They focused on other architectures and market demands, prioritizing different performance and power goals.
They focused on other architectures and market demands, prioritizing different performance and power goals.
I often questioned why only certain combinations were available—like 1+1, 2+0, etc. The odd numbers are represented by CCXs in the 3600 and 3900 models. It seems like a design choice rather than a technical limitation. Wouldn't a simpler setup with SMT support allow better performance for lower-end tri-core processors? A configuration like 3+0 might actually outperform 2+2.
Core setup restrictions suggest three cores are unusual for any CPU. We already have a 4+0 configuration. The 3300x offers excellent IPC and MCLR, plus an upgraded Zen 2 FPU.
The decision really hinges on your specific use case. Cost considerations apply if we're discussing a standard desktop Ryzen CPU rather than an APU. All other components will have similar manufacturing expenses, though you still need the IOD for compatibility with the CCD. At three cores, it must be priced lower than the four-core version, which could mean tighter profit margins. An APU offers some advantages in size and efficiency from the outset, making it potentially more practical once Zen 2 desktop APUs become available.
Is 3+0 a typical core setup? Wouldn't they encounter a challenge or issue with it?
From what I've seen, there doesn't appear to be any restrictions preventing this setup. It seems there are only a few guidelines in place. When several CCX units are grouped on one CPU, they must all share the same number of active cores, or none should have any active cores. A combination of three with zero active cores is allowed.