With AMD's Ryzen chips launch being ever closer to us, details about its product line - which still remain mysterious enough - eventually begin to slip. Reportedly, AMD's entry-level Ryzen chips - the SR3 line of processors, if previous leaks ring true, will be made up of 4-core processors with AMD's SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading), the equivalent to Intel's HT (Hyper-Threading) disabled. These will be, apparently, true 4-core processors, without any additional logical processors exposed by SMT.If reports about AMD's line-up being composed of 8-core and 6-core processors, then with this news, we can now theoretically paint the numbers on AMD's Ryzen line-up. As it stands with this new information, it could be composed of entry-level four-core parts (under the SR3 product stack, and a base clock of 3.4 GHz at the minimum for any Ryzen-based part, according to AMD); a midrange six-core, twelve-thread part (under the SR5 moniker; I don't figure AMD would disable their much-lauded SMT on this six-core part); and the top-of-the-line, SR7 8-core, 16-thread chip we've seen in so many benchmarks and leaks I find it strange that AMD would cut the SMT out of any of its processor lines, though - at least, from all of its processors. My educated guess would be that AMD is planning to release a special-edition part (or a specific part number) just like Intel does in its i3, i5 and i7 product lines to differentiate between multiplier-locked (non-K processors) and multiplier-unlocked (K processors, such as the i5-7600K). Though, with all AMD Ryzen processors having an unlocked multiplier, like the company has often announced, this differentiation might be between SMT-disabled and SMT-enabled chips - perhaps with AMD bringing back their Black Edition line of processors for this particular use-case. It just seems strange for AMD to shed one of their vaunted technologies (which would allow them to improve their performance at little to no cost added) completely, considering the comeback the company is planning to accomplish.

37 Comments on AMD Begins Sampling Entry-Level Ryzen Chips - 4 Cores With SMT Disabled

1 to 25 of 37 Go to Page 12 PreviousNext

#1 atomicus

How this stacks up against the 7700k is going to be very interesting. I would love to see AMD challenge it, but given how easily they clock to near and above 5Ghz, I sense that Kaby is going to hold the performance crown... but price of Ryzen is obviously going to be the key. I don't doubt they will seriously challenge the i3/i5, but I wonder how content AMD are to play second to Intel in the performance stakes? They may be content to offer up a lower performing chip at a competitive price, just so they make bank (which they will). Unless it's VERY cheap though, I doubt it will affect Intel pricing much. The only way that will happen is if they can push that performance envelope to actually make all the Intel fanboys stand up and pay attention, give people who want the ultimate in performance a reason to actually buy Ryzen. If it only appeals to the budget crowd, it will still be a huge success but why can't they give Intel a hard kick up the backside?? I'd love to see that.



We know nothing until reviews are out though... I ignore all this PR nonsense, meaningless. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 4:40 Reply

#2 TheLaughingMan

I don't think they are referring to Summit Ridge. This sounds more like something we will see in Raven Ridge and Bristol Ridge. There is no reason to not including SMT with any performance level CPU. But for laptops, tablets, and other small devices where heat is the bigger concern, I can see variants of Zen without SMT Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 5:39 Reply

#3 Pumper

Finally, about time we get to see some new tech on the marked. So boring to see the same old stuff getting reviewed over and over again. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 5:53 Reply

#4 Folterknecht

Seems to be aimed at i5 7400 - 7600 which are priced between 190 - 230$ and would make a lot of sense imo.

AMD could under cut these prices easily while offering comparable performance, if the rumors regarding ZENs IPC are true. Remember these Intel i5 arn't clocked very high between 3.0 - 3.5 GHz base clock. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 6:17 Reply

#5 dj-electric

I think that there's definately a place for a 4C\8T ryzen running at 4Ghz+ at about 200$.

It would fit many many gamers. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 6:57 Reply

#6 _Flare

everybody knows that single-core-performance still counts like ever

even with DX12

so what will happen if:

a (too-low-clocked/or crappy-IPC/or too power-hungry) 4C/4T Zen gets beaten by a cheaper i3 or Pentium-HT in games ?



AMD is dead after 5 years of hard work then, digging their own expensive grave Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 7:12 Reply

#7 Casecutter





We just don't know and agree with... atomicus We know nothing until reviews are out though... I ignore all this PR nonsense, meaningless. AMD might use a Phenom or Athlon X4 naming for this, basically going for Pentium/Core/Celeron offerings of Intel bottom feeders. What if this walks-on the likes of the Pentium G3258 or G4500 for less than $100.We just don't know and agree with... Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 7:44 Reply

#8 RejZoR

Dj-ElectriC I think that there's definately a place for a 4C\8T ryzen running at 4Ghz+ at about 200$.

It would fit many many gamers. Now you're just imagining things. You would all gladly pay $400+ for a 6700K or 7700K, but you'd want an equally performing CPU from AMD for $200. How on Earth does that make any kind of sense? Now you're just imagining things. You would all gladly pay $400+ for a 6700K or 7700K, but you'd want an equally performing CPU from AMD for $200. How on Earth does that make any kind of sense? Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 8:21 Reply

#9 chaosmassive

RejZoR Now you're just imagining things. You would all gladly pay $400+ for a 6700K or 7700K, but you'd want an equally performing CPU from AMD for $200. How on Earth does that make any kind of sense? thats brand leveraging for ya thats brand leveraging for ya Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 8:41 Reply

#10 RejZoR

So, just because it has an Intel badge, you're willing to pay 2x as much for the same performance. That's not "brand leverage", that's idiotism, plain and simple. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 8:45 Reply

#11 kruk

I firmly believe that people expecting half of the price of the equivalent Intel CPU will be severely disappointed at launch. AMD could sell their CPUs at a slightly lower price, but they certainly won't go into extremes. Why would they? It would just make the investors angry. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 8:46 Reply

#12 ADHDGAMING

RejZoR Now you're just imagining things. You would all gladly pay $400+ for a 6700K or 7700K, but you'd want an equally performing CPU from AMD for $200. How on Earth does that make any kind of sense? Im never paying 400 for a 4 core no matter who makes it. Im never paying 400 for a 4 core no matter who makes it. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 9:13 Reply

#13 eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman atomicus How this stacks up against the 7700k is going to be very interesting. I would love to see AMD challenge it, but given how easily they clock to near and above 5Ghz, I sense that Kaby is going to hold the performance crown... but price of Ryzen is obviously going to be the key. I don't doubt they will seriously challenge the i3/i5, but I wonder how content AMD are to play second to Intel in the performance stakes? They may be content to offer up a lower performing chip at a competitive price, just so they make bank (which they will). Unless it's VERY cheap though, I doubt it will affect Intel pricing much. The only way that will happen is if they can push that performance envelope to actually make all the Intel fanboys stand up and pay attention, give people who want the ultimate in performance a reason to actually buy Ryzen. If it only appeals to the budget crowd, it will still be a huge success but why can't they give Intel a hard kick up the backside?? I'd love to see that.



We know nothing until reviews are out though... I ignore all this PR nonsense, meaningless. In at 5.0GHz on air with an 8350. In at 5.0GHz on air with an 8350. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 9:24 Reply

#14 eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman TheLaughingMan I don't think they are referring to Summit Ridge. This sounds more like something we will see in Raven Ridge and Bristol Ridge. There is no reason to not including SMT with any performance level CPU. But for laptops, tablets, and other small devices where heat is the bigger concern, I can see variants of Zen without SMT Or M chips like the SktA/462 Days. Or M chips like the SktA/462 Days. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 9:27 Reply

#15 YautjaLord

YT kinda full with the "DOOM (4/2016/etc...) on Ryzen+Vega @ 4k in Vulkan 60+ fps" vids, that's covered, even tho haven't seen if AA/AF used as well, might check it, Ultra everything tho. :)



Back to topic, what the actual meaning of that "Sampling" is? Pre-launch? It's still far the f*ck away from Feb 27, let alone March 3rd, that's given. Only other thing given, with job i have right now, by the time Feb 27 comes-a-knockin i'll have enough for case (HAF X), mobo (preferably ASUS ROG-flavor) & 8c/16t flagship CPU, assuming it'll actually cost 500$. :) As for SMT disabled - all kinds of thoughts pop up in my head, from "Holy sh!t, this thing is that powerfull?" to "Good luck. Try not to shoot yourselves in both feet AMD". lol When exactly you'll have all of these (SR3, 5 & 7) to benchmark? Feb 27? Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 10:58 Reply

#16 Camm

I'm a little disappointed if this is true, and thought that we would see the end of this artificial bullshit. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 11:44 Reply

#17 TheLaughingMan

_Flare everybody knows that single-core-performance still counts like ever

even with DX12

so what will happen if:

a (too-low-clocked/or crappy-IPC/or too power-hungry) 4C/4T Zen gets beaten by a cheaper i3 or Pentium-HT in games ?



AMD is dead after 5 years of hard work then, digging their own expensive grave Well we already know for a fact that the max TDP is 95W so I am sure power-hungry is not going to be an issue. Minimum clock is 3.4 GHz which is about average for Intel right now. A modist OC to 4.0 GHz should be pretty damn easy. In fact, I expect most of the 4 core and 6 core varients to have clock speeds and/or boost speed at 4 GHz or higher. and IPC so far has fallen someone in the range of an Intel i7 6000 series give or take. I don't seen your concern here?



I only need to know two things. What will it cost? What is the official release lineup? And when that release will be.



I have savings already set aside, a brand new GPU that is being throttled by my FX-8350, and an upgrade itch to scratch. Well we already know for a fact that the max TDP is 95W so I am sure power-hungry is not going to be an issue. Minimum clock is 3.4 GHz which is about average for Intel right now. A modist OC to 4.0 GHz should be pretty damn easy. In fact, I expect most of the 4 core and 6 core varients to have clock speeds and/or boost speed at 4 GHz or higher. and IPC so far has fallen someone in the range of an Intel i7 6000 series give or take. I don't seen your concern here?I only need to know two things. What will it cost? What is the official release lineup? And when that release will be.I have savings already set aside, a brand new GPU that is being throttled by my FX-8350, and an upgrade itch to scratch. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 12:46 Reply

#18 Shihabyooo

RejZoR Now you're just imagining things. You would all gladly pay $400+ for a 6700K or 7700K, but you'd want an equally performing CPU from AMD for $200. How on Earth does that make any kind of sense? I wasn't particularly happy when I paid more for my mainstream 4770k than I did my HEDT 930, there wasn't any other choice to speak of however. Can't speak for everyone, but I doubt people pay those $400 for the prestige of it. Well, not anyone who would be yearning for an AMD comeback anyway.



Heck, if this idiotism -even if it was greatly implausible- could bring me affordable high performing processors? Let it be! I wasn't particularly happy when I paid more for my4770k than I did my930, there wasn't any other choice to speak of however. Can't speak for everyone, but I doubt people pay those $400 for the prestige of it. Well, not anyone who would be yearning for an AMD comeback anyway.Heck, if this idiotism -even if it was greatly implausible- could bring me affordable high performing processors? Let it be! Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 14:47 Reply

#19 hat

Enthusiast RejZoR Now you're just imagining things. You would all gladly pay $400+ for a 6700K or 7700K, but you'd want an equally performing CPU from AMD for $200. How on Earth does that make any kind of sense? It makes sense because we've seen Intel go bananas over the years with price hikes and minimal performance gains. We're hoping AMD knocks them down a few pegs and brings prices back down into a reasonable range. It makes sense because we've seen Intel go bananas over the years with price hikes and minimal performance gains. We're hoping AMD knocks them down a few pegs and brings prices back down into a reasonable range. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 21:25 Reply

#20 RejZoR

Yeah, but Intel actually didn't have competition for last few years and actually had a reasonably significant lead. Higher price is understandable. But when performance is within tiny margins, neither can afford higher or dramatically lower prices. Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 21:28 Reply

#21 R0H1T

RejZoR Yeah, but Intel actually didn't have competition for last few years and actually had a reasonably significant lead. Higher price is understandable. But when performance is within tiny margins, neither can afford higher or dramatically lower prices. Worked out pretty well for Nvidia didn't it? I'm sure people will pay (more) for the prestigious 6900K even if it's ~5 percent faster than the best SR7 or the ten core 6950x which retails north of 1700$ :shadedshu: Worked out pretty well for Nvidia didn't it? I'm sure people will pay (more) for the prestigious 6900K even if it's ~5 percent faster than the best SR7 or the ten core 6950x which retails north of 1700$ :shadedshu: Posted on Jan 12th 2017, 23:16 Reply

#22 Nordic

hat It makes sense because we've seen Intel go bananas over the years with price hikes ... Adjusted MSRP to inflation to match 2016 dollars.



Q9650 $339(2008) $380.02(2016)

2600k $317(2011) $340.13(2016)

2700k $332(2011) $356.23(2016)

3770k $313(2012) $329.03(2016)

4770k $339(2013) $351.22(2016)

4790k $339(2014) $345.61(2016)

6700k $350(2015) $356.40(2016)

7700k $350(2017) $350.00(2016)



Prices have not changed that much. I should note that the MSRP for the 7700k is set to $339.00 - $350.00. It could be the cheapest intel CPU in awhile, or it could be about the same price. I guess that depends on Ryzen.



You could argue that ~$350 is too expensive for the top end intel mainstream CPU, but that has been the approximate price for quite sometime now. The performance has not changed much in 5 years, but neither has the price. I think it is fair to say the CPU market is stagnant. Adjusted MSRP to inflation to match 2016 dollars.Q9650 $339(2008) $380.02(2016)2600k $317(2011) $340.13(2016)2700k $332(2011) $356.23(2016)3770k $313(2012) $329.03(2016)4770k $339(2013) $351.22(2016)4790k $339(2014) $345.61(2016)6700k $350(2015) $356.40(2016)7700k $350(2017) $350.00(2016)Prices have not changed that much. I should note that the MSRP for the 7700k is set to $339.00 - $350.00. It could be the cheapest intel CPU in awhile, or it could be about the same price. I guess that depends on Ryzen.You could argue that ~$350 is too expensive for the top end intel mainstream CPU, but that has been the approximate price for quite sometime now. The performance has not changed much in 5 years, but neither has the price. I think it is fair to say the CPU market is stagnant. Posted on Jan 14th 2017, 6:39 Reply

#23 cdawall

where the hell are my stars _Flare everybody knows that single-core-performance still counts like ever

even with DX12

so what will happen if:

a (too-low-clocked/or crappy-IPC/or too power-hungry) 4C/4T Zen gets beaten by a cheaper i3 or Pentium-HT in games ?



AMD is dead after 5 years of hard work then, digging their own expensive grave 3.3ghz with intel matching IPC is what the world of rumors show 3.3ghz with intel matching IPC is what the world of rumors show Posted on Jan 14th 2017, 14:26 Reply

#24 zimcomp

AMD has three things it needs to do

1/bring out a great cpu

2/they got to blast intel on bang for buck as well

3/ change peoples minds about them



its no good matching intel price and performance noone will change and even if AMD have a slight advantage because of how stagnant the market has become its not worth changing for most people



To have a good chance they have to offer the speed of a I7 for the price of a I3 or at minimum a I5 anything else will take 5 years to get the message accross and in 5 years intel could release the next new big thing Posted on Jan 14th 2017, 15:39 Reply

#25 Thefumigator

zimcomp AMD has three things it needs to do

1/bring out a great cpu

2/they got to blast intel on bang for buck as well

3/ change peoples minds about them point 1 and 2 will directly take effect on 3. point 1 and 2 will directly take effect on 3. Posted on Jan 14th 2017, 16:13 Reply