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

Not going to go with low end MB either, but cheers for that piece of info.

Is there a short asnwer, why there is 65w and 95w versions?

 

ll give you another

They'll be plagued by supply issues, if Zen perf/$ is any good, and it proly will be.
So there wont be terrific deals. Except maybe initial batch.
Then price hike, then few months later - price drop.

Best case scenario: There wont be a clear winner. Intel takes some, AMD some.
Other than that... AMD should do well in Server space. Takes time though.
/speculation

 

The TDP basically just means how much heat (in watts) the CPU will emit and will need to have dissipated*. The 65W model just simply uses that much less power than the others. The wattage is directly affected by the clock and voltage, so when you consider the 1700 has a base clock of 3.0GHz while the 1800X has a base of 3.6GHz, that's going to have a hefty impact on wattage (especially when you consider there are 8 cores involved). At their turbo speeds, the 1700 falls under the 95W range while I'm sure the 1800X would probably reach 120W.

EDIT:
Note that both Intel and AMD tend to have their TDPs based on the base clocks, not turbo speeds. With the exception of CPUs that only turbo 1 or 2 cores instead of all of them, turbo speeds would have a significant increase on wattage.


* This is the short answer, not the complete one, so for anybody else, spare me any technicalities you feel the need to bring up.

 

Those prices are out of my league so i have to ask: where are the six core parts???

 

It does.

Until someone feeling clever comes along and drops obligatory TDP .ne. Power Consumption proving he's not that clever.

 

Deleted my original post. They [Ryzen] seem too expensive, especially seeing how much you can overclock even my i7 SkyLake for better performance.

 

It does what? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. My comment implied that TDP isn't power consumption. But, both TDP and actual power consumption are directly impacted by voltage and frequency (assuming the CPU is under 100% load).

 

it does basically mean...
im agreeing with yha

 

1700 is 8/16 and 6700k is 4/8. Do the math, 1700 is a steal!

 

When everybody was hoping for a new AMD Athlon story all over again.

This prices show that the reality is going to be nothing near to what happened when Intel was selling their slow overpriced Pentium 3 and AMD lunched the Athlon, the first CPUS to pass the 1Ghz barrier, and at a much lower price than the Intel CPUS.

 

Had that in mind aswell, that it just might be heat output. Not worried about that tho, custom loop awaits for the new CPU aswell.

Cheers for that.

 

I dont get it those prices are way to high if you ask me ( i know nobody did), in norway the cost for a 7700k is 400 euro and you almost have "guaranteed" 5ghz oc when properly cooled, i was interested in the 1700x to retire my aging 2600k. but i really dont know when the price is the same as a 6800k. well we will se how the amd`s oc. i really hope i can go back to amd (nostalgia alert)

 

So I must imagine that the 1700X seems to have the same performance at 1/3 of the price of the 6900k.

 

Hmmm, the 1700X costing as much if not a little more than the 6800k. Not sure that's a good price.

 

Let's wait and see for final performance and price. I believe that the non-X 1700 is a bargain if performance holds up.

 

It'll have to have close to Kaby or Skylake IPC for me to consider these. We need some reviews.

 

@Songokuric, okismoki, and eclap
Seriously, what are you people basing your opinions off of? In what way can you prove that it's not a good price or is comparable to a 6800K? It's one thing to be suspicious of the performance; we all are. It's understandable to say "I think these could be too expensive for most enthusiasts". But you're just outright saying "it's not priced well" with no evidence. It's just mind boggling how matter-of-factly these statements are said with so little to back them up, and yet you completely forget that AMD is releasing products that doesn't have 16 threads. It's not like you're required to get the highest-end product; you don't even have what was best back when your CPUs were new, so how is this new product lineup any different?

 

this got me thinking about XFR so it is an automatic overclock as far your power draw and cooling is a adequate and not breaking the limits .... this seems to be similar how the boost clocks of the cards working on the last generation .... but what got me thinking will this mean that we will be limited on the voltage we can give on our cpus ? will this mean the non x models have fixed voltage ? so yeah you get unlocked multiplier but the voltage is fixed like a lot of the video cards ? i hope this is not the case

 

IF the IPC is same as broadwell-e as everything suggests it's ~2% from kaby if it is tad higher it will be the same or higher.

But we will know soon enough. Since skylake and kaby are the same and broadwell was 2.7% behind skylake.

I am getting the 8 core one, because I have some other plans aside from gaming.

I would rather compare the price of 1600 models to 6800k. And 1700/1800 to 6900k as it should be.

 

Seems like everyone was hoping for a 8c/16t cpu that may be close to 6900k performance for $200. They are welcome to buy an intel chip.

Let's just wait a couple of weeks and see what they have.