^ This! The Ryzen 1700 comes with a cooler that is worth using (unless you are going to heavily overclock it). That clearly needs to be part of the price/value comparison.
Thanks for pointing that out! I do ZERO gaming, so a $99 quad core CPU with modern-day graphics for $99 sounds really good. I'm assuming that the Ryzen 3 2200G will also support 3 displays,as just about everything else does... The Ryzen 5 2400G/Ryzen 3 2200G slide lists the base clock of the 2200G as 3.5 GHz. The current $109 Ryzen 3 1200 has a 3.1GHz base clock. Have they sacrificed anything (Cache size?) in the 2200G to give you this VERY appealing $99 price point for a modern APU, fabbed in NY state no less?
Yes, L3 cache size is 4MB, vs 8MB on R3 1200. But it has the benefit of having all cores in the same CCX- which should cancel out most of the penalty from lower L3 size.
Considering Ryzen non APU has latency penalties when the data exceeded 4MB of cache load this could may be a better solution. Let's wait the release and reviews clock per clock with the R5 1400.
Thanks: I was just looking at it from a simplistic level. I wish AMD success - I bypassed them when I just bought a 2-in-1 laptop as a Xmas gift. I decided to stick with a safe bet (8th gen ?i7?) for the end user & minimize whatever possible support issues I might have to deal with.
This really brings back memory. Price Table! How long haven't we seen that? Intel and AMD used to compete and we have price reduction every few months or year.
Agree. I love seeing this renewed competition. Here is hoping AMD can claw back marketshare while maintaining decent margins on their products so they can enjoy more than a quarter or two of strong profits. Everyone will benefit from a healthier AMD.
That is what is stopping me from upgrading. PC shipments would surge if we could get back to $120 for 16G DDR4 and old MSRP or lower on upper middle graphics cards like years past.
More to do with people buying useless flagship smartphones just to follow the trend while using that said device to 95% of the time using whatsapp/facebook and some streaming sites.
Hey, the great majority that buy Galaxy S phones don't even change the horrid dynamic profile instead of basic profile for accurate colors.
So as things now stand, apart from the stunning value of the 1600x at its price point, the premium brtween an 8 core ryzen 1700x & an 8 core TR is ~$150.
Frankly, its a bargain, even adding $100 to mobo cost.
For that you get:
64 lanes, quad channel ram, 3x nvme ports, raid nvme - all very powerful fundamental resources.
Latency should be similar as both are only one zeppelin die.
The 1900X isn't one zeppelin die, it's two zeppelin dies with half their cores disabled. Where do you think those extra memory channels and PCIe lanes are coming from if not the second die?
@Gavin Bonshor: "The pick of the bunch, however, has to be the Ryzen 7 1700X ($309) which gets a massive reduction of $90 which puts it into direct competition price-wise with the Intel Core i7-7700K ($350) 4c/8t"
Wouldn't the direct price-wise competition to the Core i7-7700K ($350) be the even more massively price reduced (-$150) Ryzen 7 1800X ($349). Not saying the Ryzen 7 1700X doesn't have merit, but the $40 more expensive Core i7-7700K is perhaps not what AMD had in mind as its direct competitor.
I assume that the performance data shown were obtained in WIN 10 prior to the most recent patch that prevents Meltdown from being executed. Intel has admitted that there are notable reductions in performance. So here my question: do we know how bad the hit to Intel's CPUs are, and what does that mean for the comparison of AMD vs. Intel CPUs.
@anandtech: Any chance you guys can run a quick, preliminary before-and-after the WIN 10 patch performance eval on whatever Intel and AMD rigs you have ready to go? I am pretty sure I am not the only one asking myself "how bad is it", and how does that change the AMD vs. Intel comparison? If i7 chips take a 15-20% hit (and AMD presumably none), it'd make a big difference in what I'd get.
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
31 Comments
Back to Article
jrs77 - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
The Ryzen 5 2400G could make for a good replacement of my current i7-5775C.drexnx - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
the 1700X is only $10 more than the 1700, but the 1700 includes a decent boxed cooler and the 1700X you have to roll your ownTrackSmart - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
^ This! The Ryzen 1700 comes with a cooler that is worth using (unless you are going to heavily overclock it). That clearly needs to be part of the price/value comparison.Metalliax - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
You left off the 2200g ($99) from your new pricing table.vkristof - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Thanks for pointing that out! I do ZERO gaming, so a $99 quad core CPU with modern-day graphics for $99 sounds really good.I'm assuming that the Ryzen 3 2200G will also support 3 displays,as just about everything else does...
The Ryzen 5 2400G/Ryzen 3 2200G slide lists the base clock of the 2200G as 3.5 GHz. The current $109 Ryzen 3 1200 has a 3.1GHz base clock.
Have they sacrificed anything (Cache size?) in the 2200G to give you this VERY appealing $99 price point for a modern APU, fabbed in NY state no less?
Lolimaster - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
It's a 1 CCX design + Vega in 1 package.neblogai - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Yes, L3 cache size is 4MB, vs 8MB on R3 1200. But it has the benefit of having all cores in the same CCX- which should cancel out most of the penalty from lower L3 size.Alexvrb - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
Definitely want to see these things tested.I can't help but look at that and say why would you even buy the 1200 over the 2200G, or a 1400 over a 2400G? Are they multiplier locked??
On a related note I would like to see them release a budget "Athlon" with a disabled iGPU.
vkristof - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
The AMD press release is here:http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/ces-...
and it does state that the 2400G & 2200G L2/L3 cache is 6MB, so it is less than the 10MB on the $109 Ryzen 3 1200.
Lolimaster - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Considering Ryzen non APU has latency penalties when the data exceeded 4MB of cache load this could may be a better solution. Let's wait the release and reviews clock per clock with the R5 1400.vkristof - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Thanks: I was just looking at it from a simplistic level.I wish AMD success - I bypassed them when I just bought a 2-in-1 laptop as a Xmas gift. I decided to stick with a safe bet (8th gen ?i7?) for the end user & minimize whatever possible support issues I might have to deal with.
msroadkill612 - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
ie. they have reduced the ccx L3 from 8MB to 4MB, and kept the 512MB of L2 for each core. It wouldnt surprise me if the 8MB was more than needed.Ian Cutress - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
It is in the table, third from bottomvkristof - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Thanks.When are you getting/evaluating the 2200G? I know it's the bottom of the Ryzen line, but there are some people who do not game...
Ian Cutress - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Launch is Feb 12th. We'll post our review theniwod - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
This really brings back memory. Price Table! How long haven't we seen that? Intel and AMD used to compete and we have price reduction every few months or year.Tewt - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Agree. I love seeing this renewed competition. Here is hoping AMD can claw back marketshare while maintaining decent margins on their products so they can enjoy more than a quarter or two of strong profits. Everyone will benefit from a healthier AMD.HStewart - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
I think this chart of CPU should include Intel X series with more than 6 cores.ToTTenTranz - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Now if only RAM and SSD prices would follow suit...Jhlot - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
That is what is stopping me from upgrading. PC shipments would surge if we could get back to $120 for 16G DDR4 and old MSRP or lower on upper middle graphics cards like years past.vkristof - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
I'm pretty certain I've read that more DRAM fabs are being built and/or upgraded, so there might be some price drops for DD4 DRAM this year.But yeah, DRAM prices have risen significantly.
Lolimaster - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
More to do with people buying useless flagship smartphones just to follow the trend while using that said device to 95% of the time using whatsapp/facebook and some streaming sites.Hey, the great majority that buy Galaxy S phones don't even change the horrid dynamic profile instead of basic profile for accurate colors.
ComputerGuy2006 - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Odd how the TR 1900X is missing from the AMD benchmarks.I guess they figured not many people would want 8 cores but not want dual channel ram?
Ian Cutress - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
We weren't sampled the 1900X. I have, however, borrowed Tom Hardware's sample. Review soon.msroadkill612 - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
no 1900x on comparison chart? A pity.So as things now stand, apart from the stunning value of the 1600x at its price point, the premium brtween an 8 core ryzen 1700x & an 8 core TR is ~$150.
Frankly, its a bargain, even adding $100 to mobo cost.
For that you get:
64 lanes, quad channel ram, 3x nvme ports, raid nvme - all very powerful fundamental resources.
Latency should be similar as both are only one zeppelin die.
notashill - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
The 1900X isn't one zeppelin die, it's two zeppelin dies with half their cores disabled. Where do you think those extra memory channels and PCIe lanes are coming from if not the second die?msroadkill612 - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
A thought is to hold off for the new mobo chipset but use the older cheaper ryzen.BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
@Gavin Bonshor: "The pick of the bunch, however, has to be the Ryzen 7 1700X ($309) which gets a massive reduction of $90 which puts it into direct competition price-wise with the Intel Core i7-7700K ($350) 4c/8t"Wouldn't the direct price-wise competition to the Core i7-7700K ($350) be the even more massively price reduced (-$150) Ryzen 7 1800X ($349). Not saying the Ryzen 7 1700X doesn't have merit, but the $40 more expensive Core i7-7700K is perhaps not what AMD had in mind as its direct competitor.
peteNYC - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
I assume that the performance data shown were obtained in WIN 10 prior to the most recent patch that prevents Meltdown from being executed. Intel has admitted that there are notable reductions in performance. So here my question: do we know how bad the hit to Intel's CPUs are, and what does that mean for the comparison of AMD vs. Intel CPUs.@anandtech: Any chance you guys can run a quick, preliminary before-and-after the WIN 10 patch performance eval on whatever Intel and AMD rigs you have ready to go? I am pretty sure I am not the only one asking myself "how bad is it", and how does that change the AMD vs. Intel comparison? If i7 chips take a 15-20% hit (and AMD presumably none), it'd make a big difference in what I'd get.
Ian Cutress - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
You're correct, this data is pre patches.We're in the middle of CES, so when we get home and square the rest of the news away, we can work on it.
crashtech - Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - link
It would sure be great to see an updated performance per dollar scatter plot that reflects these new prices.