AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Processors; $169 Four-Cores And $219 Six-Cores, Available April 11

[Guest]

AMD's new Ryzen 5 processors take aim at the heart of the desktop PC market with six-core and four-core variants at competitive price points.

AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Processors; $169 Four-Cores And $219 Six-Cores, Available April 11 : Read more

 

[TechyInAZ]

WHOO! Ryzen 5!

I hope overclocking is better on ryzen 5 parts, since there are less cores to deal with.

 

[rhysiam]

A single four-core CCX, or only one active CCX on a dual-CCX chip, would help avoid many of the problems that appear to restrict Ryzen 7's gaming performance in many popular titles, and frankly, many enthusiasts are hoping this is the case.

Unfortunately that's NOT the case. Ian Cutress from Anandtech was able to confirm that all 6 core variants are using a 3+3 design, with all Ryzen 5 quad core variants employing a 2+2 configuration. That is a shame, particularly as a quad core with a single fully functional CCX for ~$170 would seem to have a similar markup (percentage wise) to the Ryzen 7 1700 with two fully functional CCX (~$340). Perhaps yields are pretty poor meaning they need to make use of a large number of four core CCXs that only came out with two working cores.

Still, at least AMD isn't playing games by selling some CPUs with 4 + 2, or 4 + 0 and others with different configs.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

[quotemsg=19431903,0,1287211]

A single four-core CCX, or only one active CCX on a dual-CCX chip, would help avoid many of the problems that appear to restrict Ryzen 7's gaming performance in many popular titles, and frankly, many enthusiasts are hoping this is the case.

Unfortunately that's NOT the case. Ian Cutress from Anandtech was able to confirm that all 6 core variants are using a 3+3 design, with all Ryzen 5 quad core variants employing a 2+2 configuration. That is a shame, particularly as a quad core with a single fully functional CCX for ~$170 would seem to have a similar markup (percentage wise) to the Ryzen 7 1700 with two fully functional CCX (~$340). Perhaps yields are pretty poor meaning they need to make use of a large number of four core CCXs that only came out with two working cores.

Still, at least AMD isn't playing games by selling some CPUs with 4 + 2, or 4 + 0 and others with different configs. [/quotemsg]

We've asked repeatedly, AMD hasn't responded. If that is a case that is a potential letdown to a lot of enthusiasts. We'll have to test to be sure, of course.

 

[InvalidError]

Using 2+2 sounds awfully wasteful and sub-optimal performance-wise. I hope that's not true.

 

[sykozis]

The Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600 are the processors I've been waiting for. Guess I'll have to look a bit closer at the reviews.

 

[rhysiam]

[quotemsg=19432044,0,125865]Using 2+2 sounds awfully wasteful and sub-optimal performance-wise. I hope that's not true.[/quotemsg]
It is true, unless Ian from Anandtech has been given inaccurate info from AMD:

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

Hopefully they'll get back to Paul and the TH team soon to verify via an alternative source, but I'd take the above as accurate for now.

 

[Supahos]

How is using a 2+2 more wasteful than throwing the chip away?

 

[rhysiam]

[quotemsg=19432148,0,1476655]How is using a 2+2 more wasteful than throwing the chip away?[/quotemsg]
I was operating under the assumption that AMD could use a single CCX in a single quad core (8 thread CPU). Is that not the case? Do they have to be used in pairs?

**Update - Yes that was my mistake. A single Zeppelin die which makes up Ryzen 5 & 7 constitutes two CCX complexes, and comes in at around 195mm2. I was reading some speculation a while back that suggested Naples (the up to 32 core server Ryzen CPUs) might combine multiple smaller (Zeppelin) dies on a single package and mistakenly thought that's what happened for Ryzen.

It's reasonable to expect that AMD do have smaller Ryzen dies in the works. Likely that Ryzen 3 is a smaller (maybe single CCX) CPU, which is perhaps why it's still a few months away. Had they been able to launch that right now in a quad core format it would be less "wasteful" than the current quad core Ryzen 5 implementations. But yes, if the Zeppelin die is all AMD have ready right now, then you're right that a 50% disable die is the only way AMD can launch a quad core for the time being.

On a side note - the gaming performance issues being associated with the "Infinity Fabric" is just speculation/theorising right now isn't it? No one's actually quantified the performance difference have they?

 

[sykozis]

It depends on exactly why they're ending up with a 2+2 chip. In this instance, it looks as though performance will be artificially degraded though due to the "AMD Infinity Fabric" having excessive latency.

 

[nzalog]

[quotemsg=19432167,0,1287211][quotemsg=19432148,0,1476655]How is using a 2+2 more wasteful than throwing the chip away?[/quotemsg]
I was operating under the assumption that AMD could use a single CCX in a single quad core (8 thread CPU). Is that not the case? Do they have to be used in pairs?[/quotemsg]

They may have to be used in pairs but the logic here is that the silicon that is tested has only 2 (of 4) or 3 (of 4) working cores and is simply turned into 2 cores then paired with another. At least that would be my understanding of it.

 

[InvalidError]

[quotemsg=19432143,0,1287211]It is true, unless Ian from Anandtech has been given inaccurate info from AMD:
[/quotemsg]
In that case, there is still hope for a 'refresh' where AMD will fix that to reduce the cost of making lower end parts and the performance hits from splitting the core/cache across CCX boundaries.

 

[mellis]

These CPUs will probably be slower than the I3 and I5 Kaby Lake CPUs when it comes to games, due to their IPC. I was hoping AMD would pull through this time. Hopefully their next CPU release will be better.

 

[pecul1ar]

It will be benched, then it will be judged. Prices are really looking good right now, I just hope that mobo manufacturers take AMD seriously now and fire up additional production lanes. And the 2017 SMB! Now that is an event I'll be watching for!

Also.. the CPU hierarchy update at mid April.

Edit: month

 

[barryv88]

[quotemsg=19432386,0,517105]These CPUs will probably be slower than the I3 and I5 Kaby Lake CPUs when it comes to games, due to their IPC. I was hoping AMD would pull through this time. Hopefully their next CPU release will be better.[/quotemsg]

Please define "slower" to me because honestly, I don't get it. In terms of fps, yes, the current 1700 vs 7700k is roughly getting 10% less fps, yet scores an average of over 115fps in games. Will you see and feel a difference between the 2? I highly doubt it.
As far as I'm concerned, the 'slower' chip in this regard is the 7700k when live streaming and recording of gaming is done - I've now seen plenty vids where the amount of stuttering is clearly visible. Obviously it's starved to handle this extra load on its 4 cores.
The new 6 core Ryzen's should hold up better - those extra 2 cores over the quads will definitely come in handy.

 

[rhysiam]

[quotemsg=19432386,0,517105]These CPUs will probably be slower than the I3 and I5 Kaby Lake CPUs when it comes to games, due to their IPC. I was hoping AMD would pull through this time. Hopefully their next CPU release will be better.[/quotemsg]
Why? It's the same architecture and similar clock speeds as Ryzen 7 CPUs. The 1600X has 6 cores and 12 threads, are you saying that won't be enough for games? If that's the case why is the 4c8t 7700K consistently beating the 6c12t 6850K? It's very likely that the 4c8t Ryzen 5 1400 for $170, OC'd to 4Ghz will be the value gaming CPU to beat. It should match or beat any of the locked i5s in games, which are all priced higher (or priced similarly if you factor in aftermarket cooling on the Ryzen). While an overclocked i5 will probably still beat it in gaming, that's a fair bit more expensive.

We'll have to wait for proper benchmarks to confirm, but from what we know so far the standard recommendation of a cheap i5 + best GPU you can afford will probably shift to a Ryzen 5.

 

[InvalidError]

[quotemsg=19432531,0,1287211]It's very likely that the 4c8t Ryzen 5 1400 for $170, OC'd to 4Ghz will be the value gaming CPU to beat.[/quotemsg]
Assuming that splitting those two cores and their caches across two CCX doesn't cause some oddball multi-threaded performance issues due to the added latency between cores/caches on CCX #0 vs CCX #1. The i3/i5/i7 don't have that extra complication for software developers to deal with.

 

[valeman2012]

Ryzen 5 1600X vs Intel i5 7500
Ryzen 5 1600 vs Intel i5 7500T
Ryzen 5 1500X vs Intel i5 7400
Ryzen 5 1400 vs Intel i5 7400T

Jeez i wonder which one going win lol despite the Cores and Threads

99% sure that 1600X can`t beat a Intel i5 7500.

 

[Fons278]

Should I buy an i5 6600k or wait for the new 4 core Ryzen

 

[The Paladin]

its all hear say and conjuncture until the chips are matched with functional motherboards and benched for real life applications
until then I await.

 

[Guest]

A price is good but if you think that 6 core or 4 core will beat Kaby Lake because you will be able to overclock these chips you are mistaken. They are no better overclockers than x1800, x1700.

 

[The Paladin]

They are no better overclockers than x1800, x1700.

Hmm question if you please; do you have info on this, I have been looking for reports on how well they OC and could not find any.

 

[Guest]

[quotemsg=19433311,0,2340645]

They are no better overclockers than x1800, x1700.

Hmm question if you please; do you have info on this, I have been looking for reports on how well they OC and could not find any.[/quotemsg]

Just as I said that Ryzen won't perform better in gaming than Intel counterpart....just wait and see and then make a decision about future purchase.

People have to understand that $499 Ryzen is not that cheap because AMD cut the cost of making these by cutting down the number of PCIe etc. Why do you people think that 6 Core Intel is hell of more expensive than same 6 core Intel with 28 PCIe? These things are not cheap to put in CPU. I figured that if AMD released Ryzen with quad memory channel and 40 PCIe like Intel counterpart, it would cost ~$800. After doing a math i figured that Intel is over charging people somewhere between $50 - $120 depending what CPU we are talking about and the only reason they do this is because they have performance crown. I will probably get so many negatives and maybe be called by name...but that's the truth. Unfortunately AMD didn't deliver promised performance and therefore Intel won't lower their prices.

 

[The Paladin]

Freak 777power thank you for the admission that AMD dropped the ball again.. AMD is a good product I never bash it, AMD did not and will not live with the R5 and 3 to the Hype of "beating intel" , that conceded, price wise they do offer admirable eye candy... then you look at motherboards and bleh. I may buy yet my first Ever AMD (tempting Ryzen indeed) . but I think I will wait an easy 6 months, let the hardware sort itself out. and see all those promised "benchmarks" many claim they hold is the truth of it all. I am in no hurry I run a 4th gen CPU for a reason, the 7700 has not impressed me over what I run for what I use my computer for. (and that is the key to life in a serene computer life) ..

 

[TMTOWTSAC]

The clocks are a bit disappointing on the the 4 core parts. But the 1600 and 1600X look like absolute winners in any multithreading value comparison. As far as gaming goes, how much of a performance hit will they really take dropping 2 cores + 2 threads compared to the 8 core Ryzens? Most games responded better to the higher clockspeed of the 7700k vs the increased core count on the 6900k. Assuming it can hit a 4 GHz all core OC, shouldn't it perform pretty close to the 1800X?