Table of Contents
AMD Ryzen is giving a lot to talk about, but will these new processors be able to compete with Intel processors in power and price?
We are just days away from the arrival of the AMD Ryzen processors on the market and the first benchmarks are leaking. We are not going to take them as 100% reliable, that is clear, but they offer us a first information about where AMD processors will go with respect to Intel processors. The problem that is occurring, on the part of some unprofessional media, is to distort the data and offer a reality that does not correspond to the data of the processors of both companies.
AMD Ryzen
First of all, we must know that officially on March 7, only three processors will come out, in principle. The AMD Ryzen 1800 3.6X, which has eight cores and sixteen processing threads, with a base frequency of 4.0GHz and a Boost mode of 100GHz and has XFR technology, which improves the processor frequency in steps of 600MHz, up to a stop, which is marked by the temperature that the processor would take, therefore the better heatsink, the higher the temperature. This processor will have an approximate price of € XNUMX.
We continue with the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X processor, which also has eight cores and sixteen processing threads. This processor works at a frequency of 3.4GHz and a Boost mode of 3.8GHz. This processor also has XFR technology, which raises the frequency in steps of 100MHz, up to the temperature limit and always depending on the heatsink that we have installed. This processor will be priced at € 470.
The last processor that is known to be released on March 7 is the AMD Ryzen 1700 3.0, which will also be with eight cores and sixteen threads, with base working frequencies of 3.7GHz and a 390GHz Boost mode. Unlike the previous two, this one will not have XFR technology, which is reserved only for processors with the 'X' nomenclature. This processor will be priced at € XNUMX.
| MODEL AMD RYZEN | PROCESSING CORES / THREADS | BASE FREQUENCY RANGE | COMPETENCE WITH INTEL |
| Ryzen Ryzen 7 1800X | 8/16 | 3.6 GHz - 4.0 GHz | Intel Core i7-6900K |
| Ryzen Ryzen 7 Pro 1800 | 8/16 | ~ 3.0 GHz - 3.6 GHz | Intel Core i7-6800K |
| Ryzen Ryzen 7 1700X | 8/16 | 3.4 GHz - 3.8 GHz | Intel Core i7-7700K |
| Ryzen Ryzen 7 1700 | 8/16 | 3.0 GHz - 3.7 GHz | Intel Core i7-7700 |
| Ryzen Ryzen 7 Pro 1700 | 8/16 | ~ 3.0 GHz - 3.6 GHz | TBD |
AMD Ryzen VS Intel Kaby Lake and Broadwell-E
According to reports, the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X should compete with the i7 6900K (Broadwell-E). Intel's processor has eight cores and sixteen threads, with a base frequency of 3.2GHz and a boost mode of 3.7. Logically, this Intel processor does not have XFR, since it is an exclusive AMD technology, for now. This processor is around € 1150.
We move on to the Ryzen 7 1700, which competes with the i7 7700K (Kaby Lake), which has four cores and eight processing threads, with a base frequency of 4.2GHz and a Boost mode of 4.5GHz. Neither has XFR, which is even competition. We highlight the i7 7700K, which we have been able to analyze and that you have on the web, which has quite significant temperature problems, even with an RL and that we think is the best Skylake option, since it offers a minimal improvement in frequency and number of threads. This processor is around € 350.
Finally we have the Ryzen 7 1700K, which must compete with the i7 7700 (Skylake), which has four cores and eight processing threads, working at a base frequency of 3.6GHz and a Boost mode of 4.2GHz. Coincidentally, this processor does not have XFR either, since it is exclusive AMD technology. This processor is around € 330.
Which one should I buy?
The i7 6900K processor is an absurdity, because it is Broadwell-E, which offers Quad Channel of DDR4 RAM, so you would have to put at least four cores, not counting the price, which is around € 1200, almost double that of the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X. Both processors are an absurdity, nowadays for the gaming sector, since NO game will use all the cores. For photography or video rendering tasks, they can come in handy, although the Ryzen 7 1800X may be inferior in power and only support Dual Channel DDR4, right now, it is twice the better option than the Intel processor, for price.
We jump to the Ryzen 1700X, which, if when it hits the market, it fails to beat the Intel i7 7700K, in tests, we are facing an AMD failure. It's simple, doubling the processing cores and threads should be a win for AMD without the need for overclocking. Anything that does not happen to the Intel processor, it is a very bad data and more considering that the AMD processor is about € 100 more expensive. The Intel processor in temperature is quite bad, being clear, but in price they move the same. The big difference must be in work, since the AMD Ryzen processor should be much more powerful than the Intel processor. If they can't compete in power, AMD will have another problem.
Then we have the Ryzen 7 1700 and the i7 7700. The AMD processor should be far superior, since it also doubles in threads and processing cores, but it also has overclocking, which the Intel processor does not. If AMD cannot handle this processor under normal conditions, without the need for overclocking, we can be facing a relative failure of AMD.
AMD: point of no return
Let's be clear. Here it is not that you like more AMD or more Intel, the important thing here, at the moment is that Intel and AMD compete for the market. Intel has had many months of supremacy in the market and has set the prices it wanted, since only Intel had processors that supported DDR4. This is easy, if you have something that nobody has, you put the price you want and when someone takes something similar, you adjust prices. This is pure economics.
AMD's strategy has been to spend a while working 100% on the new processors, to surpass Intel. Ryzen is an all or nothing bet. If AMD can compete more or less well in performance and has cheaper processors than Intel, then the thing is clear, AMD will sell processors, especially by price and Intel will have to lower its processors. Now, if Ryzen is not up to the task, it may be that we are at the beginning of the Intel monopoly.
We want both to compete, we are not interested in Intel being above AMD, but that they are on par, to be able to build better equipment for less money. If the game does not go well for AMD, the company has a problem and is possibly precipitated to need the incorporation of an outside company to develop competent processors with Intel.
Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake
Okay, we've talked about Ryzen competing with Skylake, Kaby Lake, and Broadwell-E, but what about Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake? Well, things get complicated. If these processors are as good as you aim and Cannon Lake is at 10nm, it supports Quad Channel of DDR4 RAM and also supports SLI / CrossFireX configurations in x16 / x16 configuration, sorry a lot, AMD or throws out processors at full speed to match Intel or get closer, or it may end in catastrophe.
Conclusion
We are neither Intel nor AMD, we are realistic. We make budgets and many times make a budget between € 500-750, it is a headache, because we have to make a configuration and adjust prices, changing components to try not to get out. If the price of the processors goes down, we can mount a Core i5 or a future Ryzen 7, where before we would have put an i3 6300. Hopefully.
Continuously speculative analyzes that anyone can do, with information copied from other media, with which to get it right or not will depend on luck, zero technical analysis drawing conclusions from objective data with scientific criteria (enough of its architecture has already been shown) , zero own research, and we still dare to talk about unprofessional media and transgiversion?
Camouflage, under the authority offered by the technique, what is really opinion; the great problem of the XXI century.
I don't know why rule of 3 to the same architecture, bigger cache, scarce less frequency, it can be said that Ryzen will not be able to compete with Intel. The 1700 / 1700x compete in price range with the 7700 / 7700k, it is not that they need more threads to compete, because as soon as we consistently apply the objective data that we already have it is clear that they are going to eat them up.
This individual who wrote says that AMD was overclocking hahahahaha that is false, I have read other media, even in English that say the opposite, those from AMD were at stock speed and with a simple motherboard with 16 gigabytes of RAM while the Intel one was overclocked and with 32 gigabytes of RAM and with a good motherboard, if you see the drawings, the ones that are overclocked are the Intel ones, read the drawings carefully sir and advise instead of selling smoke
Excuse him, he is upset, he who does not know knows.
Lucky for you to disprove rumors based on rumors in English.
Traditional greetings.
Negative rumor squared = absolute and true rumor….
You seem new to this swagger ...
Emm, no, even if the motherboard and ram seems too much there, ryzen was in stock, otherwise there are leaks from cinerbench and cpu-z where it is shown that ryzen has the performance per core not much higher than sandy bridge, but that its multi-threading is more efficient, even to the point where the ryzen equivalent of an i5 (which has 6 cores 12 threads) outperforms an i30 7k by 7700% in tasks optimized to use all cores, I I do image and video editing, also I only play in 1080p, I do not need so much performance per core for games but if in multiples for editing, the ryzen rumors of being true come to me like pearls
The synthetic tests are very nice but until I see it working with games, (which is what interests me) all those graphics are pure smoke.
I think I'm going to bookmark this to take a walk around here when Ryzen comes out because I think the author is quite wrong, but yes, if he's right I'll come to congratulate him.
First article that I read on this website, and it seems that Intel sponsored it.
Well, that thing at the end is “we are not from Intel or AMD”
Noooooo that vaaaaaa not at all xDD
Reading this: "We're neither Intel nor AMD..." and I can't stop laughing. I can imagine him searching the web for every uploaded image that seems to favor the i7 over Ryzen and pasting it into his pseudo-article. The worst part is that he dares to say that OC processors are AMD's.
Sure, Intel pays me and I'm breaking the cash from my attic with its glass windows, while I drink a 50-year-old whiskey and light cigars with five hundred leuros bills
We all like the tip of the intel chick dangling in our mouths, the problem is that there are some who like it and sell cheaply, if they give me a good cpu, I'll swallow it if necessary, you like it Even if I cheated you, you have the profile of a battered woman and you suck Intel even though amd takes out a bigger cock. A little pride please.
I imagine that ryzen 7 1700 65w on a dual socket motherboard, terrible serious beast.
Fanaticism and hype, what an ugly combination! Intel is bad and AMD is good, and vice versa. It reminds me of those American movies where the Russians and Chinese are bad but the Americans are good. Please, these are synthetic tests; it doesn't matter at all. The important thing will be the tests with games and rendering programs. They're killing themselves before they even enter the ring.
I don't know, if I see a processor that costs the same and yields more than another, then I buy the one that gives me more for the same.
Hahahahaha, I know, I know, I'm speaking "with hindsight" but this is very funny hahahahahaha, that the 1700X had to surpass the 7700K hahahahaha