AMD Announces Ryzen 2600(X), 2700(X), X470 Preorder (+Unboxing Preview)

#5537406

wantobe

2018-04-13 15:03

Dayum, I don't need 2700X but I want it so bad at those clocks / value! Sweet for those upgrading.

#5537408

-Tj-

2018-04-13 15:06

Wow that is really cheap! Nice work AMD

#5537419

icedman

2018-04-13 16:08

I like what i specs and pricing is good. I was kinda hoping for a video Hilbert

#5537422

RooiKreef

2018-04-13 16:14

I’m so glad we see some much needed competition for a change.

#5537435

Koniakki

2018-04-13 17:00

6 days to go! Can't wait!

#5537443

Vmhasegawa

2018-04-13 17:10

Really hoping they deliver. Obviously not expecting the promised 10% perf. increase everywhere, but change and progress are always welcome

#5537444

coth

2018-04-13 17:11

So, there was no point to wait April 19, as some shops already started selling it last week.

-Tj-:

Wow that is really cheap!

MSRP is same as Zen-generation Ryzen. Wouldn't call them cheap. 2700X cost same as 8700K in retail. It's might be more powerful in all threads, but it's still slower in a single thread and in games. Memory is still slow. So, they still compete each other. Sadly 12LP didn't improve much. 2700X only overclocks in average to 4.3 GHz from 3.7 GHz. 4.5 GHz is quite a fortune. Next to wait is 8-core Coffee Lake Core i7 for LGA1151-2, probably 8800K. May be somewhere by late august on Gamescom. May be earlier.

#5537445

tensai28

2018-04-13 17:14

I would really like to see how the 2600x compares to the 8700k. If it's anywhere close in performance that would be amazing value.

#5537456

coth

2018-04-13 17:28

tensai28:

I would really like to see how the 2600x compares to the 8700k. If it's anywhere close in performance that would be amazing value.

2600X clocked 3.6@4.15 GHz. Not really the floor, could be faster, but still. Close to 8700K at stock clock, but still slower. And significantly slower in a single thread. http://valid.x86.fr/ch3d98 Here is average air floor for 2700X http://valid.x86.fr/kmpz89 Average air floor for 8700K for comparison https://valid.x86.fr/34fwnm

#5537472

-Tj-

2018-04-13 18:13

coth:

So, there was no point to wait April 19, as some shops already started selling it last week. MSRP is same as Zen-generation Ryzen. Wouldn't call them cheap. 2700X cost same as 8700K in retail. It's might be more powerful in all threads, but it's still slower in a single thread and in games. Memory is still slow. So, they still compete each other. Sadly 12LP didn't improve much. 2700X only overclocks in average to 4.3 GHz from 3.7 GHz. 4.5 GHz is quite a fortune. Next to wait is 8-core Coffee Lake Core i7 for LGA1151-2, probably 8800K. May be somewhere by late august on Gamescom. May be earlier.

It is cheap for 8core. Intel had 1000€ 8 core not long ago.. lol I payed 330€ for my 4Core back in 2013 and now it still costs ~ 280€.. Im not going to buy this zen though, still have plenty of power left in this oc'ed 4770k @4.7GHz

#5537480

zero_cool

2018-04-13 18:43

coth:

So, there was no point to wait April 19, as some shops already started selling it last week. MSRP is same as Zen-generation Ryzen. Wouldn't call them cheap. 2700X cost same as 8700K in retail. It's might be more powerful in all threads, but it's still slower in a single thread and in games. Memory is still slow. So, they still compete each other. Sadly 12LP didn't improve much. 2700X only overclocks in average to 4.3 GHz from 3.7 GHz. 4.5 GHz is quite a fortune. Next to wait is 8-core Coffee Lake Core i7 for LGA1151-2, probably 8800K. May be somewhere by late august on Gamescom. May be earlier.

wrong.. the 2700x is 18 dollars cheaper than the 8700k..

#5537482

icedman

2018-04-13 18:46

just noticed the extra cache these have 20mb instead of 16mb that might help attain the 10% performance boost they where saying along with the clocks.

#5537483

chispy

2018-04-13 18:48

Looking forward for Hilbert's extensive review on this new puppies , anxiety has started kicking in as i'm unsure if i will get one 2700x to play with it and test maximum overclock on cpu and memory. It all depends on the reviews , exciting times ahead of us 🙂

#5537485

coth

2018-04-13 18:53

Well, Bulldozer was cheaper for 8-core) But one core was nearly twice slower as Intel's 4770k. So, single-thread performance and total multi-thread performance what is important. Number of cores is quite irrelevant for home PC.

#5537489

Fox2232

2018-04-13 19:01

icedman:

just noticed the extra cache these have 20mb instead of 16mb that might help attain the 10% performance boost they where saying along with the clocks.

That includes L1/L2.

#5537499

Dazz

2018-04-13 19:32

coth:

2600X clocked 3.6@4.15 GHz. Not really the floor, could be faster, but still. Close to 8700K at stock clock, but still slower. And significantly slower in a single thread. http://valid.x86.fr/ch3d98 Here is average air floor for 2700X http://valid.x86.fr/kmpz89 Average air floor for 8700K for comparison https://valid.x86.fr/34fwnm

Although the 8700K has a single core clock of 4.7GHz so it does have a 600MHz frequency advantage.

icedman:

just noticed the extra cache these have 20mb instead of 16mb that might help attain the 10% performance boost they where saying along with the clocks.

I think the 10% IPC is mostly due to the lower latency of the CCX units and cache more than anything else.

#5537505

-Tj-

2018-04-13 19:50

^ Really funny comparison actually, he posted 8700K with 3200MHZ ram, 2700X with 2666MHZ ram. And cpu-z loves high ram speeds too.. If it were 3200 or 3400 MHz it would be a lot different.

coth:

Well, Bulldozer was cheaper for 8-core) But one core was nearly twice slower as Intel's 4770k. So, single-thread performance and total multi-thread performance what is important. Number of cores is quite irrelevant for home PC.

Why so offensive towards Amd? Bulldozer is a failed history, so was intel's Presscott few years earlier.. Zen single core is effective enough for what it is.. If you rely so much on single threaded performance (10-15% maybe) in year 2018 then stick with intel, no one is forcing you not to.

#5537509