They keep the single core clocks too low to push people towards the 6 cores SKUs but not everybody needs 6 cores and AMD is loosing customers to Intel this way. It will get worse with Skylake gen 3 in a couple of months so they really need to add a 1520.
For the 4 threads SKUs, if AMD keeps waiting and waiting for no reason at all, Intel might offer the first quad at 99$ , since AMD apparently is not all that interested in selling its products. They should try a bit harder with Ryzen, it's not like Vega will save the day - by the time Vega launches it will feel like Bulldozer 2.0.
Ryzen 3 is supposed to launch by the end of Q3, which ends at the end of September. These Ryzen 3 specs posted above look great. I don't know what you're rambling about.
In Q3 for no good reason. You can find poor reasons like old inventory and good yields but no good reason to delay Ryzen 3 for 2 quarters. AMD current Ryzen 5 cores are selling poorly because single core clocks are too low.
And maybe you are not from this planet but people from planet Earth know that Intel will have 6 ores soon and that means that 4 cores get cheaper. Starting August, Intel can easily beat AMD bellow 200$ as they have higher IPC, higher clocks and an integrated GPU. AMD's quads are dead, the window of opportunity closes and their next chance is next year with a native quad die starting from 49$ and that's all because a self inflicted moronic delay.
The good reason is that they are harvested 1800 models. So most probably there are not enough bad chips to use for Ryzen 3 before autumn. If this would have been real 4 core CPU then there should not have been a problem, but because they use those chips that are no good for Ryzen5, there just is not enough of them to release any earlier!
People from Earth also know that Intel doesn't lower prices, and that any Coffe Lake other than the 6-core parts is scheduled for next year.
And accusing AMD for not having any good reason to launch Ryzen 3 later is hilarious. You should write "I can not imagine any reason which is acceptably good for me". 14 nm capacity at GloFo is limited. They' got to supply Polaris (shortage anyone?), produce Vega and Zeppelin, prepare Raven Ridge and supply other customers (e.g. Aquantia). Threadripper and Epyc are not even on sale yet. If I were AMD I'd rather sell my Zeppelins as high-margin products than low end Ryzen 3. Is this the reason for the "delay"? I can't say for sure, but I think it's borderline-trolling to outright dismiss such an obvious possibility.
Darn you beat me to it. I agree, rather cocky attitude considering AMD makes more money off Ryzen 5 and 7, and it's the same die. I would like to see them release a single CCX variant. They could offer at a minimum quad core models, and dual-core with HT, possibly tri-core variants. But that requires a new design and they have so much on their plate that is more important.
I too want AMD to succeed and spook at more market panic, but time will tell and AMD has to watch their backs. Ryzen3 is a solid work load CPU for laxed users. Attention will be on ThreadRipper, price dependent. long game?
No, it is not. An office CPU without iGPU is not perfect by any means. That for me is the biggest issue with Ryzen, still no APU and the cheapest GPUs in the market are too expensive and power hungry to make Ryzen a competitive CPU for office work. For office work, the Pentium G4560 is the absolute king. Pair it with 8+GB DDR4 and an SSD and you have the perfect office computer right there.
They are not meant to compete with 4770k, intel superclocks because it doesn't really have anything more to offer the mainstream. Those chips will compete with i3, and they will kick ass in their market segment. There are some high clocked i3s that will have better single threaded performance, but aside from a few corner cases where absolute performance doesn't really matter, they will be destroyed in everything else.
Also, R3 will likely overclock, so you will still be able to push them to 3.8-4 GHz, unlike the i3, where only one SKU is unlocked and at a price that makes it a rather bad deal.
What is kicking the ass of i3 is the Pentium G4560, not Ryzen R3. I think the R3 could take market from i5s for people interested in quad cores on a budget.
are people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,,
shendxx well first off its 2017 and if you take a look at cpu utilization on a multi core processor, at any given moment almost all cores are being used regardless of what you're doing. I can live without a few frames on a few old games. I wonder how long Intel fanboys will keep hanging on to the "but single core performance!!"
are people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,,
Why sell a cpu that can net you £100 if you kill 4 of the cores and 8mb of cache when you can get £300 for the same chip. ryzen yileds are too good 80% fully working. a low cost 4 core would sell like hot cakes and they make less profit per chip
and why would they want to sell the less than 20% defective dies for £100 as the 4c/4t when they can just enable smt and sell it for £140. or even use that chip in epyc or threadripper and selling it for more than a perfect 8 core!
thats why amd dont give consumers the 4c/4t cpus. they dont care. they make more money elsewhere
and do you really think intel will just shit out a 4c for £100 when they have the upper hand on ipc
Oh but they do. AMD likes QUADS so much they put two on every die.
"They keep the single core clocks too low to push people towards the 6 cores SKUs but not everybody needs 6 cores and AMD is loosing customers to Intel this way."
Intel has maxxed out Single Core performance. It a simple law of physics. The more performance one seeks out of a core the bigger you have to make it. Silicon Wafers contain defects. Defects can not be repaired. The bigger one makes a die the higher the likelihood it will contain a defect trashing the entire die. As Die sizes increase more of the Wafer is lost to defects. That increases manufacturing costs. NVIDIA has created a core so large that it cost 10,000 dollars to manufacturer a single core. That's OK if you are a University operating on a Grant or a government agency operating with Cost-Plus Contracts but not very good for you and me. AMD has developed a means to circumvent this problem. Keep the die size small and cluster groups of "Quads" connect them with Infinity Fabric. Infinity Fabric is an architectural means to allow one device to communicate to another. This is a very elegant solution AMD has found to resolve this problem. Intel and NVIDIA have been sitting back on their laurels content to design chips on bigger and bigger dies but that party is over now.
I would imagine that AMD is waiting on the quad core SKUs because they are harvested parts. Once they have enough in the supply chain they will release them.
Ryzen 5 1500X are harvested (or crippled good dice), and currently so are Ryzen 5 1400. There really isn't any other way to make a 1500X (thanks to the cache) and it will almost certainly require a slightly different name and SKU for the 1400 to put on a smaller die (they currently use a 2+2 instead of 4+0).
I'd expect the ryzen 3 devices to switch to a 4+0 configuration, if only to harvest raven ridge (can you harvest GPUs? I'd assume they have enough redundant parts to make it futile). It might be awhile before AMD can justify building a "mask chopped in half" (but I'd expect them to leave that door open).
They used to do precisely that with the Athlon X4 series - disable the GPU on a 'dozer APU and sell as a CPU. Given their yields have been good so far (and limited production) I doubt they will be in any rush to do this.
Have you seen the reported yield rates for Ryzen Wafers that have been reported over the last two weeks. 80% out of the oven perfect and used for Ryzen 7 8 Core. The next 12 percent good for 6 Core Ryzen 1600s. The next 7 percent for 4 Core Ryzen 1500s. That's 99%. With yields like that they might as well just drop prices and postpone Ryzen 3 indefinitely. The few FX4300 series CPUs left are going for $110 to $130 where you can find them. I'd love to see the price of the Ryzen 1400 set to $99.95 That way Bulldozer can die a fitting and ignominious death.
Pricing should be competitive, but the i3s and even the Pentiums will be faster than Ryzen 3 in light threaded applications, and also faster in some heavy threaded apps because of higher ipc and clock speeds.
What I'm waiting for are the APUs. I imagine they'll have a single CCX and hopefully better than Ryzen 3 clock speeds.
I disagree. You have to remember that the CPUs are overclockable and that quad cores > dual core with hyperthreading, as evidenced by a 5 ghz 7350k not being better than i5s in gaming even though it has >30% higher clock speeds. Due to the i3s and pentiums being locked I'd expect Ryzen 3 only to have a small single threaded performance deficit (5-10%), while having a huge multi threaded advantage, making it the better buy for almost everyone.
You might be correct, but not everyone is willing to overclock and Ryzen in it's current iteration is not a very good overclocker.
Most Ryzen CPUs achieve 3.8-3.9GHz stable clocks. The newer Pentiums range from 4.5 to 3.7GHz and now have HT, so they are basically lower clocked i3s. The newer i3s go from 3.9 to 4.1 (or 4.2 if you count the i3-7350K).
In the end it all comes down to pricing ani3-7350Kd price/performance.
Is it that Ryzen is not a good overclocker, or that it does not overclock as well as the i7 K? It seems like the Ryzen chips are pretty reliable to overclock until the 4.0Ghz ceiling, and ALL Ryzen chips are overclockable, not just the premium ones.
Ryzen needs to get higher base clocks to really put the screws to Intel. Right now Ryzen chips can clock as high as 4 GHz but that's pretty much the GHz ceiling due to internal throttling. If AMD can somehow break the 4 GHz barrier (which I don't think will happen until 10nm process nodes from GloFlo) only then will Ryzen be the true Intel killer that we all wanted.
lot benhcmark between R7 vs I7 kabylake which is i7 800Mhz - 1 Ghz more from Ryzen max OC capable,, is only lead 10 FPS in game that even not optimize for Zen CPU,, i dont see any Moar GHZ benefit in intel side when compare to real Quadcore,,
i dont see any significant different from Kabylake to Zen,, especially people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,, or AMD lose because that small number,,
this is I5 in i3 price range,, similar people choice Pentium kabylake over i3 because of pricing, core i3 basically die by own intel product,, its really QuadCore in i3 price, you must use their mindset when buy Pentium instead core i3. the performance is not so far only 10% overall
i dont see any significant different from Kabylake to Zen,, especially people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,, or AMD lose because that small number,,
this is I5 in i3 price range,, similar people choice Pentium kabylake over i3 because of pricing, core i3 basically die by own intel product,, its really QuadCore in i3 price, you must use their mindset when buy Pentium instead core i3. the performance is not so far only 10% overall
What you miss is that single threaded applications are usually things that do not matter that much. Everything that is actually taxing and time staking will be threaded, and R3 will destroy an i3.
Single threaded scenarios are 99.999% of the time "enough is enough" and don't really benefit from more. Say gaming - if CPU A can pull 150 FPS on your typical settings, then it is no big whoop if CPU B is able to hit 170 FPS. In any case you have enough performance.
But if you say run a video encoding task, and if CPU A can complete it in an hour, but CPU B takes two hours, then it is a big deal.
Face it, everything that actually needs all the performance it can get is multithreaded. Single threaded stuff is casual, which is why nobody took the time to make it concurrent.
Thus an R3 will be fast enough in tasks an i3 might be slightly faster, but will destroy it completely in tasks where maximum raw performance really matters.
And even thou I have gaming as an example above, the truth is that most games today can take advantage of 4 threads, and many will under-perform on an i3. This is not the "4770i vs ryzen" kinda thihg, where games do not really take full advantage of what ryzen has to offer, so the kind of software where the i3 will "shine" shrinks down even further.
There's a little too much emphasis about how this is some "inadvertent leak".
Their own marketing department put together the slides and released them, and frankly there's nothing in there that's all that surprising or overly interesting to anybody who's aware of the existing RyZen lineup.
The PRO marketing department is different to the consumer marketing department. Different business units within the same company, almost like separate companies, using different PR agencies too. We wouldn't publish something like this without knowing details about how the system works.
So the consumer marketing department confirmed it was an "inadvertent reveal" and that they didn’t give their ok? Cause between all the stuff that was already known, it just looks like they didn’t care for that "leak"…
Fantastic pricing, with R5 at $170, the R3 will likely be <$150, that's pretty great for a quadcore chip with decent IPC. AMD must be losing money on these if they have the same caches as the R5...
Probably will be the new mainstream office PC CPU, and depending on overclocking, for home builders too...hopefully the mobo pricing is reasonable.
AMD do not lose money selling chips with disabled cores . They will be paying GLOFO less for them. Margins will be lower ,probably, but you would expect that with lower tier products
This may well be their first true single ccx per socket product. My guess is there are useful savings in a simpler interposer than the usual dual ccx zeppelin die.
Yes, that extra simplicity should greatly improve overclocking.
At that end of the desktop market, its all about price, and its a v competent 4 core, which amd can make very cheaply.
There is also a tie in with the zen/vega apuS.
A single ccx cpu is a precursor ingredient for Raven ridge etc. anyhoo. That apu will also be a single ccx cpu, but teamed with a gpu.
Its possible they preferred to just use the same die as the apu, and leave the gpu space empty.
If I am wrong, why the delay? It must be radically different to existing 4 core ryzens.
"AMD has already previously commented that Ryzen 3 will use the same die as Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, so we’re looking at 4 cores distributed over 2 CCXs, like the Ryzen 5 1400 & 1500X."
I missed that bit it seems.
So the r3 is nothing new. Its still an 8 core w/ bits disabled & maybe some economies on 8 Mb of L3 cache on the zeppelin die, and use of unsalable bottom binned cpuS for little more than their l2 cache it seems.
I was actually logging in there to critique this critically against AMD, but looking at the prices of the i5 the R3 will compete with, if AMD keeps the price below $150 a chip they should clean up nicely.
I would like to replace my FX6300, but the price for an upgrade of that magnitude isn't quite there yet for me, not since I can still play my most demanding games (Arkham series) at 60fps and run my DVR in the background at the same time. My 6300 was about $150 new, motherboard was just under $100. To stay at the same level of parts with the Ryzen it's looking like I'm going to be $400... it aint cheap being at the bleeding edge I suppose.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
Back to Article
jjj - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Too bad AMD doesn't want to sell quads.They keep the single core clocks too low to push people towards the 6 cores SKUs but not everybody needs 6 cores and AMD is loosing customers to Intel this way.
It will get worse with Skylake gen 3 in a couple of months so they really need to add a 1520.
For the 4 threads SKUs, if AMD keeps waiting and waiting for no reason at all, Intel might offer the first quad at 99$ , since AMD apparently is not all that interested in selling its products.
They should try a bit harder with Ryzen, it's not like Vega will save the day - by the time Vega launches it will feel like Bulldozer 2.0.
coder543 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Ryzen 3 is supposed to launch by the end of Q3, which ends at the end of September. These Ryzen 3 specs posted above look great. I don't know what you're rambling about.jjj - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
In Q3 for no good reason. You can find poor reasons like old inventory and good yields but no good reason to delay Ryzen 3 for 2 quarters.AMD current Ryzen 5 cores are selling poorly because single core clocks are too low.
And maybe you are not from this planet but people from planet Earth know that Intel will have 6 ores soon and that means that 4 cores get cheaper. Starting August, Intel can easily beat AMD bellow 200$ as they have higher IPC, higher clocks and an integrated GPU. AMD's quads are dead, the window of opportunity closes and their next chance is next year with a native quad die starting from 49$ and that's all because a self inflicted moronic delay.
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
I think you're overlooking what OEMs will do in the retail channel to maximize profit in an effort to affirm loyalty to a certain brand.haukionkannel - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
The good reason is that they are harvested 1800 models. So most probably there are not enough bad chips to use for Ryzen 3 before autumn. If this would have been real 4 core CPU then there should not have been a problem, but because they use those chips that are no good for Ryzen5, there just is not enough of them to release any earlier!MrSpadge - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
People from Earth also know that Intel doesn't lower prices, and that any Coffe Lake other than the 6-core parts is scheduled for next year.And accusing AMD for not having any good reason to launch Ryzen 3 later is hilarious. You should write "I can not imagine any reason which is acceptably good for me". 14 nm capacity at GloFo is limited. They' got to supply Polaris (shortage anyone?), produce Vega and Zeppelin, prepare Raven Ridge and supply other customers (e.g. Aquantia). Threadripper and Epyc are not even on sale yet. If I were AMD I'd rather sell my Zeppelins as high-margin products than low end Ryzen 3. Is this the reason for the "delay"? I can't say for sure, but I think it's borderline-trolling to outright dismiss such an obvious possibility.
Spunjji - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
You're very confident of your opinion given how close it runs to absolute nonsense.Alexvrb - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
Darn you beat me to it. I agree, rather cocky attitude considering AMD makes more money off Ryzen 5 and 7, and it's the same die. I would like to see them release a single CCX variant. They could offer at a minimum quad core models, and dual-core with HT, possibly tri-core variants. But that requires a new design and they have so much on their plate that is more important.AllIDoIsWin - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
I too want AMD to succeed and spook at more market panic, but time will tell and AMD has to watch their backs. Ryzen3 is a solid work load CPU for laxed users. Attention will be on ThreadRipper, price dependent. long game?Samus - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
True. Perfect office CPU's.mpbello - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link
No, it is not. An office CPU without iGPU is not perfect by any means. That for me is the biggest issue with Ryzen, still no APU and the cheapest GPUs in the market are too expensive and power hungry to make Ryzen a competitive CPU for office work.For office work, the Pentium G4560 is the absolute king. Pair it with 8+GB DDR4 and an SSD and you have the perfect office computer right there.
Gasaraki88 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
I see what you mean. It makes sense. Clocks are too low for the R3ddriver - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
They are not meant to compete with 4770k, intel superclocks because it doesn't really have anything more to offer the mainstream. Those chips will compete with i3, and they will kick ass in their market segment. There are some high clocked i3s that will have better single threaded performance, but aside from a few corner cases where absolute performance doesn't really matter, they will be destroyed in everything else.Also, R3 will likely overclock, so you will still be able to push them to 3.8-4 GHz, unlike the i3, where only one SKU is unlocked and at a price that makes it a rather bad deal.
Alexvrb - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
Agreed. That unlocked i3 is priced too close to Ryzen 5.mpbello - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link
What is kicking the ass of i3 is the Pentium G4560, not Ryzen R3.I think the R3 could take market from i5s for people interested in quad cores on a budget.
Spunjji - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
They're not going to get any higher without unreasonable power draw. Zen just doesn't clock that high.The target market you seem to be suggesting for these chips is already served nicely by the 5 series.
shendxx - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
are people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,,butteredmuffins - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
shendxx well first off its 2017 and if you take a look at cpu utilization on a multi core processor, at any given moment almost all cores are being used regardless of what you're doing. I can live without a few frames on a few old games. I wonder how long Intel fanboys will keep hanging on to the "but single core performance!!"jkh - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link
I suspect they'll keep saying it as long as it equates to better gaming performance, i.e. the foreseeable future.shendxx - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
are people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,,babadivad - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
It's not even 10-15 fps slower anymore. More like 5fps now. And that will likely shrink to nothing as drivers and bois improve.Disputes_ - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
Why sell a cpu that can net you £100 if you kill 4 of the cores and 8mb of cache when you can get £300 for the same chip. ryzen yileds are too good 80% fully working. a low cost 4 core would sell like hot cakes and they make less profit per chipand why would they want to sell the less than 20% defective dies for £100 as the 4c/4t when they can just enable smt and sell it for £140. or even use that chip in epyc or threadripper and selling it for more than a perfect 8 core!
thats why amd dont give consumers the 4c/4t cpus. they dont care. they make more money elsewhere
and do you really think intel will just shit out a 4c for £100 when they have the upper hand on ipc
2901bitslice - Saturday, July 1, 2017 - link
"Too bad AMD doesn't want to sell quads."Oh but they do. AMD likes QUADS so much they put two on every die.
"They keep the single core clocks too low to push people towards the 6 cores SKUs but not everybody needs 6 cores and AMD is loosing customers to Intel this way."
Intel has maxxed out Single Core performance. It a simple law of physics. The more performance one seeks out of a core the bigger you have to make it. Silicon Wafers contain defects. Defects can not be repaired. The bigger one makes a die the higher the likelihood it will contain a defect trashing the entire die. As Die sizes increase more of the Wafer is lost to defects. That increases manufacturing costs. NVIDIA has created a core so large that it cost 10,000 dollars to manufacturer a single core. That's OK if you are a University operating on a Grant or a government agency operating with Cost-Plus Contracts but not very good for you and me. AMD has developed a means to circumvent this problem. Keep the die size small and cluster groups of "Quads" connect them with Infinity Fabric. Infinity Fabric is an architectural means to allow one device to communicate to another. This is a very elegant solution AMD has found to resolve this problem. Intel and NVIDIA have been sitting back on their laurels content to design chips on bigger and bigger dies but that party is over now.
Have fun boys.
mpbello - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link
Well said!soliloquist - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
I would imagine that AMD is waiting on the quad core SKUs because they are harvested parts. Once they have enough in the supply chain they will release them.wumpus - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Ryzen 5 1500X are harvested (or crippled good dice), and currently so are Ryzen 5 1400. There really isn't any other way to make a 1500X (thanks to the cache) and it will almost certainly require a slightly different name and SKU for the 1400 to put on a smaller die (they currently use a 2+2 instead of 4+0).I'd expect the ryzen 3 devices to switch to a 4+0 configuration, if only to harvest raven ridge (can you harvest GPUs? I'd assume they have enough redundant parts to make it futile). It might be awhile before AMD can justify building a "mask chopped in half" (but I'd expect them to leave that door open).
Spunjji - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
They used to do precisely that with the Athlon X4 series - disable the GPU on a 'dozer APU and sell as a CPU. Given their yields have been good so far (and limited production) I doubt they will be in any rush to do this.2901bitslice - Saturday, July 1, 2017 - link
Have you seen the reported yield rates for Ryzen Wafers that have been reported over the last two weeks. 80% out of the oven perfect and used for Ryzen 7 8 Core. The next 12 percent good for 6 Core Ryzen 1600s. The next 7 percent for 4 Core Ryzen 1500s. That's 99%. With yields like that they might as well just drop prices and postpone Ryzen 3 indefinitely. The few FX4300 series CPUs left are going for $110 to $130 where you can find them. I'd love to see the price of the Ryzen 1400 set to $99.95 That way Bulldozer can die a fitting and ignominious death.Glock24 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Pricing should be competitive, but the i3s and even the Pentiums will be faster than Ryzen 3 in light threaded applications, and also faster in some heavy threaded apps because of higher ipc and clock speeds.What I'm waiting for are the APUs. I imagine they'll have a single CCX and hopefully better than Ryzen 3 clock speeds.
Dr. Swag - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
I disagree. You have to remember that the CPUs are overclockable and that quad cores > dual core with hyperthreading, as evidenced by a 5 ghz 7350k not being better than i5s in gaming even though it has >30% higher clock speeds. Due to the i3s and pentiums being locked I'd expect Ryzen 3 only to have a small single threaded performance deficit (5-10%), while having a huge multi threaded advantage, making it the better buy for almost everyone.Glock24 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
You might be correct, but not everyone is willing to overclock and Ryzen in it's current iteration is not a very good overclocker.Most Ryzen CPUs achieve 3.8-3.9GHz stable clocks. The newer Pentiums range from 4.5 to 3.7GHz and now have HT, so they are basically lower clocked i3s. The newer i3s go from 3.9 to 4.1 (or 4.2 if you count the i3-7350K).
In the end it all comes down to pricing ani3-7350Kd price/performance.
jardows2 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Is it that Ryzen is not a good overclocker, or that it does not overclock as well as the i7 K? It seems like the Ryzen chips are pretty reliable to overclock until the 4.0Ghz ceiling, and ALL Ryzen chips are overclockable, not just the premium ones.trparky - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Ryzen needs to get higher base clocks to really put the screws to Intel. Right now Ryzen chips can clock as high as 4 GHz but that's pretty much the GHz ceiling due to internal throttling. If AMD can somehow break the 4 GHz barrier (which I don't think will happen until 10nm process nodes from GloFlo) only then will Ryzen be the true Intel killer that we all wanted.Samus - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
If we are talking overclocking, the current single thread champ is still the years old Pentium G3258, a $70 chip.I doubt Ryzen 3 will sell for <$70, and its platform costs is significantly higher than an H87 chipset motherboard...
Back on point, ignore overclocking. 99% of customers will never overclock. AMD failed the last decade focusing on gamers. They need to focus on OEM's.
shendxx - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
lot benhcmark between R7 vs I7 kabylake which is i7 800Mhz - 1 Ghz more from Ryzen max OC capable,, is only lead 10 FPS in game that even not optimize for Zen CPU,, i dont see any Moar GHZ benefit in intel side when compare to real Quadcore,,shendxx - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
pentium what ? Kabylake ?in what App that use higher IPC and Clockspeed ?
i dont see any significant different from Kabylake to Zen,, especially people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,, or AMD lose because that small number,,
this is I5 in i3 price range,, similar people choice Pentium kabylake over i3 because of pricing, core i3 basically die by own intel product,, its really QuadCore in i3 price, you must use their mindset when buy Pentium instead core i3. the performance is not so far only 10% overall
shendxx - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
pentium what ? Kabylake ?in what App that use higher IPC and Clockspeed ?
i dont see any significant different from Kabylake to Zen,, especially people on this earth dont realize that Kabylake is third aka 3 gen 14nm from intel which is More optimized than Zen, Ryzen is first gen from AMD,, dont people think this is bad because 10 - 15 FPS different in game scenario.. i dont know what people think,, or AMD lose because that small number,,
this is I5 in i3 price range,, similar people choice Pentium kabylake over i3 because of pricing, core i3 basically die by own intel product,, its really QuadCore in i3 price, you must use their mindset when buy Pentium instead core i3. the performance is not so far only 10% overall
ddriver - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
What you miss is that single threaded applications are usually things that do not matter that much. Everything that is actually taxing and time staking will be threaded, and R3 will destroy an i3.Single threaded scenarios are 99.999% of the time "enough is enough" and don't really benefit from more. Say gaming - if CPU A can pull 150 FPS on your typical settings, then it is no big whoop if CPU B is able to hit 170 FPS. In any case you have enough performance.
But if you say run a video encoding task, and if CPU A can complete it in an hour, but CPU B takes two hours, then it is a big deal.
Face it, everything that actually needs all the performance it can get is multithreaded. Single threaded stuff is casual, which is why nobody took the time to make it concurrent.
Thus an R3 will be fast enough in tasks an i3 might be slightly faster, but will destroy it completely in tasks where maximum raw performance really matters.
And even thou I have gaming as an example above, the truth is that most games today can take advantage of 4 threads, and many will under-perform on an i3. This is not the "4770i vs ryzen" kinda thihg, where games do not really take full advantage of what ryzen has to offer, so the kind of software where the i3 will "shine" shrinks down even further.
CajunArson - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
There's a little too much emphasis about how this is some "inadvertent leak".Their own marketing department put together the slides and released them, and frankly there's nothing in there that's all that surprising or overly interesting to anybody who's aware of the existing RyZen lineup.
Ian Cutress - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
The PRO marketing department is different to the consumer marketing department. Different business units within the same company, almost like separate companies, using different PR agencies too. We wouldn't publish something like this without knowing details about how the system works.xype - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
So the consumer marketing department confirmed it was an "inadvertent reveal" and that they didn’t give their ok? Cause between all the stuff that was already known, it just looks like they didn’t care for that "leak"…webdoctors - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Fantastic pricing, with R5 at $170, the R3 will likely be <$150, that's pretty great for a quadcore chip with decent IPC. AMD must be losing money on these if they have the same caches as the R5...Probably will be the new mainstream office PC CPU, and depending on overclocking, for home builders too...hopefully the mobo pricing is reasonable.
msroadkill612 - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
The cache is on the ccx - their most basic cpu building block.Outlander_04 - Wednesday, July 5, 2017 - link
AMD do not lose money selling chips with disabled cores .They will be paying GLOFO less for them.
Margins will be lower ,probably, but you would expect that with lower tier products
msroadkill612 - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
I think the big issue here has been missed.This may well be their first true single ccx per socket product. My guess is there are useful savings in a simpler interposer than the usual dual ccx zeppelin die.
Yes, that extra simplicity should greatly improve overclocking.
At that end of the desktop market, its all about price, and its a v competent 4 core, which amd can make very cheaply.
There is also a tie in with the zen/vega apuS.
A single ccx cpu is a precursor ingredient for Raven ridge etc. anyhoo. That apu will also be a single ccx cpu, but teamed with a gpu.
Its possible they preferred to just use the same die as the apu, and leave the gpu space empty.
If I am wrong, why the delay? It must be radically different to existing 4 core ryzens.
msroadkill612 - Tuesday, July 4, 2017 - link
"AMD has already previously commented that Ryzen 3 will use the same die as Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, so we’re looking at 4 cores distributed over 2 CCXs, like the Ryzen 5 1400 & 1500X."I missed that bit it seems.
So the r3 is nothing new. Its still an 8 core w/ bits disabled & maybe some economies on 8 Mb of L3 cache on the zeppelin die, and use of unsalable bottom binned cpuS for little more than their l2 cache it seems.
0ldman79 - Saturday, July 1, 2017 - link
I was actually logging in there to critique this critically against AMD, but looking at the prices of the i5 the R3 will compete with, if AMD keeps the price below $150 a chip they should clean up nicely.I would like to replace my FX6300, but the price for an upgrade of that magnitude isn't quite there yet for me, not since I can still play my most demanding games (Arkham series) at 60fps and run my DVR in the background at the same time. My 6300 was about $150 new, motherboard was just under $100. To stay at the same level of parts with the Ryzen it's looking like I'm going to be $400... it aint cheap being at the bleeding edge I suppose.