Unannounced AMD Ryzen 3 2300X and Ryzen 5 2500X Make An Appearance

djelectric

2018-06-17 11:56

Price assumptions are out of whack there HH, 2500X would be somewhere below the 2400G at about 140$ while 2300X around the 100$ mark, i'd assume.

#5558045

airbud7

2018-06-17 12:12

coffee lake i3 is cheaper/ much faster...just saying.

#5558050

Hilbert Hagedoorn

Administrator

2018-06-17 12:33

djelectric:

Price assumptions are out of whack there HH, 2500X would be somewhere below the 2400G at about 140$ while 2300X around the 100$ mark, i'd assume.

These are initial MSRPs, street prices are always lower after a while. We'll follow MSRP for now.

#5558058

djelectric

2018-06-17 13:00

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

These are initial MSRPs, street prices are always lower after a while. We'll follow MSRP for now.

MSRP for R5 2600 is 199$, while street price is 189$. pricing a quad core 10$ below a hexa-core is kinda weird. You sure about this? Also, if we have to be brutally honest, with a 99$ price tag for 2200G, it would only be fair to ask 85-90$ for a 2300X

#5558062

user1

2018-06-17 13:08

airbud7:

coffee lake i3 is cheaper/ much faster...just saying.

I dunno , the 8100 at 120$ can't go higher than 3.6ghz and cant use faster memory without a z370 board, 10$ more for the 2300x (that can be overclocked)doesn't seem that bad , the 8300 isnt any better has a max clock of 3.7ghz and is more expensive. The i3 cpus seem pretty crusty to me, they should really have a 4ghz single core boost, but they dont.

#5558065

Texter

2018-06-17 13:27

airbud7:

coffee lake i3 is cheaper/ much faster...just saying.

Some people's decisions are affected by all the Intel vulnerability hype so I'm sure AMD will sell enough CPUs...until the next wave of AMD specific hypotheticals comes along...maybe abacus sales will go up again, I don't know...

#5558073

Jagman

2018-06-17 14:16

The 2200G and 2400G make the most sense for a nippy budget build from my point of view. No graphics card to buy and the AM4 platform is easily more upgradeable anyway.

#5558096

fry178

2018-06-17 17:13

@Texter hype? guess my definition of the word isnt identical to yours. last time i checked they had those problems, most others/amds dont or only limited number compared to intel.

#5558107

nz3777

2018-06-17 17:54

Is there a Major diffrence between the 2 apus other then 4/4 and 4/8 thread? Its $50 more but iam curious how much faster is the graphics in the 8 thread one ? Thanks guys.

#5558119

jortego128

2018-06-17 19:05

nz3777:

Is there a Major diffrence between the 2 apus other then 4/4 and 4/8 thread? Its $50 more but iam curious how much faster is the graphics in the 8 thread one ? Thanks guys.

About 10% faster. It contains 11 CU's instead of 8, but in reviews Ive seen the real world diff is only ~10%. OC'ing the 2200G can match or even slightly exceed the stock 2400G in graphics in most cases.

#5558120

[ZoNk]Kostas007

2018-06-17 19:21

jortego128:

About 10% faster. It contains 11 CU's instead of 8, but in reviews Ive seen the real world diff is only ~10%. OC'ing the 2200G can match or even slightly exceed the stock 2400G in graphics in most cases.

I would go for the 2400G if i was worried about performance. Since it's the fastest possible apu, and i cannot get anything better, it looks like you will get stuck with it for a long time

#5558121

Agonist

2018-06-17 19:32

airbud7:

coffee lake i3 is cheaper/ much faster...just saying.

I wouldnt touch an i3 quad unless it was a general use computer. I still laugh at people who buy locked quad i5s in 2018. I was gonna do a cheap i3 HTPC 4k build but the Ryzen APUs are just bad ass for the price.

#5558124

pimpineasy

2018-06-17 19:53

i like amd apu bundle but there is like this weird grey line price vs performance with their lower end cpu line up vs intel. Currently the intel non k sku lock parts are still out performing in games though like the i3 8100. depending on workload some applications just run better on intel cpu. the i5 8400 is in a pretty strong price bracket and any sale prices would solidify the purchase more so if you already got like a 1060 1050ti rx 480 460. Id like to see benchmarks vs some these OC ryzen 2 but if only saving $20 and it is not out performing why buy it? They either gotta add some cores to these low end bracket or seriously reduce price. the i3 8100 is $120 without sale price and offer upgrade up to top tier k series when it goes somewhat legacy an all the 5ghz chips start hitting the resale used market.

#5558142

schmidtbag

2018-06-17 21:59

airbud7:

coffee lake i3 is cheaper/ much faster...just saying.

They're either cheaper and slower or faster and more expensive. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that's rather "uninteresting". The 8100 is cheaper than what the 2300X will be, but it won't be faster in most cases. The 8350K meanwhile is definitely faster than the 2300X, but it's also more expensive than even the 2500X. The 8350K will obviously be better in single-threaded tasks due to the significantly higher clock speeds you can achieve, but the missing threads puts it at a disadvantage. So as I usually say - get what suits your needs. Both product series are equally good but in very different ways.

#5558143

schmidtbag

2018-06-17 22:02

nz3777:

Is there a Major diffrence between the 2 apus other then 4/4 and 4/8 thread? Its $50 more but iam curious how much faster is the graphics in the 8 thread one ? Thanks guys.

The 2200G has a Vega 8, while the 2400G has a Vega 11. The Vega 11 is roughly 15% faster, in practice. In theory I'm sure it's even better. Due to how starved for memory bandwidth these APUs are, I would argue the 2200G is more efficient, despite being slower.

#5558155

Fox2232

2018-06-17 23:23

djelectric:

MSRP for R5 2600 is 199$, while street price is 189$. pricing a quad core 10$ below a hexa-core is kinda weird. You sure about this? Also, if we have to be brutally honest, with a 99$ price tag for 2200G, it would only be fair to ask 85-90$ for a 2300X

Well, as they are Zen+, they clock bit higher and eat bit less energy (deliver higher value). Fact, that they cost bit less to make does not dictate MSRP, otherwise you would have reasonably priced intel's chips long time before Zen came.

#5558174

Killian38

2018-06-18 03:06

The 1600 chips still sale at around the price of the 2600/2600x. I find that odd. But I love my 1600.

#5558178

airbud7

2018-06-18 04:30

huilun02:

Just to put it out there... R3 2300X is 4c/4t, boosts to 4Ghz R5 2500X is 4c/8t, also boosts to 4Ghz Both unlocked and the 2300X looks to have good OC potential due to no HT Seems more appealing than a more expensive Intel 4c/4t thats stuck at 3.7Ghz if you ask me...

per core performance. ...a coffee lake core @3.7 is faster ....see gaming benchmarks. 8700k has only 6 cores yet is still king over any ryzen 8 core.

#5558180

schmidtbag

2018-06-18 04:56

airbud7:

per core performance. ...a coffee lake core @3.7 is faster ....see gaming benchmarks.

What benchmarks? Neither the 2300X or 2500X exist yet.

8700k has only 6 cores yet is still king over any ryzen 8 core.

That is objectively false; the 8700K isn't unanimously king. It wins in a lot of cases, but not all. Furthermore, cost, workload, and power consumption all must be considered.

#5558181

airbud7

2018-06-18 05:03

schmidtbag:

What benchmarks? Neither the 2300X or 2500X exist yet. I was looking at 1500x ......benchmarks will be close That is objectively false; the 8700K isn't unanimously king. It wins in a lot of cases, but not all. Furthermore, cost, workload, and power consumption all must be considered.

If 8700K is not.... then what is? http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=34790&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=34794&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=34798&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1