AMD Announces 2nd Generation Ryzen 7 & 5 CPUs: Pricing, Pre-Orders

Image

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Image

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Image

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Processor

Image

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • P1nky
    general availability on August 19. :)
    Reply
  • philipemaciel
    August 19 would be very disappointing.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    20882076 said:
    general availability on August 19. :)

    oops! Thanks, fixed.
    Reply
  • gggplaya
    Welp, i'm definitely getting a 2700x
    Reply
  • Giroro
    I can't decide what's more disappointing: the increased price or the increased TDP.

    I thought "12nm" was supposed to be a better process. But if it's not better in terms of price or heat, then you might as well overclock an 1800x - which has been steadily available at $319 for quite a while.
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    In my personal opinion and unless there's a truly significant difference in performance over the 1800X, I don't really see the point when you can currently get the 1800X for cheaper (though it does not come with a cooler, so there's that). Now if we were talking regular retail versus sale prices, that's something else. To that, as I'm not a very firm believer in "leaked" benchmarks, I guess I'll be waiting to see how it performs by comparison.

    Any word on when the new chipset boards will be available or should we expect those around the same time?
    Reply
  • salgado18
    20882489 said:
    I can't decide what's more disappointing: the increased price or the increased TDP.

    I thought "12nm" was supposed to be a better process. But if it's not better in terms of price or heat, then you might as well overclock an 1800x - which has been steadily available at $319 for quite a while.

    The increase in price comes with a very good cooler, but in general, the price increase is small. The increase in TDP comes from the improved clocks, but on the previous 14nm LPP, probably we would see something like 20W-30W increase for the same clocks, and here we have only 10W. Also, memory controller is better, and a lot has improved in other areas.

    You must be disappointed because you expected 25% increase but got 15% instead. Well, they only promised 15% anyway, and delivered on that.
    Reply
  • Martell1977
    Glad to see AMD staying in the game.

    However, your charts say 16mb cache while AMD's slides say the 2700X and 2700 have 20mb and the 2600X and 2600 have 19mb.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    20882597 said:
    Glad to see AMD staying in the game.

    However, your charts say 16mb cache while AMD's slides say the 2700X and 2700 have 20mb and the 2600X and 2600 have 19mb.

    We're just listing the L3 cache there, each core comes with a 512KB slice of L2 cache, bringing the aggregate to 20/19.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    20882576 said:
    20882489 said:
    I can't decide what's more disappointing: the increased price or the increased TDP.

    I thought "12nm" was supposed to be a better process. But if it's not better in terms of price or heat, then you might as well overclock an 1800x - which has been steadily available at $319 for quite a while.

    The increase in price comes with a very good cooler, but in general, the price increase is small. The increase in TDP comes from the improved clocks, but on the previous 14nm LPP, probably we would see something like 20W-30W increase for the same clocks, and here we have only 10W. Also, memory controller is better, and a lot has improved in other areas.

    You must be disappointed because you expected 25% increase but got 15% instead. Well, they only promised 15% anyway, and delivered on that.

    I assume you are saying I must be disappointed because the increase (in performance?) is too low, but there no information on performance here. I am complaining about a price hike, combined with disappointment that 12nm does not actually appear to increase efficiency (or possibly die density) over 14nm.
    The architecture improvements in Ryzen 2 seem very minor, especially when slight bumps to base frequency and XFR don't actually help to anyone who would overclock Ryzen - which I imagine is most people reading this.

    Maybe AMD knows something we don't and Ryzen 2 overclocks way better than Ryzen 1 or something. It does look like you are paying ~10% more for a processor with ~10% faster clocks (including memory) that gets ~10% hotter. So it feels more like you're paying for a factory overclock of the last-gen instead of a real iteration, which is fine I guess .. but not exactly going to win over many of the people who were waiting to hear about Ryzen 2 before going forward with their Intel build.
    Reply