AMD Ryzen 5 Processors Start At $169 and Launch on April 11th

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,606
Ooops... Looks like someone over at Guru3D pulled a stupid and announced something they shouldn't have a little early. The story has been taken down now, but not before LegitReviews took it and ran with it. It looks like Ryzen 5, 6 core, 12 thread and 4 core, 8 thread CPU's are coming on April 11th, and will start at $169.

With the CCX modules of 4 cores, I can't help but wonder how the 6 core parts will be configured. Two modules with one core disabled on each, maybe?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Here comes the hurt: while the r7 series straddled the line in terms of price/performance depending on user workload, these guys are coming through like a buckshot blast.
 

SvenBent

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
3,307
Hmm 2 CCX with 1 core disabled each.... maybe we will get a return of the unlocking core settings :D that would be nice

I'm betting on a 4core CCX + 2core CCx module. no disabled cores
 

Peter2k

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
309
Imo, the Ryzen 5 1500X is the true competitor of the 7700K. 4/8 vs 4/8, one priced at $199 the other $349. Fun times ahead......

It's no competition for real

if a R7 clocked (OC) to 4.Ghz can't compete with a stock i7 then a R5 can't either

it's priced to compete with i5's

where it should show the same pattern

good enough for gaming, depending on the game maybe even on par or slightly ahead of an i5 (at stock)

great for multitasking

it's more about the bang for the buck
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,803
Imo, the Ryzen 5 1500X is the true competitor of the 7700K. 4/8 vs 4/8, one priced at $199 the other $349. Fun times ahead......

We can hope, but I'd be surprised if they're anywhere within the 7700K ballpark, or i5-7600k for that matter. Otherwise AMD should have put their best foot forward and released these first.
 

britjh22

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
385
$169 for 6c/12t? That's like friggin' used Xeon prices :eek:
The 4c/8t start at $169, the cheapest 6c/12t is $219 (R5 1600) according to the leak, which is still super well priced compared to X99.

Intel's i3 line already doesn't compete against Intel's own Pentium G4560!
The G4560 is really the most interesting processor that Intel has launched recently, sorta sad to say.
 

fuzzylogik

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
653
oops? lol, read the review over at Guru3D when it was there. Thought nothing of an embargo being mixed up but ahh well, not that far away thankfully :)
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
Hoping that a few disabled cores will increase overclockability? I'd love for there to be at least one "gaming" gem that outcompetes Intel for the price point in games...I know that's not the whole market, but they need to really be able to corner at least one segment of the gaming market.
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,070
It's no competition for real

if a R7 clocked (OC) to 4.Ghz can't compete with a stock i7 then a R5 can't either
Remember, this is only true in games, and there have been tweaks demonstrated to close the gap there.

I was actually looking more for the R3 or APU's for a business system build, but to start with a 4c/8t processor at $169, if this leak is true, is very, very tempting!
 

dgingeri

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
2,830
It's no competition for real

if a R7 clocked (OC) to 4.Ghz can't compete with a stock i7 then a R5 can't either

it's priced to compete with i5's

where it should show the same pattern

good enough for gaming, depending on the game maybe even on par or slightly ahead of an i5 (at stock)

great for multitasking

it's more about the bang for the buck

Actually, from the benchamrks I've seen of an 1800X with one CCX disabled, the 1500X will be faster in games than the full 1800X. (Unless you want to run the 1800X with half the cores disabled.) The lack of CCX transfers cause much better gaming performance, and in most other cases, near equal performance with the 7700k, at default clock rates. The conclusion the reviewer had in regards to 1500X vs 7700K was 90% of the performance at 60% of the cost. The 1500X is going to push the 7700k price down, no doubt.
 

leathco016

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
158
These are the chips I am interested in. Hoping to see some good competition for the i5 and a significantly lower price.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,497
Actually, from the benchamrks I've seen of an 1800X with one CCX disabled, the 1500X will be faster in games than the full 1800X. (Unless you want to run the 1800X with half the cores disabled.) The lack of CCX transfers cause much better gaming performance, and in most other cases, near equal performance with the 7700k, at default clock rates. The conclusion the reviewer had in regards to 1500X vs 7700K was 90% of the performance at 60% of the cost. The 1500X is going to push the 7700k price down, no doubt.

At stock speeds. Overclocked, it'll be about 80% of the performance at 60% of the cost. Still not a bad deal.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
Actually, from the benchamrks I've seen of an 1800X with one CCX disabled, the 1500X will be faster in games than the full 1800X. (Unless you want to run the 1800X with half the cores disabled.) The lack of CCX transfers cause much better gaming performance, and in most other cases, near equal performance with the 7700k, at default clock rates. The conclusion the reviewer had in regards to 1500X vs 7700K was 90% of the performance at 60% of the cost. The 1500X is going to push the 7700k price down, no doubt.

it's not much different from the i5's having better gaming performance than i7's.. there's always trade offs.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
it's not much different from the i5's having better gaming performance than i7's.. there's always trade offs.

This occurs in games that aren't just HT ignorant, but HT retarded.

And it would affect Ryzen the same way (i.e., trying to schedule two FP-heavy threads on a single physical core).
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,540
Oopsie. I think maybe these are the droids we are looking for. $169 for 4c/8t might be a winner.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
It's been a while since there was a heated discussion about processor performance, finally some variety of choices, isn't that just swell?

I can finally start reading processor release reviews again now that it's not gonna be another predictable "meh five percent more performance after a couple years" piece.

Gotta love competition, wish US broadband market had some of that too.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,793
Was hoping the 1600 would be $200 flat. $20 more is not a lot, but we're getting close to i5 territory and the i5 will likely be faster in a number of games. At $200 MSRP it would be a good $40-50 cheaper, and would trade blows in the few games that support HT and extra cores. And lets be honest, at $200-250, people who buy CPUs are mostly buying it for gaming. Heavy CPU users will gladly spend $600-700 on a CPU if it makes work take less time. It will blow the i5 out of the water for production work and the like, but most of those people won't be skimping on the CPU in the first place.

Needs to be a bit cheaper, IMO, to blow the i5 out of the market. But I suppose we will wait for the benchmarks.
 

psyclist

Gawd
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
844
Oh boy, mainstream bang for your buck...save $160 on the CPU and get a faster GPU with the savings!
 

iRevert

Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
580
Lets just hope for gaming sake the 6 core isn't a 3+3 and instead is a 4+2.

Or an 8 core that didn't cut the snuff and has two cores locked.
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,797
Lets just hope for gaming sake the 6 core isn't a 3+3 and instead is a 4+2.

Or an 8 core that didn't cut the snuff and has two cores locked.

Interestingly, Antony Leather over at Forbes managed to acquire some information on how AMD is making these six core parts. According to his source, AMD is disabling one core (and its accompanying L2 cache) from each four core Core Complex (CCX). Doing this this way (rather than taking two cores from one CCX) should keep things balanced. It also allows AMD to keep all of the processors 16MB of L3 cache enabled and each of the remaining three cores of each complex will be able to access the L3 cache as normal. Previous rumors had suggested that the CCXes were "indivisible" and six cores were not possible, but it appears that AMD is able to safely disable at least one core of a complex without compromising the whole thing. I doubt we will be seeing any odd number core count CPUs from AMD though (like their old try at selling tri-core parts that later were potentially able to be unlocked). I am glad that AMD was able to create six core parts while leaving the entire L3 cache intact.

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-Launching-Ryzen-5-Six-Core-Processors-Soon-Q2-2017

3+3 it is.

unfortunately no tri, penta, or septa cores.

edit: i guess it's called a hepta (7)
 

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
The 4c/8t start at $169, the cheapest 6c/12t is $219 (R5 1600) according to the leak, which is still super well priced compared to X99.


The G4560 is really the most interesting processor that Intel has launched recently, sorta sad to say.

G4560 currently cannot be touched by AMD though, which is the fun part :p, AMD always had a decent hand (if not outright upper hand) in the budget CPUs until G4560 came out, and Ryzen's lowest member still can't touch it in terms of pricing.

And I don't think there are anything AMD's Ryzen can do, but there is at least 1 thing G4560 can do that Ryzen can't.

I'd be interested to see the 4C8T CPUs and how they stand up against current i7's (which uses the same CT configs), and the lower end Ryzens against i3's and G4560.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,161
In closing, while AMD would not answer questions on this previously, Anandtech says these CPUs will be 3x3 and 2x2 when it comes to CCX derivation.



We have confirmation from AMD that there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5. The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2. This will be true across all CPUs, ensuring a consistent performance throughout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this

EchoWars

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
497
Difficult to compare the G4560 to anything from AMD till they release a Ryzen-based APU later in the year.
 

Nobified[H]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,095
I don't know if it is me, I just lost interests in PC stuff. Nothing like the glory days of 1995 to 2001! :hungover:
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
I don't know if it is me, I just lost interests in PC stuff. Nothing like the glory days of 1995 to 2001! :hungover:

it's called getting old, lol.. :p but yeah i know what you mean, those were the times when having the newest and greatest thing actually made a significant difference and where it was hardware catching up with the software.. sadly around that 2002-2003 point the hardware surpassed the software and it's been that way ever since.
 

Nobified[H]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,095
it's called getting old, lol.. :p but yeah i know what you mean, those were the times when having the newest and greatest thing actually made a significant difference and where it was hardware catching up with the software.. sadly around that 2002-2003 point the hardware surpassed the software and it's been that way ever since.

When I saw the ATI all in wonder pro with 128 ATI rage and TV combo loaded on AGP 8x. I purchased it at sam's, paid $169.99 for it. Countless hours of watching TV. Played Rogue Squadron with it!
 
Top