Why there won’t be 5700x CPU

[PeegeeTips]

Why would AMD regress their architecture and reintroduce the latency penalty that hampered Zen 2's potential?

because they want to keep pushing core counts (when DDR5 gives them enough additional b/w to benefit from more cores).

and CCX/CCD allows them to iterate design this way easily (which if it wasn't necessary wouldn't have continued for 2.5 generations of Zen architecture).

 

[MagicBoy]

Only came in here to comment on the clickbait title.

JUST DON'T.

 

[LePhuronn]

because they want to keep pushing core counts (when DDR5 gives them enough additional b/w to benefit from more cores).

and CCX/CCD allows them to iterate design this way easily (which if it wasn't necessary wouldn't have continued for 2.5 generations of Zen architecture).

That's pretty much a no to everything you just said.

 

[Journey]

The 5700X will be released in Q1 next year, along with the 5600-nonX and some OEM specific SKU's. Milan is due out in the next few weeks, so that is top priority and they have a grace period up until March for 11th Gen Intel parts. There is no panic for AMD to do anything, seemingly only for impatient people/buyers with lower budgets who think there is a right for specific parts to be launched for them.

 

[valerislysander]

There will be a 5700X eventually. They will just milk the 5800X first
For me £400+ is far to much for a CPU for gaming so I'm looking at the 5600X which will be fine with 6c/12t but I might be forced to wait until Jan due to stock and I'm sure by then a 5700X will out at £380?

 

[FoxEye]

The 5700X will be released in Q1 next year, along with the 5600-nonX and some OEM specific SKU's. Milan is due out in the next few weeks, so that is top priority and they have a grace period up until March for 11th Gen Intel parts. There is no panic for AMD to do anything, seemingly only for impatient people/buyers with lower budgets who think there is a right for specific parts to be launched for them.

Heh. AMD are welcome NOT to release any lower priced SKUs if that's what they want. If they want to hand that entire market segment to Intel because they don't want "lower budget" customers, then I wish them all the best with their new strategy

I think it's comical, the idea that suddenly the customer is at fault here, for expecting that AMD would release something for them to buy

 

[Journey]

Heh. AMD are welcome NOT to release any lower priced SKUs if that's what they want. If they want to hand that entire market segment to Intel because they don't want "lower budget" customers, then I wish them all the best with their new strategy

I think it's comical, the idea that suddenly the customer is at fault here, for expecting that AMD would release something for them to buy

Once again missing the point, if I wanted a £25,000 Ferrari what choice do I have, errr none but do I complain? Am I a customer if I bought nothing from them? You have not bough an AMD product you are not their customer, therefore the customer isn't at fault just the people who feel entitled.

 

[IceWolf]

Sorry, I mixed up CCX and CCD. Ryzen 2 had 2 CCX per CCD, and the 12 and 16 core parts had 2x CCD. The Ryzen 3 have a unified 8 core CCD with 1 block of memory rather than 2 (1 per CCX) but the higher core parts still have 2 CCDs with separate memory and a number of core disabled on each. So they still suffer from more latency than the 5600X and 5800X which only have 1 CCD.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ha...x-and-ccd-in-a-ryzen-processor-explained/amp/

 

[benparker]

I agree with OP, AMD in the driving seat now.

 

[LePhuronn]

Sorry, I mixed up CCX and CCD.

It's easily done

...So they still suffer from more latency than the 5600X and 5800X which only have 1 CCD.

Do they though?

A chiplet has to talk to the IO die regardless of how many chiplets there are on the package, so there's no reason why the latency from chiplet to IO die in the single-CCD models would be any lower than the dual CCD models (or 4-8 CCD Threadrippers and EPYCs, assuming equidistance placement of chiplets on the substrate). If you loaded up 6 cores of a single chiplet, the latency between the cores and between the chiplet and IO die would be the same in all 4 SKUs.

In workloads where 1 CCD needs to communicate with the other another CCD then yes there's going to be additional latency from 4 traversals over the IO die instead of 2, but I don't think it's accurate to say the 5900X and 5950X inherently have greater latency purely from the existence of a 2nd chiplet.

And then there's the rumour of a massive wedge of L4 cache on the IO die with Zen 4...

 

[FoxEye]

Once again missing the point, if I wanted a £25,000 Ferrari what choice do I have, errr none but do I complain? Am I a customer if I bought nothing from them? You have not bough an AMD product you are not their customer, therefore the customer isn't at fault just the people who feel entitled.

Probably because you're struggling to make one (a point).

I'm not a Ferrari customer and will never buy anything from them, most likely. I have, however, bought multiple AMD products in the past. I'm certainly a potential AMD customer, if they sort their pricing out.

Like I said, if they choose not to release any (new) CPUs for less than £300 that's entirely their call. I just won't be buying from them (in future) is all. Then you will be correct - they will have lost me as a customer, if they only produce CPUs for £300 or more. Or if they (e.g.) only offer dual cores for <£300. Yadda yadda.

This isn't a position of "entitlement", unless you are extremely pro-AMD and view everything as a threat to your most beloved, most favouritist company.

It's actually just a position of deciding how much I want to spend and sticking to it.

 

[IceWolf]

In the past product stacks have often launched in stages due to production volume with high end parts launching first followed by lower end parts over 6 months. As I said earlier depending upon yields it may be that there are not enough failed CCDs with less than 6 functional cores out of 8 due to improved 7nm yields. So disabling working cores to sell as a 4CCD + 4CCD 3700X doesn't make sense until they have enough poor binned chiplets to use.

Running 2x CCD does increase latency hence the 5800X occasionally beating the 5900X in a couple of games despite lower clock speeds and core counts. The 5600, 5800 are single CCD and the 5900 and 5950 have usually enough increased power, cores and clockspeed to still come out on top. But since their latency argument is a big selling point at the Ryzen 5000 launch, releasing a part with worse latency would undermine their IPC gains vs Intel for marketing. (Of note latency with 2 combined memory CCDs in Ryzen 5000 series is still better than in Ryzen 3000 with 2x CCX per CCD, split memory cache and 2x CCD for the 12 and 16 core parts.)

The 5800X also runs hottest from having all its cores on one half of the die whereas the bigger and faster parts are cooler despite higher TDP. A 5700X might run cooler and therefore make the 5800X look like a worse value proposition, though it could also be beaten in raw fps by the 5600X due to worse latency.

My guess would be a 5700 non-X as a budget 8 core option after 3-6 months. Since the estimated delivery date for my launch day 5800X is late January in 2.5 months, I doubt they will be rushing to release more products right away, especially whilst Ryzen 3000 is available for the lower end of the market for now. But saying they will never release a sub £300 CPU again seems a bit far fetched. All depends on Intel in March and what AMD needs to release to counter it / price reductions on the recently released CPUs to remain competitive.

 

[chrcoluk]

I think there will be a 5700 but it wont be at same price as 3700, the 5600X is priced too high for that.

 

[clv101]

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.

I think we will see a ~$200-230 5600 chip, just slightly slower clocks than the 5600X and yes it will decimate the 5600X sales - BUT it won't be for a few months, say April. The 5600X will have made its money by then and it will ensure AMD keep the gaming/value crown when Rocket Lake drops.

 

[LeMson]

I think they have looked at intels 2015 pricing and based it all off that , £300 for a 6 core lulz

 

[Joxeon]

Since the estimated delivery date for my launch day 5800X is late January in 2.5 months

HW unboxed was claiming this isn't a paper launch and chips should be readily available in shops to buy within a month so if indeed the lead time is 2.5months then that's looks pretty damning for AMD.

 

[Pourma]

I think there is room for Gaming focus'd chips which come in a little less than the current. Here is my take below.

R3G - 4 Core 4 Thread 4.4 ghz base

R5G 5600G - 6 core 6 thread Base 4.4ghz clock

R7G 5700G - 8 core 8 thread base 4.6ghz

I think they can still leverage their super low TDP to make some chips which are faster on paper and sell those.

Using the G suffix would explain why they end up scoring slightly better in gaming benchmarks. Would also help solidify the gaming first thing.

 

[Joxeon]

I think there is room for Gaming focus'd chips which come in a little less than the current. Here is my take below.

R3G - 4 Core 4 Thread 4.4 ghz base

R5G 5600G - 6 core 6 thread Base 4.4ghz clock

R7G 5700G - 8 core 8 thread base 4.6ghz

I think they can still leverage their super low TDP to make some chips which are faster on paper and sell those.

Using the G suffix would explain why they end up scoring slightly better in gaming benchmarks. Would also help solidify the gaming first thing.

By cutting SMT AMDs morph into Intel could be complete.

 

[Pourma]

By cutting SMT AMDs morph into Intel could be complete.

The non G variant would still exist though. The choice is up to the consumer UNLIKE Intel which locked it off arbitrarily. The point here is to actually leverage low TDP's to bring the base clock higher due to the lack of SMT. Gaming doesn't need HT and everyone knows this.

Picture the possibly pricing, it allows them to expand their SKU lineup without competing with themselves.

 

[pc-guy]

i think it will make sense to create market segmentation with SMT switched on and switched off only if AMD end up with a lot of poor cores or low bin cores that cant run 2T

otherwise arbitarily switching off SMT whilst the base cost of producing that piece of silicon remains the same makes very little financial sense. they would have been better just out of the box advertise lower clock speeds for 6c and 8c parts and ask for less money but still keeping their margin