TheLostSwedeYou might want to include a source link when you borrow their charts...
videocardz.com/67649/amd-ryzen-cpu-with-12-cores-and-24-threads-spotted

RaevenlordThe CPU itself is an engineering sample, coded 2D2701A9UC9F4_32/27_N. Videocardz did a pretty god job on explaining what the nomenclature means, but for now, we do know this sample seems to be running at 2.7 GHz Base, and 3.2 GHz Boost clocks (not too shabby for a 12-core part, but a little on the anemic side when compared to previous reports on a 16-Core chip from AMD that would run at 3.1 GHz Base and 3.6 GHz Boost clocks.) What seems strange is the program's report on the available cache. 8x 8 MB is more than double what we would be expecting, considering that these 12-core parts probably make use of a die with 3 CCX's with 4x cores each, which feature 8 MB per CCX. So, 3 CCX's = 3x 8 MB, not 8x 8 MB, but this can probably be attributed to a software bug, considering the engineering-sample status of the chip.

Source: Videocardz

pantherx12It will be 4 ccxs each with 3 cores enabled since this 12 part is likely cut down from the 16core part that's on the rumour Mill.

RaevenlordThat's what it will be (no business sense in not harvesting the parts), but it still doesn't take into account such a difference in overall L3. The 16-core part will still have only 4 CCX's, ergo, 4x 8 MB L3. Where are the other 4x that Sandra seems to be reading?

RaevenlordStrong, inappropriate wording there, when I mentioned their site on the article. The absence of source link was no more than a forgetful moment. And you will likely be happy to know that I had already included the source before I even set eyes on your comment. Maybe less rocks on hand would have been nice.

Thank you, anyway. I'm sure that your words weren't meant to say what they mean.

LightofhonorI would think they would make this a 4 CCX with 3 cores a piece. Easier then to make the 16 core variant.

TheLostSwedeActually, they were meant to say exactly what they say. Having been a tech writer/journalist myself for over a decade it makes me furious when people post content without a link to the source. It takes so little time and effort to do it. I actually read through your article before posting my comment and there was no link at that point. I also don't see what was inappropriate with what I said, it's such a little thing to do that so many people forget about. If this was something you discovered and a chart you put together, all credit to you, but in this case, someone spent some serious time doing the research and putting together that chart and the least they can get is a link.

RaevenlordAnd I understand and applaud that sentiment, and am totally in agreement. What was inappropriate is that you accuse someone of "stealing" when that isn't - at all - what happened. That's what's wrong. If that rubs you the wrong way like that, why not send a PM saying "Hey, did you forget the source link?" Or a post, asking "hey, you bananas, did you forget the source link?" That is helpful, and thoughtful, and respectful, whilst not marring someone's image with your own hasty, wrong, baseless, conclusions.

I always strive not to jump to conclusions - and above all, to not be unfair with baseless accusations. You didn't strive for those, and instead threw some rocks. I always re-read my posts after I put them up, and realized I didn't input the source link. I edited the piece with the appropriate, deserved, source link, before I ever set eyes on your comment. If you don't see why your words and the way you went on about this are wrong, well, I really don't have anything else to say.

idxWarring : here comes the cores race! :fear:

RaevenlordSo, 3 CCX's = 3x 8 MB, not 8x 8 MB,

RaevenlordThat's what it will be (no business sense in not harvesting the parts), but it still doesn't take into account such a difference in overall L3. The 16-core part will still have only 4 CCX's, ergo, 4x 8 MB L3. Where are the other 4x that Sandra seems to be reading?

IvanP91vGood! The world needs to start using more cores and using them effectively. We've been sitting on dual cores too long.

Better software use of more cores, more performance out of same hardware. Intel or AMD fans, we will all benefit from this.

(This also reminds me of that time Qualcomm said that 8-core chips are pointless and stupid, only to launch a 8 core (4+4 in BIG.Little config) a year later.

idxTrue. The fact that phones already running on 8-10 cores, makes me realize how badly are desktops being played by intel 4 cores monopoly for the past few years.

Competition is indeed so important for any development.

DippyskoodlezPhones are on 4 for power saving, 4 for performance, and iPhones are still extremely competitive with their dual core designs.

Phones really don't need a bazillion cores, it generally creates more problems than it helps.

RaevenlordStrong, inappropriate wording there, when I mentioned their site on the article. The absence of source link was no more than a forgetful moment. And you will likely be happy to know that I had already included the source before I even set eyes on your comment. Maybe less rocks on hand would have been nice.

Thank you, anyway. I'm sure that your words weren't meant to say what they mean.

RaevenlordAnd I understand and applaud that sentiment, and am totally in agreement. What was inappropriate is that you accuse someone of "stealing" when that isn't - at all - what happened. That's what's wrong. If that rubs you the wrong way like that, why not send a PM saying "Hey, did you forget the source link?" Or a post, asking "hey, you bananas, did you forget the source link?" That is helpful, and thoughtful, and respectful, whilst not marring someone's image with your own hasty, wrong, baseless, conclusions.

I always strive not to jump to conclusions - and above all, to not be unfair with baseless accusations. You didn't strive for those, and instead threw some rocks. I always re-read my posts after I put them up, and realized I didn't input the source link. I edited the piece with the appropriate, deserved, source link, before I ever set eyes on your comment. If you don't see why your words and the way you went on about this are wrong, well, I really don't have anything else to say.

pantherx12Yeah sorry I'm posting from mobile so cutting your post down just to the ccx part was proving to be tricky.

I have no idea what's going on with the cache.

RaevenlordStrong, inappropriate wording there, when I mentioned their site on the article. The absence of source link was no more than a forgetful moment. And you will likely be happy to know that I had already included the source before I even set eyes on your comment. Maybe less rocks on hand would have been nice.

Thank you, anyway. I'm sure that your words weren't meant to say what they mean.

krukPlease, take your time when writing news and always try to use multiple sources.

alucasaI don't think even the mainstream media does that nowadays.

RaevenlordStrong, inappropriate wording there, when I mentioned their site on the article. The absence of source link was no more than a forgetful moment. And you will likely be happy to know that I had already included the source before I even set eyes on your comment. Maybe less rocks on hand would have been nice.

Thank you, anyway. I'm sure that your words weren't meant to say what they mean.