AMD Begins Cutting Prices On Ryzen CPUs

[audi.rs4]

I would take this as a slight dropping on the Ryzen 7 in order to bring in the new Threadripper chips an fill that gap, plus offer much higher pricing offerings with larger margins.

[ResponseWriter]

You're exactly the target audience of Ryzen 7 and Threadripper, these are a dream come true for anyone doing dev or prosumer work, although I've got a strong feeling that the number of cores is going to double for gen 2 by making each die 4x CCX (and thus solving the quad channel and PCI-e lane issue while they're at it) since the jump to 7nm will provide them with plenty of room to do so.

Personally, what I'd like to see is increased clock speeds in the next iteration to help with the single-threaded workloads since not everything *can* be multi-threaded. I wonder whether they'll go for more cores/cache per CCX instead of increasing CCX count. For example, 6 cores per CCX and offer 12/10/8/6 cores.

Nice of AMD to drop prices. The 1800X always seemed a little overpriced compared to the 1700 anyway, although not compared to the Intel offering. I hope it means yields have been high enough to maintain good margins and put a little more into the R&D budget.

[L_A_G]

I probably shouldn't have paid launch prices for my 1700, but damn it's good to see real competition in the CPU arena once again because I don't think we've had competition quite like this since the period between the first Athlon 64s and the Core 2 Duo's (not that there wasn't decent competition in the few years before that and just after it).

To put things into perspective the CPU I replaced using my 1700 was an i7 950, which was essentially a slightly higher clocked version of a CPU from 2008. I originally bought it second hand thinking I'd replace it rather soon-ish, but actually ended up keeping it for way longer than I originally intended.

[eydee]

I paid release price for my 1600 and don't regret it a bit. It kicks ass.

[schmidtbag]

Personally, what I'd like to see is increased clock speeds in the next iteration to help with the single-threaded workloads since not everything *can* be multi-threaded. I wonder whether they'll go for more cores/cache per CCX instead of increasing CCX count. For example, 6 cores per CCX and offer 12/10/8/6 cores.

I agree. It's great that we're now at a point where we can get so many high-performance cores for so cheap, but people keep thinking that all these cores are going to magically make everything faster. It's great when you actually regularly have tasks that can take advantage of so many threads, but 8 threads is plenty for most users and will be for a while. That being said, I'd much rather be able to get higher frequencies; I like the idea of completing a single task very quickly than simultaneously completing many tasks slower, but, that's just my opinion.

Nice of AMD to drop prices. The 1800X always seemed a little overpriced compared to the 1700 anyway, although not compared to the Intel offering. I hope it means yields have been high enough to maintain good margins and put a little more into the R&D budget.

Considering the 1700 can overclock to 1800X speeds, yes, it was definitely overpriced. But I think most people bought the 1800X more out of principle, where they wanted to show their support for AMD. The 1800X also makes more sense as a product if the A-series chipsets were released, since those don't overclock.

[Luke_Wolf]

Personally, what I'd like to see is increased clock speeds in the next iteration to help with the single-threaded workloads since not everything *can* be multi-threaded. I wonder whether they'll go for more cores/cache per CCX instead of increasing CCX count. For example, 6 cores per CCX and offer 12/10/8/6 cores.

Nice of AMD to drop prices. The 1800X always seemed a little overpriced compared to the 1700 anyway, although not compared to the Intel offering. I hope it means yields have been high enough to maintain good margins and put a little more into the R&D budget.

Their single thread performance is fine Haswell IPC at ~4GHz is plenty in today's market and if you're one of those jokers going "Buh Buh... Muh Games" then you need to get your brain checked, because anything released within the last 2 years that is actually CPU intensive threads out to at least 16 threads and quite possibly more (but we won't know till Threadripper) and I'm quite tired of correcting you people. On the other hand there are in fact MASSIVE gains to be had by increasing core count for applications that actually care about CPU performance, because "can't multithread" is the exceedingly rare exception not the rule

Obviously there's going to be some IPC improvements and it's possible they'll have clocking improvements, however the clocking issues seem to be more related to the LPP Samsung process for the 14nm node than anything intrinsic to the core design itself.

[xiando]

Anyone know if there will be any price-cuts in the Fascist Union too? Here in the EU the Ryzen CPUs have gone UP in price the last few weeks. And starting July 1st there will be another new "environmental" tax on all electronics which will bring the prices up further. It would be nice to know if these price-cuts are just for the US or if they will eventually reach the fascist union too.

I could do very well without an IGP at home and when building a computer for work an IGP

I personally really dislike CPUs without a IGP and I wish all motherboards or all CPUs would have some kind of iGP. And it wouldn't have to be a great IGP or a good IGP. If it could display a 80x25 character text console then that would be just fine. Seriously. That's enough to figure out why a headless server box doesn't boot and so on.

[ossuser]

What I'm interested in: will X399 also support the coming v2/v3 Rizen Threadripper silicon ?

If so, I'll buy a X399 motherboard + 10 core Threadripper and -if needed- upgrade later to v2/v3 CPU silicon.

@bridgman: any comment if X399 will be the only AMD workstation class chipset for the coming years ?

[mitch074]

I personally really dislike CPUs without a IGP and I wish all motherboards or all CPUs would have some kind of iGP. And it wouldn't have to be a great IGP or a good IGP. If it could display a 80x25 character text console then that would be just fine. Seriously. That's enough to figure out why a headless server box doesn't boot and so on.

Thing is, a graphics adapter needs access to a frame buffer; so, either you plug it into the RAM controller or you dedicate some embedded RAM to it, then you must communicate with it - probably through a PCI lane...
In the end, inserting a graphics card into the CPU is so much hassle that you want it to be usable in as many cases as you can find whenever you decide to use it - thus, the iGPU. Which, incidentally, is more and more taxed by today's apps that make heavy use of graphics acceleration. I mean, something as "dumb" as rendering a webpage now taxes a GPU enough to bring, say, and AMD RadeonHD4200 to its knees. Note that this same chip can play Half Life/Counter Strike.

[tomtomme]

You're exactly the target audience of Ryzen 7 and Threadripper, these are a dream come true for anyone doing dev or prosumer work, although I've got a strong feeling that the number of cores is going to double for gen 2 by making each die 4x CCX (and thus solving the quad channel and PCI-e lane issue while they're at it) since the jump to 7nm will provide them with plenty of room to do so.

what pci-e lane issue are you talking about? AMD is offering more of them than intel.