Friday, March 11th 2022

AMD Readies Even More Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop SKUs for April

Earlier this week, we learned about AMD making several additions to its Ryzen 5000 Socket AM4 desktop processor lineup, to better compete against the bulk of the 12th Gen Intel Core "Alder Lake" processors. It turns out that there are three more additions to the lineup that we missed, because they're slated for a slightly later availability from the other chips (later by weeks).

The first of these three is the Ryzen 7 5700 (non-X). This chip is uniquely different from the Ryzen 7 5700X and the Ryzen 7 5600G. It is an 8-core/16-thread processor that's based on the 7 nm "Cezanne" silicon, with its iGPU disabled. This means you still get eight "Zen 3" CPU cores, but no iGPU, just 16 MB of L3 cache, and the PCI-Express interface of the chip is limited Gen 3. The Ryzen 3 5100 is the spiritual successor to the very interesting Ryzen 3 3100. It is a 4-core/8-thread processor based on the same "Cezanne" silicon with "Zen 3" cores, but with only 8 MB of L3 cache, and the iGPU remaining disabled. The third chip on the anvil is the Ryzen 7 4700, an interesting 8-core/16-thread offering based on the older "Renoir" silicon with "Zen 2" CPU cores.
Sources: Wccftech, VideoCardz
Add your own comment

53 Comments on AMD Readies Even More Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop SKUs for April

#1
Nanochip
12700k will crush all of these.
Posted on Reply
#2
AusWolf
The only CPU I personally expect from AMD is the 5300G for the retail market, yet, it's not on the list.
Posted on Reply
#3
ncrs
Nanochip12700k will crush all of these.
Even with the latest security mitigations for Spectre BHI? It makes 12900K up to ~26% slower in kernel-intensive tasks under Linux. Obviously this is workload-dependent, but keep in mind that graphics drivers also live in the kernel, so gaming performance might be affected.
The mitigations are both in microcode and the OS, and we don't know if Windows is going to implement the full variant. The vulnerability affects ARM as well, but not AMD.
Posted on Reply
#4
ixi
AusWolfThe only CPU I personally expect from AMD is the 5300G for the retail market, yet, it's not on the list.
I feel ya. Was hoping for that too.
Posted on Reply
#5
stimpy88
In light of what is going on with DDR5, I think AMD have dropped the ball with their entire CPU strategy. Zen4 should absolutely have come with DDR4 support, like what Intel had the foresight to do with their 12th gen CPU's.

No way am I dumping $300-500 on hard to get DDR5 which shows no tangible performance uplift over DDR4 that cost a quarter of the price.

This is going to hurt AMD's market share for the next year or two.
Posted on Reply
#6
NDown
ncrsEven with the latest security mitigations for Spectre BHI? It makes 12900K up to ~26% slower in kernel-intensive tasks under Linux. Obviously this is workload-dependent, but keep in mind that graphics drivers also live in the kernel, so gaming performance might be affected.
The mitigations are both in microcode and the OS, and we don't know if Windows is going to implement the full variant. The vulnerability affects ARM as well, but not AMD.
muh security patches, muh gaming on linux
Posted on Reply
#7
dj-electric
Nanochip12700k will crush all of these.
besides an epeen statement, there's really nothing behind this.
Not everybody wants, needs or can afford an i7 12700K based system
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
ncrsEven with the latest security mitigations for Spectre BHI? It makes 12900K up to ~26% slower in kernel-intensive tasks under Linux. Obviously this is workload-dependent, but keep in mind that graphics drivers also live in the kernel, so gaming performance might be affected.
The mitigations are both in microcode and the OS, and we don't know if Windows is going to implement the full variant. The vulnerability affects ARM as well, but not AMD.
That 26% is purely synthetic and it's only about I/O code. When doing I/O, the actual duration of the task is dictated by the data transfer, not by the time taken to initiate it.

Plus, these mitigations are a fact of life by now. They're heavier at first, people figure out how to lessen the perf hit after a while. And they affect both Intel and AMD. And ARM. And Apple, if anyone cares to look hard enough.
Posted on Reply
#9
AnarchoPrimitiv
dj-electricbesides an epeen statement, there's really nothing behind this.
Not everybody wants, needs or can afford an i7 12700K based system
Yep, I'm willing to trade a small amount of performance (which literally cannot be detected by human perception anyway) to give my money to AMD to help ensure competition remains in the LONG RUN. With respect to longterm competition, we should actually all be cheering for AMD to beat Intel for several more years to come, at least until AMD gets much close to 50% marketshare in the most profitable x86 segments, mobility and enterprise. The overwhelming majority of PC consumers just buy laptops from best buy and literally don't even know AMD exists and basically perceives the idea of "laptop" and "Intel" as synonymous and interchangeable concepts.
Posted on Reply
#10
Cutechri
Alder Lake scared them badly.
Posted on Reply
#11
Tigger
I'm the only one
dj-electricbesides an epeen statement, there's really nothing behind this.
Not everybody wants, needs or can afford an i7 12700K based system
Good thing mine was a gift then :)

Can't wait for reviews on that 5800X3D though, interested to see how the 3D cache works out.
Posted on Reply
#12
Cutechri
TiggerGood thing mine was a gift then :)
I'm planning to gift a friend still on a i5-4590S an i5-12400F, not quite the 12700K but should be a massive upgrade for him still lol (and hopefully a 7600 XT/4060 depending on the prices and stock)
Posted on Reply
#13
bug
CutechriAlder Lake scared them badly.
Not necessarily "scared", but it made a price adjustment necessary. Happens with nearly every release.
For a while, there was the "but you need an expensive motherboard if you go Intel" argument. But now that H670 is here, AMD had to make a move.

That's why we love competition ;)
Posted on Reply
#14
Tigger
I'm the only one
CutechriI'm planning to gift a friend still on a i5-4590S an i5-12400F, not quite the 12700K but should be a massive upgrade for him still lol (and hopefully a 7600 XT/4060 depending on the prices and stock)
Nice, well done :) It certainly will be a big improvement. I went from a 2600x to the 12700k
Posted on Reply
#15
TheLostSwede
stimpy88In light of what is going on with DDR5, I think AMD have dropped the ball with their entire CPU strategy. Zen4 should absolutely have come with DDR4 support, like what Intel had the foresight to do with their 12th gen CPU's.

No way am I dumping $300-500 on hard to get DDR5 which shows no tangible performance uplift over DDR4 that cost a quarter of the price.

This is going to hurt AMD's market share for the next year or two.
Since you clearly can predict the future, what's next week's lotto numbers?

It's not as if AMD could change their plans last year, when it became apparent that there would be supply issues. The issue isn't even making the actual DDR5 dies, the issue right now is shipping, packaging and testing, shipping, power regulation components, shipping, retail packaging and shipping.
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
TheLostSwedeSince you clearly can predict the future, what's next week's lotto numbers?

It's not as if AMD could change their plans last year, when it became apparent that there would be supply issues. The issue isn't even making the actual DDR5 dies, the issue right now is shipping, packaging and testing, shipping, power regulation components, shipping, retail packaging and shipping.
You don't actually need a crystal ball to predict transitions are usually rough.

Imho, what AMD did wrong was that instead of having DDR4 as a backup, they were instead confident enough with a little nudge they will help expedite this transition. And it backfire.
Take that with the usual "hindsight is always 20/20".
Posted on Reply
#17
dj-electric
AnarchoPrimitivYep, I'm willing to trade a small amount of performance (which literally cannot be detected by human perception anyway) to give my money to AMD to help ensure competition remains in the LONG RUN. With respect to longterm competition, we should actually all be cheering for AMD to beat Intel for several more years to come, at least until AMD gets much close to 50% marketshare in the most profitable x86 segments, mobility and enterprise. The overwhelming majority of PC consumers just buy laptops from best buy and literally don't even know AMD exists and basically perceives the idea of "laptop" and "Intel" as synonymous and interchangeable concepts.
This is just an over-correction to the other side of this business.
Nobody should be "cheering" for any chip making corporation. They are not your friend, they are not your local sports team, they do not donate 15% of their profits to charity.
Its for profit first, and its what R&D is dictated to produce for. If they can charge more money for a product - they do, they did and they will continue to do so, just like Intel.

Nobody is sending or should send users to crusade in the name of competition, or romanticize some none existent rags to riches story.
Posted on Reply
#18
TheLostSwede
bugYou don't actually need a crystal ball to predict transitions are usually rough.

Imho, what AMD did wrong was that instead of having DDR4 as a backup, they were instead confident enough with a little nudge they will help expedite this transition. And it backfire.
Take that with the usual "hindsight is always 20/20".
Rough, yes, but this time it's not rough, this time around it's there are so many unrelated issues that it's total chaos, which no-one could've predicted.

When AMD transitioned from DDR3 to DDR4 there were afaik, no CPUs with support for both memory standards, as AM3+ was DDR3 and AM4 was DDR4.
As such, it's not so strange the company did the same now when they transition to a new socket, CPU architecture and chipset, even if the latter isn't really relevant to memory support.

DDR4 and DDR5 are as you know, very different in how they operate, unlike say LPDDR4, which is a lot more similar to DDR5 than DDR4.

Intel seems to have a bunch of weird issues with their DDR4 support on Alder Lake, but it's possible that part of the reason for that is because Intel only gave the board makers two months to finish their Z690 boards. Either which way, it seems to be a pretty terrible memory controller compared to what Intel has done previous with regards to DDR4.
Posted on Reply
#19
Selaya
lets see how many ppl will buy the 5700 just to realise that it gets beaten by the 5600 at gaming
Posted on Reply
#20
bug
TheLostSwedeRough, yes, but this time it's not rough, this time around it's there are so many unrelated issues that it's total chaos, which no-one could've predicted.

When AMD transitioned from DDR3 to DDR4 there were afaik, no CPUs with support for both memory standards, as AM3+ was DDR3 and AM4 was DDR4.
As such, it's not so strange the company did the same now when they transition to a new socket, CPU architecture and chipset, even if the latter isn't really relevant to memory support.
Maybe not strange to you, but it's strange as f to me. Especially now since their controller is on a chiplet on its own so it's very easy to swap.
TheLostSwedeDDR4 and DDR5 are as you know, very different in how they operate, unlike say LPDDR4, which is a lot more similar to DDR5 than DDR4.

Intel seems to have a bunch of weird issues with their DDR4 support on Alder Lake, but it's possible that part of the reason for that is because Intel only gave the board makers two months to finish their Z690 boards.
I'm not sure what "weird issues" you have in mind, DDR4 is working perfectly fine here. I can even run 1T command rate on sticks rated for 2T.
(I know I'm a sample of 1, I'm just saying I haven't heard of issues before.)
TheLostSwedeEither which way, it seems to be a pretty terrible memory controller compared to what Intel has done previous with regards to DDR4.
DDR4 performance is up there with much faster DDR5 sticks. I would like to know what you would deem adequate if this is "pretty terrible".
Posted on Reply
#21
TheinsanegamerN
Selayalets see how many ppl will buy the 5700 just to realise that it gets beaten by the 5600 at gaming
why would a 8c/16t zen 3 chip lose to a 6c/12t zen 3 chip at gaming?
Posted on Reply
#22
ratirt
bugMaybe not strange to you, but it's strange as f to me. Especially now since their controller is on a chiplet on its own so it's very easy to swap.
To many variations maybe. DDR4 DDR5 of course chiplet swap but still you have to make two of them.
Posted on Reply
#23
NDown
dj-electricThis is just an over-correction to the other side of this business.
Nobody should be "cheering" for any chip making corporation. They are not your friend, they are not your local sports team, they do not donate 15% of their profits to charity.
Its for profit first, and its what R&D is dictated to produce for. If they can charge more money for a product - they do, they did and they will continue to do so, just like Intel.

Nobody is sending or should send users to crusade in the name of competition, or romanticize some none existent rags to riches story.
Indeed, really grind my gears that some people support AMD with such reason like the guy you're replying to, like they're not even 50% marketshare atm yet they have the balls to price the 5800X above 10700K counterpart which translates to $150 price difference in my place
Posted on Reply
#24
ratirt
bugI'm not sure what "weird issues" you have in mind, DDR4 is working perfectly fine here. I can even run 1T command rate on sticks rated for 2T.
(I know I'm a sample of 1, I'm just saying I haven't heard of issues before.)
AMD is memory sensitive and I'm quite sure AM5 CPUs will exhibit same thing. DDR4 is reaching limits and I think DDR5 is making more sense for AMD. New platform new stuff it does make sense. Also it is not like it will show up tomorrow. There's still time for the DDR5 to make it more affordable and faster.
Posted on Reply
#25
RedBear
TheLostSwedeWhen AMD transitioned from DDR3 to DDR4 there were afaik, no CPUs with support for both memory standards, as AM3+ was DDR3 and AM4 was DDR4.
As such, it's not so strange the company did the same now when they transition to a new socket, CPU architecture and chipset, even if the latter isn't really relevant to memory support.
The problem in the comparison is that AMD transitioned relatively late to DDR4 back then, IIRC Intel transitioned in 2015 with LGA 1151, AMD did it only two years later.
TheinsanegamerNwhy would a 8c/16t zen 3 chip lose to a 6c/12t zen 3 chip at gaming?
5700 is a Cezanne part, a 5700G with disabled graphics apparently, it comes with half the cache of the 5600, which is a Vermeer part, this could impact performance in the specific comparison (5600X vs 5700G should give you a rough idea, but we don't know just how much/little slower the 5600 will be in comparison to the 5600X).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jun 26th, 2022 09:54 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts