Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD The Almighty Buck Hardware Technology

AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Processors With 4 and 6-Core Chips Starting At $169 (hothardware.com) 173

MojoKid writes from a report via HotHardware: Today, AMD unveiled additional details with respect to the entire Ryzen 5 processor line-up. Unlike the Ryzen 7 series, which consists entirely of 8-core/16-thread processors, the Ryzen 5 family has two tiers consisting of 6-core/12-thread and 4-core/8-thread processors. The entry-level part is the Ryzen 5 1400, a 4-core/8-thread CPU with base and turbo clocks of 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz, respectively. The Ryzen 5 1500X has the same quad-core configuration, but with base and turbo clocks of 3.5GHz and 3.7GHz, and also has support for an extended XFR frequency range of up to 3.9GHz. The Ryzen 5 1600 is a 6-core/12-thread processor, with 3.2GHz base and 3.6GHz boost clocks. And at the top of the stack is the Ryzen 5 1600X -- which has a similar 6-core configuration -- but cranks things up even further to 3.6GHz/4.0GHz. With XFR, the absolute maximum frequency for all of the Ryzen 5 processors will be somewhat higher, but AMD hasn't disclosed specifics for all parts. AMD's Ryzen 5 processor line-up will work with the very same AM4 platform as the higher-end Ryzen 7. Ryzen 5 series processors will be launching officially on April 11, with prices starting at $169 for the Ryzen 5 1400. An additional $20 will get you a Ryzen 5 1500X, while the 6-core Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X will sell for $219 and $249, respectively.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Processors With 4 and 6-Core Chips Starting At $169

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is in real trouble if they don't turn around their operation, quickly

    • By "trouble", you mean having to decrease their CPU prices slightly more than expected over the next few quarters, sure. AMD can only dream of having profit margins that equal Intel's right now.

      • I'm not sure AMD will want Intel's profits now that they will be forced into a price war. Intel has a lot of money, but I don't see much profit in the immediate future for them, at least not the kind of profit they enjoyed for the last ~decade with 0 competitors.
        • Intel is pretty much the best that's left of manufacturing in the US - most R&D, most innovative and headed by someone from their fabs. In the worst case situation - assume that the market for x86/x64 completely dries up, they can simply be a US version of a TSMC/GSMC, and still be above water.

          Most companies would kill to be in that predicament. AMD, OTOH, has nothing left but the x64, and its hybrid ARM/x64 lines look interesting, but it's not much more valuable than any of the myriad number of fab

          • assume that the market for x86/x64 completely dries up, they can simply be a US version of a TSMC/GSMC, and still be above water.

            Which would mean that the part of Intel that is analogous to what AMD is now would be dead along with AMD, and the part of Intel that is analogous to GSMC would still be around along with GSMC

            Would it really make any difference in that scenario if GSMC was still called AMD?

  • by phorm ( 591458 )

    It's good to see a broad selection of cores/threads and clock coming out, but what I'd be really interested in knowing what the actual wattage/TDP of this processors is supposed to be.

    I've had a mini-ITX box running with an A10 and a slotted GPU which can pretty much hold its own for any games etc, but I would like to get something a bit more powerful or more cores. Normally you're not going to be able to run a really high-wattage CPU on a mini-ITX board, and even if you could the tight spaces tend towards

    • Price/performance (and power/performance) wise, you're probably still better off with an 1700.
      • Depends on your usage. The 1600X looks like a better gaming CPU than the 1700 and it's effectively $50 cheaper. (The list price is $80 less but no cooler is included.) On the other hand it will consume more power at peak; the 1600X is a 95W TDP processor while the 1700 is 65W TDP. We won't know what the idle power story is until the Ryzen 5 CPUs are released and benchmarked.

        Looks like the i5-7600K and i7-7700K have some serious competition ahead. The AMD parts will cost less than Intel's, even after the rec

    • by Anonymous Coward

      They did mention it in the article. 1600X is going to be 95W, the rest - 65W

    • Re:TDP? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Thursday March 16, 2017 @05:02AM (#54049459) Journal

      I'd be really interested in knowing what the actual wattage/TDP of this processors is supposed to be.

      Yeah, if only there was a way of knowing that, like for example reading the linked article!

      • by bongey ( 974911 )

        It's Game over for Intel in the server market on power consumption. A slightly under-clocked Ryzen 1700 scores 850 in cb, and draws only 30 Watts at full load. Intel's low power offering Atom c2000 CPU's draw 33-35W under full load. Intel really will loose 15-30% new server chips sales on this alone, Xeons are 90-140w under full load.

      • For normal youtube, browsing and games, published value TDP 65watts for the 1600x If you go for high frame rates, and super busy graphics, the likely hood is that the wattage could hit 80Watts

  • Crippled Ryzen 7 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Thursday March 16, 2017 @04:33AM (#54049383)

    Unfortunately, it seem as if these 6-core and 4-core Ryzen 5 CPUs are only going to be eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs with cores disabled in both compute-complexes.

    The R5 1600X and 1600 are going to have one core disabled per compute-complex (CCX): 3+3. This was expected.
    However, surprisingly, AMD has told Anandtech [anandtech.com] and Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] that the R5 1500X and likely also the R5 1400 are going to have two cores disabled per CCX: giving it a 2+2 config.

    When clock and IPC have been taken into account, Ryzen's biggest performance bottleneck compared to Intel has been shown to be when threads on different CCX'es are accessing the same memory. Each CCX has its own L3 cache and there is an interconnect between the CCX'es L3 caches which while being slower than a single shared L3 cache is somewhat faster than going to main memory ... but the L3 caches are only victim caches to each core's L2 cache - and therefore not necessarily caching the entire working set.

    This means that the 1500X and 1400 are going to be slower on many workloads than on a hypothetical Zen CPU with one single four-core CCX.

    It is believed that this bottleneck is the reason behind relatively low Ryzen 1800X/1700X/1700 scores in many games - compared to Intel (even when clock speed and IPC have been taken into account).
    (Curious enough, this is also a known issue among programmers for the XBox One and PS4 - both having AMD CPUs with a similar setup, but apparently it didn't really occur to game programmers that AMD would have a go at retaking the desktop?)

    • Unfortunately, it seem as if these 6-core and 4-core Ryzen 5 CPUs are only going to be eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs with cores disabled in both compute-complexes.

      If that's true then they are probably tweaking their design doing that to increase their production yields. QA is important when it comes to making complex chips and when you can identify issues before they become returns then you can turn them into sales instead of a loss. Sony did the same thing for the PS3 processor by disabling one core. This is actually a good practice to perfect your chip. However, beware of chips with "locked cores" because that's just pure exploitation.

    • On the flip side, some smart engineer is going to figure out how to re-enable those disabled cores through a firmware hack or some other trick. At that point, you'll be able to get the equivalent of a $400 CPU for $150.

    • Actually this could work to AMD's favor if they allow one to take their chances and unlock disabled cores like they did with the Phenom IIs and Athlon IIs. I know a LOT of guys that bought those chips simply so they could gamble on getting a better chip for the money, after all at the worst they would get the chip they paid for and if they got lucky they would get 1 or 2 cores for free, there was even a Phenom II quad that you could not get for the longest time after it was leaked it was a hexacore with 2 c

    • Unfortunately, it seem as if these 6-core and 4-core Ryzen 5 CPUs are only going to be eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs with cores disabled in both compute-complexes.

      There's nothing unfortunate about this. By crippling the low end hardware they increase the number of units sold thanks to their lower price. This in turn pays back R&D costs that would otherwise be spread over a smaller number of sales making the high end even more expensive.

    • by epine ( 68316 )

      I'm still waiting to discover the on-chip interconnect. I'd imagine that some kind of on-chip TSV would provide a hefty upgrade in the width of the data path between the CCX modules, that would still have some penalty, though far less than the historic standard.

      I really can't see how Naples is going to use the same CCX if AMD hasn't done something interesting here, but what do I know? Also, one active core per CCX helps with heat spreading and available boost.

      Furthermore, AMD producing chips with four CCX

    • by bongey ( 974911 )

      Zen has completely new way of loading from memory, but don't take my words for it, take Linus Torvalds. http://www.realworldtech.com/f... [realworldtech.com]
      FUD about CCX latency most likely coming from Intel. AMd Zen ends up producing less cache misses.

  • E.g. does a Ryzen get better game framerates while streaming? I'm guessing not, but I've only seen raw benchmarks in the articles I've read, not "We benchmarked this game while streaming it".

    Right now Ryzen doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're a programmer or video editor (either hobby or pro). If you're just a gamer it's getting beat by cheaper Intel hardware and AMD motherboards (that aren't garbage) tend to cost more pushing the price higher (though that might not be true for Ryzen). Now, given
    • On paper, the Ryzen 1400 looks better than the I5-7500, and at $170 it's $30 cheaper. You can dump the money you save getting a cheaper CPU (intel or amd) into a faster GPU.

      I actually do way more programming than gaming on my PC, but honestly I don't really care about compilations taking a bit longer. I am usually coding during long compilations anyway. But lag during gaming is really annoying. So I would definitely prioritize gaming performance over other sorts of benchmarks. The only other considerat

      • but to be fair I haven't priced out Ryzen boards. I remember that at least on newegg the 8350's price advantage largely evaporated because it really needs a nicer mobo and faster ram to be competitive with the equivalent i5.

        Also, that i5 has been out longer and is better optimized, supported & understood. The $30 bucks might be worth it. Now, if it was $50, $75... $100. You'd be talking. That's a pretty big GPU upgrade and it's what I got years ago with my Athlon 64. But $30? That takes me from one 6
        • I don't think $30 makes that much of a difference. I was more talking about the savings from getting a cheaper (e.g. sub $200) CPU as opposed to getting a high end one like an i7. At the high end is where it makes sense to still buy an Intel if what you care about is gaming. In the middle it seems like AMD might be a better value unless Intel drops the price of the I5-7600K to $170 or something.

          Also I haven't really looke dinto MOBOs too much. But my brief research lead me to believe that AMD MBOs were

  • What I'm waiting for is a dual core that absolutely crushes even an overclocked Pentium anniversary edition. I got mine to 4GHz off of 3.2GHz and its single thread rating beats the $1000+ i7 extreme edition from the 2011 v3 socket. Considering tabs in firefox, probably the javascript engine, most programs, and most windows tasks are single threaded, a really "snappy" and responsive PC for just facebook and web surfing would benefit greatly from a chip like that. Like a 3000+ passmark rated single thread
  • It's Game over for Intel in the server market on power consumption. A slightly under-clocked Ryzen 1700 scores 850 in cb, and draws only 30 Watts at full load. Intel's low power offering Atom c2000 CPU's draw 33-35W under full load. Intel really will loose 15-30% new server chips sales on this alone, Xeons are 90-140w under full load.https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/

    FUD about CCX latency is FUD. Zen does memory access completely differently, but don't take my words, take

You mean you didn't *know* she was off making lots of little phone companies?

Working...