Overseas Ryzen 9000 CPU preorders shed light on potential MSRPs — Ryzen 9 9950X for $707, Ryzen 5 9600X for $332

News
By
published

We expected lower launch prices and so far aren't disappointed

Official AMD Ryzen 9000 Series Box Render
(Image credit: AMD)

The first preorder for AMD’s upcoming Ryzen 9000 (Granite Ridge) processors is here, folks, which will compete against the best CPUs in July. At least, it’s here if you order from one particular Slovenian retailer. Funtech (via VideoCardz) has begun accepting orders for four of AMD’s upcoming Zen 5 CPUs, but shipments won’t start until August 2.

Since these are the first retailer listings for Ryzen 9000, treat them cautiously. These could be placeholder prices, and we must also factor in VAT (value-added tax) when looking at hardware aboard. As previously suspected, the new Ryzen 9000 processors will be cheaper than their Zen 4 predecessors at launch. After all, new processors are almost expected to launch at the same or slightly higher price point than the previous generation. That doesn’t appear to be entirely the case with Granite Ridge, according to Funtech.

For simplicity, we use the online price for the Ryzen 9000 chips at Funtech, which is significantly cheaper than the regular price. We compare the Zen 5 chips with their Zen 4 counterpart’s MSRPs. However, it’s important to highlight that many of AMD’s Zen 4 chips have dropped in price since their launch.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
CPUCPU CoresMax ClockTDPFuntech PricingConverted to U.S. dollarU.S. MSRP
Ryzen 9 9950X16 Zen 5 Cores5.7 GHz170W€660$707?
Ryzen 9 7950X3D16 Zen 4 Cores5.7 GHz120W€589$631$699
Ryzen 9 7950X16 Zen 4 Cores5.7 GHz170W€510$547$699
Ryzen 9 9900X12 Zen 5 Cores5.6 GHz120W€500$536?
Ryzen 9 7900X3D12 Zen 4 Cores5.6 GHz120W€425$456$599
Ryzen 7 9700X8 Zen 5 Cores5.5 GHz65W€400$429?
Ryzen 9 7900X12 Zen 4 Cores5.6 GHz170W€392$420$549
Ryzen 7 7800X3D8 Zen 4 Cores5.0 GHz120W€392$420$449
Ryzen 5 9600X6 Zen 5 Cores5.4 GHz65W€310$332?
Ryzen 7 7700X8 Zen 4 Cores5.4 GHz105W€305$327$399
Ryzen 5 7600X6 Zen 4 Cores5.3 GHz105W€212$227$299

Funtech listed the Ryzen 9 9950X for $707, slightly more expensive than when the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and Ryzen 9 7950X first launched. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 9 9900X may go for $536, which is less than what the Ryzen 7 7900X debuted at. On the contrary, the Ryzen 7 9700X seemingly exhibits a higher MSRP than the Ryzen 7 7700X. Lastly, the Ryzen 5 9600X retails $332 at Funtech, making it 11% higher than the Ryzen 5 7600X.

Although AMD only confirmed that the Ryzen 9000 will hit the market in July, rumors exist that the Zen 5 chips will probably arrive on July 31. However, similar rumors claim that high-end X870 motherboards will not be available at Granite Ridge's launch. Instead, the premium motherboards may not land until September. As we near the rumored launch date, we should hopefully get a better idea of the Ryzen 9000 series pricing from U.S. retailers.

Jeff Butts
Jeff Butts
Contributing Writer

Jeff Butts has been covering tech news for more than a decade, and his IT experience predates the internet. Yes, he remembers when 9600 baud was “fast.” He especially enjoys covering DIY and Maker topics, along with anything on the bleeding edge of technology.

See more CPUs News
9 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 64bit-only
    9600x is only 65w but not included with warith cooler on the box. And it down colcked from 4,7GHz 7600x base clock to only 3,9 GHz 9600x. So i still wait ryzen 5 9600 ( whithout X model) which is cheaper and included the wraith cooler in the box for my office.
    Reply
  • TheJoker2020
    64bit-only said:
    9600x is only 65w but not included with warith cooler on the box. And it down colcked from 4,7GHz 7600x base clock to only 3,9 GHz 9600x. So i still wait ryzen 5 9600 ( whithout X model) which is cheaper and included the wraith cooler in the box for my office.
    I would suggest waiting for the new products to launch and be reviewed before you make your decision as to what to buy because the moment the new line of CPU's are available to buy the Zen 4 line will drop in price, and which option is best for you is going to be dependent on your use case/need, future considerations, price, and value.

    There will also be a change of motherboard pricing as the new boards roll in sometime around the beginning of September, but that might not line up with your buying options.

    In a similar way, RAM may also be effected as some people who just bought a new 9000 series CPU might also buy fast RAM, which in turn pushes down the price of everything below it, but I wouldn't expect this to make much if any price difference but with the upcoming reviews it would make you better informed as to what RAM to buy for your 7000 / 9000 CPU for this office machine, but note that RAM reviews that hone in on price/performance / value don't typically come out for a week or more.

    I hope this info helps your buying choices / plan.
    Reply
  • helper800
    IMO, AMD needs to rein in pricing even a bit more, and especially on the low end. 250 is the max I would pay for a 6c/12t CPU right now and this is because Intel is likely going to have 1X700k available for the same price or less. If the 9600x is not faster in at least gaming than the prior mentioned Intel CPUs, this will be considered a bad impression by AMD for me. the 9700x being at 400 instead of 450 is a nice reduction in MSRP, however, its the same story as the 9600x. It better at least match the 1X700k Intel CPUs in single AND multithreaded for 400 dollars, otherwise I think it should be much closer to 330-350 max. The 9900x IMO retaining its 500 dollar MSRP is a slap in the face most likely. 450 is the max I would pay for 12c/24t with aforementioned 1X700k and 1X900k CPUs being either price comparable or as little as 1/2 that cost. the 9950x is the only more reasonable MSRPed part here at 700. 650 would have been nice but there is less competition at this performance tier from Intel, not that it is not close though!

    I hope that I am instead blow away at the benchmarks to come and that all the CPUs are worth it even considering their MSRPs. I also hope these AMD CPUs blow Intel's current offerings out of the water, because if they don't, a reckoning may be coming with the upcoming Intel CPUs. A strong showing from AMD means higher competition from Intel, which has been waning from AMD in the last few years in non-gaming performance.
    Reply
  • oofdragon
    People who still buy Intel are hopeless. If it wasn't ZEN Intel would still be releasing 1900s CPUs with minimal if any upgrade year after year and charging even more than they are now. Not only AMD pushed the industry back to the tracks it already surpassed Intel for some time. Intel can't beat X3D gaming, can't beat X950 value for productivity, can't beat ThreadRipper at server front. That's what they deserve alright, unfortunately they are still laying around because of the die hard goo supporters
    Reply
  • Gruphius
    helper800 said:
    IMO, AMD needs to rein in pricing even a bit more, and especially on the low end. 250 is the max I would pay for a 6c/12t CPU right now and this is because Intel is likely going to have 1X700k available for the same price or less. If the 9600x is not faster in at least gaming than the prior mentioned Intel CPUs, this will be considered a bad impression by AMD for me. the 9700x being at 400 instead of 450 is a nice reduction in MSRP, however, its the same story as the 9600x. It better at least match the 1X700k Intel CPUs in single AND multithreaded for 400 dollars, otherwise I think it should be much closer to 330-350 max. The 9900x IMO retaining its 500 dollar MSRP is a slap in the face most likely. 450 is the max I would pay for 12c/24t with aforementioned 1X700k and 1X900k CPUs being either price comparable or as little as 1/2 that cost. the 9950x is the only more reasonable MSRPed part here at 700. 650 would have been nice but there is less competition at this performance tier from Intel, not that it is not close though!

    I hope that I am instead blow away at the benchmarks to come and that all the CPUs are worth it even considering their MSRPs. I also hope these AMD CPUs blow Intel's current offerings out of the water, because if they don't, a reckoning may be coming with the upcoming Intel CPUs. A strong showing from AMD means higher competition from Intel, which has been waning from AMD in the last few years in non-gaming performance.
    The 14700k is 410$. You can get a Ryzen 7800x3D for cheaper. If you want to compare Intel to AMD then at least compare them in a fair way.
    Furthermore, you're currently making basless assumptions about both Intel's and AMD's next gen performance. At least wait for them to release before bashing AMD.
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    oofdragon said:
    People who still buy Intel are hopeless. If it wasn't ZEN Intel would still be releasing 1900s CPUs with minimal if any upgrade year after year and charging even more than they are now. Not only AMD pushed the industry back to the tracks it already surpassed Intel for some time. Intel can't beat X3D gaming, can't beat X950 value for productivity, can't beat ThreadRipper at server front. That's what they deserve alright, unfortunately they are still laying around because of the die hard goo supporters
    Did it though? Regarding the desktop cpus performance increase at a given price were much bigger back when intel was dominant. I know it sounds absurd but do the math. Between 2012 and 2017 we have a much bigger gain with intel at the 330$ mark than we have from 2017 to 2022 with amd. Heck, they reduced the amount of cores at 300$ from 8 to 6, lol
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    helper800 said:
    IMO, AMD needs to rein in pricing even a bit more, and especially on the low end. 250 is the max I would pay for a 6c/12t CPU right now and this is because Intel is likely going to have 1X700k available for the same price or less. If the 9600x is not faster in at least gaming than the prior mentioned Intel CPUs, this will be considered a bad impression by AMD for me. the 9700x being at 400 instead of 450 is a nice reduction in MSRP, however, its the same story as the 9600x. It better at least match the 1X700k Intel CPUs in single AND multithreaded for 400 dollars, otherwise I think it should be much closer to 330-350 max. The 9900x IMO retaining its 500 dollar MSRP is a slap in the face most likely. 450 is the max I would pay for 12c/24t with aforementioned 1X700k and 1X900k CPUs being either price comparable or as little as 1/2 that cost. the 9950x is the only more reasonable MSRPed part here at 700. 650 would have been nice but there is less competition at this performance tier from Intel, not that it is not close though!

    I hope that I am instead blow away at the benchmarks to come and that all the CPUs are worth it even considering their MSRPs. I also hope these AMD CPUs blow Intel's current offerings out of the water, because if they don't, a reckoning may be coming with the upcoming Intel CPUs. A strong showing from AMD means higher competition from Intel, which has been waning from AMD in the last few years in non-gaming performance.
    AMD will be much more competitive this gen than they were the previous two in terms of Mt performance. Due to the removal of HT mainly. Yes intel will still be faster in most segments but it won't be that big a gap like it was the last 2 generations.

    If amd achieves better efficiency at iso power, that will be impressive, but that's really hard to achieve due to the lack of cores.
    Reply
  • helper800
    Gruphius said:
    The 14700k is 410$. You can get a Ryzen 7800x3D for cheaper. If you want to compare Intel to AMD then at least compare them in a fair way.
    Furthermore, you're currently making basless assumptions about both Intel's and AMD's next gen performance. At least wait for them to release before bashing AMD.
    I am not making baseless accusations on any side, and I also clearly state that this was opinion and that testing may completely change my mind. I appropriately hedged everything I said.
    TheHerald said:
    AMD will be much more competitive this gen than they were the previous two in terms of Mt performance. Due to the removal of HT mainly. Yes intel will still be faster in most segments but it won't be that big a gap like it was the last 2 generations.

    If amd achieves better efficiency at iso power, that will be impressive, but that's really hard to achieve due to the lack of cores.
    While I can see AMD being par with Intel in most things this generation we cannot know until the benchmarks come out. I am cautiously optimistic that this will be one of the most competitive generations in a while.
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    helper800 said:
    I am not making baseless accusations on any side, and I also clearly state that this was opinion and that testing may completely change my mind. I appropriately hedged everything I said.

    While I can see AMD being par with Intel in most things this generation we cannot know until the benchmarks come out. I am cautiously optimistic that this will be one of the most competitive generations in a while.
    The biggest problem I have is that - it isn't amd that's getting better in the areas they are lacking (MT performance at - below the 400$ mark), it's just Intel (theoretically, we need to see reviews) are getting worse by removing HT. AMD will still remain lackluster. I fully expect the brand new shiny R7 8700x to be getting absolutely annihilated by the 2-3 generations old i7 13700k.

    Why is this allowed and how the heck do people end up buying this products is beyond me, but here we are.
    Reply