The 1700 is a 65w part?? Nice pricing.

Damn, I wanted to know the R5 prices; I'm not really interested in the R7s. Pretty annoying the naming scheme is already screwed up. The way I see it, the R should be used for strictly Radeons, maybe F for Firepros, A for APUs, O for Opterons, and C for these generic CPUs. If everything they make will be categorized under R3, R5, R7, and RX, customers are going to get confused. It will be especially difficult to help distinguish the products based on series names. You could argue "yeah but your idea is even more confusing since there are so many variations" but the average customer won't need to worry about that. When buying a CPU, most people just need to focus on the "A" and "C" series. When buying a GPU, most people just need to focus on "R". So depending what they're shopping for, the most they ever need to think about is just 2 product lineups. Since AMD plans to make CPUs and APUs compatible on the same socket, it doesn't really matter which one you buy anyway. I also am not fond of the idea of them using the X suffix. IMO, the number scheme should've been formatted as "ABBCe", where A is the generation, B is the performance level, C would likely just be a zero, and "e" would be a letter denoting any special characteristics, such as unlocked cores, an energy-efficient version, "hyper-threading" support, and so on. But oh well, at least this so far seems more future-proof than Intel's naming scheme...

Not really, a 7700k sells for 390 Euro in my country and a R7 1700x at 470 Euro with the same performance will not sell that good. I would buy the 7700k because i already have a good board for it. At the same time the R7 1700 at 390 Euro is a fail.

8C/16T vs 4c/8T for about the same price... Seems to be a Win to me!

8C/16T vs 4c/8T for about the same price... Seems to be a Win to me!

seems that Zen needs double core count, or at least HT (in the case of R5 1400X vs i5 7400) to reach Intel's performance naturally this will vary with the application, but the more I look at Zen in comparison with Intel, the more it seems like a better Bulldozer. Just how much better reemains to be seen. I'd still be interested in Zen APU within small-form-factor case. But thats like at least a year away. Same like I am interested in Vega which is also due god knows when, bringing god knows what :bang:

600 EUR for their flagship is actually very reasonable. I sincerely hope that Ryzen performs as well as those very specific benchmarks that AMD released lead us to believe. I am rooting for AMD to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one, however their track record would lead me to believe that this may not be the case. grains of salt all around until release day! For Ryzen to be a success it needs to be priced lower than Intel, and perform anywhere from 90-100% as well as the comparable Intel CPU. It looks like they have the pricing right, now we just need to see third party reviews / benchmarks. With intel doing BCLK bumps in advent of recent news about Ryzen, if gives me hope that AMD may be competitive this year! This is the most exciting the CPU market has been in a very long time! I honestly cannot wait for Ryzen to come out and (hopefully) shake things up!

Yes but it's target is still the 7700k and even if it's 10 % better i would still buy the Intel because i already upgraded last year to a 1150 with ddr4 and z170 board and it's cheaper for me just to swap the CPU.

If the 1700X was only 10% better then obviously that wouldn't be worth upgrading to. But considering Intel's track record, you would likely get less than a 10% improvement clock-per-clock, so I wouldn't consider upgrading to another Intel is a wise choice either. In other words if you consider performance-per-dollar, you wouldn't really save much buying another Intel.

Not really, a 7700k sells for 390 Euro in my country and a R7 1700x at 470 Euro with the same performance will not sell that good. I would buy the 7700k because i already have a good board for it. At the same time the R7 1700 at 390 Euro is a fail.

Depend how you look at it, 7700K will have bigger single thread performance, but in overall if Application support it, it can be more than 60% faster.

Depend how you look at it, 7700K will have bigger single thread performance, but in overall if Application support it, it can be more than 60% faster.

Depending how you look at what? You state all of this as though you know it as fact... there is little to no solid evidence about how Zen's single-thread performance will be. This isn't a tweaked version of Excavator, so everything we know about that is irrelevant.

What i'm interested in is how many pcie lanes on these cpus? I would like to know in my mind what kind of rig I can build. Not enough info for me yet. But the top cpu price point looks promising bang for the buck wise. Come on AMD put us out of our misery and release all the info. You are only hurting your own sales by holding back honestly.

Competitive pricing?... I don't think so. Of course number of cores might be useful... but, wait, for what? 2.5 games which utilize more than 2 cores?... I do not say Ryzen will be bad, but I don't see it being ultra cool either (hey!, don't shout, that's already a progress, like a year ago I envisioned a total flop for ZEN, as it was called back then). But let's wait a bit more to get real proper test results, TLB bugs, pricing, availability...

Not really, a 7700k sells for 390 Euro in my country and a R7 1700x at 470 Euro with the same performance will not sell that good. I would buy the 7700k because i already have a good board for it. At the same time the R7 1700 at 390 Euro is a fail.

here is the US amazon has them for $349.48 US or 326.54 euros https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Desktop-Processor-i7-7700K-BX80677I77700K/dp/B01MXSI216?th=1 so the R7 1800X will be $641.08 in US dollars Also as i never have had an Intel processor i am caring how much faster and more efficient these will be compared to my FX8350. which i am guess they will be better by a really stupid amount.

If the 1700 is truly unlocked and the only real difference is base multiplier, then that looks like the absolute sweet spot to me. Can't wait for benches of these. 🤓 🤓 🤓 🤓 If AMD pulls this off, and I hope they do, we will have: :bunch:

Ouch, it seems Ryzen´s 8 core cpus aren´t meant for my pockets... I really don´t want to spend more than 300€ on a new CPU... Also like others i´m having an hard time believeing the price differences between the 8 cores CPUs specially the 1800 being almost twice the price of the 1700!?...

Here a 7700k can cost up to 450 Euro easy :banana: Portugal price.

Silva, there are 7700K starting at 380€ in different stores: https://www.kuantokusta.pt/informatica/Componentes/Processadores/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-4-2Ghz-8MB-LGA-1151-BX80677I77700K-p-1-498792 Still expensive as hell considering it´s a quad core...

Good grief!!! With these prices they will hit Intel bard in the nut sack!! Now everyone must just hope the performance is on par.

Competitive pricing?... I don't think so. Of course number of cores might be useful... but, wait, for what? 2.5 games which utilize more than 2 cores?...

Your comment makes no sense... * You have an i7, which makes your statement about games only needing 2 cores a bit hypocritical. * How is the pricing not competitive? Just because you don't play games that will utilize all threads, it doesn't mean the price isn't competitive against what Intel makes. * Unless you woke up from a coma that you've been in since 2006, most modern games will utilize at least 4 cores. * What is the .5 of 2.5 games? How do you have half a game? * I don't recall AMD ever stating these 8-core models were targeted toward gamers. In other words, why is gaming the only option to you? * They do have quad core models. Even though we don't know the prices of those yet, what makes you think those aren't competitive? Oh wait, 4 cores is more than the 2 that games use, so nevermind.

Ouch, it seems Ryzen´s 8 core cpus aren´t meant for my pockets... I really don´t want to spend more than 300€ on a new CPU... Also like others i´m having an hard time believeing the price differences between the 8 cores CPUs specially the 1800 being almost twice the price of the 1700!?... Silva, there are 7700K starting at 380€ in different stores: https://www.kuantokusta.pt/informatica/Componentes/Processadores/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-4-2Ghz-8MB-LGA-1151-BX80677I77700K-p-1-498792 Still expensive as hell considering it´s a quad core...

You expected them to sell 8 cores for 300 Euros? When they can match the 1200 Euro Intel part? Also, I don't buy online and generally the lowest prices come with a 20 Euro (or more) mail premium not listed until you want to pay.

Your comment makes no sense... * You have an i7, which makes your statement about games only needing 2 cores a bit hypocritical. * How is the pricing not competitive? Just because you don't play games that will utilize all threads, it doesn't mean the price isn't competitive against what Intel makes. * Unless you woke up from a coma that you've been in since 2006, most modern games will utilize at least 4 cores. * What is the .5 of 2.5 games? How do you have half a game? * I don't recall AMD ever stating these 8-core models were targeted toward gamers. In other words, why is gaming the only option to you? * They do have quad core models. Even though we don't know the prices of those yet, what makes you think those aren't competitive? Oh wait, 4 cores is more than the 2 that games use, so nevermind.

:banana:

You expected them to sell 8 cores for 300 Euros? When they can match the 1200 Euro Intel part?

More than expecting i was hoping they could sell an 8c/8t CPU around 300€.

https://ark.intel.com/products/94188/Intel-Core-i7-6850K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz 140W tdp + 14nm..

Well, my Skylake 4 cores 8 thread TDP's is 91W and to me, is at least 30% not fast enough per core to play some games 60 FPS all the time (Yet 120,144 fps...) Some "stupid" old games, such as Crysis1 or Assassin's creed 3 would be better with a 7Ghz DUAL Cores than that i7-6850k at 140W. Not my fault I would like it to consume a lot more power and to be a lot faster.

:stewpid: You can get the Intel one that has 140W TDP and have it double as your heater. Please, not everyone can afford high electricity bills. :bang:

I understand. I would still prefer to produce electricity more efficiently and affordably to reduce our electric bill by 80+ % than to produce those more efficient, not faster CPUs.

So yea, get new CPU, get a new board, possibly RAM, new Cooler and thereya go, very cheap . Lol. Just got me a 3570K for ~110$, put it on my old board, attached megahalems that is 2 years old on it. Whoila. Games tend to appreciate cache per core, and the ones I play usually use less than one core anyway. 400$ for an AMD CPU? Good luck with that.

Depend how you look at it, 7700K will have bigger single thread performance, but in overall if Application support it, it can be more than 60% faster.

or you can buy some older and much cheaper than 400$ i7 and profit. That one will probably be as fast as the new ddr4 ones...if not faster. OR, maybe Ryzen will be 60% faster. We don't know. We can speculate. Knowing AMD, it wont be.

I can get a new i7-7700K for $320 (300 Euros) at the local PC shop. I can get an i7-6800K for $370 (346 Euros). The equivalent would be the Ryzen 1700X (according to the chart) and would run me $503 (470 Euros)? I can get a new i7-6900K for $1000 (935 Euros) at the local PC shop. The equivalent would be the Ryzen 1800X (according to the chart) and would run me $642 (600 Euros)? I guess this is where the value is, though I wouldn't spend over $500 on a CPU. This keeps me with Intel if the leaked prices are correct. It's a far less risky endeavor. Additionally, if I were going to spend more than $500, it wouldn't be on a company that hasn't produced anything near this in a decade. I hope the prices are wrong for that 1800X and it's around the $500 (467 Euro) mark though. That would get me back to using AMD CPUs.