AMD announces Ryzen 5 CPUs

[HEXUS]

Quartet available April 11 from $169.

Read more.

[Bagpuss]

From a marketing perspective wouldn't it be better for AMD to pitch the 1600X as it's answer to the 7700K?

A 6C 12T 1600X for £250 would look & sound a lot better to a potential buyer than a 4C 4T 7700K for £330.

Okay, the 1600X will still lose in single threading performance but those 50% extra cores and threads will still ensure better performance in most multi threaded apps and games or where the 7700K's slightly better IPC & much higher clock speeds will at best only match the 1600X in such tasks.

I've always seen these 6 core parts as the proper rival to the 7700K, not the 1700, as AMD seem to pitch.

[Kanoe]

From a commercial point of view it would be better for AMD if the 6 core chips could be 4+2, 3+3 or 2+4 parts as it would enable them to use more of the ones that didn't make the 8 core grade during manufacture.

However, because of infinity fabric connecting the CCX's being a bit of a bottleneck I can't see them being able to do so cause the 4+2 chips would perform differently to the 3+3 chips under heavy loads.

[this_is_gav]

I think the 6-core on will tempt me. I'd like more cores than my current i7 4790K but without losing too much in the way of clockspeed for older applications. I don't currently do enough multi-threaded tasks for R7 to be worth the extra.

With regards to marketing, wouldn't it have made far more sense for AMD to go down this route:

R4=4 core (and it's bigger than i3)
R6=6 core (and it's bigger than i5)
R8=8 core (and it's bigger than i7)

Did they want to avoid the unlucky number 4 in China that much?

[Marenghi]

What have I missed with the most expensive CPU not including a stock cooler?

[Brian224]

What have I missed with the most expensive CPU not including a stock cooler?

The 1600X has nearly 50% more heat to dissipate, little point charging the consumer for an inadequate cooler. Having said that my I5 2500K (also 95W) came with a cooler although it only proved useful as a paperweight (and a great way to test the buzzer on my PC when running multi-threaded applications).

[mtyson]

While you are here you might as well check out the AMD Ryzen 5 Desktop Processor Sneak Peek video:

[Smudger]

I think the 6-core on will tempt me. I'd like more cores than my current i7 4790K but without losing too much in the way of clockspeed for older applications. I don't currently do enough multi-threaded tasks for R7 to be worth the extra.

With regards to marketing, wouldn't it have made far more sense for AMD to go down this route:

R4=4 core (and it's bigger than i3)
R6=6 core (and it's bigger than i5)
R8=8 core (and it's bigger than i7)

Did they want to avoid the unlucky number 4 in China that much?

They need an R11. Cos it's one more, innit?

[shaithis]

Did they want to avoid the unlucky number 4 in China that much?

If they were that conscious of the Chinese market, surely they would have squeezed at least one 3 into the high-end model numbers? In fact, no where in any model number is there a 3!!

[3dcandy]

A 6 core 12 thread processor at 65 watts is good! Seriously tempted to make a nice build this summer now once it's all settled down.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AT thinks that the R5 1500X has 16MB of cache and the R5 1400 has 8MB of cache:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/...n-5-april-11th

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.

So it seems the R5 will be a dual CCX design.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Wrong thread.

[Kanoe]

AT thinks that the R5 1500X has 16MB of cache and the R5 1400 has 8MB of cache:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/...n-5-april-11th



So it seems the R5 will be a dual CCX design.

Does that even make sense? I thought it would be cheaper manufacturing wise to make a dedicated 4 core 1 CCX part.

I had just assumed when they said that the design was scale-able that you could have 1 CCX parts but maybe the design means you have to have at least 2!?

[Ozaron]

Does that even make sense? I thought it would be cheaper manufacturing wise to make a dedicated 4 core 1 CCX part.

I had just assumed when they said that the design was scale-able that you could have 1 CCX parts but maybe the design means you have to have at least 2!?

Sadly this would explain why the clocks are still lower on the 4 core parts. I think you'll agree single-CCX chips should clock higher. Can't imagine much utility of having two CCXs cut down to 2/2, beyond selling more crippled R7 chips.

[shaithis]

Its a real big shame that the fastest 4 core part turbos to 3.7GHz....I know that's pretty much what we were expecting but was hoping for more...

[Xlucine]

huh, no R3 at all? Either yields are terrible or AMD is scraping the bottom of the barrel and can't afford another set of masks for a single CCX, a chip with half the cores gated off is very unusual

Its a real big shame that the fastest 4 core part turbos to 3.7GHz....I know that's pretty much what we were expecting but was hoping for more...

The 1500X is an oddball - it's got a 200MHz XFR boost, given how low the power consumption is for the 8-core chips I'd expect it to act like a 3.9GHz CPU in practice