AMD Ryzen: Prices revealed, no Windows 7 support, smaller than Skylake

[avioza]

"In other Ryzen news, AMD has confirmed that its upcoming CPUs won’t be supported for Windows 7. "

AMD, you blew it again.

I was thinking the same thing. They could have capitalized on this. A forty market share in favor of W7 still... they must have seen that potential.

I bet Microsoft saw that possibility as well, maybe they bought them off somehow.

 

[EClyde]

No reason to upgrade my i5 devil's canyon to this or anything else. Long Live Win 7 !!
Of course 10 is fine if you wear tight pants, like all the new TV show's and enjoy ATT, Verizon and all the other wireless carrier commercials

 

[Larak]

"In other Ryzen news, AMD has confirmed that its upcoming CPUs won’t be supported for Windows 7. "

AMD, you blew it again.

It was announced by Microsoft that newer CPU would only be supported by Windows 10.

 

[wiliiam payne]

The Ryzen 7 1700, which has a TDP of 65 watts. Ouch.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I was thinking the same thing. They could have capitalized on this. A forty market share in favor of W7 still... they must have seen that potential.

I bet Microsoft saw that possibility as well, maybe they bought them off somehow.

Guess you were ALSO not thinking.... NO new CPUs support Windows 7 officially... Yes, they will most likely work "fine" - but any new features won't work....

Yes, Windows 7 still has a very large market share - but that's on ALREADY PURCHASED COMPUTERS!!!! The vast majority of people buying a new CPU are going to be putting it into a NEW PC!!! And very few people will be installing a seven year old OS into a new PC!!

Guess what? Windows 95 would probably work on a new CPU as well.... but only a crazy person would install it....

 

[Evernessince]

Guess you were ALSO not thinking.... NO new CPUs support Windows 7 officially... Yes, they will most likely work "fine" - but any new features won't work....

Yes, Windows 7 still has a very large market share - but that's on ALREADY PURCHASED COMPUTERS!!!! The vast majority of people buying a new CPU are going to be putting it into a NEW PC!!! And very few people will be installing a seven year old OS into a new PC!!

Guess what? Windows 95 would probably work on a new CPU as well.... but only a crazy person would install it....

I know plenty of people and businesses who will be installing windows 7 on new computers. Soon enough though you might be right because no new computer parts will even work with the OS. Good news for the used market though.

I would say the vast majority of gamers are going to install windows 10 but I most certainly wouldn't say that most installs of OSes on new systems are going to be windows 10 over 7.

"Guess what? Windows 95 would probably work on a new CPU as well.... but only a crazy person would install it...."

That or legacy software that only works on that operating system. Same thing goes for the whole windows 7 vs 10 debate. You don't have to be crazy to dislike many windows 10 "features" either.

 

[m3tavision]

$317 to $490? Without benchmark scores to back them up, these prices are much too high. An i7 7700k costs $349. Does AMD actually believe Ryzen is going to be significantly better than that? Based on the information in this article, if I had to buy a processor today, I'm buying Intel.

Well, You are uniformed, that is why you'd choose Intel today.


Understand, that the Intel Core i7 is a 4 core, 8 thread CPU & the i5 is a 4 core, 4 thread CPU (no hyperthreading).

While AMD's new Ryzen chips come in 4c/8th, 6c/12th, or 8c/16th configurations. And if you are trying to compare the i7, don't use the $317/$490 prices, look to the 4c/8th chips... which will start about $169 bucks..!

The high end AMD CPU will compete with Intel's 6900k, which is a $1,100 CPU. And for only $490, the R7 should be a massive bargain for HEDT.

 

[lordraptor1]

Well no more support for AMD, sorry but I will NOT be forced into windows, 8, 8.1, 10, or any other OS especially if the os is a portable device os adapted to desktop/laptop duty. so thanks AMD you just made sure I wouldnt buy another GPU from you because you apparently are helping MS force their O/S down the throats of consumers. for that I say you can go pound sand, kiss up a rope, or ( insert profane of your choice or just go F yourself)

 

[lordraptor1]

$317 to $490? Without benchmark scores to back them up, these prices are much too high. An i7 7700k costs $349. Does AMD actually believe Ryzen is going to be significantly better than that? Based on the information in this article, if I had to buy a processor today, I'm buying Intel.

Well, You are uniformed, that is why you'd choose Intel today.


sadly you are not fully informed yourself dude some I7 were in fact hexa core (I7 980x being one for an example).

what this boils down to is this, amd is helping Mshaft force tehir new POS O/S on consumers and I for one say they can go pound sand.

Understand, that the Intel Core i7 is a 4 core, 8 thread CPU & the i5 is a 4 core, 4 thread CPU (no hyperthreading).

While AMD's new Ryzen chips come in 4c/8th, 6c/12th, or 8c/16th configurations. And if you are trying to compare the i7, don't use the $317/$490 prices, look to the 4c/8th chips... which will start about $169 bucks..!

The high end AMD CPU will compete with Intel's 6900k, which is a $1,100 CPU. And for only $490, the R7 should be a massive bargain for HEDT.

 

[lordraptor1]

"In other Ryzen news, AMD has confirmed that its upcoming CPUs won’t be supported for Windows 7. "

AMD, you blew it again.

You do know Kaby Lake also doesn't support Windows 7.... Windows 10 is the only way to go moving forward... why on Earth would you buy a brand new processor and put in an OS that is over 7 years old?!!?!?

I don't really believe that Ryzen will "blow Intel out of the water" either - but blasting them for failing to support Windows 7 is just inane.

maybe because I personally wont be forced into an O/S let alone one designed for mobile devices such as cell phones and tablets which is ported t work on desktops and laptops ( and poorly since laptops and desktops dont normally come equipped with touch screen monitors/tv's).

if it aint broke dont fix it and that is what my current windows 7 rig is ( NOT broke so I dont need to change or fix anything). if and when the time comes that I do have to go with a new PC I wont care about the hardware that is in it because I wont be playing PC games anymore when that time comes.

 

[lripplinger]

As much as I'd like to root for AMD, they have to surpass Intel in performance. They can't just come out with a chip that only performs at current Intel levels. They have to blow past Intel like they did once upon a time. I am also concerned how long it has taken AMD to bring something more modern to the market. I think it is a very legitimate question: is it too little, to late for AMD?

 

[DeathlordXizin]

$317 to $490? Without benchmark scores to back them up, these prices are much too high. An i7 7700k costs $349. Does AMD actually believe Ryzen is going to be significantly better than that? Based on the information in this article, if I had to buy a processor today, I'm buying Intel.

You do realize that you are comparing pricing of a Quadcore (i7 7700k) to AMD 8 core Ryzen CPUs. The Quadcore variants of Ryzen are about half the price. I suggest you read the article more carefully next time.

QUOTE: "Online store www.shopblt.com has leaked the prices of three Ryzen 7 Series SKUs - the Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 7 1700X, and Ryzen 7 1700. All models come with 8 cores and 16 threads - the same as Intel’s $1049 Core i7-6900K.
The Ryzen 7 1700, which has a TDP of 65 watts and boost clock speed of 3.7Ghz, costs just $317 - around 70 percent cheaper than Intel’s chip, which has the same clock speed and a TDP of 140W.
The 3.4Ghz Base/3.8Ghz Boost Ryzen 7 1700X, meanwhile, has a TDP of 95 watts and costs $382. AMD’s flagship 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz 1800X flagship chip costs $490."

 

[Phr3d]

Can you say XBox? if MS didn't have a hand in the Win10-only requirement, some Long ways (APU-choice) back..
well, I'd be surprised
Using your old paid-for happy-with-it OS on your new build is far from unheard of -- but in that case, you could install the newly required drivers before migrating your drive.. and since you're going to wait until the specs and compares arrive and GOOD MoBos to support Ryzen well if it Does live up to the promise..
the remaining critical drivers will probably already be released, a la Intel's.

so, no worries about the Win10 requirement, Party on Garth..

 

[GreenNova343]

No reason to upgrade my i5 devil's canyon to this or anything else. Long Live Win 7 !!
Of course 10 is fine if you wear tight pants, like all the new TV show's and enjoy ATT, Verizon and all the other wireless carrier commercials

*checks pants* Nope, still wearing the relaxed fit...

*reviews TV watching history* Oh, wait, that's right: unless the new show is on Netflix, I don't usually watch it (except for the Arrowverse shows on CW, & even those I watch afterwards in their app).

*commercials* Commercials? Unless I'm watching the news or listening to the radio, the only commercials I get are on some of the movie apps on my Roku...& even those rarely are related to wireless carriers.

Windows 10 has been more than fine for me. Both my desktop & laptop have been more than fine with zero glitches or issues. I don't get bombarded by commercials or ads on it, either -- except the occasional popup "reminding" me that Edge is faster than Firefox or Chrome, but that's easily ignored/clicked away (& a lot easier to deal with than the annoying popups & video ads from, say, CNN).

 

[mbrowne5061]

"In other Ryzen news, AMD has confirmed that its upcoming CPUs won’t be supported for Windows 7. "

AMD, you blew it again.

How? Microsoft isn't selling new Windows 7 SKUs to OEMs or in stores. The only people who this move affects are those who are trying to continuously update hardware without updating software; a small audience in the overall computer market.

Plus, they must all have known that this day was coming. I don't think anyone would expect modern hardware to support Windows XP either, but that doesn't mean modern hardware can't run XP at all.

 

[mateau]

@Bob Thubron

This story is a complete fabrication. Ryzen runs Windows 7 100%. Win 7 is compiled using x86-64 instruction set.


Windows 7 however FAILS to enable ALL RYZEN capabilities.


Windows 7 ONLY supports DX11. Windows 8 supports DX11.3 and Windows 10 supports DX12.


If you are a serious gamer then you would not use obsolete Windows 7 or the equally obsolete API DX11. You would use Wind 10 and DX12.


The author ripped the story off from PCWORLD.

 

[Michael7]

This looks like it's going to be interesting time - for a long time that AMD can finnaly crush intel by offering processors that are not only way cheaper but also faster and more efficient.

 

[avioza]

Guess you were ALSO not thinking.... NO new CPUs support Windows 7 officially... Yes, they will most likely work "fine" - but any new features won't work.

I was thinking that as you point out, that "announcement" is indeed relatively superfluous with regard to the proc functioning on W7, however from a marketing strategy standpoint AMD could have said their Processors would continue to have Software support for both Windows 10 and Window 7 and then appealed to the portion of consumers and businesses resisting Windows 10 (a significant number I think we can all agree) without risking much of anything except the disapproval of Microsoft and the additional staffing costs for continued software support of the older OS.

I admit I am ignorant as to what that might realistically cost AMD but I imagine these factors were considered at some point.

 

[LemmingOverlrd]

AMD knows if they want to gain back any of the market, they need to crush Intel on pricing. This is promising.

Hey. The fact that the CPU is 10% smaller means (at least) two things:

1) considering these are produced on 12-inch silicon wafers, you can get more CPUs per wafer.
2) a smaller CPU translates into a simpler circuitry, meaning the defect rate may be more tolerable.

Both have a direct impact on the final production cost.

 

[Maxw3ll]

$317 to $490? Without benchmark scores to back them up, these prices are much too high. An i7 7700k costs $349. Does AMD actually believe Ryzen is going to be significantly better than that? Based on the information in this article, if I had to buy a processor today, I'm buying Intel.

Yeah... but these 3 CPUs are 8/16, which competes with the flagship i7 6900K that costs more than 1000 USD.
The i7 7700K costs 349$ but is a 4/8 CPU. Ryzen 7 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, lower TDP and costs less... and competes with a 6800 lineup which costs 400/600 usd...

 

[gusticles41]

Well no more support for AMD, sorry but I will NOT be forced into windows, 8, 8.1, 10, or any other OS especially if the os is a portable device os adapted to desktop/laptop duty. so thanks AMD you just made sure I wouldnt buy another GPU from you because you apparently are helping MS force their O/S down the throats of consumers. for that I say you can go pound sand, kiss up a rope, or ( insert profane of your choice or just go F yourself)

As we've covered, Intel has done the same thing with Kaby Lake...Sooo what processor are you planning on buying exactly if you only buy from companies who don't "force" you down a path?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Once again, we have people confused with the difference between "compatibility" and "support".... Windows 7 (and pretty much any other OS known to man) WILL be COMPATIBLE with AMD's new CPU... AMD simply won't SUPPORT it - since there are various new hardware functions that Windows 7 simply doesn't allow for.

As many have already posted... if you want all the brand new features of this brand new CPU, don't be dumb enough to then install a 7 year old OS on the PC you want to run it!

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

What does it really mean that it's 10% smaller? It's not like a CPU uses a lot of real estate, is there a more technical thing that I'm missing?

Edit:

AMD knows if they want to gain back any of the market, they need to crush Intel on pricing. This is promising.

When they offer something like the high end yet they price it almost on a third of the price, doesn't seem that promising. Back from the Core 2 Duo days, AMD had more cores yet it failed to deliver an on par performance on the high end level. Amd has always been there on the bang for the buck and cheap market but intel is driving them away from it with their latest pentium line.

Hope they make something from these procs, but Intel has had no real competitor for a long time and that's not good for anyone.

I disagree. Every time I've had to upgrade over the past 25 years, I've gone back and forth about which brand CPU I would use and every time I land on AMD. So far, I've had far more success using AMD chips for performance for what I do (video game development, 3D modeling/animation, gaming, video production) than I ever got out of Intel's chips and at a far lesser price.

 

[Kibaruk]

I disagree. Every time I've had to upgrade over the past 25 years, I've gone back and forth about which brand CPU I would use and every time I land on AMD. So far, I've had far more success using AMD chips for performance for what I do (video game development, 3D modeling/animation, gaming, video production) than I ever got out of Intel's chips and at a far lesser price.

Well... you just said it! This is because of what is useful to YOU, not because AMD beats Intel in performance, and I can assure you went in for the "Best bang for the buck" proc, not the fastest. Which is perfect, good for you! The thing is, Intel still has the enthusiast market, and they are also bringing in the fight to AMD in the best bang for the buck. Hell! The new $64 pentium is almost on par with one of the high end FX8320E (Overclocked FX proc) and even in some encoding tasks the $64 intel proc beats AMDs $120 offering (Benchmarks by Techspot here).

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

Well... you just said it! This is because of what is useful to YOU, not because AMD beats Intel in performance, and I can assure you went in for the "Best bang for the buck" proc, not the fastest. Which is perfect, good for you! The thing is, Intel still has the enthusiast market, and they are also bringing in the fight to AMD in the best bang for the buck. Hell! The new $64 pentium is almost on par with one of the high end FX8320E (Overclocked FX proc) and even in some encoding tasks the $64 intel proc beats AMDs $120 offering (Benchmarks by Techspot here).

That explains why I keep seeing gamers on Steam complaining about how certain games that run smoothly for me with a GPU that's 6 generations behind are running like crap on theirs with a newer GPU and their i5 or i7.