Ryzen CPU prices fall as third-generation chips draw closer

midian182

Posts: 6,677   +59
Staff member

The cheapest Ryzen processor you can grab is the Ryzen 5 1600, which is available for $119— $69 below the original MSRP—on Amazon and Newegg. Released in 2017, the 6-core/12-thread chip has a base clock of 3.2GHz and a turbo clock of 3.6GHz and comes bundled with the 95-watt 'Wraith Spire' cooler.

For an even better deal, Micro Center is selling the Ryzen 5 1600 for just $79.99, though this offer is only available in stores.

The second-gen Ryzen 5 2600, our choice for the best all-round value CPU, is on sale at $164.99 on both websites, while Amazon has the Ryzen 5 2600X variant, which has faster clock speeds and a better cooler, for just $179.99. Like the first generation chips, these use the AM4 socket.

AMD first teased its third-generation Ryzen CPUs at CES earlier this year. Company CEO Lisa Su will be giving the keynote speech at Computex, which begins on May 28, where we’re expecting to hear announcements on Ryzen 3000-series processors and the company’s Navi graphics architecture.

According to AdoredTV (via PC Gamer), below is a list of the next-generation Ryzen lineup, which includes two 16-core/32-thread chips. Those prices might be for companies placing bulk orders, though, not final consumer products

  • Ryzen 9 3850X—16C/32T, 4.3GHz to 5.1GHz, 135W TDP, $499
  • Ryzen 9 3800X—16C/32T, 3.9GHz to 4.7GHz, 125W TDP, $449
  • Ryzen 7 3700X—12C/24T, 4.2GHz to 5.0GHz, 105W TDP, $329
  • Ryzen 7 3700—12C/24T, 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz, 95W TPD, $299
  • Ryzen 5 3600X—8C/16T, 4.0GHz to 4.8GHz, 95W TDP, $229
  • Ryzen 5 3600—8C/16T, 3.6GHz to 4.4GHz, 65W TDP, $178
  • Ryzen 3 3300X—6C/12T, 3.5GHz to 4.3GHz, 65W TDP, $129
  • Ryzen 3 3300—6C/12T, 3.2GHz to 4.0GHz, 50W TDP, $99

Permalink to story.

 
Last edited:

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 4,748   +5,183
I honestly don't know what the Ryzen equivalent of the i7 8700k or the i9 9900k or my i9 7980ex is.

So when I see these things going on sale: I have no idea if it's good or not.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,464   +6,145
I honestly don't know what the Ryzen equivalent of the i7 8700k or the i9 9900k or my i9 7980ex is.

So when I see these things going on sale: I have no idea if it's good or not.

8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX

The 7980XE is only good if the workload heavily favors Intel processors. Otherwise the TR 2970WX has far more cores at a much lower price and can simply brute force win benchmarks that are able to use it's cores. Of course if you are buying a processor with this many cores I'd assume you are going to use them, otherwise you might as well be getting a consumer CPU. It also has to be said that AMD's SMT implementation is impressive. It took Intel 10 years to start getting devs to implement performant HT while AMD's SMT has just worked out of the box. It makes you wonder what they can do once more programs actually become optimized for SMT.

$120 - $80 for a 6 core R5 1600 is a steal.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 768   +592
I honestly don't know what the Ryzen equivalent of the i7 8700k or the i9 9900k or my i9 7980ex is.

So when I see these things going on sale: I have no idea if it's good or not.

My strategery ----> What I can afford + benchmark results = Best cpu for my use.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,333   +2,322
2600 needs to drop if the 2600X is only $15 more, you go with the X. Hopefully the 2600 will end up closer to $150 widely at retail soon enough, that's roughly what I paid for one a couple weeks ago.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,498   +3,327
TechSpot Elite
2600 needs to drop if the 2600X is only $15 more, you go with the X. Hopefully the 2600 will end up closer to $150 widely at retail soon enough, that's roughly what I paid for one a couple weeks ago.
I think the reason the 2600x dropped more is because now it has better competition (the 9400F) and because they prolly had more in stock compared to the 2600 which sold really well this year.
 
I honestly don't know what the Ryzen equivalent of the i7 8700k or the i9 9900k or my i9 7980ex is.

So when I see these things going on sale: I have no idea if it's good or not.

8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX

The 7980XE is only good if the workload heavily favors Intel processors. Otherwise the TR 2970WX has far more cores at a much lower price and can simply brute force win benchmarks that are able to use it's cores. Of course if you are buying a processor with this many cores I'd assume you are going to use them, otherwise you might as well be getting a consumer CPU. It also has to be said that AMD's SMT implementation is impressive. It took Intel 10 years to start getting devs to implement performant HT while AMD's SMT has just worked out of the box. It makes you wonder what they can do once more programs actually become optimized for SMT.

$120 - $80 for a 6 core R5 1600 is a steal.

Sure is. Grabbed a combo at MC matx b450 and 1600 for $120. Found a used 580 8gb for 100, 16gb3200 ddr4 90, and splurged for a nvme. Going to be my living room pc.
 

NotABadSlime

Posts: 19   +24
This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.
...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

720p_AVG.png


See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL08vODA4ODAwL29yaWdpbmFsL0hpdG1hbi0yMDE2LUZQUy0xOTIweDEwODAtRGlyZWN0LTNEMTItVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLnBuZw==


There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.
 

NotABadSlime

Posts: 19   +24
With a $330 3700x price point, AMD is finally pricing with value in mind. Which means that 2700x, 2600x has been massively overpriced all this time. Terrible value, especially considering the $80 R5 1600. The 2700x should be no more that $180 and the 2600x should be like $140. And it will trend to that in relatively short order just as past pricing trends has demonstrated, like you can get a 1700x for $150 right now, (or $120 effectively if you consider the mobo discount):
https://www.microcenter.com/product/485473/ryzen-7-1700x-34-ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor.

This all hinges on the 3700x at 5.0Ghz being able to par or beat 8700k/9700k/9900K for gaming performance. Basically the single code IPC better deliver this time with AMD, or else it will be overpriced once again.
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,607   +3,527
This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.
...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

720p_AVG.png


See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL08vODA4ODAwL29yaWdpbmFsL0hpdG1hbi0yMDE2LUZQUy0xOTIweDEwODAtRGlyZWN0LTNEMTItVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLnBuZw==


There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.
Actually, the author of Level1Tech wrote a scheduling program that fixes problems in Windows 10 where the OS gets confused and over uses resources on AMD CPUs. With this unofficial patch, AMD single threaded performance exceeds Intel in a considerable amount of workloads.
 
This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.
...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

720p_AVG.png


See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL08vODA4ODAwL29yaWdpbmFsL0hpdG1hbi0yMDE2LUZQUy0xOTIweDEwODAtRGlyZWN0LTNEMTItVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLnBuZw==


There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.
Actually, the author of Level1Tech wrote a scheduling program that fixes problems in Windows 10 where the OS gets confused and over uses resources on AMD CPUs. With this unofficial patch, AMD single threaded performance exceeds Intel in a considerable amount of workloads.

This sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
 
AdoredTV's leaks are BS and I'm ashamed of you as posting them as fact. Everyone is going to be very disappointed when the leaks are disproven.
 

pyro226

Posts: 31   +8
This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.
...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

720p_AVG.png


See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL08vODA4ODAwL29yaWdpbmFsL0hpdG1hbi0yMDE2LUZQUy0xOTIweDEwODAtRGlyZWN0LTNEMTItVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLnBuZw==


There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.
Actually, the author of Level1Tech wrote a scheduling program that fixes problems in Windows 10 where the OS gets confused and over uses resources on AMD CPUs. With this unofficial patch, AMD single threaded performance exceeds Intel in a considerable amount of workloads.

Please provide a source. Even with a scheduler patch, it's not going to overcome Intel's 20% clockspeed advantage.
 

pcnthuziast

Posts: 1,015   +706
The price predictions make me lol. The 3600x is basically a 9900k that uses a bit less wattage to achieve the same results. Guarantee retail prices may be nearly double what's listed here. It's the chip I still may desire to get, but I'm expecting a launch price between 379-399. The 3850x launches at no less than 699 I'm betting.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,464   +6,145
This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.


See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

720p_AVG.png


See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL08vODA4ODAwL29yaWdpbmFsL0hpdG1hbi0yMDE2LUZQUy0xOTIweDEwODAtRGlyZWN0LTNEMTItVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLnBuZw==


There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.

:joy:

Guy walks in and thinks gaming performance is the only thing that matters. Hate to break it to you but there are a lot more then just game applications on windows. And please, "unmatched"? I could put a 2700X system and a 9900K system, both in a black box, in front of computer enthusiasts and likely less then 5% would be able to tell the difference. If you play at any resolution above 1080p or have any graphics card weaker then a 1080 Ti the difference is within margin of error, which ironically is 98% of the PC market. Don't have a 144 Hz monitor? No point in getting a 9900K or 8700K. Those two are clearly pretty niche products targeted at those with the money to have absolute gaming performance but for a majority of PC users and even gamers, they won't see a benefit from them.
 
I honestly don't know what the Ryzen equivalent of the i7 8700k or the i9 9900k or my i9 7980ex is.

So when I see these things going on sale: I have no idea if it's good or not.

8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX

The 7980XE is only good if the workload heavily favors Intel processors. Otherwise the TR 2970WX has far more cores at a much lower price and can simply brute force win benchmarks that are able to use it's cores. Of course if you are buying a processor with this many cores I'd assume you are going to use them, otherwise you might as well be getting a consumer CPU. It also has to be said that AMD's SMT implementation is impressive. It took Intel 10 years to start getting devs to implement performant HT while AMD's SMT has just worked out of the box. It makes you wonder what they can do once more programs actually become optimized for SMT.

$120 - $80 for a 6 core R5 1600 is a steal.

Right now at Microcenter, you can get the Ryzen 5 1600 for $79, and you can get $30 off a motherboard as well. I got the 1600 and a B450 for $120 bucks. Incredible deal and upgrade, considering I was running an i5-2500k from almost 10 years ago.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,464   +6,145
Right now at Microcenter, you can get the Ryzen 5 1600 for $79, and you can get $30 off a motherboard as well. I got the 1600 and a B450 for $120 bucks. Incredible deal and upgrade, considering I was running an i5-2500k from almost 10 years ago.

Wish I lived near a micro-center. That's a crazy price.
 

pencea

Posts: 241   +202
This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.
...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

720p_AVG.png


See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL08vODA4ODAwL29yaWdpbmFsL0hpdG1hbi0yMDE2LUZQUy0xOTIweDEwODAtRGlyZWN0LTNEMTItVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLnBuZw==


There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.

There's more to computers than just gaming. People actually also use it for productivity, work, rendering, music composition, video editing, encoding, conversion..etc
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,296   +1,476
This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.


See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

720p_AVG.png


See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL08vODA4ODAwL29yaWdpbmFsL0hpdG1hbi0yMDE2LUZQUy0xOTIweDEwODAtRGlyZWN0LTNEMTItVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLnBuZw==


There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.

:joy:

Guy walks in and thinks gaming performance is the only thing that matters. Hate to break it to you but there are a lot more then just game applications on windows. And please, "unmatched"? I could put a 2700X system and a 9900K system, both in a black box, in front of computer enthusiasts and likely less then 5% would be able to tell the difference. If you play at any resolution above 1080p or have any graphics card weaker then a 1080 Ti the difference is within margin of error, which ironically is 98% of the PC market. Don't have a 144 Hz monitor? No point in getting a 9900K or 8700K. Those two are clearly pretty niche products targeted at those with the money to have absolute gaming performance but for a majority of PC users and even gamers, they won't see a benefit from them.

Guy walks in and ignores gaming performance, which is more popular use for desktop chips!
 

NotABadSlime

Posts: 19   +24
:joy:

Guy walks in and thinks gaming performance is the only thing that matters. Hate to break it to you but there are a lot more then just game applications on windows. ....

Not when you are spending $800+ on a GPU like a RTX2080 or better. You don't throw down big money just so you can be mediocre and gimping your GPU (even if it is just 5% or 5 FPS or whatever.) People are paying to have bragging rights, want to be able to brag about it like:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu
And Ryzens to date is just not cutting it.

And for the value bang for the buck people, there is no good justification to pay for overpriced 2600x or 2700x, when you can get $80 R5 1600 or $150 1700x and OC them to 4.0Ghz and essentially par 2600x/2700x for games or compute. See:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3958vs3915

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3956vs3919

That 6% delta is NOT worth 2x or $100+ price difference, especially if you want bragging right about bang for the buck. Paying more to be mediocre is just irrational. And by banking that $100 or more, I'll actually have funds ready for the 3700x if it proves worthwhile, or when it's price drops.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

Posts: 5,464   +6,145
Not when you are spending $800+ on a GPU like a RTX2080 or better. You don't throw down big money just so you can be mediocre and gimping your GPU (even if it is just 5% or 5 FPS or whatever.) People are paying to have bragging rights, want to be able to brag about it like:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu
And Ryzens to date is just not cutting it.

And for the value bang for the buck people, there is no good justification to pay for overpriced 2600x or 2700x, when you can get $80 R5 1600 or $150 1700x and OC them to 4.0Ghz and essentially par 2600x/2700x for games or compute. See:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3958vs3915

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3956vs3919

That 6% delta is NOT worth 2x or $100+ price difference, especially if you want bragging right about bang for the buck. Paying more to be mediocre is just irrational. And by banking that $100 or more, I'll actually have funds ready for the 3700x if it proves worthwhile, or when it's price drops.

That's more or less what I was saying. A very small portion of the market is buying that CPU and GPU combination for bragging rights. Likely 1 or 2% at best (I mean the 2080 Ti is $1,200). That's despite them likely not seeing a difference as a majority will play at 1440p and above. The only market segment where that does make sense is eSports and even then most players I see have a 1070 / 1080 level GPU.

You cannot OC a R5 1600 to 2600X / 2700X levels. Less then 10% of R5 1600s reached 4.0 GHz according to silicon lottery. The number reaching 4.1 GHz was infinitesimal, let alone 4.35 GHz. Mind you, the 2000 series also has a slight IPC uptick as well so matching clocks alone wouldn't be enough and the memory support is better (you can get higher mem speeds on the 2000 series).

Also, don't cite userbenchmark. It's completely trash and not a legitimate measure of performance. The benchmark doesn't isolate system resources when testing and it's tests are single run + far too short. You also miss cited them, they state the Ryzen 2600X is 14% faster

Paying more to be mediocre is just irrational. And by banking that $100 or more, I'll actually have funds ready for the 3700x if it proves worthwhile, or when it's price drops.

Didn't realize 7700K levels of performance was mediocre

https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/page3.html

The fact is it's not mediocre. It's really damn good. Like I pointed out earlier, for everyone who's not a raging enthusiast who needs to brag (which is 98% of the market I'd wager), the 2700X will give you just as good performance except under very niche conditions, in which case the difference won't even visually materialize. So for all those PC enthusiasts who still want high end performance that doesn't break the bank, there are clearly more options then Intel.
 

John832

Posts: 14   +2
...
Also, don't cite userbenchmark. It's completely trash and not a legitimate measure of performance. ....

What utter nonsense! It is probably the best crowd sourced results you can get. All the stuff is treated the same way, same penalties. You don't need to isolate jack or do really long runs etc. when you have a large pool of data and the statistics will sort itself out, and the signal will come thru the noise.

Just because you hate Userbenchmark does not make them any less legitimate. More than a few times, I've helped friend and strangers alike debug their systems using Userbenchmark. When your system is posting result that a couple standard deviation from the average you know know full well something is screwed up in your build, and it is very easy to see with Userbenchmark.

And FYI, 7700K is still much faster than 2600x or 2700x for games, and the single core results from your hated site clearly shows that. No Ryzen to date can come get over 130 points on the SC Mixed bench overclocked or not. And they have less chance than a snowball in hell to get to 150+ that a 7700K can get overclocked.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X/3647vs3956

And BTW the 7700K is mediocre. It is 2019 not 2017.
 

John832

Posts: 14   +2
You also miss cited them, they state the Ryzen 2600X is 14% faster

You also demonstrated you don't know how to read the data. It is obvious the OP was talking about overclocked results, as anyone who has a R5 16000 or R7 1700 knows, you need to OC them. So only the OC results really matter. In games and such it is even less than 6%. And anything faster than a GTX1070 or more than $300 is really wasted on Ryzen build.