For more context the first mention of this CPU did in fact come out over 18 months ago. We've also had a verified photograph of this CPU since October of last year when it was initially added to our database. Why AMD held it back for so long is anyone's guess.

FouquinFor more context the first mention of this CPU did in fact come out over 18 months ago. We've also had a verified photograph of this CPU since October of last year when it was initially added to our database. Why AMD held it back for so long is anyone's guess.

Same as with that weird 5600X3D? Not enough samples to carve it out... basically the yield is too good?

Releasing now a 4-core Zen 4 model is clearly more appealing.

Яid!culousOwOReleasing now a 4-core Zen 4 model is clearly more appealing.

I think the quad-core era is over, it's relegated to ultra-budget laptops and mobile devices.

The problem is that even all the super-cheap stuff flooding the used market is 6-core now.

Ferrum MasterSame as with that weird 5600X3D? Not enough samples to carve it out... basically the yield is too good?

In addition to good yields, AMD hasn't just stopped selling Zen 3 server/HPC CPUs. Chips that can qualify for an Epyc will go into an Epyc, even with a single working core.

Epyc 72F3: 8 CCDs, 8 cores, 256 MB L3
Epyc 73F3: 8 CCDs, 16 cores, 256 MB L3
Epyc 7373X: 8 CCDs, 16 cores, 768 MB L3

FouquinFor more context the first mention of this CPU did in fact come out over 18 months ago. We've also had a verified photograph of this CPU since October of last year when it was initially added to our database. Why AMD held it back for so long is anyone's guess.

Most likely reason is not enough chips binned in its class to build up stock for retail I think.

Chrispy_I think the quad-core era is over, it's relegated to ultra-budget laptops and mobile devices.

The problem is that even all the super-cheap stuff flooding the used market is 6-core now.

I only recently brought a quad core N100. Quad core is still a thing.

For some reason I cant find a quad core chip for AM5, however, there seems to be no budget chips, 7500 is the lowest, I would consider that mid range not budget and its 65w TDP also, so not laptop class.

Chrispy_I think the quad-core era is over, it's relegated to ultra-budget laptops and mobile devices.

There'll always be need for low-core-count models. Besides, it takes almost no effort for them to make defective chips into low-end models. But now they don't seem willing to do it.

chrcolukI only recently brought a quad core N100. Quad core is still a thing.

The N100 is a BGA mobile SKU with a 6W TDP, which is exactly what the person you replied to said. Quad-cores have no reason to exist as socketable chips on modern desktop platforms.

:)

chrcolukMost likely reason is not enough chips binned in its class to build up stock for retail I think.

Yeah, TSMC's yields are spectacular. I'd also imagine that if there are enough defects in the die to knock out at least 3 of the cores, there's a very good chance that non-optional areas like the L2 Cache or infinity fabric are also defective.

AMD hasn't made a quad-core part from the 8-core desktop chiplets since Zen2 - and I'm willing to bet that most of those Zen2 quad cores had 6 or 7 functioning cores - AMD were simply selling them as quad cores to meet market demand, which has since basically vanished. The only quad core parts since April 2020 have been mobile-first APUs adopted to a desktop socket, and since they have far less cache (as little as a quarter of the cache per core that the desktop CCDs have) and also don't have as much infinity fabric since there's no need for half of the inter-chip communication bus, there's less chance of the entire chip being rendered useless by a non-core defect.

chrcolukFor some reason I cant find a quad core chip for AM5, however, there seems to be no budget chips, 7500 is the lowest, I would consider that mid range not budget and its 65w TDP also, so not laptop class.

AMD are still selling AM4 for the low-mid range and AM5 for the mid-high end. That's what they announced and how they marketed AM5; Until DDR4 becomes expensive due to production fully transitioning to DDR5, there's no need to dilute the AM5 platform's reputation as a desirable high-end platform with low-end CPUs that are utterly outclassed by 75% of the previous generation lineup.

If you can't afford the ~$200 for a Ryzen 5 7600 then there's a whole AM4 platform full of cheaper components to support the low-end market and compete with Intel's DDR4 offerings.

When you can regularly get a 6-core R5 3600 or R5 5500 for ~$100, why settle for a quad core?

I'm now really questioning AMD's timing of these new AM4 CPUs that it has been releasing as of late. Wouldn't it have been more advantageous to release them sooner? I have a hard time believing that they only just made them now which means that they've been sitting on them. Even if they're a great value, they'll only be a great value for someone still on an early AM4 CPU like an R7-1700.

My guess is that this was a forgotten "OEM-Only" CPU that someone forgot to post on the AMD site years ago.

Яid!culousOwOReleasing now a 4-core Zen 4 model is clearly more appealing.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. The era of the quad-core desktop CPU is long over, at least, it is for AMD. AMD's chiplet design gives such high yields that quad-core CPUs are almost not a thing anymore. I would expect that if any quad-core CPUs do result from the fab process for AMD, they'll be used exclusively for laptops where low power use is often more important than performance.

Lew ZealandWhen you can regularly get a 6-core R5 3600 or R5 5500 for ~$100, why settle for a quad core?

Because i3-12100, even if not overclocked, can either be an F-version and be cheaper (how? lower RAM requirements and borderline non-existent CPU cooler requirements) and faster in most games or be a non-F version and get you video output as well as Quicksync which is a powerful tool.

This is how i7-7700K destroyed Ryzen 1600.
This is how Ryzen 5600X destroyed i7-10700.

Core count is a valid metric for comparison... till we start speaking different microarchitectures. 4 cores of 160% speed will be faster than 6 cores of 100% speed any day.

Beginner Micro DeviceBecause i3-12100, even if not overclocked, can either be an F-version and be cheaper (how? lower RAM requirements and borderline non-existent CPU cooler requirements) and faster in most games or be a non-F version and get you video output as well as Quicksync which is a powerful tool.

This is how i7-7700K destroyed Ryzen 1600.
This is how Ryzen 5600X destroyed i7-10700.

Core count is a valid metric for comparison... till we start speaking different microarchitectures. 4 cores of 160% speed will be faster than 6 cores of 100% speed any day.

There's no 160% here though. The i3-12100 is 5% faster in single thread than the R5 5500 whereas the R5 5500 is 40% faster in multithread.

I would never pick the 12100 over the 5500 for gaming and both are the same price (using 12100F pricing).

The i3-12100 is more like 30% faster than the R5 3600 in single core but still loses by 20% in multicore, likely giving the 12100 overall higher FPS in many games but not all, you'd need to vet your games to see.

source: i2hard.ru/publications/30480/

Lew ZealandThe i3-12100 is 5% faster in single thread

Only if we're talking non-gaming loads. In case of gaming, as you could've seen from that article (with heavy OC on AMD systems as well) both Ryzen 3600 and 5500 are barely matching an i3-12100 despite being six-corers. Getting so fast RAM costs money as well as cooling these unorthodoxly built AM4 CPUs.

Of course this i3 loses in professional workloads and above some level of multitasking but if we're talking purely gaming machines favouring this i3 over Ryzen 3600 and 5500 is as sane as it gets:
• You save money on cooling.
• You save money on RAM.
• You don't pay more for a motherboard.
• You get Quicksync if you go for 12100 non-F.
• Guaranteed PCI-e 4.0.
• No need to think about BIOS/AGESA/whatever as it works flawlessly OOTB with almost no outliers.

P.S. Wasn't even surprised to see a review on Ryzen 5500 in Russian. Our folk loves $/perf monsters and just obscure CPUs such as LGA1151 "mutants" and engineering samples, much like Brazilians who, in addition to greedy retailers, also face inhumane VAT on PC wares.

Beginner Micro DeviceOnly if we're talking non-gaming loads. In case of gaming, as you could've seen from that article (with heavy OC on AMD systems as well) both Ryzen 3600 and 5500 are barely matching an i3-12100 despite being six-corers. Getting so fast RAM costs money as well as cooling these unorthodoxly built AM4 CPUs.

Is Curve Optimizer a "heavy OC"?. Honestly I don't know this as I don't use it, instead I use PBO or OC manually. Yes they used a pretty high memory OC on the 5500, but the i3-12100 was also tested with the same memory, though limited to 3800. OC is available on the 5500 which is part of it's value, it makes sense to use it especially at the low end where it makes a real difference. I wish they'd memory matched at 3800 just to see, but shave a few FPS off the 5500 OC results if you want. What problems did you see in cooling there other than them mentioning their 3600 might be defective?

Beginner Micro DeviceOf course this i3 loses in professional workloads and above some level of multitasking but if we're talking purely gaming machines favouring this i3 over Ryzen 3600 and 5500 is as sane as it gets:
• You save money on cooling.

All come with Box coolers and can be cooled with a cheap $20 ID Cooling cooler if you want.

Beginner Micro Device• You save money on RAM.

They used the same kit of RAM.

Beginner Micro Device• You don't pay more for a motherboard.

On either platform.

Beginner Micro Device• You get Quicksync if you go for 12100 non-F.

This is good and costs 20% more for time efficient, though not storage-efficient encoding.

Beginner Micro Device• Guaranteed PCI-e 4.0.

100%, I still have no Mobos with PCIe 4.0 while having a few GPUs that could use it.

Beginner Micro Device• No need to think about BIOS/AGESA/whatever as it works flawlessly OOTB with almost no outliers.

My 2 Intel and 4 AMD Mobos have all worked flawlessly OOB, including the $75 cheapass MSi B350 which has been BIOS updated twice to go from: R3 1200 - R5 1600AF - R5 5500.

Beginner Micro DeviceP.S. Wasn't even surprised to see a review on Ryzen 5500 in Russian. Our folk loves $/perf monsters and just obscure CPUs such as LGA1151 "mutants" and engineering samples, much like Brazilians who, in addition to greedy retailers, also face inhumane VAT on PC wares.

Hey I happen to like the R5 5500 as it's a great CPU for the money. Yes it's a clear step behind the R5 5600 (um, which I also have in another PC) but it's been well worth the $94 I paid for it about 6 months ago.

Lew ZealandIs Curve Optimizer a "heavy OC"?

It's not but RAM was overclocked to stupid high values. Users who are ready to pay so much for RAM won't even think of getting a Ryzen 5 or especially an i3. These are i9/Ryzen 7 X3D target audience.

Lew ZealandAll come with Box coolers and can be cooled with a cheap $20 ID Cooling cooler if you want.

With i3-12100, it's even cheaper. A 5 dollar solution will cut it. Tested it myself in a considerably more than just warm room, +28C/83F.

Lew ZealandThey used the same kit of RAM.

What I mean is with AMD, you need to verify the QVL. You need to avoid Corsair RAM in certain builds. With low RAM b/w and/or high RAM latencies, games tend to stutter and this is pronounced louder on non-X3D AM4 than it is on any recent Intel platform.

Lew Zealandnot storage-efficient

Who cares at this point? Spinners and SSDs almost don't cost money. You can equip yourself with 8 TB of NVMe for what, 500 bucks? With spinners, it's <100 USD if you go aftermarket or ~200 USD if you really want to throw money for nothing. If storage is an issue for you you're definitely not in budget to even think of anything more exciting than LGA1155/AM3+. Or just download too much porn, that's also a possibility.

Lew ZealandMy 2 Intel and 4 AMD Mobos have all worked flawlessly OOB

Your mileage != the whole picture. I also never had any issues with AM4 but this doesn't mean they're non-existent. There are numerous threads about AGESA being a PITA for some AM4 users. With Intel, I only can remember CPU roasting by some LGA1700 motherboards which provided a couple hundred percent more watts than it was appropriate.

Lew ZealandHey I happen to like the R5 5500 as it's a great CPU for the money.

Yeah, I obtained it for $80 not so long ago and my brother who uses it in his work PC is pissing his pants. Y'know, not surprising considering his older system was based upon i3-6100 and I told him it's way too old to bother. Let's sell it and get something not so obsolete.

Wtf is this even a thing, are AMD just getting rid of every last Zen3 chiplet at this point or what...

Price will be the key factor, ton of other options on discount that don't loose out on half the cache, this needs to be cheap but otherwise nothing wrong with more options

Lew ZealandWhen you can regularly get a 6-core R5 3600 or R5 5500 for ~$100, why settle for a quad core?

Beginner Micro DeviceBecause i3-12100, even if not overclocked, can either be an F-version and be cheaper... <snip>

Lol you distracted me from the point by bringing up Intel. Intel is irrelevant here as the question was: Why isn't AMD releasing affordable quad cores?

AMD has no need to release a quad core when they have 6-core CPUs which sell for ~100. There's no quad core that AMD could release for AM4 that is a better choice than a ~$100 R5 5500, as a hypothetical R3 5300 (not -G) would be a little faster at single threaded jobs and older games but lose badly in most newer games and multithreaded apps, and would need to sell dependably for ~$75 before people would even consider it.

If AMD was selling 6-core CPUs for $160+ then there's room for a ~$100 quad core but with 2 choices for 6-cores at ~$100, a quad core AMD CPU is useless and unprofitable.

b1k3rdudeWtf is this even a thing, are AMD just getting rid of every last Zen3 chiplet at this point or what...

Still pent up demand for DDR4 systems. Clever really, they countered intel's dual memory support by continuing to support AM4.

b1k3rdudeare AMD just getting rid of every last Zen3 chiplet at this point or what

No they'll be making these for at least a few more years ~
www.techpowerup.com/307547/amd-announces-new-ryzen-embedded-5000-series-processors-for-networking-solutions