PotatoWithEarsOnSide
Senior member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 664
- 701
- 106
I figure that it is probably just the PCIe4. Doubtful there's enough room for anything significant like L4 cache. It's unlikely to be dead space though.
Well, like you said, the same amount of uncore as RR plus maybe a tiny extra for modernization like pcie 4, plus more lanes of pcie than RR since PR and SR have more.
If that leaves space then that includes the graphics related portions of RR minus most of the 11CU's.
Maybe stare at this some more. For size comparison, I think the CCX is like 40 some mm2.
My opinion is this: to not include about 35mm2 of area of graphics in the ~120mm2 controller would be a mistake. Fallback graphics are very useful for consumers, it'd be yet another feature upgrade in the 3000 series, and OEMs would find it irresistible.
View attachment 2458
After staring at this RR die shot some more and doing some quick measurements, I'm convinced there has to be something in there. I subtracted the area of 8 of the 11 Vega CUs and the CCX0 and came up with ~123mm2, the same size as the IOC. The additional eight PCIe lanes to get it from 16 to 24 don't take up very much die space, and since this is a desktop-specific IOC there may be other things they didn't need to include that free up a little bit of space.
3CUs is more than enough graphics power for a backup GPU or office tasks. Look at how closely the Athlon 200GE trails the 2200G in this test. If the 200GE had the same number of CPU cores and same CPU/IGP clocks this score would be even higher, and it only has 3 CUs compared to 8 in the 2200G. The 3 CUs don't seem to have the same memory bandwidth problems as 8 or 11 CUs.
View attachment 2456
There's enough room on there for a small IGP, and a small IGP would make sense, but there are also a million other possible explanations for why the IO die is the size it is. We should know either way on or closer to launch.
Toss 1 CU into the chipset and be done with it. That's plenty for 2D work laptops with no gaming.It would make sence, specially for Ryzen PRO, and most people dosent need a big IGP for gaming. It would get a bit messy, explaning that a 2400G has better IGP than the Ryzen 7 3000... But it is acceptable. You know what im using right now for the people who wants a 2600/2700 only for work? a GT710, a Vega 3 would be a huge improvement.
Toss 1 CU into the chipset and be done with it. That's plenty for 2D work laptops with no gaming.
I would expect what's on the IOC and taking up most of the space is most likely infinity fabric and it's supporting logic for up to 4CCXs.
We know from Zen 1 and + that IF has a significant power overhead and thus probably takes up a significant amount of die area. Scaling that logic to allow for up to 4 CCXs would probably take up even more area.
There's enough room on there for a small IGP, and a small IGP would make sense, but there are also a million other possible explanations for why the IO die is the size it is. We should know either way on or closer to launch.
It would make sence, specially for Ryzen PRO, and most people dosent need a big IGP for gaming. It would get a bit messy, explaning that a 2400G has better IGP than the Ryzen 7 3000... But it is acceptable. You know what im using right now for the people who wants a 2600/2700 only for work? a GT710, a Vega 3 would be a huge improvement.
Doesn't RR support 3 or 4 displays?
That's kind of overkill for bare basics fallback graphics. So maybe the display engine can be downsized. 2CU would be enough; maybe even 1CU. But each CU isn't that much, so 3 is not a bad number.
If they stuck 1 to 3 CU's in there I think it's understood that these aren't "real" APUs, but in fact CPUs that have bare essentials graphics capability.
It would be nice to believe, but realistically (given how little is known right now) basic video may or may not be a new feature.
Software encoding would be a very good idea. Plenty of threads for that.And the multimedia block can be cut down as well, remove the encoder, Zen2 has enoght cores to do software encoding anyway.
Games, by design, are hard to parallel across many cores.
You would see a huge benefit going from 2C to 4C, but a significant (but smaller) benefit going from 4C to 6C.
So let's think about that for a moment: AMD's new best selling processor is selling for $80. (down from $160)
For the last time, AMD did not design zen2 with gaming in mind! Yes you're right that they do not scale very well, but I can assure you that that isn't a deciding factor in how AMD decided it's lineup.
There are significantly larger market forces in play, freelance and professional content creators, OEM companies, and many more gamers that simply don't care about or can't afford top performance.
We won't know if AdoredTV is wrong until later this year, but gaming won't be the reason why his predictions aren't accurate.
I think you're significantly overestimating the cost of AMDs chiplets. The entire basis of AMD using chiplets is to cut costs in two we ays:
Only 1 7nm die saves them money on layout, test runs, and validation. (A significant amount of money)
Having a smaller die gives higher yields.
Depending on how successful those two strategies play out and how well TSMC yields are, it could cost AMD next to nothing for a chiplet it can't sell as Rome or TR.
I'm willing to bet that every if it doesnt end up being 80$ it'll still be lower than the current 160.
Also, it's pretty obvious that gamers make up a big chuck of AMD's customers unlike Intel who mostly ship to OEMs.
You forget that it isn't just about the how much it costs to make the processors and ship them to the store, but also, development cost.
Also, it's pretty obvious that gamers make up a big chuck of AMD's customers unlike Intel who mostly ship to OEMs.
I'm not sure that incorrect pricing necessarily invalidates the entirety of the leak.Let me make it clear why AdoredTV's list is very very likely fake. (If, for whatever reason, you are still unconvinced otherwise.)
Games, by design, are hard to parallel across many cores.
You would see a huge benefit going from 2C to 4C, but a significant (but smaller) benefit going from 4C to 6C.
You hardly see a benefit going from 6C to 8C. (a few games can benefit, but the majority cannot)
That is hence the reason why the the 6C Ryzen 5 is AMD's best selling product.
Now, according to AdoredTV's list, AMD would cut its 6C processor's MSRP in half, from $199 to $99.
Someone would point out that Ryzen 5 2600 is selling for ~$160, which is below MSRP.
This is true, but the hypothetical Ryzen 3 3300 would likely also go on sale after being released (possibly to $80).
So let's think about that for a moment: AMD's new best selling processor is selling for $80. (down from $160)
That would significantly hurt AMD's bottom line.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
More likely than not, AMD is going to keep the number of cores in the Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 the same.
Ryzen 9 would target new price points.
12C/24T Ryzen 9 3800X at $500 to $600 would target Core i9-9900K
16C/32T Ryzen 9 3900X at $700 to $800 would target Intel's unreleased 10-core Coffee Lake Refresh
There's some overlap with Threadripper, but the people who buy Threadripper probably need the extra PCIe lanes that the Ryzen 9 doesn't have.
1. TBA dates were incorrect
2. G-versions are incorrect (if they arrive it will be next year and they will be Renoir based, not chiplets)
3. extended TDP range was incorrect
4. Wishful pricing at low end
Case closed.
Don't get your undies twisted just because some leak is proven wrong.
FYI the chiplet speculation was his own and completely unrelated to the leak.