Six Core AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Processors With Eight Working Cores Spotted
Click here to post a comment for Six Core AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Processors With Eight Working Cores Spotted on our message forum
dk_lightning
Just shows as a 8C/16T right off the bat? wow.
I have a 1600 and just got the 6C12T xD But hey, If there ends up being a way to enable the other cores then people are in for some fun times!
Loophole35
Makes me want to order a 1600x just to see if I get lucky.
Silva
If the cores are disabled, there is a good reason for it.
Enabling the cores would be a pain as you'd have to figure out what frequency the CPU would work stable (probably lower than 1700 and that's why AMD binned those chips as 1600X).
Loophole35
I don't think it's the user "enabling" them. The claim is they are active out of the box. Some are speculating that they are mixed in because there is a shortage of 6 core CPU's and AMD is throwing R7's in R5 packages to satisfy demand. Remember an R7 and R5 cost AMD the same amount of money to make so they aren't loosing money. Plus the Threadripper revelation makes this more plausible.
tunaphish6
Release some mis-branded 1600x's into the wild. Watch their sales spike as people start buying up 1600x's, trying to get lucky.
Something similar happened with Crucial and their SSD's, albeit I'm fairly certain that was unintentional. AMD, on the other hand, has a history of misbranding merchandise, or teasing 'free' upgrades through firmware updates and product gambling.
Edit: Funny thing, for shits and giggles, I went to go check my own 1600, and under HWMonitor, it looks like I have 7 cores on mine. Any recommendations on how to confirm whether they're working cores and not simply misread?
gianluca
This remembers me of the Phenom II X4 960T, with which was possible to unlock 2 more cores (passing from 4 to 6) using the motherboard's bios.
Good days. 🙂
schmidtbag
I don't think anything is misbranded, but rather there was a production error. I wouldn't be surprised if these extra cores are defective in some way. Not sure why you put "free" in quotes though - since when have you ever had to pay for firmware updates? Back in the Athlon/Phenom II days, it was considered a gamble to unlock a CPU with a motherboard that supported it, but people knew what they were getting into. If you were a smart buyer, you'd get a CPU that would perform to fit your needs without the extra cores. Seems to me in this situation, you're not only gambling with the motherboard but also the CPU itself without having any control over what actually works, because users don't get any option for core unlocking. Buying a 1600X in the hopes of unlocking it is just plain dumb.
Have you tried benchmarking? Does your OS's task manager confirm the extra core? Doesn't matter how many cores there are if the OS will not utilize them. Also, is the 7th core recognized as a processor, or are you just seeing the thermometer for it?
Silva
They do lose money if they do that:
r5 1600x costs 260€ (average)
r7 1700 costs 330€ (average)
About 70€ of loss a piece (average).
vonSternberg
Bro, I'll be praying for my 1600X to actually be an R7 when I buy it.
airbud7
Hey!...check task manager and let us know...that would be cool if it shows 7....
Loophole35
They lose profits but not money. I.E. if there is a shortage of 1600 that they can't fill them they lose that entire sale. The entire R5 and R7 lineup cost the same amount to manufacture 1200x all the way to 1800x. They all "cost" AMD the same. Losing a sale is worst than loosing 70€ in profit.
tunaphish6
I'll have to check when I get home tonight--it's a computer I've been using as a back-up. I just reformatted and was heading out the door when I checked--cursory glance at Task Manager labeled it as a 6-core and Windows 10's Task Manager is just different enough to where you can't confirm individual cores.
Downloading HWMonitor really quick showed cores 0-6, each with individual temps and frequencies. I'll benchmark it tonight, as well as confirm with other utilities--it might just be a coincidental fluke.
Reddoguk
If the cores are disabled then there's a reason for it may be correct but i had a AMD 555 dual core that unlocked into a 955 quad core that lasted me years overclocked high and no problems what so ever.
rl66
it's not a lost of 70Euro but a non-gain of 70Euro...
it would be a lost if the CPU would have cost +70Euro to be done and that the consumer price would have been kept at old CPU's price with 0 gain (wich is clearly not the case)
rl66
same for me, i owned a athlon X3 that were OC and unlocked to athlon X4... once voltage added over AMD limit it has served me very long time and to the one i have sold the PC too.
sometime you can be lucky.
airbud7
what if you never sell it?.....is that still a non-gain or a loss?
shareholders like to see real money.
Loophole35
Which is why filling orders is more important than maximizing profits on each unit sold. 1600/x sell in a much higher volume than any R7.
Athlonite
Try looking in your mobo's BIOS for core unlocking and see what you can do if that' says nope then you're SOL for extra cores
icedman
Looks like thesame thing they did with the rx 480 with the 4gb cards actually being 8gb they did it because it was easier and cheaper to just build them all the same since all Ryzen dies are essentially the same core they don't lose anything by giving away higher core counts.
D3M1G0D
They're most likely accidental chips - chips which were functional 8 cores but packaged as 6 cores, but without two of the cores deactivated. I wouldn't expect any additional chips like them (the customers who got them are incredibly lucky).
