Tuesday, January 31st 2017

AMD ZEN CPU Complexes Indivisible, Don't Expect 6-core Ryzen: Report

In what could be a blow to budget-conscious PC builders, reports are emerging that the quad-core CCX (CPU complex) units that make up Ryzen processors (and upcoming APUs that use them), are indivisible. This means that the "Summit Ridge" silicon can either be configured as full-fledged eight-core parts, or quad-core parts (one CCX) disabled. The likelihood of cost-effective 6-core parts seems slim.

AMD will continue to sell the Ryzen-branded "Summit Ridge" silicon in three grades - SR7 (top), SR5 (mid), and SR3 (entry-level), but the SR5 may not designate the previously rumored 6-core configuration. Instead, SR7 could indicate eight cores and SMT (multi-threading), which works out to 16 logical CPUs; SR5 could indicate eight cores minus SMT (eight cores, eight threads), and SR3 could designate quad-core with SMT (four cores, eight threads). SR7 and SR5 feature the full 16 MB of L3 cache, while SR3 features 8 MB. All three grades are "unlocked," in that they feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, making overclocking easy.
Sources: PCGH, Zolkorn
Add your own comment

39 Comments on AMD ZEN CPU Complexes Indivisible, Don't Expect 6-core Ryzen: Report

#26
theoneandonlymrk
TheLaughingMan
Yes. AMD has invented a dual core process that can handle 8 threads each. Not sure if that would be awesome or really sad.
No you and newtekie have some awesome simplification skills yet little circuit design knowledge evident the cores share a memory pool cohesively in quad core sets with another memory pool between those.
Doing cores in sets is the way to go to minimise interconnects.
I'm surprised if they can't but if you think about it it makes some sense since the ugly odd CCx with a bad core is likely to have a slight cost penalty sharing work and data with the perfect CCX next door.
Plus if they had a range spreading from 2,4,6,8,(10maybe),12,16 core parts at various speed bins that's a whole shit storm of skus to deal with 4 4-8ht 8 and 16 core parts at various speed bins does sound better now they mention it.
I thought they might have cut up one CCx myself and done a slightly gimped but cheap 6 core but this would make more sense now I think about it.

Soooo did you see the crosshair hero over at wccf they inadvertently shout up TPU at the bottom of the story showing Tpus quote regarding Msi's x370 mobo ,it's on Msi's promo slides.
Posted on Reply
#27
xorbe
The Quim Reaper
Well then I hope they've perfected their manufacturing process because 6 core parts were an effective way of utilising 8 core chips that didn't make the grade.

...there's going to be ALOT of 4 core Ryzens out there with 4 cores disabled just because maybe one of them was defective.

Waste.
Posted on Reply
#28
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Ugh. "Cores" aren't the kind of monolith they used to be (which I would argue is less monolithic,) just as processors themselves aren't the same kind of monolith they used to be (which I would argue is more monolithic.)

To be honest, does the number of "cores" by the definition of some person on the internet really matter if it performs well? How many threads a CPU can handle is my primary concern as a software engineer as well as how well each thread scales (example: if I have a cloud server with 4 threads, if I add 2 more, can I rely on it to scale linearly.) That's only so I can predict how much I have in terms of computational resources and if I need to architect my software to scale in a way that satisfies the business' needs. Clearly a different use case from gaming but, these are the kinds of things I need to consider and a lot of the world uses computers for things other than games. Some of which scale almost linearly to the amount of computational resources you have.
Posted on Reply
#29
phanbuey
Aquinus
Ugh. "Cores" aren't the kind of monolith they used to be (which I would argue is less monolithic,) just as processors themselves aren't the same kind of monolith they used to be (which I would argue is more monolithic.)

To be honest, does the number of "cores" by the definition of some person on the internet really matter if it performs well? How many threads a CPU can handle is my primary concern as a software engineer as well as how well each thread scales (example: if I have a cloud server with 4 threads, if I add 2 more, can I rely on it to scale linearly.) That's only so I can predict how much I have in terms of computational resources and if I need to architect my software to scale in a way that satisfies the business' needs. Clearly a different use case from gaming but, these are the kinds of things I need to consider and a lot of the world uses computers for things other than games. Some of which scale almost linearly to the amount of computational resources you have.
You're getting way too existential for me here... They just cant sell you crap in multiples of 2. They gotta do 4.

It was inevitable... nvidia has been selling us crap in multiples of 64 for years.

Im betting CPU's will follow the same scaling trends as RISC cores, at least in terms of product core scaling until intel blows x86 up completely.
Posted on Reply
#30
TheLaughingMan
theoneandonlymrk
No you and newtekie have some awesome simplification skills yet little circuit design knowledge evident the cores share a memory pool cohesively in quad core sets with another memory pool between those.
No. Me and Newtekie have a since of humor and like to crack jokes on the Internet for fun. I know its a tech forum, but relax and enjoy yo'self.
Posted on Reply
#32
phanbuey
mastrdrver
This is what I was expecting actually. There's no reason for AMD to drive prices to the basement when they need money bad.
thats not only where their money is coming from... if they can show they are grabbing up market share investors will pour some money into them. But given their past history i would say that you're right.
Posted on Reply
#33
Xzibit
CAPSLOCKSTUCK
Zolkorn are also speculating on prices...........up to $ 720.00

http://www.zolkorn.com/news/amd-ryzen-may-price-520-usd-to-720-usd-for-8-cores/
Too much speculation..

Hes basing that price on Chiphell forum discussions.

[quote=Zolkorn]The information that has come out of this has been revealed by the Chiphell which has been discussed by the Board.It is said that It seems the price of RYZEN it may not be that many people who think that because they have been told that the CPU on eight cores]All these reports are labeled RUMORS by the author himself.

If you want confirmed news you should read this

AMD confirms its Ryzen CPU will launch in early March, followed by the Vega GPU

[quote=PCWorld]“There will be widespread system availability from day one]
Posted on Reply
#34
Eknex
Which is better 8c or 6c / 12ht?
Posted on Reply
#35
TheLaughingMan
Eknex
Which is better 8c or 6c / 12ht?
Depends on the workload. Gaming, 8C in a hand full of games, but for the most part it will be about the clock speed. Video encoding, encryption, file compression would favor the 6C/12T in most programs. But even that is subjective. For example 7-Zip favors AMD and its "real" cores over Intel and HT. While WinRar is the opposite.
Posted on Reply
#37
mastrdrver
phanbuey
thats not only where their money is coming from... if they can show they are grabbing up market share investors will pour some money into them. But given their past history i would say that you're right.

Seeing as they have almost no market share in servers, Ryzen is going to be a nuclear bomb.
Posted on Reply
#38
Melvis
R-T-B
If that's the case, you could always disable it in bios likely too.
That could work I guess yes but has anyone seen or heard about been able to turn off SMT in the BIOS for these new ZEN CPU's?
Posted on Reply
#39
phanbuey
mastrdrver
Seeing as they have almost no market share in servers, Ryzen is going to be a nuclear bomb.
If those stuffy infrastructure guys are willing to take the risk... most of them will sit around for a few months to make sure that there are no major compatibility issues / bugs that would compromise stability.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment