I'm subscribed there too now.
RYZEN 5 ANNOUNCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you are going to link info, link all the info lol
And no he doesn't actually have one yet.
This right here is the interesting bit:
Ryzen 5 1500X 4/8 3.5/3.7 +200 16 MB 65 W $189 Spire Ryzen 5 1400 4/8 3.2/3.4 +50 8 MB 65 W $169 Stealth
8Mb vs 16Mb quad core option. So there will be a 4+0 CCX and a 2+2 CCX, this is where benchmarks should be done at to figure out just how good/bad infinity fabric is.
So looking at what has been announced on the R5 series so far, the overclocks will be the same at the R7s?
They are using the same silicon, but disabling the extra cores.
The 1600x has a tdp of 95w vs the 1600 with 65w, just like the R7s.
It will be interesting to see if they do better than big brother, but it's looking like they will just be a great mid range cpu.
Sir, that is wrong
They are all 2+2 (and the 6 cores are 3+3)
Just one has 8 Mb more cache so is at the slightly higher price point.
I was just quoting from this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th
About the core count.
I know from personal testing on my 1800X that if it goes 4+0 performance and clock speeds get shrekt. So the lower end one with 8Mb of cache more than likely, just has half the CCX cache per side.
I don't know why so many people are that surprised about the core layout. AMD can use nearly any die in a product and it is all done in the same process. That is how they can build cost effective. It is one of the biggest benefits of this architecture.
That there is a 8MB L3 version tells us nothing about the core layout. Official word from AMD is 2+2. There is no reason they couldn't do a 2+2 with 8MB L3, just disable half the L3 on each core complex.
A quote from that very same article:
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.
Edit: Another article with the same information:
The 6 core parts use two 4-core Core Complexes (CCXes) with one core from each disabled. Each core within a CCX has a 2MB slice of level 3 cache, and interestingly, all 16MB of cache are available. The 1500X again uses two CCXes, this time with two cores from each disabled, but again still offers the full 16MB of level 3 cache. The cheapest 1400 part, however, only has 8MB cache.
Where have i see this moar core concept before :)
MOAR COARS CONFIRMED!
What I would like to see is a comparison between a 1060 and a 1080 with a ryzen chip clocked between 3.8 and 4.0ghz Would the fps be higher with a 1060 than a 1080? I get really good fps in most if not all of my games with my 1060 and a 1700 clocked at 3.8ghz.
I posted a thread earlier and it was how I disappointment with Ryzen slightly. Now that I exchanged the motherboard I am getting slighlty better fps in handbrake. I was expecting it being an 8 core to get 10 fps more with hevc. But 5 fps on average is still an improvement.
What was that rumor a month or so ago just before launch that it could hit 5ghz on air. I am hoping that is the 4 core 8thread model to compete with the 7700k.
.... uhm, wrong?
It was CarnardPC. One core overclocked to 5. And not stable, more like a suicide run. According to them it was on air cooling though.
Kinda like those really high Liquid Nitrogen overclocks. They kill a number of CPUs to reach those. "Bench Stable" stable long enough to just run the benchmark, then it is toast.
Also that rumor was from CanardPC lol, who are at best semi-reputable
at worst another wccftech :P
It was an Easter egg in their printed magazine even. Viral marketing thingies. They have only said that they managed to "touch" 5 GHz with one core using a "large air dissipator". Not something that is really feasible.
And yeah, no real proof.
Edit: If you want to read read what they wrote, it is at the end of this peice:
Now that is a bullshit of the highest order...