Depending on how the specs fill out on the 1900x I wonder if the 1800x will get pushed down in price.Or how much this will eat into sales of the 1800x. $50 diff for 200mhz base clock bump, 44 extra PCI lanes, and quad channel! Still the L3 to consider as well. That's a heck of an upgrade. Plus if you're already in that territory $100 premium for TR board, yer talking 150$ total. That's not a lot of money for what you get in return. That's quite a deal
Perhaps the intent was to wait until it made sense to drop the price of the 1800X anyways and, rather than dropping the whole stack, use the 1900 to fill in the gap. The introduction of the 1900 may be good news for buyers of the mainstream platform.
If that's the case, then awesome. pushing down the price makes it even more competitive. Will force Intels hand. Win Win! Getting ready to build a couple of desktops, so starting to shop around and price stuff out.
So far, TR looks like a good product release aside from the insane TDP. I can say the same of Vega so I guess AMD across their primary products just can't manage any sort of power efficiency on the high end. If you can stomach the TDP, you're getting a good processor. I think I'll wait until mobile APUs hit the market to get too judgemental about Zen. Their mobile processors are going to be a lot more important than desktop components since laptops represent a large majority of computer purchases. If AMD can get into laptop hardware with a competitive product stack, they the company will do fine. If not, the niche of desktop and HEDT won't matter. A CPU-centric company can't survive on selling processors that are chained to power outlets in 2017.
What do you mean there's no 10nm from AMD? You mean, like, ever? In that case what I meant is if it will be worth waiting for the next process shrink, be it 8nm, 7nm or 5nm.
That's exactly what he means. GloFo is intending to call its next process 7nm. (The name of a process has gradually stopped having anything to do with the size of the features it makes over the last decade. Not only does # nm not mean all the bits are # nm in size, but processes of different manufacturers have significantly different feature sizes even if named the same. If GloFo is actually planning ~2x linear shrinks between 14 and 7nm or has just decided to go for the smallest marketing number crown is TBD.)
The process size never meant that all the bits were that size. The process size is used to represent the smallest feature size the process is capable of producing. These feature sizes only get used on transistors with light loads as they aren't large enough to drive high capacitance loads at the speeds demanded of them. Logic circuits without heavy branching that need to run high speed will get smaller transistors. Clock distribution, line buffers, and transistors driving multiple targets will have larger transistors. In short, transistor sizes are adjusted according to loading in order to achieve the optimal switching speeds.
To your point, though, the methods different companies or even the same company over different generations use to determine process size has become increasingly disparate.
Lower power consumption is one of Zen's biggest achievements. The R7s are 8-core chips running between 65w and 90w. Meanwhile, any 6+ core chip from Intel is 100w+, and their latest 6-core is pushing 150w even though the TDP is 140. X399 truly is a step above X299 in performance and features, so the TDP is above it as well. What Ryzen has done is made people looking at Intel HEDT platform consider buying an R7 instead. Only the heaviest users should get TR.
Agreed on Zen's lower power consumption. I don't get the other comment saying Zen architecture has "insane TDP." It sounds like the poster has no intention of buying any Zen products and makes me wonder why they are even posting if so one sided other than to throw some fud around. I can buy AMD without bashing Intel and recognize they make a good product(but just not in my price range).
It's perfectly reasonable to note that a 180W TDP is insanity. That is a vendor-neutral statement. I would point out the same problem were it Intel releasing a CPU with the same TDP. In fact, Skylake-X is up there as well with a stupidly high TDP. We've seen significant improvements in power and heat output of a variety of chips and there's no excuse for the sudden dogpile on the top aside from idiotic competition in overpriced high-end parts that only benefit a company through their halo effect on more reasonable components that consumers actually will purchase in significant numbers. It's happening in the GPU market as AMD and NV pointlessly chase the performance crown as demonstrated by Vega's outrageous TBP. I'm merely pointing out that as technology has improved, we ought to be able to get really good performance out for a lot less waste heat and electrical power, but we're not. I want a passively cooled desktop that's a high performance machine just like my old 368DX that was a blazing fast system without even so much as a heatsink attached to the processor. Instead, I need a heat pipe festooned tower with two 120mm fans in push-pull config just for the CPU alone and nevermind about the dual slot blower grafted to the video card or the dumb RGB-LED foo-fighter heat spreaders on the RAM. The computer industry has gone off the moronic deep end and you kids can get off my lawn now!
Intel's Skylake X is 6-18 core 140-160W. I don't see the issue with ZEN power efficiency. Plus look at the tests and wattage during loads. Nothing wrong their. VEGA though....sigh...
"The differences between the 1920 and the 1920X are lower clock rates and AMD’s XFR speed boost on the 1920: typically Ryzen CPUs without the X have half the XFR."? Not a clear explanation.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
Back to Article
psychobriggsy - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
Fills in a big gap in the price range. I'm guessing $649 to $699 pricing for this, probably the latter.Manch - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
Depending on how the specs fill out on the 1900x I wonder if the 1800x will get pushed down in price.Or how much this will eat into sales of the 1800x. $50 diff for 200mhz base clock bump, 44 extra PCI lanes, and quad channel! Still the L3 to consider as well. That's a heck of an upgrade. Plus if you're already in that territory $100 premium for TR board, yer talking 150$ total. That's not a lot of money for what you get in return. That's quite a dealKvaern1 - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
There will be a TR 1900 between the Ryzen 1800X and 1900X as well.Manch - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
At $50, why even have something to slot in there? I'm not complaining. just curious. AMD is competitive again and that's great for my wallet :DBurntMyBacon - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
Perhaps the intent was to wait until it made sense to drop the price of the 1800X anyways and, rather than dropping the whole stack, use the 1900 to fill in the gap. The introduction of the 1900 may be good news for buyers of the mainstream platform.Manch - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
If that's the case, then awesome. pushing down the price makes it even more competitive. Will force Intels hand. Win Win! Getting ready to build a couple of desktops, so starting to shop around and price stuff out.msroadkill612 - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
& going upwards, its only about $70usd more than the top TR to a 24 core 1P epyc.BrokenCrayons - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
So far, TR looks like a good product release aside from the insane TDP. I can say the same of Vega so I guess AMD across their primary products just can't manage any sort of power efficiency on the high end. If you can stomach the TDP, you're getting a good processor. I think I'll wait until mobile APUs hit the market to get too judgemental about Zen. Their mobile processors are going to be a lot more important than desktop components since laptops represent a large majority of computer purchases. If AMD can get into laptop hardware with a competitive product stack, they the company will do fine. If not, the niche of desktop and HEDT won't matter. A CPU-centric company can't survive on selling processors that are chained to power outlets in 2017.baka_toroi - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
I wonder if it will be worth it to wait for 10nm Threadrippers. I don't particularly like water cooling or loud air coolers.zodiacfml - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
There is no 10nm from AMD. Your cooling will depend on your load. Overall, high core CPUs have lower TDPs when using less cores.baka_toroi - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
What do you mean there's no 10nm from AMD? You mean, like, ever? In that case what I meant is if it will be worth waiting for the next process shrink, be it 8nm, 7nm or 5nm.DanNeely - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
That's exactly what he means. GloFo is intending to call its next process 7nm. (The name of a process has gradually stopped having anything to do with the size of the features it makes over the last decade. Not only does # nm not mean all the bits are # nm in size, but processes of different manufacturers have significantly different feature sizes even if named the same. If GloFo is actually planning ~2x linear shrinks between 14 and 7nm or has just decided to go for the smallest marketing number crown is TBD.)BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
The process size never meant that all the bits were that size. The process size is used to represent the smallest feature size the process is capable of producing. These feature sizes only get used on transistors with light loads as they aren't large enough to drive high capacitance loads at the speeds demanded of them. Logic circuits without heavy branching that need to run high speed will get smaller transistors. Clock distribution, line buffers, and transistors driving multiple targets will have larger transistors. In short, transistor sizes are adjusted according to loading in order to achieve the optimal switching speeds.To your point, though, the methods different companies or even the same company over different generations use to determine process size has become increasingly disparate.
jstein - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
180w is the maximum. You could easily run lower than this. Look at Skylake-X in this chart:http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550/the-intel-skyl...
Lower power consumption is one of Zen's biggest achievements. The R7s are 8-core chips running between 65w and 90w. Meanwhile, any 6+ core chip from Intel is 100w+, and their latest 6-core is pushing 150w even though the TDP is 140. X399 truly is a step above X299 in performance and features, so the TDP is above it as well. What Ryzen has done is made people looking at Intel HEDT platform consider buying an R7 instead. Only the heaviest users should get TR.
Tewt - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
Agreed on Zen's lower power consumption. I don't get the other comment saying Zen architecture has "insane TDP." It sounds like the poster has no intention of buying any Zen products and makes me wonder why they are even posting if so one sided other than to throw some fud around. I can buy AMD without bashing Intel and recognize they make a good product(but just not in my price range).BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
It's perfectly reasonable to note that a 180W TDP is insanity. That is a vendor-neutral statement. I would point out the same problem were it Intel releasing a CPU with the same TDP. In fact, Skylake-X is up there as well with a stupidly high TDP. We've seen significant improvements in power and heat output of a variety of chips and there's no excuse for the sudden dogpile on the top aside from idiotic competition in overpriced high-end parts that only benefit a company through their halo effect on more reasonable components that consumers actually will purchase in significant numbers. It's happening in the GPU market as AMD and NV pointlessly chase the performance crown as demonstrated by Vega's outrageous TBP. I'm merely pointing out that as technology has improved, we ought to be able to get really good performance out for a lot less waste heat and electrical power, but we're not. I want a passively cooled desktop that's a high performance machine just like my old 368DX that was a blazing fast system without even so much as a heatsink attached to the processor. Instead, I need a heat pipe festooned tower with two 120mm fans in push-pull config just for the CPU alone and nevermind about the dual slot blower grafted to the video card or the dumb RGB-LED foo-fighter heat spreaders on the RAM. The computer industry has gone off the moronic deep end and you kids can get off my lawn now!Manch - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
Intel's Skylake X is 6-18 core 140-160W. I don't see the issue with ZEN power efficiency. Plus look at the tests and wattage during loads. Nothing wrong their. VEGA though....sigh...shabby - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
1950 coming soon too... obviously.yannigr2 - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
It's easy to guess how this will go1950 at $899,
1920 at $699,
1900 at $499.
msroadkill612 - Monday, August 7, 2017 - link
"The differences between the 1920 and the 1920X are lower clock rates and AMD’s XFR speed boost on the 1920: typically Ryzen CPUs without the X have half the XFR."? Not a clear explanation.Manch - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
The writer assumes you have read the previous articles. No worries. XFR is eXtended Frequency Range) 100mhz bump vs 200mhz with XFR.