AMD slides reveal January 10 launch date for non-X series Ryzen 7000 CPUs

Shawn Knight

Posts: 14,683   +175
Staff member
In brief: A series of leaked slides detailing AMD's near-term roadmap have hit the web and point to the imminent launch of three new non-X desktop CPUs. The trio of chips include the Ryzen 9 7900, the Ryzen 7 7700 and the Ryzen 5 7600.

The Ryzen 9 7900 is said to feature 12 cores / 24 threads, 76MB of cache and boasts clock speeds up to 5.4GHz. The Ryzen 7 7700, meanwhile, will pack eight cores / 16 threads, 40MB of cache and speeds of up to 5.3GHz while the Ryzen 5 7600 reportedly carries six cores / 12 threads, 38MB of cache and clocks of up to 5.1GHz. Base clock speeds were not referenced in the leaked slides.

In another slide, AMD compared the Ryzen 9 7900 to its own Ryzen 9 5900X across a series of games and creator-focused benchmarks. The new chip came out on top in every test presented, by as much as 31 percent in DOTA 2 and up to 48 percent in Corona Renderer.

Pricing is listed at $429, $329 and $229, respectively, and all three feature a TDP rating of 65 watts.

Over on Newegg, you can currently pick up similar X-based chips for $463.99, $346.98 and $248.99, meaning you would save $34.99, $17.98 or $19.99 by going with the non-X variant (based on the MSRPs in the slides). Launch is reportedly set for January 10, 2023, which is just a couple of days after CES.

Given the meager price differences, there is not a ton of incentive to go with a non-X chip unless you are really looking to keep power consumption (and thus, temperatures) down and have zero interest in overclocking. Personally, I'd spring for an X variant and offset the extra cost by going with a cheaper case or a slightly lower-tier motherboard that leaves off some bells and whistles I might not need.

Speaking of, CES 2023 officially kicks off on January 5 and runs through January 8 in Las Vegas. With any luck, AMD, Intel and a host of other hardware makers will have plenty of news to share starting next week.

Permalink to story.

 

Julnor

Posts: 134   +139
How about some lower motherboard costs? Not much point to introducing cheaper and slower skus if a comparable Intel platform is significantly cheaper…

Tech companies are still operating on pandemic and crypto highs. Not until they spend a year or two seeing little to no sales will they reduce any prices.

Personally I hope for gaming most people move back into consoles. TBH I am very much considering it myself. The value is just so much better, and no driver or OS headaches.
 

rmcrys

Posts: 342   +281
Personally I hope for gaming most people move back into consoles. TBH I am very much considering it myself. The value is just so much better, and no driver or OS headaches.

I never had important OS/driver issues, besides a rx6700 or rtx 3060ti give you the same power but you can do everything with that power (work, CAD, etc) and you can have your entire game library working. Yes, a PC like that costs a little bit over what you pay for a PS5 but you can upgrade it and you have much more usability.

In my country a PS5 costs almost 700€, a rtx 3060ti costs around 350€. If you buy the entire PC you'll spend around 900€ with decent parts, being more powerful than the PS5, but you do much more with it.
 

poshflamingos

Posts: 46   +129
I never had important OS/driver issues, besides a rx6700 or rtx 3060ti give you the same power but you can do everything with that power (work, CAD, etc) and you can have your entire game library working. Yes, a PC like that costs a little bit over what you pay for a PS5 but you can upgrade it and you have much more usability.

In my country a PS5 costs almost 700€, a rtx 3060ti costs around 350€. If you buy the entire PC you'll spend around 900€ with decent parts, being more powerful than the PS5, but you do much more with it.

Don't forget that consoles don't cost just $500 (or local equivalent), they cost $500 plus $60/year in online subscriptions. After a 7-year generation, that "$500 console" will actually have costed $920.

Meanwhile, every PC, regardless of price, comes with free lifetime access to those online features (online multiplayer, cloud saves, digital store sales, monthly giveaways and so on) that Sony and Microsoft artificially lock behind the subscription. When you factor that in, you don't actually save any meaningful amount of money going for consoles over PC.
 

veLa

Posts: 1,191   +871
How about some lower motherboard costs? Not much point to introducing cheaper and slower skus if a comparable Intel platform is significantly cheaper…
Real talk though. The fact they cost so much and require DDR5 has got to be off putting to some.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,732   +3,123
Real talk though. The fact they cost so much and require DDR5 has got to be off putting to some.
DDR5 pricing hasn't been too much of an off put for me, it's not really much more expensive than decent DDR4.
Motherboard pricing though is pretty insane and is ultimately why I haven't bought into the AM5 platform yet.

That and AMD made the mistake of telling me that an X3D V-Cache varient of their new CPU's is right around the corner.
I have a new case, watercooling loop, GPU, RAM, waterblocks, everything, just no motherboard, CPU, SSD's or PSU. Holding out for early next year to see if we get any info on the CPU's at CES and see if Motherboard pricing shakes a little bit. Hopefully ATX 3.0 PSU's become more readily available as well.
 

opckieran

Posts: 78   +162
Tech companies are still operating on pandemic and crypto highs. Not until they spend a year or two seeing little to no sales will they reduce any prices.

Personally I hope for gaming most people move back into consoles. TBH I am very much considering it myself. The value is just so much better, and no driver or OS headaches.
How tf am I gonna buy NFTs on a console?
 

Jack77

Posts: 14   +14
Tech companies are still operating on pandemic and crypto highs. Not until they spend a year or two seeing little to no sales will they reduce any prices.

Nah, Nvidia has smelled money. Over time they will probably try to make AIB's completely obsolete for high-end cards, so they can earn more. And what the mid- and low-end is concerned: well, those that don't or can't spend a crazy amount of money on a GPU anymore, will be pushed towards Geforce Now. The latter implies that Nvidia does not have order too many chips and manage stocks anymore, and is assured of a year-round subscription income.They can play with the fees as they like, and the consumer will ultimately spend more than buying a new GPU every 3-4 years.
 

McMurdeR

Posts: 675   +933
Real talk though. The fact they cost so much and require DDR5 has got to be off putting to some.

The requirement is absolutely a serious consideration for those who already posses some good DDR4. For everyone else, DDR5 prices continue to plummit.

Having built an AM5 system recently, I'd be on the side of those who point their fingers at the motherboards - there are no good value options, it's all high-end or don't bother.

That leads me to my biggest criticism of of th AM5 release, and I'd say the same of RTX 4000, Radeon 7000 and to a lessor degree, Raptor Lake. These guys have taken to releasing high end only, withholding all the really good stuff for months, in a bid to generate loads of click-bait on YouTube, and capitolize on the higher margins. It's taken all of the excitement out of big releases. It's arguably back-fired anyway, as the reception of these products has been luke-warm to say the least, and the AIBs have joined in to take their 'cut'.

 

rmcrys

Posts: 342   +281
Over time they will probably try to make AIB's completely obsolete for high-end cards, so they can earn more. And what the mid- and low-end is concerned: well, those that don't or can't spend a crazy amount of money on a GPU anymore, will be pushed towards Geforce Now.
there are no good value options, it's all high-end or don't bother.
Well what jack said it's what's where everything is going to:
- cut the middle man
- sell services/ subscription for the low end / less demanding so all win for Nvidia and others €€
- sell consoles + online subscription for the mid end €€€
- sell real hardware, cutting out the middle man, for the high-end €€€€

So, it is possible that in a few years you just can't play on anything cheaper than 750€, just streaming; then you have to buy a console between 750 - 1250€ (they will tell you hardware got too expensive to manufacture) and for high-end graphics 1250-5000€ hardware or higher.
 

Jack77

Posts: 14   +14
Well what jack said it's what's where everything is going to:
- cut the middle man
- sell services/ subscription for the low end / less demanding so all win for Nvidia and others €€
- sell consoles + online subscription for the mid end €€€
- sell real hardware, cutting out the middle man, for the high-end €€€€

So, it is possible that in a few years you just can't play on anything cheaper than 750€, just streaming; then you have to buy a console between 750 - 1250€ (they will tell you hardware got too expensive to manufacture) and for high-end graphics 1250-5000€ hardware or higher.

I'll say even more. Nvidia has seen it's ARM-deal go down the drain. Pushing consumers to game streaming services would be a great win for Nvidia. Because who will then need a powerful CPU? Content creators and professionals. Not gamers. So Intel and AMD would be losing a market. And Nvidia will only win.

So AMD is quite stupid to follow suit and jack-up GPU prices. Because that will help Nvidia reach it's goal sooner.

If Nvidia can then win a few console deals or attract console gamers to it's streaming service (better graphics/RTX), AMD will lose even more bread and butter.

How much server chiplet R&D can you write off on simple CPU's sufficient for NUC's alone?

(AMD is also very stupid to become cocky about itself and negative about competitors. They lose mindshare that way. And it comes back as a boomerang when they screw up themselvers, eg the RX7900XT(X) debacle)
 
Last edited: