Thats the thing - so many full sized motherboards and not ONE mini-ITX one.
Seriously,Intel has nothing they can do about a Ryzen 8C/16T CPU in a mini-ITX system.
Intel has far more leeway to adjust prices,etc to target Ryzen in normal ATX systems.
The socket 2011 mini-ITX motherboards are rare,expensive and probably more difficult to engineer than their socket 1151 counterparts.
Ryzen being an SOC means its perfect for a mini-ITX motherboard - not only for an SFF gaming PC,but for things like a compact server,a system for virtualisation,etc.
Why AMD,why do you do such things?? Such a missed opportunity.
Edit!!
Thats the thing - any platform advantages X99 has over AM4 won't be that useful in a mini-ITX system either,ie,more PCI-E lanes,or SATA ports,etc.
This has nothing to do with AMD. Vendors are pouring a certain amount of resources into a platform in its infancy. SKUs such as this (ITX) simply take a back seat. So your distain at the lack of availability at launch is misdirected, if anything. You can expect some teething issues as it is.
Also, Asrock have an ITX SKU for X99 which you can pair with a 10 core part. So “nothing they can do” is typically melodramatic.
Furthermore;
1) The Asrock board is inexpensive compared to other boards in the line-up.
2) It has nothing to do with the engineering aspect being “more difficult” as to why there are few.
3) Vendors simply don’t see the value in a mini ITX workstation (given you also lose 2 memory channels also in the case of Intel’s platform).
4) Given the shorter signal trace and power plane, performance is generally at a marginal advantage in some areas. There simply isn’t enough call for that SKU on the X99 platform. Hence the lack of availability.
Also,a 4.2GHZ Ryzen SKU spotted in China:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/am...libility.html?
Its priced at $290.
Edit!!
I wonder if that is the top bin 6C/12T SKU??
4/8. The P/N and listings leaked represent the dynamic boost clock.
I've nabbed a couple sticks of the avexir ram in the sale, suspect it will be a while before we see ram this cheap again.
My basket at Overclockers UK:
• 1 x Avexir Core White Series 32GB (2x16GB) DDR4 PC4-19200C16 2400MHz Dual Channel Kit (AVD4UZ124001616G-= £149.99
Total: £158.69
(includes shipping: £8.70)
Hopefully ryzen is good and ITX motherboards aren't far behind, otherwise these are going to be sitting on the shelf for a while
Buying memory kits now for an infant platform that is yet to appear is ill-advised. There is no public available documentation for memory kit validation, plus you obviously don’t know what motherboard you will purchase yet.
So as long as OCUK have no issues with you returning it on that basis if it doesn’t work…
AMD compared Zen with Intel’s 14 nm generation CPU. Zen is also a 14 nm process, but the process feature size is very different from Intel 14 nm. Intel is as small as 89% for CPP (Contacted Poly Pitch) with gate spacing and 81% for 1 x Metal Pitch showing wire spacing. In other words, the Intel process is more dense. Even for SRAM cell size, Intel is as small as 72%. Nonetheless, the cluster size of 4 CPU cores and 8 MB L3 cache is as small as 44 square mm for Intel’s 49 square mm. There are reasons such as small floating point arithmetic unit, but it is also suggested that AMD has lower design complexity.
At ISSCC AMD has also released first die shot of quad-core Zen CPU, so have a look at those slides: Source VideocardZ
There are a few take-aways worth noting that I’m guessing people here won’t spot in amongst all their excitement. Per-core frequency and voltage control for instance; Something that might be worth investing time dialling in on the higher core SKUs.
But even at this level, most users have trouble dialling in a single voltage. Which is why it’s never really mentioned as being an option on BWE or KBL (even though it is).
Point being really, these slides are meaningless to most here. Performance is what matters, and you won’t have to wait long to find out…
It looks like the TDP is higher on the 1700X too 65w vs 95w. That seems like a big jump just for 100Mhz so I wonder if they simply clock better.
Correct, the figure represents the dynamic turbo frequency. The concurrent voltage scaling is what results in the greater power draw. Pretty self-evident to anyone that understands the relationship. I won’t comment too much again on the overclocking range, just don’t go expecting too much.
(Names removed to avoid any distress on the playground, happy hunting!)
