So is the only difference between the 3 just clock speed or is there so awesome sauce in the R7 1800x that isn't in the lower models

So 1700X is more expensive than 7700K with similar performance...

other reports say amd states only the x models will be allowed to clock higher than normal boost, depending on cooling. the non-x will top out at listed boost clocks. so yeah, all the same, just binned, and boost clocks "unlocked" for X.

other reports say amd states only the x models will be allowed to clock higher than normal boost, depending on cooling. the non-x will top out at listed boost clocks. so yeah, all the same, just binned, and boost clocks "unlocked" for X.

Yeah the problem is that it is speculative information as all processors should be unlocked. I feel the X models simply are better binned tweakable versions with higher allowed voltages - as here's where that is contradicting: http://nl.guru3d.com/78978.jpg

The rumor says that under special oc mode, X cpus will boost higher than normal boost speed. Which also might explain that previous rumor about elaborate cooling system. Not to mention this presents the oportunity to call these parts 90W when in reality they are built and benchmarked as say 130W. Not that anyone really cares about indicated TDP, thats just my speculation As for normal oc, haven't AMD cpus been unlocked for ages?

I can already smell the disappointment of fans, feels like Bulldozer is repeating itself. I would be surprised otherwise

So 1700X is more expensive than 7700K with similar performance...

Explain the logic how you reached that conclusion. In multi-threaded workloads 1700X should annihilate 7700K. Also here in Finland it costs ~410 €.

I can already smell the disappointment of fans, feels like Bulldozer is repeating itself. I would be surprised otherwise

We shall see, maybe there will be salt, maybe not. But all those still tell us little to what we're seeing in terms of performance, 'official' reviews are the thing to wait for.

I can already smell the disappointment of fans, feels like Bulldozer is repeating itself. I would be surprised otherwise

Why? Because of the price? Don't forget that AMD already showed what the high end model can do. The performance we expect is not speculated. Also Intel all of a sudden is releasing new revisions of CPU's. So i think we will have a a proper AMD cpu after all.

I wonder how 1800X compares to my six core i7 5820K at 4.4Ghz that I had for two and a half years now. Will it be slightly better / same-ish / worse? Will it overclock to similar clocks as my i7?

I can't understand people that are worrying because of AMD low prices.Intel is raping :banana: every customer they have.Just look at their profit compared to the income it is insane!Their gross margin is 61%!This means that the real cost of intel products and services is 41% from their current prices if they don't want profit and still their profit at the end after taxes and everything including R&D is around 21% which is not a small percentage.15 years ago i took a brand new Athlon Thoroughbred 1.4GHz 1700+ for 70$ clocked it to 2.3GHz and it was as fast in games as the fastest P4 at the time which was costing around $500-$600 and I used that system for 6 years and it still works today.So no i'm not afraid of the low prices.I'm and always will be a clocker on a budget paying the real cost for chips.As any architecture the ZEN will have it's strong and weak sides. It won't be able to compete agains the LGA2011 on even grounds because of the dual chanel memory. Probably will have some weak sides in some strange scenarios if the leaked benchmarks are real. But definetly the raw computing power IPC will be the strong side of this architecture as it was with the K7 , K8 and even the K10(which is slightly upgraded K8) so the only real let down so far was the Bulldozer and all crap derivates of it.This is what happens when you try to replace your engineers with automated software for schematics design.Now they know that an engineer must handcraft and tweak every single transistor in his schematic.Long live Jim Keller 🙂

Explain the logic how you reached that conclusion. In multi-threaded workloads 1700X should annihilate 7700K. Also here in Finland it costs ~410 €.

According to the table we have seen before. Where 1700X was places as opponent to 7700K. And, what is also important, Intel's top crystals are APUs. They have GPU, which is useful in case of emergency, like broken video card or PSU and will be useful once DX12 scaling takes off. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see AMD back on the market, I had lots of AMD and ATi CPU AND GPU before. Also wish to see Elbrus with x86 compatible mode on the mass market. But so far it just doesn't give us Wow effect. More like they still catching up. Though they are much closer now thank to 14 nm.

If I didn't have a 6700K I'd definitely be interested in one of these.

If the 1700X is better binned and allows for higher overclocks and higher voltages, or if it's unlocked and the 1700 isn't, it really doesn't allow for an option, one would have to go with the 1700X at 399 EUR. Which would be around the same at the 7700k, I'm guessing. Interesting. Now I'm waiting for the reviews and also, a biggie here, to see what boards will be available to go with these Ryzens.

Hilbert, the only Ryzen cpus that are going to be released on February/March are the 8 cores ones??? I ask this because i´m more interested in the six cores versions but if they aren´t going to be released at the same time as the 8 cores cpus then i will probably buy a 7600K...

One of the rival sites has found current benchmarks for the R7 1700x. It does not rival the i7 7700k. What it rivals is the i7 6900k. Of course until more independent testers can get their hands on these chips, we really will not know what they can do. Been a while since i have been on this forum so not sure if i can post the link.

And, what is also important, Intel's top crystals are APUs. They have GPU, which is useful in case of emergency, like broken video card or PSU and will be useful once DX12 scaling takes off.

I'd rather have a strong CPU that I use 99.99% of time than an iGPU that I might use 0.01% of time. For that 0.01% of time I can just use some old video card lying around. AMD will release their Zen based APUs later. It would be strange if their iGPU didn't beat Intel's, unless AMD is only aiming really low with their new APUs.

So 1700X is more expensive than 7700K with similar performance...

If we take on that they have more or less the same IPC, how is an octocore at 3.8GHz slower than a quad at 4.2GHz? Like, seriously, how? Is there any sane person which will chose the 7700k over that?

According to the table we have seen before. Where 1700X was places as opponent to 7700K.

A price/market opponent doesn't really make it a performance opponent. In fact, that's how you disrupt a market.

And, what is also important, Intel's top crystals are APUs. They have GPU, which is useful in case of emergency, like broken video card or PSU and will be useful once DX12 scaling takes off.

Yeah, the spare GPU you can get for $50, is a reason to get 4 cores for $400, instead of 8. 🤓

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see AMD back on the market, I had lots of AMD and ATi CPU AND GPU before. Also wish to see Elbrus with x86 compatible mode on the mass market. But so far it just doesn't give us Wow effect. More like they still catching up. Though they are much closer now thank to 14 nm.

How is 8/16 at ~$400 with basically Intel IPC, "catching up"?

I can already smell the disappointment of fans, feels like Bulldozer is repeating itself. I would be surprised otherwise

WTF is wrong with people in these threads. I know we don't have concrete numbers yet, and it's stupid to judge without them, but we do have a very good idea about what is coming, right? Or we simply pretend?

Fun fact: No source is given for those 'benchmark results' we're discussing here, are there? They have surface on anandtech forums I believe, and now they've been deleted by a mod because of a lack of source. I'm still waiting on Hilbert's review (and generally, official samples at the reviewer's, not some leaked secretly taken benchmark nobody knows where it's coming from).

WTF is wrong with people in these threads. I know we don't have concrete numbers yet, and it's stupid to judge without them, but we do have a very good idea about what is coming, right? Or we simply pretend?

Getting so emotional in your argument won't help. These people just share their feelings based on the slow drip AMD has been leaking out. Some days we get encouraging info, some days we don't. I find most of the information encouraging but I can understand the skepticism. One of the most damaging leaks was the chart showing the 8 core AMD product "comparable" to a 4 core Intel counterpart. That "comparable" might had referenced "comparable" price, performance, overall, features, who knows. The problem is it just said "comparable" which would be a really bad sign. Relax people.