Ryzen 5 coming April 11th, 6c12t and 4c8t options available

[captain cactus]

8 minutes ago, jman629 said:

Can someone answer this for me? With the R5 1600 parts how are the cores distributed? I mean is it two CCXs each with three cores enabled or two CCXs with one having four cores enabled and the other one only having two enabled? 

Almost certainly it's a 3+3 setup to keep the total of 16MB L3 cache.

[Dietrichw]

24 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Almost certainly it's a 3+3 setup to keep the total of 16MB L3 cache.

You can still have 16MB with 4+2, just two cores are sharing 8MB and 4 are sharing the other 8MB without having to access the other CCX. 

It might be better for games if the chip is set up in 4+2 since more processes will be on one CCX and reduce the need of pulling data from the other CCX. Testing is needed to see how much of an impact there is with each config. 

[VicBar]

I think it needs to match the easily overcloked to 5GHz  of Kabylake to be liked... Because the IPC is not on par altough it is close, but with such a slower clock speed it just

won't hold up. Doesn't seem that way... I'm feeling disheartened.

[yian88]

Meh i was expecting a low end ryzen 5  4c/8T at 100$ like the goold old athlon ii/phenom ii days, i hope at least the lowest 4c/8t ryzen kicks the shit out of i3 7350k and breaths into i5 7600k's neck and the 6 core trash the i5 and brawls with i7 models.

 

If the slides are correct there will be no more low end cpu's anymore at <100$ from amd, which is quite retarded i really wanted a 4c/8T @4ghz  ryzen wtf amd.

 

Damn time passes so fast and inflation grows with it, 100$ has become scrap change nowdays.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Was hoping a few of the 4C versions would ship with high clocks, but apparently it actually is an issue with the processing node at reaching those...

 

Unfortunate, but the 1600 looks like a really amazing thing from my perspective.

[Chasem121]

I wonder if the 1600 and 1600x are going to be a 1700 and 1800x situation, where you can easily overclock it to the higher binned ones clock.

Can't decide if I want to go ahead and get a 1600x or just get a 1600 >_<

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 hours ago, yian88 said:

Meh i was expecting a low end ryzen 5  4c/8T at 100

And I want free cookies...  Tell Intel to sell you locked or S version i5s at $100 and maybe what you want will happen 

 

9 hours ago, yian88 said:

If the slides are correct there will be no more low end cpu's anymore at <100$ from amd

The slides are for R5s. there are still R3s to come.

[rawrdaysgoby]

Currently has way to many bugs.... Motherboard manufacturing is meh at best... not optimized for so many different games.... Great for professionals not really for regular people yet.... I will just assume many people will be buying second gene pinnacle ridge 

[captain cactus]

11 minutes ago, Chasem121 said:

I wonder if the 1600 and 1600x are going to be a 1700 and 1800x situation, where you can easily overclock it to the higher binned ones clock.

Can't decide if I want to go ahead and get a 1600x or just get a 1600 >_<

That's where reviewers come in. If they get a 1600 up close to 1600X levels the 1600 obviously is the better buy.

[juri-han]

9 hours ago, Heesleemer said:

should I even debate between 1700x or 6900k at this point  went x99 rig (with a xeon) at the wrong time

going to be really interesting to see what intel does with the x299 platform, my guess based on rumors and know how intel refuses the budge on price you will see a 12 core at that $1700 price tag 10 core where 6900k use to be and a 8 core 7850k for as close to $500 1800x as they can get (my guess would be around $600

[raphidy]

As expected, those clocks are low. I think next refresh we'll get 4.2-4.5 range, hopefully. Waiting for benchmarks now to see how they will really clock.

Intel has to do something harsh to get consumers on their side. AMD has too good value this time around.

[jasonc_01]

15 hours ago, juri-han said:

and you can thank amd and ryzen for he x299 7950k not costing as much as a new BMW

yet to be seen

[Princess Luna]

I really want Ryzen to be an entire success, they already made workstation prices drop so much, my brother Finally made a new work rig for video editing and rendering, an entire 1800x system for the price of a single 6900k, if Ryzen can bring gaming performance to the table too all the better for the sake of competition.

 

Then again I seen people even here at the forum still shopping for the overpriced Broadwell-E regardless so I don't have much faith in the market to adjust pricing that much on Intel products... I kinda really wish my 7700 to be the last Intel CPU I ever bought, because 4c/8t being the high end is bullshit, hopefully AMD becomes a better competitor on the next years, and makes 6c/12t the new mainstream for high end gaming builds.

[suits]

If that 1600x can perform as well as the 6800k... 

[Techstorm970]

17 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

Intel’s pretty much getting smoked until they do something. This is really nice to see.

Yes.  Ryzen 7 basically made X99 CPUs obsolete for at least 98% of the workstation market.

[Techstorm970]

24 minutes ago, suits said:

If that 1600x can perform as well as the 6800k... 

Are you saying you'd marry the 1600X?  

 

Edit:  After 3 seconds, I regretted this comment.

[suits]

2 minutes ago, techstorm970 said:

Are you saying you'd marry the 1600X?  

 

Edit:  After 3 seconds, I regretted this comment.

Lol

[JediFragger]

7 minutes ago, techstorm970 said:

Yes.  Ryzen 7 basically made X99 CPUs obsolete for at least 98% of the workstation market.

 

Got some big love for my 5930K@4.6Ghz setup, but yes you're right.

 

I'm hoping Ryzen keeps Skylake-X somewhat within the realms of sanity pricing-wise

[Belgarathian]

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amds-zen-goes-mainstream-with-ryzen-5-4-cores-8-threads-from-169/

 

Confirmed. 

[Drak3]

43 minutes ago, techstorm970 said:

Yes.  Ryzen 7 basically made X99 CPUs obsolete for at least 98% of the workstation market.

No, they won't. X99 will hold most of its share in the workstation market for a few reasons:

It's very stable and has been for awhile, when othwr components don't cause issues.

It has more PCIe expandibility, even with the lowest end offerings.

X99 can clock higher, for the application that involves workstation OC.

It has Intel's name on it, and reputation still matters quite alot in those markets.

OEMs have been able to fine tune their proprietary hardware to X99, something that will take time to do with Ryzen.

[DocSwag]

Fun fact for everyone who was like, "Ryzens lacking gaming performance compared to Intel parts is due to the two ccxs, and the quad core parts will fix this."

A quote from Anandtech:

Quote

We have confirmation from AMD that there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5. The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2. This will be true across all CPUs, ensuring a consistent performance throughout.

So nope. Still gonna be the same for quad core parts. I'm still interested to see if the quad core parts OC better.

[stconquest]

Haven't watched it yet, but: 

 

 

[Belgarathian]

36 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Fun fact for everyone who was like, "Ryzens lacking gaming performance compared to Intel parts is due to the two ccxs, and the quad core parts will fix this."

A quote from Anandtech:

So nope. Still gonna be the same for quad core parts. I'm still interested to see if the quad core parts OC better.

Probably wise on their part with optimisation coming for their CPUs, keeping them all the same will help with work load distribution between CCXs. 

 

I was hoping that the 4c/8t would be 1 CCX and the R3 would just have SMT disabled, or be lower clocked R5 parts. 

[themctipers]

On 3/15/2017 at 3:35 AM, FloRolf said:

If that's all true then prices are awesome, but we really need some better clock speeds here, AMD. 

right now amd is having issues with 14nm finfet overclocking

 

the wall isn't voltage, but its the process of making the cpu

 

see: q6600 revisions

[captain cactus]

From the article:

 

"We have confirmation from AMD that there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5. The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2. This will be true across all CPUs, ensuring a consistent performance throughout."

 

Unless AMD can fix the super slow communication speeds between CCXs I fear that the 4c8t R5 parts won't really hold up to the i5 until games/Windows realize how Ryzen is set up.