Monday, September 10th 2018
AMD Announces 2nd Gen Ryzen Quad-core and Energy-Efficient Processor Models
AMD today announced the much-awaited 2nd generation Ryzen quad-core socket AM4 processors, in addition to two new E-series (energy-efficient) variants of its existing processor models. To begin with, the company announced the 4-core/8-thread Ryzen 5 2500X and the 4-core/4-thread Ryzen 3 2300X.
Unlike their predecessors that are carved out of the "Summit Ridge" silicon by disabling 2 cores per compute complex or CCX (2+2 CCX config), the 2500X and 2300X feature a 4+0 config, or an entire CCX in the "Pinnacle Ridge" silicon being disabled. This also means that the 2500X has just 8 MB of L3 cache (its predecessor has 16 MB). The 2300X is clocked at 3.50 GHz with 4.00 GHz boost, while the 2500X ticks at 3.60 GHz with 4.00 GHz boost. The TDP of both chips is rated at 65W.
AMD also released the "E" brand extension for its 2nd generation Ryzen series, with the new Ryzen 5 2600E, and the Ryzen 7 2700E. Both these chips sacrifice clock speeds for an impressive 45W TDP. The 2600E is clocked at 3.10 GHz, with 4.00 GHz (compared to 3.60 GHz ~ 4.20 GHz of the 2600X); while the 2700E ticks at 2.80 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost (compared to 3.70 GHz ~ 4.30 GHz of the 2700X). The company didn't reveal pricing of the four chips.
Source:
Anandtech
Unlike their predecessors that are carved out of the "Summit Ridge" silicon by disabling 2 cores per compute complex or CCX (2+2 CCX config), the 2500X and 2300X feature a 4+0 config, or an entire CCX in the "Pinnacle Ridge" silicon being disabled. This also means that the 2500X has just 8 MB of L3 cache (its predecessor has 16 MB). The 2300X is clocked at 3.50 GHz with 4.00 GHz boost, while the 2500X ticks at 3.60 GHz with 4.00 GHz boost. The TDP of both chips is rated at 65W.
AMD also released the "E" brand extension for its 2nd generation Ryzen series, with the new Ryzen 5 2600E, and the Ryzen 7 2700E. Both these chips sacrifice clock speeds for an impressive 45W TDP. The 2600E is clocked at 3.10 GHz, with 4.00 GHz (compared to 3.60 GHz ~ 4.20 GHz of the 2600X); while the 2700E ticks at 2.80 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost (compared to 3.70 GHz ~ 4.30 GHz of the 2700X). The company didn't reveal pricing of the four chips.
89 Comments on AMD Announces 2nd Gen Ryzen Quad-core and Energy-Efficient Processor Models
The cooler is very basic, but easily good enough for this CPU (and actually pretty quiet on a 35W CPU).
As for gaming... HD630 is pretty nice actually. It all depends what you play and we play different games than 7 years ago, when APUs really shined.
HD630 is fine for many MMORPG or even some lighter AAA titles like Diablo III.
Also, I think many gamers today are either fed up with modern games (more and more "action"-oriented, simple and shallow) or just want to play their favourite games from childhood. :-)
You don't have to buy a 1080Ti and buy all the latest titles, to be an avid gamer. Look at the huge popularity of GOG. :-)
Overclocking capabilities also means downclocking capabilities, and making a 35w chip a 25w sounds very nice ;)
Once a game starts, the fps at low details is surprisingly fine. IGP used to be fairly unusable for gaming 10-15 years ago. I think people still look at them based on what they remember from totally different times.8500T can be switched to TDP-down of 25W. :-)Please, stop this nonsense already. :/ All CPUs have security flaws. All manufacturers provide software patches. All try to fix these problems in hardware as soon as possible.
This whole Spectre/Meltdown obsession really made this forum look lame. :/This approach is exactly the opposite of what risk managers would recommend. :-)
With CPUs (and OSes as well), the basic assumption is that there always are security flaws and it's important to find them as soon as possible.
If you're worrying about your "critical data", Intel is the clear choice - precisely because of how well tested platform it is.
The 8500T can be lowered to 25w, but at what frequency? My i3-5005U can do 15W (down from 25) but at 600MHz. With downclocking you just keep the stock frequency.
Yes, they should of course be fixed in hardware and one would hope ASAP.
I'm still looking to see a comprehensive benchmark review of how the various fixes affect performance in apps/games on the different architectures.
For example running "InSpectre" shows "Slower" on my Lenovo laptop (I think it's SB) but "Good" on my Haswell and Ryzen boxes - the latter with a note that it's not affected by Meltdown.
But does the same "Good" rating mean the same % drop (or not) in performance?
Do you not think it's reasonable for consumers to know what the relative performance between products is when they have been made as secure as currently possible?
/OT
BTW: 5005U is max 15W and TDP-down is 10W. :-) 600W looks like the lowest possible step, so that's pretty aggresive.No, it's not. Security is security. You install the critical fixes and accept the new situation.
If you're really curious, you can check yourself before and after. :-)Maybe no one cares? Typical consumers (not interested in what's happening under the hood) surely don't.Because you would like them to be able to make a conscious choice between fps in games and security?
Then no. I think we're better of without such benchmarks being public.
If people had literally no way to block the security updates, then I wouldn't care.
It's not just FPS in games either, if you patch your PC so your banking apps etc. are safe (which you should do) it might be nice to know if that nukes your gaming performance.
Just because people are apathetic or unaware doesn't mean the issue is irrelevant.
You're right, it's 10-15w.