Slashdot Mirror
AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Processors With 4 and 6-Core Chips Starting At $169 (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes from a report via HotHardware: Today, AMD unveiled additional details with respect to the entire Ryzen 5 processor line-up. Unlike the Ryzen 7 series, which consists entirely of 8-core/16-thread processors, the Ryzen 5 family has two tiers consisting of 6-core/12-thread and 4-core/8-thread processors. The entry-level part is the Ryzen 5 1400, a 4-core/8-thread CPU with base and turbo clocks of 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz, respectively. The Ryzen 5 1500X has the same quad-core configuration, but with base and turbo clocks of 3.5GHz and 3.7GHz, and also has support for an extended XFR frequency range of up to 3.9GHz. The Ryzen 5 1600 is a 6-core/12-thread processor, with 3.2GHz base and 3.6GHz boost clocks. And at the top of the stack is the Ryzen 5 1600X -- which has a similar 6-core configuration -- but cranks things up even further to 3.6GHz/4.0GHz. With XFR, the absolute maximum frequency for all of the Ryzen 5 processors will be somewhat higher, but AMD hasn't disclosed specifics for all parts. AMD's Ryzen 5 processor line-up will work with the very same AM4 platform as the higher-end Ryzen 7. Ryzen 5 series processors will be launching officially on April 11, with prices starting at $169 for the Ryzen 5 1400. An additional $20 will get you a Ryzen 5 1500X, while the 6-core Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X will sell for $219 and $249, respectively.
It's good to see a broad selection of cores/threads and clock coming out, but what I'd be really interested in knowing what the actual wattage/TDP of this processors is supposed to be.
I've had a mini-ITX box running with an A10 and a slotted GPU which can pretty much hold its own for any games etc, but I would like to get something a bit more powerful or more cores. Normally you're not going to be able to run a really high-wattage CPU on a mini-ITX board, and even if you could the tight spaces tend towards overheating. It would be nice if the 6-core CPU's can balance out with a reasonable wattage, and even nicer would be if they come out with some E-Series CPU's (great Performance Per Watt on those) under the Ryzen platform
That's usually how it works these days. Intel even switches off entire perfectly working features. AMD at least does it much less so.
Ezekiel 23:20
Programmers are going to be very happy with affordable 8-core chips, though. I know I will.
Ezekiel 23:20
Unfortunately, it seem as if these 6-core and 4-core Ryzen 5 CPUs are only going to be eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs with cores disabled in both compute-complexes.
The R5 1600X and 1600 are going to have one core disabled per compute-complex (CCX): 3+3. This was expected.
However, surprisingly, AMD has told Anandtech and Ars Technica that the R5 1500X and likely also the R5 1400 are going to have two cores disabled per CCX: giving it a 2+2 config.
When clock and IPC have been taken into account, Ryzen's biggest performance bottleneck compared to Intel has been shown to be when threads on different CCX'es are accessing the same memory. Each CCX has its own L3 cache and there is an interconnect between the CCX'es L3 caches which while being slower than a single shared L3 cache is somewhat faster than going to main memory ... but the L3 caches are only victim caches to each core's L2 cache - and therefore not necessarily caching the entire working set.
This means that the 1500X and 1400 are going to be slower on many workloads than on a hypothetical Zen CPU with one single four-core CCX.
It is believed that this bottleneck is the reason behind relatively low Ryzen 1800X/1700X/1700 scores in many games - compared to Intel (even when clock speed and IPC have been taken into account).
(Curious enough, this is also a known issue among programmers for the XBox One and PS4 - both having AMD CPUs with a similar setup, but apparently it didn't really occur to game programmers that AMD would have a go at retaking the desktop?)
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Regardless... It is not clear whether those chips won't work at all or just will not deliver all functionality (power management, automatic overclocking, etc...). Newer Intel chips also are only supported on Windows 10, but they're still x86-64 chips, so it should run x86-64 code. I doubt Windows 7 will plainly refuse to run on any of these chips.
Windows 7 is EOL in three years. While I personally think it's one of the best systems made by Microsoft (and I'm a full time Linux user), it's doomed, just like XP was doomed. (Oh, and Vista is EOL next month.... Nobody is sad to see that bastard die, except of course for those people who will now be forced to buy a new machine. Like my neighbours: their machine did what it needed to do, but I expect them to come ring at my door somewhere during April.)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Besides what kind of "support" do you really need with a CPU? People have run WinXP on an AMD 9590 (it ran hellafast, surprise surprise) and had no issues so as long as the motherboard manufacturer has Win 7 drivers? I don't see the issue.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Pssst....WSUS Offline or Autopatcher and Bob's your uncle...oh and you're welcome ;-)
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Indeed. The Intel 486dx 66Mhz (early 1990s) was simply a 486dx 100Mhz that had failed a QA test at that speed and was re-tested at 66Mhz and then sold if it passed.
It's an efficient way to deal with inherent fragilities of manufacturing at the limits of technology.
That said, market segmentation whereby you make one product and sell disabled versions of it at different price points has been going on even longer. The economies of scale make it cheaper to do this than to make physically different products for each segment. VCRs in the 80s and 90s were made like this, such that they all had the same internals, and the difference in models was achieved in external styling and what buttons were made available, and what firmware was installed.
-----
Umm...Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 aren't EOL my friend.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Programmers are going to be very happy with affordable 8-core chips, though. I know I will.
But programmers have already been happy with AMD's affordable 8-core chips. I have one in my PC right now (an 8350, gently overclocked) and the price:performance ratio was top-notch. It's lovely for running multiple VMs at once, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So everything above that line was based on pure guesswork?
Is this another one of those "social media workers" doing a "viral campaign" for Intel or does it just look that way?
Maybe MS have convinced* AMD to make this decision?
* - With a nice, fat cheque
Only if they convinced Intel too. Because Kaby Lake isn't supported either.
Om, nomnomnom...
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of shaving in this country. The K7 was the CPU to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-core CPU. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Athlon. That's three cores and an aloe strip. For moisture. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four cores. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three cores and a GPU. Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five cores.
Sure, we could go to four cores next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a thicker aloe strip and call it the AthlonSuperTurbo. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Between then and now, AMD acquired a part of the DEC Alpha team, and had Dirk Meyer as their CEO. They did well w/ the Athlon, and later achieved a coup w/ the AMD 64 architecture, by getting Microsoft's endorsement. This was at a time when Intel was struggling w/ the Pentium 4, and the Itanium was such a disaster that Intel had to follow AMD's lead.
But AMD never grabbed the initiative to build on their fab capabilities and manufacturing processes, instead continuing to focus just on low cost CPUs. Never a winning strategy, since not only did Intel have pockets deep enough to price match them anywhere they chose, they also had a 2-3 generation advantage in terms of process nodes. Ultimately, AMD threw in the towel and sold off their fabs to Global Foundries.
And unlike the time when AMD acquired another great CPU team, this time, there are no CPU teams left to acquire. All that there is in the market are Intel and ARM. For ARM, there are all the major licensees - Qualcomm, Phillips, TI, Samsung, et al, so there are no great teams they can really acquire. Despite the occasional flashes in the pan, AMD is pretty much where Cyrix, Winchip and Centaur are - swimming w/ the fishes
Lets not pretend we didnt know this comment section was going to be filled with that shit. Some people have more money than brains. And it shows when they buy the intel CPU thats in the same class as a AMD CPU for almost double the price. Not to mention Intel's motherboards are normally another ~25% more expensive also. Even with the high end X370 boards going for almost $300. There are plenty of intel motherboards for $350+ when I walk the motherboard section at frys. And now with Ryzen the feature set is near identical. Youre just paying for that small logo that says Intel
The Intel 486dx 66Mhz (early 1990s) was simply a 486dx 100Mhz that had failed a QA test at that speed and was re-tested at 66Mhz and then sold if it passed.
While I agree with your overall point, the example you used here doesn't support it. The first Intel 486 running at 66 MHz was released in 1992 (the 486DX2). Intel didn't release a faster 486 until 1994 (the 100 MHz 486DX4). The 66Mhz 486DX2 was Intel's flagship 486 for 2 years after its release, it wasn't a marked-down unit that failed testing.
I'm not sure AMD will want Intel's profits now that they will be forced into a price war. Intel has a lot of money, but I don't see much profit in the immediate future for them, at least not the kind of profit they enjoyed for the last ~decade with 0 competitors.