Why there won’t be 5700x CPU

[Pourma]

Most will be able to run 2T.

It's about creating a different line of products where there currently isn't one. You don't want a 5900x customer buying a 5600G. You do want a 10400F customer buying the 5600G. How else do you get there but by offering a better product than the competition. Clock speeds let you win in gaming, one of the easiest ways to increase those speeds is to turn off SMT.

It doesn't matter that the cores can do it. What matters is the absolute cost of the individual bits of silicon and if it's profitable to split the SKU in that way. Which I think is true. £250 5600G would win 6 core 6 thread with high base clock

 

[PeegeeTips]

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

you're going to add a little detail to that - explaining why this is the case...?

 

[pc-guy]

Most will be able to run 2T.

It's about creating a different line of products where there currently isn't one. You don't want a 5900x customer buying a 5600G. You do want a 10400F customer buying the 5600G. How else do you get there but by offering a better product than the competition. Clock speeds let you win in gaming, one of the easiest ways to increase those speeds is to turn off SMT.

It doesn't matter that the cores can do it. What matters is the absolute cost of the individual bits of silicon and if it's profitable to split the SKU in that way. Which I think is true. £250 5600G would win 6 core 6 thread with high base clock

I can see your point but I don’t think AMD will switch off SMT even for the low end parts. Even the 3100 has SMT and competes with the 10400F on pricing fairly aggressively.

People looking at 4c cheapy parts for gaming will want SMT.

there will however be a huge market for 4c 1T APUs for thinks like HTPC, NAS builds or tiny ITX on all the time low power builds even barebone systems. Currently that market is pure intel atm. I would personally love to have a 4C (with SMT) 25w APU tho. That would be epic.

 

[Pourma]

I can see your point but I don’t think AMD will switch off SMT even for the low end parts. Even the 3100 has SMT and competes with the 10400F on pricing fairly aggressively.

People looking at 4c cheapy parts for gaming will want SMT.

there will however be a huge market for 4c 1T APUs for thinks like HTPC, NAS builds or tiny ITX on all the time low power builds even barebone systems. Currently that market is pure intel atm. I would personally love to have a 4C (with SMT) 25w APU tho. That would be epic.

I honestly don't think you are listening to the argument I am making.

I am NOT saying that AMD should remove SMT from it's entire line up. If you want SMT then pay extra for it.

What I am picturing is a G line of products which focus entirely on gaming performance... HT doesn't have a leg in that race and it DOES restrict the possible clock speeds and thus yields of cores which can reach X speed.

All that AMD have to do to create interest in SMT OFF CPU's is to show benchmarks where the G variant which is cheaper out performs the X variant by a tiny amount.

You say the cheap market want 4 core 8 thread....Not at all. They want whatever will give them the best FPS at a low cost. With R3 in the past, the mindset was "pay small for what used to be the I7 spec". However, if you show some gamers a 4 core 4 thread chip which out performs the 4 core 8 thread chip in basically every game... then they will want the 4 core 4 thread.

By turning off SMT AMD can basically garuntee a high minimum clock speed for the Gaming market.

If they don't sell then AMD can just discontinue them next year. But I imagine they would sell.

 

[Joxeon]

I am NOT saying that AMD should remove SMT from it's entire line up. If you want SMT then pay extra for it.

Still that would look really bad when Intel had the same philosophy when they were on top.

 

[Pourma]

Still that would look really bad when Intel had the same philosophy when they were on top.

No they didn't

Intel did not seperate General Use CPU's from Gaming CPU's in anyway other than the K variant which was unlocked vs locked. I am NOT saying they should lock processor speeds.

What I am suggesting is that SMT is NOT a feature that is relevant in gaming and actually holds a chip back. Therefore if you want to focus on gaming, release variants with higher clock speeds at the expense of the no SMT.

EDIT: If AMD are going to be the industry leader then they need to start going first at things. Intel didn't do this what so ever previously. They locked HT away behind the i7 and there was no i9 back then either.

I am not suggesting that only R7 & R9 get SMT. SMT can go across the whole X lineup from 5100X to 5950X. I am suggesting that a G variant also be a thing which has higher clock speeds which are afforded to it by no SMT power hogging.

 

[pc-guy]

I honestly don't think you are listening to the argument I am making.

I am NOT saying that AMD should remove SMT from it's entire line up. If you want SMT then pay extra for it.

disagree there mate. The most popular CPU is the 3600 and 3700x from AMD and within the intel camp it is the i5 and i7 K parts. Don’t think anyone is buying i3 F parts at all and very few are buying the other F and non K parts. Basically people want SMT for whatever reason.

 

[Joxeon]

No they didn't

Intel did not seperate General Use CPU's from Gaming CPU's in anyway other than the K variant which was unlocked vs locked. I am NOT saying they should lock processor speeds.

What I am suggesting is that SMT is NOT a feature that is relevant in gaming.

The 9700K 8/8 the 9900K 8/16 the 8600K 6/6 the 8700K 6/12 are examples of how Intel charged more for hyperthreading.

SMT is a feature that is relevant to gaming especially so with a 6 core CPU.

 

[LePhuronn]

you're going to add a little detail to that - explaining why this is the case...?

I'm surprised detail is required because I would've thought it was blindingly obvious it is a massive step backwards. The split CCX design was never a "necessity" of Zen, it was a design choice at the beginning that they iterated out of over the generations. The improvements for Zen+ were low hanging fruit; there were more performant things to fix than worrying about inter-CCX latency. Then the big conceptual change of MCM came in, again more important to scalability and profitability than worrying about the split CCX design; performance was still perfectly fine so get the concept of multi-chiplet assembly working first. Then with all that working, it's time to redesign the CCX to eliminate that big bottleneck.

We're not talking GCN here, clearly Zen is not limited to a 4 core CCX design because Zen 3 has an 8 core one, and the benefits from eliminating that latency have just escalated single thread performance to the point AMD have utterly humiliated Intel in every conceivable metric. And yet you're saying AMD have to stick with 8 core CCX when pushing core counts up again, and reintroducing the very issue you claim took them 3 generations to eliminate? You are aware that makes no sense, yeah?

if AMD move to a 10 core chiplet on Zen 4 to boost core counts, they'll just make a 10 core CCX. There is literally nothing to gain by regressing their design concept by reintroducing inter-CCX latency by splitting a chiplet in half.

 

[Pourma]

disagree there mate. The most popular CPU is the 3600 and 3700x from AMD and within the intel camp it is the i5 and i7 K parts. Don’t think anyone is buying i3 F parts at all and very few are buying the other F and non K parts. Basically people want SMT for whatever reason.

Sorry, but your point doesn't exist. Why? Because I am not advocating for the removal of the parts that have thus far been announced.

 

[Pourma]

The 9700K 8/8 the 9900K 8/16 the 8600K 6/6 the 8700K 6/12 are examples of how Intel charged more for hyperthreading.

SMT is a feature that is relevant to gaming especially so with a 6 core CPU.

Your example is literally what I said though? you listed a bunch of CPU's as if they exist across a product stack. They are all I7 and I9's which IS NOT what I am advocating. In fact I specifically said that SMT would exist from 5100X to 5950X. As a user you are being given a choice. How is that ANYTHING like what Intel did, by locking HT behind their high tier chips.

Can we at least agree on some basic FACTS. CPU's with SMT off can achieve higher scores in gaming work loads... Once we all agree on that, I dont't see why you can't see the benefit of releasing a Gaming line of CPU's which are FASTER than the non G variant (not like the trade off is in one direction) and are cheaper than the X variant.

SMT doesn't help a 6 core CPU as much as turning off SMT and allocating that extra power to faster clocks. There will be SOME games which like more cores... but luckily for the consumer.... they can still buy the X variant instead.

What you are doing is advocating for LESS consumer choice not more. You do realise that right?

 

[pc-guy]

Sorry, but your point doesn't exist. Why? Because I am not advocating for the removal of the parts that have thus far been announced.

The point is that why create something (like intel does arbitrarily) for a market that no one wants or cares about.

for years intel didn’t give us HT and reserved HT for high end i7 and i9. That’s because there is no alternative. Now there is competition, doing something like that isn’t going to help a company to build market share. It will just be slated for being stupid. OEM won’t even be interested in those SKUs. Maybe barebone systems only.

 

[Pourma]

The point is that why create something (like intel does arbitrarily) for a market that no one wants or cares about.

for years intel didn’t give us HT and reserved HT for high end i7 and i9. That’s because there is no alternative. Now there is competition, doing something like that isn’t going to help a company to build market share. It will just be slated for being stupid. OEM won’t even be interested in those SKUs. Maybe barebone systems only.

Please argue against what I'm actually saying.

SMT off allows for better clock speeds. This is an undisputable fact.

If AMD sell No SMT cpu's they would run FASTER (than the X varient).

All you are doing is going "BUT INTEL" without actually going further.

Are you suggesting that the i5 6600 had a faster clock than the i7 6700... Because it didn't.

Did intel have a 6600 that was HT and one that wasn't... NOOO.

So please actually debate on what's being discussed, instead of just going "but intel" as if it's an argument.

 

[pc-guy]

Please argue against what I'm actually saying.

SMT off allows for better clock speeds. This is an undisputable fact.

If AMD sell No SMT cpu's they would run FASTER (than the X varient).

All you are doing is going "BUT INTEL" without actually going further.

Are you suggesting that the i5 6600 had a faster clock than the i7 6700... Because it didn't.

Did intel have a 6600 that was HT and one that wasn't... NOOO.

So please actually debate on what's being discussed, instead of just going "but intel" as if it's an argument.

No one is going to buy a 4C4T or even 6C6T possibly 8C8T sku even if it can clock 100MHz or 200Mhz higher unless it is ridiculously cheap

4C4T - £60-£70
6C6T - £80-£90
8C8T - £100-£130

AMD ain’t gonna do that from a financial stand point. A) it will take sales away from their PREMIUM SKU which they want to sell to make a tonne of money B) they aren’t making any significant margins on those so why bother.

they may well bring out something similar to the above down the line but the availability is like non-existent (3300X for example) to counter whatever intel may have. But that’s a completely different ball game

 

[Pourma]

Market Share is why

Again you are not thinking how actual consumers think but how an avid enthusiast thinks.

If a benchmark shows a 5300G beating a 5300X in gaming then gamers will buy it. It's that simple. Quoting a frequency difference doesn't matter.

What matters is it's position in the benchmarks. It will lose on productivity and gain in gaming. It will be a cheaper part to compete against the entry level market which is currently (whether you want to believe it or not) is flooded by intel.

Try disconnecting your own perception of the PC component space from what you imagine the avg consumer to be like.

Oh, you talk about margins but seem to forget how AMD even make money in the first place. Binning.

With SMT off you can squeeze more perf out of a cpu. Something binned to the 5300X may be useable in a 5600G.

As this is all imaginary you are just imagining downsides to a venture which costs AMD essentially nothing.

Gaming first... But have SMT on all processors limiting their gaming performance. Sure... You can turn it off... Or you can pay less and have it singed off.

 

[FoxEye]

Apart from one or two known games, is there much evidence that turning SMT off is beneficial for gaming (in general)?

 

[pc-guy]

Market Share is why

Again you are not thinking how actual consumers think but how an avid enthusiast thinks.

If a benchmark shows a 5300G beating a 5300X in gaming then gamers will buy it. It's that simple. Quoting a frequency difference doesn't matter.

those 2 skus dont exist so hard for me to imagine it. say AMD puts out an 8C no SMT SKU at half of the MRP of the 5600X that is able to offer 5% lift on single core perf. then I think there will be loads of poeple want to buy it.

but why would AMD do that...they could just offer 4C8T with no single core perf boost at half of the cost of the 5600X and it wont take away market share of 5600x and it will satisfy those want budget and reasonable perf. intel cant offer anything to compete atm so it is AMD's market really.

 

[Pourma]

Apart from one or two known games, is there much evidence that turning SMT off is beneficial for gaming (in general)?

Every game that benefits from a faster CPU basically benefits from SMT being off.

Ryzen dynamically increases it's clock in line with thermal headroom. SMT increases heat generated. So yes... It's a performance increase in basically every game... Not one or two as you suggest.

I mean we already know this. But for some reason you guys are playing coy. This has been understood for SMT since ryzen 1. And for years in regards to HT in intel.

It uses more power, it makes the core slower for

those 2 skus dont exist so hard for me to imagine it. say AMD puts out an 8C no SMT SKU at half of the MRP of the 5600X that is able to offer 5% lift on single core perf. then I think there will be loads of poeple want to buy it.

but why would AMD do that...they could just offer 4C8T with no single core perf boost at half of the cost of the 5600X and it wont take away market share of 5600x and it will satisfy those want budget and reasonable perf. intel cant offer anything to compete atm so it is AMD's market really.

Dude are you serious. Imagination kinda relies on the thing not existing. I mean... What am I even debating against now.

Who said ANYTHING about 8c t at half the msrp as the 5600x

All you have just done is create a scenario where it wouldn't work.

5300X - 4 Core 8 Thread - £110 (3.4ghz base)
5300G - 4 Core 4 thread - £90 (4.2ghz base)

5600X - 6 Core 12 thread - £299 (3.7 ghz base)
5600G - 6 Core 6 thread - £250 (4.5 ghz base)

5800X - 8 core 16 thread - £450 (3.8ghz base)
5800G - 8 core 8 thread - £390 (4.7ghz base)

In the above lineup with hardly any thinking too it I can see that gamers would go for the 5800G over the 5600X.

Some 5800X users would go to the G. But by and large if you CURRENTLY want 8 cores with ryzen then you also want the threads.

However, a large gaming only audience don't give two ***** about SMT if it makes their game fps lower.

 

[Pourma]

Apart from one or two known games, is there much evidence that turning SMT off is beneficial for gaming (in general)?

Do higher clocks improve performance... That's your question. And it isn't a good one.

 

[Joxeon]

Turning SMT off with my 3600 makes gaming performance decrease in max FPS and especially the 1% lows so I'm not sure why you think SMT off is better?.