch with two SKUs, initially. This includes the 12-core Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, and the 16-core Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Both parts further feature SMT and XFR. The 12-core/24-thread 1920X features clock speeds of 3.50 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost; while the 16-core/32-thread 1950X ticks at 3.40 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost. AMD also ran live demos of the Threadripper chips, in which the 12-core 1920X was shown to beat 10-core Intel Core i9-7900X at Cinebench R15 multi-threaded benchmark. The 16-core 1950X was shown to be close to 50% faster than the i9-7900X. The company also confirmed pricing.
The Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is priced at USD $799, while the Threadripper 1950X goes for a stunning $999. Both chips feature 32 MB of L3 cache, a 64-lane PCI-Express root complex, which enables full x16 bandwidth for up to 3 graphics cards; and a quad-channel DDR4 memory interface. Of course, both SKUs are completely unlocked. Both Threadripper parts will be available in the market by "early August" alongside a wave of compatible socket TR4 motherboards based on the AMD X399 chipset. At its SIGGRAPH 2017 event held on July 27, the company will formally launch the Ryzen 3 series, the Ryzen Threadripper series, and the Radeon RX Vega family of high-end graphics cards.
The video presentation follows:


Add your own comment

118 Comments on AMD CEO Talks Ryzen Threadripper and Ryzen 3 Series in Latest Company Video

#1
kruk
Whoa, at 3.5/3.7 GHz (+XFR) the Ryzen 3 1300X will be extremely close to Ryzen 5 1400, making the latter obsolete.
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
AMD effectively murdered the entire Intel Core X lineup below the i9-7900X. Even if the i7-7800X or i7-7850X somehow scrape through in CPU performance using Intel's latest spate of PR bullshit; they still can't get away with crippled PCIe (28-lane).
Posted on Reply
#3
phanbuey
pricing is too high... at least on the x models... hopefully they release a variant like the r7 1700 that will make more sense.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheLostSwede
phanbuey said:
pricing is too high... at least on the x models... hopefully they release a variant like the r7 1700 that will make more sense.
I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $999 for a 16-core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart. :kookoo:

What does AMD have to do, give their CPUs away for free to make people happy? Yet Intel can apparently ask whatever they want for their chips and everyone's cheering...
Posted on Reply
#5
ironwolf
Come on Ryzen APUs, come on...
Posted on Reply
#6
Estaric
all I can say is those are some impressive scores for that "cheap" of a cpu
Posted on Reply
#7
Lionheart
phanbuey said:
pricing is too high... at least on the x models... hopefully they release a variant like the r7 1700 that will make more sense.
Lol what? Yes of course it would be better to purchase the non X versions of those CPU's but saying pricing is to high is ridiculous. o_O

Btw TheLostSwede, you made a typo, $999 not $99, if only that was the case :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#8
Particle
TheLostSwede said:
I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $99 for a 16 core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart. :kookoo:

What does AMD have to do, give their CPUs away for free to make people happy? Yet Intel can apparently ask whatever they want for their chips and everyone's cheering...
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
Posted on Reply
#9
Hugh Mungus
Threadripper is awesome!!!!! 16-core is definitely the better value chip for just 999 dollars!!!! I was a bit worried I might have to buy skylake-x, but the clockspeeds are high enough I won't have to!!!!!

Just a shame I can't use the cooler as a toaster :(
Posted on Reply
#10
The Quim Reaper
Particle said:
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
They're only overpriced to people wanting them as gaming CPU's.

For the audience they're aimed at, professionals with a genuine need for the cores, these prices will be an absolute bargain.
Posted on Reply
#11
Sempron Guy
Particle said:
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
wake me up when you can slap those two on an AM4 socket then you can justify your $850 pricing
Posted on Reply
#12
ShurikN
Particle said:
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
Absolutely not. TR brings more pcie lanes and quad cannel.
I honestly expected the top part to be $1200.


But given its rather cheap for them to produce the dies compared to Intel, it kinda makes sense
Posted on Reply
#13
jabbadap
kruk said:
Whoa, at 3.5/3.7 GHz (+XFR) the Ryzen 3 1300X will be extremely close to Ryzen 5 1400, making the latter obsolete.
R3 1300x is 4c/4t while r5 1400 has 4c/8t, so no it does not make it obsolete(both can be OC anyway, so it's more like that R3 1200 makes R3 1300x obsolete). It's like saying i5s makes i7s obsolete. If there's software that needs more threads higher clocks won't help.

But yeah I'm looking forward on those R3 and how it compares to that cheap gaming price/perf king 2c/4t pentium.
Posted on Reply
#14
Hugh Mungus
The Quim Reaper said:
They're only overpriced to people wanting them as gaming CPU's.

For the audience they're aimed at, professionals with a genuine need for the cores, these prices will be an absolute bargain.
Sticking them together and getting everything to work for you is well worth the premium. At least the drivers should work this time and it is a bargain for professionals! Servers, workstations or whatever you would need 16 cores for!

Intel is going to have some serious competition in the low-end as well now with ryzen 3!
Posted on Reply
#15
TheLostSwede
Particle said:
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
I'm sorry, but how is this "two of those" stuck together? As far as I'm aware, the 1800X has a total of 24 PCIe lanes, which would make this a 44+4 lanes, which it's not, it's 60+4 for starters.

Secondly, is this retail price? The MSRP for the 1800X is $499, not $420 and this is MSRP, so retail might very well be lower, or higher, depending on the retailers selling the chips.

Seriously people, get a grip...
Posted on Reply
#16
iO
Particle said:
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
Totally flawless logic. So a 1800X should be $120 because the $480 8 core EPYC consists of 4 dies?
Posted on Reply
#17
Hugh Mungus
TheLostSwede said:
I'm sorry, but how is this "two of those" stuck together? As far as I'm aware, the 1800X has a total of 24 PCIe lanes, which would make this a 44+4 lanes, which it's not, it's 60+4 for starters.

Secondly, is this retail price? The MSRP for the 1800X is $499, not $420 and this is MSRP, so retail might very well be lower, or higher, depending on the retailers selling the chips.

Seriously people, get a grip...
Retailers will get them for much lower prices and even with taxes, shipping, etc. that leaves a decent profit margin for both AMD and retailers if the chips are as cheap to produce as predicted, so retailers could drop prices a bit.
Posted on Reply
#18
Fx
Particle said:
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
This isn't like a fast food joint where you save money the larger size of soda you get.

This is a premium CPU and demands a premium price and yet it still isn't anywhere near Intel's pricing.
Posted on Reply
#19
dozenfury
It'd cost a kidney, but fun to think about a 1950X and a couple Vegas in x-fire with that bandwidth in a couple months. Holy smokes that would (or at least should) fly.
Posted on Reply
#20
Trxd
Particle said:
Absolutely yes.

We live in a world where you can buy an 1800X for $420 and this is just two of those stuck together. Pricing should be more like $850.
well by your logic its pricing is fine as 1800x retail price announced by AMD was 499$..so if i am not wrong it does justify your logic of two cpu glued together and the retail price also..
Posted on Reply
#21
ShurikN
The R3 1200 and a B350 combo, overclock the cpu a bit, get a Hyper 212, and you have a solid foundation for a budget gaming rig.
Posted on Reply
#22
silentbogo
3.4-4.0GHz? That's insane!
One of those 1950x could probably replace our entire server closet.
Posted on Reply
#23
Countryside
I have been waiting for this a long time my beautiful 12 cores 24 threads and a extramly nice cinebench score.

Posted on Reply
#24
FrustratedGarrett
So no single-CCX quad core CPUs from AMD with SMT. Why not? The current quad cores they have suffer from too much L3 cache and cross-core latency because of the interconnect fabric that glues CCXes together. Mainstream users consume well-priced 4/6- core CPUs that perform well in games. Intel has that, AMD... not so much.
Posted on Reply
#25
Liviu Cojocaru
I think the're reasonably priced for the amount of features they have, curious to see prices for the motherboards
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment