The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
by Ian Cutress on March 2, 2017 9:00 AM ESTThe Ryzen Die
Throughout the time leading up to the launch of Ryzen, AMD reaffirmed its commitment to at least +40% IPC improvement over Excavator. This was specifically listed as a goal relating to performance, at an equivalent energy per cycle, resulting in a 40% increase in efficiency. At the Tech Day, AMD listed an overall 2.7x (or 270%) performance per watt improvement, split into the following:
Obviously a number of benefits come from moving the 28nm TSMC process to GloFo’s 14nm FinFET process which is used via a Samsung license. Both the smaller node and FinFET improvements have been well documented so we won’t go over them here, but AMD is stating that Zen is much more than this as a direct improvement to immediate performance, not just efficiency. While Zen is initially a high-performance x86 core at heart, it is designed to scale all the way from notebooks to supercomputers, or from where the Cat cores (such as Jaguar and Puma) were all the way up to the old Opterons and beyond, all with at least +40% IPC.
The first immediate image out of the presentation is the CPU Complex (a CCX), which shows the Zen core design as a four-CPU cluster with caches. This shows the L2/L3 cache breakdown, and also confirms 2MB of L3 per core with 8 MB of L3 per CCX. It also states that the L3 is mostly inclusive of the L2 cache, which stems from the L3 cache as a victim cache for L2 data. AMD is stating that the protocols involved in the L3 cache design allow each core to access the L3 of each other core with an average (but range) of latencies.
Over the next few pages, we’ll go through the slides. They detail more information about the application of Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT), New Instructions, the size of various queues and buffers, the back-end of the design, the front-end of the design, fetch, decode, execute, load/store and retire segments.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
FriendlyUser - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
True. The 1600X will be competitive with the i5 at gaming and probably much faster in anything multithreaded. The crucial point is the price... $200 would be great.MrSpadge - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
"Ryzen will need to drop in price. $500 1800x is still too expensive. According to this even a 7700k @ $300 -$350 is still a good choice for gamers."That's what the 1700X is for.
lilmoe - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
+1And for that, I'd say the 1700 (non-x) is the best consumer CPU available ATM. BUT, if someone just wants to game, I'd say get the Core i5... For me though, screw Intel. Never going them again.
fanofanand - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
The 1700 is the sweet spot for anyone not trying to eek out a few more fps or drop their encode/decode times by a couple of seconds. To save $170 and lose a couple hundred mhz, I know which chip seems like the best all-around for price/performance and that's the 1700.lilmoe - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
Yep. You get both efficiency and performance when needed. This should allow for super quiet and very performant builds. Just take a look at the idle system power draw of these chips. Super nice.Everything is going either multi-threaded or GPU accelerated, even compiling code. What I'm really waiting for is Raven Ridge. I've got lots of stock $$ and high hopes for a low power 4-6 core Zen APU, with HBM and some bonus blocks for video encode (akin to Quicksync). I have a feeling they'll be much better for idling power and have better support for Microsoft's connected standby.
khanikun - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
i5 is a good gamer and all around cpu for majority of users. If all you plan to do is game and a tight budget, the i3 7350k is a great cpu for just that. Once the workload goes a bit more multithreaded, that's where you'll want to move to an i5.Valis - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
I game now and then, but I do a lot of other things too. Video rendering, Crypto coins, Folding @ home, VM, etc. So any Zen, perhaps even 4 Core later thins year with a good GPU will suit me fine. :)nos024 - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
So the 1800x is pointless?lilmoe - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
I don't think pointless is the right word. I'd say it's the worse value for dollar of the three.tacitust - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
Not at all pointless if you do a lot of video transcoding or other CPU intensive tasks well suited to multiple cores. The price premium is still for the 1800x is way lower than the price premium for the Intel processors.