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

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
38,739
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:
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
$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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
These are the chips I am interested in. Hoping to see some good competition for the i5 and a significantly lower price.
 
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.
 
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:
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).
 
Oopsie. I think maybe these are the droids we are looking for. $169 for 4c/8t might be a winner.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Oh boy, mainstream bang for your buck...save $160 on the CPU and get a faster GPU with the savings!
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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
Difficult to compare the G4560 to anything from AMD till they release a Ryzen-based APU later in the year.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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!
 
Back
Top