Yotsugi
Golden Member
But instead they will clock the 6/8c parts conservatively and go gangbusters with 12/16c ones for them sweet sweet ASPs.they have a great chance to do a single 8 core chiplet with high clocks and market it for gaming
But instead they will clock the 6/8c parts conservatively and go gangbusters with 12/16c ones for them sweet sweet ASPs.they have a great chance to do a single 8 core chiplet with high clocks and market it for gaming
Power is approx a cubic function, so 25% more perf aka clocks is the same as 1/2 power at same clocks. 1/1.25^3 = 0.57nm does neither of those. The numbers might make you think that but the are deceiving. Look at the TSMC 7FF vs 16FF+ numbers. They are the most comparable to GloFo 14/12nm. Apparantly, AMD themselves has said they can get We know that AMD has said it can deliver 25 percent more performance on 7nm within the same power envelope. That's good, but certainly not 1/2. All we can do is wait and see, though.
True, but hotspots always exist, and what I'm saying is that for a given group of transistors doing any specific computation, we will have 1/2 the power generated in 1/2 the silicon area. I see the heat flux as similar and have not seen any analysis to dispute this. All of this assumes similar clocks.Fair enough, but the point still stands. Heat won't be distributed evenly over the new, smaller surface area. It can lead to hotspots.
Agree with the high clocked 8C part. That was one I predict to be the highest clocking part, but (2) 4C chiplets binned for the highest clocked cores and with the greatest area of silicon to dissipate heat.One chiplet has less energy to dissipate. Two chiplets increases the energy needed to be dissipated. When you have 12 active cores, you have less energy to dissipate vs 16. So, going up 4 more cores increases the amount of energy that would need to be dissipated without an increase in the surface area of the heat spreader. Further, the whole package now has increased power usage as there are more cores doing work over things like the IF.
In my opinion, they have a great chance to do a single 8 core chiplet with high clocks and market it for gaming. They would sell a lot more of those chips than a cpu with two chiplets in a single package that costs much more.
Bad take.That was one I predict to be the highest clocking part
That would be a 16c product.A 50th anniversary special edition?
If you can bin chiplets for power and frequency, can't you do the same within a chiplet by disabling the weaker cores? This allows a better performing 4C chiplet even within the premium 8C chiplet bin as you will still have some variation within any full chiplet.Bad take.
That would be a 16c product.
That will go into ludicrously expensive per-C licensing Rome SKUs, not into cheapo desktop parts.This allows a better performing 4C chiplet
That's the spirit.Guess we'll have to wait and see
I'm currently using 32GB (2x16) 3466 JEDEC on a Ryzen 1600 (and x470), plug'n'play.570 boards will be mostly an AMD in house design. Something to do with the previous vendor & PCI 4.0
I’m just hoping for better memory choices
Power is approx a cubic function, so 25% more perf aka clocks is the same as 1/2 power at same clocks. 1/1.25^3 = 0.5
True, but hotspots always exist
That article has some weird writing. For example.They get worse on smaller nodes. That's why there were posts on this forum years ago about the same subject (and the challenges of making nodes like 7nm, 5nm and 3nm functional). Consider this:
https://semiengineering.com/power-challenges-at-10nm-and-below/
I guess what I was really reaching for here was current density.
570 boards will be mostly an AMD in house design. Something to do with the previous vendor & PCI 4.0
I’m just hoping for better memory choices
I don't think there's anything concrete about the 500 series yet. Some rumours i've seen mention it's no longer ASMEDIA making the pch, adding a lot more additional IO lanes to make them more comparable to intel's more powerful chips and also negative ones where there's delay on the production of the parts causing launch delays including pushing back the cpu launches.
On the other hand, do we realize that Zen3 is probably coming 1 year later. Not a whole lot of time to relax and space out your SKUs.
Got some negative reactions for simply saying that a 6C/12T CPU might not be the best for gaming in a few years as the consoles would be 8C/16T CPUs and establish a new acceptable minimum. Seems some folks just can't accept the big changes happening and more importantly, continuing to happen.
Throw out all of your biases built up over the last several years. We're in uncharted waters here, for the times they are a-changin.
Trapping heat between the fins is a very, very strange explanation. I could see it being used for non engineering types as a metaphor, but this is an engineering site.
Well it first went Zen on both 14nm and 14nm+, Zen2 and Zen3. Now we have Zen, Zen+, Zen2 and Zen3 as 14nm+ became 12nm. Zen3 is a different beast to Zen2, no + moniker.That still surprises me. I was expecting something like the 2000 series. Which that might be the case but they're just calling it Zen 3 (kinda like how Intel is calling every new year the _th Gen, even when there's little difference and now there's a whole variance of cores being used even), but then I feel like they should sync the x000 series with the Zen _ or do something
PCH has nothing to do with the IMC.Which didn't they use someone else's memory controller in Zen 1?
Yet you're probably posting that from a phone, a world where vendors live and die on yearly cadence.That still surprises me
It's very much a new core.Which that might be the case but they're just calling it Zen 3
That looks to be a general situation for all finFETs. Heat from itself added to heat from fins on both sides versus the outside fins that only get external heat from one side, with a large spacing to the adjacent transistor end fin.I thought so too, on second examination. Perhaps this is related?
https://semiengineering.com/will-self-heating-stop-finfets/
PCH has nothing to do with the IMC.
AMD uses their own IMC, DDR PHYs are Synopsys.
Yet you're probably posting that from a phone, a world where vendors live and die on yearly cadence.
Ever wondered how does that work?
It's very much a new core.
The retail 2700x comes with a better cooler ??? Or do I have them mixed up ?
Extremely unimpressive.There is going to be a 50th anniversary edition product from AMD... but it's just a 2700X with a special edition cooler?
Says ETA is the 24th.
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop...011003000502_B6FR626P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID
They say not to order it anymore. Maybe it was a late Aprils fool joke ?Extremely unimpressive.
If it were a gold sample they should have gone calling it 2800x. 😉Yeah, looks like a regular 2700x with a $100 price premium
Maybe its like those golden sample things where its hand picked to run the highest clock speeds?
Maybe its some sort of BS scam like it comes with some AMD 50 coin or useless case badge. AMD isn't too good at managing their supply partners.
If it were a gold sample they should have gone calling it 2800x. 😉