Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

AMD Ryzen

AMD Zen Ryzen

  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

#201
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2617 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

4 cores/ ccx makes most sense since it's simplest and has fewest intra ccx connections and 8 would have a lot, but unless they planned for it back when they designed AM4 I'd question if they could go to a full chiplet design- with 2 4 core ccx- while staying with AM4. If they did plan for that I would be very impressed, and AMD did put a lot of stuff into the CPU package which would usually go into the chipset on the motherboard. That would also give an easy way to get 12 cores, threadripper had dummy ccx in gen 1 so you could get 12 core with 3x4 and one dummy.

 

I guess if they went the 8 core/ ccx route they'd have more failed chips to pad out the lower grade SKUs as well as 7nm probably being a bit less reliable as well; my skepticism comes from the extremely low relative failure rate for Zen1. We got a lot of 8 core 1600s here due to them running out of 'bad'/ partially failed chips.

Well, Intel is already offering 8-core CPUs that don't employ the CCX concept. It is more complex so probably more expensive to implement, but I don't think it would affect yields much. Plus the 7nm chiplets are approximately 1/3 the area of the 14nm chips, so that will offset much of the loss in yields of an immature 7nm process.

 

That said Voldemort has retracted his claim on the IO chip; Now he is claiming that these Ryzen 3 products use 7nm chiplets only. More likely that they have slightly larger 7nm chips with IO integrated for PCs, at maybe 1/2 the area of 14nm chips each. This also makes more sense with the combination with Navi which I think would have IO integrated because of bandwidth and energy requirements. Infinity Fabric 2 will do what, 100 GB/s between chips? That may be enough for an integrated GPU, but not for any discrete GPU nowadays.

 

 

The Intel 8 core is very expensive though, in part because you need to have 1x8 'perfect' cores when using ringbus rather than 2 perfect lots of 4 as with the infinity fabric/ ccx system; and it's also expensive on a very mature and refined node. Assuming linear error rates 8 core ccx would double the number of 'bad' ccxes (who knows though, depending on how the intra ccx stuff is handled complexity may go up non linearly and some stuff will have the same error rate whatever the core count). That might remain within acceptable levels, but it's all speculation at the moment.

 

At this point I'm not really sure what to make of the I/O situation at all. Too much rumour and I don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the relative likelihoods.



#202
Jozape

Jozape

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 205 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

So AMD went with the CPU die + IO die for the Ryzen 3000 series as You Know Who predicted.

 

cpu33_575px.jpg

 

IO die is on the left, CPU die on the right. It looks like there might be just enough room for another CPU or GPU chiplet.

 

Oh, and this single 8 core CPU was able to match the Core i9-9900k in Cinebench apparently.


  • injurai likes this

#203
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2617 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Yeah, the placement says that there will be 2 chiplet designs coming, no reason for that positioning unless they are. I presume they're holding off on the announcement so as not to cannibalise Threadripper 2nd gen sales (albeit TR does have other advantages like quad channel memory) and since the release is still a decent amount of time away.



#204
Jozape

Jozape

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 205 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer


Yeah, the placement says that there will be 2 chiplet designs coming, no reason for that positioning unless they are.

 

Yeah, and looking at a video of the package being held up there is obvious tracing for another chiplet below the top one.

 

 

I presume they're holding off on the announcement so as not to cannibalise Threadripper 2nd gen sales (albeit TR does have other advantages like quad channel memory) and since the release is still a decent amount of time away.

 

 

Makes sense. Even with the quad-channel memory advantage to the Threadrippers, the 16 core Ryzen 3000 will probably be able to beat it in serial or memory insensitive workloads which will be a lot of workloads. That difference between the non-Threadripper 2700X and the test chip in Cinebench is substantial by itself (~1750 points to ~2050 points).



#205
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2617 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

16 cores given the power draw of the 8 core suggests they are likely to need an upgraded socket, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see AM4+ (presumably backcompatible) and maybe x590 chipset as well. Shame there's no frequency information on the 8 core they showed so it could be compared to the 9900k's. Still, clearly a big improvement on the 2000 series even as an Engineering Sample.


  • injurai likes this

#206
Jozape

Jozape

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 205 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

So more news from Anandtech: there will be no GPU chiplets for the Ryzen 3000 series. All the APUs will use the existing APU design but on 12nm instead of 14nm. There will be an APU based on Zen 2 cores but at a later date, so probably the Ryzen 4000 series or whatever comes next. AMD also claims that the TDPs will be the same as for the 1000 and 2000 series. I'm not sure that actually means anything. Couldn't they just release SKus with the same TDP at the same prices as their current lineup but with higher TDP CPUs at higher prices? I think I will be surprised if the 16-core SKUs are supported on my B350 mobo.



#207
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2617 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Yeah, I've got a x370 MB and I'm not expecting 16 cores to even be supported on that. 16 cores at the same freqs as the 8 core demo gets the power draw into Bulldozer territory, and it would near have to have twice the TDP of the 1800x 300 series boards were designed for. Pulling that amount of power through the socket itself is very likely feasible, but I'd doubt other components could handle it.

 

APUs lagging by a generation is kind of understandable given that margins are low and 7nm will be fairly expensive (plus there's the GloFo supply agreement), plus there's a lot of inertia in the laptop market. I really wish AMD would fix their naming conventions though as it's as inconsistent as you could get. Ryzen 1x00 is Zen1, Ryzen 2x00 is Zen+, Ryzen 2400g is Zen1, Ryzen 3x00 will be Zen2 and Ryzen 3000 APUs will be Zen+; Vega 10 and 20 are generations, Vega VII is Vega 20, Vega64 is Vega 10, Vega 3/4/8/11 is Vega 10, Vega24/32 on Intel chips is actually Polaris with some Vega 10 features...


  • injurai likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: AMD, Zen, Ryzen

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users