AMD might not release a hexacore Ryzen

Earlier AMD was selling 3 core CPUs where 1 core was disabled.
It could be possible to do same with Ryzen, but unless you mentioned to cut 2 from 4 cores in one module, it most likely have to be done symmetrically ie cut one core in each module.
I guess we will see later on If AMD will harvest faulty chips in such way.

 

4 or 8 cores seems like reasonable to me. Now bring good performance.
Quad core should be standard this days, especially coupled with SSD.

 

Games will suffer if IPC isn't high enough, so a 6 core would have helped them with that. But of course if a model with 8 cores without HT but with high clocks is cheap enough, it doesn't matter. It wouldn't help them sell really expensive (profitable) luxury models, though, if there's no significant difference compared to cheaper models.

 

Notice the shifting of dates, now this article is saying March (instead of February).

 

hehe... so much for the core-savvy AMD platforms of the past still releasing a quad core, when everybody complains about the age of quad cores and how it should end soon.

It all comes down to IPC, clocks, and most important, pricing to see if Ryzen is a win or lose for AMD. And if we finally see games make use of more than four cores.

 

Well they will have to release 6 core at the very lest, otherwise what will they be doing with all the 8 core's that have one or two core faulty. Going all the way down to 4 core would be a potential loss in profit. If the manufacture 4 core and 8 core chips separately then the second problem is what to do with all the 4core's that have a core or two faulty.
Trowing them out is not an option for them, only re purposing, after all they can simply disable a core with microcode, can they not?

 

I didn't know that. If so, that can produce a lot of defective chips... isn't it stupid to design a chip that way, instead of maybe laser cutting it afterwards and sell as a hexacore, for instance?

 

On the bright side, if the design of the chip does not allow 6 core processors, the 8 core ones must be price competitive or Ryzen is as good as dead.

In a best case scenario, the 4c/8t Ryzen would be as good as the 7700 4c/8t IPC-wise. In a more reasonable scenario the IPC of the 4c/8t Ryzen would be behind their Intel counterpart to some degree. So they must be very very price competitive in the old and boring 4c/8t segment for people to jump on a new platform. The reliability of Kaby-Lake is something that plays in Intel favour.
In this scenario i can see AMD aiming their 8c/8t Ryzen against the Kaby-Lake 4c/8t with a similar price, slightly less IPC but much more overall multithread performance.

I am enjoyng this Ryzen mistery so far. They have to disclosure in late february though or the excitement will begin to turn into exasperation.

 

Cheers HH.

Re: This rumour, the fact you posted this suggests to me that this lack of 6-cores (due to the 4+4 design) could be a reality?

Any inside info to share?

 

Or maybe, AMD knows that global foundry's yield's are very mature and the supply of defects would be very low, creating an shortage of supplies for the 6 cores chips, just like with the GTX 1070 (demand was so high that Nvidia had to disable good 1080 chips), or they can not disable small sections of the CCX (Ryzen 4 core modules), and ryzen 8 core defects would have an entire CCX disable and could be sold as a fully functional 4 cores Ryzen chip, what you guys think?

 

So it looks like only 4 cores no HT and 4c 8t with HT ,+ 8 cores no HT and 8c 16t with HT might be what Ryzen brings.

I'm just eagerly awaiting some real leaks and true information on single tread ipc performance compared against what Intel have right now on the table ( specifically performance in games not just synthetics benchmarks that are multithreaded ) , DDR4 performance as well since we do not know anything about that as well , and lastly Raid0 performance numbers on their sata 6 controller chipset , NVMe performance as well.

Lots of questions that i would like to see answers before i can make a well informed decision before i decide if i go the Intel route or AMD Ryzen. Not too long before we see this information out there , i am trying to keep calm @ the waiting game :infinity:

 

I find it very hard to believe AMD is dumb enough to design a chip where if 1 core is faulty (from manufacturing), it brings down 3 others with it. The relatively high probability of manufacturing imperfections would make mistakes seriously costly.

Prototypes of this CPU already work just fine, so motherboard manufacturers should not be struggling this long to figure out how to make a proper EFI/BIOS. Considering the functionality of the module system, it wouldn't surprise me if the reason they need more time is because of dealing with one or two disabled cores in a module. If the modules are anything like the kinds in Bulldozer-Excavator, they're supposed to work together to some degree. I'm sure it gets really complicated when any of the 4 cores of any combination could get disabled, where the BIOS maybe has to figure out which one is still usable and compensate for that.


Anyway, if they don't sell any 6-cores, an 8 core without HT sounds good to me.

 

If they do decide to abandon the 6c/6t or 6c/12t cpus it wouldn't be the end of the world. the only people who definitively need more than 4c/8t are prosumers or content creators... and those people would almost definitely go to the 8c/16t model Ryzen instead. for the average user 4c/8t or 8c/8t CPU's will be more than adequate for quite some time to come.

the logic of not making a 6c/6t or 6c/12t is not unreasonable, at least in my opinion

 

Man by the time they release this so-called Zen I wont need a new computer anymore but rather a WALKER! Jesus christ that's all I can say Amd, yet another month set-back! Take some notes from Intel why dont you?

 

I was hoping for 6c 12t cheap as pie with cheap mobo but if they will push out 8c 8t model for the same amount I will still consider upgrading... but im targeting at a core that is just a bit faster than what I have already because I do not want to sacrifice performance in games I already play which are not heavy multi-core, so yeah, it needs to be all around a better product.

 

The more Time goes bye the less ( Ryzen ) will make an impact.That's my opinion.In a more down to earth saying Intel has them by the Balls! haha.

I was also hoping for a nice 6/12 cpu with decent performance and $ but that looks to be a pipe dream at this point in time.

 

I would disagree with the "Intel having them by the balls" statement as to why it is being delayed by a month.

However, I would not be surprised if Intel has been sandbagging for the last 4+ years with their micro-architectural upgrades / refreshes, and have a real haymaker up their sleeve in anticipation of a good and competitive CPU coming from AMD.

If Ryzen is within 5% of Skylake IPC clock-for-clock then that can be considered a win in the AMD camp, their next hurdle is making sure the pricing is in line with consumer expectations. Their reputation of being cheap and cheerful because of an inability to compete in the past will prevent them from charging the same prices as intel, even if the CPU's perform approximately the same.

Regardless of how late Ryzen gets released, it is nothing but good news for all consumers that AMD gets back on the same level as Intel.