AMD Ryzen 14nm Wafer Yields Pass 80% - Threadripper CPUs on track

And is according to someone not part of AMD. So no, they don't know what they are talking about.

Now, if someone who actually helped develop Ryzen were to state this, sure, no reason not to believe it. But that's not what is happening, now is it...

No point is saying "that can't happen" when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and should rather wait and see.

Before ryzen was released, people were saying 6 core processors wouldn't happen either, because it'd be 4, 8, 12, 16, etc.

The earth was flat, you couldn't go faster then the speed of sound and only nine planets exist. All facts that people decided to state because they either did not know what they were talking about, could not do it or were simply blind. But hey lets continue this tradition of saying what is or isn't possible about stuff we know thing about, that's cool too.

 

There is quite a bit of evidence to show that it isn't. The Stilt said even before Ryzen launch that 6 core is possible.

If both Zeppelin dies must have the same cache and core configuration then it is not possible. Considering that you can't just disable one core from another CCX to have, say 7 core chip it's pretty safe to assume that the same limitations applies here too.

If both Zeppelin dies do not have have the same cache and core configuration then 10 and 14 are possible. At the moment that doesn't look likely.

 

hes not totally wrong though, disabling 2 cores in 2 ccx's and selling it as a 4 core processor isn't a grand idea from any perspective.

You're agreeing with AMD because you don't understand the implications of what they've done on the low end.

Sorry, but unless you're actually making software for these processors you just aren't going to.

Ryzen can only compete like for like (and exceed intel) at the top end, and then it goes and drops like a rock on its 4 core chips

 

Oh how wrong you are. So you would rather them throw away not so perfect Zeppelins that can't be 6 or 8 cores, and tape out a hole new die for just one CCX. In the grand scheme of things this is a company that has been loosing money left and right. This is a good business decision. That really does not effect performance as much as you think it does.

 

Every time i see Ryzen benchmarks i get excited until i finally reach gaming benchmarks and then the disappointment begins. Even my 5 year old 4770k is faster in most games.

If i was upgrading today i would be an absolute idiot not to get a high core ryzen but performance gain in games in not enough if any for me to warrant an upgrade.

 

The race to the bottom is just that, a race to the lowest margins. AMD's "focus" on the low-mid end of the spectrum for the past years is one of the reasons its almost gone, with only around 30% Gross margins vs the 60% of Intel and Nvidia.

You don't make money by charging little and making minor profit in a segment that is constantly shrinking overall.

AMD also has no money reserves left (they're under a billion now, they burnt through nearly a third in the last quarter alone building inventory). They won't get another chance if they don't start increasing their margins and actually turning in a profit for them and their investors.

So in all due respect to gamers, you're not what AMD is after as a primary focus right now it seems, you're just a byproduct that may benefit as well.

Now people here know me to be critical of AMD (and others as well), so I'm saying this purely out of respect for their recent restructuring and focus markets.

 

Yes this is true if you use you computer only for gaming and light browsing so far there is not much sense to upgrade from the 4770 for gaming alone to either ryzen or skylake really .

 

On youtube, along with this news was more info that dual-cores (Ryzen 3?) are also coming, so, AMD will be doing a full market deployment of Ryzen processors.

 

I see you are a gamer at heart, and I know the gamer community is a noisy one (young people is allways noisy, I should know because of my job). But not everyone owns a pc for gaming/internet only.
AMD might try to awe people, but do you think they could fool hardcore reviewers and high end educated users?
Do you think AMD is autistic? Do you think they tried so hard for nothing?
Do you think Jim Keller is incompetent and failed completely?
Many of us do need more cores. There are a lot of tasks that need the extra power offered by more cores.
But even quad-core gamers will be left behind in the future when gaming companies start to use more cores. Sure those companies want to support most users (who still have 4 core pcs) but they can add addition eye candy for those who have more cores while still being able to run on quad-core systems. Expect more detail, superior physics, superior AI in the near future.
Ryzen was just launched, only nearly 3 months, it's too early, but you just wait, and you will see gaming companies doing it's magic with those additional cores. And then what? Will you upgrade to another quad-core?
AMD failed with Bulldozer, but it has been allways AMD that caused cpu progress. Intel will jump ahead since their armie of engineers is much bigger, but we have to thank AMD for causing progress. If it wasn't for AMD maybe we would still be using Core 2 quads or even Pentium 4.
Edit: Just want to add that I know about programming, in fact I made a multithreaded checkers engine that just loves additional cores and gets stronger too with them Just to say I'm not completely ignorant on these matters. I tried to post a link on my work but the system says I need to have at least 5 posts on this forum. Just go to google and search "Profound vs Fernando Silva" and you will find a match of 58 games between my program and the best spanish checkers player of south america.

 

Things are not simple as that, i´m afraid. The bottom is were the real money is because that´s what the majority of people can afford. Just look at Intel, do you think they make lots of money because of the 7600K/7700K and higher that they sell? No, only a small percentage buys hardware like. The moneymakers are the Celerons, Pentiums and I3s that we all laugh about and call useless crap. They are 70 or 80% of Intel´s sales. This in the consumer side, regarding servers i don´t know how things work.
Also it´s possible to have good margins with cheap products. This doesn´t happen with AMD because their chips are normally bigger (cost more to produce) than they should and because people prefer to buy Intel even if AMD does the same thing and it´s cheaper... But that´s another story...

For me AMD should have started from the bottom and then go up but maybe that wasn´t possible so they had to things this way.

 

It would be easy, but less profitable if Ryzen had higher defect rate, as AMD is making lower Ryzens by cutting off "defective" parts of CPU.
It is probable that Ryzen 4C/8T availability is limited to some degree due to good yields.
And delay in between each chip release may be caused by insufficient stock of those cut down chips. And so it looks like it is actually better in terms of profitability per chip for AMD to have good yields and fewer cut down chips sold.

As for Ryzen 3 and Ryzen APUs, maybe they are connected in similar fashion.

 

Intel's CPUs carry a profit ratio of something ridiculous like 70-80%.

I have written it multiple times in many threads already, but think for a moment how a single CPU without even the cheap 5 dollars fan in the box can cost as much as a whole video card with a GPU with twice the amount of transistors, plenty of high-speed memory, a fancy cooling element, VRM components, a layered PCB, and all the other jazz can cost the same. It's because CPUs have a very, very nice amount of profit in their price. So, AMD gets 5 percentage points less per CPU? Big deal.

 

Don't insinuate someone is wrong without providing details and numbers to back your position up.

low core multi ccx packages are going to be a nightmare for existing software to perform correctly.

The intelligent design would have been to harvest these defective chips and used them for single ccx 2/3 core processors that implement an IGP instead of combine them into a crippled design that will never be able to be taken advantage of appropriately.

These chips are falling behind bulldozers in some cases......

These cores are comparable to the 2nd gen Core I processors BECAUSE the ccx gets in the way.

Ryzen owners can confirm what im saying here by disabling cores in different arrangements and doing various gaming and compression benchmarking.

:\ a single 4:0 core ccx performs better than 2:2

 

Sorry, you keep proving what i am saying,
You don't understand the problem so you grasp at the first thing you know 'gaming'.

 

No, they won't. I don't know what's your issue with the whole CCX design, but even consoles with multiple times weaker CPUs have two quads in them, not an octo. This has been happening in software and compilers are aware of it since time immemorial, the only issue is for code like that to actually run on Ryzen (most of the times a really simple patch or even a recompilation with simple flag changes is enough).

For LLVM someone did it just by using the "Haswell" profile, which wasn't even optimized for AMD, less even for separate CCXs.

For your nickname, you don't seem to grasp basic stuff.

 

The Jaguar core uses a cross bar for communication across the MCP and is not comparable to the way Zen works. Even then, Jaguar performs quite poorly under PC workloads.
Don't bring irrelevant information into a topic trying to argue a point.

AMD has created a crapshow with their 'developer tools' nonsense.
The only people who use such tools are synthetic benchmark manufacturers.

CCX bottleneck can be benchmarked by anyone with a 1700/1800 and disabling cores in different combinations, there are already threads on the subject on competing hardware forums showing that 4:0 performs far better than 2:2.

There is too much AMD's word as gospel crap going on this forum, even Agnar Fog would support the case that this MCP design is terrible on the low end.

 

How is that irrelevant? The only blemish on Ryzen's performance is gaming, and you say that compiler settings and the fact that existing consoles use a basically similar design with no issue is irrelevant? Really? :infinity:

 

I just wonder when people say things like "Ryzen fails at gaming".

First off, there aren't many SP games even worth playing. I struggle to find more than a few, and those are old now. Even the newest run fine on my ancient rig. For me, worrying about the last few FPS is pointless. I wish that were otherwise... I wish there were new games as good as Crysis which would make me want top-end graphics - but there aren't. And I've looked.

Next, when I do play it's at 2560x1440 because that's what I use for everything. At that res games look better - and differences in CPU clocks matter much less.

So except those who seriously play online shooters (perhaps 20% of "gamers"?) and will stick with 1080, the idea that you should buy the fastest quad core instead of a fast 6- or 8-core is silly. You may not actually need ANY upgrade, since most of us spend little overall time pushing our apps, but if you want to move up, go with tomorrow's architecture. You will get increasing value from the 6- or 8-core and decreasing value from the quad. Unless you change out your system every year because you're a "gamer" and you've drunk the "max FPS regardless" kool-aid sold everywhere around here.

Finally, if you really do value CPU performance and hope to see it increase in the future, you'd better strongly consider that Ryzen may be AMD's last throw of the dice. They've somehow scraped together the resources and smarts to come from wayyyy behind, and they're visibly forcing Intel to release new products that company would rather have delayed or simply never give us. One obvious question is: do you want to reward AMD or Intel with your money now? And equally obvious: Do you want a future without x86 competition?

When you consider all the factors, it's clear that except for a very few cases, a Ryzen 6- or 8-core is the best choice at this time. That will still be true even if and when Intel counters with chips of equal value, because it will still be important to keep AMD in the race. I've finally seen this and my position is: if AMD can even be competitive, they'll get my money.

 

Guys, correct me if i am wrong here.Better wafer yelds, lower price, thus benefit to the end user?And further challenge to the CPU price competition, right?

 

Im so glad AMD is on killing streak. We need strong AMD against two dominant monopolist in CPU and GPU market with their ridiculous pricing and stagnating development scale.