Interesting about the 2500x & 2300x being a single CCX. I'd assume that would result in the 2500X having half the cache of the 1500x as the cache for the second CCX would get disabled with the CPUs in the CCX. That presumably could lead to some rather odd performance comparisons between the two generations.
being that the 2 new quad core X CPU's are only using 1 CCX unit and if they get a 8%-10% gain because of this I think these could be the new go to CPU for budget new system buyers. You get i5 & i7 quad core 4 & 8 thread type performance for a better price. bare in mind they probably won't get past 4.3GHz so the R5 2500X most likely will match i7 4770K to 4790K range and come close to a i7 6700K but no where to the 6700K when it is over clocked. In any case it will be interesting to see the gaming performance from the AMD Ryzens when only 1 CCX unit is used and up to 8 threads.
That 8-10% includes everything: Zen+, clock speed, cache and memory latencies und the single CCX. Otherwise they would have gone directly for 8-core CCX.
Yep. U guys have spotted the key news here. A true, low latency single ccx 4 core, that competes on a level playing field (2500x).
There is perf & there is perf. We saw from Zen+ that a little in the right places can matter a lot.
AMD architecture's core advantage comes at the price of latency for inter CCX core links, and latency is what gamers care about ~most. Single CCX banishes this. It fills the one main gap in amdS consumer lineup imo. Tragic its OEM only.
The 2500X / 2400G and the 2300X / 2200G should carry the same MSRPs, so the decision is just IGP vs speed...neither of the chips are superior to the other.
Personally I also think the 2500X / 2400G should have an MSRP closer to $150. Giving them a greater price advantage vs Intel's i5, and making these chips more competitive within their own lineup.
as long as these prices points are more adhered to compared to the 2200/2400g as when they "quote" say $100 and $150 respectively and on the shelf price for 2200g is ~$120CAD but the 2400g often is ~$210-$230 CAD those price points are not only unattractive but price gouging for the additional ~$10-$20 or so taking into account currency conversion etc.
I hate when sellers do this, just because it is "top of the range" for the given product line, they should not be slapping on an additional cost on top of the already higher additional cost.
I know currency conversion ratios often result in CAD buyers already taking a hit AND tax etc, but, the "canada price" really sucks to deal with constantly.
2200g is closer to the price point that it should be, 2400g not so much (I have seen them listed for $255 more then once which is way beyond what they should be (as well as some even worse pricing from places I would never shop from in the first place because of the "greed")
still waiting for the various radeons to price drop more toward price they should be now that "supposedly" the VRAM etc issues which elevated pricing has more or less been sorted out all the way back in march/april...seems the Geforce ones dropped quite quick in comparison.
either way, will be interesting to see how much performance the new 2500/2300 give as well as potential performance loss because of reduced TDP rating the new E chips have in comparison to the full TDP of non E chips have (of course the on the shelf pricing) "hopefully" just because it is E rating does not automatically mean higher cost in comparison (sellers probably will do this, pay more because more "efficient"
Something is only ever worth what someone is willing to pay. No such thing as price gouging, if you don't like the price then don't buy it. Plenty of other options, including 2nd-hand. Or do people these days have no agency? :D And why is the focus always on the seller? What about the buyer who's willing to spend much more than RRP? It's all just supply & demand, a free market the way it's supposed to be (sans actual fiddling by various corps in the past to bully retailers). Anything else is just communism-light, which never works.
Amusing how everyone was shouting from the rooftops when GPU prices spiked during the mining craze, but where are all the moaners now that prices are dropping? Especially for 980s and 980 TIs? Oh right, because prices are going down, not up, but the forces responsible are exactly the same. The real greed is on the part of those who expect everything to be cheap or even free just because they want it to be that way. Real world doesn't work like that. Sometimes the nature of supply & demand works in one's favour, sometimes it doesn't, but nobody is being forced to buy anything.
No. Look at the table. They're Zen+, and they have 8MB of cache, not 6MB. They're full Ryzen 2 with one CCX disabled (unlike the 1000 series which used two cores from each CCX).
Anyway this means I have something new to recommend for budget and mid-range, especially if they don't need a hexacore.
I agree w/ hanselltc, but we are all guessing a bit.
each ccx has 8MB of L3 cache in an R7, so I would expect 8MB in a single ccx module.
the zen+ argument isnt as good as it sounds - tho 14nm. the apu is 14nm+ (more than it sounds), and more importantly, was released almost as recently to desktop as zen+ - so the apu is to all intents, zen+ - all the zen+ magic stuff like better memory, xfr2 & pb2 works just as well as zen+.
the apu and zen+ are much more alike than different.
45W is pretty impressive for 8C/12T and boost clocks around 4.0Ghz. Curious if one can tell the difference over the higher-TDP equivalent under most workloads.
I suspect the performance gap will be proportional to the number of threads being used. Single thread performance with max boost is very close and the gap in clockspeeds will gradually widen until all cores are loaded at which point it's the difference in base clocks- with the 2700 being about 15% faster. Relatively lightly threaded workloads such as games will probably see a 5-10% difference.
It's also totally unrealistic. If Precision Boost is really set to anything like 45w, these things will run much closer to their base speed than their boost speed under any substantial load. My 2700X will happily draw around 140w all day at 3.9-4.0GHz when running 16 thread compile jobs and that's with a -0.075v core and -0.125v SoC adjustment.
tech report and a few others are saying the 2500 and 2300 are OEM only so one cannot buy the cpu itself as a "standalone" I really do not understand why AMD would do this (if they are) because many likely would not be all that impressed with the APU versions 2200/2400g and be "forced to deal with potential issues of the built in Vega that may or may not be able to be easily "disabled" if they should choose to use a standalone dGPU.
in a "perfect world" the vega gpu on 2200/2400g would be a simple turn on or turn off in the bios no muss no fuss and with thest 2 new ones that do not have the gpu someone like me could buy them because they cannot afford or have need of the higher end ones and they just want to pair it up with a new or old gpu.
but those sites claim the only way to get them is OEM, so that means to get access to this maybe $100 or $150 dollar CPU you have to buy a potential $900 "system" just to get the cpu so as to avoid cannibalizing sales of the 2200/2400g, seems stupid AF to be doing things that way.
either Acer is paying AMD some big bucks for leverage to ensure is OEM only, or AMD is not at all thinking this through properly, if this second case is true, that is a crying shame, simple example, my Phenom II 955 (clocked to 980) would get a very decent overall bump and easily feed my current 7870 or a RX 580 or Vega without having to spend a whole bunch more coin then needed to go to the 6 or 8 core versions for "nothing"
What "potential issues"? You're spouting nonsense.
Buy either of these APUs, pair it with discrete GPU, then let us know about these imaginary "issues" of yours.
And nobody is "paying $900 just for the CPU" when better CPU could be had for waaaaay less and locked down if needed (but who would do such a thing, apart from you of course).
yay, finally amd is back sub 50W cpu game! however it is a bit disappointing, given that they can do a 8C/16T cpu @ 65w it follows they could easily do a 4C/8T @ 35w...
You mean, like the 2400GE? Honestly, buy the 2400G and limit it to the clocks specified (maybe tweak a few GPU controls as well) and you'll probably be 95% of the way there. It's when over half of the cores are buzzing at the highest possible frequencies that it uses the most of that 65W.
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.
25 Comments
Back to Article
kpb321 - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
Interesting about the 2500x & 2300x being a single CCX. I'd assume that would result in the 2500X having half the cache of the 1500x as the cache for the second CCX would get disabled with the CPUs in the CCX. That presumably could lead to some rather odd performance comparisons between the two generations.rocky12345 - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
being that the 2 new quad core X CPU's are only using 1 CCX unit and if they get a 8%-10% gain because of this I think these could be the new go to CPU for budget new system buyers. You get i5 & i7 quad core 4 & 8 thread type performance for a better price. bare in mind they probably won't get past 4.3GHz so the R5 2500X most likely will match i7 4770K to 4790K range and come close to a i7 6700K but no where to the 6700K when it is over clocked. In any case it will be interesting to see the gaming performance from the AMD Ryzens when only 1 CCX unit is used and up to 8 threads.MrSpadge - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
That 8-10% includes everything: Zen+, clock speed, cache and memory latencies und the single CCX. Otherwise they would have gone directly for 8-core CCX.msroadkill612 - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link
Yep. U guys have spotted the key news here. A true, low latency single ccx 4 core, that competes on a level playing field (2500x).There is perf & there is perf. We saw from Zen+ that a little in the right places can matter a lot.
AMD architecture's core advantage comes at the price of latency for inter CCX core links, and latency is what gamers care about ~most. Single CCX banishes this.
It fills the one main gap in amdS consumer lineup imo. Tragic its OEM only.
EliteRetard - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
The 2500X / 2400G and the 2300X / 2200G should carry the same MSRPs, so the decision is just IGP vs speed...neither of the chips are superior to the other.Personally I also think the 2500X / 2400G should have an MSRP closer to $150. Giving them a greater price advantage vs Intel's i5, and making these chips more competitive within their own lineup.
Dragonstongue - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
as long as these prices points are more adhered to compared to the 2200/2400g as when they "quote" say $100 and $150 respectively and on the shelf price for 2200g is ~$120CAD but the 2400g often is ~$210-$230 CAD those price points are not only unattractive but price gouging for the additional ~$10-$20 or so taking into account currency conversion etc.I hate when sellers do this, just because it is "top of the range" for the given product line, they should not be slapping on an additional cost on top of the already higher additional cost.
I know currency conversion ratios often result in CAD buyers already taking a hit AND tax etc, but, the "canada price" really sucks to deal with constantly.
2200g is closer to the price point that it should be, 2400g not so much (I have seen them listed for $255 more then once which is way beyond what they should be (as well as some even worse pricing from places I would never shop from in the first place because of the "greed")
still waiting for the various radeons to price drop more toward price they should be now that "supposedly" the VRAM etc issues which elevated pricing has more or less been sorted out all the way back in march/april...seems the Geforce ones dropped quite quick in comparison.
either way, will be interesting to see how much performance the new 2500/2300 give as well as potential performance loss because of reduced TDP rating the new E chips have in comparison to the full TDP of non E chips have (of course the on the shelf pricing) "hopefully" just because it is E rating does not automatically mean higher cost in comparison (sellers probably will do this, pay more because more "efficient"
mapesdhs - Wednesday, September 12, 2018 - link
Something is only ever worth what someone is willing to pay. No such thing as price gouging, if you don't like the price then don't buy it. Plenty of other options, including 2nd-hand. Or do people these days have no agency? :D And why is the focus always on the seller? What about the buyer who's willing to spend much more than RRP? It's all just supply & demand, a free market the way it's supposed to be (sans actual fiddling by various corps in the past to bully retailers). Anything else is just communism-light, which never works.Amusing how everyone was shouting from the rooftops when GPU prices spiked during the mining craze, but where are all the moaners now that prices are dropping? Especially for 980s and 980 TIs? Oh right, because prices are going down, not up, but the forces responsible are exactly the same. The real greed is on the part of those who expect everything to be cheap or even free just because they want it to be that way. Real world doesn't work like that. Sometimes the nature of supply & demand works in one's favour, sometimes it doesn't, but nobody is being forced to buy anything.
hanselltc - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
I am not sure, by the looks of it the new CPUs are just the APUs without the iGPU.Alexvrb - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
No. Look at the table. They're Zen+, and they have 8MB of cache, not 6MB. They're full Ryzen 2 with one CCX disabled (unlike the 1000 series which used two cores from each CCX).Anyway this means I have something new to recommend for budget and mid-range, especially if they don't need a hexacore.
msroadkill612 - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
I agree w/ hanselltc, but we are all guessing a bit.each ccx has 8MB of L3 cache in an R7, so I would expect 8MB in a single ccx module.
the zen+ argument isnt as good as it sounds - tho 14nm. the apu is 14nm+ (more than it sounds), and more importantly, was released almost as recently to desktop as zen+ - so the apu is to all intents, zen+ - all the zen+ magic stuff like better memory, xfr2 & pb2 works just as well as zen+.
the apu and zen+ are much more alike than different.
MonkeyPaw - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
45W is pretty impressive for 8C/12T and boost clocks around 4.0Ghz. Curious if one can tell the difference over the higher-TDP equivalent under most workloads.Samus - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
Even more impressive is it is actually 8C/16T ;)notashill - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
I suspect the performance gap will be proportional to the number of threads being used. Single thread performance with max boost is very close and the gap in clockspeeds will gradually widen until all cores are loaded at which point it's the difference in base clocks- with the 2700 being about 15% faster. Relatively lightly threaded workloads such as games will probably see a 5-10% difference.Azurael - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
It's also totally unrealistic. If Precision Boost is really set to anything like 45w, these things will run much closer to their base speed than their boost speed under any substantial load. My 2700X will happily draw around 140w all day at 3.9-4.0GHz when running 16 thread compile jobs and that's with a -0.075v core and -0.125v SoC adjustment.ajp_anton - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
Kind of weird how when going 2600X - 2600 - 2600E the TDP drops, base clock drops, but boost clock is lowest in the middle.james007 - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
What chipset or motherboard supports this new Athlon 200GE ? I don't see that mentioned anywhere.Moravid - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
Same AM4 platform as every other Zen based consumer desktop platformFMinus - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
AM4 platform. It is apparently a locked APU though, so anything but the A chipset is likely a waste of money.Dragonstongue - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
tech report and a few others are saying the 2500 and 2300 are OEM only so one cannot buy the cpu itself as a "standalone" I really do not understand why AMD would do this (if they are) because many likely would not be all that impressed with the APU versions 2200/2400g and be "forced to deal with potential issues of the built in Vega that may or may not be able to be easily "disabled" if they should choose to use a standalone dGPU.in a "perfect world" the vega gpu on 2200/2400g would be a simple turn on or turn off in the bios no muss no fuss and with thest 2 new ones that do not have the gpu someone like me could buy them because they cannot afford or have need of the higher end ones and they just want to pair it up with a new or old gpu.
but those sites claim the only way to get them is OEM, so that means to get access to this maybe $100 or $150 dollar CPU you have to buy a potential $900 "system" just to get the cpu so as to avoid cannibalizing sales of the 2200/2400g, seems stupid AF to be doing things that way.
either Acer is paying AMD some big bucks for leverage to ensure is OEM only, or AMD is not at all thinking this through properly, if this second case is true, that is a crying shame, simple example, my Phenom II 955 (clocked to 980) would get a very decent overall bump and easily feed my current 7870 or a RX 580 or Vega without having to spend a whole bunch more coin then needed to go to the 6 or 8 core versions for "nothing"
money does not grow on trees after all.
Arnulf - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
What "potential issues"? You're spouting nonsense.Buy either of these APUs, pair it with discrete GPU, then let us know about these imaginary "issues" of yours.
And nobody is "paying $900 just for the CPU" when better CPU could be had for waaaaay less and locked down if needed (but who would do such a thing, apart from you of course).
msroadkill612 - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link
Well there is the small matter of losing 8 lanes if u use an apu as a pure cpu.U have no cause to take that rude rabid tone. U have no way of knowing there wont be other downsides. Logically, it seems probable there will be.
Manch - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
Believe it or not, Dragonstongue's nonsensical jibber jabber is only five sentences!Hubb1e - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
This comment doesn't make any sense at allbernstein - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
yay, finally amd is back sub 50W cpu game! however it is a bit disappointing, given that they can do a 8C/16T cpu @ 65w it follows they could easily do a 4C/8T @ 35w...GreenReaper - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link
You mean, like the 2400GE? Honestly, buy the 2400G and limit it to the clocks specified (maybe tweak a few GPU controls as well) and you'll probably be 95% of the way there. It's when over half of the cores are buzzing at the highest possible frequencies that it uses the most of that 65W.