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.
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
I'd be really interested in knowing what the actual wattage/TDP of this processors is supposed to be.
Yeah, if only there was a way of knowing that, like for example reading the linked article!
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
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.
-----
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; }