• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Ryzen R5 CPU's, anyone considering one?

It will be interesting to see how they perform. The only thing i'm concerned about is the fact that AMD have said that they will be keeping the CCX setup symmetrical so the six core will have a 3+3 setup and the quad will have a 2+2 setup which means the latency issues will still be their with thread switching between the memory caches. Most were expecting an entire CCX being disabled along with its cache for the 4 core variants which won't be the case.

I don't expect them to clock much better then the R7's either but they will be priced very well and will be strong performers no doubt. They should smash intel in price/performance.
 
The CCX/infinity fabric bandwidth issues are a bit of a concern.

If you disable an entire CCX on the R7 chips so you're running 4+0, do the active cores still access the L3 cache on the disabled CCX?

I'm guessing they do, seeing as the 1500X in a 2+2 config still has access to the full 16MB...
 
Just like NUMA on the servers I work on, the developers will need to factor this in when they are writing code.
 
One of the interesting things I noticed from the Adored video was his observation of if you run anything other than just a game, then a 7700k will start to stutter even though the frame rate is higher. The R7 did not have this issue, and brings hope to the R5 with 6 cores as well. (This was worst case scenario though with Fallout 4).

I'm just struggling to justify a 200 to 300 MB PURELY for the reason that I want a clock gen for the memory. Literally, this is the only reason I wouldn't get a cheaper board right now.
 
Would have been very interesting to see a single CCX quad with 8MB L3 cache to see how it performed.

There does very much seem to be a point at present where the frequency of the chip does nothing, and something else is bottlenecking it.

I am really hoping that for gaming the 6 core chips don't lose too much performance compared to the 8 core. I know it won't be "the best" but whatever I get will be a big step up from my overclocked APU and hopefully better than my old overclocked 2500k.
 
There will be Athlon chips released which may very well be single CCX chips. Might clock higher as well if the data fabric is holding clockspeed back.
 
If the Ryzen 5 series have a bit more overclock headroom I might think about upgrading. I suspect with less cores and higher max clocks the single core performance of the 1600/X chips will be better, while still maintaining good results over multicore performance compaired to the current R7's.

We will have to wait and see though..
 
Guaranteed clocks no hassle = 1600X. Prepared to do some work and get better value = 1600.

And yes... same question as amigafan2003... source of the single CCX chip news please? (I read elsewhere that AMD had said the upcoming R5's would all be 2 + 2, 3 + 3 etc... no 'funny business' as they put it.
 
May be interested when I build my daughter her first PC later this year. Otherwise doesnt look like a worthwhile upgrade from my 3570k.

(Or I stealth upgrade my PC and give her my old bits :p)
 
Still waiting on the Taichi board I ordered on 22nd Feb to go with my 3 week old R7 1700, but must admit I'm tempted to get the 1500 to see how that goes.
 
Sent my 1700 back as it was coming up to the 14 day period, and still no motherboards. Going to wait for the 1600X now and see how the mobo situation looks then.

1600X looks to be super value, same clocks as an 1800X, 75% the cores, at half the price, with gaming performance only ~4-5% slower. Bargain.
 
Very encouraged by the pricing on the 6-core models. Assuming they get similar (or better) overclocks to the 8-cores, will be a worthy upgrade for my 2500k. (At last!)

My biggest concern is that they're 8-core units that didn't make the cut and end up being neither unlockable nor overclockable... but I will await reviews before making a decision. Here's hoping I'm pleasantly surprised :)
 
HeX said:
Sent my 1700 back as it was coming up to the 14 day period, and still no motherboards. Going to wait for the 1600X now and see how the mobo situation looks then.

1600X looks to be super value, same clocks as an 1800X, 75% the cores, at half the price, with gaming performance only ~4-5% slower. Bargain.
Click to expand...

Even more so if they can hit 4.2, as some of the defecit will be made up. Could be looking at only a couple of percent difference unless heavily optimised for multicore.
 
Looking at the R5 1400, that only has 8MB L3 cache, even though it was reported that all the R5 would be split designs, I do have to wonder if this will be a single CCX chip.?
 
ljt said:
The 6 core R5's are on my radar as an upgrade from my 3570k. Will wait for reviews first though as I will never pre-order. I would never buy another 4 core though now, as it wouldn't feel like an upgrade, especially on intels pricing.



Depends on how you quantify "much higher". You may get an extra 100-200Mhz max. It seems to be the architecture that hits its limit rather than due to temperatures/voltages (on air and water anyway)
Click to expand...

I dont think its an architecture limit but rather a process node limitation. Not that 14nm cant go higher but AMD have had to play catch up on this new node while Intel have had plenty of time refining their experiencing and results while also owning the fabs. I think once Global Foundries have gotten better at it and perhaps with some refinements from AMDs side as well clocks should be able to go higher. This is of course just speculation on my part. I have no solid info to base it on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom