Hardware AMD Reveals Ryzen 7 CPU Lineup and Pricing

Yeah, prices have shot up, especially RAM and SSDs it appears.

 

As an AMD fanboy the choice is easy for me, and I'm absolutely stoked for this as the last generation turned out to be something of a disappointment (even though my 8150 has done everything I've asked it to). I was getting ready to pull the trigger on a nice 1800X-GigaByte combo, but sadly no-one in this corner of the world seem to have the Gigabyte Aorus coming in - and that is the board I want purely based on aesthetics I might add.

 

UK parts pusher Scan seem to be listing Aorus boards, if that helps

 

mpx.no has the AX370-Gaming 5 listed:
https://www.mpx.no/product/915360/k...socket/gigabyte-ga-ax370-gaming-5-socket-am4#

Couldn't find the Gaming K7 in Norway, but give it a couple days and I'm sure it'll turn up.

 

Ooh! Mpx - I keep forgetting about that one. Thanks mate, have a cookie.

Edit: Well crap! It seems that MPX does not accept orders from private persons. I'll send a request to komplett and ask if they are planning to bring in the Aorus as well.

 

Another flood IIRC.

 

8 Pack on overclocking..

Did I not say in a round about way for so long overclocking is not high. This includes Memory oc.

If I say I won't buy does anyone think 5g is possible with anything other than ln2.

To me each sku within the range is simply amd binning internally for higher boost clock stability. So further headroom is very limited.

The Cpu is great at multi thread for sure and certainly rendering and such tasks.

I kind of expected that tbh. There must be a reason why AMD are charging you for the overclocks on the 1700x and 1800x. So it's kinda looking right now that Ryzen as we are getting it next week or whatever is like the first round of Haswell E and could be a bit poo for overclocking.

Wouldn't bother me as I don't overclock any more.

 

People are going batshit because it's the first vaguely competitive AMD chip for years, and everyone wants AMD to do well as competition is good. As for *better*, wait for the reviews. If you wanted lots of cores you've had that for years with bulldozer - it's that key single thread performance that matters more for gamers. Can Rizen both have the ipc and clock/overclock high enough to beat the Intel K parts?

Every AMD release for the past few years has been over-hyped then a letdown. Lets wait n see a little - I suspect the Intel K parts will still have the better single thread performance and hence be faster in games - so lets not build Rizen up to something it might not be.

 

I use Cinebench and Firestrike Physics to grade a CPU. I have already seen more than enough to convince me that Ryzen is fantastic. Absolutely fantastic, even. I was a bit dubious until I saw Linus fire the benches up for himself and run them live in front of a camera. That is good enough for me. Every CPU I have ever had I have used Cinebench to "grade". Then he ran two other benchmarks, then Battlefield 1. Now OK maybe in BF1 it was a little unfair to compare it to the 7700k because BF1 probably eats all of the threads it can get, but the Ryzen was faster, even at a much lower clock speed. Right up to around 10%.

People are so obsessed with IPC and single threaded performance. And the only reason I can think of is because that is what Intel have been feeding people for years. Why do they do that? so that you will buy a dual core CPU that costs them peanuts to make.

I want to see my CPU being used. All of it, every last bit. Not just one core.

I'm sure that every one who owned a Haswell CPU knows what the 5960x was and I am pretty sure that they all really wanted one. Would it have been as good as their 4770k in gaming? doubt it, but hey 8 cores 16 threads and a benchmark smash. If not Intel would not have gotten away with charging a thousand pounds for it.

You can't really over hype a Cinebench score. It is what it is. They've made absolutely no mention of overclocking either, so no hype there. In fact, all they have really done is state the facts as they've found them. It's 52% faster than Piledriver, it's faster in benching than a 6900k and it costs a third to a half, depending on what clock speed you want.

 

Ryzen will lose to every oc'd Kabylake in gaming focused reviews, especially since Kabylake does 5ghz on air with next to no effort which both Broadwell-e and 8 core Ryzen can't come close to.

But of course gaming is only a fraction of what PCs can be used for.

 

^ But gaming is an enormous part of the market that Ryzen is coming into.

 

For me it's simple, If I see that the 1600X can overclock to 4.3-4.5Ghz, I'll replace my i5 4690K with one, but if they turn out to be poor overclockers, I'll see if Intel drop prices on the 7700K and go with that.

 

You may think gaming is not all a pc can do vault but it's probably the bulk of the enthusiast market

 

no they do not - you need binned ones to do 5ghz with volts stuffed up them, most get to 4.7 / 4.8 which is why ocuk are selling 5ghz in 8pack machinen

another reason why 8pack is so `down` on ryzen , is ocuk (his employer) have a stock of them to shift

 

Yes but any one with more than a few brain cells can figure out there are an extra four cores that make a massive difference when you use them.

Let's wait for the 4 core AMDs shall we? see how they clock. It's a lot easier when you reduce the core and thread count I assure you.

 

Consensus from reviews seems to be 5ghz, with anything beyond that being rare, of course it is entirely possible Intel sent out binned chips for reviews.

I used to work in tech support, I don't trust the general population to use more than one braincell when it comes to PCs.

Yes, they should clock higher than the 8 core ones and thats before we even get to the point that the cheaper Ryzen quadcores are priced like locked down i3s.

Plus AM4 is planned to have a future, 2011 does not.

 

That seems to be the case yes. As Harlequin pointed out earlier most of the general population seem to be getting 4.8ghz if they are lucky. OCUK are selling 8 Pack rigs with 5ghz CPUs in them, that is how hard to come by they are.

Then again Intel have done the same thing before. Remember Devil's Canyon and the guaranteed 5ghz? well it wasn't so guaranteed.

Any enthusiast will know his or her proverbial onions. They will know what the 5960x/6900k is. They will know about multi threading and so on. It's not like Intel have kept it a secret. They basically came along and said "Tadaaaa ! a one thousand pound 8 core 16 thread CPU XXXTREEEEM MATE". Which of course made all of us enthusiasts sit up and go "YAY" and then we saw the price and had to feel that feeling. The one where you feel gutted and your PC is crap.

Any one who doesn't know what they are talking about will aim for the cheapest, an area AMD are yet to set the pace on (because they always do).

By process of elimination I can pretty much say for sure that you could probably get the 7700k equivalent of what Intel are charging £185 for.

The 8 core CPUs go £488, £399 or so and £319. If the hex core start at £300 (I think they will be cheaper than that but hey, let's not get too excited) and the bottom end one ends up at £200 that means that the I7 "alike" (quad core with HT) will start at £200 or less.

I think the 6 core will probably be the most popular. Any one who would have bought say a 7700k for example will aim at the high end 6 core or possibly 8 core 1700.

 

For high clocks you need high end cooling - overclocker.net has a score board , and the 5ghz chips are either on water or £70+ air coolers (D15 for example)

which leads your average user to be on stock or a small voerclock

 

No one plays "cinibench". The actually market of enthusiasts who need lots of cores is very small as it's just those doing some sort of compute work that can't be done with a gpu. Most of the enthusiast market is gamers and they need 4 cores + amazing single thread performance as most games bottleneck on one thread.

The other home market is general purpose and they don't need 8 cores, they currently do fine with an i3, they do need integrated graphics so the current Rizen's no good.

Hence us enthusiasts are basically waiting on single thread performance in reviews. I suspect it won't beat Intel (in which case most will stick with Intel but it'll be good enough to sell a few chips as all the AMD fans will feel ok buying it) but I don't know, lets see...

However this is all a stop gap until they can sort out server certified motherboards using quad ECC or fancier memory and have a swing at the pro, server and even HPC market. With all those cores AMD seems to have had that as the primary target. Then we'll have to see as HPC and servers value day to day costs (energy efficiency) over the initial cost of the chip - is Rizen more energy efficient then Xeon?

 

did you just wake up in 2010 or something? pretty much every game now uses 4 cores or more