-68°
EXPIRED
AMD RYZEN 7 1800X 4.0GHZ 8 CORE £480.84 Kikatek
AMD RYZEN 7 1800X 4.0GHZ 8 CORE £480.84 Kikatek

AMD RYZEN 7 1800X 4.0GHZ 8 CORE £480.84 Kikatek

Buy forBuy forBuy for£480.84
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Leaked ryzen prices kikatek.com/adv…ZEN

22 Comments

I suspect they will have to be cheaper than that at launch otherwise people won't buy them over Intel.

How can anyone vote cold when we have no real world idea of the performance of these chips.

Well, to defend the guy, if this is the high end part, it is competing with intel's 6core/12 thread top tier which sells in the region of £800-£1000. Obviously benchmarks will show us ultimately whether it's worth the price, but I am keeping my fingers crossed.

I will build system once I have benchmark results. I don't mind IF they are 5-10% slower than Intel in single threaded benchmarks. so far leaked multithreaded benchmarks indicate these are equal or faster than Intel. 90% of software I use for work/game (BF4/BF1) optimise for multi core cpus.

If this is true, then this is a BARGAIN. This is an 8 core 20mb cache 16 thread summit ridge zen chip. It's meant to compete with a x99 broadwell e chip which retails at 1000$. Of course no one knows the benchmarks fully yet but it's comparable.

Cold until the performance is proven.

vmistery

I suspect they will have to be cheaper than that at launch otherwise … I suspect they will have to be cheaper than that at launch otherwise people won't buy them over Intel.



You should check, before posting things lije that really. This is supposedly the top model, essentially half the cost of inteks equivalent model.

Sounds unbelievable, but then you have to realise that Intel have been gouging fir so many years, whilst simultaneously making minir incremental improvements, all due to lack of competition.

This processors are what everyone has been waiting for.

Intel are already in damage control mode.

IF AMD had remained competitive, we'd all likely be using 32 core (possibly more) for not a great deal more than this. The market stagnated, gpu market has been the same.

Only time will tell

eiamhere69

You should check, before posting things lije that really. This is … You should check, before posting things lije that really. This is supposedly the top model, essentially half the cost of inteks equivalent model.Sounds unbelievable, but then you have to realise that Intel have been gouging fir so many years, whilst simultaneously making minir incremental improvements, all due to lack of competition.This processors are what everyone has been waiting for.Intel are already in damage control mode.IF AMD had remained competitive, we'd all likely be using 32 core (possibly more) for not a great deal more than this. The market stagnated, gpu market has been the same.Only time will tell




You definitely need more cores. I would set the affinity of a couple of those to some kind of grammar/spell check process.

Although this technically isn't a deal, it's a steal if the IPC is any where near that of the Intel chips.

Don't think this should be a deal, a discussion though? Sure

Banned

Heat added... free information

eiamhere69

You should check, before posting things lije that really. This is … You should check, before posting things lije that really. This is supposedly the top model, essentially half the cost of inteks equivalent model.Sounds unbelievable, but then you have to realise that Intel have been gouging fir so many years, whilst simultaneously making minir incremental improvements, all due to lack of competition.This processors are what everyone has been waiting for.Intel are already in damage control mode.IF AMD had remained competitive, we'd all likely be using 32 core (possibly more) for not a great deal more than this. The market stagnated, gpu market has been the same.Only time will tell



I know exactly what the leaked specs are but remember what happen around the P4 days, thing is AMD have an even bigger image problem now than they did then so even if their product is vastly better it will still need to be cheaper.

vmistery

I know exactly what the leaked specs are but remember what happen around … I know exactly what the leaked specs are but remember what happen around the P4 days, thing is AMD have an even bigger image problem now than they did then so even if their product is vastly better it will still need to be cheaper.



Alot of the "image problem" was created by intel ...

If performance hype is true this part is aimed to compete with the £1000 6900k.
http://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/news/5/6/56124_01_amd-ryzen-flagship-cpu-r7-1800x-cores-4ghz.jpg

If If If...

taras

Alot of the "image problem" was created by intel ...



Yep, they also basically bribed the big OEMs to not use AMD chips too. I'm not going to shed a tear if they get a black AMD shaped eye!

I do hope AMD get back into the game as it's about time they put out a chip to match/beat the performance of the Intel, that said I do wonder where we are at a plateau somewhat until the next big thing comes along.

Running a i7-4770 that's at least 2yrs old here but I don't really see the CPU being a bottleneck at the moment even in newer games.

vmistery

Yep, they also basically bribed the big OEMs to not use AMD chips too. … Yep, they also basically bribed the big OEMs to not use AMD chips too. I'm not going to shed a tear if they get a black AMD shaped eye!


It was even worse than just bribing. With the recent failure of embedded Atom C2xxx CPUs, I looked up some articles about where Atom went wrong (and the rather interesting question of why when dumping is illegal most everywhere, Intel were able to dump so much money into 'contra revenue' with any legal action anywhere), and came up with this:
extremetech.com/com…tom
The second comment is by someone who was there at the time (possible HP or Dell?) and although the quote is long it is rather interesting:
"Another reason Intel may have had such difficulties in locking down OEMs is due to how they've historically treated customers of their x86 products over the years. During the 90's and into the mid '00's, Intel ruthlessly leveraged their effective x86 monopoly to their own economic benefit, extracting whatever profits they possibly could from an OEM. Starting in the early 90's, I witnessed and was part of negotiations with senior Intel execs who would pit one PC OEM division of ours against another to force the entire company to use Intel CPUs. Example: They'd threaten to put the server and workstation division on a very tight allocation of new high-end parts if the consumer PC division continued to use cheaper AMD processors. At that time, the vast majority of the profits were made in the first 6 months of a CPU's lifecycle, and given the much higher gross margins of the server/workstation division, it forced the PC OEM to stop using AMD parts. The effect on the consumer PC business were substantial losses, but overall they were mitigated by the higher gross margins on servers. Less overall profits meant less ability to invest in non-Intel motherboard development, eviscerating the core engineering and intellectual property of the company (ASIC design talent went from a team of 60 to 0). There were many other little nasties that Intel foisted upon PC OEMs making it extraordinarily difficult to drive a profitable business.

My guess is there are many execs in the mobile business building hardware platforms that lived through those days of Intel's abuse, or learned enough about how they "managed" their OEMs to give substantial pause when choosing a CPU/SOC solution from Mother Intel. While I agree with virtually everything you wrote in your article about Intel's design and foundry decisions and their march toward irrelevance in mobile, I have to believe their past customer practices weighed heavily on new, mobile customers in terms of Intel's ability to secure new design wins. Why would any mobile OEM want to live under an Intel 2.0 hegemony?"
Edited by: "Gkains" 9th Feb

Gkains

It was even worse than just bribing. With the recent failure of embedded … It was even worse than just bribing. With the recent failure of embedded Atom C2xxx CPUs, I looked up some articles about where Atom went wrong (and the rather interesting question of why when dumping is illegal most everywhere, Intel were able to dump so much money into 'contra revenue' with any legal action anywhere), and came up with this:https://www.extremetech.com/computing/227816-how-intel-lost-the-mobile-market-part-2-the-rise-and-neglect-of-atomThe second comment is by someone who was there at the time (possible HP or Dell?) and although the quote is long it is rather interesting:"Another reason Intel may have had such difficulties in locking down OEMs is due to how they've historically treated customers of their x86 products over the years. During the 90's and into the mid '00's, Intel ruthlessly leveraged their effective x86 monopoly to their own economic benefit, extracting whatever profits they possibly could from an OEM. Starting in the early 90's, I witnessed and was part of negotiations with senior Intel execs who would pit one PC OEM division of ours against another to force the entire company to use Intel CPUs. Example: They'd threaten to put the server and workstation division on a very tight allocation of new high-end parts if the consumer PC division continued to use cheaper AMD processors. At that time, the vast majority of the profits were made in the first 6 months of a CPU's lifecycle, and given the much higher gross margins of the server/workstation division, it forced the PC OEM to stop using AMD parts. The effect on the consumer PC business were substantial losses, but overall they were mitigated by the higher gross margins on servers. Less overall profits meant less ability to invest in non-Intel motherboard development, eviscerating the core engineering and intellectual property of the company (ASIC design talent went from a team of 60 to 0). There were many other little nasties that Intel foisted upon PC OEMs making it extraordinarily difficult to drive a profitable business.My guess is there are many execs in the mobile business building hardware platforms that lived through those days of Intel's abuse, or learned enough about how they "managed" their OEMs to give substantial pause when choosing a CPU/SOC solution from Mother Intel. While I agree with virtually everything you wrote in your article about Intel's design and foundry decisions and their march toward irrelevance in mobile, I have to believe their past customer practices weighed heavily on new, mobile customers in terms of Intel's ability to secure new design wins. Why would any mobile OEM want to live under an Intel 2.0 hegemony?"


Haha speaking of those CPUs guess what runs my entire network at the moment:
hw.model: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU C2758 @ 2.40GHz
hw.machine: amd64
hw.ncpu: 8

Just waiting to see what SuperMicro are going to do about it...

vmistery

Haha speaking of those CPUs guess what runs my entire network at the … Haha speaking of those CPUs guess what runs my entire network at the moment:hw.model: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU C2758 @ 2.40GHzhw.machine: amd64hw.ncpu: 8Just waiting to see what SuperMicro are going to do about it...


So far it seems only Cisco are being pro-active. Guess their margins are high enough, and having tons of enterprise routers fail would be a disaster.
Synology's prices are high too but it seems they will only do something when a device fails. Guess their high prices are like Nvidia's: just high prices without good support.
(Mentioning Nvidia here as their infamous solder defect and the way kept trying - mostly successfully - burying it was one of the worst recent hardware defect issues, up their with Capacitor Plague although was spread over tons of vendors.)
Supermicro have been living in the high margin server market for decades so they should be able to afford to do something.
The nicest thing about this Atom issues is how so far most OEMs have not mentioned Intel as it seems they have some kind of NDA gagging agreement with Intel. A total misuse of legal agreements in my opinion but increasingly common.
While I wouldn't want OEMs to make excuses that it is all Intel's fault, I also don't think it is fair that the OEMs should suffer all the damage to their reputation and let Intel of the hook. But that is what mostly happened with the Nvidia solder defects: with the notorious HP DV6000 series, HP suffered almost all the reputation loss mostly unfairly. Yes, the DV6000 series had poor cooling which made the heat-cycle issue worse but all that meant is that they failed earlier than other laptops using those Nividia parts - but the nature of the solder defect meant that all those parts would eventually fail even if they had good cooling.
Edited by: "Gkains" 10th Feb

Gkains

So far it seems only Cisco are being pro-active. Guess their margins are … So far it seems only Cisco are being pro-active. Guess their margins are high enough, and having tons of enterprise routers fail would be a disaster.Synology's prices are high too but it seems they will only do something when a device fails. Guess their high prices are like Nvidia's: just high prices without good support. (Mentioning Nvidia here as their infamous solder defect and the way kept trying - mostly successfully - burying it was one of the worst recent hardware defect issues, up their with Capacitor Plague although was spread over tons of vendors.) Supermicro have been living in the high margin server market for decades so they should be able to afford to do something.The nicest thing about this Atom issues is how so far most OEMs have not mentioned Intel as it seems they have some kind of NDA gagging agreement with Intel. A total misuse of legal agreements in my opinion but increasingly common.While I wouldn't want OEMs to make excuses that it is all Intel's fault, I also don't think it is fair that the OEMs should suffer all the damage to their reputation and let Intel of the hook. But that is what mostly happened with the Nvidia solder defects: with the notorious HP DV6000 series, HP suffered almost all the reputation loss mostly unfairly. Yes, the DV6000 series had poor cooling which made the heat-cycle issue worse but all that meant is that they failed earlier than other laptops using those Nividia parts - but the nature of the solder defect meant that all those parts would eventually fail even if they had good cooling.


Thing is with SuperMicro you know you are getting a bit of a white box and that has its risks and benefits. We get the functionality and performance of a Cisco but at a fraction of the cost, the cost is then worse support and the fact you have a smaller pool of people who can actually use non-cisco kit for Networking puposes (and even fewer who can configure it well). Basically I don't expect SuperMicro to do much about it although no doubt they should, I did hear they might do a retune / replace for people who are worried but I can't recall where I read that.

For me as long as the r1800x performs within 10% of the 6900 in c4d I'm happy..And if the lower clocked ones are as overclockable as the 1800x is, i'm likely to buy them.. I suspect the lower speed ones are using too much power (beyond 95w) at 3.6ghz/4ghz..

the 65w 8c/16t part is very very tempting

my question in my head is - how much space have they got on the am4 socket for a 3rd zen core yes i'm thinking a 12c/24t monster
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text