What an absolute monster the first FXs were, man! Still, selling those for a grand was nothing sort of disgusting. Truth be told, their cheaper stuff was also faster than Intel's most expensive, so yeah... I mean, the 5950 and 3950 were also not cheap, but at least they actually offer much more to their target segment (end-user productivity) than anything else on the market. Rodriguez & co. were just like 'our stuff is the fastest, but we have something even faster, so why not a thousand bucks?' That made them indistinguishable from Intel in terms of customer (un)friendly behavior.I'm laughing hard while typing this: FX 5xxxX 3D. I purposely mangled 3dfx to avoid a lawsuit hehe
A great way for AMD to redeem the FX moniker of the 2000s
so 3D cache stacking is just an experiment on the 6000 series? Zen 4 will not have that?
![]()
Upcoming Hardware Launches 2026 (Updated Mar 2026)
This article serves as a continuously updated summary of currently known leaks and official announcements regarding upcoming hardware releases in 2026 and beyond. We cover and keep track of developments for Intel Nova Lake, AMD Zen 6, NVIDIA's and AMD's upcoming GPUs, DDR6 and GDDR7 memory...www.techpowerup.com
Quite probably we will see this technology on Zen4 too, it depends on which models (on servers, it is quite probable, on desltop, it will depend on the competitive performance relative to Intel).
What's the max LLC cache size of the top desktop Zen 4 chip? Is that information out?Zen 4 probably has considerable IPC uplift if that is the case.
We had the discussion in this thread before that stacking is not available on each node from the start but is a capability that TSMC needs to build up first after the node itself.so 3D cache stacking is just an experiment on the 6000 series? Zen 4 will not have that?
One thing is certain: this is not a one-off like "the majority of GPU customers are interested in the ~$200 segment" nonsense was.We had the discussion in this thread before that stacking is not available on each node from the start but is a capability that TSMC needs to build up first after the node itself.
Zen 4 being "delayed" may well be due to AMD wanting 3DX to be available on Zen 4 from the start. Who knows, with the total lack of announcements and hard dates either way.
We had the discussion in this thread before that stacking is not available on each node from the start but is a capability that TSMC needs to build up first after the node itself.
Zen 4 being "delayed" may well be due to AMD wanting 3DX to be available on Zen 4 from the start. Who knows, with the total lack of announcements and hard dates either way.
Quite probably we will see this technology on Zen4 too, it depends on which models (on servers, it is quite probable, on desltop, it will depend on the competitive performance relative to Intel).
If it is true, I imagine AMD will do the same thing as this time: Launch Zen 4 *without* caching (on the desktop at least) and later launch new SKUs *with* caching prior to launching Zen 5.
Zen 4 probably has considerable IPC uplift if that is the case.
These are some good points as well and make me think a full Zen 3D lineup is less likely.
I think it was posted/mentioned earlier in this thread that TSMC's roadmap points to same node on same node being first, with mixing nodes coming at a later point.Could a Zen 4 die made on TSMC 5nm bond to a cache die made with TSMC 7nm assuming it was designed to link up?
At this point I'm not even sure we'll see a "fuller lineup" akin to Zen/Zen+/Zen 2 again. Seems AMD is fine with APUs covering the more budget parts of the lineup starting with x700 and downward. And while V-cache on APUs would be nice I don't expect that to happen, at least not with the mainstream APU line (which is what's coming to the desktop).I don't think anyone should have expected the full lineup to get 3D but there's always rebrands.
These are some good points as well and make me think a full Zen 3D lineup is less likely.
Doing that basically commits AMD to doing it for future products or it creates performance issues. If Zen 3D gives a 15% uplift from more cache and Zen 4 gives a 20% uplift from architecture and clock improvements then it looks rather unimpressive compared to Zen 3D offerings unless it also includes the extra cache.
Another interesting question. Could a Zen 4 die made on TSMC 5nm bond to a cache die made with TSMC 7nm assuming it was designed to link up? SRAM is another one of those components that isn't scaling as well, so AMD may not gain/lose much performance from shrinking the cache dies.
No, I'd be more amused if they break out the 3Dnow! name for the marketing.
AMD should have released the Zen 3 threadripper 6 months ago. Even with very limited availability. That would have better positioned them against intel. When Intel says here is our new stuff vs. AMD. They would run into a wall of shit against threadripper.
If AMD is delaying the Threadripper so much, I wonder if it is going to be released with V-Cache. What sense would it make to release it in November without V-Cache and then a few months later, another set of SKUs with V-Cache?
I'm expecting 30-40% at minimum TBH. 10-20% faster than Zen3D. WITHOUT caching.
In my opinion, your expectations are too high. According to the Chinese forum about GoldenCove and Cortex X2, Zen 4 is a 20-25% increase in IPC.I suspect Zen 4 to have a much larger uplift based on leaks thus far. Just moving from 7nm to 5nm would give them considerable uplift. We know that the cores will be larger, and that the FPU will be beefed up. I'm expecting 30-40% at minimum TBH. 10-20% faster than Zen3D. WITHOUT caching.
Yea, comparing Zen1 - a casual, wide core with uop cache and a standard cache configuration - with BD/XV - an 'experimental', oddly narrow core, no uop cache and slow/horrible cache configuration - is easy.That's a rather large expectation and a bit hard to believe. It's certainly a bigger jump than anything we've seen since AMD launched Zen and that was only because Bulldozer and the iterations on it were bad by comparison.