Be decent in a HTPC with appropriate GFX card.

Since the low power apu models are oem, I would imagine these will be also.

yeah, or a great home server without a gfx or perhaps if they would integrate some basic gfx on certain mini itx boards/some kind of zotac zbox.

I wonder what cooler they will use, the wraith stealth or will they keep the wraith prism?...seeing as Ryzen "second generation" especially the 2700x all are able to hit pretty much the same speeds with that great cooler and XFR2 which seems to make manual forced overclocking near pointless, it shows AMD really does ensure through Lisa Su leadership to pay as much attention as they possibly can. I wonder the pricing they will end up being, more expensive or less expensive than the non E models, likely a chunk more not less and may or may not be able to clock the same, usually the E models tend to actually clock up about the same as non E (intel or AMD) at a lower volt required to do so, but this is not always the case, suppose it depends on how tightly binned they are. Also, I quite hate the so called "leaks" because either they are a product that will come out or one that will never see the light of day, like Vega 32 and 24, or AMD Phenom IV x12 170 "Baeca" 6Ghz 6 core 12 thread HAHAHAHA I guess sites like WFCCTECH really go out of their way with their "sister sites" to post up all kinds of BS just to ensure webhits, and they make others such as Forbes follow suite, instead of reporting "real" they are focused on reporting "everything" even if it is as factual as pigs sprouting wings to fly back home to mars.

this just more or less comes down to the CPU being power configured to stay within a certain power envelope. I can see 1 core, even 2 core, turbo/XFR speeds being in the area of 4-4.2ghz or higher, though once heavy multithread loads come, voltage will be vastly cranked down and frequency sit around 2.8-3.2ghz. If it's binned to be a lower leakage part, this will further assist in effective frequency/voltage combos to get the highest frequency possible while respecting the maximum 45 watt power envelope. On the flipside of things, because Ryzen is an always unlocked part, this reminds me of the old Athlon XP mobile CPUs being used in desktops because it was perceived that since it was a lower TDP chip, it had higher overclocking headroom. This might be the case for E suffix Ryzens too! it'll be interesting to see a 2700X, 2700, and 2700E tested side by side, and see things like power consumption/temperature at identical frequency, voltage, and load scenarios; lowest stable voltage for each CPU at a given frequency/load scenario; and maximum overclock speeds all around

I remember back in 2005 I bought an athlon 64 3000+ 1.8 ghz single core which had a TPd of 65w. Now 8 cores at 45 w is impressive.

Wonder when these will be able to run a 32gb set of DDR4 3200 @ its rated speeds.....

BLEH!:

Be decent in a HTPC with appropriate GFX card.

Kind of overkill for an HTPC. Even a Ryzen 3 can handle 4K (albeit, if overclocked).

screwtech02:

Wonder when these will be able to run a 32gb set of DDR4 3200 @ its rated speeds.....

I may only have 16GB, but I'm running at 3200 despite the default speed being 3000, I didn't have to meddle with timings, and I don't think I have the more reliable Samsung "B-Dies". I don't see why having more RAM should affect this.

Wouldn't it be possible to manually set the speeds on a "non-E" CPU and get the exact same TDP? Because (from my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong) the 2700 and 2700E are basically the same CPU, but the E is set to somewhat slower speeds / turbo than its counterpart without the "E". From what I can see the caches and stuff remain the same, only the speed changes. Or did I miss something?

386SX:

Wouldn't it be possible to manually set the speeds on a "non-E" CPU and get the exact same TDP? Because (from my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong) the 2700 and 2700E are basically the same CPU, but the E is set to somewhat slower speeds / turbo than its counterpart without the "E". From what I can see the caches and stuff remain the same, only the speed changes. Or did I miss something?

You can of course set the clock/voltage down to any set level that you wish to reduce power. The only problem is that you are losing out on the custom turbo frequencies for the given TDP in the E model. I know on some of the earlier AMD Piledriver apus had multiple TDP settings in the bios where you could choose between something like 65, 45. and 35 watts but that is not common.

ThirdMile:

You can of course set the clock/voltage down to any set level that you wish to reduce power.

No, that is not what I meant, please let me clarify: So far no prices are known for the "E" CPU, but I expect them to be a bit higher than its "non-E" counterpart, like Intel does. My question is: Wouldn't you be "better off" with the "non-E" model (65W TDP) instead of the "E" model (45W TDP), if you buy it and downclock it to the exact values like the "E" model? AND will the TDP sink accordingly, or did AMD change anything under the hood so the E model behaves different than its "non-E" counterpart? Say if you get a hold on the 2700 for say 300 bucks and the 2700E would cost 350 bucks, could you save yourself the 50 bucks by simply buying the 2700 and downclock it to the same values like the 2700E so you basically get the E model for 50 bucks less AND have additional headroom for things to come? (Only an example, I didn't look up the prices!)

ThirdMile:

The only problem is that you are losing out on the custom turbo frequencies for the given TDP in the E model.

What exactly do you mean by that ("losing out on the custom freq")? I know, if you set anything to manual settings, you block additional "auto" adjustments from the system itself (XFR and stuff). but when you manually set the clock speeds down for the 2700 to be a 2700E, then I think manual modding the turbo shouldn't be an issue, you may do it in the same step. Did you mean that?

386SX:

No, that is not what I meant, please let me clarify: So far no prices are known for the "E" CPU, but I expect them to be a bit higher than its "non-E" counterpart, like Intel does. My question is: Wouldn't you be "better off" with the "non-E" model (65W TDP) instead of the "E" model (45W TDP), if you buy it and downclock it to the exact values like the "E" model? AND will the TDP sink accordingly, or did AMD change anything under the hood so the E model behaves different than its "non-E" counterpart? Say if you get a hold on the 2700 for say 300 bucks and the 2700E would cost 350 bucks, could you save yourself the 50 bucks by simply buying the 2700 and downclock it to the same values like the 2700E so you basically get the E model for 50 bucks less AND have additional headroom for things to come? (Only an example, I didn't look up the prices!) What exactly do you mean by that ("losing out on the custom freq")? I know, if you set anything to manual settings, you block additional "auto" adjustments from the system itself (XFR and stuff). but when you manually set the clock speeds down for the 2700 to be a 2700E, then I think manual modding the turbo shouldn't be an issue, you may do it in the same step. Did you mean that?

Yes the two cpus are the same silicon. You can downclock the regular 2700 to match the base clock of the 2700E but once you do that you lose all turbo features. Manually setting any clock means you are stuck at that speed only. It would be nice if there were a way to program in turbo speeds but it's not possible currently.

ThirdMile:

Yes the two cpus are the same silicon. You can downclock the regular 2700 to match the base clock of the 2700E but once you do that you lose all turbo features. Manually setting any clock means you are stuck at that speed only. It would be nice if there were a way to program in turbo speeds but it's not possible currently.

You can go into Precision Boost settings. Set it to Manual, and just set Max Power Consumption to 45W. Done, all automatic functions still work.

386SX:

My question is: Wouldn't you be "better off" with the "non-E" model (65W TDP) instead of the "E" model (45W TDP), if you buy it and downclock it to the exact values like the "E" model? AND will the TDP sink accordingly, or did AMD change anything under the hood so the E model behaves different than its "non-E" counterpart?

That's a good question. I have a Ryzen 3 1200. If I set the clock speed to anything lower than it's 3.1 ghz base clock, it uses the default voltage, no matter what I set it. My Ryzen 5 2400G does the same thing. I don't know if it's the cpus or the motherboard. I wanted to see what speed the 1200 needed to be set at to run at it's lowest voltage, 0.865 volts, setting in the UEFI. I toyed with the 45 watt setting in the UEFI too and that didn't work well either. The 1200 used more power than my 25 mhz undervolted overclock. And the 2400G quickly yielded errors in Prime95 at the 45 watt setting. I settled for running the 1200 at 3125 mhz and 0.97** volts and the 2400G at default. My testing did give me the opinion that the lowest clocked models are best. They allow you to tune the cpu most and give you the most leeway for undervolting. The 2400G's cpu is so close to it's maximum that there's little tuning you can do to it.

JethroTu11:

That's a good question. I have a Ryzen 3 1200. If I set the clock speed to anything lower than it's 3.1 ghz base clock, it uses the default voltage, no matter what I set it. My Ryzen 5 2400G does the same thing. I don't know if it's the cpus or the motherboard. I wanted to see what speed the 1200 needed to be set at to run at it's lowest voltage, 0.865 volts, setting in the UEFI.

I'm inclined to blame the mobo. Some motherboards allow you to undervolt, some don't. It wouldn't surprise me if some claim you can undervolt, but actually won't. Have you tried disabling XFR? I wonder if that may override your settings. Also, which OS are you using? In Windows, you could probably set the power profile to be more conservative, which may prevent voltage spikes. In Linux, you might be able to configure this in cpufreq, but I'm not sure if Ryzen is fully implemented yet. Keep in mind that the CPU's voltage is variable depending on load. As long as you cap the frequency, you'll cap the voltage too.

My testing did give me the opinion that the lowest clocked models are best. They allow you to tune the cpu most and give you the most leeway for undervolting. The 2400G's cpu is so close to it's maximum that there's little tuning you can do to it.

For Ryzen, yes, definitely. Most of them can OC to roughly the same speed, regardless of performance tier. But historically, CPUs shipped as lower-clocked parts were because some of the transistors weren't perfect, and couldn't operate at "full speed".