Ryzen CPU Lineup Possibly Leaked

[CallMeDrJones]

WCCFTech reporting, so take it with a heap of salt. Interesting positioning AMD is doing if this is true though. Naming scheme for almost all of the chips (1X00) correspond to the Intel Broadwell-E and Kaby Lake SKUs we'd expect them to be competing with (R5 1600X vs i5 7600K, R5 1500 vs  i5 7500). Crossing my fingers that goes for price as well...I'd love to see a R7 1800X "Black" edition in the same price neighborhood as a 6800K, though that's probably wishful thinking since they've been putting it up against the 6900K in most tests.

 

WCCF's source:

http://www.coolaler.com/threads/amd-r7、r5、r3-型號出爐-有17款之多.342093/

[2FA]

1 minute ago, CallMeDrJones said:

"Black" edition

In the past that just meant they were overclockable, all Ryzen CPUs are able to overclock.

[Guest]

No dual core? This changes things quite a bit

No 10 core cpu to rival the i7 6950x?

 

[thenastyjbenny]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

 

No 10 core cpu to rival the i7 6950x?

 

That would have been epic. AMD, back from the dead. Apparently not.

[captain cactus]

All 8-core CPUs were confirmed by AMD to be at 3.4GHz+, so this is bogus.

1 minute ago, deXxterlab97 said:

No dual core? This changes things quite a bit

No 10 core cpu to rival the i7 6950x?

 

Dual cores come when the APUs come. And the 8-core version was the max core count from the get-go.

[Guest Darth Revan]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

No dual core? This changes things quite a bit

No 10 core cpu to rival the i7 6950x?

 

This is 2017 for God sake. It's time to stop making dual cores.

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

No dual core? This changes things quite a bit

No 10 core cpu to rival the i7 6950x?

 

Dual cores should have died a long time ago. If you can manufacture quad cores just as cheap, there is no reason to bother with dual cores.

 

6950X isn't even worth competing against, hardly any profit return trying.

[thenastyjbenny]

I must say I like how they implemented the "R" instead of the "i" thing that intel has going on. I was wondering how they were going to do that. 

 

Thumbs up, AMD.

[Java]

Those are some interesting names for CPUs, thought they would keep the FX name.  Also, so many different variants for the same amount of cores..

[Megah3rtz]

I feel like this is a bunch of bullshit and websites are just feeding off the hype. AMD already said the 8cores would have 3.4baseclock and an unknown turbo. 

[thenastyjbenny]

2 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

This is 2017 for God sake. It's time to stop making dual cores.

But they're cheap. And they work. 

 

Hyperthreading makes them the go-to for low-budget gaming, although I must say I hope Ryzen changes that.

[3DOSH]

1 minute ago, Java said:

Those are some interesting names for CPUs, thought they would keep the FX name. 

Bulldozer fucked that up for them, FX now means second grade CPU.

[CallMeDrJones]

@DeadEyePsycho Indeed. Not familiar with previous AMD labeling conventions but I'm aware that all the Ryzen chips are overclockable. 

 

What I really want to know, and I don't know if AMD has explicitly addressed this, is how XFR and manual overclocking will work together, if at all.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

In the past that just meant they were overclockable, all Ryzen CPUs are able to overclock.

That is, assuming that the BE's were the only overclockable chips in a lineup. Otherwise, it meant that they were supposedly prebinned and better overclockers than non-BE's.

2 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Dual cores should have died a long time ago.

2 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

This is 2017 for God sake. It's time to stop making dual cores.

 

Dual cores have their places in office settings and for systems that are used for Facebook & YouTube. They also could become the chips powering future high end set top boxes to counter systems like the Roku and various Android TV boxes.

[Guest Darth Revan]

2 minutes ago, JR8 said:

But they're cheap. And they work. 

 

So is the Pentium D. That doesn't mean we should still make them.

[2FA]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Dual cores have their places in office settings and for systems that are used for Facebook & YouTube. They also could become the chips powering future high end set top boxes to counter systems like the Roku and various Android TV boxes.

You conveniently excluded the second part of my statement. If you can manufacture quad cores at the same price of a dual core, then there is no reason to have dual cores.

[CallMeDrJones]

6 minutes ago, Megah3rtz said:

I feel like this is a bunch of bullshit and websites are just feeding off the hype. AMD already said the 8cores would have 3.4baseclock and an unknown turbo. 

Could be. I would expect both of the 1800 series to run at 3.4+ base clocks though, which would be consistent with what they've announced so far. No reason they won't release more lower clocked variants to pad their segments.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

You conveniently excluded the second part of my statement. If you can manufacture quad cores at the same price of a dual core, then there is no reason to have dual cores.

Not going to touch a part of an argument that isn't easily proved or disproven without insider knowledge.

But it stands to reason that the costs of manufacturing a dual core is lower than a quad core - you're producing half the components per die, meaning that you get around twice as many dies from a wafer for the same cost.

[m0k]

16 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

No dual core? This changes things quite a bit

No 10 core cpu to rival the i7 6950x?

 

i think people are too fixated on core count

and AMD quadcore performs the same as an intel dual core in the past anyways

are you looking for lower dual core performance 

or are you looking for lower TDP options

 

[2FA]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Not going to touch a part of an argument that isn't easily proved or disproven without insider knowledge.

But it stands to reason that the costs of manufacturing a dual core is lower than a quad core - you're producing half the components per die, meaning that you get around twice as many dies from a wafer for the same cost.

You know they disable two cores on quad cores to make dual cores right?

[Clanscorpia]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Not going to touch a part of an argument that isn't easily proved or disproven without insider knowledge.

But it stands to reason that the costs of manufacturing a dual core is lower than a quad core - you're producing half the components per die, meaning that you get around twice as many dies from a wafer for the same cost.

thats, thats not how it works. Basically every chip is the same they just laser of the components they dont want. Basically the best chips are i7 and so on 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

You know they disable two cores on quad cores to make dual cores right?

@Clanscorpia

That hasn't been true for quite a few years now, at least from Intel's side. The Core i3 and Core i7 come from different wafers, and dies that are unacceptable are turned into Celeron & Pentium, and Core i5, respectively.

 

Also, even if dual cores were quad cores, but cut back. Those dual cores would have had defective cores had they stayed quad cores, resulting in either negative market response or throwing away money just scrapping them.

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

@Clanscorpia

That hasn't been true for quite a few years now, at least from Intel's side. The Core i3 and Core i7 come from different wafers, and dies that are unacceptable are turned into Celeron & Pentium, and Core i5, respectively.

 

Also, even if dual cores were quad cores, but cut back. Those dual cores would have had defective cores had they stayed quad cores, resulting in either negative market response or throwing away money just scrapping them.

So they still laser it off, just 2 different wafers. And Im well informed what would happen if they didnt laser them

[flibberdipper]

6 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

You know they disable two cores on quad cores to make dual cores right?

That hasn't really been a thing since the Phenom II's (and maybe the FX lineup since they're more or less just fancy Phenoms).

[CallMeDrJones]

1 minute ago, mok said:

i think people are too fixated on core count

and AMD quadcore performs the same as an intel dual core in the past anyways

are you looking for lower dual core performance 

or are you looking for lower TDP options

 

Exactly. Core counts aren't everything. On the high end, I'm not realistically expecting the 1800X (if that ends up being its name) to keep pace with the 6900K in every real-world application. But if it can perform equivalently to, or perhaps a bit better than a 12-thread 6850k for a bit less $$$ then I would consider my wait well worth it.