Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 5 Begins Shipping

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Michael
    You already have the 8 core and you can deactivate cores... on the other hand the RX 500 series is very similar to the 400 series. My post was meant generally for interested people.
    I really hope that you'll get a Vega sample. That's absolutely necessary

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by oooverclocker View Post
      Michael
      You already have the 8 core and you can deactivate cores... on the other hand the RX 500 series is very similar to the 400 series. My post was meant generally for interested people.
      I really hope that you'll get a Vega sample. That's absolutely necessary
      Haven't heard anything about Vega yet.... But if they don't send me a sample, I'll end up buying one assuming it isn't too insanely expensive.
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by zboson View Post
        Too bad it's two compute modules (or whatever they are called) with two cores disabled per module rather than one compute module with four cores. This will mean some additional latency moving data between the modules.
        Well, these are 6 core chips and a CCX only has 4. I'm not sure how could AMD build what you want.
        There's also the matter of practicality: it's for more common to have a core fail on each CCX than having two cores fail on the same CCX.

        Either way, the performance is up there. But since it doesn't beat intel across the line, choosing a best CPU still depends on your typical workflow.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by bug77 View Post
          Well, these are 6 core chips and a CCX only has 4. I'm not sure how could AMD build what you want.
          There's also the matter of practicality: it's for more common to have a core fail on each CCX than having two cores fail on the same CCX..
          I'm guessing zboson was referring to the 4c/8t models, of which I am inclined to agree. For those models, AMD does in fact have 2 cores per CCX. But to my understanding, the Ryzen 3 series utilizes 4 cores in one CCX, with the other one completely disabled. This can be distinguished because they have half the L3 cache. From what I can tell, the only reason why the 1400 and 1500X use 2x CCXs is because that's the only way to utilize all the L3 cache. Unfortunately, the Ryzen 3s don't have SMT enabled.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
            I'm guessing zboson was referring to the 4c/8t models, of which I am inclined to agree. For those models, AMD does in fact have 2 cores per CCX. But to my understanding, the Ryzen 3 series utilizes 4 cores in one CCX, with the other one completely disabled. This can be distinguished because they have half the L3 cache. From what I can tell, the only reason why the 1400 and 1500X use 2x CCXs is because that's the only way to utilize all the L3 cache. Unfortunately, the Ryzen 3s don't have SMT enabled.
            My guess is Ryzen3 only has one physical CCX, while Ryzen5 is made from defective Ryzen7 dies.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Michael View Post

              Still thinking about it or I might just hold off and buy RX 500 hardware next week.... I was told I would be getting new Polaris 2017 review samples, only to be told minutes later no, they "contacted me in error." So probably wiser spending money on RX 500 hardware over Ryzen 5 CPU.
              Agreed. I'd rather see Vega or new Polaris reviews than R5 reviews. I think the most important Ryzen reviews already happened, and I probably won't pay that much attention to the benchmarks of the R5s or R3s. I am very curious about the first batches of Ryzen APUs and mobile chips, though.

              ...but maybe other members feel differently.

              Comment


              • #17
                Michael Sorry, typo:

                Originally posted by phoronix
                The TDPs are 65 Watt except ofr the Ryzen 5 1600X

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                  Michael - if you intend to experiment with overclocking, either the 1400 or 1600 would make for good options. If you don't feel like bothering, I'd say get the 1500X or 1600X. You've already done CPU scaling tests by disabling cores, so what you could do is get the 1500X (that is roughly the same frequency as the 1700) and compare the results of that to the scaling tests you did. If the performance comes out to be roughly the same, then you didn't waste your money buying the 1600(X). If there is a performance difference, you could show a chart where the predicted 1600(X) performance would be.


                  I was wondering why that hasn't cropped up yet myself, but maybe AMD had some sort of agreement to prevent that as it may have resulted in more losses in revenue, either because people weren't buying the more expensive parts, or, people returned a CPU that didn't unlock to their expectations.
                  If in fact unused cores are on the die they are often disabled by blowing fuses or laser cutting traces. AMD cant afford to have their reputation trashed by idiots reenabling defective cores. Frankly im not even sure why people would even want to try this. And yes i know that at times perfectly good core will be disabled to meet demand but then you are gambling.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Linux performance of the Ryzen 1600 seems very good.
                    https://www.computerbase.de/2017-04/...endungen_linux
                    https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryz...like-this-one/

                    HardOCP is reporting that tensions arose between AMD and hardware review sites again.
                    Those sites who received review kits from AMD had to stay silent until today, while others could just buy the CPUs themselves a week earlier without signing anything.

                    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                    If in fact unused cores are on the die they are often disabled by blowing fuses or laser cutting traces. AMD cant afford to have their reputation trashed by idiots reenabling defective cores. Frankly im not even sure why people would even want to try this. And yes i know that at times perfectly good core will be disabled to meet demand but then you are gambling.
                    Phenom II allowed core unlocking.
                    Also, AMD only sells Ryzen in symmetric configuration, this means if two cores on one CCX are defective, it will become a 2+2 quadcore, even though it could in principle still work as 2+4 hexacore if the rest of the cores are perfectly good.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Micheal;

                      Ryzen 5 reviews might be interesting but like others im waiting for Ryzen based APU's to appear. If you need to make a decision on where to spend money the APU will likely be more interesting. Of course we also have very interesting GPU's coming.

                      If you do go with an R5 consider testing that determines if the approach to core disablrment has produced significant perfotmance advantages anywhere. This would likely be cache related. In a nut shell quad core R5 tests would be interesting. It is just that other more interesting chips are coming.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X