Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Ryzen, Claims To Beat Intel's Core i7 Offering At Half the Price (hothardware.com)
Reader MojoKid writes: AMD CEO, Dr. Lisu Su took to the stage at AMD's Ryzen tech day yesterday and opened the event with official speeds, feeds, pricing, and benchmark scores for the company's upcoming Ryzen series processors. AMD's goal with Ryzen, which is based on its Zen microarchitecture, was a 40% IPC (instructions per clock) uplift. As it turns out, AMD was actually able to increase IPC by approximately 52% with the final shipping product, sometimes more depending on workload type. Dr. Su also showed the first die shot of an 8-core Ryzen processor, disclosing that it consists of approximately 4.8 billion transistors. AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X 8-core/16 thread CPU will have a base clock speed of 3.6GHz, a boost clock of 4.0GHz, and a 95 watt TDP. AMD claims the Ryzen 7 1800X will be the fastest 8-core desktop processor on the market when it arrives. The next member of the line-up is the Ryzen 7 1700X with a base clock of 3.4GHz and a boost clock of 3.8GHz, also with 8 cores and a 95 watt TDP. Finally, the Ryzen 7 1700 – sans X – is also an 8-core / 16-thread CPU, but it has lower 3.0GHz base and 3.7GHz boost clocks, along with a lower 65 watt TDP. AMD took the opportunity to demo the Ryzen 7 1800X and it was approximately 9% faster than the Core i7-6900K running Cinebench R15's multi-threaded test, at about half the cost. And in another comparison, Dr. Su put the 8-core 7 1700 up against the quad-core Core i7-7700K, converting a 4K 60 FPS video down to 1080P and the Ryzen CPU outpaces the Core i7 by 10 full seconds. Pricing for the three initial Ryzen 7 series processors will undercut competing Intel processors significantly. AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X will arrive at $499, Ryzen 7 1700X at $399, and Ryzen 7 1700 at $329. Based on current street prices, Ryzen will be between 20% — 50% lower priced but AMD is claiming performance that's better than Intel at those price points.
Finally competition from AMD! Stop this stagnation madness!
Intel has had >4 core CPUs but the affordable stuff for consumers has all been 4 core / 8 thread with the rest of the die given over to GPUs that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.
I'd be nice to see AMD back in the game to provide some competition for Intel. Lots of workloads can benefit from more cores: compilation, video processing, simulations, many kinds of "embarrassingly parallel" tasks. Anything you might do with xargs -P.
If AMD supplies some competitive pressure to push larger core counts down into the affordable price ranges for average buyers, that'll be a good thing. It's been an artificial restriction anyway. Plus it is good for the health of the market to have competition.
Let's revel in the underdoggedness.
"converting a 4K 60 FPS video down to 1080P and the Ryzen CPU outpaces the Core i7 by 10 full seconds"
That's stat a) seems insignificant and b) has zero context
how about a percentage?
what was the total time?
1 sec vs 11 sec, or 3600sec vs 3610 sec?
I built myself a gaming PC about two years ago. I've been an AMD supported for decades, so I went with the best CPU AMD was offering at the time. Two years later, it's still the best CPU AMD offers.
I remember the heyday where AMD actually overtook Intel. Their CPUs were actually better and cheaper. That's no longer the case, but (at least when I built my gaming rig) I was not willing to pay 50%+ more for maybe 10% higher performance, so it was still AMD for me.
The important thing, though, is that we need competition in order to spur innovation. Before AMD started nipping at Intel's heels, it was all about the MHz (and who could get to GHz first). After that, we started seeing CPUs with more cores and better threading and all the good stuff. I hope Ryzen makes Intel very worried - worried enough that they innovate the hell out of their CPUs. I also hope Ryzen makes AMD enough money that they can continue to innovate, and continue to compete with Intel. Because when that happens, it is we the consumers who win.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Any one have a block-map as to how the pci-e is setup?
Also how will the server chips be setup in pci-e lanes?
We used to call them "hot grits". In was an everyday topic of discussion.
I run all my Windows machines Virtually. I really like to be able to dedicate a core or two to each Virtual machine and still have enough left over for my Linux host OS.
Four cores just ain't enough for me. I'm looking forward to 128 core processors...
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
and stuck at 16 + DMI pci-e with to much on the DMI link.
For video X16 or X8 X8 is good for most cards. But putting storage / network / sound / usb / etc on the DMI is overloading it.
Also Intel caped the $350+ lowend cpu's down from 40 lanes to 28 lanes in boards setup for 40 lanes per cpu making people take an $150+ jump for a small clock boost. Back in Ivy Bridge-E all chips had the same pci-e lanes.
It seems that every time Intel gets a significant pile of laurels, they like to rest on them. Then someone comes up from behind to kick them in the ass. AMD has done it before, perhaps with this generation they can do it again.
And who wins? We all do. Last time, Intel got off their ass and created the Core-series that has expanded PC processing power to the point where upgrade cycles have gone from 3 years to 6+. Let's hope that this shot across the bow ushers in a new era of chip design that brings features we want, rather than the features that they think we want.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
When Newegg has listings for the new processors and motherboard. Although it might be too late for me since I retired my nine-year-old Vista-compatible AMD quad-core motherboard for a Windows 7-compatible AMD eight-core motherboard last year. I might let the platform mature before I spring for new hardware.
It still matters for most people, and it has been a problem for AMD.
Will they offer lower priced Core i5/i3 competitors based on this architecture?
Are they on sale yet? Are there any reviews of it? If the answer to both of those is no, then it hasn't launched.
And besides Ashes of the Singularity I can't think of any that use more that four. Heck, Far Cry 3 only needed four cores because the devs bound to core 3 by mistake. There was a fan patch that forced it to bind to core two and got it running on dual cores. Multi core programing is dammed hard. It hasn't been worth it except for a handful of apps like video encoders...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Though 50% is. But at 20% I'm left with the same problem I had with the 8350. The processor demands a much better motherboard that eats up the savings. Cheap AMD motherboards ruin their performance...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I bought the stock at $3 and just sold it at $14. Over the past decade or so, I have done that several times with AMD. I love the company, they have bought me two cars. lol
Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want slashdot to start censoring posts?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I think it's interesting that AMD finally got this CPU off the drawing board and actually onto silicon, finally. It has been a long time in development and has suffered many delays along the way, both from management changes and financial difficulty. They have put all their CPU eggs in this basket and I sure hope they have a good design here because Intel needs a bit of competition.
I'm confident that AMD will make a go of this new architecture. It was a totally clean sheet design and has some unique and innovative features which may spur another round of slugging it out with Intel. What I find interesting here is the price point. Where I'm positive Intel has been racking in profit on their current offerings and will easily match AMD's prices, I'm hopeful that AMD will be able to press this new design into better performance than Intel can manage with their current technology at this price point.
If history is any indicator, AMD will not be able to keep up once they wake the sleeping giant that's Intel. Where I'm not sure Intel really cares about the PC market (which is lagging a lot) they do care about profit. The question really becomes how much will this hurt Intel? I'm not sure it will be all that much, because Intel is diversified, doing lots of stuff in their own fabs. AMD has no fabs of their own anymore and really only have two business lines where they are the distant second player.
Will it last for AMD? Will this put them back into an increasing market share and profitability? I hope so, but the guys over at Intel surely already have a good idea what they will do and what affect this will have on their bottom line. AMD may be off the mat, but they are seriously out classed by a company with deep pockets and technical ability.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They have deleted and censored posts in the past. I actually had my account banned one for making comments.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
It matches the Core i7-6900K core for core and was faster in the first test- can't be that far off.
love is just extroverted narcissism
has been stagnant for quite a while. Hopefully this will restart it.
While someone needs to put a stick in Intel's ass, I don't believe for a minute that this will remain a cheaper alternative, if AMD starts getting some traction.
Oh, and I didn't see anything about power usage. AMD has always sucked in that regard.
You're saying a comparison to a CPU core nearly a year older is a fair comparison?
The story hasn't changed in nearly a decade: AMD boasts they have "massive" performance gains over their old hardware, and that they can selectively beat Intel's old hardware.
The problem is that Intel invariably has its own improvements, and they easily beat AMD's best-case hype.
I really would like to see AMD return to beating Intel's chips, but this doesn't leave me hopeful.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
There is hardly any difference on a per core basis between any intel chips for the last two or three years.
love is just extroverted narcissism
You think Intel is keeping the prices high because they can't cut them? Ha. They've arranged their line-up just so it looks like the i processors are good value for money. I imagine I'll see a bunch of Pentium processors withdrawn and i stuff prices sliced if AMD's CPU is that good and its price point is that low.
Incidentally, that same price strategy is used by Apple. Keep an oldie in the line-up (Intel: Pentium; Apple: iPad mini 2) and then everything from that baseline to the top is price locked inside the range. Hurray, pre-owned stuff keeps its value for longer.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
You're saying a comparison to a CPU core nearly a year older is a fair comparison?
It's not AMDs fault it's the latest and fastest Intel "High End Desktop Processor". The only thing higher end is the 6950X at 10 cores with an MSRP of $1700.
I'm hopeful that AMD will be able to press this new design into better performance than Intel can manage with their current technology at this price point.
Your optimism is cute, but unwarranted. AMD won't really be a threat until they can easily beat Intel at every performance level, price be damned.
Intel has no problem dropping prices to match the price/performance of anything AMD does. Inel is able to demand the prices they currently do because of AMD's decade-long streak of incompetence. Intel knows they can charge more because AMD isn't a threat.
If you want to know what Intel does consider a threat, you have to look at the ARM architecture (and ecosystem). Granted, ARM isn't a single company, but that's part of Intel's problem: Competing with ARM is fighting a Hydra - one company's failure doesn't really affect the ecosystem much, and the combined might of all of the ARM licensees ensures its viability.
ARM has almost perfect dominance for everything mobile and embedded - a market Intel has been trying desperately to enter, with zero success.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
8 cores vs 4 cores. You gotta compare the equivalent number of cores, then kvetch over different clock rates and other details to really compare.
Ryzen 1800X (8 cores) = $500
Intel's consumer grade i7-6900K 8 cores (latest available) = $1000 (i.e. Ryzen is 50% lower than $1000)
Intel® Xeon® Processor E7-4809 v4 (8 core) = $1600 (highway rape...)
To compare 4 core vs 4 core:
Ryzen 1400X (4 core with hyperthreading) = $200
Intel 7700K (4 core with hyperthreading, though higher clock rate) = $340
I'd like to see a like-for-like benchmark between Ryzen and I7, such as single-thread at the same clock speeds.
Uh, they did. The Cinebench single-threaded results are in the slide. Right hand side. The 1800X is indistinguishable from Intel's 6900K at single-threaded performance. And Cinebench is compiled with Intel's compiler.
Undoubtedly there will be some benchmarks where Intel is still ahead, and yes we are waiting for third party testing. Still, from what we're seeing out of AMD, they're no longer down 10% in like-for-like comparisons. They're +/- 1% now. While being substantially cheaper. If the accompanying motherboards are competitive in features and build quality, Ryzen is a serious contender for all buyers, not just seriously budget-conscious buyers. It's no longer a matter of "oooh, I guess I can put up with not having the best to save some money." It's now "ooo, I can get exactly the same performance for half the price, and better peripheral support." (Well, I say now, but I mean March 2nd.)
AMD fanboys can place pre-orders without even a hint of remorse or compromise. The rest of us can hold off on any planned new system purchases until mid-March, when the folks at Tom's Hardware are done with their benchmarking. Odds are that unless you really really really have to buy the Intel system because you don't intend to use it for anything other than running that ONE piece of software that is an outlier in benchmarks (whatever it might be: 7-zip?), then you should be buying an AMD system if you can find a motherboard that meets your needs. Unless you really enjoy throwing away $600 for nothing.
Intel has variants of the Core i7 7700 that have lower or the same clock as AMD Ryzen 1400X, but none of those costs less than $300 either.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
>> I can get exactly the same performance for half the price, and better peripheral support."
Please explain what you mean by better peripheral support?
>> The only thing higher end is the 6950X
Well, only in parallel tasks. The 6950x is only a 3GHz device. Single-threaded stuff will suck compared to anything modern. By comparison even the most ghetto $58 kaby lake desktop cpu is running at 3.0.Ghz.
As a game developer and gamer, I remember AMD invented the X64 architecture Intel licences. Intel have been pretty good at conforming to AMDs standard. ...also looking at those AMD powered XB1 devkits on my desk.
>> AMD invented the X64 architecture
My understanding is that AMD64 is really just an extension that adds 64 bit addressing mode and widened/added a few extra (64 bit) registers to the existing intel x86 spec.
It also codified a lot of extensions (like intel's SSE and SSE2) as part of the core.
Christ man are you having a seizure? Should we call a doctor?
If I were intel, power consumption would scare me. Intel has no competing part power-wise. It all adds up.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
....AMD mainboards are noticeably less expensive. Intel is the synonym for overpriced.
Pre orders available starting today but the official launch isn't until march 2nd.
You can get a temporary ban (I wonder if it's still the "pink page of death") by having too many down-mods - even with excellent karma (go figure). I wouldn't call that censorship any more than having a comment down-modded to -1. It's just a feature of the system, same as rate-limiting, that has no permanent effect.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Please explain what you mean by better peripheral support?
24 PCI-e lanes between the CPU and the motherboard chipset, vs Intel's 16 in the same class, and therefore better able to saturate the throughput of modern high-bandwidth peripherals. Obviously not relevant for things like file transfers between NVMe and Gb ethernet because that's a DMA transfer where the data itself never touches the CPU, but helpful when the data requires actual processing prior to transfer.