AMD Ryzen R7 lineup of 8-core 16-thread CPU Prices Revealed

Nice TDP for an 8 core CPU, and the price is very competitive for those who really can make use of 6+ core.
For pure gaming, I don't know if can compete with i7 7700K with current games, and maximum OC will be relevant.

 

@sarsar
not sure why i would be interested in a 7700k, when i can get double the cores with similar ipc (from what we've seen) for a few bucks more.
i rather spend ~400 for 8C/16T amd, than ~300 for intels 5820...

unless you limit the use to gaming only... (which im not).

 

The 1700 is a 65w part??

Nice pricing.

 

Damn, I wanted to know the R5 prices; I'm not really interested in the R7s.

Pretty annoying the naming scheme is already screwed up. The way I see it, the R should be used for strictly Radeons, maybe F for Firepros, A for APUs, O for Opterons, and C for these generic CPUs. If everything they make will be categorized under R3, R5, R7, and RX, customers are going to get confused. It will be especially difficult to help distinguish the products based on series names. You could argue "yeah but your idea is even more confusing since there are so many variations" but the average customer won't need to worry about that. When buying a CPU, most people just need to focus on the "A" and "C" series. When buying a GPU, most people just need to focus on "R". So depending what they're shopping for, the most they ever need to think about is just 2 product lineups. Since AMD plans to make CPUs and APUs compatible on the same socket, it doesn't really matter which one you buy anyway.

I also am not fond of the idea of them using the X suffix. IMO, the number scheme should've been formatted as "ABBCe", where A is the generation, B is the performance level, C would likely just be a zero, and "e" would be a letter denoting any special characteristics, such as unlocked cores, an energy-efficient version, "hyper-threading" support, and so on.

But oh well, at least this so far seems more future-proof than Intel's naming scheme...

 

8C/16T vs 4c/8T for about the same price... Seems to be a Win to me!

 

seems that Zen needs double core count, or at least HT (in the case of R5 1400X vs i5 7400) to reach Intel's performance

naturally this will vary with the application, but the more I look at Zen in comparison with Intel, the more it seems like a better Bulldozer. Just how much better reemains to be seen.

I'd still be interested in Zen APU within small-form-factor case. But thats like at least a year away.
Same like I am interested in Vega which is also due god knows when, bringing god knows what :bang:

 

Yes but it's target is still the 7700k and even if it's 10 % better i would still buy the Intel because i already upgraded last year to a 1150 with ddr4 and z170 board and it's cheaper for me just to swap the CPU.

 

600 EUR for their flagship is actually very reasonable. I sincerely hope that Ryzen performs as well as those very specific benchmarks that AMD released lead us to believe. I am rooting for AMD to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one, however their track record would lead me to believe that this may not be the case. grains of salt all around until release day!

For Ryzen to be a success it needs to be priced lower than Intel, and perform anywhere from 90-100% as well as the comparable Intel CPU. It looks like they have the pricing right, now we just need to see third party reviews / benchmarks.

With intel doing BCLK bumps in advent of recent news about Ryzen, if gives me hope that AMD may be competitive this year! This is the most exciting the CPU market has been in a very long time! I honestly cannot wait for Ryzen to come out and (hopefully) shake things up!

 

If the 1700X was only 10% better then obviously that wouldn't be worth upgrading to. But considering Intel's track record, you would likely get less than a 10% improvement clock-per-clock, so I wouldn't consider upgrading to another Intel is a wise choice either. In other words if you consider performance-per-dollar, you wouldn't really save much buying another Intel.

 

Depend how you look at it, 7700K will have bigger single thread performance, but in overall if Application support it, it can be more than 60% faster.

 

Depending how you look at what? You state all of this as though you know it as fact... there is little to no solid evidence about how Zen's single-thread performance will be. This isn't a tweaked version of Excavator, so everything we know about that is irrelevant.

 

What i'm interested in is how many pcie lanes on these cpus? I would like to know in my mind what kind of rig I can build. Not enough info for me yet. But the top cpu price point looks promising bang for the buck wise. Come on AMD put us out of our misery and release all the info. You are only hurting your own sales by holding back honestly.

 

Competitive pricing?... I don't think so.
Of course number of cores might be useful... but, wait, for what? 2.5 games which utilize more than 2 cores?...

I do not say Ryzen will be bad, but I don't see it being ultra cool either (hey!, don't shout, that's already a progress, like a year ago I envisioned a total flop for ZEN, as it was called back then).
But let's wait a bit more to get real proper test results, TLB bugs, pricing, availability...

 

here is the US amazon has them for $349.48 US or 326.54 euros
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Desktop-Processor-i7-7700K-BX80677I77700K/dp/B01MXSI216?th=1

so the R7 1800X will be $641.08 in US dollars

Also as i never have had an Intel processor i am caring how much faster and more efficient these will be compared to my FX8350. which i am guess they will be better by a really stupid amount.

 

If the 1700 is truly unlocked and the only real difference is base multiplier, then that looks like the absolute sweet spot to me.

Can't wait for benches of these.

:nerd::nerd::nerd::nerd:

If AMD pulls this off, and I hope they do, we will have:
:bunch:

 

Ouch, it seems Ryzen´s 8 core cpus aren´t meant for my pockets... I really don´t want to spend more than 300€ on a new CPU...

Also like others i´m having an hard time believeing the price differences between the 8 cores CPUs specially the 1800 being almost twice the price of the 1700!?...

Silva, there are 7700K starting at 380€ in different stores: https://www.kuantokusta.pt/informat...4-2Ghz-8MB-LGA-1151-BX80677I77700K-p-1-498792

Still expensive as hell considering it´s a quad core...

 

Good grief!!! With these prices they will hit Intel bard in the nut sack!! Now everyone must just hope the performance is on par.

 

Your comment makes no sense...
* You have an i7, which makes your statement about games only needing 2 cores a bit hypocritical.
* How is the pricing not competitive? Just because you don't play games that will utilize all threads, it doesn't mean the price isn't competitive against what Intel makes.
* Unless you woke up from a coma that you've been in since 2006, most modern games will utilize at least 4 cores.
* What is the .5 of 2.5 games? How do you have half a game? <insert comment saying "hurr durr what about the incomplete crap by EA?">
* I don't recall AMD ever stating these 8-core models were targeted toward gamers. In other words, why is gaming the only option to you?
* They do have quad core models. Even though we don't know the prices of those yet, what makes you think those aren't competitive? Oh wait, 4 cores is more than the 2 that games use, so nevermind.

 

You expected them to sell 8 cores for 300 Euros? When they can match the 1200 Euro Intel part?

Also, I don't buy online and generally the lowest prices come with a 20 Euro (or more) mail premium not listed until you want to pay.

:banana:

 

More than expecting i was hoping they could sell an 8c/8t CPU around 300€.