Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Debuts Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X For Prebuilt PCs (techreport.com)

Posted by msmash on from the further-expansion dept.

AMD announced two new second-generation Ryzen CPUs this morning. From a report: The Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X bring Precision Boost 2 and XFR 2 to quad-core Ryzens without integrated graphics, but there's a catch: these chips appear to be available exclusively to system integrators and OEMs for use in prebuilt systems. AMD is debuting the Ryzen 5 2500X in cooperation with Acer in the form of the Nitro 50 desktop PC. AMD says the Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X each use a single enabled core complex (or CCX) from the two available on Pinnacle Ridge Zeppelin dies to get their four cores. Recall that the Ryzen 5 1500X instead used two cores from each CCX to get its core count. A consequence of this architectural change versus the Ryzen 5 1500X is that the Ryzen 5 2500X now has 8 MB of L3 cache, down from 16 MB. That puts both the Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X on par with the Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200 on a cache-capacity basis.

53 comments

  1. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMD Debuts Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X

    Alright, let's see the specs

    For Prebuilt PCs

    Oh, never mind.

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said no business ever.

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ryzen is overheating, power-wasting garbage. That's why nobody uses them for laptop or compact computers.

  2. Exactly like with the 2200/2300 then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Ryzen 5 2xxxx all seem to be merely Ryzen 3 with HT.

    I bet you can turn that on with a small patch or the right BIOS.

    Dear AMD. Please don't do an Intel.

    1. Re:Exactly like with the 2200/2300 then. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's more of an RCA (circa 1980) and they were probably copying some earlier manufacturer.

      There are lots of good reasons to split the market that way, and if you don't, prices on the low end will rise considerable, and prices on the high end will drop quite a bit less...I'm presuming you intend the same percentage of profit (though even that's iffy, as the profit at the high end is probably higher as a percentage than the profit at the low end, where you can dump the seconds).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Exactly like with the 2200/2300 then. by edwdig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The entire product line is one chip design. They burn out fuses in the chips to disable features to make the lower end ones.

      When you make chips, you produce a big wafer that gets cut into individual chips. There will be defects in the wafer. You can generally predict roughly how many defects there will be, but not where they will be. So you design your chips so that portions of them can be disabled.

      You get a perfect chip with no flaws? That gets sold as the top of the line part. You get a chip with defective cores? That one has cores disabled and gets sold as a lower end chip. Maybe the cores are fine, but there's flaws in the L2 cache? Disable part of the cache and put it in a lower end bin. Or maybe everything works, but the chip starts to get unreliable if you clock it too fast. Again, into a lower end bin.

      Chips get designed this way because it means you can still sell most of the chips that have flaws in them. You'll still get some unusable chips, but most flaws can be worked around to produce a product you can sell.

      If the market wants a lot of low end chips, sometimes you end up disabling working features to meet demand. It's way, way cheaper to do that than it is to set up a separate manufacturing line just for the lower end chips. This is more likely to happen later in the lifecycle of a particular chip, after manufacturing has been running for a while and the flaws have been worked out. It's usually not worth setting up another manufacturing line to make lower end chips when this happens.

    3. Re: Exactly like with the 2200/2300 then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or for a car based analogy, the factory only makes v12 engines. If all the cylinders work they can sell it as a v12. If half the cylinders are defective, they sell it as a v6. If after w couple years everything is working great and every chip works on all cylinders, they manually hammer closed a couple to still have product to sell as a v8.

    4. Re:Exactly like with the 2200/2300 then. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The entire product line is one chip design. They burn out fuses in the chips to disable features to make the lower end ones.

      They do that now, but you're kinda beginning with the ending of the story. It used to be that the disabled functionality could often be easily restored because it was either programmable (firmware image) or reversible (reconnect severed connectors). A few hackers did it and sometimes got a free upgrade but it didn't bother anybody. However some shady dealers starting doing this on a large scale, selling cheap products as more expensive ones to unsuspecting customers causing lost profit and angry customers with unstable or broken systems. So they started to use fuses, once the functionality is disabled it's permanently and irreversibly gone. I guess the GP wanted the "good old days" of free upgrades back, but I don't think they will...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Exactly like with the 2200/2300 then. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Dear AMD. Please don't do an Intel.

      No. Dear AMD please do exactly what Intel and everyone else does across many industries. Please ensure that the expensive products continue to subsidise the cheap and than you keep your production costs as low as possible as a result.

  3. Yawn... by zilym · · Score: 0

    Where are the security improvements? When is the PSP being removed (AMD's 'management engine')? Instead they want to talk about cores and cache, as if I care about that over the more pressing issues of hardware security holes.

    Not buying another PC until such blights are corrected.

    1. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me guess, you are going right back to Intel. Cause that is your choice.

    2. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the security improvements? When is the PSP being removed (AMD's 'management engine')? Instead they want to talk about cores and cache, as if I care about that over the more pressing issues of hardware security holes.

      Not buying another PC until such blights are corrected.

      That's nice and all, but the kind of shit you're talking about would take years to make it into silicon, if they actually planned on making those changes.
      Commenting on this article about things like that isn't helpful at all, and makes me just think that you're probably just a Negative Nancy.

    3. Re:Yawn... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Shhhhhh. Marketing people and investors might hear you! Do you really wanna screw up months of stealth fixes (if they actually exist at all)?

      Gosh darn it, it's people like you that make coders, operating system kernel fixers, and other expensive personnel work overtime-- not to mention people that must fix firmware, patch millions upon millions of hosts, and all for what? So you can have a secure system? What the hell is wrong with you?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:Yawn... by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Your preferences are not universal.

    5. Re: Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are always really anxious to jump on companies over things like this. Forget running an OS kernel that flushed the pipeline between task switches. They want the company to rearchitect the entire architecture overnight.

      All web based exploits of all the current CPU bugs required JITs to compile code to exploit the bug.

      All VM based exploits could be solved by configuring CPU affinity per customer or by the virtual hypervisors flushing pipelines on context change.

      Everyone wants Intel. AMD, ARM, etc... to fix software problems with transistors. As soon as we blame the CPUs for things we should have done better in software, weâ(TM)re stupid.

      I am however a little concerned about cgroups because I would only want a pipeline switch between container groups as opposed to between all containers.

  4. It's official by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    CPUs now have more cache memory than my first PC (8088) had of storage space.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:It's official by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      For me that's been true for 20 years, and I also had an 8088! You must have been some rich kid with a HD, everybody else was booting from floppy.

    2. Re:It's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have liked if using cache as RAM was feasible. What if my RAM is dead? I can still do something with 512K. At least when Slot 1 and Super Socket 7 systems (K6/2 CPUs) were popular and ran Windows 98, you had an entire DOS system out of the box.

    3. Re:It's official by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      For me that's been true for 20 years, and I also had an 8088! You must have been some rich kid with a HD, everybody else was booting from floppy.

      No joke. The first time I saw a hard drive in person was on a Packard smell 386SuX many years later. Pretty sure it was 20MB but I might be remembering wrong.

    4. Re:It's official by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

      I had an IBM AT with 20MB RLL 5.25" hard drive and ran a WildCat! BBS in the early 1990's. The nice thing about a 20MB hard drive was I could buy a box of 3.5" diskettes (20 count) for $20 and back up the entire system as a 20-part zip file.

    5. Re:It's official by dunnomattic · · Score: 1

      YES! And if you didn't care about the life of the drive or seek/write times, you could use DoubleStack to get it to 40MB! Live and learn.

      --
      ...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
    6. Re:It's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fun and interesting anecdote, Chris!

    7. Re:It's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to your Commodore 64?

    8. Re:It's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, I plan to be able to retired in 2020. I told you creimertards how to do it but no, you were to smart to listen!

      I find AmazonTM the gretest thing since sliced bread and helps taking care of my health at retirement with the Amazon long tail revenue streams!

      All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. You can even make video of yourself going to pick up AmazonTM parcel at the convenience store and post it on your youtube channel for more redundant revenue streams.

      They also have a wide supply, the best of latte and clif/power bars at the best cost, espicially if you make a friend buy them for you with your own affiliate link!

      Also, I still use my iPhone 6s and reduce my monthly bill from $80 to $50. As a phone and a video camera, the iPhone 6s isn't obsolete and I use it to make my videos on youtube. As a Sprint very special customer for 20+ years, Sprint will always give me a new iPhone for free if I decide to stop using the 6s as a phone in the next several years.

      I use PhotoShop daily!

      I have a hearing loss in one ear, so my audio will always be suspect. I use a Zoom H2 audio recorder with a pop filter 12" away from my mouth, Audacity to clean up and normalize the audio, and sync the audio to the video and apply a "voice enhancement" eq to the audio in the video editor.

      My PC has an eight-core processor and a Nvidia 1050 Ti 4GB video card. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the processor takes a minute. A minute of 1080p video rendered on the Nvidia card takes 10 seconds. I don't think an iPad has the same performance of my PC for rendering videos longer than a short clip.

      I can't imagine using Photoshop without a keyboard and mouse, or not being able to access my files from my file server. Video rendering on the iPad will probably suck donkey balls.

      Blackmagic also charges high prices for their gear as Apple does. Need an HDMI to USB3 capture device? Blackmagic is $300. Any generic company is $50.

      I take public transit. A local bus take me down the street to pick up the express bus, the express bus drops me off in Palo Alto, and a local bus take me down the street to my job. An hour each way. Driving through Palo Alto during rush hour is insane. Since I work in government I.T., I start work at 7:00AM.

      Bonus: get some silver coins, view recommendations on my special Youtube channel dedicated to the topic! They constitute a fail-safe insurance strategy for your retirement!
      --
      Demogorgon (Stranger Things) Live Unveil Panel Montage - ToyXpo 2018

    9. Re:It's official by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The first HD I saw was in middle school; 10 MB. Parallel interface. Shared by a small group of Apple ][e computers. Took 5-10 minutes to warm up, and if you accessed anything before the flashing light stopped flashing, data corruption was likely.

      Multi-user; single filesystem. Due to the wonders of the parallel interface, all the connected computers would completely block while waiting for access; even just a read would block the whole system.

      It was nearly useful. The only kids who used it, once the features were understood, were the ones who didn't want to look like a nerd by carrying a disk case around. Me, I carried around an oversized disk case, so I had 10M in my bag.

    10. Re:It's official by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's how I would get free HDs in the mid 90s; people would use data compression, a sector would go bad, and the OS would give the user drive errors. In many cases the compression prevented the OS from being able to understand the problem, and it would appear even to the dorks at the local computer store to be a dead drive; or at least, it would take them so long to figure it out that it was cheaper to sell a new one.

      Sometimes we could even get free SCSI drives that merely needed a "low level format" and they were as good as new. The controllers were harder to find, but also sometimes available when the motherboard it installed in died. :)

  5. AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by willy_me · · Score: 2

    So AMD found a defect and had to bin the part. But instead of throwing to the trash they decided to disable to broken silicon and sell the part for cheap - for computers that will also probably be cheap. Both Intel and AMD have done the exact same thing for years. This is news because? New part numbers one needs to remember to avoid?

    1. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So AMD found a defect and had to bin the part. But instead of throwing to the trash they decided to disable to broken silicon and sell the part for cheap - for computers that will also probably be cheap. Both Intel and AMD have done the exact same thing for years. This is news because? New part numbers one needs to remember to avoid?

      Binning, as you say has been going on for years and is actually planned from the beginning.

      It is almost guaranteed that whatever the hell chip you used to post this, it was likewise binned with either something on it disabled, or at less than the possible performance level because it wasn't up to snuff.

      Telling people to avoid these chips is borderline retarded.

    2. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Binning has been used for DECADES, ever since the first transistors were fabbed.

      Resistors are binned, 1%,,5% 10%,20% tolerance

      transistors are binned, SS, FF , TT corners/silicon

      size of cache memory is binned
      # working cores are binned

      basically, if it's a parameter, or there are more than 1 of them, they will create a bin to avoid scrapping an otherwise expensive part. place enough programmable fuses or such in the design, and anything can and will be binned.

      non repairable memory? new product line with less cache
      non functional core, how about a 3,5,7 core line?
      non functional fpu , "80486 SX"
      non functional hyperthreading - another SKU

      too slow part? - new bin
      too "fast" power hungry part? - new bin

    3. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If they promise to only sell it to OEMs on special order then there is no need to remember to avoid it. If you're actually in the position to want a low cost used CPU at some point, you're not going to be as picky as you sound right now. :)

      So it much less significant even than that.

    4. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Telling people to avoid these chips is borderline retarded.

      True enough. Most people who are choosing their own hardware components care enough to want something better anyway. To me, the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 would look good if I needed something Right Now.

      Corporations that buy those things in bulk better have some IT department who can advise them. If not, their problem. And a cheapskate, 2nd choice CPU might actually be more than sufficient for their office needs.
      Besides, they would not listen to us anyway.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    5. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have used a Phenom II X3 (meaning one core disabled) for years, it's still in use as a fileserver. Never gave me problems. And yes, it was cheaper than the X4.

    6. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll do one better, I bought an x2 Trinity and unlocked an x4 @ 3.6ghz stable on air all day forever, which is half a Ghz higher than the stock speed. $90 in 2010 money. There's no beating that deal. "Binned" for the winned!

    7. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Who says the cores have to be bad? Those of us that owned Phenom and Athlon with cores unlocked could tell ya a LOT of the chips they were selling as X2s and X3s were perfectly working quads that just had cores disabled to meet a contract. Hell if you get your hands on a Zosma core quad those had damn near 100% unlocks to Thuban X6s, they just needed more quads to fill demand than they did hexacores so they just flipped a switch and pushed them as quads.

      Second of all both AMD and Intel has been doing this since the days of the 386 and nowadays that is how both companies make their line ups and have done so for some time. If for example you bought a second gen AMD FX? It was an 8350, you either got a gold binned for power (the "e" series), a gold binned for speed (the 8370 and the 9xxx chips) or you got a chip that didn't hit the speed of the 8350 or came out with a bad core so was binned with a lower clock or lower core count. Its a hell of a lot cheaper to make a line this way than it is to make dedicated dual/quad/hexa/octo/ etc chips and if you don't have tasks that require a more powerful chip why pay for one?

      If these perform like the other Ryzen chips I have no doubt when paired with something like a 1050ti or RX 570 they will make great mainstream gaming PCs and they will probably make great budget office and multimedia boxes so what is there to complain about? If you want something more powerful its not like they don't have a chip at damn near every price point from sub $100 all the way up to $1500+ so grab what fits your use case and be happy, just as I'm happy with the old Q9505s I have in the shop because for looking up parts and printing invoices? Works just fine.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Catering to the budget PC market, which at the moment is nearly all Intel. The $200 small form factor PC market is a reality, perfectly adequate for the majority of home and business users. AMD apparently wants a piece of it, ideally a large piece.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Both Intel and AMD have done the exact same thing for years. This is news because?

      I don't know, you tell me. As far as I can see it's news because you made it news. TFA and TFS are about a new OEM only part and a comparison of this part to it's retail cousins, and not about the standard practice across many industries you for some reason are talking about in your post.

    10. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      There's no need to remember to avoid anything. You are right now posting using a chip that was sold using the exact same methods. This isn't exclusive to AMD, or even the microchip industry. Part binning and feature disabling has been commonplace for the best part of 40 years. We can largely thank it for low cost devices. Even your high end parts are likely binned in this way unless you bought the absolute top of the line.

    11. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So AMD found a dwfwct... But instead of throwing to the trash...

      I call this game "Spot the American".

    12. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, I build my own systems from parts. I know exactly what practices were used to sell the CPU, because I bought a discrete CPU.

      I paid extra for the part number that represents the bin with higher electrical efficiency at low speeds.

      The thing in this story is where they sell it to OEMs, who won't give you enough information about their completed systems to actually tell which bin the CPU was from; that remains true even where they list a very specific-sounding part number in the marketing, and then use an "equivalent" part.

      Part binning is a thing, sure. When I buy something like a high power LED, the same base part number comes in about a dozen bins, or I can save a few cents by ordering only the base part number. But when you buy a completed device that uses those LEDs, they never tell you what bins they were from. It is the same here. Bins are a thing, but only if you buy discrete parts. If you're buying assembled products, they don't matter to you.

      And if they only sell it OEMs, then it can't matter to an end user. You won't be buying it directly, and you won't be buying it in a high end system. The whole system will have non-optimal parts, nothing will be running at full speed, and nobody will know any details finer than the benchmark results. It will do n frames per second in some game, and that will be that.

    13. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The thing in this story is where they sell it to OEMs, who won't give you enough information about their completed systems to actually tell which bin the CPU was from; that remains true even where they list a very specific-sounding part number in the marketing, and then use an "equivalent" part.

      Projection. Most OEMs who don't list the specific part for their models is because they give you a choice of the specific part when ordering. 2500X is enough to tell you everything you need to know about this part.

      And if they only sell it OEMs, then it can't matter to an end user.

      Not at all. OEM specific parts only mean that a part is exclusively for a different distribution channel. It doesn't have any less impact on consumers.

      The whole system will have non-optimal parts, nothing will be running at full speed, and nobody will know any details finer than the benchmark results.

      Except this article is literally about none of that. The specs are listed and given and the only "speed" related issues here at play at all is dependent on the thermal design keeping up, a typical issue with laptops. Again I'm not sure what shitty vendors you're buying from, but most if not all vendors give you quite specific details if you bother to look them up. Just don't expect them on the same page as the flashy graphics.

    14. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You did not understand.

      I wasn't talking about OEMs not giving you a part number. I'm talking about the fact that they all do give you a part number, but they also substitute other parts that they consider "equivalent." OEMs that don't do that, also don't sell low cost systems, and so won't even be using the nearby part numbers that this would be considered "equivalent" to.

      You're very credulous of marketing. But you apparently lack real-world data.

    15. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Again maybe you use shitty vendors. I for one have always gotten the CPU I selected when buying a laptop or desktop. Not an equivalent. Not a similar, but the exact model.

      If they did what you were saying, they'd fall afoul of the law in my country. You see in most places of the world if the marketing doesn't match the real world data you end up in the deepest of shits.

      America could really do with some consumer protection laws.

    16. Re:AMD making use of otherwise broken chips... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I didn't tell you anything that would lead you to believe that you have information about what vendors I use. I was talking about the products available in the marketplace, and the way the practices relating to CPU part numbers relate to different price levels of completed whole systems. I don't even buy whole systems other than laptops, and for that I buy Thinkpads. And sometimes there is a substitution, but since it is a premium product they only substitute upwards, never across; they might give me an improved network card compared to the part number listed. They might give me a slightly better CPU. Substitution practices vary across product lines within the same company.

      If you actually even looked at the exact part number of the CPU, and you selected a completed computer system with a very specific CPU version, and you actually checked the one you got because you care about the exact part number, I already know a few things about you. Such as, you didn't buy the cheapest model available. You didn't even understand what I was saying well enough to evaluate if it applied to your situation.

      If you're buy a Cheapotop 2000, and it lists the part number of the CPU but it doesn't even offer any choices of different CPUs, then how are you harmed by the substitution? Only if the CPU is different enough to not be generally equivalent would there be any objective problem.

      And it is simply not true that there are countries in the world where you can't buy name brand computers at all the quality levels, and also can't buy generic computers. Perhaps instead you misunderstood how the consumer protections shake out in every situation? Maybe for cheap computers, there is nothing at all deceptive about substituting whichever part number was cheapest when they made it, especially where they are equivalent? And perhaps if the computer is low end, small differences in capabilities matter less than in a high end system that is bought specifically for being better in small ways?

      No, they would not fall afoul of your country's laws. You'll find they made appropriate disclosures about substitutions in all their local advertising materials.

      And, we have lots of consumer protections in America. I thought the general belief of you furriners was that America is an excessively litigious place. Surely you understand that without protections, people wouldn't even have cause to sue over faulty products? I don't see how you could have failed to have heard people whining about exactly this aspect of the American system. Don't just burp up on yourself and randomly spew anti-Americanisms on your shirt. Perhaps your politicians simply reminded you how Virtuous the laws they passed for you are, and you believed them? In my State, we vote on our consumer and business protections directly, and have exactly the protections that we want, via direct democracy. Go figure.

  6. One more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone still hopes Apple will use these in their new Macs as a service to their fans?

  7. Remarkable. by hey! · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X each use a single enabled core complex (or CCX) from the two available on Pinnacle Ridge Zeppelin dies to get their four cores. Recall that the Ryzen 5 1500X instead used two cores from each CCX to get its core count. A consequence of this architectural change versus the Ryzen 5 1500X is that the Ryzen 5 2500X now has 8 MB of L3 cache, down from 16 MB. That puts both the Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X on par with the Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200 on a cache-capacity basis.

    I can't believe I used to care about this kind of shit.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Remarkable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best post in the thread. Nice work.

  8. No inter-CCX penalties either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lower cache is bad, but stopping hops between CCXs is good, at least when the code has interthread communications or when the OS decides that core-hopping of a single thread is somehow a good idea.

  9. AMD's garbage pail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thanks AMD. Flush those grogans.

    1. Re:AMD's garbage pail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I only eat pure, unfiltered Intel shit."

  10. Market pressure from intel shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    AMD is scraping a little more profit from the binning process at the lower end.

    They might as well since intel is playing their silly games with the vendors again to stick it to AMD. Just try to find a properly configured Ryzen laptop nowdays. All the vendors have put R5 and R7s into kit which is not designed to let them run to their best performance, just cheap packaging with crap like soldered-in memory that can't be expanded and thermals the wind up with R5s benchmarking faster than R7s. Doubtless after input from intel telling them to only make crappy AMD systems until intel has a chance to catch up around Gen 9 or 10.

    And now intel is spending more $$$ with TMSC for 14nm stuff. You just know it's a way of passing them money to usurp some of the AMD capacity or de-prioritize it.

    No sense in AMD sending out higher-end chips to go into these bottom-end boxes. Save the good stuff for vendors who will let the chips live up to their potential better and make a few bucks off the lesser yielding wafers.