AMD Launches Ryzen 3 Series Low Cost Processors Starting At $109 (hothardware.com) 80
Reader MojoKid writes: AMD is launching a new series of Ryzen processors today, the affordably priced Ryzen 3. Ryzen 3 will complement the previously launched Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 series of desktop processors, but will target entry-level price points. Ryzen 3 features the same die as its higher-end Ryzen 7 and 5 siblings, but has fewer active cores and symmetrical multi-threading (SMT) has been disabled. Ryzen 3 processors feature quad-core configurations, leverage the same socket and chip packaging and are also fully unlocked for easy overclocking. The Ryzen 3 1300X has a base clock of 3.5GHz, with a 3.6GHz all-core boost clock, a 3.7GHz two-core boost, and a max XFR boost clock of 3.9GHz. The Ryzen 3 1200's default clocks are decidedly lower. Its base and all-boost clocks are both only 3.1GHz, and its two-core boost tops out at 3.4GHz. XFR pushes its max single-core clock up to 3.45GHz. In the benchmarks, with multi-threaded workloads, the Ryzen 3's quad-core configuration generally gives it an edge over the dual-core / quad-thread Intel Core i3 and in some cases allows it to compete with more expensive Intel Core i5 chips. With single or lightly threaded workloads, however, Kaby Lake-based Core i3s are likely to pull ahead due to their increased IPC and typically higher clocks. Ryzen 3 1300X will retail for $129, while Ryzen 3 1200 will list for $109. Retail chips should be available today in the channel.
Intersting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
There's some seriously sexy trannies out there. Have you seen Michelly Araujo, Dany DeCastro, Jessica Versace, or Yasmin Pires? Or Andrezza Lyra, Rabeche Rayala if you like 'em beefier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are concerned about price per unit of performance, then there is an obvious answer. Rather than get a more expensive CPU, simply forgo the upgrade completely. The performance difference will be barely noticeable while the cost savings in terms of time and money is substantial. Then you can wait and hope that the next round of CPUs at the preferred price point will provide more than a 10% improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the original post, the price that creimer wanted to spend was $129, which only gave a 10% improvement. It doesn't matter what the price of the original CPU was as a point of comparison, what matters is what someone is willing to pay now. So no, 10% is not interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the performance gain from the eight-core AM3 processor that I have isn't that great at 10%. It would probably be better to spend the extra $40 on the low-end quad-core (eight threads) Ryzen 5.
I have a FX-8350 now and I'm not going to bother with Ryzen until after the first price drop at the earliest. The performance improvement just isn't there. Their old chips were too good [for the money] for their new chips to be meaningful to me [for the money].
The problem in my case is the new socket. It's not a new processor for a couple hundred bucks. It's also a new motherboard, for at least $150 and probably more like a couple hundred since I have become accustomed to buying more feature-rich boards in
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting point. I have an eight-core FX-8320 processor and with its huge compute performance and massive on-chip cache for each core I can't really justify upgrading until the computer it's on burns itself out.
Trouble is these 5-year-old Vishera FX parts are so good they're still very valuable and expensive, like those amazing AMD Opterons produced more than 7 years ago.
Not bad for multithreaded work (Score:3)
The 1200 looks to trade off too much performance for the $20 savings though, so I expect it to show up in every piece of crap low end computer in 6 months.
Actually, that's not true. It won't show up until the APU version comes out so the OEMs can pair up the shitty cpu with some shitty graphics a slow spinning hard drive and not enough RAM to make a computer that clueless people everywhere will buy and then complain about to me.
Re:Not bad for multithreaded work (Score:5, Insightful)
this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At today's fab size, you could probably make a 128-core 3 GHz 486DX.
Re: (Score:2)
It's questionable how far you could scale the 486 in clock speed without reworking it to the point that it would not be cost-effective. It wasn't designed for power efficiency, either. Even in a smaller process it will still waste power.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe better if Intel would had been considered a monopoly? ;D
Re: (Score:1)
Intel coffeelake will have i3 with four cores and i5 and i7 with six.
I assume the i7 8700K will be really nice, two generations newer than the 7800X so performance will likely have increased and it got six cores so I assume single-threaded performance may be close to i7 7700K and multi-threaded close to Ryzen 7 1700/1700X.
Best blend.
Intel already noticed (Score:2)
Do they support virtualization? (Score:2)
Intel's normal desktop chips are basically all the same performance (within an order of magnitude), so the main difference is the presence of various features, like virtualization.
Are the Ryzen chips the same?
Re: (Score:1)
Generally speaking, AMD doesn't play games like that. If the chip have the capability to do something, it''s probably available. For instance, I think all AMD chips support ECC if you want it, the problem is the mobo manufacturers. I guess this one too falls to them, but as I said, if history is any indication, virtualization support will be there.
Re: (Score:1)
These processors lack SMT though.
And they have actually cut cache access too.
Re:Do they support virtualization? (Score:5, Informative)
Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases (I have an old core2duo laptop that happened to be one of the few that did NOT support VT-x, but even most of those did).
The Ryzen chips do support virtualization. I couldn't find a spec sheet off hand that lists it, but there's plenty of reference to it out there.
One of the big differences between Intel and AMD consumer chips is that Intel frequently disables ECC support, but AMD leaves it enabled and up to the motherboard manufacturer to expose or not. Here's some detailed info on ECC support on Ryzen: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com... [hardwarecanucks.com]
I also ran into anandtech's review here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com]
IMO, it has some very useful comparisons right on the first page of that review. Someone else in this thread had mentioned upgrading to the low end Ryzen 5 for an extra $40 to make the upgrade more meaningful from his current platform... but that doesn't seem to add all that much IMHO. Wish I could just paste in the table from that review...
Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500x are both 4 core, 8 thread, but, otherwise, they nearly mirror the specs of Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300x (which have 4 cores / 4 threads). Personally, I'd want to jump up to the 6 core / 12 threads versions, or just stick with the 1300x.
That review also has a nice comparison with Intel's comparatively priced cpus. The Ryzen's have twice the L2 cache (256kb intel, 512kb ryzen), more than twice the L3 cache (3mb intel, 8mb ryzen). and twice the cores (2 core 4 thread intel, 4 core ryzen), all with a similar TDP (51-54w intel, 65w ryzen). They seem like a pretty good option, at least on paper.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases
From what I have seen of the spec sheets, those games didn't start until the last couple of generations. i3's basically don't support anything remotely modern these days.
The rest of your information is very, well, informative. Thank you!
He is risen... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel didn't bribe anyone. AMD spent all their capital buying ATI. Like the next day Intel released the Core lineup and blew AMD out of the water for a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, no bribes by Intel, none at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:He is risen... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Your memory is short, Athlon 64 was released in 2004 and really put Intel's feet to the flame for several years.
Intel had been losing ever since the original Athlon (mid-99) vs the Pentium IV (nov 2000) and Athlon 64 (sept 2003) was really killing it, but only until Intel Core (jan 2006). So who was killing who is almost split 50-50, first half AMD was killing Intel and last half Intel was killing AMD. Though in retrospect AMD pretty much killed themselves by buying ATI, if they had another $5.4 billion in their war chest they'd have pulled off a better response than Bulldozer. And if Intel had bought ATI which was t
Re: (Score:2)
Considering they laid off just about everyone involved in CPU development as part of the cost cutting to afford buying ATI you have a very good point.
SMT (Score:5, Informative)
SMT is "simultaneous multi-threading", not "symmetrical multi-threading".
Re: (Score:2)
Squirt Mova Triton
Re: (Score:2)
You're kind of beating a dead horse here.
AMD added support for System Management Mode support in their 486 line, several years after Intel first implemented it.
By definition, anything running in SMM is invisible to the operating system unless it explicitly outputs to or interfaces with the OS. E.g., legacy device emulation.
Every modern computer could be running arbitrary code without user consent or OS-level visibility. If that shocks your sensibilities, you can go back to the pre-Pentium era.
Binned parts (Score:5, Insightful)
I do believe that these parts are not as useful without a IGP for things like entry level (Grandma) desktops, or entry level corporate desktops.
But please do notice that these are BINNED PARTS, therefore, between the option of making no profits on them, Vs the option of making a profit on the processor, and sell a mobo (also at a slight profit) that can latter be upgraded to more capable Rizen Chip (also at a profit), and sell maybe a (hopefully AMD) graphics card, or a (hopefully AMD) laptop graphics chip to be mounted in the mobo, AMD opted for the profit option.
Just do not expect these to seel like hotcackes in corporate and entry level desktops.
Just my two cents, YMMV
Grandma isn't going to run a Ryzen 3 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Disagree. 4 core is minimal now if you run Chrome. Each tab has its own process and even Windows itself got leaner and faster by creating more threads for individual tasks. A dual core would have hiccups from one tab slowing down other things. Add several Chrome tabs, Outlook, MCrappy anti virus and you got bottlenecks
That's why even phones are all quad core minimum. They do many things and customers do not want jerky system performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for that money, today I would install a FX-4350 and get my onboard graphics on the motherboard, not on the CPU. That looks like another sixty bucks or so. That gives you a PCIe slot in case grandpa wants to play flight simulators on grandma's pc.
Um.... Grandma doesn't even know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is the gold editions which have the pro chipset for business management will probably have an integrated APU.
Liano failed miserably for gamers as dedicated GPU performance on chip never happened
Simultaneous, not symmetrical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'll stand for Systemd Multithreading before the year's out.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll stand for Systemd Multithreading before the year's out.
I think you are overestimating Lennart's ability. The "parallel startup" that upstart had and systemd was supposed to do didn't really happen. Multithreading is an "advanced topic" like checking that your inputs are valid.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not alone, am I?
Re: (Score:2)
Same die, fewer active cores (Score:2)
Ryzen 3 features the same die as its higher-end Ryzen 7 and 5 siblings, but has fewer active cores
Is that a clever plot to sell Ryzen 7 chips that turned to have defective cores?
Re: (Score:3)
Go Google 386 sx and 486 sx before bashing AMD? :-)
The chips that failed when the fpu used to take 1/3 of the chip got resold without it. Floating points were run in emulation
dual cores holding back whole industry (Score:1)
Intel has held back the whole computing industry with their dual core i3 and lower desktop chips, and all their (non QM) laptop chips. Game developers have explicitly stated many times that they do not target quad core systems because that locks them out of a large part of the market with lower-end hardware. Intel has made a killing for many years due to their very refined manufacturing process and chip designs yielding high clock speeds, allowing them to get away with only 2 cores while still delivering de