First Ryzen Quad Cores Will not Pass 3.2 GHz?

if those clock under 4ghz after you overclock this is not a good sign seems weird though

 

Canard, if as reliable in the past as you say, is ripping up their integrity posting such bogus. The chances of this being legit is probably 5%.

But if this was perhaps a mobile chip..

 

This actually makes sense.

You're getting a genuine Quad Core against intel's G4XX line up which consists of two physical cores and HyperThreading.

Get a B350 motherboard and clock it up to a solid 3.8~4.0 GHz and you have a really sweet deal for the price AMD sets.

I can't see these Quad Cores coming out with a Base Clock of anywhere near 4.0 GHz. A Base Clock around 3.3 GHz to 3.6 GHz with boost up to 4.2 GHz would be ideal, but I am sure these Quad Cores are going to be the bargain deal. I expect the 4 Core 8 thread counterpart to take on the likes of the Core i3 K SKU and the 6 Core 12 thread to take on the likes of Core i5 and maybe 7700K, though I think AMD's original intended competitor against the 7700K is the RyZen 7 1700.

 

It makes sense. Of course AMD doesn't want it's 4 core CPU to beat the 6 and 8 in single thread performance out of the box.
I do however expect it to clock higher than 4Ghz and that's were the sweet spot will be.

 

It might make sense if the lower clocks were still enough to beat Intel CPUs in real applications including gaming. However, Ryzen 7 was kind of lacking in gaming, and nobody knows yet how much they can fix that. Higher clocks would automatically help there. Higher clocks are also totally free performance for the manufacturer as long as the processor can handle it (Nvidia's Pascal is the best example of this in my opinion).

It's pointless for them to artificially slow down the 4-core. It's not going to compete with their own 6-core anyway.

 

Maybe AMD will use in the beginning all those CCXs that have 4 fully functional cores but can't clock high enough to be used in a Ryzen 7 1700. After they got more CCXs from GlobalFoundries and have enough to start building every model in the Ryzen series at high quantities, they will introduce faster quad core models.

Remember, AMD is not Intel. GlobalFoundries is not Intel. They both have restrictions at the same time that Intel doesn't know how to fill it's factories' product lines and where to spent all it's money sitting around.

 

That's a good point, the same thought was going through my mind at how it could make sense that the stock clocks on these quad cores could be lower than that of the recently released 8 core Ryzen. If that's the case then it doesn't bode well for overclocking, and seems like they wouldn't clock as high as their 8 core brothers. I think these low reported clock speeds will turn out to be bogus though, I reckon the quad cores will be released with competitive clock speeds and will overclock just as well if not better than the 8 core versions already released. Although I don't expect them to overclock that much better than the 8 cores (maybe 100-200Mhz more max).

 

i agree it's Ryzen 1200 and 1400, they are at the bottom of the list

3.2Ghz is good (or maybe enough lol) at this level.

 

it is, it's one of the oldest tech magazine ("canard" in french slang) then site.

 

Such a CPU plus a cheap mainboard might be my next HTPC, just to toy around with it.

 

This makes sense. Due to the current state of multithreading in most games, it would be embarrassing for R5 to clock equal or higher to the R7. If if clocked slightly higher, you might get R5 overtaking R7 in some games... for half the price.

 

Could be a process limitation. Ryzen seems to need a LOT of voltage to get past 4 GHz.

 

You mean what people do when going for Intel mainstream for gaming instead of enthusiast platforms like LGA2011-3?

 

Frankly, makes little sense. These must be good enough to compete well with Intels 4 cores, the i5s, which are no push-overs.

 

What´s the surprise??? It has been said many times by Canard PC and others that the best chips are all going to be used on the R7 versions. The weaker chips not only are going to have less cores but also lower clocks because of weaker power profiles. And from what i understand, the 4 and 6 cores versions will reach the same overlclocks of the 8 cores parts.

This has been talked about since the beginning, if it´s true or not, we´ll have to wait for reviews.

 

I'm not surprised, if those chips are only leftovers from worse silicon bins of 8 core cpus then it stands to reason that clocks will be worse along with non-working cores.
There is albo a production process limitation 14nm LPP that while giving low power use at lower frequencies forces a very steep climb for voltages to keep stability at higher clocks. AFAIK the 3.7Ghz is a tipping point after which steep voltage increase is required to increase clocks. There will be no high clocked 4 core parts because of that, not because of power use (although it plays it's role too).

Also if AMD gets it's 4 cores by the way of cutting cores from 8 cores it may mean even worse performance then in case of 8 cores because they probably will not be able to disable one CCX but will have to cut 2 cores off from each CCX, just as the can't do 6 core by disabling 2 cores from one CCX and leaving the other untouched.

 

Also if this is a leftover silicon lottery from the 8core CPUs makes me wonder about something that AMD did in the past. With certain Phenom II Cpus you could enable the cores that were disabled for whatever reason and if it worked you could have a Quad-Core (if you have a tri-core) and a Hex-core (if you has a quad) Makes me wonder if AMD could be going that route again?

As far as clock speed goes I hope that this isn't true because I feel that AMD needs to compete their Quads with Intel's Quads as well.

 

Depends on how many different dies AMD have. If these are harvested from 8-core dies then I can understand it, if they have a distinct 4-core die then maybe not.

 

You could argue that, but to take on Intel's quadcores you'd have to take on R7 too, because R7 (due to a number of reasons) generally underperforms Intel's higher-end quadcores, except in 100% scalable apps/games and synthetic benchmarks. The prior being only professional applications, and the latter being irrelevant.

If we're talking strictly quad-cores with HT/SMT, AMD would need to field a 4.2GHz R5 to get close to Intel. And that will not happen, as it is clear it would then trade blows with the R7 series.

In other words, I believe the decision is a marketing decision more so than a hardware/process/yield limitation.

Feel free to disagree.