"AMD is carving out the 1500X by disabling an entire CCX (quad-core complex)"

We already know this is not true...
The 1500X will still have 2 CCX's with 2 cores cut out from each CCX.

Manu_PTI laugh so much when only 3 weeks after the failure (gaming wise), people still say things like this. Ahah.

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

You gotta be brain damaged (or just big fanboy) to buy an intel CPU right now, taking in consideration the intel pricing on all of their chips.
The fact that Ryzen is 8 Cores 16 Threads and just one of its CCXs alone is able to push such performance in everything (including gaming) makes me wonder what if some one really started making good use of the other idle 50% of the chip? add to this the fact that Ryzen is 65-95W TDP.
AMD did a really great job with this chip there is no doubt in that.

EDIT:
Also the performance of intel chips with more than 4 core is much worse in gaming than 4 cores i7. All these reviews out there never comparing Ryzen with any of the intel X99 cpus, claiming that they did not do so because of the price. While in fact this is just going to make Ryzen looks like a clear winner overall ( if they did).

KananAMD said that it will be 2+2 / 3+3 cores activated for Ryzen 1600/1500. Just read through the article, much more worth than "simulated" stuffs on TechSpot. Also some people here seem to never learn, what's so hard to understand about it, that AMD said it? And it's also making some fucking sense, because with 2+2 and 3+3 they can simply use more defective CPUs as with 4+0 and 4+2, it's simple maths. Deactivated L3 (8 MB instead of 16 MB) could simply mean *some* of the CPUs are 4+0, but not all of them, OR the L3 cache could be simply disabled by half. Fruitless speculation by TechSpot.

Anyway, we will see soon.

You are correct. I don't know why TPU is even saying this "AMD is carving out the 1500X by disabling an entire CCX (quad-core complex)" when AMD said this was NOT going to happen.
The reason why the 1500X has 8MB of L3 is because even though the L3 cache is 8MB + 8MB (2x CCX complexes) each core has dedicated access to 2MB of cache. You physically disable 2 core in each complex, you disable the cache with them. My guess is that the 6 core parts (3 + 3) just has the forth core in each complex disabled electronically, not physically. So in that case they can keep the 2MB of cache of the disabled cores active, leaving it the full 16MB cache.

Breaking news: 8 core is still a waste on games. News at 11.

InVasManiWhy not simply setup "Process Lasso" to only use every other Ryzen cores during restraint and further more setup all the non gaming processes to operate on the L3 cache CCX cores? That way all the less critical backround cores run on the slower cache by default and during restraint games run exclusively off of the faster L1 + L2 cache and cores though while not under restraint still benefit from the other cores.

If MS and AMD ever get their heads out of their asses this is how the scheduler should be for every app.

Win7 with a CCX disabled gives very decent gaming performance. Therefore, R7 can work just fine with a scheduler fix (and be even faster).

Not really surprising but still good to see. Game benching at 1080 or higher is always kind of a loaded answer since 95%+ of the performance will come from the video card. Truth is that an ancient 2500K that you could get for $30 off of ebay would be close to these numbers in this kind of test.

That said, if you're looking for a new platform with usb 3.1, m.2, sata III, etc. support it's great news for gamers and competition that a $189 1500X or $249 1600X will serve you well for gaming when paired with a decent video card.

TheinsanegamerNBreaking news: 8 core is still a waste on games. News at 11.

True yet 4 cores is beginning to be too little, so go for 6 cores or go for 8 cores so your CPU will stay "sufficient" longer :)

idxAlso the performance of intel chips with more than 4 core is much worse in gaming than 4 cores i7. All these reviews out there never comparing Ryzen with any of the intel X99 cpus, claiming that they did not do so because of the price. While in fact this is just going to make Ryzen looks like a clear winner overall ( if they did).

One of the first reviews, it also contains the 6, 8 and 10 core Intel CPUs - www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,1.html
For gaming, right now (before the R5 actual launch), the i5 7600k is a better option, especially when overclocking is taken into account.
The actual disappointment is that Ryzen is not really an upgrade option for gamers using a 4670k or more. But this is understandable, as only a few games actually need more than that.
People bought these WORKSTATION CPUs for gaming because AMD marketed them as gaming CPUs for streaming on twitch or 4K gaming, and sold them at a higher price than an equally performing gaming CPU that would be allot cheaper, the R5 1600x (or even R5 1500x), and it was proven that R7s in 1080p and (in some cases) in 2k, are actually performing marginally worse than a quad core, cheaper, Intel CPU.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing AMD and Ryzen, is that people were expecting some surprising new high improvements everywhere compared with the Intel lineup for less money, including gaming, and this is not the case. I know there are some platform issues (practically all the R7 owners are beta testers) but these issues will be fixed, worst case scenario by launching the next Zen lineup. I am actually impressed by Ryzen, but except video editing/encoding, there is no reason for most home users to buy a 6, 8 or 10 core CPU. Or maybe bragging.

GasarakiThe reason why the 1500X has 8MB of L3 is because even though the L3 cache is 8MB + 8MB (2x CCX complexes) each core has dedicated access to 2MB of cache. You physically disable 2 core in each complex, you disable the cache with them. My guess is that the 6 core parts (3 + 3) just has the forth core in each complex disabled electronically, not physically. So in that case they can keep the 2MB of cache of the disabled cores active, leaving it the full 16MB cache.

I am pretty sure you are wrong, as L3 cache is usually shared between all cores, and for what I know is the same for each Ryzen CCX. Only L1 and L2 cache are per core. You won't partially disable L3 cache by disabling a core.

We have three more weeks until we will know exactly how the R5 will be made and it will perform. I plan on building a HTPC later this year using a Ryzen APU. Hopefully "second half of 2017" means 4th of July :p

noname00I am pretty sure you are wrong, as L3 cache is usually shared between all cores, and for what I know is the same for each Ryzen CCX. Only L1 and L2 cache are per core. You won't partially disable L3 cache by disabling a core.

For Ryzen, L3 cache is per CCX. Hence the issues when a thread needs data from another CCX's L3 cache.

ShurikNThe 1500X makes the equally priced 7350k look like shit. Plus you get a remarkable stock cooler.

Indeed, I really wanted an unlocked i3 for years but they decided to price it in the i5 area making it completely pointless for the most part.

I think what I am more curious about is that if the 6 and 4 core variants are just as limited in overclocking (Due to the process used) or if they can at least go a little higher. Might make the 6 cores awesome if they can go even just a couple hundred Mhz faster.

sweetI guess the author of this article don't pay enough attention to the R5 line up.

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.

From AMD statement, all RYZEN will have 2 CCX with cores disabled. Portions of L3 cache cand be disabled as well. 1400 is 2+2 with half L3 per CCX. The only Ryzen 4+0 will be upcoming ryzen APU

"simulated" ? really ?? this bs mean nothing ...

laszlo"simulated" ? really ?? this bs mean nothing ...

:rolleyes: like making an i7 into i5 is BS?

idxYou gotta be brain damaged (or just big fanboy)

Count me in.

idxintel pricing on all of their chips.

For me? Intel is way cheaper.

idxThe fact that Ryzen is 8 Cores 16 Threads and just one of its CCXs alone is able to push such performance in everything (including gaming) makes me wonder what if some one really started making good use of the other idle 50% of the chip?

This is a very interesting point. You're wondering what could be done with the other 4 cores while gaming, but you're not wondering what can be done with other 6 cores while, for example, browsing the web or watching movies (2 cores is enough for that), which is like what... 90% of time that an average GAMING person spends using the PC. :)

idxadd to this the fact that Ryzen is 65-95W TDP.

Different TDP than Intel's.

idxAMD did a really great job with this chip there is no doubt in that.

No one denies that, but does it automatically imply the "brain damage" theory?

idxAlso the performance of intel chips with more than 4 core is much worse in gaming than 4 cores i7.

That's because the latest consumer CPUs have better (newer) cores compared to the HEDT segment. If games (and many other applications) use only 4 cores, that's the expected result.

idxAll these reviews out there never comparing Ryzen with any of the intel X99 cpus, claiming that they did not do so because of the price. While in fact this is just going to make Ryzen looks like a clear winner overall ( if they did).

Why stop there?! Ryzen's gaming performance will be much better than that of $10K Xeons!

notbCount me in.

For me? Intel is way cheaper.

This is a very interesting point. You're wondering what could be done with the other 4 cores while gaming, but you're not wondering what can be done with other 6 cores while, for example, browsing the web or watching movies (2 cores is enough for that), which is like what... 90% of time that an average GAMING person spends using the PC. :)

Different TDP than Intel's.

No one denies that, but does it automatically imply the "brain damage" theory?

That's because the latest consumer CPUs have better (newer) cores compared to the HEDT segment. If games (and many other applications) use only 4 cores, that's the expected result.

Why stop there?! Ryzen's gaming performance will be much better than that of $10K Xeons!

Interesting.

noname00Am I the only one that would prefer a quad core CPU with only one CCX instead of one with two CCXs that have only two cores each activated?

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.

Despite the fabric bandwidth limitation I kind of think a 2+2 would be better, especially if more cache can be had as a result. From a thermal standpoint having 2 core pairs physically separated further from each other will be better for heat dissipation as the hot spots will be spread out more. Thermal density isn't your friend with cooling and I think would still be a net positive for cooling even if you have to power up a 2nd CCX.

Even single CCX chips will sit on the fabric so it could be memory speeds will affect them too. By how much we'll just have to wait and see.

Manu_PTI laugh so much when only 3 weeks after the failure (gaming wise), people still say things like this.

The Ryzen 7 was a bit overhyped, true, but that in no way makes them a "failure (gaming wise)". Jay over on youtube at JayzTwoCents did a video running a game which is very CPU heavy and is NOT optimized for Ryzen. It was a long but interesting watch. That video and a few other show very clearly that gaming on Ryzen 7 is still a win.

btarunrIt'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

Linus over at LTT did a video showing similar results. Very interesting perspectives. And if these results are near actual Ryzen 5 & 3 performance numbers, Intel is going to have some very serious competition which will force them to get off there butts and innovate again.

Ponying up the extra for 8 cores isnt so much insurance/proof/protection against a contingent risk. Its a provision for an inevitability for the average consumer.

Bloatware over time alone is inevitable for the non fastidiously vigilant.

As others say here, 4 cores is rapidly becoming the default cpu.

Its in coders interests to run their processes on least used cores. From a laymans view, it doesnt seem so hard for coders to adjust, and if modding code for 4 cores, why not allow for more cores?

The ryzen strikes me as a very resilient CPU - able to absorb more processes over time w/o noticeably affecting its core tasks.

TheGuruStudIf MS and AMD ever get their heads out of their asses this is how the scheduler should be for every app.

Win7 with a CCX disabled gives very decent gaming performance. Therefore, R7 can work just fine with a scheduler fix (and be even faster).

All that Microsoft really needs for the OS is a few different convenient scheduler setups for users to pick from alongside a user configured one. I'd go a step further if I were Microsoft doing this and add it in as a middle click context menu on task bar when clicking on a program title bar. Basically make it as simple and intuitive to use and do as cascade, horizontal, or vertical windows tiling.

• Affinity assign all cores
• Affinity assign all cores just for foreground program
• Affinity assign all cores background programs
• Affinity assign every other core
• Affinity assign every other core just foreground
• Affinity assign every other core background programs
• Affinity assign last core
• Affinity assign last core just foreground program
• Affinity assign last core background programs
• Affinity assign user configuration always override other scheduler settings
• Affinity assign user configuration never override other scheduler settings

idxYou gotta be brain damaged (or just big fanboy) to buy an intel CPU right now, taking in consideration the intel pricing on all of their chips.
The fact that Ryzen is 8 Cores 16 Threads and just one of its CCXs alone is able to push such performance in everything (including gaming) makes me wonder what if some one really started making good use of the other idle 50% of the chip? add to this the fact that Ryzen is 65-95W TDP.
AMD did a really great job with this chip there is no doubt in that.

EDIT:
Also the performance of intel chips with more than 4 core is much worse in gaming than 4 cores i7. All these reviews out there never comparing Ryzen with any of the intel X99 cpus, claiming that they did not do so because of the price. While in fact this is just going to make Ryzen looks like a clear winner overall ( if they did).

Try to play e-sports with 240hz monitor and sustain 200fps with ryzen. Come back later calling me brain damage.

InVasManiAll that Microsoft really needs for the OS is a few different convenient scheduler setups for users to pick from alongside a user configured one. I'd go a step further if I were Microsoft doing this and add it in as a middle click context menu on task bar when clicking on a program title bar. Basically make it as simple and intuitive to use and do as cascade, horizontal, or vertical windows tiling.
...

Another one that missed AMD's statement about Windows' scheduler working fine with Ryzen...