AMD Ryzen 5 Series Lineup Leaked

[Tatty_Two]

After waiting 4 months to do a MATX build and considering a 7600K as I only play 2 games, neither of which use more than 2 cores/threads I may just wait until next month and get a 1500X for the money, would be foolish not to really BUT ONLY if there are more decent MATX boards on the shelf by then, currently in the UK only the B350 is available in MATX, would like to see more variety.

Next barrier of course will possibly be cooling solutions, hopefully not.

 

[lanlagger]

Sadly the vast majority isn't the smart majority. There is no smart majority. Most people just get stuff recommended to them and many of those invest budget in the wrong way. Pairing a 1070 with a 7700K for example, is nearly 40/60% budget split between CPU and GPU, while the 33% cheaper i5-K is the go-to CPU for that segment, which even allows you to put in a 1080 now. Net result will be a better gaming rig.

amen...
lot of them (people with 7/6700K and sub gtx 1080) could go from GTX 1070 to GTX 1080 not spending a extra $ (some even from GTX 1060 /RX 480 straight to the GTX 1080... they easily wasted +300$ on top of the shelf "gaming" Mobos, "Gaming" ddr4's and what not, not to mention that i7 K to begin with) ... and their framerates (that they care about sooo much in forums and reviews) would increase like +30% on everything in a heartbeat. Prior this they could say - "well I need my i7-6700K for CPU work stuff too"... I wonder what now they will say (because that R5 will smoke that core i7 K in CPU workloads)

 

[TheLostSwede]

Where are you getting the 2+2 info from? The 4 core parts have 8MB of L3 which indicates that only one CCX is active. The 6 core parts retain 16MB L3 due to them being 3+3 (8MB cache per CCX).

We have confirmation from AMD that there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5. The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2. This will be true across all CPUs, ensuring a consistent performance throughout.

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

 

[rruff]

you are sure? because I see many people with 1070's and even 1060's (or rx 480's) but with a pride post that they have 6700K or 7700K on a hefty AIO's

Maybe they need the i7k for something besides gaming? Doesn't matter anyway, can't use stupid people to make a point.

Try your exercise at lower price points and see what you get, with the optimum Kabylake and Ryzen and GPU. CPU + GPU budget of $100, $200, $300, $400, etc. Where does Ryzen win? If ever.

 

[Slizzo]

Only the 1400 has 8MB of L3 cache , the 1500X has all 16 MB so this one is definitely 2+2, this either means the 1400 is a 4+0 , which would be odd , or they just simply disabled half of the cache (not sure if possible though).

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

Huh, well that's a lot different than what was being said before.

Oh well, I guess we'll see what this proves out to be in performance terms then.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Only the 1400 has 8MB of L3 cache , the 1500X has all 16 MB so this one is definitely 2+2, this either means the 1400 is a 4+0 , which would be odd , or they just simply disabled half of the cache (not sure if possible though).

The L3 cache is actually two 8 MB caches. One on each CCX. So yes, the 1400 should be a single CCX working 4+0 and it will only have access to the 8 MB cache. This should, in theory, prevent the issue with the 100 ns latency spike when the CPU accesses L3 on the other cache because that whole section will not exist.

 

[Vya Domus]

The L3 cache is actually two 8 MB caches. One on each CCX. So yes, the 1400 should be a single CCX working 4+0 and it will only have access to the 8 MB cache. This should, in theory, prevent the issue with the 100 ns latency spike when the CPU accesses L3 on the other cache because that whole section will not exist.

The cache latency seems to be inherent of the Zen architecture regardless , I may be wrong but do not expect any notable increase in performance from this point of view , it wasn't that big of a deal to begin with. The vast majority of the performance gap between Zen and Kaby Lake comes from nothing more than clock speeds. Zen's primary asset is scalability , if the market doesn't buy into this , we are going to be stuck with hyperthreaded dual-cores as a standard for yet another couple of years.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

The cache latency seems to be inherent of the Zen architecture regardless , I may be wrong but do not expect any notable increase in performance from this point of view , it wasn't that big of a deal to begin with. The vast majority of the performance gap between Zen and Kaby Lake and comes from nothing more than clock speeds. Zen's primary asset is scalability , if the market doesn't buy into this , we are going to be stuck with hyperthreaded dual-cores as a standard for yet another couple of years.

Actually PC Perspective did a pretty good job looking into that. Their conclusion matched what AMD and Microsoft later said about the schedule, that there was no inherent bug related to Ryzen. What they did find was what I post that there is a spike in latency when the workload is large enough for more than 8 threads, but not enough to saturate the entire CPU. Thread migrating from one CCX to another resulted in a huge spike in latency. This is likely a design quirk with the CCX and AMD fabric connection that will not be fixed short of an update to the design. It is also very unlikely this is causing any real world performance issue as 99% of the things fall into 8 cores or less is plenty or give me all the threads and horsepower you got.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet

 

[Vayra86]

Maybe they need the i7k for something besides gaming? Doesn't matter anyway, can't use stupid people to make a point.

Try your exercise at lower price points and see what you get, with the optimum Kabylake and Ryzen and GPU. CPU + GPU budget of $100, $200, $300, $400, etc. Where does Ryzen win? If ever.

That will be an interesting exercise when Ryzen 3 is out I think, because at that price point Intel has nothing to match, unless you're going 2c/4t with them, which will severely harm day-to-day use.

 

[deu]

I have a sneaky suspicion that no matter what AMD Ryzen CPU you get they all wont OC any better then the current 8 core 1700/1700x/1800x CPU's. You might get maybe an extra 200MHz over the 8cores but I cant see anything more then that. I think it comes down to the architecture of the CPU its self. I think we will only see higher clocks once Zen 2.0 is out we might then start seeing base clocks at 4GHz but for now on this arch I think there is a limit and wont see high clock speeds for a good yr from now. The CPU's are still fast, the IPC is there just not the clock speeds......yet.

If no strippers gets bundled with the Ryzen, I'll pass...

But really I agree; there is still some people that like to defend Intel and just let them and ignore them because everyone (including them) knows that their arguments are getting less and less valid. This is not a religion war-starter it just can be denied what a great value for money a 1600-1700X CPU is to ALOT of people! (ALOT) Some will want the highest clock OC and some will need or "feel" they need that. (IMO alot of people seek comfort in knowing they get the extra eventhough it is simply not rational proportional to the price / situation that they are in.)

One of my mates have a 6700K clocked at 5,0 Ghz for gaming. (we game Rocket league and CS:GO); granted he gets 1600 fps instead of 1400 something FPS in csgo, but that is what we are talking about here. In new games in resolution higher than 1080p; the CPU is increasingly irrelevant as long as it does not bottleneck the GPU. In the future a 7600K will bottleneck the CPU before a 1600 so alot of people are just seing this wrong

Again im not trying to provoke anyone here but acknowledge your needs and others needs and one day we might come to accept that those two CAN differ and that its okay that x has a 6950X (but that y would be better of with a 1600X given his needs.)

 

[Tatty_Two]

I can understand why enthusiasts are maybe concerned about overclocking potential but in the greater scheme of things overclockability is not going to hinder Ryzen's success, the vast majority of mainstream users that will buy any of them don't overclock.

 

[Vayra86]

I can understand why enthusiasts are maybe concerned about overclocking potential but in the greater scheme of things overclockability is not going to hinder Ryzen's success, the vast majority of mainstream users that will buy any of them don't overclock.

I don't know man. Back in 2003 perhaps.

These days there is a casual old school desktop PC user that buys an OEM rig and doesn't OC, doesn't even care what CPU is inside for that matter... and then there is everyone else who builds their own rigs as a workstation, gaming rig or something in between. The rest of the populace uses a tablet or mobile for their computer needs and doesn't even touch Intel or AMD anymore.

The casual desktop users buy CPU WITH IGP, for them Ryzen isn't even in the picture anyway.

So the primary 'mainstream' market for PC is self built or shop-built PCs and those people will definitely look at CPUs and consider whether or not an OC is worthwhile and doable for them. Ryzen won't score points there, while it is its primary target market and allows overclocking on all models...

 

[notb]

In short, depends on what they got. It is still only 60 Hz or 75 Hz, then no. If its 144 Hz IPS 10-bit color depth with G-Sync, then yes.

Nope. 1080p, 60Hz.

But we're not talking about about such LCD being a good choice for gaming (that depends).
Basically, sometimes it's good to think twice about what you've put in the comment box, before you post. The remark about 5-yo $120 LCDs was a bit brave.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I don't know man. Back in 2003 perhaps.

These days there is a casual old school desktop PC user that buys an OEM rig and doesn't OC, doesn't even care what CPU is inside for that matter... and then there is everyone else who builds their own rigs as a workstation, gaming rig or something in between. The rest of the populace uses a tablet or mobile for their computer needs and doesn't even touch Intel or AMD anymore.

The casual desktop users buy CPU WITH IGP, for them Ryzen isn't even in the picture anyway.

So the primary 'mainstream' market for PC is self built or shop-built PCs and those people will definitely look at CPUs and consider whether or not an OC is worthwhile and doable for them. Ryzen won't score points there, while it is its primary target market and allows overclocking on all models...

Not so sure, the last time I looked, which was about 3 years ago, OEM's were over 70% of the entire desktop market, I will look again for some more up to date info, I think you may be surprised!

 

[Vayra86]

Not so sure, the last time I looked, which was about 3 years ago, OEM's were over 70% of the entire desktop market, I will look again for some more up to date info, I think you may be surprised!

I may well be wrong, its mostly gut feeling; but I don't see many OEM X99 systems going around for 'mainstream users', and the mainstream Intel platform is really quite a different beast than Ryzen 7 if we are completely honest, even though R7 does take bits and pieces from both HEDT and mainstream Intel offerings. I just can't imagine an OEM target market for high end systems at all.

Look at GPU - there are NO OEM versions for GPUs above a GTX x60 and there haven't been since Kepler. The 70% OEM market coverage tells us very little about the high end segment.