38 ms·
AMD Fires Back with 7 New Chips
- piinbinary 5y agoDepending on how the performance vs. Intel shakes out, I could see the Ryzen 5 5500 becoming the new default option for mid-range PC builds
- komuher 5y agoi3-12100f is almost 100 usd cheaper in most builds you would use extra cash for better gpu or just get i5-12400f with the same / lower price and higher clocks but lets wait for benchmarks.
- Retric 5y agoRyzen 5 5500 is a $159 6 core chip. i3-12100f is a 100$ 4 core chip, which should line up with Ryzen 3 4100 at $100 or possibly Ryzen 5 4500 at $129.
- komuher 5y ago5500 is 199$ "Price Street", MSRP is dead for a long time especially for TSMC products.
- BeefWellington 5y ago12100f is $178 right now at Newegg (shipped by third party; Newegg has none): https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i3-12100f-core-i3-12th-gen/p/N82E16819118357 https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i3-12100f-core-i3-12th-gen...
- komuher 5y ago118 usd after VAT here in EU
- meragrin_ 5y agoI can get a 5600x for $210. There is no way the 5500 will be anywhere near close to $199.
- WithinReason 5y agoHow much more expensive are Intel motherboards though?
- throwmeariver1 5y agoDDR4 boards are in the same ballpark as AMD.
- BeefWellington 5y agoIntel boards baseline around $80[1] and AMD boards around $50[2]. [1]: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007627%20601394305%20601361694&Order=1 https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007627%20601394305%20601361... [2]: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625%20601292786%20601312298&Order=1 https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625%20601292786%20601312...
- onli 5y agoFor Intel, those are the cheapest of the cheap boards with the very limited H610 chipset. If you want something acceptable you will pay a lot more. AMD on the other hand has cheap good option with B550 or even B450.
- jeffbee 5y agoI am interested in your belief that most builds needs GPU more than CPU, or that most builds even have GPUs. iGPUs have ~70% of the market. Most builds are going to spend the cash on CPU performance.
- daemoens 5y agoIf you're buying the CPU separately, it means you'll be building the PC yourself, not a prebuilt. Upgrading the GPU instead of the CPU will give you better graphics performance, which is what most of the people building one want. The only reason iGPUs have such a large section of the market is because of people buying regular prebuilt to use as a general computer, not a gaming one.
- jeffbee 5y agoThat's not obviously true to me. Is graphics-intensive gaming - and I would point out that defining "gaming" as GPU-intensive would be too narrow - really that large of a market? I've personally built dozens of PCs and the last time I bought a GPU it was a 3DFX Voodoo.
- noselasd 5y agoHow can we get these vendors to do versioning of their products that we can relate to, or atleast somewhat grasp ?
- gruez 5y agoThe only "new" chip is the X3D one (with 3d v-cache). The others are the same chips as last year, just at a different price point (eg. the 5700X is basically a cheaper version of the 5800X, only being marginally slower).
- zekica 5y agoThey also seem to have released a bunch of CPUs that are APUs with disabled GPUs Ryzen 5 5500 - 5600G with broken and disabled GPU Ryzen 5 4500 - 4600G with broken and disabled GPU Ryzen 5 4100 - 4300G with broken and disabled GPU
- iszomer 5y agoKinda' goes to show the resourcefulnes of salvaging for repurposement based on yields right? Sort of reminds me of the now ancient Black Edition releases with unlockable cores with a big fat YMMV sticker on top.
- paulmd 5y agoit depends on market situation but usually those kinds of SKUs (if they're released worldwide in large volumes) are not related to yields but rather artificially disabled. People hear about binning and assume that every product decision has to be related to binning, but usually it's not, it's just market segmentation. AMD had over 80% of Zen2 chiplets coming off the line with 8 fully-functional cores, and clock bins are generally selected such that most units will pass, by design. And that's at launch, on a new node, in 2019. Numbers have only gotten better over the last 3 years. AMD already has a bin for iGPUs with a defect - it's 5600G/5600U/5600H/etc. And they have 5300G below that allowing even more defects. There's very very few APUs coming off the line with tons of GPU defects but 6 workable cores, or a defective PCIe controller but only a defect in the iGPU part and not the rest, etc. The problem is that AMD has tons of supply of high-binned parts but the lowest demand for those parts. And they have the highest demand for low-binned parts but the lowest supply of those parts. How do you mesh those two curves? Disable cores on a high-binned part and sell it as a lower SKU. That's why those "black edition with unlockable cores" existed - those unlockable cores were locked off for market segmentation. Nowadays they just don't let you turn it back on. (Which isn't to say that none of the 5600X/etc are the result of a dead core/etc - but a lot of them aren't, probably most of them aren't, given the likely >90% yields for 8-core at this point. And you pick your 5600X bin such that most 5800X failures can be sold as 5600X, meaning there's very little that falls through the cracks without being just utterly broken. True binning-generated "we have this pile of chips, let's do something with it" style SKUs tend to have extremely limited availability as a result, it's shit like the Ryzen 4700S or the Ryzen 3100, or the NVIDIA 1650 KO.) Anyway, it's not a coincidence this is coming a few months after the Alder Lake launch. This is market-driven, Alder Lake is not only faster but in many cases it's cheaper as well. AMD coasted a little bit while motherboard supply firmed up for Intel, but they finally have to respond. I'm sure they're selling lots of Milan but consumer marketshare matters too, and AMD is losing steam there with the price increases, with Intel back on top on performance, and with Intel undercutting their pricing heavily.
- JohnTHaller 5y agoI'd love to see proper testing of all the current chips from both AMD and Intel with Specter v2 mitigations applied. Performance hits of up to 50% are being shown in some workloads.
- paulmd 5y agoAMD really also should be benched with KPTI turned on, since they've got a Meltdown-style vulnerability (discovered by the same team) they've left unpatched because "KPTI fixes it", but they also want KPTI off-by-default because it tanks their benchmarks. It also completely breaks KASLR (and that's been broken on AMD for a while thanks to prior work from the same team). https://mlq.me/download/amdprefetch.pdf https://mlq.me/download/amdprefetch.pdf Sadly people don't seem to take AMD vulnerabilities very seriously, Specter/Meltdown were trumpeted from the rooftops but when AMD leaves vulnerable defaults because mitigations would tank their benchmarks then it's fine, and everyone continues to benchmark in vulnerable configurations since it's "manufacturer-recommended". There seems to be a mindset for many that because the initial vulnerabilities didn't affect AMD that they're invulnerable forever.
- throwoutway 5y agoThere will be many mort such security issues. So dual benchmarks should be standardized from here on out: With protections turned on With protections turned off
- jeffbee 5y agoI can't think of anything less relevant for gaming workloads than spec. ex. security. In that use case you'd obviously disable all of the mitigations, to get the highest possible speculative performance.
- kemotep 5y agoThe biggest part of this announcement is the bios updates for 300 series motherboards in my opinion. People who bought into the AM4 ecosystem 5 years ago should be able to update to these brand new zen3 cpus. Have we ever had such a long lived socket and chipset before? Supporting brand new products for 5 years?
- belval 5y agoI bought a 1700 in 2017 when they launched, upgraded to a 3800X 2 years ago and now I might even get to run a 5800X on my B350 board that I paid CA$130 for. This is what good competition looks like. As a customer I love it!
- mikepurvis 5y agoSeriously, yeah— this is great for consumers. Though I wonder if the mobo manufacturers feel quite as thrilled about it.
- belval 5y agoI am sure they aren't BUT it might push them to innovate to make the motherboard itself more interesting? Alternatively, money-wise if I had known that the board might last me 7-8 years I probably would've bought a better one that (probably) has a better margin for Gigabyte. For example, my B350 doesn't have a USB-C port, LAN is only 1Gbps, only one M.2 SSD slot.
- bayindirh 5y ago> LAN is only 1Gbps, only one M.2 SSD slot. How far we've come. I remember having a semi-decent on board 100mbps LAN was only reserved for highest end. Same for M.2.
- nullc 5y ago> How far we've come. I remember having a semi-decent on board 100mbps LAN was only reserved for highest end. These cpus are much more than 10x faster than the CPUs you would have used then. Networking speeds in desktop devices haven't kept pace. Not just with cpu speeds but with storage speeds-- which is particularly obnoxious when you want to use network attached storage. I assume this is due to a mixture of internet and wireless creating an extremely low bandwidth least common denominator and that running >1GB over copper is kinda problematic (finicky, power hungry, etc) -- and the industry seems to reason (perhaps correctly) the the customers in this segment can't handle fiber. I personally have 40GBE attached desktops (and 100gbe attached stuff within the server rack)-- thankfully quite economically due to surplus enterprise hardware, so I'm well aware that it can be done... but to do it in a small formfactor system is still a problem, e.g. for any of these non-apu systems your normal mini itx systems will use all their slot space for a graphics card and not have room for a mellanox adapter.
- leguminous 5y agoThe differences between the 5600 and 5500 are interesting. The $199 5600 has 6 cores, 32MB of L3, no GPU, and uses the chiplet packaging. The $159 5500 has 6 cores, 16MB of L3, a disabled/fused off GPU, and is one larger, monolithic die. I thought the chiplet packaging was supposed to result in lower costs due to better yields on smaller dies? I guess the extra cache takes up more than enough die space to make up for that?
- Symmetry 5y agoThe yield issue is going to be much more of a factor when a process node is young and defect rates are high. The big savings is in engineering hours where you can re-use a design across multiple products.
- faluzure 5y agoThe 5500 is less performant, therefore lower cost. It only exists to sell salvaged dies, and won't likely appear in large quantities (similar to how the 3300 / 3100 were impossible to find).
- meragrin_ 5y agoNone of their chiplet designs currently have GPU. All of their APUs are currently monolithic. The 5500 is just a neutered 5600g. Probably mainly trying make some money on dies with bad GPUs.
- blihp 5y agoEverything I've been reading has been that 7nm has been having excellent yields and chiplets do bring their own costs. Lisa Su (AMD CEO) indicated in an interview a while back that there is a price floor at which chiplets make sense. Another thing to consider is that most of the chiplets used in the consumer parts could be considered rejects from Epyc. (i.e. they need to make a lot of relative duds to get the small number of 'golden samples' they use in their server chips)
- xxs 5y ago5500 is APU based, and it has only PCIe-3... you can consider it a failed laptop sale.
- stevespang 5y ago
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoLower clock speeds but more cache. Also interesting that they stopped at the 8-core chips and aren’t adding the cache to the 12 and 16 core parts. It looks like the extra cache die isn’t good for thermals, so maybe it’s not viable on the 12 and 16-core chips without sacrificing too much clock speed. Looks to be a strictly gaming-focused CPU play. Not a bad move given the way the enthusiast market works, but it doesn’t do much for a lot of non-gaming workloads.
- zozbot234 5y ago> Looks to be a strictly gaming-focused CPU play. Not a bad move given the way the enthusiast market works, but it doesn’t do much for a lot of non-gaming workloads. How so? 8 cores still covers plenty of light-workstation workloads, where the extra cache should lead to an overall performance improvement (despite the minor drop in top clock speeds). With current software architectures, it's still hard to make full use of 12 to 16 cores.
- paulmd 5y agoyou're rather missing the point about the exclusion of 3D V-cache on the higher-end processors. If it was a productivity-focused play then you'd see it included on those as well. The 5800X is a good processor and it's true that people do productivity on it, nobody disputed that and there's no need to rush to its defense. But you've missed the point about the overall way the upgrade is (or rather, isn't) being rolled out.
- zozbot234 5y agoParent comment pointed out that the whole 3d-cache business might come with challenging thermals on high-core-count desktops. There might be all sorts of technical reasons why V-cache is not being used in this particular segment as of yet.
- paulmd 5y agothermal problems are obvious based on AMD disabling overclocking on the 5800X3D. Even when gains have become minimal, they didn't explicitly disable them, so clearly either potential gains are literally zero, or overclocking might actually damage the cache/lead to conditions where it could be bricked or lead to glitches that might allow control of the PSP (the cache die being separate, and completely exposed, certainly is an interesting attack "surface"). Thermals have always been the giant asterisk on die stacking. Everyone knows it's going to be a problem. But this is the first consumer stacked-die product (that I am aware of?) so we don't really have any sense for overclocking on those processors. The tentative implication here is - bad. Even with a single cache die, it's still got a whole processor underneath it heating it up. There are implications here for GPUs as well, as both AMD and NVIDIA are expected to release stacked-die products next generation. It's looking like they will have to keep clocks under control to make that happen - maybe that is a counter-argument to the "500-600W" rumors (for both brands). But multi-die products have twice the area to dissipate their heat over - just like 5950X doesn't run at higher temperatures than 5800X. Higher power, yes, but twice the area to dissipate it over means thermals are about the same. That's not really the reason. A single-die limitation also wouldn't rule out a 3D version of the 5600X - it's no longer "the bottom of the stack" and finally there are value SKUs underneath it, it would be appropriate to re-release it as a more performance-oriented 5600X3D SKU. Anyway, my personal opinion is this is going to be a very limited product that primarily exists for "homologation". AMD can say that they've released it, it's officially a consumer product, so it can re-establish AMD's place on top of the gaming benchmark charts, but it's going to be a 9900KS-style super-limited SKU that doesn't see any real volume production at least until AMD has sold their fill of Milan-X. It just exists to put AMD back on the top of the benchmark charts now that Intel has retaken it with Alder Lake. The 5800X is the best processor for them to do that. 5950X sets up some small regressions for inter-CCD problems/etc. 5800X is enough for games for now anyway.
- awill 5y agoIs this a sign zen4 is delayed? I get they need new motherboards and socket, and DDR5 etc.., but launching zen3 stuff now is strange. A lot of us already upgraded.
- hajile 5y agoI believe this was always the plan. This is the refresh with the next chips due late this year to early next year.
- blihp 5y agoI don't take it that way. Zen 4 is likely to only release high-end parts at first. Given the timing of these releases, I'd expect Zen 3 to serve as the mid- to low-end of the product range at least through mid- to late-2023 if not longer. Given the way AMD sandbagged these parts this generation, they'll probably hold off as long as possible next generation for low-end Zen 4 too.
- mjevans 5y agoI couldn't get past the scalpers in 2020. That was already a _slightly_ delayed refresh driven by a combination of less than stellar AMD GPUs (Linux, so nVidia's not a good option) and cryptominer hell to that point. It's going to be 2 years later, and at this point I'd rather jump directly from DDR3 to DDR5.
- mastax 5y agoI'm debating whether to buy this. I have an 1800X on a B450 board with DDR4 3000 RAM. I use the PC for gaming and compiling, basically, so I should see huge benefits from the extra cache. I could double my CPU performance and breathe new life into this computer for not much money. However, that computer is getting long in the tooth. The RAM is slow compared to modern stuff. The motherboard is cheap, has poor UEFI, and I zapped the ethernet port with static - destroying it. Do I really want to invest more into it when I could wait 6 months and build an all new PC with DDR5 and Zen 4? It would be a lot more expensive but I have a lot more money now than when I built this computer.
- trillic 5y agoWait, buy some ECC RAM for the old machine and turn it into a home server.
- TheBigSalad 5y ago3000 RAM is good enough. If you upgrade the CPU and GPU you'll get effectively the same performance as any shiny new build and can last another 5+ years. You can get back the ethernet port with a PCI card or USB. That being said, if you can afford it get the shiny new stuff. You deserve it.
- _carbyau_ 5y agoI like this advice. Both practical (I agree with all points) and yet acknowledges the emotions we feel when buying stuff with a side of financial sense.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lvl102 5y agoIt’s hard to justify buying these when you have M1 Max or Ultra in Mac Studio.
- kcb 5y agoThose devices are completely irrelevant to the vast majority considering one of these CPUs.
- lvl102 5y agoFor developers? I beg to differ.
- neogodless 5y agoDid you read the article? The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is being released for gaming performance. I checked and most of the games I've played over the past few years do not even launch on macOS. That's kind of a problem for using Apple Silicon in a gaming PC (among other problems).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cosmiccatnap 5y ago
- nyadesu 5y agoCrazy how people would prefer spending 300 - 450 USD to upgrade a rig they already own, instead of throwing it away and buying a apple device with a new M1 cpu that costs +700 USD
- neogodless 5y agoNot to mention the M1 Max equipped Studio starts at $1999. And can't run most of the games I've played over the past two years. That parent comment was particularly out of place since the 5800XD is a gaming-focused CPU.
- KronisLV 5y agoNot to discount how cool healthy competition is, but i recently got a Ryzen 5 1600 (used), which came out in 2017 and its 6 cores and 12 threads have been enough for every workload that i've wanted to deal with, even in 2022. It was a nice upgrade up from Ryzen 3 1200 that i had previously and honestly, i don't see myself upgrading again for the years to come, unless things become visibly slow and sluggish because of Wirth's law (let's assume that in 2030 most of my desktop apps would run Electron instances). It does gaming, it does programming, it renders videos, it does 3D modelling and other content creation, it compiles code and runs Docker containers and oftentimes multiple of those at the same time with no overclocking and no issues (e.g. render a video in kdenlive while playing a game in the background). Somehow it feels like either hardware has scaled to the point where new improvements are pretty incremental, or maybe software's ability to be wasteful with the provided resources thankfully still hasn't caught up with these improvements - you no longer really need to get a new CPU every 2 or 3 years, even the Ryzen 3 1200 which also came out in 2017 was adequate (i just got a good deal on the upgrade), which is really nice to see! Even my homelab servers still run used Athlon 200GE CPUs from 2018 because of the 35W TDP and are on par with cloud resources that i can otherwise afford for my 24/7 available cloud stuff, just much cheaper when you consider how long they last. Also, there's something really cool about every device in my home (apart from laptops) running on the same CPU socket and all of the parts being interchangeable with no driver update weirdness. Though it'd be even better if the Ryzen CPUs were the variety with iGPUs, given the GPU prices still otherwise being pretty unfortunate (in case my RX 570 would break). The only reasons that i see for upgrading my setup in the next 5 years would be one of the following: - the stocks of used CPUs drying up or prices rising (AliExpress still has them pretty affordable) - the motherboards themselves getting deprecated or there being other unforseen issues Here's hoping that won't happen and that i can enjoy CPUs that are suitable for my needs (and help avoid the e-waste issue at least somewhat), while those more well off financially than me can dabble with the more recent releases to their heart's content!
- culopatin 5y agoFor the first time in 2022 I maxed out the 3600x I got when it came out (2018?). And it wasn’t a game, it was my girlfriends R script to do metabarcoding of some bacteria. 100% usage across every core sustained for 15min. However what shocked me was that my base M1 pro was a few minutes faster. (Same amount of ram) Still fast enough that it’s not worth an upgrade, but we’ll see once she starts transcriptomix
- sliken 5y agoI do wonder if the days of dimms and long lived sockets of AM4 is over. AM4 maxes out at DDR4-3200 x 128 bit = 50GB/sec and more importantly just 2 pending cache misses. A bit more with overclocking, but not much. Apple M1 = 128 bit x LPDDR4X-4266 = 68GB/sec and I believe 8 memory channels (8 pending cache misses). A modest core count (4 fast + 4 slow) helps keep the memory bandwidth from being a bottleneck. The M1 pro doubles this to 256 bits, 16 channels, and 200GB/sec, which is a significant help for the integrated GPU and hits levels that AMD APUs can not match. M1 max doubles again to 512 bits, 32 channels and 400GB/sec. M1 ultra doubles again to 1024 bits, 64 channels, and 800GB/sec. Not sure AMD can really compete and the APUs are severely limited by memory bandwidth, unless you buy a PS5 of XboxX. I'm hoping that AMD takes a page from the Apple playbook and ships a consumer CPU with dramatically more bandwidth and allows users to skip the current curse of discrete GPUs that run hot, are not available at MSRP, and are hard to get even at 2x MSRP.
- bick_nyers 5y agoI think you would find an APU that powerful would suffer the same fate as discrete GPUs in that it would be low-stock and/or expensive. Same thing with the M1 Ultra, starts at $2k it looks like
- sliken 5y agoDunno. Mining is all about hashrate/$ and scalpers are all about the % profit. Seems like AMD could easily make today's APU with 2x the bandwidth (less than 1/5th of the Apple Studio/M1 max) make a tidy profit and provide 2x the APU performance and make the APUs a good fit for a much larger fraction of the GPU intensive applications. Not like they aren't shipping by the millions in the XboxX and PS5, there's obviously a demand for them and AMD is obviously capable of making them (they make the CPU in both).
- GekkePrutser 5y agoToo little too late. The 5600 should have been out from the start. I've basically wasted 100 bucks on the X version I didn't want. Only went for AMD so I could reuse the motherboard. But next time I'll go back to Intel.
- Koiwai 5y agoThose are lower end chips that were hold back to clear older 3000 series stock, so maybe it's a sign those were finally cleared out.