Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×
AMD Intel Hardware

AMD Launches Ryzen, Claims To Beat Intel's Core i7 Offering At Half the Price (hothardware.com) 281

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Launches Ryzen, Claims To Beat Intel's Core i7 Offering At Half the Price

Comments Filter:
  • FINALLY! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @10:49AM (#53911119)

    Finally competition from AMD! Stop this stagnation madness!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Yeah, I fell out of love with AMD due to their inability to compete on power/performance grounds but I'd very much welcome a serious competitor to Intel.

      Similar to the AMD graphics cards. I'm unlikely to buy anything called 'Radeon' but I'm glad they exist and force Nvidia to continue to improve and innovate.

      If these new AMD chips provide comparable performance at comparable heat levels (I don't care about the power used, I care about the noise needed to dissipate the heat generated) then I'm more than happ

      • >I don't care about the power used, I care about the noise needed to dissipate the heat generated

        Umm... power used and heat dissipated are basically identical. The actual twiddling of bits does approximately zero work (as defined in physics), so essentially 100% of the power consumed by a CPU is converted into heat.

        *(there's a theoretical limit, but it's many orders of magnitude less than anything built by humanity)

    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      It's not ALL that much though.

      Like the 1700X vs 6800K both at $400.

      One finish in 100 seconds the other in 112 seconds.
      That's 11% faster, but with 33% more cores and a lower / core performance.

      The major advantage there though is that a B350 motherboard you will likely be able to get for $100 whereas a X99 one will cost $200.

      1800X vs 6900K is half-price for similar performance so that's of course massive but they aren't all that much faster than the cheaper processors. AMD just doesn't charge as much premium

    • Re:FINALLY! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Big Hairy Ian ( 1155547 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @11:03AM (#53911179)

      Finally competition from AMD! Stop this stagnation madness!

      Don't worry the MBA's will find some way to screw this up they always do

    • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @11:22AM (#53911281) Journal

      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.

      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @12:56PM (#53911875)
        That's the way it looks to enthusiasts, but that's not what Intel has been doing. About a decade ago, we hit the point where processors were "fast enough" for mainstream tasks. People stopped buying i5 and i7 processors, in favor of i3, Celeron, and Pentium. For the last 10 years, only enthusiasts and gamers have cared about improved performance. The vast majority of the market cared more about power consumption. Intel hasn't been worried about AMD, but they were scared to death of ARM. They rushed to bring Atom to market to keep the low-end on x86/x64, instead of moving to ARM.

        So they haven't been resting on their laurels. They've been working hard at reducing power consumption. That's what really hurt AMD after they lost their performance lead. For a few years AMD still offered more performance per Watt, making AMD the natural choice for moderate-load servers and systems meant to be left on 24/7. But Intel soon beat AMD there, taking away AMD's only advantage. (That's when AMD used their ATI acquisition to integrate a GPU which could beat Intel's integrated GPU - essentially carving out a spot in the low-price gamer market.)

        A Core 2 Duo system would use about 70 Watts idle, 150 Watts under load. A Sandy Bridge system would use about 45 Watts idle, 120 Watts under load. A modern Skylake system uses about 35 Watts idle, 80 Watts under load. Subtract the 20-30 Watts consumed by components other than the CPU, and the reduction in CPU power consumption over the last 10 years has been remarkable.
      • Really but why? I've quite enjoyed not having to upgrade my sandy bridge. I overclocked it to 4.5Ghz 6 years ago and it's still faster in everyday tasks than even the latest $1000 offering, only in extreme multi core tasks does it lack, which I rarely need.

        A new system is such a distraction from my work. Days to reinstall and update everything, weeks to weed out issues and acclimate to a totally new setup.

        Now if we could only get Microsoft to support Windows 7 indefinitely. I'd gladly pay $10/year for i

    • As much as I want to see strong competition from AMD I will wait for independent verification, we have seen such claims from AMD before turn out to be pure hype and specialised benchmark scenarios that don't represent real world. and how about linking more reputable sites not the steaming turd that is hothardware
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @10:54AM (#53911143)

    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.

    • 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.

    • by creimer ( 824291 )

      [...] the rest of the die given over to GPUs that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.

      I wonder if AMD will allow applications to use the GPUs for their own purposes. When I click on the Nvidia applet in my Windows icon tray, it tells me which applications are using the Nvidia GPU.

    • 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...
      • 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...

        What's so hard?

        It's just a matter of semaphores and some intelligent decisions on what goes where.

        Hell, Apple already did the hard part for you [wikipedia.org], and then gave it to the planet for free [github.io]...

    • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @12:31PM (#53911715)

      Old Xeons are, in fact, far cheaper than modern Intel consumer CPUs with a similar performance. Take E5-2670 for example. It costs around 100 bucks, has 8 cores/16 threads and 20 megabytes of cache. For the same money you'll get a Core i3-7100 at best, which has a somewhat better single core performance, but is utterly outclassed in multicore.

      • by asavage ( 548758 )
        There are lots of pluses with an older Xenon but it also only accepts slower ram and is 32nm instead of 14nm so will use more power.
    • that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.

      So ... most people then?

    • by arth1 ( 260657 )

      with the rest of the die given over to GPUs that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.

      That's certainly my biggest gripe with new CPUs. I don't want graphics. Or a kitchen sink. If I wanted a SoC, I'd go with an arm solution.

      I want a pure CPU. One that doesn't need a nuclear power plant next door to drive. One that can run for a decade or more should it need to.

    • As far as I'm concerned they never left the game, only lost popularity. I'm running a pile-driver core chip on my stuff at home and it doesn't get saturated on my day to day stuff and is quite speedy on my heavy duty stuff as well. I'm not by modern definition a gamer so I'm not pushing it as hard as I can with Windows on the latest AAA titles, but I do use Linux and 3D games - my limitations seem to revolve around my out of date GeForce 750 Ti.

      I just built a pile-driver core machine for work, it's being

  • About time. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jethro ( 14165 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @11:07AM (#53911209) Homepage

    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.

    • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

      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.

      Well, I built a PC 7 years ago. It STILL is within roughly 30% of the top comparable system you can build today. These are Intel CPUs btw. Their performance plateaued with the Sandy Bridge core design, although the Gulftown I have competes well with the top end available with even the current i7s. Yes, the 4790K is faster single threaded, but if you OC both the extra overhead available on the Gulftown closes the gap considerably. And overall performance the Gulftown doesn't get doubled until you go to the c

      • by Jethro ( 14165 )

        I hear what you're saying, but I'm not talking about it being close to the same performance. It's literally the same exact CPU model that was the top model 2 years ago. That's some crazy stagnation there.

        But, going back to what you say, that reinforces my point. AMD hasn't done anything in the CPU arena in years. Why would Intel have to innovate? We need a competitor to nip at Intel's heels and get them moving again, and ideally it'd be great if Intel and AMD can race each other for supremacy forever becaus

    • I remember the heyday where AMD actually overtook Intel. Their CPUs were actually better and cheaper.

      Not cheaper by much. I remember comments here asking why if AMD had overtaken Intel, why were their high-end CPUs now almost as expensive as Intel's had been. The replies stating that if you're the market leader, you can set your prices as high as you want.

      I think that's where they screwed up. Instead of keeping their prices low so they could gain market share, they raised their prices to try to reco

    • by Aereus ( 1042228 )

      AMD has been shipping approximately the same CPUs for like 5+ years now. Their last architecture flopped and they've been stalled ever since. Last relevant CPU release they had was the FX-8350, and that is from 2012. Even then, the IPC on them was so low, they benched lower than most i3 offerings.

      • by Jethro ( 14165 )

        Yeah, and that made Intel sit on their laurels and not really bother. I'm hoping this means more competition!

  • 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?

  • More cores (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kcdoodle ( 754976 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @11:17AM (#53911261)
    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 knew Windows wasn't good at multitasking, but what are you doing? Spinning up a new VM for each thread?

    • by sl3xd ( 111641 )

      Intel MIC architecture (Xeon Phi) is probably the closest at 72 Xeon cores (and 4 threads/core).

    • Naples looks incredibly yummy. Hopefully it'll be launched soon too. If the prices are halfway reasonable I might build with that. Dual socket 32C64T?

  • 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.
    • 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.

      Based on the news articles, you should start seeing these on Newegg within a couple of weeks (March 2nd). Supposedly AMD primed the retail channel prior to the announcement.

    • I might let the platform mature before I spring for new hardware.

      And also let intel bring out some new processors, or make some price drops, and let AMD make some price drops to compensate. Because I, for one, am not spending more than two hundred bucks on a CPU. (I have an FX-8350 right now.)

      Yes, I am a cheap bastard. If I weren't, I would have bought an Intel processor.

    • Newegg has 7 Ryzen motherboards listed. They're posted as 'out of stock' probably until the launch on March 2. Found them simply by searching for 'ryzen'. No CPUs listed yet.

      • by creimer ( 824291 )

        Newegg has 7 Ryzen motherboards listed.

        Supposed to be 81 motherboards available at launch. The few that Newegg has listed are all ATX boards. I like to build my systems small with micro-ATX and mini-ITX boards.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Moof123 ( 1292134 )

          Aren't you a special little princess.

  • by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @11:49AM (#53911447)

    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?

    • They will. Apparently slightly later. Maybe they'll even follow the Kaveri/Carrizo/Excavator model and release parts for laptops in a single line with with four-core desktop CPUs. This hasn't been announced but I'd find it perfectly logical since it worked quite well so far.
  • 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.

    • by sl3xd ( 111641 )

      And of course the comparison is a paper launch from AMD vs a shipping processor from Intel.

    • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 )

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      You can preorder them on newegg. Release is apparently Thurs/Fri next week.

      • by Guspaz ( 556486 )

        Then the launch is next week, and the statement that "AMD Launches Ryzen" is false. I should note that it's highly suspicious for a new CPU's review embargo to be on the same day as retail availability.

  • 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...
  • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @12:19PM (#53911651)

    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.

    • by sl3xd ( 111641 )

      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

  • 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.
    • by Arkham ( 10779 )

      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.

      From the Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com]:

      IPC is interesting in that it gives a sense of how cores are designed, but workloads aren't constrained by IPC or clock speed per se; they're constrained by thermal and power constraints. And AMD compares very favorably there, too: the Intel chip is a 140W part, so can use about 50 percent more power than the AMD.

  • 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 t

  • If I were intel, power consumption would scare me. Intel has no competing part power-wise. It all adds up.
  • by MoarSauce123 ( 3641185 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @08:54PM (#53914811)
    ....AMD mainboards are noticeably less expensive. Intel is the synonym for overpriced.

We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.

Working...