KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Late last week, we got our first pricing leak for AMD's Ryzen 7 processors, which are set to be the high-end 8 Core/16 Thread SKUs sitting at various clock speeds and price points. Since then, it appears the rest of AMD's six core and quad core Ryzen CPU lineup has leaked, fleshing out the lineup with CPUs reportedly starting as low as $129 and going all of the way up to $499.
This particular leak comes from an internal product list from a Chinese retailer, obtained by wccftech. While the earlier leak covered the Ryzen 7 1800x, 1700x and 1700 CPUs, this new leak covers pricing for Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 processors toom along with clock speeds and TDP.
Let's start with Ryzen 7. All three Ryzen 7 CPUs come with 8 Cores, 16 Threads and 16MB of cache. The 1800x comes with a 3.6GHz base and 4GHz turbo clock speed and a 95W TDP for $499. Meanwhile, the R7 1700x comes with a 3.4GHz base and 3.8GHz turbo clock with a 95W TDP for $389. Finally, the 1700 CPU is said to have a lower 65W TDP with a 3.0GHz base and 3.7GHz boost clock speed for $319.
Moving on to Ryzen 5 processors. This series is reported to contain a mix of 6 Core/12 Thread CPUs along with a couple of 4 Core/8 Thread SKUs. The top end R5 1600x has 16MB cache, a 95W TDP, 3.3GHz base/3.7GHz boost clock speeds with a $259 price tag. Meanwhile, the R5 1500 has the same core and thread count but a reduced 65W TDP with 3.2GHz base and 3.5GHz turbo clock speeds and a $229 price tag.
Now we start to get into quad-core territory. The R5 1400x, R5 1300, R3 1200x and R3 1100 are all said to be quad-core CPUs with 8MB of cache and a 65W TDP. However, the 1400x and 1300 are supposed to have 8 Threads while the R3 1200x and R3 1100 are 4 Core/4 Thread SKUs. The 1400x has 3.5GHz base and 3.9GHz boost clocks for $199 meanwhile the R5 1300 has 3.2GHz base and 3.5GHz boost clocks with a $175 price tag.
Finally, the R3 1200x is said to come with a 3.4GHz base and 3.8GHz boost clock for $149 while the R3 1100 packs a 3.2GHz base/3.5GHz boost for $129.
KitGuru Says: While this leak is said to have come from a retailer, do keep in mind that it is unofficial information until AMD confirms it, so do take it with a pinch of salt. What do you guys think of the proposed Ryzen lineup?
If these prices are true even if the performance is down a tiny bit from Intel counter part I think AMD will have a winner on their hands. Now the up hill battle to get people in the know and for companies not to cheap out when building systems like they have in the past when they use AMD CPU’s. If we can get quality system’s and later on quality laptops when AMD releases the mobile versions we as a consumer get a great product and also great hardware builds.
“obtained by wccftech”. So take this with about two Everests worth of salt.
per thread performance has always been where intel wins, until credible (wild) benchmarks come out i’m going to withhold judgement.
Might as well wait for release than read these rumors. It’s only a few weeks left. I mean, we waited for Zen for about two years. What’s another week or two?
If true. I wonder why there is 100$ difference between the 1700x and 1800x. From the info so far it seems the only difference is 200 mhz in clock speed. Maybe the ipc is better on the 1800x than 1700x?
No, it’s premium charge, price never scales with performance, look at Intel.
Besides, all Zen processor cores use the same architecture, from mobile to desktop to server, the IPC per core is the same.
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj244d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!mj244d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash244MarketClubGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj244d:….,…..
cream of the crop will always have substantial price difference from next tier down, with very very rare exception, might be the best they were able to do so have to price as such (expensive to gaurantee yields via bin testing) can use graphics cards as a simple example, top end vs next to top end, there is far less that pass yield tests at the very top range (that operate at the desired clock speed the full amount of ROP/SHADER/TMU all able to meet “required” spec for power consumption and the like, the less that “pass” test, the more pricey it ends up being.
Just using as a simple example, top end there will always be fewer of (like limited edition of anything) vs “standard” run of the mill performance, and by far WAY more of the “mass market” so more that “fail” highest end, more trickle down for other product segments, in the case of Ryzen, for as many versions available to me means they want to flood all price segments and markets and/or the yields were all over the place for many reasons.
So, why that price difference is, needs to take all of this into account, yield, competitions offering, cost to put on the shelf etc and so forth, the “top” of Ryzen for each bracket will have XTR enabled which is extra fancy sensors for auto clocks, temperature voltage/clock tuning far greater than any previous design(any maker has ever delivered to best of my knowledge in much quicker and finer grained steps) if the top 1800x has more to “not” pass testing and have to be made slower or whatever to become and sold as 1700x instead, this will very much matter on pricing, either way slice it, still 8 core 16 thread at $389 is nothing to sneeze at which I would consider amazing price, hell I paid more for E8400 many years back(dual core) and more so for 64 X2 5600+ BE also dual core.
you are talking about something running 8 cores 16 threads on a bleeding edge highly tuned process, even if these “rumored” prices are what they claim to be, it still is a hell of a good deal, not many years ago, much much less capable, pay much more (example AMD Athlon 64 5200 list price was $649 Core 2 Duo e6700 $530) pricing on top end,medium, low range has actually been more or less static for decades now (if not being extremely fair these days unless chasing best of best which is always pricey)
generation after generation, bleeding edge will always have bleeding edge pricing within their context, another thing think about in this case 8 core 16t having 95w tdp 3.6Ghz+ for only $499 is hardly pricey, going way back then to say Pentium 4 965 EE priced at $999 or more was 130w+ and only 2 cores running at a smoking hot 3.73Ghz, seems getting far far more for “less” cost to pocket book, power consumed, and temperature output as well.
price sometimes scales with performance, but 9/10 it is scale with their yields, more fail, higher price, best that they are able to make with the design, highest price they can reasonably charge, though Intel/Ngreedia are known to push this envelope far further then they should, they are in business to make $$ nothing more.
Thanks for the indepth reply, a great read. I am super curious on how far these bad boys can go underwater. Traditionally 8 core 16 thread ( when looking at intel) doesn’t have that much headroom as heat and power scales up exponentially with the 8 cores. If one were able to hit 4.7ghz on the 1700x regardless of power consumption ( heck it can consume 200w for all i care) while keeping the temps below 80°c, then i believe intel 7700k is dead in my eyes.
That is compared to Intel’s fastest CPU’s. These don’t use as much electricity. Can be overclocked….. and are a lot cheaper than ripoff Intel. A graphics card can be added and they are faster and a lot cheaper for the money.
But until we have actual benchmarks with retail hardware, its all just guessing.
Ryzen might be great, or it could be another “Piledriver” with great synthetic benchmarks but poor real world performance.
Let’s hope that AMD can get back on track to offer true competition to intel.
I don’t think AMD wants to keep getting beat by getting Intel. Intel having 90% of the market allows them to hire more people to do R&D. AMD took longer and hopefully will get to 7NM faster with what they learned going to 14NM placing components of CPU’s side ways…..
Benchmarks are usually skewed for Intel. This probably isn’t the fastest CPU though faster than the majority of Intel CPU’s. That is why it took AMD longer and why it is a lot better deal than Intel for performance for the money.
Anyone else thinking Zen 1800 CPUs should of been called “R8” instead of R7 for consistency / continuity to avoid some confusion? I can see plenty of noobs getting confused between the R7 name and 1800s. Likewise R7 could of been used for 1700 CPUs, R6 for 1600 CPUs, R5 for quad CPUs.
AMD really need to sort that side of their game out they have always been terrible at it.. and they still are.
I assume their marketing department thought along the lines of:
R7 series = i7 series
R5 series = i5 series
R3 series = i3 series
Just a guess.
R3 master race.