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

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,366
    Likes Received:
    6,393
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  2. sverek

    sverek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,756
    Likes Received:
    2,597
    GPU:
    NOVIDIA -0.5GB
    dejavu ;)

    Looking forward for 6 cores performance.
     
  3. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    21,400
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    MSI RX5700
    source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th
     
  4. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,288
    Likes Received:
    346
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti @ 2GHz

  5. GSDragoon

    GSDragoon Member Guru

    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    30
    GPU:
    AMD Radeon VII
    Interesting, CCX for all of them then.
     
  6. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    21,400
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    MSI RX5700
    Yeah.... I was disappointed to read that. I was hoping that the 4c/8t chips would have a single CCX. I'm pretty much expecting a similar trend for that 4c/8t and 6c/12t chips as we see with the Ryzen 7 chips where anything latency sensitive sees a hefty performance hit due to the "AMD Infinity Fabric" being crap.

    CCX would be a part of all of them anyway. Ryzen 7 processors contain 2 fully functional CCX units. Ryzen 5 will have 2 partially disabled CCX units. Even if they weren't being split 3+3 or 2+2, there would still be at least 1 CCX unit on the quad-core processors and 2 on the hexa-core processors. Each CCX unit contains 4 CPU cores.... No CCX unit, no cores.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  7. Venix

    Venix Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    380
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    i was hopping the 4 core ones would be 1 full ccx unit i thought he yields on the ryzen where good ....unless .... core unlocking ? my brother has my old phenom 2 720 unlocked to 4 cores ((although when the 4th core is on the temperature reading is corrupted other than that it is stable for years !)) he wants to update , he is not really an enthusiast so for the 500 euros budget that he set me i was planning to build him a 4core 8 thread ryzen + 470 4gb and 8gb ram with b350 board and see if i can throw in an evo 212 and get it to got 3.8 ghz or so .... but i still have a dream of unlocking cpu's again ! :p that would be a wet dream!

    to get back on topic i was expecting the 4 core parts to fair a bit better in games mostly because i was thinking they will have 1 ccx ...now i can already see people all over the internet bashing em for their gaming performance except if there is a fix (if possible) of some short till then
     
  8. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    21,400
    Likes Received:
    806
    GPU:
    MSI RX5700
    I've got a bad feeling that fewer cores will equate to more performance impact.... AMD is already showing multi-threaded Cinebench results that show the Ryzen 5 1600X only being 69% faster than the i5 7600k....which isn't very promising considering there's 8 more logical cores.


    Ryzen 5 1600X has 12 logical cores (6c/12t)
    Core i5 7600K has 4 logical cores (4c/4t)
     
  9. Rillipiru

    Rillipiru Master Guru

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    660 ti 2GB
  10. GeniusPr0

    GeniusPr0 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    RTX 2080
    16 core 32 thread, 200W plz
     

  11. Venix

    Venix Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    380
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb

    i am not sure if 69% it is "only" if the cores where as strong 1:1 with intel skylake 4 cores vs 6 is 50% extra power but the zen core is just slightly slower in ipc and the 1600x i think it also has lower clock speeds no then? you factor in the the smt so when you sum those up and get 169% performance comparing hyperthreading gives about 30% better score on cine-bench right ? so considering clock speeds and the small ipc difference 169% seems about right
     
  12. Chillin

    Chillin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,814
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    -
    [​IMG]
     
  13. GeniusPr0

    GeniusPr0 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    RTX 2080
  14. MrBonk

    MrBonk Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,062
    Likes Received:
    110
    GPU:
    MSI RTX 2080
    Has anyone done clock for clock comparisons with Intel CPU's yet? I'd really like to see how Ryzen really performs when matched at 4.0Ghz to see how much the IPC difference really makes vs higher frequency and higher OC headroom.
     
  15. ender79

    ender79 Member Guru

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 970 ~ 1455 Mhz
    Ok, now I'm really disappointed. Ryzen 4c/8t with only one CCX enabled was the most anticipated part. Seems to me AMD is forcing developers to make all software to use that Fabric interconnect. That is the path for long term for AMD.....
     

  16. ender79

    ender79 Member Guru

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 970 ~ 1455 Mhz
    In fact is obvious :

    Ryzen 5 1500X 4/8 3.5/3.7 +200 16 MB 65 W $189

    A quad core with 16M L3 cache, can only be configured 2+2
     
  17. prateek

    prateek New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 1060 Mini/ 6GB
    PC Graphics Performance Review Request: ETS2 and ATS

    Hi,
    Probably off topic, but could you please take some valuable time of yours to review the PC graphics performance of Euro Truck Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator?

    Your Graphics Tests are truly detailed and I swear by the results, especially since you also test mid range cards like gtx 1060 at 4K too! Not to mention the awesome VRAM usage graphs!

    Thanks!
    ( I could not find a proper place to post a request, hence posted it here!)
     
  18. moeppel

    moeppel Member Guru

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    1080 Ti
    Well, this in turn means that the R5s will not be better than R7s in gaming - or rather, at the very least suffern from the same CCX latency issues.

    From one perspective that's unfortunate but from the other side it makes sense as it would likely not look good for AMD, either if they went with a single 4 core CCX having their quads outperform the rest even though they run at the same clock speeds.

    Question remains if the CCX issues will be addressed eventually, by whomever.

    I'd also not be surprised if the first batch(es) of R5s could be reliably unlocked :nerd:

    Perhaps however the release of R7s ahead of time were meant to collect enough 'spare parts' for the others.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  19. ender79

    ender79 Member Guru

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 970 ~ 1455 Mhz
    1600x with 6 core Vs i5 4 cores means 50% more cores . SMT enabled will add a performance between 10-30% . So 69% is good.
     
  20. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    537
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    No, it doesn't make sense. Like has been said multiple times, Intel's quad is still a better game performer than the obnoxiously expensive ones with more cores. If that works perfectly for Intel, why would it suddenly hurt AMD? It would be weird for an underdog to be so picky and proud.
     

Share This Page