Sunday, March 25th 2018

AMD Ryzen 7 "2800X" Not Part of First Wave

AMD is preparing to launch its first wave of 12 nm Ryzen 2000-series "Pinnacle Ridge" processors in April, with possible availability on the 19th. From all of the materials leaked to the web, it's becoming clear that the Ryzen 7 2700X will be the company's next flagship socket AM4 processor, with a "2800X" not being part of the first wave of "Pinnacle Ridge" chips. Adding further to the theory of the first wave of "Pinnacle Ridge" chips being led by the 2700X, is the leaked cover of the next issue of print magazine CanardPC, which screams "2700X," and includes a roundup of second-generation Ryzen parts from 2200G all the way through the 2700X. The 2700X, besides process and minor architectural refinements, also features higher clocks than the current company flagship in the segment, the Ryzen 7 1800X. It's clocked at 3.70 GHz base, with 4.35 GHz boost, and XFR 2.0 driving the clocks up even further, compared to the 3.60/4.00/4.20 GHz (base/boost/max-XFR) of the 1800X. For this reason alone, the 2700X will be a faster part.

AMD has the advantage of having sized up Intel's Core i7-8700K before deciding to lead with the 2700X. The possible 2800X will depend on Intel's short-term response to the 2700X. There were rumors late last year of a possible speed-bumped "Core i7-8720K." AMD's first wave of Ryzen 2000-series "Pinnacle Ridge" will be as brisk as Intel's first "Coffee Lake" desktop processors, with just four SKUs - the Ryzen 7 2700X, the Ryzen 7 2700, the Ryzen 5 2600X, and the Ryzen 5 2600. Besides higher clocks, the chips could feature a minor IPC uplift (vs. first-generation "Summit Ridge") thanks to rumored faster (lower-latency) caches, support for higher memory clocks, updated Precision Boost algorithms, and XFR 2.0.
Add your own comment

71 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 "2800X" Not Part of First Wave

#1
TheLaughingMan
4.35 GHz is not bad at all. The 2800X is going to be cherry picked parts that can do 4.4 - 4.5 GHz would be my guess. It will sell like crap if the price is too much higher if that is the case. It would need to push at least 4.5 GHz all cores and 4.65 GHz on 4 cores to justify any reasonable price difference to the 2700X.
Posted on Reply
#2
evernessince
Maybe AMD is waiting a bit more for the processes to mature to get the 2800X to a higher clock. They released the 1800X too early and it's clocks were too similar to the 1700X to justify the price jump. Hopefully we see a 4.6 GHz 2800X.
Posted on Reply
#3
Darmok N Jalad
I guess we just need to see how well the 2700X overclocks. If there’s a lot of headroom in the 12nm architecture, the 2800X could just be a timed response to Intel, as the article proposes. Reminds me of the Socket A days, when we got to see back-and-forth from the two companies and some good value chips with over clicking headroom.
Posted on Reply
#4
xkm1948
These is little point of a 2800X. Just like there were little point of 1900X.
Posted on Reply
#5
gmn 17
Errorgate from both camps
Posted on Reply
#6
spectatorx
Guys, wtf... Scan QR code from cpu on this cover and you will see what you fall into.

P.S.
Do CPUs ever really get QR codes anyway?
Posted on Reply
#7
R-T-B
spectatorx said:
Do CPUs ever really get QR codes anyway?
AMD Ryzens have one. Or at least mine have.
Posted on Reply
#8
theGryphon
They didn't cherry pick 1800X's last time (such noobs, get a page from Intel ffs) and it created a weird situation where some 1700X's OCing better than 1800Xs, which was significantly (ridiculously) pricier. It seems like they learned a lesson this time around and they're playing the let's wait and see game vs Intel, which are by now experts in that game (also see NVIDIA). It's good to see the underdog getting some points. They got my $ for Ryzen and probably once again, with Ryzen 2700X or 2800X. They should just make sure 2800Xs can clock at least 300MHz higher stock and OCed, and they can charge a bit more for it, not $100 more though...
Posted on Reply
#10
johnspack
I want to see 2800x as well. An affordable alternative to xeons or at least a workstation. Current intel offerings suck. I can't run SB forever.....
I ran amd since amd286, I so want an excuse to go back.....
Posted on Reply
#11
Vayra86
Wow, they need 105W to get that 2700X to 4.35 Ghz

That is quite significant and kinda kills any dreams of a higher clocked version popping up soon. These TDP bumps clearly indicate they're pushing Ryzen beyond its comfort zone, just like Intel's CFL is right now.
Posted on Reply
#12
nemesis.ie
Maybe they do have chips capable of faster speeds but those are being stockpiled for the TR SKUs and will only be released for a 2800(X) when those needs are met, or as discussed, competition requires it.

Top 5% of chips go to TR or or something? A TR 2950X hitting 3.9+ base and a matching boost/XFR increase would certainly be interesting.

Then there is the question of how much production ends up in Epyc.
Posted on Reply
#13
TheGuruStud
nemesis.ie said:


Then there is the question of how much production ends up in Epyc.
Zero for Epyc, I believe. They don't need clocks.
Posted on Reply
#14
T1beriu
compared to the 3.60/4.00/4.20 GHz (base/boost/max-XFR) of the 1800X
1800X's XFR is 4.1 GHz.
Posted on Reply
#15
the54thvoid
Vayra86 said:
Wow, they need 105W to get that 2700X to 4.35 Ghz

That is quite significant and kinda kills any dreams of a higher clocked version popping up soon. These TDP bumps clearly indicate they're pushing Ryzen beyond its comfort zone, just like Intel's CFL is right now.
We'll, my old 3930k ran at 140w or more with 6 cores, so 105w doesnt seem so bad on 8. The current Ryzen CPU's can be cooled fairly well to about 3.8-3.9 on air so I'm quite happy with the bump.
Posted on Reply
#16
HTC
TheGuruStud said:
Zero for Epyc, I believe. They don't need clocks.
Not true: while Epyc doesn't need clocks, it does need TDP so, for Epyc, they are binned that way, i think.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheGuruStud
HTC said:
Not true: while Epyc doesn't need clocks, it does need TDP so, for Epyc, they are binned that way, i think.
But at lower clocks there's probably no gain from the slightly improved process. It's already a mobile process running near it's efficiency clocks with Epyc. Boosting could improve greatly, I'm sure, but I don't think that has much meaning in datacenter.
Posted on Reply
#18
bug
This is actually terrible news. Compared to the 1800X, the 2700X only offers 100MHz extra base clock. In exchange for +15W TDP. So the advantage of the improved process is like nothing.
Posted on Reply
#19
Vayra86
bug said:
This is actually terrible news. Compared to the 1800X, the 2700X only offers 100MHz extra base clock. In exchange for +15W TDP. So the advantage of the improved process is like nothing.
Precisely what I was getting at ;)

the54thvoid said:
We'll, my old 3930k ran at 140w or more with 6 cores, so 105w doesnt seem so bad on 8. The current Ryzen CPU's can be cooled fairly well to about 3.8-3.9 on air so I'm quite happy with the bump.
That's a five year old CPU @ 22nm you're comparing to now...
Posted on Reply
#20
the54thvoid
Vayra86 said:
Precisely what I was getting at ;)



That's a five year old CPU @ 22nm you're comparing to now...
Oh, I know, but that's where my view point comes from. Regardless, a 6 core 8700k has a TDP of 95, so AMD with 8 cores (albeit slower base) isn't so bad. Yes, not as good as Intel but hardly a disaster.

Also, should be noted for arguments sake, power draw stopped being a topic of merit when Radeon started using lots of power in their GPU and people said, "nobody cares about power draw".

Also, the fact they have refined things enough to actually get those clocks is the positive aspect. First gen Ryzens had a really hard time getting a guaranteed 4Ghz. If 2nd gen makes that a constant, then that is a good step, regardless of the 10w higher draw.
Posted on Reply
#21
TheGuruStud
the54thvoid said:
Oh, I know, but that's where my view point comes from. Regardless, a 6 core 8700k has a TDP of 95, so AMD with 8 cores (albeit slower base) isn't so bad. Yes, not as good as Intel but hardly a disaster.

Also, should be noted for arguments sake, power draw stopped being a topic of merit when Radeon started using lots of power in their GPU and people said, "nobody cares about power draw".

Also, the fact they have refined things enough to actually get those clocks is the positive aspect. First gen Ryzens had a really hard time getting a guaranteed 4Ghz. If 2nd gen makes that a constant, then that is a good step, regardless of the 10w higher draw.
No, Intel lovers said that with netburst and it was a giant turd. Remember how bad Pentium D was? Lololol. The coolers were literally 1lb of aluminum.
Posted on Reply
#22
bug
the54thvoid said:
Oh, I know, but that's where my view point comes from. Regardless, a 6 core 8700k has a TDP of 95, so AMD with 8 cores (albeit slower base) isn't so bad. Yes, not as good as Intel but hardly a disaster.
Well, my takeaway is Ryzen was already good and it remains like that. It's just when when compared to the first gen, this gen manages to underdeliver in face of low(est) expectations. It's still good, it just feels like a missed opportunity (best case) or an architecture already stretched to its limits (worst case).
Posted on Reply
#23
dyonoctis
About the TDP, 1st gen ryzen all core boost was only +100mhz, and it still stayed with the 95w , so I wonder if the 105w doesn't indicate a more aggressive all core boost ? If the leaked cinebench score is true (1780), then the all core boost is above 4Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#24
jabbadap
I don't think they will release one. R7 1800x was a halo product, but there were/are four 8c/16t first gen. Ryzen 7:s all unlocked(1800x mrsp was $150 more than i7 7700k). Intel is more competitive now than were at the time of Ryzen release. So such a halo product was made possible by intels low core count is now vanished diminished(i7 7700k vs R7 1800x).
Posted on Reply
#25
bug
dyonoctis said:
About the TDP, 1st gen ryzen all core boost was only +100mhz, and it still stayed with the 95w , so I wonder if the 105w doesn't indicate a more aggressive all core boost ? If the leaked cinebench score is true (1780), then the all core boost is above 4Ghz.
I think you're talking about XFR, boost was already substantially better than 100MHz.
However, boost speeds are of secondary importance to the average user, because there's no specification how and for how long you can benefit from them.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment