AMD's Ryzen launch may have been marred only by some unrealistic expectations on what is really an excellent all-around chip, which apparently prompted some knee-jerk pre-order cancelations and a stock tumble for AMD. However, it would seem AMD built-up enough momentum with its Ryzen launch so as to provoke some shortages in major retailers, despite the company announcing a million-strong launch stock for Ryzen.All in all, Amazon and Fry's have no more stock of any Ryzen 7 processor and Newegg, which was supposed to carry boxed versions of the processor, is only selling it as part of a number of pre-built rigs. Demand has been higher than supply when it comes to Ryzen ever since AMD opened pre-orders for its prodigal child. Let's hope these are sorted out, and that AMD can feed the consumers' hunger for a long-time coming viable (as in, mesmerizingly great) alternative to Intel.

30 Comments on AMD's Ryzen Launch Processors Sold Out at Major Retailers

1 to 25 of 30 Go to Page 12 PreviousNext

#1 RejZoR

Well, it's a good CPU for very affordable price, I'm not really surprised it's all gone already. I remember massive shortages of Skylake when it came out as well. 6700K and 6600K were almost unobtainable and where they were, they had a price of up to 440€ which was insane considering 5820K was like 400€ and it had more cores, more threads and they for the most part clock high as well. And in stock.



Anyway, I'm happy it's gone. It would be a lot worse if they had stocks remaining with no interest from people. That's the worst nightmare for any company launching new otherwise highly anticipated product. Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 3:46 Reply

#2 Kaynar

Meanwhile, the i7 7700k is priced equal or lower than the Ryzen 7 1700 (non-X) at around 350 Euros while the 1800X is price at nearly 650 Euros... People buying these AMD chips for gaming are getting robbed :D Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 6:40 Reply

#3 zAAm

Kaynar Meanwhile, the i7 7700k is priced equal or lower than the Ryzen 7 1700 (non-X) at around 350 Euros while the 1800X is price at nearly 650 Euros... People buying these AMD chips for gaming are getting robbed :D I'm taking it you only use your PC for gaming? :rolleyes: I'm taking it you only use your PC for gaming? :rolleyes: Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 8:06 Reply

#4 SPLWF

zAAm I'm taking it you only use your PC for gaming? :rolleyes: LOL, so true. It's amazing the amount of people that don't know what a multi-core/threaded CPU is for. LOL, so true. It's amazing the amount of people that don't know what a multi-core/threaded CPU is for. Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 9:27 Reply

#5 Prince Valiant

Kaynar Meanwhile, the i7 7700k is priced equal or lower than the Ryzen 7 1700 (non-X) at around 350 Euros while the 1800X is price at nearly 650 Euros... People buying these AMD chips for gaming are getting robbed :D I reckon that most people buying these are content creators that couldn't quite afford Intel's platform (or didn't want to shell out for it). I reckon that most people buying these are content creators that couldn't quite afford Intel's platform (or didn't want to shell out for it). Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 9:41 Reply

#6 PerfectWave

if u play at hd resolution go for intel but at higher it matches intel fps. Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 12:17 Reply

#7 kruk

Kaynar Meanwhile, the i7 7700k is priced equal or lower than the Ryzen 7 1700 (non-X) at around 350 Euros while the 1800X is price at nearly 650 Euros... People buying these AMD chips for gaming are getting robbed :D The people that preordered the CPUs or bought them at day one, knew exactly what they are buying and how are they going to use them. The approximate single/multithreading performance was already known for weeks. The only surprise are the SMT bugs which will hopefully be ironed out with time. The people that preordered the CPUs or bought them at day one, knew exactly what they are buying and how are they going to use them. The approximate single/multithreading performance was already known for weeks. The only surprise are the SMT bugs which will hopefully be ironed out with time. Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 12:18 Reply

#8 medi01





www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Prozessoren+(CPU)/AMD+Desktop/Sockel+AM4.html



Amazon has only 1700x (15 of them at the moment) Quite in stock in Germany:Amazon has only 1700x (15 of them at the moment) Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 14:29 Reply

#9 dalekdukesboy

This is excellent news, being sold out in a day when they had a million? or so units means that's a heck of a lot of processors sold and people want them. Also the more people buy these the less people are buying Intel so I kind of hope their numbers fall and/or stagnate which will only cause more reaction on their side to counter this which will end up being good stuff for us the consumer. Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 14:31 Reply

#10 Vlada011

If someone have chance and think on upgrade maybe should done that immediately when market settle down or when he find chance.

Because this processors will worth and for 2 years and could be sold nicely even if better Intel show up. If you buy for 500$ you will sell for 300$ minimum. There is many gamers who will like such processor.



From other side most of Intel customers wait Skylake Xtreme. I think first samples are finished at the end of 2016, probably with very low clock to Intel optimize and improve performance.

But I'm not sure how much they can change rapidly. Because difference between i7 6 cores Broadwell-E and 1800X is arround 50-60%.

Because of that there is very real change that many people wait Skylake Xtreme only to upgrade on AMD after Intel launch X299.

I don't know how Intel could for 6 months to find processors capable to beat 1800X for 400$. He improve 10-15% performance from Sandy Bridge E to Broadwell-E

i7-3960X in CPU-Z is 7600, i7-6850K is arround 10.000. AMD make 20.000 If intel change 10-15% performance for same number of cores and same clock how he could improve more than 3 times more for 6 months.

He could beat AMD with 8 and 10 cores with little price correction. Little price correction mean they will cost 700-800$ in best scenarion.

And everyone who can't afford 700-800$ will have weaker proceesors than AMD.



Because of that choose wisely.

In best scenarion Intel will become better option for rich people as before many years, just little better but not enough to justify price and AMD will be logic joice of gamers.

But for that Intel need to work hard and it's not completely sure that he can even that. Posted on Mar 3rd 2017, 20:02 Reply

#11 jigar2speed

Kaynar People buying these AMD chips for gaming are getting robbed :D You got robbed of $150 for 10 FPS, did you even knew that ? You got robbed of $150 for 10 FPS, did you even knew that ? Posted on Mar 4th 2017, 0:49 Reply

#12 toilet pepper

I've only seen 3 retailers sell ryzen here in the Philippines and all of them are asking a premium for it. There are only 2 boards that are available for it, the aorus gaming and msi b350. Waiting for amd and board makers to straighten things out. Posted on Mar 4th 2017, 2:06 Reply

#13 bencrutz

toilet pepper I've only seen 3 retailers sell ryzen here in the Philippines and all of them are asking a premium for it. There are only 2 boards that are available for it, the aorus gaming and msi b350. Waiting for amd and board makers to straighten things out. pretty much the same here in Indonesia, only few boards from msi & gigabyte are in stock.

but at least in here ryzen pricing is OK, not much premium over US price. pretty much the same here in Indonesia, only few boards from msi & gigabyte are in stock.but at least in here ryzen pricing is OK, not much premium over US price. Posted on Mar 4th 2017, 5:35 Reply

#14 lexluthermiester

This is always a good sign. Now lets see if the demand remains. My guess is it will be. Posted on Mar 5th 2017, 8:34 Reply

#15 Kaynar

jigar2speed You got robbed of $150 for 10 FPS, did you even knew that ? im sorry i definately needed hyperthreading for autocad im sorry i definately needed hyperthreading for autocad Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 2:43 Reply

#16 jigar2speed

Kaynar im sorry i definately needed hyperthreading for autocad LOL, so hyperthreading for autocad is better than actual cores .. Who knew. :shadedshu: LOL, so hyperthreading for autocad is better than actual cores .. Who knew. :shadedshu: Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 4:11 Reply

#17 Kaynar

jigar2speed LOL, so hyperthreading for autocad is better than actual cores .. Who knew. :shadedshu: couldnt spend 1000 euros on an 8 core intel cpu nor wait 2 years for ryzen to appear couldnt spend 1000 euros on an 8 core intel cpu nor wait 2 years for ryzen to appear Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 6:06 Reply

#18 jigar2speed

Kaynar couldnt spend 1000 euros on an 8 core intel cpu nor wait 2 years for ryzen to appear Exactly, so you have zero clues what workstation chips have been doing. This is an all-rounder chip dude, every reviewer showed that AMD chip was trailing Intel in gaming, so how is it getting robbed, but here's a thing Intel has been charging an arm and leg all this years that you didn't notice as being a day light robbery ??? Exactly, so you have zero clues what workstation chips have been doing. This is an all-rounder chip dude, every reviewer showed that AMD chip was trailing Intel in gaming, so how is it getting robbed, but here's a thing Intel has been charging an arm and leg all this years that you didn't notice as being a day light robbery ??? Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 6:30 Reply

#19 Kaynar

jigar2speed Exactly, so you have zero clues what workstation chips have been doing. This is an all-rounder chip dude, every reviewer showed that AMD chip was trailing Intel in gaming, so how is it getting robbed, but here's a thing Intel has been charging an arm and leg all this years that you didn't notice as being a day light robbery ??? Alright look, this is a news post and we've turned it into a stupid talk. You end up saying the same thing I said in my initial post, but first you had to rant about it for several posts. I dont know if you feel you need to troll someone and honestly im sorry, towards the other members, that i fell in the trap of answering to you pointlessly. It is a fact that this CPU has been marketed as "gaming cpu that crushes the i7 7700k", amogst other things (you just gota watch all the pre-release coverage). This article and my first post were written before 99% of reviews were out. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that will buy this CPU for gaming only, then be dessapointed that its not that great. That is what I was pointing out and if you are too stupid to understand it, im sorry. Alright look, this is a news post and we've turned it into a stupid talk. You end up saying the same thing I said in my initial post, but first you had to rant about it for several posts. I dont know if you feel you need to troll someone and honestly im sorry, towards the other members, that i fell in the trap of answering to you pointlessly. It is a fact that this CPU has been marketed as "gaming cpu that crushes the i7 7700k", amogst other things (you just gota watch all the pre-release coverage). This article and my first post were written before 99% of reviews were out. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that will buy this CPU for gaming only, then be dessapointed that its not that great. That is what I was pointing out and if you are too stupid to understand it, im sorry. Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 6:50 Reply

#20 lexluthermiester

Kaynar Alright look, this is a news post and we've turned it into a stupid talk. You end up saying the same thing I said in my initial post, but first you had to rant about it for several posts. I don't know if you feel you need to troll someone and honestly im sorry, towards the other members, that i fell in the trap of answering to you pointlessly. It is a fact that this CPU has been marketed as "gaming cpu that crushes the i7 7700k", amongst other things (you just gotta watch all the prerelease coverage). This article and my first post were written before 99% of reviews were out. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that will buy this CPU for gaming only, then be disappointment that its not that great. That is what I was pointing out and if you are too stupid to understand it, I'm sorry. I disagree. The benchmarks show that all 3 of the Ryzen CPU's are performing well against Intel's dual channel offerings in everything INCLUDING gaming. They are getting beat in gaming but not by much. If someone buy's Ryzen exclusively for gaming then perhaps they may not be as impressed as they were expecting, but when they factor in that they spent a whole lot less money, their disappointment will fade fast. In every other area of performance stats, Ryzen is a beast so far. And with time comes refinements. We have yet to see Ryzen at it's best. It's just getting started.. I disagree. The benchmarks show that all 3 of the Ryzen CPU's are performing well against Intel's dual channel offerings in everything INCLUDING gaming. They are getting beat in gaming but not by much. If someone buy's Ryzen exclusively for gaming then perhaps they may not be as impressed as they were expecting, but when they factor in that they spent a whole lot less money, their disappointment will fade fast. In every other area of performance stats, Ryzen is a beast so far. And with time comes refinements. We have yet to see Ryzen at it's best. It's just getting started.. Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 7:23 Reply

#21 dalekdukesboy

lexluthermiester I disagree. The benchmarks show that all 3 of the Ryzen CPU's are performing well against Intel's dual channel offerings in everything INCLUDING gaming. They are getting beat in gaming but not by much. If someone buy's Ryzen exclusively for gaming then perhaps they may not be as impressed as they were expecting, but when they factor in that they spent a whole lot less money, their disappointment will fade fast. In every other area of performance stats, Ryzen is a beast so far. And with time comes refinements. We have yet to see Ryzen at it's best. It's just getting started.. This. Seriously....who at any age (even high school) only or mainly uses a PC to game? If you do than you just get a fast dual or quad core and be done with it. These chips now released are 8 cores to go against 1000-1800$ Intel 8-10 core chips...and at most are $500 and compete in just about everything or even beat the intel offerings in some things, what don't you get? Yes, they have some bugs and issues but other thing is if you are such a "gamer" are you really gaming at 1080p? This. Seriously....who at any age (even high school) only or mainly uses a PC to game? If you do than you just get a fast dual or quad core and be done with it. These chips now released are 8 cores to go against 1000-1800$ Intel 8-10 core chips...and at most are $500 and compete in just about everything or even beat the intel offerings in some things, what don't you get? Yes, they have some bugs and issues but other thing is if you are such a "gamer" are you really gaming at 1080p? Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 9:56 Reply

#22 lexluthermiester

dalekdukesboy This. Seriously....who at any age (even high school) only or mainly uses a PC to game? If you do than you just get a fast dual or quad core and be done with it. These chips now released are 8 cores to go against 1000-1800$ Intel 8-10 core chips...and at most are $500 and compete in just about everything or even beat the Intel offerings in some things, what don't you get? Did you actually READ my post? Perhaps you might want to brush over it again.. dalekdukesboy if you are such a "gamer" are you really gaming at 1080p? Um, yes I am. Why? Because my 1080P monitors are 1ms, 240hz monitors and provide a MUCH better gaming experience than most of the 1440P, 1600P and 4K panels out there. And let's face it, 4k gaming is just not that much better. I've personally seen the difference and it didn't impress me. What impresses me is actual, tangible value. 4k doesn't provide that. Yet. But Ryzen does.. Am I going to sell the 5960X that I currently have to buy a Ryzen? No. But if I didn't already have a premium CPU, I would seriously consider the 1800X. IMHO, after having read a TON of reviews the Ryzen is a CPU worthy of consideration.



So what exactly was your point? Did you actually READ my post? Perhaps you might want to brush over it again..Um, yes I am. Why? Because my 1080P monitors are 1ms, 240hz monitors and provide a MUCH better gaming experience than most of the 1440P, 1600P and 4K panels out there. And let's face it, 4k gaming is just not that much better. I've personally seen the difference and it didn't impress me. What impresses me is actual, tangible value. 4k doesn't provide that. Yet. But Ryzen does.. Am I going to sell the 5960X that I currently have to buy a Ryzen? No. But if I didn't already have a premium CPU, I would seriously consider the 1800X. IMHO, after having read a TON of reviews the Ryzen is a CPU worthy of consideration.So what exactly was your point? Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 13:30 Reply

#23 dalekdukesboy

Umm...dude, did you read what I said? I am agreeing with you...Forget 1080p comment etc. When I or anyone says "this" in reference to a post I thought it was a given that means thumbs up and I think this is right on no? Also I have a 4k 1 ms monitor so throw out that bit...no not 240mhz but smooth as silk and if you can't see difference between 3840 x 2160 and 1920 x 1080 both at 1 ms on a 28" screen you either have closed eyes or a closed mind, or both. I have less than perfect eyes and was born in 1976, do the math I don't have young eyes and have had glasses my whole life to boot but having gamed at 1080p and 2k with CRT, and now 4k with current monitor I can tell you the differences even between 1080 to 2k was noticeable on same screen, then I got 4k and hell yes there's a difference.



But, main point is you did a knee jerk at my 1080p comment and ignored the rest, when I said "what don't you get?" that is admittedly open to interpretation but it was meant to say those who argue against these chips' value don't get it; and simply by positing that and the fact I was arguing FOR Ryzen as you basically did it showed on a whole I agree with you no? Plus "This." kinda gave it away and I was simply saying if gaming is your thing and that is your main objective then buy a cheap 4 core etc, but overall I agree with you Ryzen is a great value and it will get better etc. Again, everything I said minus gaming bit agrees with you... Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 14:11 Reply

#24 lexluthermiester

dalekdukesboy Umm...dude, did you read what I said? I am agreeing with you...Forget 1080p comment etc. When I or anyone says "this" in reference to a post I thought it was a given that means thumbs up and I think this is right on no? I do beg your pardon then. More on that below. dalekdukesboy Also I have a 4k 1 ms monitor so throw out that bit...no not 240mhz but smooth as silk and if you can't see difference between 3840 x 2160 and 1920 x 1080 both at 1 ms on a 28" screen you either have closed eyes or a closed mind, or both. That's not an unfair statement. More on this below also. dalekdukesboy I have less than perfect eyes and was born in 1976, do the math I don't have young eyes and have had glasses my whole life to boot but having gamed at 1080p and 2k with CRT, For the record 1080P IS 2k. 1920 is to 2k what 3840 is to 4k. If you're thinking 2560x1440[or 1600] then that is 2.5k. And 1080p on a CRT? Please name even one CRT display that can do 1920x1080 without interlacing. I'd like to read up on it as that would be fascinating to learn about. dalekdukesboy and now 4k with current monitor I can tell you the differences even between 1080 to 2k was noticeable on same screen, then I got 4k and hell yes there's a difference. Let me qualify the reasoning used in my above statement. On the 27" screens I have, the difference between 2k they put out and a 4k panel is there, but it doesn't impress me enough to justify the expense of replacing both of them. Additionally, Windows does not do DPI scaling well, even with Windows 10. I've actually tried out a 4k monitor and the experience was not pleasing. I would MUCH rather have a higher/smoother frame-rate than super high resolution. I have GTX980 so GPU performance is not a bottleneck. I'd much rather find a good 2560 panel that has the 1ms, 240hz specs at a contrast ratio above 5000/1. dalekdukesboy But, main point is you did a knee jerk at my 1080p comment and ignored the rest, when I said "what don't you get?" that is admittedly open to interpretation but it was meant to say those who argue against these chips' value don't get it; and simply by positing that and the fact I was arguing FOR Ryzen as you basically did it showed on a whole I agree with you no? Plus "This." kinda gave it away and I was simply saying if gaming is your thing and that is your main objective then buy a cheap 4 core etc, but overall I agree with you Ryzen is a great value and it will get better etc. Again, everything I said minus gaming bit agrees with you... Fair enough. It did seem like you were blasting me, which was a bit confusing considering you were agreeing. I do beg your pardon then. More on that below.That's not an unfair statement. More on this below also.For the record 1080P2k. 1920 is to 2k what 3840 is to 4k. If you're thinking 2560x1440[or 1600] then that is 2.5k. And 1080p on a CRT? Please name even one CRT display that can do 1920x1080 without interlacing. I'd like to read up on it as that would be fascinating to learn about.Let me qualify the reasoning used in my above statement. On the 27" screens I have, the difference between 2k they put out and a 4k panel is there, but it doesn't impress me enough to justify the expense of replacing both of them. Additionally, Windows does not do DPI scaling well, even with Windows 10. I've actually tried out a 4k monitor and the experience was not pleasing. I wouldrather have a higher/smoother frame-rate than super high resolution. I have GTX980 so GPU performance is not a bottleneck. I'd much rather find a good 2560 panel that has the 1ms, 240hz specs at a contrast ratio above 5000/1.Fair enough. It did seem like you were blasting me, which was a bit confusing considering you were agreeing. Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 14:38 Reply

#25 dalekdukesboy

Nope I was thinking 2048 x 1536 as 2k I could be incorrect but I've seen it referred to as such, regardless fair enough no blasting of you was agreeing and simply stating what I thought. Also I have 2 crt's that do 2048 x 1536 one 21 inch and an older one in closet like 18" and both looked beautiful and obviously zero ghosting etc. Posted on Mar 6th 2017, 15:26 Reply