AMD reveals Threadripper specs and pricing

[Jos]

We already know a few things about Threadripper, including that they will have up to 16-cores and 32-threads and include 64 PCI Express 3.0 lanes. Although the launch is still a few weeks off, AMD has now revealed specs and pricing on the first couple of models coming out in August. As expected, they are considerably cheaper than their Intel counterparts.

First up is the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, which will have 12 cores / 24 threads and a 3.5GHz base speed that can boost to 4.0GHz. Priced at $799, it should cost $400 less than Intel’s comparable Core i9-7920X. Meanwhile, the top-tier Threadripper 1950X will be priced at $999, offering 16 cores / 32 threads clocked at 3.4GHz with boosted speeds up to 4.0GHz. Intel’s comparable model would be the 16 cores / 32 thread Core i9-7960X which is expected to cost $1,699.

Looking at the entire lineup, AMD is keeping pricing consistent relative to the number of cores — about $60 - $70 per core. Just as it did with the Ryzen 5 and 7 lineup, the company is looking to kick the legs out from Intel’s price structure on the upper end of the spectrum, too.

AMD says that it will begin shipping Ryzen Threadripper CPUs and motherboards in early August. The company also confirmed that preorders of Alienware’s Area-51 systems will begin on July 27, with deliveries planned for early August to coincide with general availability for its new chips.

Meanwhile, on the lower end of things, the first Ryzen 3 quad-core chips will be available starting July 27 in the form of the Ryzen 3 1200 (3.1 GHz base, 3.4 GHz boost) and the Ryzen 3 1300X (3.5 GHz / 3.7 GHz). They both pack four cores and four threads (no SMT support), and will fit into current AM4 motherboards.

AMD didn’t share pricing for the initial Ryzen 3 lineup. For reference, the cheapest Ryzen 5 part is priced at $165, so we expect these budget-focused CPUs will be a bit closer to $100.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/70117-amd-reveals-threadripper-specs-pricing.html

 

[Kenrick]

Awesome! Hopefully Steve would review all the chips especially the 1300X.

 

[HardReset]

Again, AMD is kicking Intel's ***.

Btw. Ryzen 5 1400 official pricing is $169.

 

[Greg S]

$800 might be a little rich for me for just a CPU, but the numbers are looking promising to make Intel actually do something about their pricing.

 

[davislane1]

I9 = DOA. They Microsoft'd themselves.

 

[HardReset]

$800 might be a little rich for me for just a CPU, but the numbers are looking promising to make Intel actually do something about their pricing.

Intel isn't going to lower prices for long time.

 

[Greg S]

Intel isn't going to lower prices for long time.

You are probably right, but if the performance is there, you can bet that Threadripper will give AMD a large gain of market share.

 

[HardReset]

You are probably right, but if the performance is there, you can bet that Threadripper will give AMD a large gain of market share.

Not so sure about that market share either. Majority of buyers are stupid and probably buy Intel because it's Intel.

 

[Uncle Al]

AMD continues to amaze .... and the consumer reaps the benefits!

 

[CaptainTom]

Yup 4.0GHz on the 16-core, just like me and many others said it would be.

Only thing that really surprised me is the $999 price. Guess they really want to crush Intel at all levels.

 

[Skjorn]

Yup 4.0GHz on the 16-core, just like me and many others said it would be.

Only thing that really surprised me is the $999 price. Guess they really want to crush Intel at all levels.

4GHz on all 16 cores or is it limited to a certain amount of cores? I can't see it being all 16 running that fast.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Steve, you have very busy and exciting months ahead of you.
We are keen to see your test results!! ;-)

 

[HardReset]

4GHz on all 16 cores or is it limited to a certain amount of cores? I can't see it being all 16 running that fast.

3.4 GHz base, 4 GHz boost. Probably around 3.6 GHz on 16 core load.

 

[Mister_K]

Now if only Vega wasn't such a phail*

 

[CaptainTom]

3.4 GHz base, 4 GHz boost. Probably around 3.6 GHz on 16 core load.

With overclocking and a beefy AIO 4.0 Should be quite doable

 

[HardReset]

Now if only Vega wasn't such a phail*

Err what? Vega founders edition is good product and Vega RX is not released yet "(y)"

 

[Danny101]

They both pack four cores and four threads (no SMT support)

I don't understand this, unless it's the only thing that qualifies it as Ryzen 3. Given the issue that there were some problems with it turned on, maybe it just isn't necessary. I wouldn't mind a dual-core at 4.5ghz and above. Adding more cores has turned out to be useless/a dud in many cases. Multi-core management in software has been terrible. More speed and smarter threading looks to be the ticket for todays software and games. Developers are slow (and a bit lazy) in utilizing and managing the extra cores. Hopefully Direct X API's and other API's are solving this problem.

It's simply inexcusable when a 4-core 2ghz processor can't match a dual-core 4ghz processor in most cases. It's a management problem.

 

[HardReset]

That's called product placement. Another option would have been 2 cores + HT, but that is saved for future releases with integrated GPU. So 4 cores without HT and lower price than 4 cores + HT makes sense here.

 

[maxxcool]

Intel isn't going to lower prices for long time.

You are probably right, but if the performance is there, you can bet that Threadripper will give AMD a large gain of market share.

*only* in the private space, and only for enthusiasts which are sub 5% of the market really. the initial issue AMD faces is existing IT contracts, and fear of the unknown. Some contracts are intel only, debate that later... for now some vendors only supply Intel. others will fear the new ARCH as they feat it may be buggy and or may have poor support.

as time goes on all three of those things resolve.. THEN we will see the real impact of AMDs strategy.

 

[mrjgriffin]

Yup 4.0GHz on the 16-core, just like me and many others said it would be.

Only thing that really surprised me is the $999 price. Guess they really want to crush Intel at all levels.

4GHz on all 16 cores or is it limited to a certain amount of cores? I can't see it being all 16 running that fast.

if it's not 4 ghz on all 16 cores im sure there will be 3rd party software to make it 4ghz on all 16 cores. my concern is how hot it will get under full load and if an air cooler can handle it. the 1800x is pretty hot on air

 

[ddferrari]

"Majority of buyers are stupid and probably buy Intel because it's Intel."

Yes- it's clearly smarter to buy a much weaker chip for $50 less... because that requires a lot of lawn mowing and paper deliveries.

 

[namesrejected]

"Majority of buyers are stupid and probably buy Intel because it's Intel."

Yes- it's clearly smarter to buy a much weaker chip for $50 less... because that requires a lot of lawn mowing and paper deliveries.

HEHE, You little Troll you...

Anyhow, I'm curious about the Mobo pricing. From what I have read the socket for these things is going to jack the price up on the motherboards by a good chunk. The processor may be * greater than $50 cheaper * ( Poke Poke ddferrari ), but they may not hurt Intel if the motherboard is 150$ more than Intel equivalent boards ( none will be btw, all them PCIE lanes #drool ).

 

[Puiu]

Yup 4.0GHz on the 16-core, just like me and many others said it would be.

Only thing that really surprised me is the $999 price. Guess they really want to crush Intel at all levels.

4GHz on all 16 cores or is it limited to a certain amount of cores? I can't see it being all 16 running that fast.

if it's not 4 ghz on all 16 cores im sure there will be 3rd party software to make it 4ghz on all 16 cores. my concern is how hot it will get under full load and if an air cooler can handle it. the 1800x is pretty hot on air

pretty sure that the can 1800x get to 3.9GHz on stock cooler (which is freaking amazing if you ask me). the temps will be just fine on the 16 core CPU if you put an better than average cooler on it. unlike Intel's design which puts all cores very close to each other, AMD opted for a larger chip that has 2 clusters of 8 cores. the fact that heat is not localised in just one spot and the larger die should make it easier to cool the CPU (at least easier than Intel i9 CPUs)

 

[ddferrari]

HEHE, You little Troll you...

Anyhow, I'm curious about the Mobo pricing. From what I have read the socket for these things is going to jack the price up on the motherboards by a good chunk. The processor may be * greater than $50 cheaper * ( Poke Poke ddferrari ), but they may not hurt Intel if the motherboard is 150$ more than Intel equivalent boards ( none will be btw, all them PCIE lanes #drool ).

Stop- you're making me blush! AMD's Bulldozer series (love the powerful names, despite the actual performance) were weak at best. People (including myself) bought Intel because it was a better product. The price difference didn't matter to me- sometimes you don't want to settle for just "good for the money", you want good at any price.

 

[Mister_K]

Err what? Vega founders edition is good product and Vega RX is not released yet "(y)"

Vega FE is just an average release. Vega RX "drivers gonna fixit" sorry but no, AMDs ball has been dropped and flattened this time around.