AMD Announces 2nd Gen Ryzen Quad-core and Energy-Efficient Processor Models

[wrathchild_67]

Can you name a situation when 45W 8-core desktop chip makes sense?

Sounds amazing for HTPCs running Plex or a machine that runs 24/7. Paired with power efficient mid range GPU, you could have a great gaming and media serving PC with 150w total envelope.

 

[HD64G]

... to play games that use 4-6 cores

You are a well known Intel troll, so I won't continue that also well known game about gaming-only cpu usage you follow religiously (pun intended).

 

[GoldenX]

I play games that use 6 or 8 cores, try rpcs3, cemu and ryujinx.
I imagine it can be a render beast, a cheap server, or pair it with a quadro and do CUDA work without needing a high TDP cpu.
Don't look at it as a desktop CPU, look at it as a server / work 8 core CPU with a desktop 's price.

 

[noel_fs]

We might see that with Zen 2. This is Zen+, a mere refresh of the original.

Yes, i missunderstood, my brain thought we were talking about zen 2.

 

[laszlo]

The fact that is will throttle under any significant load, thus performing probably worse than a 4c/4t running at higher frequencies maybe?

i don't really understand your logic ....

let's take a 4c4t chip ( as you mentioned) running at 4 ghz having 95 w tdp

let's give this chip a "significant load" which almost use all cores up to 100% and reaching max tdp but no throttle

now let's give same load to the 8c16t chip, running at 2,8 ghz having 45w tdp ; will this throttle?

you say yes but i say now if the work of a 4 core working 100% is sent to 8 core than overall load is less than 100% even having a lower freqv. and within tdp so no throttle

the above is not feasible only if the "significant load" can't use all available cores...

 

[cyneater]

If you have to ask why you don't get it..


Maybe google inlet 4XXX S and L ....

Most thin clients are really low powered CPU's

And yes a Igpu would be nice on a low powered version/.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Just put that 2700E in a laptop! 45w means it will likely use the same energy as the mobile i9, and it will probably hold the same clockspeeds as its 6-core Intel counterpart lol.

 

[notb]

This will probably go into a high-performance workstation or maybe a server lineup targeted at small business segment.

Do you really want to put low-power CPU variant into a "high-performance workstation"?

If I remember correctly, QNAP already announced a series of Ryzen-powered NAS appliances.

Well. QNAP also makes NASes with Intel i7 and Xeon. But these are large, multi-drive, business-oriented products. Difference between 45W and 65 is negligible.

I imagine it can be a render beast, a cheap server, or pair it with a quadro and do CUDA work without needing a high TDP cpu.
Don't look at it as a desktop CPU, look at it as a server / work 8 core CPU with a desktop 's price.

Again: if that's what you're after, then what's wrong with a regular 65W Ryzen?

The only reason to make a low-power CPU drawing 35-45W (vs "normal" 65W) is to meet cooling limits of USFF cases (especially those passively cooled).
But this CPU has no IGP, so it's not suitable for existing USFF systems.
Maybe we don't know something. Maybe AMD has an awesome deal with OEMs, who will make mini PCs with GPU on mobo. This could happen.
But wouldn't it be better for AMD to - once in a while - make a product that meets existing needs, rather than betting on an incoming revolution?

Just imagine 16c/32T in a 95W package that can be intalled in B350 or X370 motherboards.

Just imagine it having single-core performance of... ah... OK... you have an FX...

@notb I meant off-the shelf designs tend to be rather unbalanced. In order to meet a lower price points, the OEM almost always cuts a corner you wouldn't want cut.

OEM PCs are as simple as possible, no nonsense products.

By tech-savvy I mean someone who knows what each part of a computer does and how to build a system without unnecessary bottlenecks. Non tech-savvy would be someone who walks into a store and asks for a computer that can browser the internet and play games.

So let me understand this better. You really think that people who buy off-the-shelf PCs use them primarily for Internet and games?*
Does this also apply to laptops?

*) isn't this a fairly accurate description of many TPU forum members?

 

[nemesis.ie]

Pretty sure thin-clients are fine with $50 Celerons.

Or the new $55 Athlon?

 

[notb]

Or the new $55 Athlon?

I believe the latest Athlon is a consumer CPU just like these Ryzens (not the "PRO" lineup).
AMD has a very strong position in thin clients thanks to low-power APUs.
But when you move to the 35W+ range (mini PC, SFF and so on) it's basically Intel's full domination.
AMD hopes that PRO 2200GE will become a serious contender. We'll see how it goes...

 

[bug]

i don't really understand your logic ....

let's take a 4c4t chip ( as you mentioned) running at 4 ghz having 95 w tdp

let's give this chip a "significant load" which almost use all cores up to 100% and reaching max tdp but no throttle

now let's give same load to the 8c16t chip, running at 2,8 ghz having 45w tdp ; will this throttle?

you say yes but i say now if the work of a 4 core working 100% is sent to 8 core than overall load is less than 100% even having a lower freqv. and within tdp so no throttle

the above is not feasible only if the "significant load" can't use all available cores...

Ah, you still insist of laying out every detail of a chip we don't know much about...
My idea of a "significant load" is threads that will push a core to 100%. Games, web browsing, office stuff doesn't multithread indefinitely and are better served by faster cores. Since I'm not buying cores by the pound (any more than I bought GHz by the pound back in P4 days), I tend to pick fewer cores that can actually sustain higher frequencies. This is also part of why I hate laptops and their throttling CPUs, but that's another story.

Basically I was thinking of a few CPU intensive threads, while you were thinking about load made up of many lighter loaded threads. I believe that was our disconnect.

 

[GoldenX]

The only reason to make a low-power CPU drawing 35-45W (vs "normal" 65W) is to meet cooling limits of USFF cases (especially those passively cooled).
But this CPU has no IGP, so it's not suitable for existing USFF systems.
Maybe we don't know something. Maybe AMD has an awesome deal with OEMs, who will make mini PCs with GPU on mobo. This could happen.

What about just having something with good performance but a low power consumption? I would love to have that CPU with something like a 1050ti.

 

[notb]

What about just having something with good performance but a low power consumption? I would love to have that CPU with something like a 1050ti.

Do those 20W (alleged) make such a difference to you?
Remember it's just TDP. You CPU uses a lot less most of the time. And when it get near (or past...) TDP in tasks like gaming, it's because it needs that power.
You, precisely, can just buy a normal Ryzen 7 and downclock it to lower power consumption. Every consumer can. AMD could even bundle an app that lets you quickly move between TDP levels.

35W - 45W exist to meet USFF cooling capabilities. So that a large Excel spreadsheet or SAS program doesn't fry the system.
And the other nice thing is that a system built around a 35W CPU can easily be squeezed under 65W and, as a result, it can be powered with an ordinary 65W notebook charger (ubiquitous in offices).

 

[GoldenX]

Do those 20W (alleged) make such a difference to you?
Remember it's just TDP. You CPU uses a lot less most of the time. And when it get near (or past...) TDP in tasks like gaming, it's because it needs that power.
You, precisely, can just buy a normal Ryzen 7 and downclock it to lower power consumption. Every consumer can. AMD could even bundle an app that lets you quickly move between TDP levels.

35W - 45W exist to meet USFF cooling capabilities. So that a large Excel spreadsheet or SAS program doesn't fry the system.
And the other nice thing is that a system built around a 35W CPU can easily be squeezed under 65W and, as a result, it can be powered with an ordinary 65W notebook charger (ubiquitous in offices).

Yes, you can undervolt manually, but IIRC it removes the turbo boost, as it's considered overclocking by the bios.
Mmm, 35w 6 core APU. One can dream.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Too late. 2500X was on my cards but.... 2600X already in my system now.

... to play games that use 4-6 cores

Dude, since 2015, game like FO4 gobbles up 12 threads & of course all 6 cores on my 2600X system already.

 

[notb]

Dude, since 2015, game like FO4 gobbles up 12 threads & of course all 6 cores on my 2600X system already.

Does it? How many %?

 

[GoldenX]

We've seen quad cores stutter compared to hexas on games nowdays, that's why a quad core is an i3 now, not an i5 with HT.

 

[notb]

We've seen quad cores stutter compared to hexas on games nowdays, that's why a quad core is an i3 now, not an i5 with HT.

I think you're greatly overestimating gaming importance. :-D
We're getting more cores simply because Intel and AMD hit a performance wall and suddenly making more cores was cheaper than making faster ones.
Once you move past 2 cores (which profoundly improves PC use comfort), more cores is always worse, because there's more potential wasted on just supporting the architecture.

If your life expectancy at this point is beyond 30 years, it's very likely you'll see 2/4-core CPUs' comeback. Also in HPC (if not especially there).

 

[silentbogo]

Do you really want to put low-power CPU variant into a "high-performance workstation"?

It's not like we've never had Dell/HP/Lenovo workstations without iGPU before. Only now instead of overpriced 45-65W Xeons we get more or less reasonably priced E-series Ryzen.
At least 2 of my customers can benefit from it. One is a webdev company, who's PCs usually include a low-end dGPU solely for multi-display functionality (you may not believe it, but it's nearly impossible to find a motherboard with 3 digital display outputs in 2018). Having an iGPU just to have it is not a good justification.

We're getting more cores simply because Intel and AMD hit a performance wall and suddenly making more cores was cheaper than making faster ones.
Once you move past 2 cores (which profoundly improves PC use comfort), more cores is always worse, because there's more potential wasted on just supporting the architecture.

That's nonsense. You have a multithreaded OS with a bunch of multithreaded software, you have multithreaded services and multithreaded games, and you are saying that more cores is a wasted potential? Even if you have the fastest-ever dual-core, you ain't gonna get the same multithreaded performance as a quad-core with half the clock speed, because dual-core will waste tons of time on context switching (as a "tech savvy" user you are probably aware of this).

And what does it mean "supporting the architecture", in regards to cores? Is it harder to support a quad-core CPU rather than dual-core? You lost me there...

 

[bug]

That's nonsense. You have a multithreaded OS with a bunch of multithreaded software, you have multithreaded services and multithreaded games, and you are saying that more cores is a wasted potential? Even if you have the fastest-ever dual-core, you ain't gonna get the same multithreaded performance as a quad-core with half the clock speed, because dual-core will waste tons of time on context switching (as a "tech savvy" user you are probably aware of this).

And what does it mean "supporting the architecture", in regards to cores? Is it harder to support a quad-core CPU rather than dual-core? You lost me there...

Open task manager and see how often it shows CPU usage spikes. That'll answer your question.
We've been running hundreds of threads for years, that does not automatically translate into a need for more cores.

 

[phill]

Look forward to seeing the reviews on these CPUs

 

[bug]

Look forward to seeing the reviews on these CPUs

They're OEM parts, there won't be any reviews.

 

[silentbogo]

Open task manager and see how often it shows CPU usage spikes. That'll answer your question.
We've been running hundreds of threads for years, that does not automatically translate into a need for more cores.

I see those spikes just about every day hundred times a day. I'm on i3-6100

 

[phill]

They're OEM parts, there won't be any reviews.

Damn shame

 

[silentbogo]

They're OEM parts, there won't be any reviews.

Bristol Ridge used to be just for OEMs too (when the QTY was limited), but some reviews made it into the public right after HP/Lenovo desktops hit the shelves )))
I'm sure someone's gonna test it right away.