7700k maxes out in games. No Ryzen does! WTF bottleneck?! %'s explained

[Goildzy]

I was hopping around on youtube and replied on alot of em (im such a girl sometimes). There is alot of mistaking by people who think Ryzen bottle necks for example the 1080ti. Ryzen is at 25% cpu usage where 7700k is at 60%. Ryzen has more headroom and 7700k will fail in the future is what i hear or the other way around....people lost it!

Aimed pure gaming wise this is not really the truth. I copied a reply from my Youtube to here just cause I had some nerdgasms coming up.

 

So first here are some shout outs by ppl commenting on a youtube video:
 

They're saying the 7700k will bottleneck sooner, as when the 7700k hits 100% the AMD CPU will be at 75%-85%, not sure if that is a factor to consider yet though as i'm not sure when we will be seeing a 7700k hit 100% and i don't think it will be very soon but its still a valid point nonetheless and one that should be talked about.

 

jesus those cpu usage numbers are not a good sign for the intel longevity even if it is slightly faster.

 

the AMD chip is always 15 to 25% lower usage on average it indicates that the intel chip will probably it cpu bottleneck first.

 

compared to ryzen 25%, it will botteneck much sooner.

 

But ryzen is basicly bottlenecking already because it's get lower fps with same graphics card compared to 7700k

 

7700k will bottleneck sooner? Ryzen is already bottleneck compared to 7700k.

 

(I laughed my ass off on this one)

7700k is bottleneck. let me explain it in analog way. suppose you have only one hand and can please 2 girls with a hand because you are quick and Joe also can but not as fast as you and the difference is he has 2 hands... and the rule is 2 girls by hand, but when there are 4 girls....... Joe can please them and you can´t.

 

Ryzen runs the games at 25-30% CPU load, while performing on par with the higher clocked 7700K. Truly impressive.
 

Anyway after alot more of these I decided to finally reply (edited a little):

It is only cause of the 2x 4 cored (glued) chips that percentages show this way. So if there is no game optimisation for more than 4 threads, than when 7700k is 100% the ryzen will be 50% (example) but keep in mind the other 50% of Ryzens cpu will not be used at all for that game. And instead it will be used just for other things like your OS and CO. . Therefor the ryzen will be equally (even faster, due of lower clock speed) maxed out in such terms. Ryzen is not bottlenecking like people think but just slightly lower clocked +/- 1ghz to the 7700k. Either way, if you look at it Ryzen has alot of head room (other 8 threads) to let anything out of the game not interfere within the cores that the game is spinning on, and so it will use 4 cores for that work (8threads) which prevents hickups that the 7700k would surely have when using more programs. Cause 8 threads still doesnt make 8 cores but it keeps at 4 physical. So in the end you could say 7700k is getting old, strong but old. 8 cores can simply handle more pressure overall than 4 physicals.

 

This is the reason why I LMAO on the Analog Explanation about the 2-4 girls. On which i replied that what if those other girls were 2 man, than it would be about developping and the coding of the game (in his term 2 man, UHM girls, uhm whatever)

 

Thanks for the moment of time

[Fonzie92]

eh, good analysis cupcake.

 

My mind was blown away when hardwareunboxed or w/e made that vidoe comparing the r5 1600 to the 7700k.. lol a monster

[Goildzy]

Just now, Fonzie92 said:

eh, good analysis cupcake.

 

My mind was blown away when hardwareunboxed or w/e made that vidoe comparing the r5 1600 to the 7700k.. lol a monster

rofl cupcake

 

Yes the r5 1600 is an awesome chip for the price, you couldnt be unhappy with that price/performance ... actually i think it might be one of the best price/performance deals you can make atm when aiming to OC the 1600 obv. 

[tom_w141]

12 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

They're saying the 7700k will bottleneck sooner

Technically they are correct (even coffeelake will be moving to 6 cores)

 

12 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

when the 7700k hits 100% the AMD CPU will be at 75%-85%

Also correct

 

13 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

But ryzen is basicly bottlenecking already because it's get lower fps with same graphics card compared to 7700k

Correct because current/older games don't use all threads Ryzen has available. This should not be the case in future however. the nearest example I can think of is Destiny 2 which is designed with multithreading in mind. up to 16 threads. It will be a slow change but the 1600 would overtake the 7700k when multithreaded gaming becomes more common place.

 

15 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

7700k is bottleneck. let me explain it in analog way. suppose you have only one hand and can please 2 girls with a hand because you are quick and Joe also can but not as fast as you and the difference is he has 2 hands... and the rule is 2 girls by hand, but when there are 4 girls....... Joe can please them and you can´t.

wtf

 

16 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

It is only cause of the 2x 4 cored (glued) chips that percentages show this way

Get off the Intel bandwagon no glue is involved. You are incorrect anyway. Ryzen is 1 die. Epyc is 4 dies which is why Intel said the glue thing.

 

17 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

So if there is no game optimisation for more than 4 threads, than when 7700k is 100% the ryzen will be 50% (example) but keep in mind the other 50% of Ryzens cpu will not be used at all for that game.

That is true for now. But won't be when games become better multithreaded.

 

18 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

And instead it will be used just for other things like your OS and CO. . Therefor the ryzen will be equally (even faster, due of lower clock speed) maxed out in such terms

Oh I see so what is running the OS and background apps for the 7700k? This statement is incorrect and stupid.

 

19 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

So in the end you could say 7700k is getting old, strong but old

Yes it is which is why Intel are retiring it next year. the 8700k is 6 cores/12 threads

[NoMercy]

Yeah, if ryzen7 is able to overclock to 5ghz or more, you would see less post about "1700 or 7700k".

[Goildzy]

25 minutes ago, NoMercy said:

Yeah, if ryzen7 is able to overclock to 5ghz or more, you would see less post about "1700 or 7700k".

Im yet to see the first intel on 8cores+ hitting 5ghz. The problem with more cores is heat. Lower clocks is less heat to compensate this.

[NoMercy]

Just now, Goildzy said:

Im yet to see the first intel on 8cores+ hitting 5ghz. The problem with more cores is heat. Lower clocks is less heat to compensate this.

consumer like us actually dont care if INTEL or AMD. We just want high core count and high clock speed, ofcourse with high IPC, and low price as well. The problem with heat? The engineers should settle it, consumer just buy an AIO or maybe a custom water loop.

 

Since they cant do it, so we just live with all those "1700 vs 7700k" post,  

[Goildzy]

34 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Technically they are correct (even coffeelake will be moving to 6 cores) - They are not. 6 core games are rare.

 

Also correct - Correct but not really as how they mean to read it, ryzen is at a lower % but the 4 cores is the max that game is coded for, so the other 4 cores are not even or ever mentioned within the game play.

 

Correct because current/older games don't use all threads Ryzen has available. This should not be the case in future however. the nearest example I can think of is Destiny 2 which is designed with multithreading in mind. up to 16 threads. It will be a slow change but the 1600 would overtake the 7700k when multithreaded gaming becomes more common place. - Eventually we will! And i cant say i just beg for this and dream! But the fact is that companies dont give a damn about you or me but about what sells the best in a certain branche.

 

wtf - LOL ikr wtf indeed ...

 

Get off the Intel bandwagon no glue is involved. You are incorrect anyway. Ryzen is 1 die. Epyc is 4 dies which is why Intel said the glue thing. - You are wrong ryzen connected through infinity fabric, try check this out Ryzen behaves like dual 4c8t

 

 

That is true for now. But won't be when games become better multithreaded. - It will only become harder for the 7700k

 

Oh I see so what is running the OS and background apps for the 7700k? This statement is incorrect and stupid. - No, when your 7700k is 100% loaded in a game and you will add more programs spinning in the background where your OS obv is a standard, the more you add the quicker 7700k shall lose performance and will drop fps and or microstutter or just plane stutter. Where as ryzen will all do that on 4 other cores not messing with the occupied ones for gaming this way you can easy multitask while gaming on ryzen.

 

Yes it is which is why Intel are retiring it next year. the 8700k is 6 cores/12 threads - Intel wasnt planning that if you follow them. Instead they wanted to milk more, but  now that Ryzen launched they dont like to admit they are a little burning from it and they have nothing to reply yet, especially not within price/performance terms. Intel immediatly released weird more cored versions and X versions and a lame chipset at prices way behond nuts. Dropped till 100 dollar/euro on the 7700k etc. Intel is not retiring anything it just does at it always did. And now they are forcing these chips out UNPLANNED! These superior chips only come out with a base clock of 3,5ghz and pricey as hell. I see no reason to buy that over AMD atm.

 

[Goildzy]

15 minutes ago, NoMercy said:

consumer like us actually dont care if INTEL or AMD. We just want high core count and high clock speed, ofcourse with high IPC, and low price as well. The problem with heat? The engineers should settle it, consumer just buy an AIO or maybe a custom water loop.

 

Since they cant do it, so we just live with all those "1700 vs 7700k" post,  

Everyone is getting plagued by biased things and conclude from there. Im like trying to show that it doesnt really matter alot, 7700k becomes really important if u wanna max out builds 5-10k for pure pro (so money earning) gaming, to squeeze out everything out of ur gpu's. For the rest its all overkill, actually imo i like the 7700k alot (if u oc) on 1080p with a cheap gpu to max out any desired hz u wanna play on. And also i like it alot cause if you just only buy a cheap board (that can oc) and stuff in a nice 7700k with 16 gb ram or 8 even (prefer 16), you have a very nice cpu+igpu for only around 400-500 total budget build, and that is amazing! 

 

If i saw a 7700k with the same cores as ryzen 7 but also the same speeds as the 7700k we know for a $400, id buy that instantly! But we all know it will be 800-1000, and that just APPLE-ISH jup i said it...

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, Goildzy said:

They are not. 6 core games are rare.

Right now yes but not indefinitely. If both Intel and AMD move their mainstream platforms beyond 4 cores things will change faster. You didn't listen at all. I said based on current trends the person is correct, the quad core will bottleneck 1st.

 

3 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Correct but not really as how they mean to read it, ryzen is at a lower % but the 4 cores is the max that game is coded for, so the other 4 cores are not even or ever mentioned within the game play

See above.

 

3 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

companies dont give a damn about you or me but about what sells the best in a certain branche.

Game devs use whatever is common hardware. If hex/octacore cpus are suddenly available to more people they will be utilised.

 

4 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

You are wrong ryzen connected through infinity fabric, try check this out

*sigh* I'm on the platform and know it extensively do you think I'm going to be wrong on such a simple matter? Ryzen is ONE DIE, TWO CCXs per die. They are still on the SAME DIE so are not glued together. Intel said the 4 glued together desktop thing about Epyc because Epyc is FOUR Ryzen DIES. Ryzen is ONE DIE.

 

7 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

No, when your 7700k is 100% loaded in a game and you will add more programs spinning in the background where your OS obv is a standard

Well done? You proved my point. You can't say The Ryzen is inconvenienced by running the OS and other apps because so is any processor. You made it sound like its fine that the 7700k is at 100% and that its not doing any background stuff. It is. (which you have gone on to say in your response, making tour original comment pointless)

 

9 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Intel wasnt planning that if you follow them. Instead they wanted to milk more, but  now that Ryzen launched

As much as I would love that to be true its simply not. Think. WTF is the point in coffeelake if it was a quad core? It would be the same as Kabylake (there is no IPC gain with coffeelake). Coffeelake would have been planned to be 6 cores for a long time (years) they don't just go oh shit and slap 2 cores on. They did for X299 but that's different, in that case they already have the higher core count CPUs they are just Xeons. Coffeelake was 6 cores before Ryzen even launched.

 

12 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Intel is not retiring anything it just does at it always did

No longer producing = retiring. Abandoning i5 4 threads and i7 8 threads on the 8th gen means they are retiring the design. i3s will become 4 threads.

 

13 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

And now they are forcing these chips out UNPLANNED

12,14,16 and 18 X299 chips were unplanned yes. Coffeelake 6 core was always planned.

 

14 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

These superior chips only come out with a base clock of 3,5ghz and pricey as hell. I see no reason to buy that over AMD atm

I'll save other people the time: AVX512.

 

Also lastly please learn to quote. That was so difficult to pick out the relevant information I nearly didn't bother. Do not quote someone and type inside the quote!

[PCGuy_5960]

1 hour ago, Goildzy said:

There is alot of mistaking by people who think Ryzen bottle necks for example the 1080ti. Ryzen is at 25% cpu usage where 7700k is at 60%. 

Low CPU usage doesn't mean that the CPU is not a bottleneck. For example if a game can only use 2 threads, a 3GHz 5960X would be at 10% CPU usage or something like that and a 5GHz 7700K would be at 25% CPU usage.

 

But because this game can only use 2 threads, the 7700K bottleneck the GPU less than the 5960X.

[Goildzy]

3 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

*snip*

You have issues and ur statements do not mix up well with what you say. I wonder if you even read that article and if you even read at all. Im not the one making ur points, your the one remaking my own points and than claim that they are yours?! Thats what you get for not reading well.

 

You have no understanding how marketing works. 

 

Looking above, I see clouds.

 

I quote my own ways plz learn to not be so weird. Its not my problem you dont even take time reading full posts and think with the text.

 

You can save ppls time but facts are that marketing show alot of different stories about who has what spinning at home. That i said i would buy amd over intels 6 core is due of the price performance you get and not how strong intels chips are. Ill save peoples money instead.

 

Intel made us stay behind, why wouldnt they drop in size? Another kabylake extension for real. Intel says $$$ gimme your money. 

 

Why do i even bother this anymore you sound like your defending yourself not reality. Get realistic. You sound really mad, and wrong too. Your on a ryzen and dont even know how they work, its why i gave you that article. 

 

 

Your info is false.........

 

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, Goildzy said:

You have issues and ur statements do not mix up well with what you say. I wonder if you even read that article and if you even read at all. Im not the one making ur points, your the one remaking my own points and than claim that they are yours?! Thats what you get for not reading well.

 

You have no understanding how marketing works. 

 

Looking above, I see clouds.

 

I quote my own ways plz learn to not be so weird. Its not my problem you dont even take time reading full posts and think with the text.

 

You can save ppls time but facts are that marketing show alot of different stories about who has what spinning at home. That i said i would buy amd over intels 6 core is due of the price performance you get and not how strong intels chips are. Ill save peoples money instead.

 

Intel made us stay behind, why wouldnt they drop in size? Another kabylake extension for real. Intel says $$$ gimme your money. 

 

Why do i even bother this anymore you sound like your defending yourself not reality. Get realistic. You sound really mad, and wrong too. Your on a ryzen and dont even know how they work, its why i gave you that article. 

 

 

Your info is false.........

 

LMFAO wow K. I'm busy atm if I can be bothered to destroy you later I will.

[Goildzy]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Low CPU usage doesn't mean that the CPU is not a bottleneck. For example if a game can only use 2 threads, a 3GHz 5960X would be at 10% CPU usage or something like that and a 5GHz 7700K would be at 25% CPU usage.

 

But because this game can only use 2 threads, the 7700K bottleneck the GPU less than the 5960X.

Yes it what people call out in public im trying to tell em this exactly lol

[Goildzy]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

LMFAO wow K. I'm busy atm if I can be bothered to destroy you later I will.

Goodluck with that. Ill be waiting

[tom_w141]

Just now, Goildzy said:

Goodluck with that. Ill be waiting

I don't know if i'll bother you are pretty dense. I remember you having similar issues understanding how gpus worked in a similar thread a few months ago

[Goildzy]

 

21 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Low CPU usage doesn't mean that the CPU is not a bottleneck. For example if a game can only use 2 threads, a 3GHz 5960X would be at 10% CPU usage or something like that and a 5GHz 7700K would be at 25% CPU usage.

 

But because this game can only use 2 threads, the 7700K bottleneck the GPU less than the 5960X.

2 hours ago, Goildzy said:

So if there is no game optimisation for more than 4 threads, than when 7700k is 100% the ryzen will be 50% (example) but keep in mind the other 50% of Ryzens cpu will not be used at all for that game. And instead it will be used just for other things like your OS and CO. .Therefor the ryzen will be equally (even faster, due of lower clock speed) maxed out in such terms. Ryzen is not bottlenecking like people think but just slightly lower clocked +/- 1ghz to the 7700k.

Yes it what im trying to explain to people. That the program, in this case a game, works only to what it is optimised for. And indeed will show a higher % on 7700k in ur case cause it looks at the max cores you own. After that the speed is the fps pusher, so the 7700k will pump more speed to keep the gpu satisfied than the 5960X. But it would also be less bottlenecked for the 5960X if the game allowed 4 threads or more. 

 

 Nice saying just diff chips.

 

Edit: BUT WHAT IF, you wanna spin that same game 20x so basicly 20 games open? Than the story of the bottlenecks become different.  sorry i had to edit it

[tom_w141]

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

You have issues and ur statements do not mix up well with what you say. I wonder if you even read that article and if you even read at all. Im not the one making ur points, your the one remaking my own points and than claim that they are yours?! Thats what you get for not reading well.

Borderline gibberish I don't need an article I know what my cpu comprises of.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Thats what you get for not reading well.

Smartest thing you have ever said. Take your own advice rather than spreading misinformation to people.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Looking above, I see clouds.

WHAT?! I DON'T EVEN...?!

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

You have no understanding how marketing works

Where on Earth were we discussing marketing?!

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

I quote my own ways

Well your "own ways" are shit and confusing. Instead of stupid response like this why don't you ask how to quote properly? I'll happily tell you: Highlight text and click quote (it appears in orange near the highlighted text)

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

learn to not be so weird

Ask anyone on the forum I don't think i'm the one with a few screws loose here.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

you dont even take time reading full posts and think with the text.

Again great advice - Take it yourself. I do read and respond accordingly. It's easy when you understand the topic which you don't.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

You can save ppls time but facts are that marketing show alot of different stories about who has what spinning at home

Again wtf?! Marketing? What? So off topic man.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Intel made us stay behind

The only accurate thing you have said. However any company that has a market monopoly like Intel did would do this.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

why wouldnt they drop in size? Another kabylake extension for real.

Intel do dumb shit but they wouldn't release another Skylake clone. COFFEELAKE WAS ALWAYS 6 CORES. IT HAS BEEN ON THEIR ROADMAP FOR YEARS.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Why do i even bother this anymore

I often think the same every time I come into one of your retarded threads full of misinformation and wade through the sea of bullshit for the benefit of others. Lest you might confuse them and spread misinformation further.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

You sound really mad, and wrong too

I get irritated by dense people who can't understand even when having it explained to them. Btw I'm not wrong. You are.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Your on a ryzen and dont even know how they work

I know how it works better than you ever will. You seriously think Ryzen is multi die? You don't know the difference between a die and CCX even after being told in this thread. I'll bring it down to your level. Lets pretend dies are rocks.

 

Ryzen desktop cpus are 1 rock. One. Singular. Not 2 not 3 not 4. ONE. ONE rock. To put 2 things together you need more than 1 right? So if you only have 1 rock its not glued to anything.

 

Epyc server cpus are 4 rocks. The 4 rocks are all linked together or "glued". Which is why Intel made this statement.

 

I honestly can't bring it to a lower level if you still don't understand the different between a die and a ccx you are beyond hope.

 

26 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Your info is false.........

Nope.

[Simon771]

If you see that game is using 60% of your 7700k and only 40% of Ryzen CPU, it means that game in unable to utilise more cores/threads.

CPU is not botlenecking ... game engine is.

 

And those games that will acctually use 100% of your i7 7700k (causing real bottleneck), are just pure garbage. When game is suing that much CPU power, it means that it lacks optimisation.

 

What developers should do is, to move as much workload as possible on GPU instead of CPU. GPUs are much more powerfull, and can do most taks much faster.

[Goildzy]

23 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

If you see that game is using 60% of your 7700k and only 40% of Ryzen CPU, it means that game in unable to utilise more cores/threads.

CPU is not botlenecking ... game engine is.

 

And those games that will acctually use 100% of your i7 7700k (causing real bottleneck), are just pure garbage. When game is suing that much CPU power, it means that it lacks optimisation.

 

What developers should do is, to move as much workload as possible on GPU instead of CPU. GPUs are much more powerfull, and can do most taks much faster.

Yes thats the point of all this, the lower % is measured due of threads not being able to be ever used cause the program is not programmed to use em that way (as in lets say 4 core max). I agree there with you but yet you need to look at it different. 7700k on a 100% is most certainly maxed out, that game is not garbage cause if you would lift up more demands from the GPU  like a higher resolution or AA (the resolution doesnt really add demand for the gpu power but the new images in it do, it must render more) than it will be used less due of a higher gpu demand it can work slower (the cpu). 

 

The way you could put more workload on gpus is when you would go near the max of our consumer-techs and play on a resolution like 4k or 8k. This way the GPU must work so hard that it is easier for the cpu to catch up. Where as if you drop resolutions and or gpu settings, the gpu works less hard and has its work ready everytime demanding more of the cpu's respond to catch up with the gpu's finished cycles this is why cpu benchmarks are hold on low(er) resolutions (in the earlier years you used alot lower resolution but our gpus are fricking strong atm). However on such high rdemanding 4k 8k res's the demanding from the GPU is so high that it can barely even push above 40-70 fps or whatever the case is with the card you use, and you dont need a 7700k to support 40-70 fps.

Yes i wonder if such a technique is possible to say (and i even thought about this in weird situation), take away prosessors as a part of a GPU's cycle. And invent something like the ultimate IGPU Gaming Machine/Card/Pc ? Exactly like you say, put all work on a GPU (visualwise). Problem is there are chips for visual math and chips for REAL math aka Processor and those two work different, and your cpu is the heart of your pc....everything that happens must pass it it gets signaled heck why IPC is so important.

[The Benjamins]

15 minutes ago, Goildzy said:

Yes thats the point of all this, the lower % is measured due of threads not being able to be ever used cause the program is not programmed to use em that way (as in lets say 4 core max). I agree there with you but yet you need to look at it different. 7700k on a 100% is most certainly maxed out, that game is not garbage cause if you would lift up more demands from the GPU  like a higher resolution or AA (the resolution doesnt really add demand for the gpu power but the new images in it do, it must render more) than it will be used less due of a higher gpu demand it can work slower (the cpu). 

 

The way you could put more workload on gpus is when you would go near the max of our consumer-techs and play on a resolution like 4k or 8k. This way the GPU must work so hard that it is easier for the cpu to catch up. Where as if you drop resolutions and or gpu settings, the gpu works less hard and has its work ready everytime demanding more of the cpu's respond to catch up with the gpu's finished cycles this is why cpu benchmarks are hold on low(er) resolutions (in the earlier years you used alot lower resolution but our gpus are fricking strong atm). However on such high rdemanding 4k 8k res's the demanding from the GPU is so high that it can barely even push above 40-70 fps or whatever the case is with the card you use, and you dont need a 7700k to support 40-70 fps.

Yes i wonder if such a technique is possible to say (and i even thought about this in weird situation), take away prosessors as a part of a GPU's cycle. And invent something like the ultimate IGPU Gaming Machine/Card/Pc ? Exactly like you say, put all work on a GPU (visualwise). Problem is there are chips for visual math and chips for REAL math aka Processor and those two work different, and your cpu is the heart of your pc....everything that happens must pass it it gets signaled heck why IPC is so important.

so everything we know already and that has been hashed out in many threads.

 

@tom_w141 has explained this many times in other threads correctly. he also understand ryzen and were it excels better then you.

[Goildzy]

1 hour ago, tom_w141 said:

I know how it works better than you ever will. You seriously think Ryzen is multi die? You don't know the difference between a die and CCX even after being told in this thread. I'll bring it down to your level. Lets pretend dies are rocks.

 

Ryzen desktop cpus are 1 rock. One. Singular. Not 2 not 3 not 4. ONE. ONE rock. To put 2 things together you need more than 1 right? So if you only have 1 rock its not glued to anything.

I never said it was not one die i even put glued between ( ) as it still works like a glued one, the only way to ramp up ryzen is to add faster and faster ram.