>R5 1600X: 3+3 with 16MB L3 cache
>R5 1600: 3+3 with 16MB L3 cache
>R5 1500X: 2+2 with 16MB L3 cache
>R5 1400: 2+2 with 8MB L3 cache
anandtech.com
>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.
Other urls found in this thread:
Why is one 4 core part 8MB of L3? That makes no sense, having 2+2 but disabling cache in one CCX-
They'd disable half the cache per CCX otherwise one CCX wouldn't work.
The fact that the 4c/8t version will be 2+2 and not 4+0 is a bit shit. Shame really.
The 1500x 4c8t seems ttobe 16MB which seems impossible.
There's two 4 core parts, one with 8MB and one with 16MB
Your argument doesn't hold.
So? another flop 2500K beats it
amdrones will drone I guess
complete ass pull
Gimping hardware is a feature
Stop baiting dickwagon and join discussion. It's new way to accomplish things and obviously it isn't as well supported and optimized than legacy ways, right?
>the R5 could've competed with the i5
>nah, let's just use broken r7s as a base
We heard all these excuses before with Faildozer. Five years later it still gets wrecked by a 2500k.
>The 1500x 4c8t seems ttobe 16MB which seems impossible.
Why? It's split across 2 CCXs, each of which has 8 MB of L3 cache. 2x8=16.
>There's two 4 core parts, one with 8MB and one with 16MB
Yes. Both are split across two CCXs, therefore the former must have each CCX's L3 cache cut in half. One CCX having 16 MB and the other having 0 MB doesn't work.
Cutting cache in half per CCX makes even less sense than having one CCX with a fully enabled L3
You can't just "cut" shared cache in half.
Fast RAM will save us. Maybe. Probably not. R7 is the only good Ryzen it seems. Unless R3 actually has 1 CCX.
Seems multiple sources are confirming the R5 1400 also has 2 CCX, so maybe they cut off half the L3 cache on each CCX?
What "excuses"? They are legit reasons that affect performance. Obviously it will perform poorly if no one never did anything like it, how about you go write scheduler that can benefit from 2 ccx?
And then theres bandwidth issue too, how are they going to include APU in that thing?
Stupid fucking decision, I hope they disable one entire complex for the R3.
>so maybe they cut off half the L3 cache on each CCX?
Again, not how it werks.
At best they could do is somehow disable half the cache, which would be interesting cost wise.
>r3 ends up being highest performing zen in single threaded applications
That'd be so hilarious.
Is it? What's the current ST champion at Intel camp?
Hint: It's not the low clocked 8 core.
The fact that you resort to name calling makes me hesitant to even respond to you but Bullzoder does out perform the 2500k in newer (optimized) software.
Once again, new architecture, old software not written to take advantage of it.
Stop with the asspull horseshit.
But you can have a whole CCX with no L3 cache? Listen to yourself man. Halving the size of a cache is trivial.
That would be awesome
Not if the cache is shared.
They won't. Need consistency in performance over the range.
Has anyone tried to disable an entire CCX?
Yes.
Not disabling smt, like and entire complex.
Did it work? Was there massive increase in IPC?
Yes.
Yes.
Proof
Google "Ryzen disabled ccx review"
I did. Nothing Beyond cores.
Go deeper
No.
Heh, once again I have cut another worthless poster.
meh Ryzen 1400 confirm to be another failure, amd had a ball to ask 169 for that crap, it should 100 desu.
>amd delivers yet another turd
Stop the presses.
>We heard all these excuses before with Larrabee/Xeon Phi. Five years later it still gets wrecked by any GPU with OpenCL/CUDA
None of these CPU's make any sense. At least the 1700 can be considered a solid victory as a budget workstation CPU over intel. These r3's and r5's are just inferior price and performance wise to pentium and 7600k. They're not competitive.
The 7700k is the best price/performance CPU right now
Uh, no. I'd take a 1700 over it in almost any build. Did you say you can run photoshop faster? That's funny because I can run it with a game open with both running faster at the same time. 1700 is a vastly superior power user CPU and it cost a bit less too.
Those chip r5 chip prob had some value if amd don't laser cut the core, for now it trash.
Amd should sale 2core / 4 thread for cheap. but we got this 1400 contraption
APUs will come later on.
Dumbass
The 2500K is being used to power quantum computers right now. AMD is years behind.
But remember your slogan, Just Wait™
Currently deciding between a 7500 or a 1500x. Looking more and more likely I'll go with the 7500.
>mfw 1400 gets obliterated by $70 pentium
i feel like amd created this product just to be made fun of. seriously what other purpose does it serve?
To show that Intel is disgusting for charging $1000+ for 8 core consumer grade processors.
1400 is a 4c part
>Five years later it still gets wrecked by any GPU with OpenCL/CUDA
Your OpenCL card can't boot Windows and run normal x86 software. Xeon Phi can
This is a common practice for years.
Why do you think Intel had so many processor variants, because they want to reutilize CPU's with some defects, in that way they dont have to throw it away, but they market them as lower power variants so they dont have top throw it away.
Complex ICs are expensive as fuck to design and then produce. Of course they're going to utilize every little trick they can to make the most of what they have.
Bait .
...
Fuck that.
I hope they don't sell 2 cores at all. Maybe 3 cores at the very least.
2 cores, especially 2c/2t, need to die.
There's no point in 2 core CPUs when they don't have higher single threaded performance than a 4 core, other than "muh $70 cpu"
Laptops are generally 2c4t
DESKTOP THREAD
Do they have to be though? There are cellphones with 4x the number of cores these days. More cores with moderate clock speeds can be more power efficient than few cores with high clock speeds
Moar coars is fucking meme for anything interactive. You won't be rendering or encoding shit on your laptop.
Apple dual cores shat on quad and octa cores mainly because they had strong IPC.
Huh? Source?
No reason they wouldn't be like 4c with 1.9ghz base and 3.3ghz turbo or something that only happens on 2 cores max out of the 4.
They could easily make a 4core 4CU 15w TDP Ryzen laptop APU with how energy efficient Vega and Zen are.
There's really no reason why they'd do anything less than 3 cores with how good yields apparently are.
Just seems you don't know what you're talking about.
All laptops 13" and less are dual cores and I don't even put the 15" apple macpros there. Only expensive 15" and above are quad cores.
with SMT
Is mirroring reddit for some reason? Why are all of these posts reddit-tier in this thread
/r/amd is leaking
>R5 1500X: 2+2 with 16MB L3 cache
>16MB L3 cache
I'll say this again, I don't see how low end xeon can survive with this thing on the market.
not enough AMD FINISHED AND BANKRUPT for your taste?
Thing with CCX is overblown, if computerbase to be believed it's just two windows features stalling performance. Scheduler is a minor thing.
It's a shit wrecker for the price no matter what you're comparing it against. i7s, Xeons, i5s are all on notice for 250 dollar 6 core 12 thread.
It's not overblown, it IS impacting performance. But there are so many other issues plaguing Ryzen we have only begun to see what the chip is capable of.
you see 4c 3.7Ghz xeons exist for it's huge 8-20MB L3 they cost as much as i7 because of it. Now they have no niche.
It makes perfect sense as cheap cpus like 1400 need volumes and they can get it during testing: Some part of L3 is fuck'd -> laser it in half -> throw it into 1400 bin
Can I get a quick run down?
what good does that do in a 4c/4t part with 8mb l3 ?
keep in mind a 2c/4t with ht kaby lake pentium cost $70...
everything below i7 7700K and above is dead market for intel
only viable chip they have is top end xeons right now, that also comes to an end comes summer
until next year, when thing will be interesting
>what good does it to i7 to be 4c with 8T compared to i5?
1400 is half the core of 1700 yet the price isn't half, amd trying to jew the poor by sale trash chip, sad
the point i think you're missing here is kaby lake has insane ipc performance and that is a $65 part vs a $169 part
when you take away those extra cores and cut the l3 cache in half, ryzen is of questionable value. who this appeal to?
you are missing the point that $70 part is actually useless for anything besides emulation and browsing
whereas the $169 part is dogshit at everything
>2+2 only, no 4+0
that bugger gonna by slowed down by scheduling-latency so bad, wew
Considering you need fast ram to make it bearable , Fast ram pair with that cpu is dumb idea considering how expensive current ddr4
16GB of 3200mhz DDR4 is $107-$120 right now for a kit with mediocre timings.
A higher end tight timing kit is $145.
Prices will keep falling, and faster kits with tighter timings will get even cheaper in coming months.
Prices are going up you nigger, last month i got 16gb 3000 for $96
keep saying that, someone eventually will believe you
Does this mean even a Core 2 Quad
Yes, but released in 2017. Unless developers optimize their games with this in mind, those 4 cores are going to behave like i3 or even pentiums in games.
Whatever floats your sinking boat redteam+
He is correct, most i7s on laptops are actually 2c4t. It's pretty retarded.
Source?
>AMD could have given us 4 core 8 threads 16 mb cache one CCX CPUs that are clocked at 4 ghz...
>That huge L3 cache would have given us an extra 3-4 GHz of single thread performance
>but instead gave us this 2 CCX shit
THERE AREN'T ANY FORM OF TEXTUAL COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD CONVEY THE RAGE I AM FEELING RIGHT NOW
>1500x 2+2
I am more than slightly upset about this.
using 4+0 would have given them that little IPC boost they needed to compete with the i7 for significantly less. Now the 1500x is in the same position as the 1700. It's a better part for the price but all the gaymer mongoloids are gonna overlook that because of muh +5% single core performance.
AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT
AYYMDPOORFAGS CONFIRMED ON SUICIDE WATCH
this
This is sad, was hoping for 1400 being single CCX, NUMA cores have too much negatives.
>what kind of cpu job do you want senpai
>just C2Q my shit up
>>AMD could have given us 4 core 8 threads 16 mb cache one CCX CPUs that are clocked at 4 ghz...
This is simply not true.. there is 8MB cache per CCX
> x86 software
> parallel processing
if that were true ryzen would be a lot better