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

[JoaoPRSousa]

Gooooooooooooooood stuff

[captain cactus]

37 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Ryzen 5s make sense, as they're core-disabled parts.  However, I'm curious how the 1400/1500 are going to operate, as the L3 cache should be half compared to the 8 core parts.  Be interesting.

 

If AMD makes 1400/1500s out of defective R7 parts, it'll be a 4+0 config with one entire CCX disabled. It makes no sense to do a 2+2 because internal latency will be trough the roof hampering gaming performance, and that's exactly what AMD doesn't want to have in a gaming-oriented CPU.

 

[captain cactus]

11 minutes ago, Tam3n said:

Cool, though I expected higher clocks for the 4 core parts.

It's a silicon limitation. AMD ships these CPUs nearly maxed out. GloFlo's 14nm node just doesn't wanna go further north of 4GHz no matter how many volts you shove trough the thing at stock/water cooling.

[TOMPPIX]

i like how before ryzen people said "i5 is enough for gaming" but now when we have ryzen, oh you gotta buy the top of the line i7 for gaming otherwise it's unplayable.

[Tam3n]

8 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

It's a silicon limitation. AMD ships these CPUs nearly maxed out. GloFlo's 14nm node just doesn't wanna go further north of 4GHz no matter how many volts you shove trough the thing at stock/water cooling.

Yep I know that, the 1800X is maxed out to the point of overclocking might or might not increase performance... I didn't expect to see higher than 4.0 GHz boost in any case, but 3.7 GHz max turbo for the highest end 4 core part (which should be targeted for gamers) seems a bit odd to me. Maybe they just want to keep that small gap to their higher end parts, and at the same time give the gamers the impression of being able to play with the overclock a bit.

[That Norwegian Guy]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

This certainly puts some limits to the pricing of several of Intel's CPUs, but they still retain the highest performers in the segment

Highest maximum frame rates in a good 80% of cases

 

But that matters for shit when the option has the better minimums and lower price.

 

Minimum FPS > Maximum FPS

[Space Reptile]

1 hour ago, Droidbot said:

1700 and 7700k are the same price, and they offer totally different things. 1700 has the cores, and is good with WS and mediocre with gaming, whereas 7700k is good for gaming and mediocre for WS tasks.. 

Don't know where you're pulling the 'few hundred dollars' from, care to provide an example?

id argue that in games the 15x/16x will perform as well as a 17/18x ,

give to that the HOPEFULLY better OC and ram speed capability and we might see them close

and for 249? or even 169 if you can OC that thing to 4.0 that be an amazing deal

 

but I want reviews , I want B350 Reviews aswell , 600$ all amd 1440p budget builds when

 

EDIT:

@huilun02 there are no dual cores planned , but we will see

 

[Valentyn]

52 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

If AMD makes 1400/1500s out of defective R7 parts, it'll be a 4+0 config with one entire CCX disabled. It makes no sense to do a 2+2 because internal latency will be trough the roof hampering gaming performance, and that's exactly what AMD doesn't want to have in a gaming-oriented CPU.

 

Here are some results of 4+0 vs 2+2.
20% improvement in Battlefield 1, 3-8% in other games.

 

The only thing holding the R5 quadcores away from a home run is their Clockspeed. I would have hoped for higher base clocks.

 

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-24/retour-sous-systeme-memoire-suite.html

[Doobeedoo]

Would be surprised if quad core parts don't come as one CCX though. Shame clocks won't probably be able to go high. But we'll see.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

2 hours ago, Megah3rtz said:

I would think with less cores theyll overclock easier.

I'm fairly certain that Ryzen is just about at its limit with clockspeed.  The voltage scales linearly from 2.5-3.2 (don't quote me on those exact numbers, but it's around that), but starts scaling exponentially afterwards, taking another big jump at 3.7 (same rule as before).  That's why so much voltage is required to get past 4.1-4.2 GHz.  This is due to the Samsung/GloFo LPP+ manufacturing process.  It's optimized for low power consumption, not high clock speeds. Good news, though, is that there should be some fantastic laptop chips for Raven Ridge, etc.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Don't know why they got to give the 4c such miserable 200Mhz turbo. Also this means R3 lineup will be 2c4t and 4c4t. TDP not as low as I'd like because the 1700 is already 65w. Maybe just conservative numbers.

Main issue really seems to be the 14nm process they're on.  The 1800X is sitting at just about the max headroom that the first batch of processors can do.  It's the reason the flat 1700 is the best value proposition of the 8+8 chips.  They can overclock really easily into the same range as the rest of the processors.  Which is a nice thing for the cost-conscious buyer that wants to OC.  (Currently, though, the big thing is getting the Memory up as high as possible.  That's a huge deal.)

 

 

The Ryzen 3s might actually be on the first set of revised silicon, which means they'd be looking to sell their partially failed stock in preparation for 1820X (or whatever number they use). Kind of brilliant.  Though we haven't gotten word on the APU launch date yet.  Those are probably the more interesting version for a lot of users, as the efficiency at low power is extremely good for Zen.

[TheRandomness]

3 hours ago, Droidbot said:

Nuh uh.. AMD wins for WS, Intel wins for gaming. 

The dual-CPU on one chip thing makes Ryzen suck even with games that take advantage of cores due to bad communication speed. 

However, 4c8t for $169 is bloody good value, and with OC could push to 4.2 and get around i7 4770 stock performance with IPC considered

 

That's only for the 8 core SKU, which is two 4 core sections stuck together. 

[sof006]

Think i'll purchase a 6 core if the price is right and its better than my 4790K

[Heesleemer]

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

[Humbug]

3 hours ago, juri-han said:

i think the 1400 and 1500 lineup will be the go to cpu for any budget build, 1600x looks interesting but it better have some amazing in game performance or the 1700/1800x will still be better value due to just more cores especially if they have the same clock speeds  

1600x will perform just as well as the 1800x in games. It has the same clockspeeds and cache. 3.6Ghz base to 4.0Ghz boost. It has 6 cores and 12 threads which is plenty for gaming. I don't think the extra cores/threads of the 1800x will make it any faster in gaming. In fact the 1600x is going to be a fantastic allround chip because it also has more core/threads than the intel mainstream i5s and even i7s xo in addition to gaming if you want to do any productivity/video editing etc it will do even better than an i7 7700k despite being priced like an i5. Also for streamers multitasking on a budget...

[Misanthrope]

Well now I wonder the value proposition of the 1600 vs the 1700: There's almost a 100 bucks to be saved and while workstation loads will definitively feel the difference gaming probably won't and it will still leave enough horsepower for budget gamers with incidental productivity needs.

 

The 1600 might be the best chip for the not-that-serious youtuber/streamer.

[Humbug]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Well now I wonder the value proposition of the 1600 vs the 1700: There's almost a 100 bucks to be saved and while workstation loads will definitively feel the difference gaming probably won't and it will still leave enough horsepower for budget gamers with incidental productivity needs.

 

The 1600 might be the best chip for the not-that-serious youtuber/streamer.

the 1600x with it's 3.6ghz base and 4.0ghz boost will definitely beat the 1700 in gaming despite the lower price. 6 cores, 12 threads is enough for gaming.

[Humbug]

deleted

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

the 1600x with it's 3.6ghz base and 4.0ghz boost will definitely beat the 1700 in gaming despite the lower price. 6 cores, 12 threads is enough for gaming.

For just gaming yeah. But if you think about the use case I brought up, game streaming and video capturing, that will take cycles away from both so after you add that into the equation the 1700 might still outperform even at lower clocks.

[DocSwag]

I'm just mainly interested in how the quad core parts perform. I'm curious as to if they can OC much farther and whether or not they can get closer to skylake or Kaby lake gaming performance.

[Spenser1337]

2 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

18x

The battle between the 7600k and 1600x will be interesting 

since the 1800x is about as good (don't hurt me) as a 4790k or 6700k in gaming

 

If the 1600x performs the same, amd is winning a battle with themselves 

[MageTank]

4 hours ago, Droidbot said:

1700 and 7700k are the same price, and they offer totally different things. 1700 has the cores, and is good with WS and mediocre with gaming, whereas 7700k is good for gaming and mediocre for WS tasks.. 

Don't know where you're pulling the 'few hundred dollars' from, care to provide an example?

The context of his post makes me believe he was referring to the $169 4c/8t SKU. While it's not "a few hundred dollars" less, it's nearly a "couple" hundred dollars less. The 7700k averages about $330 online ($300 or less if you live near a Microcenter). That's a price difference of roughly $161. Meaning the 7700k nearly doubles the price of the R5 1400. If the 1400 performs as "decent" in gaming as the 1700, then from a strictly price:performance standpoint, the 1400 would make more sense. It's cheaper than an i5, and should perform similarly with extra threads to do some lifting in non-gamer applications, or ease your load during multi-tasking.

 

Context is everything people, let's not forget that, lol. 

[captain cactus]

3 hours ago, Spenser1337 said:

The battle between the 7600k and 1600x will be interesting 

since the 1800x is about as good (don't hurt me) as a 4790k or 6700k in gaming

 

If the 1600x performs the same, amd is winning a battle with themselves 

They have a 6c12t part for the competition's 4c4t part for the same price.

 

What performance difference you have now in favour of the i5 will diminish and turn into a massive win for the 1600(X) when games get coded for more than 4 (or 8 in the i7's case) threads (which is where we're headed in the very near future). Aka FineWine™ will do it's thing.

[Demon31]

So the R5 are R7 with some cores disable, will we see again the core unlocked ala Phenom II making the 6c/12 or even the 4c/8t great to unlocked to 8c/12t.

 

[Orcblood]

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?