Wednesday, March 22nd 2017
Simulated AMD Ryzen 5 Series Chips as Fast as Ryzen 7 at Gaming
It's not rocket science to simulate smaller upcoming Ryzen series chips when you have a Ryzen 7 1800X. By disabling two out of its eight cores and adjusting its clock speeds, TechSpot simulated a Ryzen 5 1600X processor. While the Ryzen 5 1600X was a near-perfect simulation by TechSpot, the 1500X isn't entirely accurate. AMD is carving out the 1500X by disabling an entire CCX (quad-core complex), leaving the chip with just 8 MB of L3 cache, disabling four cores on the 1800X still leaves the full 16 MB L3 cache untouched. The Ryzen Master software lets you disable 2, 4, or 6 cores, but not specific cores, so it's entirely possible that disabling 4 cores using Ryzen Master turns off two cores per CCX. Nevertheless, the gaming performance results are highly encouraging.
According to the gaming performance figures for the simulated 1600X six-core and 1500X quad-core Ryzen chips put out by TechSpot, the 1600X barely loses any performance to the 1800X. Today's AAA PC games have little utility with 8 cores and 16 threads, and you'll hardly miss the two disabled cores when gaming on a 1600X powered machine. The simulated 1500X loses a bit more performance, but nothing of the kind between the quad-core Intel Core i7-7700K and the dual-core i3-7350K. When paired with a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti in "Mafia III," for example, you lose 12.8% performance as you move from the $499 1800X to the $189 1500X (simulated); but you lose 35% performance as you move from the $329 i7-7700K to the $189 i3-7350K. Find more interesting results in the source link below.
Source:
TechSpot
According to the gaming performance figures for the simulated 1600X six-core and 1500X quad-core Ryzen chips put out by TechSpot, the 1600X barely loses any performance to the 1800X. Today's AAA PC games have little utility with 8 cores and 16 threads, and you'll hardly miss the two disabled cores when gaming on a 1600X powered machine. The simulated 1500X loses a bit more performance, but nothing of the kind between the quad-core Intel Core i7-7700K and the dual-core i3-7350K. When paired with a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti in "Mafia III," for example, you lose 12.8% performance as you move from the $499 1800X to the $189 1500X (simulated); but you lose 35% performance as you move from the $329 i7-7700K to the $189 i3-7350K. Find more interesting results in the source link below.
47 Comments on Simulated AMD Ryzen 5 Series Chips as Fast as Ryzen 7 at Gaming
sorry had to... love my 1800x
enabling two cores per ccx means full cache no?
Meanwhile someone will post and say these chips are ideal to gaming instead of the R7, while before, R7 was "DA FUTURE BRO, optimization!!"
Absolutely love it xD
1500x has 16 MB L3, so it's 2+2 with 2 CCX.
1400 has only 8 MB L3, indicating that a full CCX is disabled and 4+0.
I'm still not sure how the L3 on Ryzen works with the CCX and cores I know that it's slower and lags comparatively speaking, but I don't know if that lags the entire CPU or just the processes traversing the L3 cache IE can you manually setup core affinity and priority for backrounds tasks to run on the L3 cache while the L1 and L2 are reserved for games?? Process Lasso allows for lots of customization on that level, but I don't what happens once the L3 cache is touched is the entire CPU stuck in limbo or can it do other things with L1/L2 caches on different cores and only what's in L3 cache is being slowed down latency wise?
Anyway, we will see soon.
"*in annoying parrot voice* how is 1080, gaming, how is 1080 gaming, how is 1080 gaming"
From what I know, the connection path between the two CCXs works at memory speed, and you get better performance with higher memory speed. Wouldn't this path be removed if only one CCX is used, and and there will be no need for high memory speed? or at least the impact won't be that high.
Also - only one CCX will have better thermal performance, and that might translate in slightly higher overclocking potential.
On the other hand, perhaps CPUs with disabled core could have them enabled later, and people would get more cores for less money. I'm not saying it is possible, but it happened before.
My next CPU is likely to be 4/8 Ryzen (and will probably buy cheapest 4/4 for some secondary purposes), but not until benchmarks and comparisons are out. Those *won't* be "ultimate gaming platforms" by any means (and I'm not the "ultimate gamer"), but getting 80% performance of Intel for, say, 60% price is a pretty good deal.
I would also like that 2-cores CPUs become obsolete, the technology is here since early 2000's, it's hardly relevant now and the time for retirement is here. That means I3 and low-cost dual-cores from both manufacturer, they likely can be replaced with 4-cores and only then the *real* core optimisation will come.
But since this is about defective chips, you'd only get to reuse chips with a fully working CCX.