I wonder reading about all these issues why AMD did not create 2 dies. A true 8-core and a 4-core. The 8-core for R5, R7 and server parts and the Quad core for APUs and R3. It's not like the will offer server parts on a 4-core level granularity.
Agree. R3 will probably be like the recent Athlons. RR with disabled iGPU. Makes sense to harvest chips with broken iGPU.Raven Ridge will be a native quad-core APU. One CCX.
Actually, I wonder if Ryzen R3 will simply be Raven Ridge.
because this way they make an unified module that can be reused on everything, from the semi-custom console cpu to naples without requiring any r&d, like arm does for its core modules.I wonder reading about all these issues why AMD did not create 2 dies. A true 8-core and a 4-core. The 8-core for R5, R7 and server parts and the Quad core for APUs and R3. It's not like the will offer server parts on a 4-core level granularity.
This. With some monolithic 8C CCX the L3 latencies would be higher for every access, other latencies maybe too. With a XBar in a CCX there might be higher cycle time and power consumption (longer avg wire distances). Yields might be affected as well.In hardware design, closing the timing constraints is a great deal of the effort involved. Each CCX is an island in which those timing constraints, at core clock speed, can be resolved without affecting the entire die - which is why Infinity Fabric runs in a different clock domain. Extending the design to an 8-core CCX would have involved redoing the timing constraints across at least the L3 cache, which could have involved serious compromises overall.
Makes sense to waste even more die space, than with Zeppelin?Agree. R3 will probably be like the recent Athlons. RR with disabled iGPU. Makes sense to harvest chips with broken iGPU.
And yes I knew RR would be a quad. That's why I don't get why they went with a quad-core module for Zeppelin. Why not just make a native 8-core? The will make 2 versions only anyway: 8-Core and 32-core naples. I mean HEDT + server and consumer APU both should have enough volume to offer separate "dies" or say designs as in native quad and native octo-core.
I don't know much about cost but from a project management and complexity point of view is it really cheaper to go with an universal 4-core module and create all the connecting stuff plus compromises (server vs client use) vs 2 separate designs?
Yeah, I don't really see why they would bother to sell a Raven Ridge with a disabled GPU. Who would buy it? If someone is looking to buy a budget CPU, there is a good chance that they would want an integrated GPU with it.Maybe there will be no low-end CPUs without GPU (like Athlon X4). It's more likely they will leave 4-5 CUs and have A8/A9 SKUs (or whatever new names are) and sell it for $100 or more. I also doubt R3 will cost less than $100
What interests me is will they have really low-end CPUs/APUs like Celerons or A4? Especially since it was stated AM4 will also replace AM1 platform. But 1 CCX + 4 CUs will still be too big die to sell it for $30 - $40, right? So is it possible they have "small" CCX which would be one half of existing one? 2c/2t and 2c/4t + 2CUs is more than enough for basic home/office tasks
If it wasnt they would have used Carrizo/Bristol Ridge harvested dies instead of designing a specific one for Stoney Ridge.Would the profit from a specific line of 2C+GPU pay its way relative to the loss of harvesting 4C+GPU?
Stoney Ridge is still on the lowest end of roadmap. If there will be dual core Zen APUs, they'll probably be Raven Ridge salvages, and it won't be the dirt cheap tier you hypothesize.There is a 2-core Zen design in the pipeline somewhere, principally aimed at inexpensive laptops. I assume this would be a low-end APU, and would thus replace Stoney Ridge. It'll be a relatively late addition to the first-generation Zen lineup, though.
I suspect there was a development cost and TTM factor as well.This. With some monolithic 8C CCX the L3 latencies would be higher for every access, other latencies maybe too. With a XBar in a CCX there might be higher cycle time and power consumption (longer avg wire distances). Yields might be affected as well.
This would hit every software's performance.
I'd say they did a divide'n'conquer approach.
True. But raven ridge mobile is H2 and R3 could be those mobile parts with defunct iGPU. Maybe.Why are they waiting with Raven Ridge desktop for next year if it is ready earlier?Ryzen 3 is scheduled for H2 this year.
Raven Ridge desktop for next year so no R3 is not RR based.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Info Microcenter Ryzen Inventory - Selling Out||CPUs and Overclocking||17|
|H||Question Anybody have experience with Ryzen and Presonus Studio One performance?||CPUs and Overclocking||23|
|B||AMD Ryzen 5000 Builders Thread||CPUs and Overclocking||83|
|***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread ***CONFIRMED***||CPUs and Overclocking||748|
|Question PBO setting for Ryzen 3800x processor||CPUs and Overclocking||6|