EU prices listed - AMD Ryzen 7 1800X To Cost 628 EUR

most likely they where hopping amd will pay em 200$ to get the cpu so they can "buy" 5 of those and then use the money to buy the intel 8 core ! :banana:

 

LMFAO @ all that are saying that a 8c/16t cpu @ 500 is to expensive, if that is expensive then the 6900k is an outright travesty

 

Yeah I don't get it either - pricing seems more than fine.

 

Mentioned retailer must be one of more expensive ones, because I can buy stuff a lot cheaper locally

 

the overclock ability will show if this is true but to me seems like the most interesting pieces are the non X ones the lower of every category on 4/4 4/8 6/12 and 8/16 on every category the lowest model draw my attention

 

People are so used to AMD being behind that they're already assuming Intel's equivalents are faster and thus AMD's offerings need to be even cheaper. Like...wut?

 

European pricing seems dodgy but this feels like a markup.

 

I think the problem that people have with Ryzen´s prices so far is that they are too expensive for most! Most people, me included, want to see what AMD has to offer in the price bracket between 100€ and 300€ not some cpus that cost more than 400€... No matter how good they are, Intel included.

 

it does not surprising me stuff that are on 499 msrp ...in my country ((greece)) rarerly if ever are bellow 600 euro

 

As I stated before, it's understandable if something is too expensive. What's not understandable is people who claim it is overpriced or not priced well. AMD does have products in the 100-300 price bracket, but for whatever reason people choose to ignore those, despite Intel never offering a 6 or 8 core i7 for a reasonable price.

Again - nobody is forcing you to get an 8 core. If the IPC is within 5% of Intel's offerings, then the quad core R5s (or 5 series, whatever it's called) will be a steal compared to a quad core i7 and would make for a decent upgrade with anyone who has an i5 or slower, without being expensive. The 6-core models seem to be priced pretty competitively against 4-core i7s.

 

I agree with you but for now the only products being talked about are the 8 core ones, the expensive ones... And there are some indications that only those will be released for now. Personally i´m keeping an eye on the six core variants but if AMD doesn´t release them soon then i might go with Intel.

 

yeah for now it seems the 8 cores only are getting out but if they come out and they are dead on on performance with the leaks you will update to intel 4 cores or wait 2-3 extra months go get your 6 core piece? and you will know exactly the performance you can expect... i mean you are 8 years now on Q9550 ...after you know the exact performance you can take the decision what to buy if those are 1:1 to broadwel-e .... then it seems a bit ...irrational to not wait 2-3 months after that long although yeah q9550 was an epic cpu

edit: to complete my toughs those 8 cores might pinball intel prices down .... there is the chance intel will not change a thing though interesting times ahead of us

 

8 is always better than 4.

 

I think at the moment, AMD are putting prices similar to Intel in order so that they can judge how intel reacts - for all we know, Intel might react with massive price cuts, and so the price war beings. It's just how market competition goes. AMD want to make a profit but don't want to under or over estimate how the competition will react.

For the most part though, we'll definitely see prices fluctuate a lot.

 

Oh if the IPC is on par with Broadwell-e than that's very good. It would be a solid buy and Intel would have to drop some of their prices is my guess.

Still, quad channel memory on -E Intels is nice.

 

they did not drop prices in the past in the p4 era and pentium D they brought out extreme edition with huge caches took the crown for ridiculous prices and kept their cpus higher than amd in price .... now they have the crown with their 10 core ...that makes me afraid they will keep prices almost unchanged

 

It is so cute to see how many miss those golden days in the 90s when AMD CPUs where really better and cheaper... You realize those days aren't coming back... right?

 

i am pretty sure athlon 64 was not in the 90's

 

@eclap
and wouldnt really be relevant for 80% out there, that are only gaming with their 4/6/8C rig.

im running ddr3-2133 in DC, and get around 30-32GB/s for read/write/copy.
not sure why a gaming pc will need much more than that (besides exceptions like multi gpu/editing/encoding/render)..

at least i won't waste 20-30% more money on a 5820k/X99 to get QC, when i can have a ryzen 8C with similar ipc and decent board for around 500$.

 

Well my educated assumption (from my sources) was that the 1700x would be in the price category as the 7700k and not almost 100E above its pricing. Thats the 6800k pricing atleast in this country. You altso must remember that intel has had the superiority in the cpu marked for so long that for most people AMD is a laughing stock (i only speak from my eksperience) so pricing above the 7700k what is an already ekspensive cpu is in my mind a bold but a bit risky. Naturally i am not required to have the best but i dont like to break a trend, i have had all the best cpus from amd for almost 20 years. and i would like and mostly continue with that i just wish it was for less money. It`s less ekspensive than intel but i still feel that prices are to high.