• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Does an 8/8 Zen "Summit Ridge" SKU make good sense?

Does an 8/8 Zen "Summit Ridge" SKU make good sense?


  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
The current rumor has 8/16, 6/12, and 4/8 — no 8/8 to be found.

Wouldn't 8/8 be more optimal for an enthusiast than 8/16 or 6/12 — since real core threads are more efficient than SMT threads and having so many is a pain for overclocking (16 or 12 instances of MemTest HCL, 16 or 12 Prime threads to track)?

I realize SMT is valuable for wringing more out of a core which is why it's commonplace but wouldn't having 8 direct core threads be more optimal for gaming than 4/8 or 6/12 — for games able to fully leverage 8 threads?

Let the people who want to pay for 8/16 get that but why not have unlocked 8/8 at a lower price?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbn

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
I like the idea of unlocked 8C/8T.

I would use it to get the most ST possible while still maintaining good enough MT.

However, I'll bet in TDP limited scenarios (eg, OEM) a 6C/12T would be more efficient.

Very interesting question and poll you made. (Not sure how I will vote yet though)
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,562
96
If the lack of SMT in a 8 core CPU can ensure higher clockspeeds then this would be the way to go for a gaming system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbn

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
15,156
5,268
136
way too early to tell. AMD's "SMT" may behave differently from Intels. If you get another 8 threads with NO potential negative consequences .. then why wouldnt you? Like Intel, the 8/16 may have more cache than the 8/8 (it most certainly will, will it not? - SMT is after all not free) .. You might just find your self in a situation where the best performing gaming SKU is a 8/16 with SMT disabled. Who knows!
 

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,225
1,373
136
Makes no sense whatsoever.

AMD's throttling for Zen is supposedly based directly on TDP.

So, if you want a higher clock on 8C only, disable SMT in the bios.
If you want maximum threads while sacrificing potential clock speeds, then enable SMT in the bios.


The maximum clock speed that any given CPU of a fixed design can hit is (brutally simplifying it) limited by 2 things, how efficient the chip has been produced (binning), and what TDP the user is willing to accept. Hardwiring the disabling of SMT won't help any more than disabling it in bios.


Now, what would be cool would be if AMD could make it possible to disable SMT on the fly. Kinda like GPU profiles for games, you could have CPU profiles for applications enabling and disabling SMT to optimise speed for the software/licensing environment.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,562
1,326
126
I guess the original idea is that a 8/8 chip would be possibly considerably cheaper.
Not cheaper to make, since it's likely be the same silicon. Only makes sense if they have a lot of dies that can't pass validation tests with sat enabled.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
Not cheaper to make, since it's likely be the same silicon. Only makes sense if they have a lot of dies that can't pass validation tests with sat enabled.
Segmentation. It makes sense if they can charge a higher premium for the 8/16. The people who need 16 threads are also a different market, often enough, to justify 8/16 and 8/8, I assume.
 

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,225
1,373
136
Segmentation. It makes sense if they can charge a higher premium for the 8/16. The people who need 16 threads are also a different market, often enough, to justify 8/16 and 8/8, I assume.
Disagree.

If you have the chip made at the same cost (in fact, hardware disabling it will probably cost more as it is a move away from default!), better to leave the price gulf and have people either pay more for the extra performance or pay less for a 2C chip that costs less to make.

Having people pay less for a chip that costs the exact same, if not more to make, is not a good business case. (Irrespective of how stupid marketing "gurus" have insisted to date on filling every potential market segment.)
 

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,225
1,373
136
Not cheaper to make, since it's likely be the same silicon. Only makes sense if they have a lot of dies that can't pass validation tests with sat enabled.
I would consider that to verge on the impossible unless they've really f**ked up the SMT implementation.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,554
2,536
126
Wait, the same people that complain about Intel's market segmentation practices want AMD to do the same?
I believe they want a cheaper 8/8 than more expensive 8/16 SKU. Also they seem to believe 8/8 will clock higher than 8/16 due to TDP and number of Cores/Threads.

And the argument is for a Gaming Desktop system where 8 Cores/8Threads will be the optimal configuration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: superstition
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,003
126
And the argument is for a Gaming Desktop system where 8 Cores/8Threads will be the optimal configuration.
For gaming, an ultra-high clocked four core/eight thread part would be the "optimal" configuration.

It'll be interesting to see if AMD offers such a SKU.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,554
2,536
126
For gaming, an ultra-high clocked four core/eight thread part would be the "optimal" configuration.

It'll be interesting to see if AMD offers such a SKU.
HEDT SKUs are always faster in 2016 games, 4 Cores will not be enough very soon.

This does make it more clear of what is to come.

 
  • Like
Reactions: ButtMagician
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,003
126
HEDT SKUs are always faster in 2016 games, 4 Cores will not be enough very soon.

This does make it more clear of what is to come.

Cool, that's one game. One game does not a trend make, though I would love to see games take advantage of more cores as it gets harder to wring more ST perf out of these chips.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,194
365
126
Cool, that's one game. One game does not a trend make, though I would love to see games take advantage of more cores as it gets harder to wring more ST perf out of these chips.
Purpose defeated...

(If you need 8 Hyperthreaded cores to break 60FPS minimums then there is something really wrong. )
 

Justinbaileyman

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2013
1,904
227
106
Makes sense to me.. 8 real cores and 8 real threads vs say 4 cores and 8 threads. sounds like it could be a monster CPU as long as it has better IPC and higher clocks speeds then current gen AMD CPU's. Heck if you dont want it, give them to me I will make great use out of them LOL. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: superstition

EightySix Four

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2004
5,115
49
91
Until we know price, IPC, clock speeds, per core performance, SMT performance, and everything else about Zen, how could we possibly make a guess as to whether this CPU is necessary or not?
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,864
1,620
126
HEDT SKUs are always faster in 2016 games, 4 Cores will not be enough very soon.
It's not going to be that simple. Remember that is the regular 6700. The 6700K would probably be 18-20% faster just by virtue of the base clock. The Broadwell-E has more L3 too.

I'd like to see what Broadwell-C would have done.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
Wait, the same people that complain about Intel's market segmentation practices want AMD to do the same?
I've complained about inefficient polymer TIM being used for segmentation. I'm not sure what other people you're including in your call out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY