From what I’ve read B550s will follow 30-60 days after the X570, however I read something else that stated there are too many B450s in the channel and that may take time to clear.
From what I’ve read B550s will follow 30-60 days after the X570, however I read something else that stated there are too many B450s in the channel and that may take time to clear.Any news on the B550 motherboards? I have a few PCs that do not need more than B450/B550 chipset. I do not want to buy B450 when new generation is supposedly so close around the corner. So, anybody heard of B550 release date?
Do we know much about what the 500 series will offer? Is it going to be a like going from the 300 to 400 series or is it going to be more robust? I think I've seen talk that more board makers are looking at doing AMD boards because of Ryzen's success so we should hopefully see improvements just from that, but I wasn't sure if 500 series was updated in any certain manner (like a newer logic chip for that, they use some third party one, right? Wasn't there talk that using a newer one on a more modern process could help lower power use?).
I don't think there's a good enough reason to keep them that expensive. The mantra for amd has been to upset the market immensely. Even from ryzen1000 to ryzen2000 there was an upheaval of their rrps and since then the prices have dropped across the board in the last year. Either ryzen does not sell at higher prices or the increased turn over is worth it at cheaper sale prices. I expect ryzen3000 to keep the same pricing tiers, (8 core R5 at ~200-250 dollars) and only the new 16cores are going to hit $400 and maybe close to 500. We already have 8 cores at nearly 200dollars at various retailers, a ryzen 3600x at £250 isn't going to be a good enough of a sell against a new 2700x which was marketed as a high end part already and the r5 stuff isn't regardless of what knowledgeable customers would know.Obviously, take with copious amounts of salt.
I don't think there's anything concrete about the 500 series yet. Some rumours i've seen mention it's no longer ASMEDIA making the pch, adding a lot more additional IO lanes to make them more comparable to intel's more powerful chips and also negative ones where there's delay on the production of the parts causing launch delays including pushing back the cpu launches.
We already have 8 cores at nearly 200dollars at various retailers, a ryzen 3600x at £250 isn't going to be a good enough of a sell against a new 2700x which was marketed as a high end part.
Even when similarly priced the R5 2600X is already a better overall option over R7 1700, especially when gaming and other user centric workloads are involved. The 1700X is currently considerably cheaper than 2700X, yet the 2700X sells.We already have 8 cores at nearly 200dollars at various retailers, a ryzen 3600x at £250 isn't going to be a good enough of a sell against a new 2700x which was marketed as a high end part already
Even when similarly priced the R5 2600X is already a better overall option over R7 1700, especially when gaming and other user centric workloads are involved. The 1700X is currently considerably cheaper than 2700X, yet the 2700X sells.
I expect the 3600X to have no problem selling at the same time as 2700X, especially as it may very well match or beat it on every metric.
I don't think there's a good enough reason to keep them that expensive. The mantra for amd has been to upset the market immensely. Even from ryzen1000 to ryzen2000 there was an upheaval of their rrps and since then the prices have dropped across the board in the last year. Either ryzen does not sell at higher prices or the increased turn over is worth it at cheaper sale prices. I expect ryzen3000 to keep the same pricing tiers, (8 core R5 at ~200-250 dollars) and only the new 16cores are going to hit $400 and maybe close to 500. We already have 8 cores at nearly 200dollars at various retailers, a ryzen 3600x at £250 isn't going to be a good enough of a sell against a new 2700x which was marketed as a high end part already and the r5 stuff isn't regardless of what knowledgeable customers would know.
I still want the vega3 even if it's a long shot.
16 core zen, even if its on 7nm, is going to to be very thermally dense and hard to cool without a larger cooler and or lower voltage. Holding back seems like a good idea given how reviews are going to work. But, there is also something else to gain.
AMD is focusing on volume right now. They could take two working 8 core chiplets and make 1 cpu, or, they could make 2 cpus at the lower end where there is volume. You could keep some of the chiplets for your eventual 16 core high end, but, there is not much volume there. If your 12 core part can beat Intel, then going above that is not worth it right now.
AMD would likely be better off waiting until they can meet the mid to low end demand, and launch their 16 core when 7nm has had some time to get refined. A 16 core chip would need to have chiplets that use lower voltage.
I was wondering if some of the 12/24 core chips will be disabled 16/32 core chips. Wondering if we’ll see another period of being able to unlock additional cores.
On the other hand, do we realize that Zen3 is probably coming 1 year later. Not a whole lot of time to relax and space out your SKUs.16 core zen, even if its on 7nm, is going to to be very thermally dense and hard to cool without a larger cooler and or lower voltage. Holding back seems like a good idea given how reviews are going to work. But, there is also something else to gain.
AMD is focusing on volume right now. They could take two working 8 core chiplets and make 1 cpu, or, they could make 2 cpus at the lower end where there is volume. You could keep some of the chiplets for your eventual 16 core high end, but, there is not much volume there. If your 12 core part can beat Intel, then going above that is not worth it right now.
AMD would likely be better off waiting until they can meet the mid to low end demand, and launch their 16 core when 7nm has had some time to get refined. A 16 core chip would need to have chiplets that use lower voltage.
People still don't get that current AMD is an execution machine to be reckoned with.On the other hand, do we realize that Zen3 is probably coming 1 year later
Well, people have been deprived of CPU competition 2011-2016, so acceptance kicked in.Seems some folks just can't accept the big changes happening and more importantly, continuing to happen.
Maybe with BIOS modding / AGESA changes? After all, AMD (or all the mobo vendors, not sure which), "unlocked" the previously multiplier-locked Athlon 200GE APU, in AGESA 1.0.0.6. Overclocked mine in both MSI as well as ASRock B350 boards.Not a chance. Couldn't be done with BD, couldn't be done with Zen(+). Those days are over, for better or for worse.
I’d be surprised if the top 16 core CPU clocks as high as the top binned 8 core, unless it’s done that way for market segmentation reasons.16 core zen, even if its on 7nm, is going to to be very thermally dense and hard to cool without a larger cooler and or lower voltage. Holding back seems like a good idea given how reviews are going to work. But, there is also something else to gain.
I’d be surprised if the top 16 core CPU clocks as high as the top binned 8 core, unless it’s done that way for market segmentation reasons.
Twice the density and 1/2 the power consumption tells me that this gives the same thermal density at identical clocks. Watts/mm^2 is unchanged.I don't think it will be as much about segmentation as thermals. When you are putting a bunch of cores that dense, then you are losing surface area per core to cool the chips. This means you have to lower voltage as you add cores. This is why the top intel cpus with more cores tend to have lower base clocks. Unless AMD is willing to source only the best chiplets, then it seems likely to have lower frequencies.
Maybe with BIOS modding / AGESA changes? After all, AMD (or all the mobo vendors, not sure which), "unlocked" the previously multiplier-locked Athlon 200GE APU, in AGESA 1.0.0.6. Overclocked mine in both MSI as well as ASRock B350 boards.
Twice the density and 1/2 the power consumption tells me that this gives the same thermal density at identical clocks. Watts/mm^2 is unchanged.
Twice the density and 1/2 the power consumption tells me that this gives the same thermal density at identical clocks. Watts/mm^2 is unchanged.
Frequencies, at least due to thermal factors, will not have to decrease.
Comparing CPUs and GPUs is a bit of a bad idea, esp given the difference in memory traffic.Hotspotting will be the major issue. See Radeon VII
Comparing CPUs and GPUs is a bit of a bad idea, esp given the difference in memory traffic.
For the most part it will be, but depends on your workload, really.Fair enough, but the point still stands. Heat won't be distributed evenly over the new, smaller surface area. It can lead to hotspots.
Twice the density and 1/2 the power consumption tells me that this gives the same thermal density at identical clocks. Watts/mm^2 is unchanged.
Frequencies, at least due to thermal factors, will not have to decrease.