AMD said to be readying Ryzen 5 5500, 5600 and Ryzen 7 5700X CPUs to reduce Alder Lake's...

3ogdy

Posts: 54   +46
No it's not. AMD was advertizing their hyperthreading as a seperate core because technically they designed two CPU cores that shared an FPU. The counts agreed that a CPU core without a FPU can tbe counted as a full core.

What intel is doing is using a large number of super slow cores to pump up their "core count" to give the appearance of better performance, even though it is the P cores doing 99% of the work.
Going back to my definition of a multi-core CPU based on its purpose, AMD was only correct in the marketing department. "WOW, 8 CORES".
Correct, there are 8 physical cores, but you can only use 4 at a time. Hence, defeating the purpose of an 8-core CPU.

They were wrong in the technical department. A core is a set of components that can execute instructions individually, if required through affinity, regardless of what the other cores are doing. Not the case with AMD's CMT. It is NOT a full core, regardless of what the courts say. It is not capable of processing instructions regardless of the activity of the other cores.
The reason multi-core CPUs exist is parallelization, so CMT doesn't make much sense in that respect, unless marketed fairly, which AMD did not.(World's first desktop 8 core CPU)

Intel is doing most of the same: pushing the actual core count up (yes, there are 10 cores inside) even though the CPU cannot really do what an actual 10-core CPU can. This is one of those cases in which 1+1 is not 2.
Rendering will clearly show the difference between 10 actual cores and 5 "performance" + 5 "eco" cores.

I appreciate the fact that Intel actually states the configuration of their CPU in the product specs and Newegg lists the configuration in the item name.
 

3ogdy

Posts: 54   +46
The average consumer doesn't NEED to know core count or clock speed. If they do, they'll do the research. What is 10 cores gonna tell the average consumer? That it can do 10 things at once? The salesman is going to tell them the same as they did with 4, 6, 8+ core parts. It will or it won't do what they want the computer for.
The average consumer has the right to know the truth, though.

Yes, that it can run 10 CPU-intensive applications simultaneously without impacting performance, through affinity.
 

3ogdy

Posts: 54   +46
No it's not. AMD was advertizing their hyperthreading as a seperate core because technically they designed two CPU cores that shared an FPU. The counts agreed that a CPU core without a FPU can tbe counted as a full core.

What intel is doing is using a large number of super slow cores to pump up their "core count" to give the appearance of better performance, even though it is the P cores doing 99% of the work.
AMD wasn't advertising any hyperthreading. They were up there screaming World's First 8 Core.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,146   +2,585
TechSpot Elite

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,349   +2,869
TechSpot Elite
Seems kind of wasteful to produce brand new chips when they could just lower prices on current skus but well at least it's a return to form: Now we know that if we wait around 18 months after launch or so you could eventually see the 5600 and 5700 lines without GPUs that basically make the 5600x and 5800x obsolete but it takes intel jumping ahead of schedule for AMD to bring back the actual good pricing SKUs

5500 seems specially weird to me: What is this going to do vs the 5600g? Are they intentionally removing threads so it's worst? If they just down clock the 5600/x then of course people will overclock it back up. Are they removing l3 cache? If so well that's already the 5600g so it's just a graphics-less 5600g then?
Maybe there are technological advancements that these new SKUs can take advantage of that aren't present in the current lineup.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,349   +2,869
TechSpot Elite
You're correct. It's not right.

Well, wasn't AMD doing the same thing with the FX series?

What is the basic principle of a multi-core chip? Increased performance by PARALLELIZATION. Run a task on each core simultaneously and just as quick as a single core CPU can run 1 task.

AMD claimed Bulldozer was a multi-core architecture. They said the FX-8150 was an 8-core chip. It turned out you could only use (load) 4 individual cores (each in a different module) at any given time. NOT 8.
I don't know where you read that garbage but my FX-8350 CAN AND DOES load all 8 cores. Currently, I'm running it with 4 cores disabled because a mining rig doesn't need more than that but it's still loading ALL FOUR CORES whenever I check the Task Manager.

I've never understood where people get this crap because, as an FX owner, I've always known it to be a pile of male bovine excrement. There is a significant performance difference between all cores enabled as opposed to only half. The only time that what you're describing occurs is when there is heavy floating-point calculations to be done. Since the vast majority of PC work involves integer calculations, the 2 ALUs per module normally operate as two separate entities. When there's a lot of floating-point operations involved, extra modules will be tapped because there's only one FPU core for every 2 CPU cores. That's not the norm in the majority of cases.

The FX series (as mediocre as it was back then) DOES have 8 physical cores. That's just the truth.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,203   +4,239
Maybe there are technological advancements that these new SKUs can take advantage of that aren't present in the current lineup.
If it's performance then they would supercede the current chips in naming scheme so 5600 cannot be better performance than a 5600x (Unless AMD turns off their brain somehow)

If it was power efficiency gains so that they could do 5600g like performance on less power then maybe but I'm not sure AMD has ever done any power conscious consumer desktop parts at all: those exists mainly as just OEM and system integrator skus where they're aiming at low power applications like those 1 lt mini pcs on the corporate world and such.

Then again this is a rumor so it might end up being just that: not really consumer parts just OEM low power parts taking advantage of the more mature process gains and such.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,349   +2,869
TechSpot Elite
If it's performance then they would supercede the current chips in naming scheme so 5600 cannot be better performance than a 5600x (Unless AMD turns off their brain somehow)

If it was power efficiency gains so that they could do 5600g like performance on less power then maybe but I'm not sure AMD has ever done any power conscious consumer desktop parts at all: those exists mainly as just OEM and system integrator skus where they're aiming at low power applications like those 1 lt mini pcs on the corporate world and such.

Then again this is a rumor so it might end up being just that: not really consumer parts just OEM low power parts taking advantage of the more mature process gains and such.
I was just spit-balling because, as you pointed out, it makes no real sense to take the course that they're taking. There has to be a reason and we probably won't know until they either tell us or the product is released.
 

Lounds

Posts: 1,119   +1,015
Can't even remember how many people wanted the 5600 non-X part since 5600X was quite expensive at the time yet AMD is releasing it now, 8 billion years later.
Especially when the 3600 was their best selling consumer CPU for a year and a half. Clearly there was huge demand for a £200 5600 instead we got the 5600G with PCI-E 3.0...
 

meric

Posts: 364   +359
If it's performance then they would supercede the current chips in naming scheme so 5600 cannot be better performance than a 5600x (Unless AMD turns off their brain somehow)

If it was power efficiency gains so that they could do 5600g like performance on less power then maybe but I'm not sure AMD has ever done any power conscious consumer desktop parts at all: those exists mainly as just OEM and system integrator skus where they're aiming at low power applications like those 1 lt mini pcs on the corporate world and such.

Then again this is a rumor so it might end up being just that: not really consumer parts just OEM low power parts taking advantage of the more mature process gains and such.
I think they are targeting b450 owners with Ryzen 3k CPUs. Remember, especially 3600 sold very well with mobo bundles and such back in the day. B450 was a popular platform really. It's safe to assume new 5ks will be cheaper than their x variants so that (bit lower price) would be a good argument to attract b450 owners. Most people would prefer upgrading CPU instead of switching to intel entirely, especially at these times. If I were AMD, I'd extend Zen 3 support to older platforms, at least x370.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,203   +4,239
I think they are targeting b450 owners with Ryzen 3k CPUs. Remember, especially 3600 sold very well with mobo bundles and such back in the day. B450 was a popular platform really. It's safe to assume new 5ks will be cheaper than their x variants so that (bit lower price) would be a good argument to attract b450 owners. Most people would prefer upgrading CPU instead of switching to intel entirely, especially at these times. If I were AMD, I'd extend Zen 3 support to older platforms, at least x370.
Sure that seems like a reasonable possibility. But I have to wonder what would be the price difference between the 5600 and 5600x? If it's like 100 bucks cheaper than the 5600x it's honestly going to back fire getting most 5600x feel rather angry AMD took advantage of them with the potential to move units like the 5600 being minimal at this point.

And if it's just 20 or 30 bucks cheaper well I don't think there's many b450 owners that have waited this long to upgrade that 30 or 40 or even 50 bucks is going to convince them it was worth waiting over a year to finally upgrade to save fairly little.

Don't get me wrong there's a strong chance AMD is going for exactly what you're describing and trying to just compete in price, but it's either not going to be enough or it risk being too much of a good deal and piss off current chip owners.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,421
I don't know where you read that garbage but my FX-8350 CAN AND DOES load all 8 cores. Currently, I'm running it with 4 cores disabled because a mining rig doesn't need more than that but it's still loading ALL FOUR CORES whenever I check the Task Manager.

I've never understood where people get this crap because, as an FX owner, I've always known it to be a pile of male bovine excrement. There is a significant performance difference between all cores enabled as opposed to only half. The only time that what you're describing occurs is when there is heavy floating-point calculations to be done. Since the vast majority of PC work involves integer calculations, the 2 ALUs per module normally operate as two separate entities. When there's a lot of floating-point operations involved, extra modules will be tapped because there's only one FPU core for every 2 CPU cores. That's not the norm in the majority of cases.

The FX series (as mediocre as it was back then) DOES have 8 physical cores. That's just the truth.
Lmao, the FX 8150/8350 perform worse than competing quad cores released around the same time, they can only do 4 floating point calculations at a time. AMD lost a class action lawsuit because they lied about it having 8 cores. Yet you still won’t concede that you got duped. Just because it says 8 cores on the box and windows says 8 next to core count doesn’t make it so. No one would look at the performance of an 8150 and go “must be 8 cores in there”. You’d assume it’s a quad.

AMD lied when they claimed the FX 8 core parts have 8 cores. That’s a fact.
 
Last edited:

The Tech Gen

Posts: 18   +17
Hahaha what? "Alder Lake's successful launch has Team Red scrambling to respond"

The release of the Ryzen 5500, 5600, and Ryzen 7 has have been on their roadmap for nearly 3 years.
 

The Tech Gen

Posts: 18   +17
Can't even remember how many people wanted the 5600 non-X part since 5600X was quite expensive at the time yet AMD is releasing it now, 8 billion years later.
5600X release date: November 5, 2020
Do you mean 2 year later? 😂🤣

granted it has been a very long 2 years
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,430   +2,409
The average consumer has the right to know the truth, though.

Yes, that it can run 10 CPU-intensive applications simultaneously without impacting performance, through affinity.
Where did I say they didn't have the right to know?
And I have no idea what you're talking about in the second half of your comment.
 
Last edited:

meric

Posts: 364   +359
Sure that seems like a reasonable possibility. But I have to wonder what would be the price difference between the 5600 and 5600x? If it's like 100 bucks cheaper than the 5600x it's honestly going to back fire getting most 5600x feel rather angry AMD took advantage of them with the potential to move units like the 5600 being minimal at this point.

And if it's just 20 or 30 bucks cheaper well I don't think there's many b450 owners that have waited this long to upgrade that 30 or 40 or even 50 bucks is going to convince them it was worth waiting over a year to finally upgrade to save fairly little.

Don't get me wrong there's a strong chance AMD is going for exactly what you're describing and trying to just compete in price, but it's either not going to be enough or it risk being too much of a good deal and piss off current chip owners.
Why did AMD wait so long to release non-x variants? 1,5 years later and so close to zen 4 launch. I don't know, perhaps they have a huge inventory of flawed/lower binned chips? Or maybe they don't want to cut price of Xs. Maybe they are happy with the amount of current sales? Hard to guess the reason. But I think they did not anticipate ADL to perform this good and they had to respond somehow. Seems like this to me.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,203   +4,239
Why did AMD wait so long to release non-x variants? 1,5 years later and so close to zen 4 launch. I don't know, perhaps they have a huge inventory of flawed/lower binned chips? Or maybe they don't want to cut price of Xs. Maybe they are happy with the amount of current sales? Hard to guess the reason. But I think they did not anticipate ADL to perform this good and they had to respond somehow. Seems like this to me.
I think it's 80% intel not being able to compete and 20% not having enough TSMC allocation to also produce lower tier products.

AMD doesn't seems to like product segmentation nearly as much as intel (Or while we're at it, Nvidia) and it seems like if they had a lot of skus in the past it was just to compete with the dozens of products intel has. It's primarily that: they really want you to just get the Ryzen 5 x or Ryzen 7 x products at the top of the tier and if they can get away with it (Like when they surpassed intel for over a year) they would do just that and simplify things.

I don't necessarily disagree with the strategy, I just wish they were willing to always keep in the Ryzen 3 tiers and release an APU from the main launch of the product and not many months down the line but these are the parts I mostly attribute to the scarcity.
 
Seriously, how are these not obvious releases?

Its what AMD has always done since the inception of the zen microarch.
Not a direct response to anything.
Theyve always added new skus at the end of a microarch's life cycle, just prior to the release of a new generation.

How has no-one else mentioned this?
Its what AMD do.
 
Lmao, the FX 8150/8350 perform worse than competing quad cores released around the same time, they can only do 4 floating point calculations at a time. AMD lost a class action lawsuit because they lied about it having 8 cores. Yet you still won’t concede that you got duped. Just because it says 8 cores on the box and windows says 8 next to core count doesn’t make it so. No one would look at the performance of an 8150 and go “must be 8 cores in there”. You’d assume it’s a quad.

AMD lied when they claimed the FX 8 core parts have 8 cores. That’s a fact.


No.
AMD never lied about core counts.
The lawsuit was because people were too silly to understand what they were buying.

AMD *very* clearly openly discussed the fact these cpus had 4 "clusters", each containing 2 interger units and 1 floating point unit.
It was in the advertising material. It was on their website in product description, details were provided to tech sites, it was in the sdk, etc.etc.

I never had one personally, and even I was aware of the setup before they were even released because the 4 clusters of 2xinterger and 1xfpu information being so widespread by AMD.

That's the way things happened. Doesnt matter how much people try revising the history or truth.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,421
No.
AMD never lied about core counts.
The lawsuit was because people were too silly to understand what they were buying.

AMD *very* clearly openly discussed the fact these cpus had 4 "clusters", each containing 2 interger units and 1 floating point unit.
It was in the advertising material. It was on their website in product description, details were provided to tech sites, it was in the sdk, etc.etc.

I never had one personally, and even I was aware of the setup before they were even released because the 4 clusters of 2xinterger and 1xfpu information being so widespread by AMD.

That's the way things happened. Doesnt matter how much people try revising the history or truth.
AMD deliberately mislead customers. I’m sorry if that ruling upset you but it’s exactly what happened. Stop making excuses for AMDs corporate shenanigans
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
AMD deliberately mislead customers. I’m sorry if that ruling upset you but it’s exactly what happened. Stop making excuses for AMDs corporate shenanigans
How many times I have to say this: case was settled before court decided anything.

And there go all arguments about AMD's wrongdoing.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
How many times I have to say this: case was settled before court decided anything.

And there go all arguments about AMD's wrongdoing.
Just because something is settled out of court doesn't mean that nothing wrong was done... in fact... the very fact that AMD chose to settle certainly implies they realized they'd done something wrong...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Just because something is settled out of court doesn't mean that nothing wrong was done... in fact... the very fact that AMD chose to settle certainly implies they realized they'd done something wrong...
So far every argument against AMD has been "court decided blah blah", but it didn't. When we look at facts, AMD is right.

If you have ever battled on court (I have), it's usually cheaper to settle case. Even if you're 100% right, it's still cheaper since court decisions are NOT predictable.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
So far every argument against AMD has been "court decided blah blah", but it didn't. When we look at facts, AMD is right.

If you have ever battled on court (I have), it's usually cheaper to settle case. Even if you're 100% right, it's still cheaper since court decisions are NOT predictable.
I know I know... your real job is marketing consultant for AMD... but try to take off your AMD-coloured glasses for a second...

Can you REALLY state, in all honesty, that AMD delivered a true 8-core CPU that ACTUALLY PERFORMED LIKE AN 8-CORE CPU with their FX?

Any objective person will tell you - NO THEY DID NOT. It was 8 cores only in that it said "8 cores" when you clicked on it...

AMD knew this, which was why they settled the case...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
I know I know... your real job is marketing consultant for AMD... but try to take off your AMD-coloured glasses for a second...

Can you REALLY state, in all honesty, that AMD delivered a true 8-core CPU that ACTUALLY PERFORMED LIKE AN 8-CORE CPU with their FX?

Any objective person will tell you - NO THEY DID NOT. It was 8 cores only in that it said "8 cores" when you clicked on it...

AMD knew this, which was why they settled the case...
It was 8-core CPU. It performed like 8-core CPU, of course.

How about sticking with facts, not opinions? You are saying it's not "true 8 core CPU, what that is supposed to mean? Did not perform like 8-core CPU, like what? You do realize there were plenty 8-core CPU's on phones around that time (2013). And FX demolished all of them.