AMD Ryzen Launch Information

Avatar image for cameron
#1 Posted by Cameron (973 posts) -

AMD released more information about its upcoming Ryzen CPUs today. Before this there had been a lot of leaks and speculation, but they've now confirmed the launch date and prices for the top three models. All three are 8 core/16 thread units and will be released on March 2nd.

1800X - 3.6GHz base/4GHz Turbo - $499USD

1700X - 3.4GHz base/3.8GHz Turbo $399USD

1700 - 3.0GHz base/3.7GHz Turbo $329USD

Reviews are embargoed until launch day, so we won't have any benchmarks until then, but AMD claims that the 1800X matches or beats Intel's 6900K in Cinebench 15. That will, of course, be a best-case scenario, but unless it's significantly worse at other tasks it looks like AMD is finally back in the CPU game. AMD is positioning these against Intel's HEDT line (6800K and up), but at those prices they may be appealing to gamers as well.

I'm really interested to see how the 1700 and 1700X (more cores) stack up against the 7700K (higher frequency) in games. I assume the 7700K will stay ahead for most games, but I'm not sure it will be by enough to convince me to give up on an extra 4 cores since I do more than just play games on my PC. Of course, this might also put pressure on Intel to drop the prices on its HEDT line at least, which would be good for everyone.

Here's a link to Anandtech if you want a more complete rundown of the announcement.

Avatar image for stressedoutcat
#2 Edited by StressedOutCat (277 posts) -

I am looking to build AMD Ryzen system with AMD RX500 series video-card (when released) in a mini-itx case.

however I have not seen an X370 mini-ITX motherboard announced by any of the major manufacturers plus the RX500 series cards are also no way near release yet

but competition is good, and if the rumors are true about the specs that CPU will have comparable performance to i7-6900K at a way lower price point then this thing will sell.

As to comparing to a i7-7700K, keep in mind those are actually more laptop style CPU's since it has integrated graphics portion which in the case of PC gaming is not very beneficial since you probably have a dedicated video-card that is way more powerful and better suited to run games than whats the CPU will be able to provide.

Ryzen and the i7-6900k are more server based CPU, having no integrated graphics but instead having more cores and bigger cache on them instead, which if games support multi-threading then you should see increase performance on those games. I think the i7-7700k is probably still better on the comparison charts for single-threaded operation but not that you will ever notice the minor performance increase in a game, as most games these days don't really use all the power the CPU has either even when it comes to single-threaded operation, the games that do tax the CPU to its potential are all multi threaded already.

Avatar image for vackillers
#3 Edited by VACkillers (1286 posts) -

@stressedoutcat: AM4 mini boards are coming later this year. Probably a month or so after the initial launch, this was confirmed by AMD to a couple youtubers including Paul's Hardware at the AMD event on Wednesday.

Avatar image for dray2k
#4 Edited by Dray2k (494 posts) -

I'm in a love/hate relationship with AMD stuff. They always were really really cheap, powerful and Ryzen seems awesome but their GPU drivers man. Though I wait until i see how much energy the CPUs suck up, AMD chips are many things but they're first and foremost powerhogs, hope the Ryzen architecture changes this a bit.

I know from first and third hand experiences that you cannot play older games with AMD GPUs them, either you have to adjust the drivers manually or the games just wont ever run as they should. Even newer Nvidia cards can run the older Gothic games just fine for instance. Just install and have fun, not much tweaking needed. Thats basically the only reason I prefer nvidia stuff compared to AMD.

Can anyone confirm that a RX500 with the newest catalyst drivers can run video games made during 2000-2005? If yes, sign me up, you can finally make AMD PCs without them not working with anything older than a couple of years.

Avatar image for uhtaree
#5 Posted by uhtaree (823 posts) -

I built a half step PC about a little over a year ago telling myself I'll wait for an all out build with AM4+, is this AM4+ or just AM4 finally?

Avatar image for zelyre
#6 Posted by Zelyre (1793 posts) -

@dray2k: I continue to play NWN to this day. Back when I was doing the AMD video card thing, I had to keep an old PC with a Geforce 4mx in it, just to play NWN. That was eventually resolved, but in the same update that fixed it, it caused the Catalyst Control Panel to stop launching.

My girlfriend is due a new PC soonish. The problem is, she wouldn't need all those threads. I do some video rendering, but I just built a 6700k based machine over the summer and don't mind setting it to go and coming back in the morning. I'd like to give AMD some money, they treated me real good around 99-2003. Not just great processors, but fun warehouse events in Chicago. Even got an Athlon processor out of one of those events.

Avatar image for dray2k
#7 Posted by Dray2k (494 posts) -

@zelyre: I sure hope they fixed those things, driver issues are a make-or-break deal. I need to look into how good the Catalyst Driver is now.

Though to be honest, I think with CPUs is probably fine, they don't need any driver tweaking, I was talking about the brand alone and how the GPUs of the brand have a lot of driver issues that cause real problems, up the to point in making older games unplayable.

Avatar image for oursin_360
#8 Posted by OurSin_360 (5211 posts) -

How do people feel about the lack of windows 7 support? Or have we all upgraded now?

Seems like a missed opportunity to get those that refuse windows 10.

Avatar image for vackillers
#9 Edited by VACkillers (1286 posts) -

How do people feel about the lack of windows 7 support? Or have we all upgraded now?

Seems like a missed opportunity to get those that refuse windows 10.

It'll work on Windows 7, just not officially supported. How that'll translate in real world I have no idea, most likely drivers, along with the more advanced features that Ryzen is supposed to come with such as XFR or the overclocking windows utility software it comes with. Sensors might not show proper CPU/Motherboard Temps etc... This kinda stuff is what I expect this means, the actual CPU itself I'm sure would work fine on Windows 7 but this is just my best guess. I upgraded to windows 10 awhile ago, I personally actually don't know any gamers still running windows 7 because of DirectX 12 support.... Funny how that was basically a lie and we're still waiting on it though. So few games still actually support DX12 its a bit ridiculous how slow that is we might as well just jump to DX13 at this point and skip 12 all-together! but thats just my opinion.

Avatar image for ripelivejam
#10 Posted by ripelivejam (11878 posts) -

will i regret my recent i7 upgrade? probably!

Avatar image for couldberolf
#11 Posted by CouldbeRolf (254 posts) -

@ripelivejam: If you want some salt in that wound: Regardless of the performance of Ryzen, the answer is yes as Intel just announced a big price drop on a bunch of their CPUs. List if you want to know...

Sorry :/

Avatar image for ripelivejam
#12 Posted by ripelivejam (11878 posts) -
Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#13 Posted by colourful_hippie (5762 posts) -

I'm still a sucker for Intel but I'm amazed at how fast AMD closed the gap. It's about time the CPU space had some real competition going again. I won't ever leave Nvidia though.

Avatar image for korwin
#14 Posted by korwin (3881 posts) -

I'm amazed at how fast AMD closed the gap.

I wouldn't call 12 years a a closure of the gap :P

They've been behind by miles since Core2.

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#15 Posted by colourful_hippie (5762 posts) -

@korwin: It's still fast though, they've been so behind for so long that it's been kind of a joke for a while about how Intel is the de-facto king. I would have expected a run-up to being competitive over the course of 5 years instead of them being sort of a challenge to Intel again in less than 2 yrs.

Avatar image for ajamafalous
#16 Posted by ajamafalous (13635 posts) -

@oursin_360 said:

How do people feel about the lack of windows 7 support? Or have we all upgraded now?

Seems like a missed opportunity to get those that refuse windows 10.

It'll work on Windows 7, just not officially supported. How that'll translate in real world I have no idea, most likely drivers, along with the more advanced features that Ryzen is supposed to come with such as XFR or the overclocking windows utility software it comes with. Sensors might not show proper CPU/Motherboard Temps etc... This kinda stuff is what I expect this means, the actual CPU itself I'm sure would work fine on Windows 7 but this is just my best guess. I upgraded to windows 10 awhile ago, I personally actually don't know any gamers still running windows 7 because of DirectX 12 support.... Funny how that was basically a lie and we're still waiting on it though. So few games still actually support DX12 its a bit ridiculous how slow that is we might as well just jump to DX13 at this point and skip 12 all-together! but thats just my opinion.

I have a GTX 980 but I'm still on Windows 7 for that exact reason. I don't see myself switching to 10 until I do a full rebuild whenever I come into some extra money.

Avatar image for oursin_360
#17 Posted by OurSin_360 (5211 posts) -

@vackillers: Maybe reviews will hit that will prove that true, but if i was still on windows 7 i wouldn't upgrade knowing there would be no driver support.

I also upgraded to windows 10 because of the promise of dx12, so far nothing really supports it and those that do seem to perform worse. smh, i do like the os for the most part besides the over intrusive nonsense and lack of control that i'm sure will force me to change at some point.

Avatar image for vackillers
#18 Edited by VACkillers (1286 posts) -

@ripelivejam said:

will i regret my recent i7 upgrade? probably!

I wouldn't say that. If you're happy and satisfied with your i7, then don't worry about it! i7's are incredible CPUs. For me personally though I'm still rocking an AMD FX 8320 @4.2ghz so I REALLY NEED an upgrade, Badly! lol but no need to regret getting an i7...

Avatar image for opusofthemagnum
#19 Posted by OpusOfTheMagnum (329 posts) -

We'll see. AMD CPUs tend to be really good at a couple of synthetics and then fall apart for what 90% of the people even on this website will do with the system.

I'm still a sucker for Intel but I'm amazed at how fast AMD closed the gap. It's about time the CPU space had some real competition going again. I won't ever leave Nvidia though.

We don't yet know that they actually have. AMD gets hype every damn time they release new hardware and every damn time it's disappointing.This will probably be better than their last batch of mobile processors so at least there's that. AMD can make claims about ONE benchmark that is heavily saturating multiple cores, but we need reviews to see how the CPUs perform across a variety of real world tasks, how they are for cooling and power consumption, etc.

Avatar image for vackillers
#20 Edited by VACkillers (1286 posts) -

@opusofthemagnum said:

We'll see. AMD CPUs tend to be really good at a couple of synthetics and then fall apart for what 90% of the people even on this website will do with the system.

@colourful_hippie said:

I'm still a sucker for Intel but I'm amazed at how fast AMD closed the gap. It's about time the CPU space had some real competition going again. I won't ever leave Nvidia though.

We don't yet know that they actually have. AMD gets hype every damn time they release new hardware and every damn time it's disappointing.This will probably be better than their last batch of mobile processors so at least there's that. AMD can make claims about ONE benchmark that is heavily saturating multiple cores, but we need reviews to see how the CPUs perform across a variety of real world tasks, how they are for cooling and power consumption, etc.

While that's true but even if AMD are within 10% of intel, thats damn near incredible considering how far behind they've been over the last decade in hardware! There have also been multiple leaks of benchmarks (at least one a day for the past week and a half now) while still leaked unofficial numbers and to be taken with a grain of salt, there is certainly more then just one benchmark we can look at right now. One from Asia shows benchmarking in 13 different games, only two of those have AMD behind intel, and in "one" of the two games (Battlefield 1) the difference was less then half of 1FPS. There has been many others, several have "claimed" better "Single-Threaded Perfornace" then that of an i7 7700K... Which I personally find VERY hard to believe unless its an 1800X and been quite heavily overclocked. Needless to say, there are many leaked pieces of info, we don't know what's concrete, and what isn't, but then we can take a look at the actions of Intel in response to this, and if AMD were still falling well short of Intel, then intel wouldn't need to, well, basically do anything, but there is talk of a 12-core 24-thread CPU coming, speeding up productions of its coffee lake, re-releasing a bunch of new Kaby-Lake CPUs because the current ones aren't doing the job, and then theres the massive price cuts. Personally, I think its a safe to say the Ryzen series will be a return for AMD, in a big way, and stop Intel price-hiking their shit at the very least!

Avatar image for hassun
#21 Edited by hassun (8420 posts) -

If anything, I hope it increases CPU competition in the desktop market. Intel's been resting on its laurels for a while now in that space.

Avatar image for oursin_360
#22 Posted by OurSin_360 (5211 posts) -

@colourful_hippie: I bought my old 8350 back in 2012, and this is the first upgrade since then that i know of (not counting the super hot rebranded overclocked 8350's). That's a pretty long ass time IMO, and i am also kinda surprised they are matching the intel prices and not going cheaper.

Apparently the 1800x is a damn good overclocker(not sure if it's actually true though), i could never get my fx chip to go over 4.2 stable. For 500$ it better be though lol.

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#23 Posted by colourful_hippie (5762 posts) -

@oursin_360: Below is the point I was making. They've been so far behind for so long that it looked like they gave up, then all of a sudden it looks like they woke up and put something out there that at the very least will make Intel rethink their price gouging schemes which is impressive to say the least

@opusofthemagnum said:

We'll see. AMD CPUs tend to be really good at a couple of synthetics and then fall apart for what 90% of the people even on this website will do with the system.

@colourful_hippie said:

I'm still a sucker for Intel but I'm amazed at how fast AMD closed the gap. It's about time the CPU space had some real competition going again. I won't ever leave Nvidia though.

We don't yet know that they actually have. AMD gets hype every damn time they release new hardware and every damn time it's disappointing.This will probably be better than their last batch of mobile processors so at least there's that. AMD can make claims about ONE benchmark that is heavily saturating multiple cores, but we need reviews to see how the CPUs perform across a variety of real world tasks, how they are for cooling and power consumption, etc.

While that's true but even if AMD are within 10% of intel, thats damn near incredible considering how far behind they've been over the last decade in hardware! There have also been multiple leaks of benchmarks (at least one a day for the past week and a half now) while still leaked unofficial numbers and to be taken with a grain of salt, there is certainly more then just one benchmark we can look at right now. One from Asia shows benchmarking in 13 different games, only two of those have AMD behind intel, and in "one" of the two games (Battlefield 1) the difference was less then half of 1FPS. There has been many others, several have "claimed" better "Single-Threaded Perfornace" then that of an i7 7700K... Which I personally find VERY hard to believe unless its an 1800X and been quite heavily overclocked. Needless to say, there are many leaked pieces of info, we don't know what's concrete, and what isn't, but then we can take a look at the actions of Intel in response to this, and if AMD were still falling well short of Intel, then intel wouldn't need to, well, basically do anything, but there is talk of a 12-core 24-thread CPU coming, speeding up productions of its coffee lake, re-releasing a bunch of new Kaby-Lake CPUs because the current ones aren't doing the job, and then theres the massive price cuts. Personally, I think its a safe to say the Ryzen series will be a return for AMD, in a big way, and stop Intel price-hiking their shit at the very least!

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
#24 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (6731 posts) -

I think the testing of Ryzen has proven to be a mixed bag early on, and will take time to settle out. As it stands, the chips/microarchitecture is new, the motherboards are new, and nearly all the boards are on their first or at most second BIOs versions for Ryzen. However, I think that even after everything matures Ryzen will still be behind for gaming performance.

At least that seems to be how the results are leaning from whom I follow (Paul's Hardware, Gamers Nexus & GamersNexus article). I think for the price there might be an argument for production work (or gaming with production work in balance) being competitive with Ryzen; but for just gamers it is not as competitive as people dreamed. I am actually hoping to build an animation and CAD machine, so Ryzen is still of interest to me. Even so, I will wait until the software I use "supports" Ryzen, or is at least updated before I do the build.

No Caption Provided

The hype was a bit too hot for AMDs own good, is how I would characterize the situation now. It doesn't help that they were doing some "shenanigans" when showing off the preformance at some events...the "look at the skybox" trick was something some people even noticed back then. I don't mind companies going with a good hustle, but I think that hustle is going to nip them on the butt.

They had a huge leap to make and them landing a few feet short is no small achievement. I look forward to how R6 1600 and 1500 are priced. If a R7 1800X is $499, what does that mean the prices will be further down the scale? It could be that the old story is the new story AMD is really solid for gaming PC on a budget, yet, now that AMDs instructions -per-cycle are within striking distance with Intel. A notch down from the top could be where something interesting will occur because of pricing and not performance....who knows.

Avatar image for vackillers
#25 Edited by VACkillers (1286 posts) -
@monkeyking1969 said:

I think the testing of Ryzen has proven to be a mixed bag early on, and will take time to settle out. As it stands, the chips/microarchitecture is new, the motherboards are new, and nearly all the boards are on their first or at most second BIOs versions for Ryzen. However, I think that even after everything matures Ryzen will still be behind for gaming performance.

At least that seems to be how the results are leaning from whom I follow (Paul's Hardware, Gamers Nexus & GamersNexus article). I think for the price there might be an argument for production work (or gaming with production work in balance) being competitive with Ryzen; but for just gamers it is not as competitive as people dreamed. I am actually hoping to build an animation and CAD machine, so Ryzen is still of interest to me. Even so, I will wait until the software I use "supports" Ryzen, or is at least updated before I do the build.

No Caption Provided

The hype was a bit too hot for AMDs own good, is how I would characterize the situation now. It doesn't help that they were doing some "shenanigans" when showing off the preformance at some events...the "look at the skybox" trick was something some people even noticed back then. I don't mind companies going with a good hustle, but I think that hustle is going to nip them on the butt.

They had a huge leap to make and them landing a few feet short is no small achievement. I look forward to how R6 1600 and 1500 are priced. If a R7 1800X is $499, what does that mean the prices will be further down the scale? It could be that the old story is the new story AMD is really solid for gaming PC on a budget, yet, now that AMDs instructions -per-cycle are within striking distance with Intel. A notch down from the top could be where something interesting will occur because of pricing and not performance....who knows.

I think it's fair to say that you have to take all critics with a grain of salt because the new bios/motherboard drivers being released next week should make a massive! impact when it comes to game performance, and lets be CRYSTAL clear here. Its is only at low resolution of 720p and at 1080p resolutions is where the new Ryzen chips are falling behind, and the way they are falling behind isn't indictive of every other benchmarking utility out there that everyone has tested even in single-threaded performance. Its ONLY in games, in everything else the Ryzens simply SMOKES intel. This bodes well for the CPU and I'll tell you why, because its a brand new architecture, new hardware can take some time to iron out all the kinks and bugs that things like motherboard bios's might have, this was an absolute given! and the newer games aren't having the massive FPS differences as older tittles are which is also something to take into consideration. Another thing to take into account is that Ryzen CPUs are 8-core CPUs, they just simply AREN'T going to have the performance of a CPU that has half the cores and 2/3rds higher the clock speed (i7 7700k that can clock to 5ghz) its just not going to happen with an 8-core chip. But if Ryzen can get within the ballpark of similar FPS then its a huge victory no matter what and this is basically what we are seeing right now, there are only a very few games where the FPS difference is like 20FPS, most of the time the difference is about 15FPS and this is only at the 120FPS+ or better and you REALLY REALLY don't need FPS at that kind of magnitude for gaming unless you are insane and what ridiculous outrageous 200+ FPS which even in competitive gaming you will never need in my opinion no way. With Bios updates, windows 10 patches and the 300+ developers working on patches for games being optimized for Ryzen, you are gonna get BETTER 1080 gaming performance, without a doubt its just gonna take a little time to work out the issues. Gaming at 1440 or higher the FPS difference is pretty much zero with any i7 out there and if your running a GTX 980Ti or higher, you ARENT going to be gaming at 1080, you'll be using DRS etc. on your 1080 monitors to game at higher resolutions if you don't own a 2k+ screen.

If there was a lot of other low Ryzen performance benchmarks and stuff out there, then you could easily argue theres something not right with Ryzen, but that simply isn't the case, its only in gaming, and only at 1080 or super low-res where this mixed-bag is coming from. If you overclock the Ryzen chips, you stand to gain claw a lot of performance back at 1080 res anyway. When I get to upgrade my current machine I'll be going with a 1700X Ryzen and I'll be doing some personal tests of my own. I personally would still reccomend Ryzen absolutely, but you gamers out there, I understand the hesitation right now for sure, but all this is just simply my personal opinion though, I find there is enough evidence that the issue with 1080 gaming its not a Ryzen issue as much as more a motherboard/bio's issue and application optimization issues.

Avatar image for shivoa
#26 Posted by Shivoa (1565 posts) -

It's the launch date for the rest of us (if you think of an Intel i5 not an i7 or even HEDT i7 [-E/-X] when you think of likely upgrade paths, this is where AMD are launching Ryzen products for you to consider). This is also where AMD having two tiers of unlocked (overclocker) motherboard chipsets may lead to interesting value offerings. Not only is the high end X370 an option but the B350 may also be a great gaming match for a system on a budget that isn't building in dual-GPU support (which continues to be an extremely niche proposition in my book - there are use cases but if you're on a budget then I think you're doing the right thing to throw money at a good single GPU or even getting a nice M.2 SSD into a system to kill load times in games).

Anandtech launch review.

Just tell me where to start for games (at various GPU performance levels).

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.