Single core Ryzens

Is there no more any use for single core CPU that is as fast as possible?

I would imagine Ryzen is a good candidate for very fast single core platform since it can be made in so small size compared to Intel chips

Yes Intel may be faster on single core performance but Ryzens have been 4 cores at minimum and still doesnht produce too much heat.

What if it was actually 1-core? It would not overwheat with a very high clock frequency.

Attached: ryzen.0.jpg (1200x800, 50K)

retard

On a system capable of using them multicore CPUs are always going to be more efficient. Power usage and heat generated increases like exponentially with clock speed.

Ryzen is based upon 4 core ccx. So having just one core active would still require 3 dead cores on the die. Also the 8mb of L3 cache is probably way too much for one core, making it pretty bad in terms of power efficiency.
Such a chip would need almost as much energy as a 4 core version (yes less but a lot more than one fourth).
Also, the 12/14nm LPP node is less efficient than intels 14++nm node.

Conclusion: Ryzen would be a very bad choice for a single core cpu.

If you would like to remove the 4 core per ccx design you need a complete architectural redesign of major parts of the architecture. Considering the fact that such a chip would not hit more than 4.5ghz on air (still14/12 nm) it would still be slower than a modern intel processor like the 8700k/9700k/9900k etc.

>What if it was actually 1-core? It would not overwheat with a very high clock frequency.
Try it.
Go to BIOS, isable all but 1 core and OC it.
You'll realize how shitty AMD single core truly is

Tried it and it is total fine.
Also every program, which isn't toal shit uses more than one core.

seething intelshitter go back to installing security patches

>inb4 m-muh 5.2GHz
Kill yourself

Attached: untitled-12.png (682x908, 52K)

why does every benchmark chart have so huge differences tho?
I'm tired of this shit. i still don't know what to buy.

the difference is simple, some benchmarks use older programs, or bottleneck the cpu by doing weighing shitty optimzation more then good. there was one that showed intel far ahead of amd a while back, but 3/4 of the benchmark used a single core.

real world uses favors more cores then you can use, lets bring this to games as its something easily seeable.
if a game uses 4 cores, then when the cpu is maxed out, everything becomes a stuttering mess, gta5 on a quad core will have hitches every now and then, and nothing shy of throwing more cores then the game can actively uses will sovle this. now, in the case of 3d rendering or video rendering, more cores then you can use allows the computer to be used normally WHILE its being used to render.

sure a single fast core helps when a program is shit, but multicore generally is the better way to go.

as for what to buy, you are sub 6 months out from amds 7nm cpu, the one that will likely clock as high as intel, have higher per clock ipc, and cost less then intel, what you want to wait for is the motherboards for those specifically to come out, they will likely come out before the cpus do as they are backwards compatible, and get the one that can handle the highest end amd part, as there is a chance they lock the highest end one to it, then either buy a 2700, or a 3600 cpu, and wait for the next gen, if anything about prices is right, amd will launch another 500$ cpu, possibly an anniversary high binned one, which by the time the 4000 ryzen chips come out, will likely be in that 300$ range, and upgrade to that, and be set till capacitors fail.

No because that would mean all open applications and background tasks and the operating system are on a single core.

Even a single core processor running at 20ghz would completely shit the bed.

how about single core 20GHz vs dual core 800MHz

Won't b450 handle Zen 2?

fpbp

You mean 7 dead cores per die unless it's an APU.

some of the leaks suggest that amd is going to have 16 cores, but will lock said 16 core to the highest end motherboard, and current theory why is just down to ensuring those motherboards have power delivery that can handle the cpu.

A Lot of current motherboards could handle amds 16 core at its rated watt, but they have no hope of oc so on the safer side then sorry is the best guess.

already tested
single core 8 times higher then multi core clock, and the multicore was FAR better then the fast single.

ment for

why would you even want this?

well then, i hope they don't wait for too long. i need a new pc

I want to run 15 year old software REALLY fast

the shit is appreanly nearing if not already in mass production for the server chips, which are what will come out first, followed by consumer this time around.

but like I said, I would just get one of the motherboards and then get an low mid or older high end cpu to put in for this gen, and ride it out till the 4000 comes out getting a 3000 for half price, as 7nm is going to be ryzens most massive jump most likely.

Any chip that has a 105w TDP or less will work (assuming BIOS support is there) because that is what the x4xx boards are specced for. Even for first gen ryzen AM4 specifies that every board be capable of running a stock 1800x.

Im just going off what the rumor said, that the highest end ones, as in 16core, would be locked to the current chipset, with 12 core and below able to run on everything.

I personally think it would be stupid to disallow it on everything but I could see it not supported on a motherboard that also does not support oc,

/thread

There is a market for single core CPUs and it isn't for gaymers, it's for enteprise users that are getting reamed by IBM/Oracle on a per core basis and they would rather run a single core pegged at 100% the entire year than give Larry Ellison another fucking cent

>per core basis
Jesus Christ, enterprise software is a cancer.

/this
/thread

Fuck, I (You)'d the wrong post.
Here:

A ccx has 4 cores. You are referring to a zeppelin die (2 ccx).

A ccx can operate on it's own (like in an apu), so 3 dead cores is the minimum.

this

because there are retards who can't accept the reality of multi-core

Attached: 28cn76e.gif (500x281, 946K)

so can we have an educated guess here actually?

noone digged hard enough yet and i believe that such measurements to make an efficient, high clocked single core chip unfeasible because of multiple physics related reasons.

first, electrons loose efficiency over a certain range, so your actual semiconductor count is limited to your manufacteuring process.

second, the materials used in semi conductor fabs are not able to be efficient at the circumstance of being 1 fast af single core.

everything makes more sense if you just include more workers to your chip because multi threading is more efficient than what the materials are able to widthstand at higher clocks

these are just uneducated guess through minor researching

A die that would have 3 out 4 cores dead would be so fucked up that it wouldn't be usable anyway. If it had so many defect that it'd also have fucked up NB, cache, SB... they'd need to use chips with actual multiple cores good, cut them out or lock by software (that would inevitably make them unlockable somehow anyway). Just a total waste of effort and materials.
The new Athlons are probably already using perfectly good but cut down dies, just because OEMs wanted super low-end chips.

As we all clearly know that moar coars don't matter how many anons are running either the anniversary pentium or the 7740x? I mean, those are the two fastest low core count chips money can buy so naturally Jow Forums would be all over them correct?

Attached: 1455041386317.jpg (1078x1348, 198K)