- Dec 28, 2013
This is utter speculation on your part. You are building a house of cards on speculations like this and arguing that the final outcome has some factual value. It really doesn't.
I actually read your post. Once again someone pooh pooh my conclusions while not addressing the particulars any of the points.
I find the 8 core version least likely. Even 4C CCX x2 (8cores) is already kind of overkill for desktop, so jumping to 8C CCX and thus 16 core desktop, just pushes things where they don't need to go
Right, because AMD has no interest in the server market and so a 4 core CCX is fine for the time being.
8C CCX/16 core desktop is probably more expensive to produce than the current die, while you still need parts at desktop prices, so it isn't really the most profitable outcome, and ultimately profit is what they are after.
I covered in exhaustive detail how and why AMD would go with an 8 core CCX.
AMD just doubled Threadripper, why not Ryzen AT 7NM. The idea is to keep Intel back footed and thoroughly uncompetitive.