Is there any good reason to do big/little outside of mobile, embedded, and other very power and form-factor constrained workloads?Nah.
Different uarchs. SHP + SLPP uarchs mixed. Think big.LITTLE. More serial -> first 4 cores, 4.5/4.5/4.0/4.0. More parallel -> other 8/10 cores.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
That makes extraordinarily little sense. First off, I assume you mean prices will descend from the top of your list.I think AMD will release ZEN with HT enabled only for the top end:
HT 8c-16t (workstation CPU?)
HT 6c-12t (workstation CPU?)
8c-8t (unlocked multi) - i7 (4/8) competitor
6c-6t (unlocked multi) - i5 (4/4) competitor
4c-4t (unlocked multi) - i3 (2/4) competitor
They will disable HT to help mitigate IPC/clocks deficit where it matters - low core count CPUs. And enable it where the high parallel throughput is required - wokrstation highcore count CPUs.
The whole point of SMT is to mitigate IPC deficits! Sure, it adds another thread, but what SMT in reality does is ensure better utilization of the same silicon area. There's no way in hell they'll disable it unless they have to.They will disable HT to help mitigate IPC/clocks deficit where it matters
It doesn't.How does fusing off the SMT on a 4/8 Intel part make sense?
Capitalism is, objectively*, utterly stupid since it's based on profit motive. Profit, after all, is scamming people — selling things for more than they're worth. So, objecting to a business model based on objective logic is a bit like tossing baby out with the bath. Humanity is creating huge amounts of waste and pollution due to planned obsolescence and it's only going to get worse. Objectivity is not our strong point. One thing that makes that particularly droll is how our entire economic model is founded upon conspiracy.IFilling a self-proclaimed market segment by crippling one of your own products that has been produced and is perfectly functional (at additional expense for the crippling) is utterly stupid.
I guess it may make very little sense because you misunderstood me.That makes extraordinarily little sense. First off, I assume you mean prices will descend from the top of your list.
In other words:
-The mid-range SKU (8/8) would be more expensive to make than the 2nd most expensive.
You answered your own question. Where would it fit? It would not.-You assume AMD to not have functional SMT on their smallest dies. Otherwise, why no 4/8 SKU? And where would it fit in this lineup? More expensive than 6/6?
Yes, with each having 3 speed bins, that gives total of fifteen CPUs in the initial zen lineup. Actually I don't expect them to have that many.-Do you really expect them to have a total of five CPUs? For the entire Zen lineup?
No more than $150 for highest bin I hope.-Is the top-end 4c SKU really supposed to be in the ~$120 range?
I think they will, to have a clear and competing Zen lineup. SMT help utilizations, but you'r looking at it from different angle. It's not about what is disabled, but what kind of poduct you get.Also, to repeat what you said
The whole point of SMT is to mitigate IPC deficits! Sure, it adds another thread, but what SMT in reality does is ensure better utilization of the same silicon area. There's no way in hell they'll disable it unless they have to.
I don't think they will have 4c dies. I bielieve Zen will be a single die (8c/16t) harvested down to the 4c/4t. If the want to gain marketshare, they need to offer more. Even if the match IPC, I don't think they will match intel clocks, and I'm sure they will not match intel mindshare. Thats is why they will offer i5 equivalent as an i3(K - hint) competitor.Seriously, take a look at what AMD is comparing Zen to. The i7-6900. It's a $1100 CPU, also with 8 cores and 16 threads. They're aiming for IPC parity with Intel, quite obviously. Why would they waste fully functional 4c dies by crippling them by leaving out SMT and pricing them down to compete wiht i3s? That would be horrible business, even if it won them market share. Even if they lag behind intel by 10% per core, a 4c4t Ryzen chip would be an i5 competitor, not i3. Bear in mind, Ryzen is a CPU, not an APU, and as such has no iGPU. For low-end OEM systems (which is the biggest market), iGPU-less SKUs make no sense.
This is GloFo. They will have faulty chips. Lots of them. Look at vishera. Single die spreading from 8 core to 4 core on an old 32nm process.My take on the first months of Ryzen:
-At least two 8/16 SKUs (possibly one to begin with, followed by the second and:
-At least two 6/12 SKUs)
Then the rest of the lineup will flesh out alongside the Zen APUs, with high-clocked 4/8 SKUs both with and without iGPUs.
Non-SMT SKUs will, if at all, only be available in high(ish)-volume high-margin markets where there are enough dies to harvest for this to make sense, i.e. 35W+ 4+c SKUs.
***Yes, this is of course pure unfounded speculation. But at least it makes sense IMO***
Where did you come up with all that nonsense? Profit is evil? There has to be an incentive to produce something.Capitalism is, objectively*, utterly stupid since it's based on profit motive. Profit, after all, is scamming people — selling things for more than they're worth...
I didn't force to to post your political opinion. Everything is political, including CPU segmentation business practices. My comment is directly relevant to the segmentation question.Besides, I come here to read about tech, not politics.
There are incentives other than trying to con people out of more of their resources than the product is worth.Profit is evil? There has to be an incentive to produce something.
I don't see the problem here. A product is worth what someone will pay for it. Is disabling features inefficient? Sure. Intel is going to get their money, though. They have products that perform at different levels for different price points. If you want more performance, you end up paying for it. Intel decided there is enough of a performance difference to disable HT yet still make money. The i5 is wildly popular, I don't see the problem of having an "inefficient" product. It is better than not having the option at all.There are incentives other than trying to con people out of more of their resources than the product is worth.
There you go people, profit is selling things for more than they're worth. When you go to work, you should be awarded the exact amount of money you need to function - eat, dress, pay medical bills, pay rent. Anyone money put aside is actually making a profit from their job, hence scamming others.Profit, after all, is scamming people — selling things for more than they're worth.
I guess you missed the part where I said objectivity isn't humanity's strong point. What people like to call communism wasn't communism. It was a wealthy elite and impoverished masses. Similarly, what people like to call capitalism isn't capitalism. It's socialism in disguise, with a wealthy elite and impoverished masses. We're good at obfuscating the poverty and rationalizing away the problems. How about the good old-fashioned poverty in Haiti and the way the US pressured the Haitian president into exempting our companies from his tiny minimum wage increase? Or the good old-fashioned pollution in China, pollution US business/politics is more than happy to take part in (just from a convenient distance).good old fashioned communism regime.
― Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy“Time goes forward because energy itself is always moving from an available to an unavailable state. Our consciousness is continually recording the entropy change in the world around us. We watch our friends get old and die. We sit next to a fire and watch it's red-hot embers turn slowly into cold white ashes. We experience the world always changing around us, and that experience is the unfolding of the second law. It is the irreversible process of dissipation of energy in the world. What does it mean to say, 'The world is running out of time'? Simply this: we experience the passage of time by the succession of one event after another. And every time an event occurs anywhere in this world energy is expended and the overall entropy is increased. To say the world is running out of time then, to say the world is running out of usable energy. In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington, 'Entropy is time's arrow'.”
Anything that is more inefficient than another option furthers entropy more. That's what makes it comparatively inefficient.Not sure what any of that really has to do with market segmentation, but there you have it.
Yeah, the kind of lack of communistic governance that led to millions being scolded, beaten, killed, starved and generally handled like cattle. This is what happens when someone calculates social efficiency based on an ideal human being, void of personal goals and desire.Vast inefficiencies in your "communist regimes" point to a lack of communistic governance.
Citation needed.This is what happens when someone calculates social efficiency based on an ideal human being, void of personal goals and desire.
You forgot to mention "transcendence". lolAlso "ideal human being" is a red herring that's based in the correspondence bias (attribution error) that typifies contemporary "Western" thought. Everything, according to that bias, is about the individual rather than the society. Civilization is a commune. Your "ideal individual" is Ayn Rand thinking — not especially relevant. Objectively, there is an unresolvable conflict between society and the individual. So, the unbiased way to approach the issue is to consider both simultaneously, in order to try to come to a suitable compromise.
With such a lineup they would have to compete with 8c/16t zen against intel i7 4c/8t.I think that crippling Zen to have SMT disabled is not much efficient.
Since the goal was power efficiency, selling an artificially crippled CPU, makes the extra resources a waste of silicon and leakage.
It makes no sense for me.
AMD can still segment the market with 2/3 frequency sku for every combinations of below:
4/8 core (1/2 CCX): i don't think that disabling 1 core per ccx would be efficient. Moreover 4 core i think is best with 1 ccx, because off ccx latency would make 1 ccx vs 2 ccx 4 core two different beast.
no L3, half L3, full L3.
In conclusion: up to 3 frequency SKUs for:
8c/16t 16MB L3
8c/16t 8MB L3
8c/16t NO L3
4c/8t 8MB L3
4c/8t 4MB L3
4c/8t NO L3
I think that it is enough market segmentation...
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Question Did AMD stop making CPUs?||CPUs and Overclocking||47|
|K||Question Physical location of cores on a chiplet - cooling optimalisation - 4+4 processor makes sense?||CPUs and Overclocking||1|
|E||Question Does the purchase of a E5 1650 V3 make any sense in 2020?||CPUs and Overclocking||12|