Word of the G4560 is spreading with eurogamer.net doing a fairly in-depth and positive review:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...pu-king-review
In the comments, theres a lot of talk the G4560 being paired with a RX 470, being a PS4 Pro beater with an upgrade path also.
Maybe AMD will bring out a 4 core/4 thread Ryzen that will compete at the $60(ish) price point and perhaps out perform it? Only a month to wait now
Last edited by The Hand; 05-02-2017 at 09:06 PM.
It looks like the main difference between these Pentiums and the KBL i3 is the lack of support for some extensions including AVX, AVX2, FMA3, and some virtualisation-related instructions.
For a *budget* gaming chip, it looks like a decent option but carries the same caveat as previous Pentiums and i3s - the lack of real cores can really start to hold back performance in some games, especially newer ones. Which is fine, as long as that's understood and the chip isn't blindly recommended as 'all you need' for a higher budget system (which we've seen happen from time to time, with people extrapolating performance from a couple of games or single-thread benchmarks and assuming they're representative of all games).
Based on rumours, we might see a 4C/4T Ryzen, but the rumours have truly been all over the place with pretty much every core configuration/clock speed rumoured and 'disproved' several times. The latest one I've seen has 8C16T, 6C12T (which other places claim doesn't exist), 4C8T and 4C4T, but weirdly the higher core count parts also have the highest clocks (both boost and case) which is somewhat atypical given the difficulty of binning the entire, fully enabled dies to the highest available clock speeds...
It looks like the Pascal P100 workstation GPUs that have been announced today have 16GB of HBM2 across 4 stacks, so that adds more weight to Vega's 2 stacks meaning 8GB assuming the same stack height (twice the density is possible but not yet in mass production if I remember correctly).
So probably minus points for marketing, but aside from that likely not a big deal, 8GB is still a lot, and that new caching system should change things. That, and P100 really isn't suited to gaming use by the looks of it (lower shader count and clock speed than GP102 for starters) so that's not a big deal. In fact, those specs more or less match the Titan XP anyway (which isn't quite a full GP102 remember).
Seems AMD have talked about die sizes at ISSCC:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?...&page_number=2
Which I spotted via Computerbase
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/...intel-skylake/
So 44mm2 for a quadcore so the 8T/16C should be under 90mm2 since the first release will be without iGPU.
Less metal layers too, so they should be able to afford to price them well.
A quad core only chip? So much for the rumours that the entire product stack would be 8-core chips with parts turned off
Past articles say the CPUs are in clusters of 4. We are expecting 2 clusters on the first chips. The 6 core can disable one from each cluster.Originally Posted by Xlucine
From that table, that would give 2x44+16= 104mm^2 for two cores and an L3 cache. Add some memory controllers, PCIe lanes, SATA controllers etc and I can see that going over 200mm^2 pretty easily. Piledriver was 319mm^2
Worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plXoBXFodHI
I gather that is an interview around this article for those that can't watch videos at work: http://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/article.php?id=11666
Bringing this over from the thread in the news section, to ask for clarification on AMD's Ryzen strategy.
It seems the Videocardz article was using TH scores which were higher than normal:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3dmark...tels-i7-6950x/
I have to ask, what is the plan? The pic posted by CAT gives me the idea that the IPC performance is very similar, if not a little in favour of Ryzen, given these are single threaded results. Does this mean the 4C/4T parts are meant to go up against the i5 parts and the 4C/8T parts possibly against the upper i5s or i7s? And are the 8C/16T parts just AMD going gangbusters?
Forget the performance, just look at the pricing. If true, the 4/4 parts are priced like an i3.
AETAaAS (16-02-2017)
£$100 difference between 1700x and 1800x for .2ghz lets see if it's worth it ? if it does go on how much heat is within the chip then water should take both parts to a high overclock ?
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....
@DanceswithUnix While price/performance ratio parity with Intel would be nice, it would also be good to see AMD drive forward with bringing the price of high performance computing down. At the same time, I understand they need to make revenue after the dry period they have had on the CPU side anyway.
I need to build a second system this year and it will almost certainly be Ryzen based so it is of interest to me to see how the performance and pricing (in the UK at least) pan out.
Well here is my educated guess:
The chart you posted gives an r3 part with 4C/4T which looks on par with an Intel i5 in terms of performance but priced at i3 levels, so in my mind they are marketed against the i3 but performance should generally be better. If they really do pull that off at $129, then that is the new budget gaming king.
At the higher end I expect Intel to still hold a slight lead in single threaded performance, their IPC should be slightly better and years of polishing the design really should give Intel a slightly higher clock speed too.
AETAaAS (16-02-2017)
This could be an expensive year in tech for me, with Vega in the latter part. Can't wait.
@flearider: Don't know why the top SKU is that far out. Maybe it's select silicon with good OC potential?
Last edited by AETAaAS; 16-02-2017 at 09:34 AM.
I posted about this in the news thread - I'm pretty sure it's mostly just halo effect pricing. Don't forget that back in the day when Athlons were the processor to buy, AMD's top processor was always $999. And back then you only had single core Athlons - they were all silicon identical - but if you wanted the best Athlon, you paid through the nose for it.
Now we have a much wider range of processors available, and AMD still don't have complete performance parity with Intel, so they can't just say "this is the best processor so charge $999 for it". OTOH, they'll have the same thought process in terms of the flagship processor needing to be priced as high as they think the market will take. So a very small number of people will pay the extra for the 1800X just because it's the best Ryzen processor, and they will be happy that they've done so. Small number of sales, high selling price, high margin, halo effect.
Basically, if you're questioning why the 1800X is that much more expensive, you're not the target market
AETAaAS (16-02-2017)
Oh, that makes sense too. At least it isn't as extravagant as $999 this time around.It still fills the role of making the next chips down look like relative bargains, despite not being exactly cheap themselves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
