All Ryzen R5 CPUs Will be 2 CCX

>>59436574
Why is one 4 core part 8MB of L3? That makes no sense, having 2+2 but disabling cache in one CCX-

>>59436690
They'd disable half the cache per CCX otherwise one CCX wouldn't work.

The fact that the 4c/8t version will be 2+2 and not 4+0 is a bit shit. Shame really.

>>59436726
The 1500x 4c8t seems ttobe 16MB which seems impossible.

>>59436726
There's two 4 core parts, one with 8MB and one with 16MB

Your argument doesn't hold.

So? another flop 2500K beats it
amdrones will drone I guess

>>59436784
complete ass pull

Gimping hardware is a feature

>>59436784
Stop baiting dickwagon and join discussion. It's new way to accomplish things and obviously it isn't as well supported and optimized than legacy ways, right?

File: 1467866108012.gif (580KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 480x360px

>>59436574
>the R5 could've competed with the i5
>nah, let's just use broken r7s as a base

>>59436930

We heard all these excuses before with Faildozer. Five years later it still gets wrecked by a 2500k.

>>59436758
>The 1500x 4c8t seems ttobe 16MB which seems impossible.
Why? It's split across 2 CCXs, each of which has 8 MB of L3 cache. 2x8=16.

>>59436776
>There's two 4 core parts, one with 8MB and one with 16MB
Yes. Both are split across two CCXs, therefore the former must have each CCX's L3 cache cut in half. One CCX having 16 MB and the other having 0 MB doesn't work.

>>59437031
Cutting cache in half per CCX makes even less sense than having one CCX with a fully enabled L3

>>59437031
You can't just "cut" shared cache in half.

>>59436574
Fast RAM will save us. Maybe. Probably not. R7 is the only good Ryzen it seems. Unless R3 actually has 1 CCX.

>>59437061
Seems multiple sources are confirming the R5 1400 also has 2 CCX, so maybe they cut off half the L3 cache on each CCX?

>>59437016
What "excuses"? They are legit reasons that affect performance. Obviously it will perform poorly if no one never did anything like it, how about you go write scheduler that can benefit from 2 ccx?

And then theres bandwidth issue too, how are they going to include APU in that thing?

>>59436574
Stupid fucking decision, I hope they disable one entire complex for the R3.

>>59437134
>so maybe they cut off half the L3 cache on each CCX?

Again, not how it werks.

At best they could do is somehow disable half the cache, which would be interesting cost wise.

>>59437162
>r3 ends up being highest performing zen in single threaded applications
That'd be so hilarious.

>>59437244
Is it? What's the current ST champion at Intel camp?
Hint: It's not the low clocked 8 core.

>>59437016
The fact that you resort to name calling makes me hesitant to even respond to you but Bullzoder does out perform the 2500k in newer (optimized) software.
Once again, new architecture, old software not written to take advantage of it.

Stop with the asspull horseshit.

>>59437061
But you can have a whole CCX with no L3 cache? Listen to yourself man. Halving the size of a cache is trivial.

>>59437244
That would be awesome

>>59437329
Not if the cache is shared.

>>59437162
They won't. Need consistency in performance over the range.

Has anyone tried to disable an entire CCX?

>>59437486
Yes.

>>59437517

Not disabling smt, like and entire complex.

Did it work? Was there massive increase in IPC?

>>59437532
Yes.
Yes.

>>59437544
Proof

>>59437571
Google "Ryzen disabled ccx review"

>>59437611
I did. Nothing Beyond cores.

>>59437636
Go deeper

>>59437644
No.

>>59437657
Heh, once again I have cut another worthless poster.

>>59436574
meh Ryzen 1400 confirm to be another failure, amd had a ball to ask 169 for that crap, it should 100 desu.

>>59436574
>amd delivers yet another turd
Stop the presses.

File: apfxMc0.gif (922KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 400x225px

>>59437016
>We heard all these excuses before with Larrabee/Xeon Phi. Five years later it still gets wrecked by any GPU with OpenCL/CUDA

>>59436574
None of these CPU's make any sense. At least the 1700 can be considered a solid victory as a budget workstation CPU over intel. These r3's and r5's are just inferior price and performance wise to pentium and 7600k. They're not competitive.

>>59438478
The 7700k is the best price/performance CPU right now

>>59438598
Uh, no. I'd take a 1700 over it in almost any build. Did you say you can run photoshop faster? That's funny because I can run it with a game open with both running faster at the same time. 1700 is a vastly superior power user CPU and it cost a bit less too.

>>59438478
Those chip r5 chip prob had some value if amd don't laser cut the core, for now it trash.

Amd should sale 2core / 4 thread for cheap. but we got this 1400 contraption

>>59438989
APUs will come later on.

>>59437321
Dumbass
The 2500K is being used to power quantum computers right now. AMD is years behind.
But remember your slogan, Just Wait™

Currently deciding between a 7500 or a 1500x. Looking more and more likely I'll go with the 7500.

File: tidus.jpg (30KB, 475x343px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 475x343px

>>59438026
>mfw 1400 gets obliterated by $70 pentium

>>59439179
i feel like amd created this product just to be made fun of. seriously what other purpose does it serve?

>>59439213
To show that Intel is disgusting for charging $1000+ for 8 core consumer grade processors.

>>59439251
1400 is a 4c part

>>59438384
>Five years later it still gets wrecked by any GPU with OpenCL/CUDA
Your OpenCL card can't boot Windows and run normal x86 software. Xeon Phi can

>>59436820
This is a common practice for years.

Why do you think Intel had so many processor variants, because they want to reutilize CPU's with some defects, in that way they dont have to throw it away, but they market them as lower power variants so they dont have top throw it away.

>>59436820
Complex ICs are expensive as fuck to design and then produce. Of course they're going to utilize every little trick they can to make the most of what they have.

>>59439130
Bait .

File: 1488420066835.jpg (42KB, 898x886px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 898x886px

>>59437663

>>59438989
Fuck that.
I hope they don't sell 2 cores at all. Maybe 3 cores at the very least.
2 cores, especially 2c/2t, need to die.

There's no point in 2 core CPUs when they don't have higher single threaded performance than a 4 core, other than "muh $70 cpu"

>>59441365
Laptops are generally 2c4t

>>59439179
DESKTOP THREAD

>>59441899
Do they have to be though? There are cellphones with 4x the number of cores these days. More cores with moderate clock speeds can be more power efficient than few cores with high clock speeds

>>59441939
Moar coars is fucking meme for anything interactive. You won't be rendering or encoding shit on your laptop.
Apple dual cores shat on quad and octa cores mainly because they had strong IPC.

>>59441899
Huh? Source?

No reason they wouldn't be like 4c with 1.9ghz base and 3.3ghz turbo or something that only happens on 2 cores max out of the 4.
They could easily make a 4core 4CU 15w TDP Ryzen laptop APU with how energy efficient Vega and Zen are.

There's really no reason why they'd do anything less than 3 cores with how good yields apparently are.
Just seems you don't know what you're talking about.

>>59441992
All laptops 13" and less are dual cores and I don't even put the 15" apple macpros there. Only expensive 15" and above are quad cores.

>>59439296
>>59439213
>>59439179
>>59438026
with SMT

File: 1481635894678.png (1MB, 1273x922px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1273x922px

Is >>>/g/ mirroring reddit for some reason? Why are all of these posts reddit-tier in this thread

>>59442072
/r/amd is leaking

>>59436574
>R5 1500X: 2+2 with 16MB L3 cache
>16MB L3 cache
I'll say this again, I don't see how low end xeon can survive with this thing on the market.

>>59442072
not enough AMD FINISHED AND BANKRUPT for your taste?

Thing with CCX is overblown, if computerbase to be believed it's just two windows features stalling performance. Scheduler is a minor thing.

>>59442223

It's a shit wrecker for the price no matter what you're comparing it against. i7s, Xeons, i5s are all on notice for 250 dollar 6 core 12 thread.

>>59442252

It's not overblown, it IS impacting performance. But there are so many other issues plaguing Ryzen we have only begun to see what the chip is capable of.

>>59442288
you see 4c 3.7Ghz xeons exist for it's huge 8-20MB L3 they cost as much as i7 because of it. Now they have no niche.

>>59437052
It makes perfect sense as cheap cpus like 1400 need volumes and they can get it during testing: Some part of L3 is fuck'd -> laser it in half -> throw it into 1400 bin

Can I get a quick run down?

>>59442069
what good does that do in a 4c/4t part with 8mb l3 ?

keep in mind a 2c/4t with ht kaby lake pentium cost $70...

>>59442517
everything below i7 7700K and above is dead market for intel
only viable chip they have is top end xeons right now, that also comes to an end comes summer

until next year, when thing will be interesting

>>59442549
>what good does it to i7 to be 4c with 8T compared to i5?

>>59442462
1400 is half the core of 1700 yet the price isn't half, amd trying to jew the poor by sale trash chip, sad

>>59442560
the point i think you're missing here is kaby lake has insane ipc performance and that is a $65 part vs a $169 part

when you take away those extra cores and cut the l3 cache in half, ryzen is of questionable value. who this appeal to?

>>59442580
you are missing the point that $70 part is actually useless for anything besides emulation and browsing

>>59442599
whereas the $169 part is dogshit at everything

>2+2 only, no 4+0
that bugger gonna by slowed down by scheduling-latency so bad, wew

>>59442941
Considering you need fast ram to make it bearable , Fast ram pair with that cpu is dumb idea considering how expensive current ddr4

File: DDR4.png (331KB, 940x918px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 940x918px

>>59442991
16GB of 3200mhz DDR4 is $107-$120 right now for a kit with mediocre timings.
A higher end tight timing kit is $145.

Prices will keep falling, and faster kits with tighter timings will get even cheaper in coming months.

>>59443108
Prices are going up you nigger, last month i got 16gb 3000 for $96

>>59442610
keep saying that, someone eventually will believe you

>>59436574
Does this mean even a Core 2 Quad

>>59443230
Yes, but released in 2017. Unless developers optimize their games with this in mind, those 4 cores are going to behave like i3 or even pentiums in games.

>>59443202
Whatever floats your sinking boat redteam+

>>59441992
He is correct, most i7s on laptops are actually 2c4t. It's pretty retarded.

>>59441351
Source?

>>59436574

>AMD could have given us 4 core 8 threads 16 mb cache one CCX CPUs that are clocked at 4 ghz...
>That huge L3 cache would have given us an extra 3-4 GHz of single thread performance
>but instead gave us this 2 CCX shit

THERE AREN'T ANY FORM OF TEXTUAL COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD CONVEY THE RAGE I AM FEELING RIGHT NOW

>>59436574
>1500x 2+2
I am more than slightly upset about this.
using 4+0 would have given them that little IPC boost they needed to compete with the i7 for significantly less. Now the 1500x is in the same position as the 1700. It's a better part for the price but all the gaymer mongoloids are gonna overlook that because of muh +5% single core performance.

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYYMDPOORFAGS CONFIRMED ON SUICIDE WATCH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ZMOn0X6jw

>>59444522
this

>>59436574
This is sad, was hoping for 1400 being single CCX, NUMA cores have too much negatives.

>what kind of cpu job do you want senpai
>just C2Q my shit up

>>59444418
>>AMD could have given us 4 core 8 threads 16 mb cache one CCX CPUs that are clocked at 4 ghz...
This is simply not true.. there is 8MB cache per CCX

>>59439355
> x86 software
> parallel processing
if that were true ryzen would be a lot better

>>59445024

You can use the l3 cache in other structure even if you disabled it

>>59445514
>You can use the l3 cache in other structure even if you disabled it
No. L3 of each CCX is a victim cache.

https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/amds-ryzen-cache-analyzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises
>The difference in access speeds between 4 MB and 8 MB workloads can be explained through AMD's own admission that Ryzen's core design incurs in different access times depending on which parts of the L3 cache are accessed by the CCX. The fact that this memory is "mostly exclusive" - which means that other information may be stored on it that's not of immediate use to the task at hand - can be responsible for some memory accesses on its own. Since the L3 cache is essentially a victim cache, meaning that it is filled with the information that isn't able to fit onto the chips' L1 or L2 cache levels, this would mean that each CCX can only access up to 8 MB of L3 cache if any given workload uses no more than 4 cores from a given CCX

>>59436574
>yfw amd disables the furthest cores in the 4 cores.
lol, lag.
if R3 is just one CCX, I'll buy that.

>there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5
>not making it a different sku
it's like they hate money.

>>59445596

Oh... Alrighty then... Thanks for correcting me AND giving me a good explanation of it too. Take care anon!

>>59436574
AMD Core 4 Octo baby, we did it!

>>59437061
>some kid on the internet
>amd pajeet engineers
gee, which one should i trust.

>>59445618
It won't be. But if you are adamant on a single CCX there will be Raven Ridge SKUs with iGPU disabled (successors to current Athlon x4 line)

>>59436820
makes sense for everyone if you think about it.

File: [-__-'] Patlabor New OVA 01 [BD 1080p x264 8bit FLAC] [6F745DD2].mkv_snapshot_21.45_[2016.04.20_19.57.45].png (2MB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x1080px

>>59444418
they're just stocking them for mid season upgrades.
no need to release the good ones now.

>>59436574
So, could we potentially unlock these to be r7 1700s?

>>59445812
knowing AMD, maybe
>sold 8Gb cards as 4gb
>athlon pencil tracing unlock
>upgrading videocards by simple bios mod

>>59445812
Well it's possible but I think AMD stopped doing that with Bulldozer. The easy core unlocking might have been an oversight in the K10 architecture.


You could change your consumer graphics card to a professional one through a BIOS mod as well.

>>59441351
Where's that from? iqdb has no results.

>>59436574
DOA shit

Better luck next time.

>>59446018
https://www.yandex.com/images/search?rpt=imageview&img_url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.4cdn.org%2Fg%2F1489724441779.jpg

>>59446598
http://www.pornhub.com/video/search?search=aoi+shirosaki

File: Phenom X2 555.jpg (690KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 2048x1536px

>>59445846
>buy cheap dualcore
>unlock the other cores
>overclock it to hell and back

>>59436946
>an entire production line for R5s
Financially not feasible, they would have to trash all the defective r7s with 4/6 working cores. Disabling broken cores is what both intel and amd does.

>It's alright
>just wait

File: 1467296306101.png (91KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 653x726px

It's okay g-guys, fixes are coming!

File: 1486810667607.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>59443108
>just wait

>>59442072
r/amd and r/ayymd on full damage control

File: 1488404508616.png (316KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 882x758px

>>59436574
>R5 won't deliver for my gaymen
Time to an hero.

I want to vomit.

>>59436726
>implying AMD has any incentive to sell a 4/8 chip which blows their 6/12 the fuck out due to CCX fuckery

File: os_why.jpg (44KB, 960x906px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 960x906px

>tfw an i3 will decimate the full line-up

Fuck, even after a decade there are still no good, cheap 6 core chips for muh games.

To what diameter does my anus need to be able to spread to before I buy a Ryzen? Can anyone recommend any anal training toys? Athlon or Phenom, perhaps?

>>59443202
okay then surely you can fill in the blanks. the $169 part is good for ___________ compared to the $65 pentium?

why would I ever buy it? it's not good for workstation like the higher core parts. it's boost clock is significantly less than the others. it has half the l3 cache. this means that gaming gap ryzen has between kaby lake gets bigger that comfortable workstation lead it has disappears. it's shit and you're a retard. is that what you were waiting for? to be made fun of? because you're not replying like you have anything useful to say.

>>59447946
>99.99% of games use 4 threads at maximum
>any serious compute shit uses either massive dual CPU setups or GPUs
>6-core processors
>market segment for literally no one
>AMD and Intel just sell failed higher-tier chips to people dumb enough to buy them
baka...

>>59447994
>games
I see your problem
>>>/v/

>>59448045
read the post to which I am responding, I'm not the one playin games famalamalamalamlamalmalam

>>59447994
>any serious compute shit uses either massive dual CPU setups or GPUs
underageb&

>>59448125
>underageb&
Any counter-points? Or, you know, actual arguments?

>w-w-w-well I like to run 7zip on my home lab for college
kek

>>59447946
the 1600x has the same base/turbo clocks as the 1800x for roughly half the price after cpu cooler purchase. it will certainly be the most economical gayming 6c on the market. the intel 6c parts aren't cost competitive as at that price you could get 1700 for less with more cores.

POO IN LOO

>>59448145
An i5 will perform better.
>muh cores
>just wait

>>59448195
>5-10 fps difference on 100+ fps today
gonna be fun to see what you guys are saying 5 years down the line when Ryzen owners don't have to upgrade but 7700Kfags are left in the dust playing ancient games that use 4 thread heh

File: 1488919452885.jpg (514KB, 960x686px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 960x686px

>>59448215
>just wait

>>59447994
Any serious games uses 16 to 32 cores.

>>59448195
I'm not responding to a post asking for the best per core performance value tho. I assume they have some need for more cores at which point an i5 is laughable. I think you have some severe readinf comprehension issues or v-itus or both.

File: korea v japan 2.png (56KB, 1054x159px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1054x159px

>>59448249
>serious
>games

>>59448264
>v-itus
that would be /v/-itis

-itis: inflammation of
in this case, /v/-itis: inflammation of the ass

>>59448234
There's no waiting. Games using more cores/threads today already show ryzen's advantage and the performance gap is overstated to begin with. Knowing most games today you consumeristlords play are designed with a console in mind and knowing current gen console architecture, we verifiably can deduce more games will perform favorably on ryzen, on the 8c/16t parts at least.

>>59448276
sorry autismo i'm not at my workstation right now so i'm not proofing anything

>>59448310
But 99% of games out there don't.

File: x265-2.png (582KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 600x600px

To be fair outside of manchildren playing games the R7 1700 has BTFO intel hard especially since you can OC it to 4GHz with the stock cooler.

pic related is 1080p HEVC video encoding.

The $240 i5-7600K can barely do 16 FPS at 4.2GHz lmao.

>>59448356
99% of games scream on an ancient cpu. That's the dumbest statement of all time. Most of the new games people will be buying were optimized for an 8 core laptop cpu hence they will be forced to make use of the exta cores in order to achieve acceptable performance. This fact alone favors ryzen's 8c parts heavily.

>>59448409
A 7600K is an ancient CPU now just because Zen? And Intel will let developers just do this? The uber jew? No more further questions my dear RedTeam+ member.

File: GAME COMPARE.jpg (2MB, 1004x5792px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1004x5792px

>>59448310

File: WORK LOADS COMPARE.jpg (1MB, 1004x4936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1004x4936px

>>59448310
>>59448471

>>59448467
>7600K
you mean the 6600k? No more further questions my dear refresh+ member.

File: OVER ALL COMPARE.jpg (303KB, 1114x1062px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1114x1062px

>>59448310
>>59448471
>>59448489

>>59448507
>i7 has faster memory for some reason
well that's just unfair

File: Screenshot_2017-03-17-10-26-37.png (379KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1440x2560px

>>59448467
Your post doesn't make any sense. 99% of games weren't released in the last few years. If you want to include old games then cpu performance starts becomes trivial the majority of time. I have a feeling you're making extremely obtuse statements and are expecting us to understand "what you really mean" while lacking the ability to describe your hypothetical scenario.

Even on current games, which only account for 1% or less of all PC games available, the gaming performance gap is negligible and this is almoat entirely due to the fact that overall, games designed to properly make use of modern architecture, perform much better on ryzen. If we had less games designed for old architecture, ryzen would be winning by a large margin and we know this to be the case going forward based on current gen console architecture which favors cores over pure ipc performance that of which ryzen is no slouch at either.

>>59448579
>7700k at 300$
>Beating the ryzen 500$ CPU
uhhh?

>>59436946
>I don't know how computer hardware manufacturing works

>>59448366
when will this stupid ass OC meme end. you're basing your argument on a fucking lottery.

>>59448643
True but IN MOST cases the R7 1700 with a turbo of 3.7 GHz has successfully been overclocked to 4GHz with the stock cooler. That's pretty impressive.

You do know how to read, right?

>>59448507
motorbikes are cheaper than cars and accelerate much faster too

>>59448622
1. as we've seen in 1700 benches it is neck and neck with 1800x for less money than 7700k
2. """""""""beating"""""""""" by .01% is margin of error tier not beating
3. ryzen easily takes the lead if you have anything other than a pants on head retarded $1000 1080p console port box ergo you do anything on your overpriced console port box but gaym

File: images (9).jpg (5KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 259x194px

>>59436930
>It's a new way okay? You hear me a new way

Damn half cores with even more lag on l3 who would gess

>>59439508
Ya but it's feasible to scale down when your architecture is not a shit

>>59448683
>Better buy a bulldozer then a motorbike to take my kids to school.
Got it

>>59448700
> as we've seen in 1700 benches it is neck and neck with 1800x
Post proof.
>2. """""""""beating"""""""""" by .01% is margin of error tier not beating
Again benchmarks, proof.
You can make up imaginary scenarios and claim what ever you want, but until you post sources and proof, you are making shit up.

>>59448670

A 300Mhz overclock...

300Mhz...


No that's not impressive. But hey at least you have all those Raisin Cornz

>>59448838
On stock cooler it really is.

You have to delid and intel processor then buy a $200 aftermarket cooler lmao

File: Screenshot_2017-03-17-10-45-47.png (306KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 2560x1440px

>>59448812
a-are you literally retarded? I just posted benches showing the difference and here is the comparison to 1700. there are also many reports of people hitting 4ghz on 1700 with cheap ass b350 mobos making it an incredibly good bargain AND performance cpu.

>>59448528
>some reason
Poozen shits itself at 2666+MHz
Intel supports 4000MHz RAM.

>>59448924
BIOs updates have already gotten Ryzen to 3200mhz

>>59449154
With total incosistent results that sometimes work sometimes not

>>59449154
3200mhz kits were working on launch day.
Up to 3500mhz kits work without touching the baseclock at all.
AMD has a notice on their site about it, stating that another update will further increase compatibility.

>>59449169
Why do you sit on the internet and lie all day?

>>59439136
wait until the benchmarks come in next month. You dont lose anything by waiting for more information

>>59449169
and your point is? growing pains are a given. it's unreasonable to expect memory speed to be an issue going forward. we've only seen steady memory speed improvements all with a 1st gen architecture and hardware manufacturers on short notice. the trend here is abnormally positive, if anything.

>>59448917
link to the article?

>>59449218
computerbase.de

>>59449218
ffs dude you're the biggest spoonfed babby alive. arstechnica just wrote an article today sourcing them. computerbase ryzen. google it.

>>59449169
>>59449188
You need Samsung B-die currently for the best results

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/14/tips-for-building-a-better-amd-ryzen-system?sf62307686=1

We have internally observed good results from 2933, 3200, and 3500 MT/s rates with 16GB kits based on Samsung “B-die” memory chips. Potential kits include:

Geil EVO X - GEX416GB3200C16DC [16-16-16-36 @ 1.35v]
G.Skill Trident Z - F4-3200C16D-16GTZR [16-18-18-36 @ 1.35v]
Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 VERSION 5.39 [16-18-18-36 @ 1.35v]

>>59447772
both sides

People need to stop comparing AMD to Intel based on Core/Thread count and instead compare based on price. If it doesn't work for GPU, why does it work for CPU?

I'm sick of seeing people comparing the 1500X and the 1400 to the i7-6700, i7-6700k or i7-7700k. Why are you doing that? First of all, Ryzen 5 is a cut down Ryzen 7 and even Ryzen 7 was having issues completely beating a 7700K, why would it even cross your mind to compare a Ryzen 5 to the 7700K?
And that's besides the point because, anyone who can afford a 7700K, can also afford a Ryzen 7 1700.
While it's true that Ryzen 5 1500X/1400, on paper and in a superficial way, look like "more affordable" i7 offerings from AMD, that's the categorically and completely false way to compare them.
I never liked seeing people say "Wow the 1500X is 4/8 and it's going to be around $180, it's the same price as a 7600K but it's more like a 7700k!" because they were already trying to label AMD processors with Intel's models.
AMD is targeting people who have $169 to $189 to spend on a CPU and those people cannot afford a 7700K. If there's a narrow sub division of people who think "I want a 7700K but I also want to see if I can offset the money to a GPU and buy a 1500X but get the same performance", that person is a MINORITY.
The 1500X's direct competitor is the locked 4 core 4 thread i5-7500. So even if it has a 2x2 design, even if it is 4 cores and 8 threads, no matter what the specifications are, the most important specifications when it comes to comparison to Intel is "how does it perform compared to Intel's similarly priced processor?"
When AMD or Nvidia releases a GPU, do you fine comb the architecture and chastise Nvidia because the 980 Ti has only around 2500 shaders when the Fury X has 4096? No, because the actual core count/shader count is irrelevant in the face of how they perform.
The real question is, for $650, which GPU performs better? And that's it.

>>59449227
I know what site it is, link me directly to the article where you got the results.

>>59449251
But don't look at it and go, "Well Intel has a native 6-core that's not 3+3 and it performs SO much better" because anyone who can afford a 5820k/6800k isn't going to be in the market for a 1600X anyway.
If people start criticizing the architecture, what you should do is ask them, straight up:
What's better, an unlocked overclockable Ryzen 5 1500X or a locked Intel i5-7500? Because those are the same price. It doesn't even matter what the 7600K can do because that one is going up against a 3x2 1600X. It's only ONE less core per CCX and it has TWO CCX's.
It's almost 2x i5-7600K's with one core of each disabled, but it has hyper threading.
At the end of the day, we have no idea how they're going to perform, but the point is, the architecture cut downs and core design is NOT the same, so stop comparing AMD 4/8 to Intel 4/8 or AMD 6/12 to Intel 6/12 because they're not even in the same price bracket.
At the end of the day, the 1600X doesn't have to beat the 7700k. It only has to beat the 7600K. If it does that, AMD wins, period. And I already have a feeling it will.