Looks like that 499 will include a cooler too. Id probably not use it (liquid cooling is better imho) but an included cooler is a perk.
It is amazingly cheap (compared to the intel's 1.1K), wonder what could be the reason behind it.
AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
11–20 of 347 posts
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#12Biggest surprise seems to be the 65W 8/16 3700X. Hopefully that means a bit of overclocking headroom.
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#13The Ryzen 7 3700X looks like it hits a sweet spot. 65W TDP, $330, almost as fast as a 9900k. Was originally planning to go for the Ryzen 5, but with these specs it seems silly not to go for the 3700X.
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't that be the domain of ThreadRipper?
Not if AMD's looking to remove ThreadRipper from their product stack, and segment their server chips a little more.
Are they actually planning to? I just recently looked into "modern" hardware (was out of the fold for some years) and it would be a shame to retire the relatively new TR4 platform so soon...
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#15Looks like that 499 will include a cooler too. Id probably not use it (liquid cooling is better imho) but an included cooler is a perk.
I absolutely love that AMD includes solid coolers with all of the Ryzen chips. I run my R5 1600 with the stock cooler, and, though it runs hotter than it would on liquid or a top tier aftermarket cooler, I've still never felt the need to worry about temps. Plus it's relatively quiet.
I think the cooler is a forgotten value add over Intel chips, since any chip you buy from them, whether it comes with a stock cooler or not, is going to require an aftermarket cooler in order to get decent temps/noise levels.
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#16I really expected a 16C/32T Ryzen 9 though.
Potentially is a yield issue / segmentation issue.
Releasing the top SKU as a 12 core instead of 16 core part gives AMD:
1.) Still the highest core count "Mainstream" part. I would expect Intel to fire back with a higher IPC / thread performance part rather then try and ramp core counts. Outside of productivity, content creation and server workloads I really don't see the need for anything past 6-8 cores right now.
2.) Lets AMD keep the flawless chiplets for Ryzen 7 where there will be high demand. While providing a way to move more 6 core chiplets. They can change the product mix once yields improve. I would imagine that there is likely better margin on Ryzen 7 (1x chiplet) rather then the R9 (2x chiplet).
3.) Keeps more of the Threadripper line viable for those that need high cores (especially if you don't require the extra memory bandwidth).
4.) Sells a bunch of CPUs now, while keeping the ability to quickly respond to Intel if needed (or as a spoiler around the Intel 10nm release)
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#17Looks like that 499 will include a cooler too. Id probably not use it (liquid cooling is better imho) but an included cooler is a perk.
It is amazingly cheap (compared to the intel's 1.1K), wonder what could be the reason behind it.
I imagine their manufacturing costs are far lower than Intel's equivalent chip - the 3900X is essentially one and a half of a 3600X (since it has two CPU dies, and one interconnect), while Intel is still in the monolith business.
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#18I'll probably still get it since I've been waiting for it to release, but a bit disappointed they couldn't get 5GHz.. I'm curious what overclocking could be done here.
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#19It will be interesting to see whether they can match Intel in single-threaded performance across the board, and not just some carefully-selected benchmarks. This would be the first time since the Core2/Athlon64 days.
Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced
#20It will be interesting to see whether they can match Intel in single-threaded performance across the board, and not just some carefully-selected benchmarks. This would be the first time since the Core2/Athlon64 days.
I'm begging for a good single threaded CPU that isn't $600