Why there won’t be 5700x CPU

[FoxEye]

Testing Ryzen 9 with SMT On vs. SMT Off (techspot.com)

Well the testing with SMT off and on is a pretty mixed bag here. Scroll down because the top two bar charts are not the whole story

 

[pc-guy]

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


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.

Right I am gonna forget about those 4c skus cos they make little sense to me in terms of your proposed pricing.

Anyway £50 off from MRRP and loss of 50% logical cores while gaining say another 5% in performance seems a steep price to pay. I mean if on those pricing then why not. Clearly huge profit to make.

My point is that very few people will want a 6C6T sku. 8C8T has some arguments tbh as most games aren’t core heavy only a few titles currently enjoy decent performance lift from having more cores.

 

[pc-guy]

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?.

He is saying SMT off you can clock the CPU higher. So SMT on - lower single core clocks and SMT off - higher single core clocks (which you probably need to manually change some setting in bios to allow the CPU to boost even more I suppose).

 

[FoxEye]

He is saying SMT off you can clock the CPU higher. So SMT on - lower single core clocks and SMT off - higher single core clocks (which you probably need to manually change some setting in bios to allow the CPU to boost even more I suppose).

He's saying that turning SMT off reduces heat.

But shouldn't you see gains in every CPU (with a boost function) by turning SMT off if it was a guaranteed win?

You'd then have more thermal headroom and the ability to boost higher on more cores.

So just turning SMT off should benefit existing CPUs as well as his proposed G CPUs.

But the testing does not reveal this to be the case, so far.

 

[pc-guy]

He's saying that turning SMT off reduces heat.

But shouldn't you see gains in every CPU (with a boost function) by turning SMT off if it was a guaranteed win?

You'd then have more thermal headroom and the ability to boost higher on more cores.

So just turning SMT off should benefit existing CPUs as well as his proposed G CPUs.

But the testing does not reveal this to be the case, so far.

he is not techinically wrong, but i suspect there is far more to it than just switching it off and let the CPU manage its thermal headroom. the PBO is done based on some kind of ceiling value and also some sort of in-built boost table.

I dont know if there is any way of altering those to suit SMT off situation other than BIOS changing the thermal envelop or disabling PBO and do per core manual clocking via Ryzen Master.

its all hyperthetical anyways, and technically AMD can product non-SMT chips that can clock way more than current crop to market it as gaming skus. but the appeal of those to people is another debate.

 

[Joxeon]

Turning off SMT doesn't seem to effect boost or max manual OC with my sample.

 

[pc-guy]

Turning off SMT doesn't seem to effect boost or max manual OC with my sample.

i dont think it will under PBO as the boost table is built into the CPU and BIOS. the only way to really see if that makes a different is to do per core overclocking.

too complicated and time consuming to test really.

i think most poeple will find 8 thread is really the minimum requirement for gaming these days to ensure that 1% FPS isnt suffering @ 1080p for instance. switching SMT off on lower core count sku doesnt give a good gaming experience @ 1080p, just ask those with older haswell and skylake i5s...

 

[queamin]

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

I agree with this, if they release a 4c for £200, I can go intel no problem at all.
The £200 section is big and Intel at that price point are not that bad, the £140 to £210 look quite good, the 10400 is a good chip at that price.