dejavu 😉 Looking forward for 6 cores performance.

So when dealing with a four-core or six-core CPU, and the base core design has eight-cores, how does AMD cut them up? It is possible for AMD to offer a 4+0, 3+1 or 2+2 design for its quad-core parts, or 4+2 and 3+3 variants for its hexacore parts, similar to the way that Intel cuts up its integrated graphics for GT1 variants. The downside with this way is that performance might differ between the variants, making it difficult to manage. The upside is that more CPUs with defects can be used. We have confirmation from AMD that there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5. The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2. This will be true across all CPUs, ensuring a consistent performance throughout.

source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Thanks. Though it's kind of disappointing they won't be offering non-defective dies for "4 core" chips, just a straight up working set of 4. I guess they have a lot of defective dies.

Interesting, CCX for all of them then.

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Thanks. Though it's kind of disappointing they won't be offering non-defective dies for "4 core" chips, just a straight up working set of 4. I guess they have a lot of defective dies.

Yeah.... I was disappointed to read that. I was hoping that the 4c/8t chips would have a single CCX. I'm pretty much expecting a similar trend for that 4c/8t and 6c/12t chips as we see with the Ryzen 7 chips where anything latency sensitive sees a hefty performance hit due to the "AMD Infinity Fabric" being crap.

Interesting, CCX for all of them then.

CCX would be a part of all of them anyway. Ryzen 7 processors contain 2 fully functional CCX units. Ryzen 5 will have 2 partially disabled CCX units. Even if they weren't being split 3+3 or 2+2, there would still be at least 1 CCX unit on the quad-core processors and 2 on the hexa-core processors. Each CCX unit contains 4 CPU cores.... No CCX unit, no cores.

i was hopping the 4 core ones would be 1 full ccx unit i thought he yields on the ryzen where good ....unless .... core unlocking ? my brother has my old phenom 2 720 unlocked to 4 cores ((although when the 4th core is on the temperature reading is corrupted other than that it is stable for years !)) he wants to update , he is not really an enthusiast so for the 500 euros budget that he set me i was planning to build him a 4core 8 thread ryzen + 470 4gb and 8gb ram with b350 board and see if i can throw in an evo 212 and get it to got 3.8 ghz or so .... but i still have a dream of unlocking cpu's again ! :P that would be a wet dream! to get back on topic i was expecting the 4 core parts to fair a bit better in games mostly because i was thinking they will have 1 ccx ...now i can already see people all over the internet bashing em for their gaming performance except if there is a fix (if possible) of some short till then

I've got a bad feeling that fewer cores will equate to more performance impact.... AMD is already showing multi-threaded Cinebench results that show the Ryzen 5 1600X only being 69% faster than the i5 7600k....which isn't very promising considering there's 8 more logical cores. Ryzen 5 1600X has 12 logical cores (6c/12t) Core i5 7600K has 4 logical cores (4c/4t)

https://i.imgur.com/3V4d12z.gif

16 core 32 thread, 200W plz

I've got a bad feeling that fewer cores will equate to more performance impact.... AMD is already showing multi-threaded Cinebench results that show the Ryzen 5 1600X only being 69% faster than the i5 7600k....which isn't very promising considering there's 8 more logical cores. Ryzen 5 1600X has 12 logical cores (6c/12t) Core i5 7600K has 4 logical cores (4c/4t)

i am not sure if 69% it is "only" if the cores where as strong 1:1 with intel skylake 4 cores vs 6 is 50% extra power but the zen core is just slightly slower in ipc and the 1600x i think it also has lower clock speeds no then? you factor in the the smt so when you sum those up and get 169% performance comparing hyperthreading gives about 30% better score on cine-bench right ? so considering clock speeds and the small ipc difference 169% seems about right

[spoiler]http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11202/R5EstimatesOverall.png[/spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWdhLXl5a5s

Has anyone done clock for clock comparisons with Intel CPU's yet? I'd really like to see how Ryzen really performs when matched at 4.0Ghz to see how much the IPC difference really makes vs higher frequency and higher OC headroom.

Ok, now I'm really disappointed. Ryzen 4c/8t with only one CCX enabled was the most anticipated part. Seems to me AMD is forcing developers to make all software to use that Fabric interconnect. That is the path for long term for AMD.....

In fact is obvious : Ryzen 5 1500X 4/8 3.5/3.7 +200 16 MB 65 W $189 A quad core with 16M L3 cache, can only be configured 2+2

PC Graphics Performance Review Request: ETS2 and ATS Hi, Probably off topic, but could you please take some valuable time of yours to review the PC graphics performance of Euro Truck Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator? Your Graphics Tests are truly detailed and I swear by the results, especially since you also test mid range cards like gtx 1060 at 4K too! Not to mention the awesome VRAM usage graphs! Thanks! ( I could not find a proper place to post a request, hence posted it here!)

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Thanks. Though it's kind of disappointing they won't be offering non-defective dies for "4 core" chips, just a straight up working set of 4. I guess they have a lot of defective dies.

Well, this in turn means that the R5s will not be better than R7s in gaming - or rather, at the very least suffern from the same CCX latency issues. From one perspective that's unfortunate but from the other side it makes sense as it would likely not look good for AMD, either if they went with a single 4 core CCX having their quads outperform the rest even though they run at the same clock speeds. Question remains if the CCX issues will be addressed eventually, by whomever. I'd also not be surprised if the first batch(es) of R5s could be reliably unlocked 🤓 Perhaps however the release of R7s ahead of time were meant to collect enough 'spare parts' for the others.

I've got a bad feeling that fewer cores will equate to more performance impact.... AMD is already showing multi-threaded Cinebench results that show the Ryzen 5 1600X only being 69% faster than the i5 7600k....which isn't very promising considering there's 8 more logical cores. Ryzen 5 1600X has 12 logical cores (6c/12t) Core i5 7600K has 4 logical cores (4c/4t)

1600x with 6 core Vs i5 4 cores means 50% more cores . SMT enabled will add a performance between 10-30% . So 69% is good.

From one perspective that's unfortunate but from the other side it makes sense as it would likely not look good for AMD, either if they went with a single 4 core CCX having their quads outperform the rest even though they run at the same clock speeds.

No, it doesn't make sense. Like has been said multiple times, Intel's quad is still a better game performer than the obnoxiously expensive ones with more cores. If that works perfectly for Intel, why would it suddenly hurt AMD? It would be weird for an underdog to be so picky and proud.

No, it doesn't make sense. Like has been said multiple times, Intel's quad is still a better game performer than the obnoxiously expensive ones with more cores. If that works perfectly for Intel, why would it suddenly hurt AMD? It would be weird for an underdog to be so picky and proud.

From a binning perspective they'd throw away halves of perfectly fine R7s if they build their R5s with 1 CCX 4c. Instead they turn their trash into gold. Economically speaking, for them, it's good. Additionally they keep consistency across the whole Ryzen platform, which is also good. Assuming they'll sell of course. Given the price points chances are they will until there will be HT i5s. Of course they could cater to gamers specifically by going 1 CCX 4c but then game developers perhaps would have even less of an incentive to optimize for Ryzen's CCX setup effectively leaving the 1600 and R7s gimped for eternity. Funnily enough this may puts their APUs ahead, for they may come as single CCX parts. Overall, as a customer (who picked up an R7 or 1600(X)) I'd expect my CPU to perform the same on the same frequency as the lower end parts insofar they're of the same generation (or processor family anyway). I understand however, that AMD is again taking a gamble. I think Intel has hit its maximum with the 7700K - so I don't see any >5ghz chips soon. This only leaves scaling to more cores than fequency and brute force. If Ryzen remains unadopted and no one will optimize for it AMD may fall very flat again but it'll also leave us stuck with 7700Ks for another X years.