AMD Begins Sampling Entry-Level Ryzen Chips - 4 Cores With SMT Disabled

[Thefumigator]

AMD has three things it needs to do
1/bring out a great cpu
2/they got to blast intel on bang for buck as well
3/ change peoples minds about them

point 1 and 2 will directly take effect on 3.

 

[ZipFreed]

Now you're just imagining things. You would all gladly pay $400+ for a 6700K or 7700K, but you'd want an equally performing CPU from AMD for $200. How on Earth does that make any kind of sense?

Yeah, I never understand this sentiment and I have been seeing it all over recently, even on the GPU side. Intel's prices are a bit inflated, imo, due to the lack of competition from AMD's line-up but AMD is going to charge as much for these CPU's as their performance allows.

If Ryzen competes, actually competes, with Intel's i3-i7 line-up the pricing will be similar and rightfully so. Just because they're AMD doesn't mean they have to sell competitive products for 50% or even just considerably less than Intel's. They've HAD to sell Bulldozer -> Excavator chips for $<200 or they would have never sold any. The last time they were competitive they had SKU's from $100-$1,000+ and they are absolutely looking to increase their ASP's across the board.

I think it will probably end up looking something like 80-90% total platform cost (CPU/MOBO/RAM) of a competing z270/x99 setup.

If the 8c / 16t part does actually compete with the 6900K I think we'll end up with something like:

SR 8c / 16t - $550
SR 6c / 12t - $350 (Hello 7700K)
SR 4c / 8t - $250 (Hello 7600K)
---
SR 4c / 4t and Below - <$150

Boards with similar feature sets to z270 a few bucks cheaper would bring your total platform cost a fair bit cheaper than an Intel setup with similar performance.

Unrelated: 'm really hoping we see x99-ish boards with PLX chips or something for additional pci-e lanes and functionality. I was really hoping x370 would follow in 790/890/990FX footsteps and offer 32-lanes for GPU in addition to what we're getting. X370 should of = x99, x300/B350 = z270, A320 = H270, Q, B etc.

That would leave wiggle room for non-SMT enabled parts in the gaps and also Raven Ridge APU's 2H 2017.

 

[Imsochobo]

............

Unrelated: 'm really hoping we see x99-ish boards with PLX chips or something for additional pci-e lanes and functionality. I was really hoping x370 would follow in 790/890/990FX footsteps and offer 32-lanes for GPU in addition to what we're getting. X370 should of = x99, x300/B350 = z270, A320 = H270, Q, B etc.

That would leave wiggle room for non-SMT enabled parts in the gaps and also Raven Ridge APU's 2H 2017.

You obviously don't know?
it already HAS 32 lanes, 16 chipset and 16 cpu pci-e lanes if I'm not mistaken ?
They got ya covered it seems

 

[Totally]

It makes sense because we've seen Intel go bananas over the years with price hikes and minimal performance gains. We're hoping AMD knocks them down a few pegs and brings prices back down into a reasonable range.

Well that's not what he's pointing out. He's people find it totally acceptable that Intel can charge what they want and are charging for performance, but AMD does not have such privileges.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I'm personally expecting a good one of these to clock very high.

 

[ZipFreed]

You obviously don't know?
it already HAS 32 lanes, 16 chipset and 16 cpu pci-e lanes if I'm not mistaken ?
They got ya covered it seems

The key part there was "in addition to what we're getting" I was stating instead of 16/32 potentially being for GPU's 32/48 would be for GPU's. 16x/16x multi-GPU, remaining 16 lanes for NVME, Networking, AIC etc

From what I've seen X370 will only offer 8x/8x mGPU and that's due to shortage of lanes. If I misunderstood this that's great cause I was surprised since all previous info/slides showed 16x/16x for x370 and they have to realize people who run mGPU setups also want things like NVME drives.

 

[Imsochobo]

The key part there was "in addition to what we're getting" I was stating instead of 16/32 potentially being for GPU's 32/48 would be for GPU's. 16x/16x multi-GPU, remaining 16 lanes for NVME, Networking, AIC etc

From what I've seen X370 will only offer 8x/8x mGPU and that's due to shortage of lanes. If I misunderstood this that's great cause I was surprised since all previous info/slides showed 16x/16x for x370 and they have to realize people who run mGPU setups also want things like NVME drives.

And yet we fail to use 16X PCI-e 2.0 while 3.0 being double ? the bandwidth, what's the need, 8\8 for a gpu is sufficient and if that cuts down cost by about 10$ a board it's justified as no negatives really can be found other than us enthusiasts wanting a long e-pen.

36 pci-e lanes is the total max, 16 for dual gpu and remainder will suffice, hell most could throw in a third gpu at 8X and still have enough left.

IF you haven't seen the benchmarks even here on tpu on pci-e lanes.. well, be in an for a surprise cause they hardly matter.

 

[kanecvr]

I think that there's definately a place for a 4C\8T ryzen running at 4Ghz+ at about 200$.
It would fit many many gamers.

I think AMD is either going to release such a part further down the line, or use a 6c/6t or 6c/12t part to compete with the 4c/8t core i7 line.

everybody knows that single-core-performance still counts like ever
even with DX12
so what will happen if:
a (too-low-clocked/or crappy-IPC/or too power-hungry) 4C/4T Zen gets beaten by a cheaper i3 or Pentium-HT in games ?

AMD is dead after 5 years of hard work then, digging their own expensive grave

I don't think will be the case, because if it is, it spells really bad news for AMD and us consumers.

So, just because it has an Intel badge, you're willing to pay 2x as much for the same performance. That's not "brand leverage", that's idiotism, plain and simple.

^This

Worked out pretty well for Nvidia didn't it? I'm sure people will pay (more) for the prestigious 6900K even if it's ~5 percent faster than the best SR7 or the ten core 6950x which retails north of 1700$

Yeah. For some reason people will buy the from the "fastest" company, even if they are not buying the fastest product. For example people I know are asking me if the more expensive 1050ti models are woth the money, when there's a much, much faster RX 470 in the same price point. Some think the 1060 3GB better then the RX 480 because it's made by nvidia, and they heard that nvidia = best.

They don't look for performance metrics, they look for generic advice from other people (what's faster, nvidia or AMD, w/o mentioning a price range or model) and think that cards at the same price point perform the same, when they clearly don't.

 

[ZipFreed]

And yet we fail to use 16X PCI-e 2.0 while 3.0 being double ? the bandwidth, what's the need, 8\8 for a gpu is sufficient and if that cuts down cost by about 10$ a board it's justified as no negatives really can be found other than us enthusiasts wanting a long e-pen.

36 pci-e lanes is the total max, 16 for dual gpu and remainder will suffice, hell most could throw in a third gpu at 8X and still have enough left.

IF you haven't seen the benchmarks even here on tpu on pci-e lanes.. well, be in an for a surprise cause they hardly matter.

I understand this and definitely agree. I have ran mutli-gpu setups on both configurations. The important thing here, imo, is mindshare. If the 8c / 16t park is a heavy hitter I'd wager lots of folks in the market for 6800K -> 6900K would absolutely consider it as an alternative. They are going to look at the platform as a whole and once they start comparing X99 and X370 boards the x370 is going to seem a little watered down and whether or not there's any real world advantage to x99 goodies or not they'll purchase the X99 platform. LGA20XX boards have come way down in price as well there's no longer a $300+ barrier of entry.

I want AMD to succeed and succeed hard in both "mainstream" and HEDT segments and I'm afraid this could hurt them. There are also plenty of legitimate use cases where X370's configuration simply isn't viable in comparison.

 

[Filip Georgievski]

Adjusted MSRP to inflation to match 2016 dollars.

Q9650 $339(2008) $380.02(2016)
2600k $317(2011) $340.13(2016)
2700k $332(2011) $356.23(2016)
3770k $313(2012) $329.03(2016)
4770k $339(2013) $351.22(2016)
4790k $339(2014) $345.61(2016)
6700k $350(2015) $356.40(2016)
7700k $350(2017) $350.00(2016)

Prices have not changed that much. I should note that the MSRP for the 7700k is set to $339.00 - $350.00. It could be the cheapest intel CPU in awhile, or it could be about the same price. I guess that depends on Ryzen.

You could argue that ~$350 is too expensive for the top end intel mainstream CPU, but that has been the approximate price for quite sometime now. The performance has not changed much in 5 years, but neither has the price. I think it is fair to say the CPU market is stagnant.

Yea at those prices, comparing gen to next-gen, you gain 10% at most going from 1 gen to another at a price of 100%, that is too expensive.

P.S: Forgot to put the I7 875K on this list.

 

[ZipFreed]

Adjusted MSRP to inflation to match 2016 dollars.

Q9650 $339(2008) $380.02(2016)
2600k $317(2011) $340.13(2016)
2700k $332(2011) $356.23(2016)
3770k $313(2012) $329.03(2016)
4770k $339(2013) $351.22(2016)
4790k $339(2014) $345.61(2016)
6700k $350(2015) $356.40(2016)
7700k $350(2017) $350.00(2016)

Prices have not changed that much. I should note that the MSRP for the 7700k is set to $339.00 - $350.00. It could be the cheapest intel CPU in awhile, or it could be about the same price. I guess that depends on Ryzen.

You could argue that ~$350 is too expensive for the top end intel mainstream CPU, but that has been the approximate price for quite sometime now. The performance has not changed much in 5 years, but neither has the price. I think it is fair to say the CPU market is stagnant.

Yea at those prices, comparing gen to next-gen, you gain 10% at most going from 1 gen to another at a price of 100%, that is too expensive.

P.S: Forgot to put the I7 875K on this list.

Not that it matters TOO much but if we're discussing value overtime with those tier of parts it should be noted that starting with the 4770K, I believe, Intel stopped providing a HSF in the box. They originally framed it as it would save overclockers/enthusiasts money since most already had some type of cooler/waterblocks lying around. Thing is though, the chips got more expensive gradually as time went on.

Again, not the biggest deal but it absolutely decreases value overall.

 

[Nordic]

Not that it matters TOO much but if we're discussing value overtime with those tier of parts it should be noted that starting with the 4770K, I believe, Intel stopped providing a HSF in the box. They originally framed it as it would save overclockers/enthusiasts money since most already had some type of cooler/waterblocks lying around. Thing is though, the chips got more expensive gradually as time went on.

Again, not the biggest deal but it absolutely decreases value overall.

My 4770k and 4790k both had intel stock heatsinks. If anything I would say prices have not changed much in the last 8 years, and that the 3770k was just unusually cheap.

The top end mainstream i7 costs $350 regardless of the performance increase.

 

[arterius2]

Im never paying 400 for a 4 core no matter who makes it.

Meh, some of my Jackets, pants etc cost $800+, don't think I would give 2 snuffs about $400.