AMD Ryzen CPU models leaked

I'm a little bit suspicious of the leak; AMD's official word is that all desktop Ryzen CPU's will be unlocked so those -X models make little sense.
 
bwang said:
I'm a little bit suspicious of the leak; AMD's official word is that all desktop Ryzen CPU's will be unlocked so those -X models make little sense.
Click to expand...

They completely make sense. Right now there is a FX-8350 that is the base speed for a lot of other processors. There is a FX-9590 also that is more expensive than the 8350. So think of the 9590 as a X processor. These companies can analyze a wafer of processors and tell what minimum speeds the entire wafer is good for. Now some might run faster than that. Those are what we call winning the silicon lottery. AMD will bin the entire wafer for the minimum speed. There may be tech to split a wafer into sections based on speed?

I'm unsure if I want a guaranteed good thing in a X processor or take a chance with a cheaper chip. I'm hoping that the motherboards will have unlocking features so a person can potentially unlock a 6 core into a 8 core.
 
This is not real.

BUT I could easilly see AMD shitting the bed by releasing nearly 20 SKUs, that is the exact WTF-are-you-thinking BS they are amazing at (I mean seriously, have a look at how many different GPUs they have between $150 and $250)

Also, R7 and R5? Nah, sorry, AMD retired those monikers, i would expect RX before I would expect R#.
 
Why wouldn't AMD release enough SKUs to cover all potential slots? I've never understood why Intel has so many SKUs either. Do we really need five pentiums, six i3s, and ten i5s of the Skylake line? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
 
Having many skews like Intel - allows different configure CPUs from the same design/die to be able to be sold. Also allows versatility for buyers on having something available to buy vice them being thrown away raising the cost of all cpu's and limiting availability. I will just let the smoke clear to see what is the best deal, in the 2nd or third down from the top OCs about the same or close I may save $100 or so in other words. Plus see if Intel has any kind of response.
 
Straight to the top baby, R7 1800X here I come. I see no reason to buy anything else when I've been waiting for a new high end AMD chip for a decade now.
 
What ever overclockable Ryzen 8 core I can get my hands on at launch for me. 1700X could be the sleeping giant.
 
Even if the non-X are multiplier locked, we can still increase the BCLK.

I'm going to buy the cheapest 8 core. If it sucks then I'll abuse newegg's return policy again.
 
TheLAWNoob said:
Even if the non-X are multiplier locked, we can still increase the BCLK.

I'm going to buy the cheapest 8 core. If it sucks then I'll abuse newegg's return policy again.
Click to expand...

Except that I believe there is a no refund policy on CPU's, thankfully. I suggest waiting for the reviews for your purposes but otherwise, if you buy one sight unseen and do not like it, deal with it.
 
I'm still happy with my system- so I'm gonna wait around for the price drops that happen.

THEN- I'll go top end!
 
I wonder if there will be a ~$350 8C/16T Ryzen at launch. My wallet hopes so. I just hope they dont have overlapping tiers. Like a 6C/12T cpu with more cache than a comparably priced 8C/16T. Those types of decisions give me headaches.
 
Ehren8879 said:
I wonder if there will be a ~$350 8C/16T Ryzen at launch. My wallet hopes so. I just hope they dont have overlapping tiers. Like a 6C/12T cpu with more cache than a comparably priced 8C/16T. Those types of decisions give me headaches.
Click to expand...

You can puzzle your way through it yourself ;) Look at what the competition has out at that price range and wonder if that is something AMD would considering smart competing against such a price with their 8C16T more likely you would be looking at $400+ at least :)
 
Ehren8879 said:
I wonder if there will be a ~$350 8C/16T Ryzen at launch. My wallet hopes so. I just hope they dont have overlapping tiers. Like a 6C/12T cpu with more cache than a comparably priced 8C/16T. Those types of decisions give me headaches.
Click to expand...

They're better be or they may very well lose their asses. People keep saying they have no reason to price Ryzen low if performance is on par with 2011-3, except they do. Chipset. X99 is a monster.

That and I doubt the validity of the leak, the R_ monikers don't seem like something they would use on the CPU lineup (could be wrong) and how is 1 8/16 CPU competing with the 6900k, and another 8/16 competing with the 7700, makes no sense to me.
 
rgMekanic said:
They're better be or they may very well lose their asses. People keep saying they have no reason to price Ryzen low if performance is on par with 2011-3, except they do. Chipset. X99 is a monster.

That and I doubt the validity of the leak, the R_ monikers don't seem like something they would use on the CPU lineup (could be wrong) and how is 1 8/16 CPU competing with the 6900k, and another 8/16 competing with the 7700, makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

well from the looks of it amd is binning these chips. 6 core chips are reported to have less clock then 8 core so since they are not clock comparable to i7 quad cores, they are competing with more cores here. We will see how good the 6 core chips overclock. But looks like AMD is creating a performance gap to keep the 6 cores away from their own 8 core chips. They are probably counting on selling the top model more and making more $$$ and based on that pushing the mid range models. If Ryzen by default gets good reviews on the top model as that will likely be launched first, they are probably hoping that on its own sets the perception for the whole lineup.
 
If I can score a 4c/8t for under $250 that'll hit 4Ghz with a hand clap, I'm in.

(as long as the IPC is where we all hope its gonna be)
 
horrorshow said:
If I can score a 4c/8t for under $250 that'll hit 4Ghz with a hand clap, I'm in.

(as long as the IPC is where we all hope its gonna be)
Click to expand...

Locked Skylake i5 can be easily clocked to 4.5Ghz with a compatible mobo.

I hope AMD will price a bit lower than intel, or else there are no reasons to go AMD.
 
If the top end 8C/16T Ryzen CPU performs on par with, or better than, the 6900K in synthetic tests and games while priced around $500-$550 then I'll actually consider making the switch. That is as long as the thermals and power draw is within reason. If it's $700+ then no thanks.
 
ochadd said:
Why wouldn't AMD release enough SKUs to cover all potential slots? I've never understood why Intel has so many SKUs either. Do we really need five pentiums, six i3s, and ten i5s of the Skylake line? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Click to expand...

it's mostly because of OEM's that they have all the sku's. it's how OEM's make their money, you can have this 2.6ghz processor but if you spend 50 dollars more you can have the 2.7 but if you spend 100 dollars you can have the 2.8 and so on..


but yeah i'm with everyone else on the whole Rx naming, that was specifically for the gpu's, and would make no sense being used on the CPU side, APU's sure maybe.

also if they were going to go down that road you would expect them to useuse R8 for the 8 core 16 thread R6 for the 6 core 12 thread R4 for the 4 core 8 thread and so on not R9 R7 R5. given the whole purpose of the Rx naming existing was to simplify the buying process of AMD GPU's.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile in the land of Intel, things have gotten a little flustered and we will know on monday what silly silly things Intel is doing now.


So against advice from executives, the CEO thought that Ryzen was not worth the attention.

What is this new wonder chip? my guess is a Intel CPU with a Radeon iGPU that costs intel a pretty penny.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Meanwhile in the land of Intel, things have gotten a little flustered and we will know on monday what silly silly things Intel is doing now.


So against advice from executives, the CEO thought that Ryzen was not worth the attention.

What is this new wonder chip? my guess is a Intel CPU with a Radeon iGPU that costs intel a pretty penny.
Click to expand...

No wonder you think like that if that's your source. But there is another world called reality.

And today is Monday, what new hype train will depart today?
 
Shintai said:
No wonder you think like that if that's your source. But there is another world called reality.

And today is Monday, what new hype train will depart today?
Click to expand...

hopefully one that involves a rich company using proper thermal paste on their chips, so we can tap into that 5ghz goodness.
 
exlink said:
If the top end 8C/16T Ryzen CPU performs on par with, or better than, the 6900K in synthetic tests and games while priced around $500-$550 then I'll actually consider making the switch. That is as long as the thermals and power draw is within reason. If it's $700+ then no thanks.
Click to expand...

If you planned on getting a 6900K class CPU already, then why not buy one that's 40% cheaper than the other? I'm confused. Is AMD's brand really that bad?
 
exlink said:
If the top end 8C/16T Ryzen CPU performs on par with, or better than, the 6900K in synthetic tests and games while priced around $500-$550 then I'll actually consider making the switch. That is as long as the thermals and power draw is within reason. If it's $700+ then no thanks.
Click to expand...

penn919 said:
If you planned on getting a 6900K class CPU already, then why not buy one that's 40% cheaper than the other? I'm confused. Is AMD's brand really that bad?
Click to expand...

I can't figure out if these people think Intel's offerings are overpriced or are being unrealistic with their expectations of Ryzen...expecting it to equal/outperform for half the price? Are you serious?
 
penn919 said:
If you planned on getting a 6900K class CPU already, then why not buy one that's 40% cheaper than the other? I'm confused. Is AMD's brand really that bad?
Click to expand...

buzzbomb said:
I can't figure out if these people think Intel's offerings are overpriced or are being unrealistic with their expectations of Ryzen...expecting it to equal/outperform for half the price? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Maybe you guys can chill out a bit before jumping to conclusions? Buzzbomb was on the right trail. I think Intel's offerings, the 6850K and up, are massively overpriced. I think the 6900K should be $700, the 6850K should be $500, and the 6800K should be $400. But unfortunately, when you don't have any competition for these products then Intel can charge whatever they want. That's why I based my price expectations of Ryzen on what I deemed to be fair and not in comparison to Intel's pricing.
 
buzzbomb said:
I can't figure out if these people think Intel's offerings are overpriced or are being unrealistic with their expectations of Ryzen...
Click to expand...

I suspect it's a combination of the two, but this whole idea that Amd MUST put out their flagship processor at 50% less than the Intel counterpart is insane. Not many Business majors on this thread I assume.
 
penn919 said:
I suspect it's a combination of the two, but this whole idea that Amd MUST put out their flagship processor at 50% less than the Intel counterpart is insane. Not many Business majors on this thread I assume.
Click to expand...

I agree that people are being delusional. If you go to overclock.net then you realize how many ..... are expecting AMD to sell their products for peanuts. It's the same cray, oh, Intel is so overpriced and Nivida g-sync is this and that.
 
Iching said:
I agree that people are being delusional. If you go to overclock.net then you realize how many ..... are expecting AMD to sell their products for peanuts. It's the same cray, oh, Intel is so overpriced and Nivida g-sync is this and that.
Click to expand...

Who the hell cares?!?!?!?!? AMD needs market share so they are not going to price their processors at the overpriced amount that Intel does. Also, they are fully aware of the fact that although they need to make money, without market share, they will not make any money. It is common sense and does not take a business major to understand this.
 
ManofGod said:
Who the hell cares?!?!?!?!? AMD needs market share so they are not going to price their processors at the overpriced amount that Intel does. Also, they are fully aware of the fact that although they need to make money, without market share, they will not make any money. It is common sense and does not take a business major to understand this.
Click to expand...
This. The overhead Intel is making on their processors is insane due to the lack of competition. Even at significantly decreased prices AMD would still likely turn a profit while raking in market share that they sorely need. But what do I know, I'm not a business major. :rolleyes:
 
penn919 said:
I suspect it's a combination of the two, but this whole idea that Amd MUST put out their flagship processor at 50% less than the Intel counterpart is insane. Not many Business majors on this thread I assume.
Click to expand...

It is not hard to believe or understand that an 8c / 16t processor from AMD will go for $500 or possibly even less if it is a slower clocked one with less overclocking headroom. Problem is, Intel has had free reign to set their prices however they wish and hopefully, that will end with the release of Ryzen. Most folks around here that claim expertise are usually the ones who also want AMD to fail HARD. (Perhaps not you but definitely one of the folks that liked your post.)
 
I don't see anything wrong with Intel. I never paid more than $230 for my Intel CPU, top notch performance at all times, no need to upgrade on my end. I wish AMD all the best since own their shares but people need to stop deluding themselves. AMD has to make money, it's not a government institution where they can just steal money if they need more.

i7-7700k can hit 5Ghz if you get lucky. People will buy it because they want to see 5Ghz. Ryzen won't hit that number. It doesn't matter if it performs the same.
 
Iching said:
I don't see anything wrong with Intel. I never paid more than $230 for my Intel CPU, top notch performance at all times, no need to upgrade on my end. I wish AMD all the best since own their shares but people need to stop deluding themselves. AMD has to make money, it's not a government institution where they can just steal money if they need more.

i7-7700k can hit 5Ghz if you get lucky. People will buy it because they want to see 5Ghz. Ryzen won't hit that number. It doesn't matter if it performs the same.
Click to expand...

this is the stupidest thing i have ever read in my life.

thank you for blowing my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top