• 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.

Why there won’t be 5700x CPU

Soldato
Joined
29 May 2005
Posts
5,010
Many people are hoping for a cut down cost of the new 8 core or 5700x to bring some kind of cost reconciliation of the new zen3 8c part to the old zen2 8c part. Below is why I don’t think there will be a 3700x equivalent to the new zen3 8c part.

the simple reason is that there is no incentive for AMD to charge less for their 8c sku. The zen3 ccd is a different animal to zen2. Zen2 is two 4c CCX out together so you can have poor quality CCX being lumbered together with a high quality 4c and to cut cost. In the zen3 8c CCX you don’t have that option. All the cores in that 8c needs to be quality so that certainly means the fabrication is more heavily binned against 5600x and 5900x where 6c per CCX means a less successful CCX can still be made into product therefore less “throw away” and more cost effective.

I think the pricing of 5800x is higher per core than the 5950x also makes sense as they have to use really high binned CCX for 5800x to ensure the boosts are hit on a single CCX where in 5950x they have 2 CCX/CCD so one of them is your high bin one and the other can be slightly lower ranked one and still able to sell as a 16c part without falling foul of the advertised boosting.

I think as the TSMC 7nm process matures and their yields get better there may well be a situation there are less less 6c/CCX skus available as there are more successful 8c/CCX part and that’s why you will see potentially diminishing supply of 5600x and 5900x and pricing of 5800x starts to reduce.

on 5600(non x) or some kind of 5400 (4c) sku, those parts will most likely to exist again in maybe relatively small numbers due to the actual cost of bringing those skus to consumer. And they are there purely to counter intel’s i3 and i5 non-k offerings.

what you think?

Hardware unboxed has a section in the 5800x review which I very much agree on in terms of the pricing of 5800x.
 
Does the unified CCX make any difference in terms of binning?

With the dual 4 core design or unified 8 core design only some of those cores need to hit the peak advertised boost clock.
 
Does the unified CCX make any difference in terms of binning?

With the dual 4 core design or unified 8 core design only some of those cores need to hit the peak advertised boost clock.
I would imagine any failed (failed means those can’t hit the supposed boost clock or actual non-functional cores within the 8c CCX) 8c CCX will be binned to 5600x and 5900x.

as you can see from that logical stand point, given statistical probability, a perfect 8core CCX is much harder to come by.
 
I would imagine any failed (failed means those can’t hit the supposed boost clock or actual non-functional cores within the 8c CCX) 8c CCwill be binned to 5600x and 5900x.

That would have been the same situation with Zen 2 though, I don't think the dual 4 core or single 8 core CCD changes that.

One or two defective or very low boosting core across the 8 cores in a chiplet would see it binned as a 6 core chiplet in both Zen 2 or Zen 3.

If anything the dual 4 core CCD of Zen 2 could less fault tolerant than the unified 8 core CCF when there are 2 failed cores. I believe Zen 2 6 core chiplets are in a 3+3 config, so two failed cores on one CCX would mean it couldn't be used as a 6 core part. Whereas this wouldn't happen with Zen 3.
 
Last edited:
If probability of hitting a correctly binned CCX is the same on the 7nm fab for zen2 and zen3 then you have twice as many CCX in zen2 that will be successful due to its smaller 4c CCX than 8c CCX. So you have less 5800x sku. Then you have to yank the prices up to reflect that.

That’s the thinking behind it
 
I watched the hardware unboxed review of the 5800x and agree with what he was saying, same as you.
Like you say, at this stage it seems unlikely AMD will release a 5700x.
I wish they would though, as I'm sure it would be a great seller.
 
I think so for the first gen AM5 at least. 5nm will likely see the move to 16/32 but I have a hunch AMD will at some point fork the desktop parts away.
I think the next AM5 CPU will still be on 7nm albeit the more advanced N7+. The 5nm will be generation after that.

Warhol (after Vermeer) is still meant to be 7nm according to AMD’s road maps.

warhol you will probably see great power efficiency from the N7+ so the chips can clock even faster. And some single digit IPC gain from refinement of architecture. Together delivering double digit performance boost compared with the current zen3. But that performance maybe hindered by DDR5 being immature technology.
 
The boost to performance from improved latency on the single CCX 5800X vs the 2 CCX 5900X seems very minimal and only in a few games. So if AMD end up with enough defective CCXs with only 4 or 5 operable cores they could start sticking them together as a 4/8+4/8 combination 5700X without too much of a performance hit vs the 5800X. Any CCXs with 6 cores functional will be used for 5900X or 5600X parts.

From a temperature point of view the CCXs with disabled cores seem cooler as the 5600X with 6/8 cores active on 1x CCX is 60c under load whereas the 5800X is 73c under load (Source: Guru3d benchmarks temperature graphs). Having said that the 5900X and 5950X were identical at 70c under load despite one having 2 cores disabled on each CCX (6/8+6/8 for the 5900X vs 8/8+8/8 on the 5950X). This could be as not all cores are used so the heat comes from the first 4 cores on each CCX i.e. the heat is spread out better on the 5900X and 5950X as it is coming from both sides of the die whereas the 5800X has all the heat concentrated in 1 half. The 5600X has less cores in the same space as the 5800X and runs slower so makes less heat to start with. I am pretty sure these temperatures correlate with Hardware Unbowed who also had higher temps with the 5800X vs the 5600X and the 5900/5950X.

[Edit: I should have said CCD rather than CCX as Ryzen 3 has 8 core units with shared cache not 4 core units with split cache]
 
Last edited:
if AMD end up with enough defective CCXs with only 4 or 5 operable cores they could start sticking them together as a 4/8+4/8 combination 5700X without too much of a performance hit vs the 5800X. Any CCXs with 6 cores functional will be used for 5900X or 5600X parts.

thats an interesting proposition regarding 4c ccx usage. this will effectively make the 4+4 the same as current zen 2 which will likely to expose the chip to some IF latencies. I think AMD proabbly wont want to do that. they may be pushing those 4c part into ryzen 3 sku such as the 3300x currently.

but never say never...
 
One thing AMD learned from zen 2 is they won't sell many 5600X and 5800X if they release a cheaper 5600 and 5700X so in terms of profit it doesn't make much sense.

The 5600X actually replaces the 3600 as it has the same 65w tdp and cooler but had AMD called it a 5600 non X people would have criticised the large price jump whereas by naming it a 5600X the price increase then doesn't look as bad. A similar thing happened with the 2700 non X 65w tdp being replace by the 3700X 65w and then the 2700X was replaced by the 3800X.

If anything I expect we will see higher binned parts like XT variants replace the 5600X and 5800X and these will come in at the same price or slightly higher than the current parts with those seeing a small price cut.

For anyone hoping for a $200 zen 3 CPU then it will probably end up being a quad core.
 
One thing AMD learned from zen 2 is they won't sell many 5600X and 5800X if they release a cheaper 5600 and 5700X so in terms of profit it doesn't make much sense.

The 5600X actually replaces the 3600 as it has the same 65w tdp and cooler but had AMD called it a 5600 non X people would have criticised the large price jump whereas by naming it a 5600X the price increase then doesn't look as bad. A similar thing happened with the 2700 non X 65w tdp being replace by the 3700X 65w and then the 2700X was replaced by the 3800X.

If anything I expect we will see higher binned parts like XT variants replace the 5600X and 5800X and these will come in at the same price or slightly higher than the current parts with those seeing a small price cut.

For anyone hoping for a $200 zen 3 CPU then it will probably end up being a quad core.

We might see salvaged 5,7 and maybe even 10 core parts. Or maybe just drops after the threadripper and EPYC parts have been covered. The Italian demand will be massive though.

I don’t think AMD need to offer a Zen 3 quad core desktop chip at all.
 
A lot will depend if they want to keep making the Zen2/3000 series.

If they do (keep making them) then we might not see <£300 Zen3 SKUs at all. Effectively then Zen2 and Zen3 become a single, combined offering/range.

If you want a "cheap" Zen you have to buy last gen. It would be cheeky as hell, but I wouldn't put it past them. AMD are not your friend :p
 
The 5800X is not good value in relative comparison to the 5600X that's for sure.

But when you consider it is a £100+ less than a 5900X and 5950X, it does kind of make sense as gaming CPU pick.
As it's a good trade off between price and top tier performance imho.

I know some people disagree with me, and that's fine.

As for a 5700X?
Don't know.

There could be room for a lower clocked 8c if they get the price right.
 
Because that is exactly what they did with the 5900X and it is faster than the 5800X with a single CCX
??? The origina comment was referring to the the split CCX design, not the paired chiplet design. It was having 2 CCXs on a single chiplet that held Zen 2 back, not having multiple chiplets. CCX and chiplet are not the same thing. It would be a tremendous backward step if AMD returned to a split CCX design on a chiplet.
 
Back
Top Bottom