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

Published by

Click here to post a comment for AMD Announces Ryzen 2600(X), 2700(X), X470 Preorder (+Unboxing Preview) on our message forum
#5537540
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
Yogi:

Any word on the 2800's yet?
It wouldn't surprise me if there won't be one for AM4. I'm guessing AMD is reserving the 2800 for Threadripper, which IMO makes sense. The clocks on the 2700X is already pretty high - how could the 2800 be any better? I think having the 2800/2800X with the same clocks as the 2700/2700X but with quad-channel memory and that abundance of PCIe slots ought to be a substantial upgrade.
#5537544
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/103/103120.jpg
-Tj-:

Really funny comparison actually, he posted 8700K with 3200MHZ ram, 2700X with 2666MHZ ram.
Well, Intel's 14++ is simply better than 12LP that of Samsung, as far as I remember, licensed by GloFo. That's what you take. I was giving examples of average air floor. It's what you can get relatively easy in a single click. There is another example. It has 3200 RAM. But it has significantly lower results, so probably PC was busy with something else, while benching. That link of 2700X was actually running RAM at 3050. http://valid.x86.fr/s8ng35
-Tj-:

Why so offensive towards Amd?
I'm not offensive to AMD, as I said - single-thread performance, where Intel is better, and total multi-thread performance, where AMD is better - is what is important. I'm only saying that number of cores is quite irrelevant for home PC giving old Bulldozer as a good example of that irrelevance. Performance that is relevant. If you have SQL or web server, you might have a noticeable difference of low-frequency 48-core over high-frequency 8-core, but not at home. Still, Zen core is somewhat 10-15% less performant than Coffee Lake's core. Plus slow memory make it slower in some situation. So not everywhere AMD multi-core performance is better.
#5537549
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/243/243702.jpg
coth:

Well, Intel's 14++ is simply better than 12LP that of Samsung, as far as I remember, licensed by GloFo. That's what you take. I was giving examples of average air floor. It's what you can get relatively easy in a single click. I'm not offensive to AMD, as I said - single-thread performance, where Intel is better, and total multi-thread performance, where AMD is better - is what is important. I'm only saying that number of cores is quite irrelevant for home PC giving old Bulldozer as a good example of that irrelevance. Performance that is relevant. If you have SQL or web server, you might have a noticeable difference of low-frequency 48-core over high-frequency 8-core, but not at home. Still, Zen core is somewhat 10-15% less performant than Coffee Lake's core. Plus slow memory make it slower in some situation. So not everywhere AMD multi-core performance is better.
Even Excel is now multi-threaded. Cores not needed? 4C/4T CPUs are thing of the past for multitasking users. If I keep browser open while playing, it costs me quite a few fps as I am multi-tab user. Can't wait to change this 4C/4T gaming console for multitasking capable machine again. Other than that... Yes, you are right. Intel's CPUs achieve higher ST results. But I would still advise anyone any day to pick AMD 4C/8T @4GHz over intel's 2C/4T @5GHz. Those threads are simply needed on both sides.
#5537555
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/270/270718.jpg
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.
Come on man, why lie? 8700K is $347/349 on Amazon/Newegg right now and doesnt include a cooler. You are going to spend at the bare minimum another $30USD on a cooler for the 8700k. The Prism cooler included in the 2700x is a $40-$50 value. Also, you down the 12nm process, and completely neglect the value of the newly designed memory controller which reduces mem latency and improves mem speed compatibility. Do you take us Gurus here for fools? This is a hella great deal-- I paid $330 for my 1700 a year ago, and have been completely satisfied with it. This 2700x deal is just bad ass, and you can be sure even better pricing will probably be had shortly after launch....
#5537559
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/243/243702.jpg
jortego128:

Come on man, why lie? 8700K is $347/349 on Amazon/Newegg right now and doesnt include a cooler. You are going to spend at the bare minimum another $30USD on a cooler for the 8700k. The Prism cooler included in the 2700x is a $40-$50 value. Also, you down the 12nm process, and completely neglect the value of the newly designed memory controller which reduces mem latency and improves mem speed compatibility. Do you take us Gurus here for fools? This is a hella great deal-- I paid $330 for my 1700 a year ago, and have been completely satisfied with it. This 2700x deal is just bad ass, and you can be sure even better pricing will probably be had shortly after launch....
On other hand, imagine 2700X being sold for $300 w/o cooler. I would love it. (But I can still find some good use for that Prism Cooler.)
#5537567
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/197/197287.jpg
coth:

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.
Release price 1700x=$399 2700x=$329 1700=$329 2700=$299 1600x=$249 2600x=$229 1600=$219 2600=$199 And considering the 2700x @ 3.7Ghz 4.3Ghz boost should perfom better then the 1800x @ 3.6Ghz 4.1Ghz boost, it's more like you can get, this year, a little more performance then last years $499 processor, for $329. And 8700k is MSRP of $359, not sure why you think that's the same as $329 Since you claim "retail" i must believe you're not saying MSRP, so... Amazon: $347.98, not "the same" as $329 Newegg: $349.99, not "the same" as $329 Jet: $347.06, $342.06 each if you buy 2, still not "the same" as $329 The list can go on.... So more expensive, for a processor that'll perform less, since the performance of a processor is designated by its full performance, not gimping it to a useless single-core performance. It's 2018, not 2004.
coth:

Number of cores is quite irrelevant for home PC.
If you want a computer that chugs after multiple process' happen, sure. The world is about multitasking, always has been, the more advance computers get, the more multitasking that happens. Specifically in background processes. I'd rather have an 8-core 1.5Ghz processor then a quad-core 3Ghz processor.
#5537571
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/270/270233.jpg
schmidtbag:

It wouldn't surprise me if there won't be one for AM4. I'm guessing AMD is reserving the 2800 for Threadripper, which IMO makes sense. The clocks on the 2700X is already pretty high - how could the 2800 be any better? I think having the 2800/2800X with the same clocks as the 2700/2700X but with quad-channel memory and that abundance of PCIe slots ought to be a substantial upgrade.
The 1800X was bad value overall. After the initial batches, very few sold, and I doubt a $499 Zen+ would sell either. As you said, the 2800 is probably reserved for the next 8-core TR.
Aura89:

Release price 1700x=$399 2700x=$329 1700=$329 2700=$299 1600x=$249 2600x=$229 1600=$219 2600=$199 And considering the 2700x @ 3.7Ghz 4.3Ghz boost should perfom better then the 1800x @ 3.6Ghz 4.1Ghz boost, it's more like you can get, this year, a little more performance then last years $499 processor, for $329. And 8700k is MSRP of $359, not sure why you think that's the same as $329 Since you claim "retail" i must believe you're not saying MSRP, so... Amazon: $347.98, not "the same" as $329 Newegg: $349.99, not "the same" as $329 Jet: $347.06, $342.06 each if you buy 2, still not "the same" as $329 The list can go on.... So more expensive, for a processor that'll perform less, since the performance of a processor is designated by its full performance, not gimping it to a useless single-core performance. It's 2018, not 2004. If you want a computer that chugs after multiple process' happen, sure. The world is about multitasking, always has been, the more advance computers get, the more multitasking that happens. Specifically in background processes. I'd rather have an 8-core 1.5Ghz processor then a quad-core 3Ghz processor.
Don't forget, all the Zen+ CPUs come with a cooler. That's an additional $30 in savings (at least). 😉
#5537572
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/273/273822.jpg
About needing cores, it really depends on what you do. Example, those who have 4c/8t i7 at 4.5ghz+ (Skylake or newer) will be most likely happy. In games, great performance, all the other tasks, just fine, no issues. I think these guys can sit out for now. Next year or so, when they have the itch, going 8c/16t will be THE move for those guys. I'll personally be skipping this generation of Ryzen but next time around, I'll be eager to see what Ryzen can offer. 8c/16t at 4.5ghz and some further optimisations and improvements will be very tempting. Will be interesting to see how Intel react to this because those in the market for a new cpu can NOT go wrong with the 2700/x, that's for sure.
#5537579
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/216/216490.jpg
anticupidon:

Really can't wait for the official review. I think to take a day off and enjoy the flood of benchmarks and geek info.
Better save that day off for Zen2 imo... 😛
#5537589
data/avatar/default/avatar35.webp
Aura89:

Release price 1700x=$399 2700x=$329 1700=$329 2700=$299 1600x=$249 2600x=$229 1600=$219 2600=$199 And considering the 2700x @ 3.7Ghz 4.3Ghz boost should perfom better then the 1800x @ 3.6Ghz 4.1Ghz boost, it's more like you can get, this year, a little more performance then last years $499 processor, for $329. And 8700k is MSRP of $359, not sure why you think that's the same as $329 Since you claim "retail" i must believe you're not saying MSRP, so... Amazon: $347.98, not "the same" as $329 Newegg: $349.99, not "the same" as $329 Jet: $347.06, $342.06 each if you buy 2, still not "the same" as $329 The list can go on.... So more expensive, for a processor that'll perform less, since the performance of a processor is designated by its full performance, not gimping it to a useless single-core performance. It's 2018, not 2004. If you want a computer that chugs after multiple process' happen, sure. The world is about multitasking, always has been, the more advance computers get, the more multitasking that happens. Specifically in background processes. I'd rather have an 8-core 1.5Ghz processor then a quad-core 3Ghz processor.
+1 🙂
#5537598
data/avatar/default/avatar05.webp
Guys I never had / tried any Ryzen , how much can we get usually in OC without too much effort? Thinking to get the 2700X to replace mt old 4770k Tks
#5537601
data/avatar/default/avatar24.webp
Dont know if we are allowed to publish some links here, but the spanish website that made a review using a X370 mainboard last week, could manage to get a X470 motherboard today and completed the test with games, etc Looks very VERY promising. it closed the gap between the 2700x and the 8700k almost to NIL......and keeping the temperatures reasonable low......you dont need an AIO to keep temps at 65C.
#5537608
data/avatar/default/avatar14.webp
wsarahan:

I never had / tried any Ryzen , how much can we get usually in OC without too much effort? Thinking to get the 2700X to replace mt old 4770k
Why worry about OC? The value is there to begin with! AND if you do OC Ryzen you'll lose the boost feature, which would be completely silly. You're already talking about moving from an aging quad to a new 8-core / 16 threads! For about what Intel soaked you for the former! People don't seem to realize what AMD has done with Ryzen, and what a miracle it was. If you want a new CPU, and if one of theirs will fit the bill, go with that. Don't quibble. AMD deserves that much back from us. I bought 1800X at launch and am very happy with it*. Thank you AMD! *which with all 16 threads max'd out hits 58 degC (30 degC over ambient) with a $50 Scythe Mugen 5 air cooler...
#5537610
data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp
Arbie:

Why worry about OC? The value is there to begin with! AND if you do OC Ryzen you'll lose the boost feature, which would be completely silly. You're already talking about moving from an aging quad to a new 8-core / 16 threads! For about what Intel soaked you for the former! People don't seem to realize what AMD has done with Ryzen, and what a miracle it was. If you want a new CPU, and if one of theirs will fit the bill, go with that. Don't quibble. AMD deserves that much back from us. I bought 1800X at launch and am very happy with it*. Thank you AMD! *which with all 16 threads max'd out hits 58 degC (30 degC over ambient) with a $50 Scythe Mugen 5 air cooler...
Like i said, i never had an AMD CPU So it`s not necessary at all to make an OC at this Ryzen? If not better for me 🙂
#5537646
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/232/232130.jpg
My God AMD, you can't just lower release prices!! That's not how corporate suppose to work! How I suppose to tell myself 2500k is enough? Give me a damn reason to wait for Zen2! p.s. Love you AMD <3 1700X : $399 2700X : $329 1700 : $329 2700 : $299 1600x : $249 2600x : $229 1600 : $219 2600 : $199 edit: prices already compared above. my bad.
#5537669
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/105/105757.jpg
I didn't want to upgrade, but damn AMD that 2700X is very tempting even though I don't need it 😡
#5537680
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/267/267995.jpg
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.
Newegg has the 2700X as $329 with a CPU fan and the 8799K as $349 without one.
#5537681
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/79/79740.jpg
DW75:

Damn, that R7 2700X is a cracking CPU for 330 US. Zen+ is going to be a huge hit. It won't be long until we see the incoming Shillary Clinton comments from the obsessed Intel supporters.
Never seen an Intel shill or "obsessed Intel supporters". Benchmarks are usually no.1 criteria for CPU purchases. So when AMD have something better, you will see people switching sides pretty quick. Thats what happened with Ryzen, tons of people went from Intel to AMD. Even more so expected when Zen 2 is released. Most Intel owners I've seen here are very excited about Zen 2.
#5537684
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/254/254338.jpg
Barring any major issues it looks like it's time to pull the trigger on a couple of 2700X systems.
#5537691
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/240/240605.jpg
I love when Hilbert teases me, that man sure knows how to do a proper homoerotik tech teasing! 🙂

Previous Page

Next Page