DDRAM 5 and PCI-E 5.0 Sounds great, I wonder in what price bracket will be offered.

damn i love competition.

Intel can do DDR5 with PCIE 5 while AMD is stuck at DDR5? AM5 please, you ruined a perfect 5 meme

Still on 10nm.. another waste of energy.

The littlebig config seems like an waste for a desktop CPU. Mabye the next Windows version is going to make this move more understandble.

Well windows will bend on what the hardware can offer, at best of the MS team capabilities. Let's see if AMD will introduce this little + big too. Seems to me that if 24 cores are used in everyday tasks, there is chance that low energy core are better, because you won't have easily workloads that requires 24 monster cores, but the software can slowly take advantage of many weak cores. So eventually we will end up with 4 or 2 high power cores and a bunch of low power one. Whatever gives the best overall performance is good.

asturur:

Well windows will bend on what the hardware can offer, at best of the MS team capabilities. Let's see if AMD will introduce this little + big too. Seems to me that if 24 cores are used in everyday tasks, there is chance that low energy core are better, because you won't have easily workloads that requires 24 monster cores, but the software can slowly take advantage of many weak cores. So eventually we will end up with 4 or 2 high power cores and a bunch of low power one. Whatever gives the best overall performance is good.

I wouldn't mind it in desktop. Most of my time is spent on stuff that doesn't need that much performance. Of course I don't see any particular reason why the big cores can't just keep clocks down to be very efficient, unless serious power is needed. Back when I was on Intel, it felt like that was how it works, but now on Ryzen it feels like the cores are either off or blazing at full GHz. However, I reckon cores that were planned from the beginning to be very low power would still be more efficient than big cores just running slowly. Still, I wouldn't take less than eight real cores, six at the very minimum. Four lower power ones could then take care of browsing the net and other such light stuff. In fact it would be cool if the browser had a switch you'd need to flip to use the high power cores at all (although it could remember websites).

Kaarme:

I wouldn't mind it in desktop. Most of my time is spent on stuff that doesn't need that much performance. Of course I don't see any particular reason why the big cores can't just keep clocks down to be very efficient, unless serious power is needed. Back when I was on Intel, it felt like that was how it works, but now on Ryzen it feels like the cores are either off or blazing at full GHz. However, I reckon cores that were planned from the beginning to be very low power would still be more efficient than big cores just running slowly. Still, I wouldn't take less than eight real cores, six at the very minimum. Four lower power ones could then take care of browsing the net and other such light stuff. In fact it would be cool if the browser had a switch you'd need to flip to use the high power cores at all (although it could remember websites).

This is what i think too. If the cores can downclock when needed, what´s the point of having extra efficient cores on a desktop CPU? For example, right now i´m posting this and listening some music, light stuff, and my core 7600K is running at 800Mhz, should a CPU need extra cores to run at even lower speeds?... I can understand this concept on phones and on laptops but on desktops that don´t need a battery? Seems an waste for me.

Kaarme:

I wouldn't mind it in desktop. Most of my time is spent on stuff that doesn't need that much performance. Of course I don't see any particular reason why the big cores can't just keep clocks down to be very efficient, unless serious power is needed. Back when I was on Intel, it felt like that was how it works, but now on Ryzen it feels like the cores are either off or blazing at full GHz. However, I reckon cores that were planned from the beginning to be very low power would still be more efficient than big cores just running slowly. Still, I wouldn't take less than eight real cores, six at the very minimum. Four lower power ones could then take care of browsing the net and other such light stuff. In fact it would be cool if the browser had a switch you'd need to flip to use the high power cores at all (although it could remember websites).

Odd - what gen of ryzen? I'm seeing my 5800x sit at all kinds of clocks depending on what is going on.

H83:

This is what i think too. If the cores can downclock when needed, what´s the point of having extra efficient cores on a desktop CPU? For example, right now i´m posting this and listening some music, light stuff, and my core 7600K is running at 800Mhz, should a CPU need extra cores to run at even lower speeds?... I can understand this concept on phones and on laptops but on desktops that don´t need a battery? Seems an waste for me.

Probably that the low-power cores will offer similar or better performance to your 7600K at 800mhz, and use less power on top.

H83:

This is what i think too. If the cores can downclock when needed, what´s the point of having extra efficient cores on a desktop CPU? For example, right now i´m posting this and listening some music, light stuff, and my core 7600K is running at 800Mhz, should a CPU need extra cores to run at even lower speeds?... I can understand this concept on phones and on laptops but on desktops that don´t need a battery? Seems an waste for me.

The way I see it, if the little cores can be overclocked, they should be able to achieve substantially higher clock speeds. Assuming what makes these cores little and efficient is that they lack a lot of instructions or big caches, this could yield significant performance improvements depending on the application. In either case, efficiency in a desktop is never a bad thing, and remember too that this can improve overall performance at a lower cost. 6c/12t is currently all you need to get playable framerates in any game. But, let's say you like to play games while you record/stream or play youtube videos in the background. You're probably going to need to bump that up to 8c/12t. That's a substantial price increase, even on AMD. But, you don't really need 4 more fully-equipped threads. So, if you had 6c/12t but then another 4 separate small/weak cores, you would likely see an overall performance improvement at a lower wattage, and would probably cost less even though you have more physical cores.

AlmondMan:

Odd - what gen of ryzen? I'm seeing my 5800x sit at all kinds of clocks depending on what is going on.

Ryzen 3700X. If I do absolutely nothing, I see ~2.5 GHz, if I do anything, it instantly jumps over 3 or even 4GHz. From what I understand, this is how it's supposed to be. The cores will sleep if they aren't needed. Maybe a couple of cores will stay awake due to USB and all sorts of background processes. If they are just lightly needed, however, they are incapable of operating at 1GHz or even a bit lower like Intel chips. I don't see this PC saving a whole lot of energy, though, compared to my previous Intel (in fact, it saves absolutely none) but I reckon quite a bit of the electricity is eaten by the inefficient X570 mobo during idle. But then again, this is 8/16 and my Intel was 4/4, so to be fair, I do understand it's the price to pay. But if things very more efficiently designed and handled, it's by no means a problem that couldn't be solved, with or without BIG+small. It's just that with the Intel system (still having the same dusty old GPU), I could keep my PSU's eco mode on, but this Ryzen PC will occasionally spike over the eco mode's limit current, triggering the fan for a short period of time before it stops spinning again. It's too annoying to keep hearing the fan revving up sound every five minutes when you are only browsing the net.

We will see when they are released i can see a reason for big little to exist . If they can fit 3 or 4 little cores on the space of a big one and the cores can get say 50-60 % the big core perfomance then we talk about some serious gains on multicore oriented tasks. The question is how small in comparison to the big core are they ? And what is their perfomance versus the big one.

I am sure in 1 thing. This will be fastest dynosaur when it comes out.

ruthan:

Still on 10nm.. another waste of energy.

This is not necessarily true. It also depends on how the operating systems can use the big.LITTLE.

H83:

The littlebig config seems like an waste for a desktop CPU. Mabye the next Windows version is going to make this move more understandble.

Depends on the use case, for the average gaming consumer I think it will be a plus if done right. You don't need big cores for the lighter stuff and in theory should save on electric bills down the line. Though I do wonder how much difference there might be. But in theory 10 big cores will be fine for a long time, we are often GPU capped at the big resolutions most are jumping too. Still have to see it in action but if there is a good saving to this compared to all strong cores I'd be interested

I can´t get this BIG.little concept for desktop systems and do not understand it even for ultra low demaning tasks. You can configure your OS´s power saving options to use as low cores as necessary for actual tasks. So what, if OS automatically switches off 11 of my 12 cores and clock them down from 4.5 to 1.2 Ghz if posible? For Desktops I want max. performance in gaming and high demanding applications, I want "BIG" cores, no "little" cores. Youtube, internet, e-mails, all of this stuff, I can do with my notebook or smartphone anyway, so BIG.little for desktops makes absolutely no sense to me, particularly if you have installed a 400W gcard at the same time.

Interesting consider how I tend disable all the power save crap in bios to begin with. they better get thing to work right none this little cores being use for something it shouldn't be running and none of this bigg cores switching to little cores kill performance. I never liked dynamic clocking cause to this date it has issue with then drop to states they should be in kill performance which happen on both cpu and gpu, maybe not as bad as did when first started but why i was never fan of it. Interesting times.