I'm not surprised, if those chips are only leftovers from worse silicon bins of 8 core cpus then it stands to reason that clocks will be worse along with non-working cores. There is albo a production process limitation 14nm LPP that while giving low power use at lower frequencies forces a very steep climb for voltages to keep stability at higher clocks. AFAIK the 3.7Ghz is a tipping point after which steep voltage increase is required to increase clocks. There will be no high clocked 4 core parts because of that, not because of power use (although it plays it's role too). Also if AMD gets it's 4 cores by the way of cutting cores from 8 cores it may mean even worse performance then in case of 8 cores because they probably will not be able to disable one CCX but will have to cut 2 cores off from each CCX, just as the can't do 6 core by disabling 2 cores from one CCX and leaving the other untouched.

Also some good points. That would be a nightmare if the 4 cores were spanned over 2 CCX's, you've got the increased latency there associated with communication across the 2 CCX - I'm hoping it'll be just 4 cores on one CCX.

Frankly, makes little sense. These must be good enough to compete well with Intels 4 cores, the i5s, which are no push-overs.

Not unless you can get an R3 for $80-120 and an R5 for $160-250.

Guys the 1200 and the 1400 are probably apu line the 1500x 4c/8t CPU clocks @ 3.5/3.7 turbo

I find this way too hard to believe. I'll just take the entire salt shaker. Contrary to what people are saying, no, this doesn't make sense, for the following reasons: 1. I heard the R5 series was getting an increase in frequency, not a lowered speed capped like this. 2. The concept of "they don't want it outperforming the 1800X" is utter BS. Intel's quad cores readily outperform their 8-cores in gaming benchmarks too, and you don't see them making a fuss about clock speeds. Why should AMD be any different? Your 8c/16t CPU was built for workstations, not gaming. Not sure why people don't understand this. 3. AMD needs to prove their worth with their architecture. They're not going to sabotage their entire product line because "R5 will take sales away from their most expensive models"; that's ridiculous. 4. CPUs with fewer cores tend to be easier to overclock for various reasons. Unless the 4-core models are bottom-of-the-barrel parts that are so poorly made that they can't even retain their intended clock speeds, it just doesn't make sense at all why their clocks would be so limited.

Guys the 1200 and the 1400 are probably apu line the 1500x 4c/8t CPU clocks @ 3.5/3.7 turbo

nope, the APU line is AM4 but based on old core gen, and will be severely weaker (the info is on AMD site and most mother board maker).

nope, the APU line is AM4 but based on old core gen, and will be severely weaker (the info is on AMD site and most mother board maker).

Well given that as I posted the Picture of the 1500x clocks from amd own slide i think i am correct, as for am4 apu there is a zen apu line with quad cores..

I would expect the 4 core Ryzen CPUs to at least match the R 7 line in clocks/frequencies. Even if there is a break off point where egregious amounts of voltage is needed to exceed a certain frequency, I would still expect it to overclock as well as the R7 lineup, if not better. It's speculation on my part, but I think if AMD could tweak and revise an R3 or R5 that could OC to 4.5 ghz it would be a very attractive option for those who have gaming as their only real PC usage.... we shall see sometime this Summer season. :banana:

Also if this is a leftover silicon lottery from the 8core CPUs makes me wonder about something that AMD did in the past. With certain Phenom II Cpus you could enable the cores that were disabled for whatever reason and if it worked you could have a Quad-Core (if you have a tri-core) and a Hex-core (if you has a quad) Makes me wonder if AMD could be going that route again?

I wouldn´t be surprised if that happens. AMD is not going to spend millions to ensure that the disabled cores can´t be enabled again and (usually) they don´t laser cut their disabled parts like Nvidia, so i can see come quads turning into hexa cores and some hexa cores turning into full Ryzens!...

I wouldn´t be surprised if that happens. AMD is not going to spend millions to ensure that the disabled cores can´t be enabled again and (usually) they don´t laser cut their disabled parts like Nvidia, so i can see come quads turning into hexa cores and some hexa cores turning into full Ryzens!...

The way the CCX are connected makes it possible for them to check each CCX before it gets fused into an octocore. I wouldn't hold high hopes for the quad parts, they will probably be a single CCX in a package, not two with one CC***935; disabled. The six core parts are going to be interesting though.

The way the CCX are connected makes it possible for them to check each CCX before it gets fused into an octocore. I wouldn't hold high hopes for the quad parts, they will probably be a single CCX in a package, not two with one CC***935; disabled. The six core parts are going to be interesting though.

I read before that there´s a small possibility of quad cores on two CCX, like 2+2 or 3+1 cores, but i don´t know if this is going to happen.

I read before that there´s a small possibility of quad cores on two CCX, like 2+2 or 3+1 cores, but i don´t know if this is going to happen.

I have a feeling that it won't, seeing the potential scheduler troubles.

I find this way too hard to believe. I'll just take the entire salt shaker. Contrary to what people are saying, no, this doesn't make sense, for the following reasons: 1. I heard the R5 series was getting an increase in frequency, not a lowered speed capped like this. 2. The concept of "they don't want it outperforming the 1800X" is utter BS. Intel's quad cores readily outperform their 8-cores in gaming benchmarks too, and you don't see them making a fuss about clock speeds. Why should AMD be any different? Your 8c/16t CPU was built for workstations, not gaming. Not sure why people don't understand this. 3. AMD needs to prove their worth with their architecture. They're not going to sabotage their entire product line because "R5 will take sales away from their most expensive models"; that's ridiculous. 4. CPUs with fewer cores tend to be easier to overclock for various reasons. Unless the 4-core models are bottom-of-the-barrel parts that are so poorly made that they can't even retain their intended clock speeds, it just doesn't make sense at all why their clocks would be so limited.

Fully agree.

:infinity: AMD needs its 4c processors get "XFR" between 4.20 and 4.50GHz to show +90% of the performance of i5 7600K/ i7 7700K respectively @half of price :banana:

:infinity: AMD needs its 4c processors get "XFR" between 4.20 and 4.50GHz to show +90% of the performance of i5 7600K/ i7 7700K respectively @half of price :banana:

Assuming you've taken into account ipc differences and clock speeds correctly, then I don't think AMD are gonna achieve 4.2 - 4.5Ghz on their 4 core products, I'd be surprised if they will even overclock that far. My guess is that the 4 core products won't overclock beyond 4.2Ghz for anything 24/7 and sensible. Could still be attractive on price if they place it right.

It might make sense if the lower clocks were still enough to beat Intel CPUs in real applications including gaming. However, Ryzen 7 was kind of lacking in gaming, and nobody knows yet how much they can fix that. Higher clocks would automatically help there. Higher clocks are also totally free performance for the manufacturer as long as the processor can handle it (Nvidia's Pascal is the best example of this in my opinion). It's pointless for them to artificially slow down the 4-core. It's not going to compete with their own 6-core anyway.

The tweet is aimed at Ryzen 3, the budget tier SKU that's likely to consist of 4 cores and 4 threads. AMD has embraced this business policy of "Do more with Quad/Octa Core" for some time now. I suspect this is the only reason they'd probably do this. And this is more of a rumor, as Hilbert said, take it with a grain of salt.

Assuming you've taken into account ipc differences and clock speeds correctly, then I don't think AMD are gonna achieve 4.2 - 4.5Ghz on their 4 core products, I'd be surprised if they will even overclock that far. My guess is that the 4 core products won't overclock beyond 4.2Ghz for anything 24/7 and sensible. Could still be attractive on price if they place it right.

What are you basing these thoughts on? People have reached 5.8GHz on Ryzens so far, so they definitely can go higher than the 4.1 that everyone seems to be stuck on. With fewer cores, cooling and power distribution becomes less of an issue, which allows for a greater chance of overclocking. Also remember that the more complex something is, the more likely something is to go wrong. When you're reducing nearly half the transistor count, that's a lot less than can go wrong. I am pretty certain these quad cores will easily exceed 4.2GHz on air coolers.

[spoiler]http://www.racingjunky.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X-and-Ryzen-5-1500X-1.jpg[/spoiler] so much for that one

The tweet is aimed at Ryzen 3, not the mid card.

What are you basing these thoughts on? People have reached 5.8GHz on Ryzens so far, so they definitely can go higher than the 4.1 that everyone seems to be stuck on. With fewer cores, cooling and power distribution becomes less of an issue, which allows for a greater chance of overclocking. Also remember that the more complex something is, the more likely something is to go wrong. When you're reducing nearly half the transistor count, that's a lot less than can go wrong. I am pretty certain these quad cores will easily exceed 4.2GHz on air coolers.

I'm basing it on the voltage/frequency graphs I've seen of people who have plotted their overclocks on 8 core Ryzen. IIRC beyond 4Ghz (even before then) the voltage required accelerates greatly. I think I remember seeing something like 1.4V required for 4.1Ghz, something like that - so I can't imagine that people would really want to run their CPUs 24/7 at 1.4V+. I'm also expecting that the 4 core Ryzen are going to require a similar amount of voltage for a certain Mhz (maybe slightly less due to the reduced transistor count you mention), so I can't see people overclocking beyond say 4.2Ghz for a 24/7 overclock that's not gonna degrade the chip. It's a hunch & slightly educated guess of mine. Yep, I've seen some of the very high overclocks achieved with LN2, but that's not really applicable - I'm talking about 24/7 overclocks that aren't gonna degrade the chip over time. EDIT: It was actually 1.4V for about 4Ghz. On this page (post #171): http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=412876&page=7 But I'm sure I've also found a graph that shows a greater acceleration of voltage, I'll see if I can find it. Either way 1.4V seems like a lot of voltage for 24/7 usage, and that's only 4Ghz. EDIT #2: actually that graph on the page I linked above does show the the frequency flattening out quite sharply from about 3.8Ghz, and then continues to flatten, so you can see by that graph that increased voltage at those higher points is having diminishing returns.

I would guess these are the CPU's to compete with Intels pentium and low end i3 series in which case even with the lower clock should perform better since those Intel equivalents are dual cores with ht so i don't see the problem.

I find this way too hard to believe. I'll just take the entire salt shaker. Contrary to what people are saying, no, this doesn't make sense, for the following reasons: 1. I heard the R5 series was getting an increase in frequency, not a lowered speed capped like this. 2. The concept of "they don't want it outperforming the 1800X" is utter BS. Intel's quad cores readily outperform their 8-cores in gaming benchmarks too, and you don't see them making a fuss about clock speeds. Why should AMD be any different? Your 8c/16t CPU was built for workstations, not gaming. Not sure why people don't understand this. 3. AMD needs to prove their worth with their architecture. They're not going to sabotage their entire product line because "R5 will take sales away from their most expensive models"; that's ridiculous. 4. CPUs with fewer cores tend to be easier to overclock for various reasons. Unless the 4-core models are bottom-of-the-barrel parts that are so poorly made that they can't even retain their intended clock speeds, it just doesn't make sense at all why their clocks would be so limited.

Well, unless they have another production process in mind they will not be able to put anything above 4.0Ghz, and that completely without overclocking headroom. From published slides, R5 and R3 had low power use so no luck with that. I do not think GloFo next production process is ready to roll and from voltage requirements there is no chance to reach far beyond 4Ghz. Yes, people were able to reach over 5Ghz, on liquid nitrogen and at 1.9V - does anyone here would even consider running that 24/7 (even if we had enough LN to do that) ? AMD already proved that ZEN is very good, their cpus are finally competent in gaming tasks and very good in semi a professional tasks. We can expect fixes for gaming, and not from game developers but systemic ones because it is very clear that something is wrong with that just from differences in performance between Windows 7 and 10. Yes, R5 will be easier to overclock, but with as steep a voltage increase as is required based on R7 samples, I don't have much hope for big gains, maybe 200 Mhz over R7....