I see what you are saying. I can't recall that being a problem, though. Generally, if it runs at that speed, it runs at that speed, it's not broken. Binned or not. Why the mfg may have binned it lower is something that we never know, since we don't see any problems.For overclockers, probably. But If I buy Ryzen I prefer to pay the extra for the chip that was binned and factory-tested to run at the 1600X/1800X speeds.
Hence I suppose if I were to buy Intel, then my wish list is a 6 core K chip that fits on mainstream motherboards, ideally with a huge cache like the i5775c instead of an integrated gpu to further boost single threaded performance.
My recollection is that with Broadwell the edram was useful in a couple of niche areas, but was not cost effective overall. Then again we did not get to see a full bore implementation of it.Exactly. I mean we all saw that the eDRAM on 5775c was pretty useful. Would be a low-hanging fruit for AMD for Zen+ and helps greatly to fix issues with IMC and inter-ccx communication. (It could also be HBM2 but too expensive for now and 128-256MB eDRAM would almost certainly get you there 80% for 20% of the price compared to HBM2)
My recollection is that with Broadwell the edram was useful in a couple of niche areas, but was not cost effective overall. Then again we did not get to see a full bore implementation of it.
I suspect the 1600 or 1600x will be go-to chips for many gamers, especially the 1600 if it can OC like its bigger brother the 1700. I mean $220 for a 6/12 chip is great.
Too bad R5 is being released in April and wide availability of motherboards won't happen until May.
r7 1600x simulated by digitalfoundry. 3-7% slower than 1800x.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review
"If there is an issue about how gaming workloads are distributed across cores, the most interesting evidence we uncovered concerned gaming performance results when we used the MSI BIOS to disable one core in each CCX, giving games six cores and 12 threads to work with. This is the '3+3' configuration that's being deployed on the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X, arriving next month. The 1600X actually has access to the same amount of cache memory as the 1800X and runs at the same base and boost frequencies. The results of the BIOS tweak are quite remarkable. Shorn of two cores and four threads, games only lose between three to seven per cent of the performance of the fully enabled eight-core chip. Assuming this is indeed representative of the upcoming Ryzen 5 1600X's turnout (and this can only be confirmed with actual hands-on time with the product itself), AMD may well have a highly compelling couple of mainstream products waiting in the wings that could make you think twice about a prospective Core i5 or indeed a Ryzen 7 purchase - but that's a discussion for another time."
i think the 1600x will probably be very competitive against 7600k even for gaming and depending on the games tested it could even outrun the 7600k. for example computerbase tests more games which scale well with higher core counts and thus you have 7700k being matched by 1800x. in such reviews it would not be surprising to see 1600x pull ahead marginally of 7600k even for gaming.
The 7600k isn't 4.8GHz either. They are overclocked.I wonder if those simulations are setting the core clock right, the 1600X is not 4.0Ghz ACT for example.
The 7600k isn't 4.8GHz either. They are overclocked.
No. It's valid information for people that are going to be overclocking.What makes no sence at all, benchs must be done at stock.
I think it would be rather foolish to buy an i5 nowadays.
Especially when you can get the R5 1600 with a cooler at $219 and OC to 3.9-4.0GHz.
My 7600 non K hits 3.9GHz all 4 cores out of the box without overclocking or touching anything, and hits 4.0GHz+ with 2 cores or less. All in a 65w package. Will R5 beat that? Nope.