AMD Readies Ryzen 5 Series and will offer six- and four-core processors

From a binning perspective they'd throw away halves of perfectly fine R7s if they build their R5s with 1 CCX 4c. Instead they turn their trash into gold. Economically speaking, for them, it's good.

Additionally they keep consistency across the whole Ryzen platform, which is also good. Assuming they'll sell of course. Given the price points chances are they will until there will be HT i5s.

Of course they could cater to gamers specifically by going 1 CCX 4c but then game developers perhaps would have even less of an incentive to optimize for Ryzen's CCX setup effectively leaving the 1600 and R7s gimped for eternity.

Funnily enough this may puts their APUs ahead, for they may come as single CCX parts.

Overall, as a customer (who picked up an R7 or 1600(X)) I'd expect my CPU to perform the same on the same frequency as the lower end parts insofar they're of the same generation (or processor family anyway).

I understand however, that AMD is again taking a gamble. I think Intel has hit its maximum with the 7700K - so I don't see any >5ghz chips soon. This only leaves scaling to more cores than fequency and brute force.

If Ryzen remains unadopted and no one will optimize for it AMD may fall very flat again but it'll also leave us stuck with 7700Ks for another X years.

 

Oh I like the look of those hexa cores and the pricing is very nice!
I'm kind of surprised they have 2+2... not sure why they need that.

 

I do not know, but I do not like it. So, last hope for very interesting chip is Ryzen APU. As that is not going to be based on 8C/16T.

Which is actually funny, because 4C/8T APU may prove to have most interesting CPU part due to having just one CCX.
-> Some things are beyond my comprehension.

 

I can't wait the dual core Ryzen 2C/4T configured 1+1 with 16 MB L3 cache

 

That would be hilarious. But I guess there won't be any.

The APU will be the only processor with 4 real cores I guess...

 

Don't get me wrong, I too don't understand why you'd need to run a quad core as 2+2, especially since that requires adaption to get the most out of them, and clearly they can do 4 cores as the bigger chips are 4+4.

But that low core CPUs would be nice to have a system to toy around with, and if I ever need something to drive my HTPC if my old LGA1366 mainboard / CPU give up.

 

Just wow.

 

The entire Ryzen lineup just seems underwhelming. Probably my fault for wanting more. They're good but I wanted fantastic.

 

Our own HH, over at Guru3D did that.. On the 1[7,8]00(X) reviews, @ 4.2GHz.

 

Hopefully, gamedevs will optimize their games sooner for Ryzen than they did with FX.

 

Okay, I've gone from hyped to carefully optimistic to disappointed with Ryzen.

I knew or guessed these would be 3+3 and 2+2 as AMD uses a modular structure with two CCXs and the clusters must be identical. I was still hoping the 4 core would be just one CCX.

AMD must have seen the cluster latency as the weak link in their testing months ago. Perhaps it was improved from initial state but it's still less than optimal.

If you're designing a modular cpu with two clusters then make sure the interconnect isn't the weakest link!
Not a CPU engineer but just common sense is enough for that I think.

Starting to look like Radeon graphics cards that have lot of power but it never gets used due to design (GCN and DX11 overhead thing).

I'd love to give AMD my money out of support but I don't feel like buying, for the lack of a better word, crippled products.

 

Really hope those numbers are wrong. The ones with fewer cores were supposed to have much higher clocks, not still be crappier than an i5...

 

A cheap I5 is well over the price of an R5 4 core and doesn't have HT.

I wasn't expecting the CCX architecture having 2 quad cores merged for an 8 core. I was hopping for a true 8 core CPU.
That said, from a business point of view makes perfect sense if they just disable cores and sell the not perfect chips as R5 and R3.
Having a true 8 core CPU would have made it too complex for a company that needs funds fast so, maybe in the future (4 more years) we will see CCX 2.0 with 8 true cores.
I don't think the connection is a weak link, after all the line is out I'm sure they'll have time to fix software issues.

 

Very interesting 2+2 configs for the Quads and 3+3 for the hexes. Hmm didn't Intel do a similar configuration back when the Core 2 Quads were brand new? Minus the CCX stuff that the Ryzen CPUs have of course. Makes me wonder how well the 4c/8t Ryzen CPUs will perform against the 7700K respectively because they have similar Core and thread specs.

 

But I don't care whether it costs 100, 200 or 300 euro. I just want the fastest cpu. And so far it seems like AMD lost to intel another time.

 

I really hope so but getting more pessimistic about it by the day. Looks like it is a hardware level issue.

Granted, the performance drop in CPU bound gaming isn't astronomical but there shouldn't be one to start with given the excellent per-core and multithreaded performance in synthetics.

Ofc as I game in 1080p with a powerful GPU this worries me. I didn't expect Ryzen to outperform even my current CPU in every respect but I want Ryzen to at least match it.

 

FX had a whole of other architecture short comings on top of it though. The IPC was just horrendous and there was nothing you could do about that.

Zen however does have the IPC it's just not being utilized correctly.

Whether or not it ever will we will simply have to see. GCN also couldn't ever flex its real muscles prior to DX12. That said, everyone should make their purchase based on what is currently being seen and not based on potential. if it happens however, I imagine the difference to be rather noteworthy - unlike the 1% FX Schedule fix

Anyhow, again, I don't see Intel zip out a 8700K with 5.2(+) Turbos. I suspect that Intels architecture is reaching its limits and they'll soon need to come up with something new as well.

We'll see how their mainstream 6 cores will fare.

It isn't as workload benchmarks show. The difference is that these benchmarks' threads are independent of each other.

In games threads are a lot more depending on another, which then increases the latency insofar they happen to run on different CCXs. This could be optimized around by developers but whether or not they will is left to be seen.

I won't hold my breath for existing titles getting patches, though

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ender79 View Post
I can't wait the dual core Ryzen 2C/4T configured 1+1 with 16 MB L3 cache

Was a joke , of course :banana:

 

Ye I understood that much lol.

 

Exactly. Cinebunch and co/ and be perfectly divided into as many independent chunks of work as you like.

Gaming workloads are nowhere nearly as statically predetermined, and you need results from old work in order to start new.