ASUS Radeon RX 7600 STRIX OC review
Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
AMD Ryzen Launches March 2nd
Yes we managed a full day without a Ryzen news! But, a day has passed and some new information popped up. The AMD Ryzen launch date is firm and steady on March 2nd, likely 3PM CEST. Lock that date in your agenda.
The new information was posted earlier today at sweclockers and does confirm the signals we've been hearing for a while now. Obviously there's an AMD Capsaicin event February the 28th. We do expect to see full product announcements that day and then on the 2nd the review embargoes will be lifted, not just for Ryzen but also for the board partners that will be selling motherboards.
At the same day AMD will be launching the X370 and B350 chipsets based motherboards first. Processors wise you'll see three 8-core parts launched with availability on March the 2nd. Some webshops have however listed the 28th, so there remains to be a little confusion there. Motherboards wise a lot has surfaced online already, including details on the flagship Crosshair VI Hero and Prime X370 motherboards.
Processors then:
You will have noticed that the naming has been changed to Series 3 5 and 7 and no longer is it R3, R5 and R7. I do like that subtle simplified change. ALL models will be unlocked, AMD made that bold claim themselves in early January. The X models thus simply are better binned ones with less restrictions on likely voltage.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X - 499 USD
AMD Ryzen R7 1800X is the flagship processor and it has has 8 cores with 16 threads and is assumed to get a Boost frequency of 4.00 GHz. The boost frequencies are not confirmed, but the indications we have seen the past few weeks would state a 4.0 GHz Turbo and 3.6 GHz base clock. No further data was revealed. Now keep in mind (if the perf is close) a similar 8-core Intel CPU would cost you about 1,200 euros, the cost for the flagship Ryzen R7 1800X processor would be 599.99 euros. These are unlocked (multiplier) processors.
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X - 389 USD
The next AMD Ryzen in line is the R7 1700X, this one would again get 8 cores and 16 threads but this time at a Turbo frequency of 3.80 GHz, so yes this is pretty much the same processor, just with a lower base at 3.4 GHz and Turbo frequency.
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - 319 USD
Then there is the AMD R7 Ryzen 1700, this would be a top-end CPU for gamers and yes, again you'll receive an 8 core and 16 threads processor. This time at a Turbo frequency of 3.70 GHz, the most notable being that it is the only model that indicates a TDP, which is set as 65W whereas the other two would be 95 Watt parts. The base clock frequency would be 3.0 GHz.
Other models have been spotted. I personally do not think the processors listed below aside from the three aforementioned ones will launch anytime soon. Again the above three processors (we think) will launch first. All these processors would fit Socket AM4 and thus you can use the same motherboard.
| Processor model | Cores/Threads | L3 Cache | TDP | Base | Turbo | Unlocked | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 7 1800X | 8/16 | 16MB | 95W | 3.6GHz | 4.0GHz | Yes | $499 |
| AMD Ryzen 7 1700X | 8/16 | 16MB | 95W | 3.4GHz | 3.8GHz | Yes | $389 |
| AMD Ryzen 7 1700 | 8/16 | 16MB | 65W | 3.0GHz | 3.7GHz | Yes | $319 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600X | 6/12 | 16MB | 95W | 3.3GHz | 3.7GHz | Yes | $259 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 1500 | 6/12 | 16MB | 65W | 3.2GHz | 3.5GHz | Yes | $229 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 1400X | 4/8 | 8MB | 65W | 3.5GHz | 3.9GHz | Yes | $199 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 1300 | 4/8 | 8MB | 65W | 3.2GHz | 3.5GHz | Yes | $175 |
| AMD Ryzen 3 1200X | 4/4 | 8MB | 65W | 3.4GHz | 3.8GHz | Yes | $149 |
| AMD Ryzen 3 1100 | 4/4 | 8MB | 65W | 3.2GHz | 3.5GHz | Yes | $129 |
AMD Ryzen BoxArt and Capsaicin Event at GDC 2017 - 02/14/2017 10:58 PM
Alright, I've folded, theres not one day without any mention of AMD and Ryzen until it launches I'm afraid. As you guys have seen, several webshops have shown Ryzen processors specs, models and pric...
EU prices listed - AMD Ryzen 7 1800X To Cost 628 EUR - 02/14/2017 05:39 PM
So we have seen several prices for AMD Ryzen already. This time in the Eu they surfaced in price listing as well. A Belgian online retailer has started taking preorders for Ryzen CPUs. ...
AMD Ryzen Info and Clock Frequency Overview - 02/13/2017 01:40 PM
ver the past week a lot of info on AMD Ryzen surfaced on the web. It is time for a recap, clock frequency overview and a bit of an explanation of the X models....
Alleged First AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Benchmarks Surface - 02/13/2017 01:33 PM
On several forums some test results from the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X have surfaced, the 8-core processor seems to position itself inbetween the Core i7 6850K and 6900K. Be warned though, there is no valid...
AMD Ryzen Won't Get Dedicated Windows 7 Drivers But Is fully Supported - 02/09/2017 05:30 PM
A while ago we posted a new item that AMD would be fabbing specific Windows 7 drivers. As it turns out, that is not the case. The Ryzen processors however are fully supported. Considering that the Ryz...
ChicagoDave
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 2014-06-07
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 2014-06-07
#5393842 Posted on: 02/16/2017 08:34 PM
I completely understand what you're saying, but I think context is important here. When it comes to AMD vs Nvidia, anyone who isn't an elitist or a sheep knows that you'll have a good gaming experience with either brand. AMD's main source of revenue for gaming is likely the mainstream market, which also results in the highest yield. Since 1080p@60Hz displays are still pretty much mainstream, I'm guessing AMD's focus is to get themselves out there while Nvidia focuses on the hardcore enthusiasts. Both AMD and Nvidia tend to release low-end products later, since people aren't exactly anxious to see those. Also, I think it's within AMD's interest to just get as many sales as possible in order to get their name out there. It's better to have many satisfied customers than a handful of thrilled ones, when your competition has more customers of every kind.
Meanwhile for CPUs, AMD is struggling hard and they need to distinguish themselves. They have never really had something that could easily or reliably compete with any i7, to the point that they dropped out of the high-end market entirely. They need to defeat any superficial beliefs, so it seems their priority is to outperform just about any i7 Intel has. Most people don't need anything that powerful, but right now it seems all they need to focus on is de-throning Intel. Meanwhile if they released their cheaper products first, people would see that Intel still has i7s that are faster, so people would get bored and move on.
It is annoying though, I personally am tired of waiting and neither the motherboard chipsets or CPUs I'm interested in are being released first.
I don't understand why AMD can't service both markets at once. Intel's actual low-mid offerings are CPUs such as the i3-7100 that costs $119.00 at Newegg. AMD should be targeting both the high end and the low-mid range at launch, not staggered over several months. Sure, enthusiasts may be fine spending $400 on a CPU, but the vast majority of users are buying entire computers for $500. Think of how many people there are who don't live in the US/EU, and don't have the purchasing power to buy i5's and i7's. There's literally an order of magnitude more people who will buy a computer with a $200 CPU than those that will be a $400 CPU.
I'm honestly shocked that AMD is doing this staggered release (if it's even true). A complete reversal of their GPU strategy for what exactly....bragging rights? They still won't have the fastest processor, just the fastest processor for $500. Big deal. Just like NVidia has a $600 GPU that's the fastest "enthusiast" card, yet the $250-$350 range sells multiples of that. There's a reason the 970 was such a popular card, and not the 980 or 980ti. The middle range is where the money is made; AMD had it right on their Polaris GPU line....this whole CPU strategy just defies logic. They should be shotgunning the whole lineup at once and getting as much market share and mind share as possible.
I completely understand what you're saying, but I think context is important here. When it comes to AMD vs Nvidia, anyone who isn't an elitist or a sheep knows that you'll have a good gaming experience with either brand. AMD's main source of revenue for gaming is likely the mainstream market, which also results in the highest yield. Since 1080p@60Hz displays are still pretty much mainstream, I'm guessing AMD's focus is to get themselves out there while Nvidia focuses on the hardcore enthusiasts. Both AMD and Nvidia tend to release low-end products later, since people aren't exactly anxious to see those. Also, I think it's within AMD's interest to just get as many sales as possible in order to get their name out there. It's better to have many satisfied customers than a handful of thrilled ones, when your competition has more customers of every kind.
Meanwhile for CPUs, AMD is struggling hard and they need to distinguish themselves. They have never really had something that could easily or reliably compete with any i7, to the point that they dropped out of the high-end market entirely. They need to defeat any superficial beliefs, so it seems their priority is to outperform just about any i7 Intel has. Most people don't need anything that powerful, but right now it seems all they need to focus on is de-throning Intel. Meanwhile if they released their cheaper products first, people would see that Intel still has i7s that are faster, so people would get bored and move on.
It is annoying though, I personally am tired of waiting and neither the motherboard chipsets or CPUs I'm interested in are being released first.
I don't understand why AMD can't service both markets at once. Intel's actual low-mid offerings are CPUs such as the i3-7100 that costs $119.00 at Newegg. AMD should be targeting both the high end and the low-mid range at launch, not staggered over several months. Sure, enthusiasts may be fine spending $400 on a CPU, but the vast majority of users are buying entire computers for $500. Think of how many people there are who don't live in the US/EU, and don't have the purchasing power to buy i5's and i7's. There's literally an order of magnitude more people who will buy a computer with a $200 CPU than those that will be a $400 CPU.
I'm honestly shocked that AMD is doing this staggered release (if it's even true). A complete reversal of their GPU strategy for what exactly....bragging rights? They still won't have the fastest processor, just the fastest processor for $500. Big deal. Just like NVidia has a $600 GPU that's the fastest "enthusiast" card, yet the $250-$350 range sells multiples of that. There's a reason the 970 was such a popular card, and not the 980 or 980ti. The middle range is where the money is made; AMD had it right on their Polaris GPU line....this whole CPU strategy just defies logic. They should be shotgunning the whole lineup at once and getting as much market share and mind share as possible.
Exige245
Senior Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 2008-01-20
Senior Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 2008-01-20
#5393847 Posted on: 02/16/2017 08:42 PM
I might have put my money on a 6c/12t Ryzen, had it been available a year ago, instead of this i5 that's no different from my previous i5, despite being 3 generations newer.
Don't take this the wrong way...but if you admit your Skylake i5 is realistically no different than your previous one (assuming Ivy or Sandy), then why did you buy it? Surely you could've waited it out, knowing at this time a year ago that AMD had Zen in the works, if the new i5 was a marginal improvement at best?
I ask because while everyone complains about Intel's greed and lack of innovation- which I wholeheartedly agree with- I fail to understand why many of these people are the ones who continue to throw their $ toward Intel- when the upgrade need is simply not even there (based on the products available)?
I might have put my money on a 6c/12t Ryzen, had it been available a year ago, instead of this i5 that's no different from my previous i5, despite being 3 generations newer.
Don't take this the wrong way...but if you admit your Skylake i5 is realistically no different than your previous one (assuming Ivy or Sandy), then why did you buy it? Surely you could've waited it out, knowing at this time a year ago that AMD had Zen in the works, if the new i5 was a marginal improvement at best?
I ask because while everyone complains about Intel's greed and lack of innovation- which I wholeheartedly agree with- I fail to understand why many of these people are the ones who continue to throw their $ toward Intel- when the upgrade need is simply not even there (based on the products available)?
Prince Valiant
Senior Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 2014-02-23
Senior Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 2014-02-23
#5393849 Posted on: 02/16/2017 08:42 PM
I don't understand why AMD can't service both markets at once. Intel's actual low-mid offerings are CPUs such as the i3-7100 that costs $119.00 at Newegg. AMD should be targeting both the high end and the low-mid range at launch, not staggered over several months. Sure, enthusiasts may be fine spending $400 on a CPU, but the vast majority of users are buying entire computers for $500. Think of how many people there are who don't live in the US/EU, and don't have the purchasing power to buy i5's and i7's. There's literally an order of magnitude more people who will buy a computer with a $200 CPU than those that will be a $400 CPU.
I'm honestly shocked that AMD is doing this staggered release (if it's even true). A complete reversal of their GPU strategy for what exactly....bragging rights? They still won't have the fastest processor, just the fastest processor for $500. Big deal. Just like NVidia has a $600 GPU that's the fastest "enthusiast" card, yet the $250-$350 range sells multiples of that. There's a reason the 970 was such a popular card, and not the 980 or 980ti. The middle range is where the money is made; AMD had it right on their Polaris GPU line....this whole CPU strategy just defies logic. They should be shotgunning the whole lineup at once and getting as much market share and mind share as possible.
The problem is that people spending $500 on a PC aren't going to upgrade because there's something new unless it sounds like it's leagues better. Even then I have my doubts that many would buy into it.
I don't understand why AMD can't service both markets at once. Intel's actual low-mid offerings are CPUs such as the i3-7100 that costs $119.00 at Newegg. AMD should be targeting both the high end and the low-mid range at launch, not staggered over several months. Sure, enthusiasts may be fine spending $400 on a CPU, but the vast majority of users are buying entire computers for $500. Think of how many people there are who don't live in the US/EU, and don't have the purchasing power to buy i5's and i7's. There's literally an order of magnitude more people who will buy a computer with a $200 CPU than those that will be a $400 CPU.
I'm honestly shocked that AMD is doing this staggered release (if it's even true). A complete reversal of their GPU strategy for what exactly....bragging rights? They still won't have the fastest processor, just the fastest processor for $500. Big deal. Just like NVidia has a $600 GPU that's the fastest "enthusiast" card, yet the $250-$350 range sells multiples of that. There's a reason the 970 was such a popular card, and not the 980 or 980ti. The middle range is where the money is made; AMD had it right on their Polaris GPU line....this whole CPU strategy just defies logic. They should be shotgunning the whole lineup at once and getting as much market share and mind share as possible.
The problem is that people spending $500 on a PC aren't going to upgrade because there's something new unless it sounds like it's leagues better. Even then I have my doubts that many would buy into it.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5393851 Posted on: 02/16/2017 08:43 PM
Well that kind of comes down to what Prince Valiant said in his last post (2nd paragraph). Even if the 490 ends up being better than the 1080 (which I'm not expecting), Nvidia will not give up that performance crown so easily, and people will still buy Nvidia anyway simply because of the name. So, all AMD can do is focus on offering affordable products that appeal to the widest audience and get their name out there. Sure, maybe a lot of Guru3D readers own a 1070 and 1080, but most people don't.
I get the impression Anarion was implying 4c/4t chips, which seems to be what the average person has. If so, I too agree that there's not much of a point in releasing those yet. There's also the fact that there are still a lot of 4c/8t users out there, and it is within AMD's interest to grab their attention away from Intel, which any of their 4c models won't do. In order for AMD to really grab headlines and make sales (including from i7 users), they need to start out with something hefty.
@Exige245
I completely agree. It's kind of like someone eating a donut while asking "why am I so fat!?"
Considering AMD's portion of the GPU market, I'd say they need to distinguish themselves there as well. It won't happen if Nvidia is holding the crown all the time and people keep dreaming of having the money for the real Nvidia card.
Well that kind of comes down to what Prince Valiant said in his last post (2nd paragraph). Even if the 490 ends up being better than the 1080 (which I'm not expecting), Nvidia will not give up that performance crown so easily, and people will still buy Nvidia anyway simply because of the name. So, all AMD can do is focus on offering affordable products that appeal to the widest audience and get their name out there. Sure, maybe a lot of Guru3D readers own a 1070 and 1080, but most people don't.
I'm sure some 2c/4t users, old 4c/4t, let alone 2c users would be drooling for a 4c/8t they couldn't dream of affording before (i7). I mean, I might be badmouthing HT every now and then, but of course I'd also rather have an i7, if only it wasn't 100+ euros more than the already overpriced i5. Besides, it's not like 4c/8t would be the same as 6c/12t, huh? Even simple mathematics would make 6c a lot better than 4c.
I get the impression Anarion was implying 4c/4t chips, which seems to be what the average person has. If so, I too agree that there's not much of a point in releasing those yet. There's also the fact that there are still a lot of 4c/8t users out there, and it is within AMD's interest to grab their attention away from Intel, which any of their 4c models won't do. In order for AMD to really grab headlines and make sales (including from i7 users), they need to start out with something hefty.
@Exige245
I completely agree. It's kind of like someone eating a donut while asking "why am I so fat!?"
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 3408
Joined: 2013-03-10
Well, AMD released Polaris ages ago, but we are still waiting for the high-end.
Considering AMD's portion of the GPU market, I'd say they need to distinguish themselves there as well. It won't happen if Nvidia is holding the crown all the time and people keep dreaming of having the money for the real Nvidia card.
I'm sure some 2c/4t users, old 4c/4t, let alone 2c users would be drooling for a 4c/8t they couldn't dream of affording before (i7). I mean, I might be badmouthing HT every now and then, but of course I'd also rather have an i7, if only it wasn't 100+ euros more than the already overpriced i5. Besides, it's not like 4c/8t would be the same as 6c/12t, huh? Even simple mathematics would make 6c a lot better than 4c.
I might have put my money on a 6c/12t Ryzen, had it been available a year ago, instead of this i5 that's no different from my previous i5, despite being 3 generations newer.