By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - AMD Ryzen Full Lineup Prices, Specs & Clock Speeds Leaked

Scoobes said:
craighopkins said:

Yes Intel has been worried about profit margin these last few years and got caught with their pants down

Yeah, not having any innovation for years due to a lack of competition has really made the desktop CPU sector stagnate. Basically releasing the same CPUs with incremental improvements whilst charging a fortune for each iteration... really glad AMD are upping their game with this. 

I don't think that's the issue. IBM and others would bite them in the ass over their most profitable markets (servers and HPC) if Intel were to get sloppy. Intel actually spends billions on research & development. Literally orders of magniture more than they used to spend on the 90's - though admittedly,  most of it goes to their foundries. It's just that diminishing returns have kicked in hard, specially for single-thread performance. It's even more evident on their own stuff, bloated with x86 code from so many generations that it was possible all along someone could beat them with an all-new architecture. Which could be what is happening right now.



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network

I'm guessing we'll something along the lines of a AMD Ryzen 7 1700 in the PS5. I'd imagine they want to stick with 8 cores for the next system. It's $320 at launch, which means in 2 years time, it should be much cheaper to throw into a $399 console. I'd also settle for a Vega 10 GPU (~12.5 Tflops), though I'm hoping for a 20 (~15 Tflops.)



shikamaru317 said:
thismeintiel said:
I'm guessing we'll something along the lines of a AMD Ryzen 7 1700 in the PS5. I'd imagine they want to stick with 8 cores for the next system. It's $320 at launch, which means in 2 years time, it should be much cheaper to throw into a $399 console. I'd also settle for a Vega 10 GPU (~12.5 Tflops), though I'm hoping for a 20 (~15 Tflops.)

Hmmm, don't know about that. Heat is a concern in consoles and the R7 1700 is a 65w TDP chipset while the Vega 10 will likely be around 200w supposedly. I can't see them going above the 150w threshold for overall power consumption (the launch PS4 uses 140w while playing demanding games by comparison). The reason MS and Sony both went with Jaguar this gen is because it only uses like 15w, which gave them both a bigger power usage budget for their GPU's. While I don't think Sony and MS will make the mistake of building systems that unbalanced again, I don't see them going over 35w for their CPU's. It's more likely that we'll see one of the lower power usage variants of Ryzen that are designed for their APU's. Such a CPU will be plenty in a console, which don't have as many background processes leaching power as desktops do.

GPU wise, I don't know if PS5 will get the full Vega 10 if it releases in 2018 or 2019. I'd guess it will use either a partially cut-down Vega 10 or Vega 11 (the more efficient and faster successor to Polaris 10), so somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 tflops. 

But what is the TDP of the chips in the Pro?  I couldn't find the info myself, but it has to be quite a bit higher than the launch PS4.  I do know it is rated for ~300 watts, I believe.  If they are going to keep up with PCs, to some extent, they are going to have to aim for a higher TDP.  Granted, I do expect them to use semi-custom chips, again, so they are going to be slightly weaker variants.

I'm guessing you meant 20 in your first sentence.  And, I know it's probably unlikely, since it's not guaranteed to launch in 2018.  If they can make it, the chances are greater, but I'm still leaning more towards a Vega 10.  Also, I think Sony is going to want to be around double the Scorpio to make the gap seem even larger, so ~11-12 Tflops.  If they use an underclocked Vega 10, which will also help with heat, they should achieve that. 

I seriously doubt we are going to see anything as low as 8 Tflops.  Even though not every flop is the same, it would just be mocked as barely a jump worthy of a new gen, especially with reasonably priced 15+ Tflops cards launching by then.  It would also only be ~4x more powerful than the OG PS4 and less than twice that of the Pro.  At least with ~12 Tflops, you're looking at ~6-6.5x the OG PS4 and ~3x that of the Pro.  I think the vast majority of console gamers would be fine with that.  If they only went with 8/9 Tflops, it would probably also give MS an easy way to win by just taking a slight loss on a ~12 Tflops XB2.  And I don't think Sony wants to risk that.



Yessss. I love me some competition. I'll be upgrading soon for sure. AMD or Intel? I can't wait to find out. Hopefully we see some serious competition from these chips and some resulting price drops from Intel.

Bring on the benchmarks.



Meh, wouldn't go AMD if they paid me.



Around the Network
NATO said:
Meh, wouldn't go AMD if they paid me.

Well, you should be happy to have AMD.  Considering the Ryzen 7 1700X offers similar performance to the i7 6900K, but at less than half the price, it's going to force Intel to drop their prices real quick.



NATO said:
Meh, wouldn't go AMD if they paid me.

Did AMD burn your house down or something?



Werix357 said:
NATO said:
Meh, wouldn't go AMD if they paid me.

Did AMD burn your house down or something?

Not far off.

Was AMD all the way through to the 1100T, first had a k6-2 500, athlon 900, athlon xp 2200+, athlon 64 2800+, Phenom 940 BE, Phenom 965, then lastly the Phenom X6 1100T, all of them performed worse than their intel counterparts with the only caveat being they were cheaper, most of them had much higher thermals than their intel counterpart, and the 1100T , coupled with the HD 6990 decided they didn't enjoy life and mid-rendering session commit suicide and destroyed themselves and the motherboard.

Been with Intel ever since, never had any issues, costs a lot more but I haven't regretted the switch to intel, not even once.



NATO said:
Werix357 said:

Did AMD burn your house down or something?

Not far off.

Was AMD all the way through to the 1100T, first had a k6-2 500, athlon 900, athlon xp 2200+, athlon 64 2800+, Phenom 940 BE, Phenom 965, then lastly the Phenom X6 1100T, all of them performed worse than their intel counterparts with the only caveat being they were cheaper, most of them had much higher thermals than their intel counterpart, and the 1100T , coupled with the HD 6990 decided they didn't enjoy life and mid-rendering session commit suicide and destroyed themselves and the motherboard.

Been with Intel ever since, never had any issues, costs a lot more but I haven't regretted the switch to intel, not even once.

Thought that might of been the case. The only AMD cpu I've had was the Athlon 3Dnow which was good but yeah Intel has pretty good the last 10-15 years.



Hopefully, they release a 10-core or maybe even 12-core soon, even if it is $1k.
I just don't want to give intel any more money, $1700 for a 10-core? fuck that...