Thursday, July 13th 2017

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

by
btarunr
 Discuss (118 Comments)
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:

Related News

Add your own comment

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

#101
GoldenX
So, speaking of price/performance, Ryzen 7 kills the i7, Ryzen 5 the i5, Ryzen 3 is going to kill the i3 and Threadripper the HEDT i7 and i9 line. We are only left with the G4560, that Intel killed himself.
Either we see some serious price cuts from Intel, or they start to lose market share.
Posted on Reply
#102
TheGuruStud
GoldenXSo, speaking of price/performance, Ryzen 7 kills the i7, Ryzen 5 the i5, Ryzen 3 is going to kill the i3 and Threadripper the HEDT i7 and i9 line. We are only left with the G4560, that Intel killed himself.
Either we see some serious price cuts from Intel, or they start to lose market share.
They'll take that chance rather than tank profit outlook by cutting prices across the board (and admitting to competition). This isn't much different than the athlon XP era except they don't own all the publications, anymore, and it remains to be seen if they go back into full illegal biz mode, again.
Posted on Reply
#103
Konceptz
efikkanYou know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.
So by your logic, it makes sense to pay 70% more for a CPU that is only at best maybe 15% faster?
Posted on Reply
#104
GoldenX
KonceptzSo by your logic, it makes sense to pay 70% more for a CPU that is only at best maybe 15% faster?
Consumerism and brand recognition at it's finest.
Intel prices were low during the Pentium D/Athlon 64 X2 and early Core 2 Duo era, maybe we will see something similar? Just hoping, in the past we used to have hexa cores at i5 prices and quad cores at i3/Pentium prices.
Posted on Reply
#105
Foobario
FrustratedGarrettSo 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.
A little early to be regurgitating Intel "glue" criticisms, don't you think?

"Mainstream users consume well-priced 4/6- core CPUs that perform well in games. Intel has that, AMD... not so much."

Does it not seem logical that these "mainstream users" probably have a 60hz monitor that makes any Intel "benchmark advantage" moot in the real world where humans can only see 60 frames per second? Not to mention the urban myth that gains more credibility each day regarding how much more smooth the gaming performance on Ryzen is superior to Intel. :/
Posted on Reply
#106
prtskg
FrustratedGarrettThere's something going on here. AMD does not want to release properly clocked single-CCX quads with SMT. I'll tell why: Because such CPUs would outperform their current 8-core CPUs in games and certain other tests.
The 4GHz limit is due to foundry. Also the present cores are such that each CCX is linked with single channel ram. This would have resulted in quite an inferior product i.e. a quad core with 4ghz limit and single channel ram. In order to have a better product AMD would have to use a new die in other foundry, perhaps TSMC. That means at least half a billion in investment. I don't think AMD has that kind of money just for a quad core, which would have been replaced by Athlons in almost 3 quarters. I doubt AMD would even have recouped their investment in such a scenario i.e. in such a small time frame. This is reality that AMD doesn't have money to do multiple dies or use multiple foundries. I expect them to do so in future when they have more money but it's not happening now. In AMD words 'they are doing pin-pointed investment in fields of maximum return'.
Posted on Reply
#107
efikkan
KonceptzSo by your logic, it makes sense to pay 70% more for a CPU that is only at best maybe 15% faster?
No, my point is that you should at least compare comparable products, comparable in real performance and price.
Ryzen 1950X ($1000) will compete with i9-7900X($1000) and i9-7920X($1200). We already know Skylake-X have much higher IPC and scales very well, and we know the rough performance range of Ryzen, but we'll still have to see the exact value of these three contenders when the all arrive. i9-7960X will outperform Ryzen 1950X by more than 15%, but as always, the highest models will not be the highest value in the Skylake-X series.
Posted on Reply
#108
pantherx12
efikkanNo, my point is that you should at least compare comparable products, comparable in real performance and price.
Ryzen 1950X ($1000) will compete with i9-7900X($1000) and i9-7920X($1200). We already know Skylake-X have much higher IPC and scales very well, and we know the rough performance range of Ryzen, but we'll still have to see the exact value of these three contenders when the all arrive. i9-7960X will outperform Ryzen 1950X by more than 15%, but as always, the highest models will not be the highest value in the Skylake-X series.
It will have the same IPC as all other Intel's current processors. I.e 8-10% Better IPC than AMDs current line of products. ( Except a really specific couple scenarios where ryzens IPC is 50% higher than Intel's and vice Versa) The majority of the performance uplift you see in intel processors are from higher clock speeds ( IPC stays the same regardless of clock speed, you are just increasing the frequency that the clock cycles occur)

I doubt intel can pull much more IPC out as everyone has kinda hit a wall( hence higher core counts / higher efficiency becoming more popular specs), it may be possible for AMD to close that 8% gap how ever and it's certainly possible for them to tweak the process to allow for higher clock speeds, Ryzen even with no IPC uplift and intel clock speeds would be killer.
Posted on Reply
#109
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
prtskgThe 4GHz limit is due to foundry.
I think this is only partially true. I have an odd feeling that threadripper and epyc received all of the dies worth a shit. Remember Ryzen itself has cut down dies from the get go (pcie root complex) I believe that has heavily to do with a bad foundry allowing piss poor products out. It is quite easy for amd to bin those garbage chips as the mainstream consumer level products while salvaging the good dies for threadripper and epyc that they sell at much higher margins ($200 glue if you will) I have already seen rumors of 5ghz on threadripper which I very much hope to be true.
Posted on Reply
#110
TheGuruStud
cdawallI think this is only partially true. I have an odd feeling that threadripper and epyc received all of the dies worth a shit. Remember Ryzen itself has cut down dies from the get go (pcie root complex) I believe that has heavily to do with a bad foundry allowing piss poor products out. It is quite easy for amd to bin those garbage chips as the mainstream consumer level products while salvaging the good dies for threadripper and epyc that they sell at much higher margins ($200 glue if you will) I have already seen rumors of 5ghz on threadripper which I very much hope to be true.
OC limit is the only concern for me. I want ripper, but I also don't want to spend 900 on the 16 core (I'm assuming it'll fall like the 1800x), then the refresh comes out next year and (hypothetically) OCs 400 MHz higher.
Posted on Reply
#111
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
TheGuruStudOC limit is the only concern for me. I want ripper, but I also don't want to spend 900 on the 16 core (I'm assuming it'll fall like the 1800x), then the refresh comes out next year and (hypothetically) OCs 400 MHz higher.
If it walks out the door at 5ghz it will handily hand my 5960X it's ass.
Posted on Reply
#112
Vayra86
cdawallIf it walks out the door at 5ghz it will handily hand my 5960X it's ass.
If that happens, gaming will be done on workstations in the near future.

Not so sure if that's a positive TBH
Posted on Reply
#113
EarthDog
TheGuruStudOC limit is the only concern for me. I want ripper, but I also don't want to spend 900 on the 16 core (I'm assuming it'll fall like the 1800x), then the refresh comes out next year and (hypothetically) OCs 400 MHz higher.
you arent new here...

If you are ready to buy...buy. otherwise keep waiting for the next best thing as its always around the corner...

5ghz thread ripper.....lolhahahahaha maybe they will include a 120mm aio to cool 375w+...oh shoot, sorry thats vega xtx...but maybe.....!
Posted on Reply
#114
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
EarthDogyou arent new here...

If you are ready to buy...buy. otherwise keep waiting for the next best thing as its always around the corner...

5ghz thread ripper.....lolhahahahaha maybe they will include a 120mm aio to cool 375w+...oh shoot, sorry thats vega xtx...but maybe.....!
It really depends on global foundries. Remwmber the rx480 only consumes 95 full pcb and memory in the more expensive models (for professionals stuff). They can make good products, production is just limited. Maybe we will get lucky and Ryzen is literally all the crap being thrown away. I doubt it, but I love the idea of a 5ghz 16 core with good up and great multi threading.
Posted on Reply
#115
EarthDog
I like the idea too...

I also like the idea of me hitting the lottery... two things which wont happen. :p
Posted on Reply
#116
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Ain't no thang on Ln2. ;)

Aaanyway some ryzen 3 prices from Reddit (can't access the thread though): USD 129 for the 1300x, 109$ for the 1200. Seems plausible.
Posted on Reply
#117
R0H1T
FrickAin't no thang on Ln2. ;)

Aaanyway some ryzen 3 prices from Reddit (can't access the thread though): USD 129 for the 1300x, 109$ for the 1200. Seems plausible.
You were saying :pimp:

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen-ln2,5116.html

Ryzen is pretty good for a first gen, completely new uarch on a LPP(?) process, that coming from 28nm. If GF, along with IBM & Samsung, are close to their estimates on 7nm then Intel is gonna be in a world of pain.
We haven't even scratched the surface yet with Zen, long it may reign. Also GoT S7 Ep01 was slow, almost nothing happened :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#118
pleaseno
ParticleAbsolutely 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.
You know, to have this world offer an 1800x for $420, someone has to buy threadripper for $999...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 26th, 2024 01:48 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts