The all-in Zen 4 line using 5nm would likely face capacity issues.
Even in Q2 2021 the TSMC 5nm capacity is planned to be lower than the current 7nm one (110k vs 140 wpm). So it seems likely the 5nm might be initially used for high-margin markets only aka server/HPC.
That would have fragmented the lineup - Zen 3(+) being at 7nm, 7nm EUV, or 6nm and Zen 4 at 5nm. Interesting times ahead.
Given that no one seems to be able to match TSMC currently, TSMC‘s production capacity is going to stay in short supply just due to demand. If AMD sticks with 32 MB L3 for Zen 4, which I think makes sense, the CCD die will be very small even without much of a shrink. They may move to larger L2 caches in some manner. Apple does very well with large, shared L2, although that sharing generally isn’t going to scale to a large number of cores. Intel went with large shared L3 with Nehalem at 4-cores. The previous core 2 duo processors with large L2 shared between 2 cores still does very well for some applications. I still use a core 2 duo based 17 inch MacBook Pro (the last 17 inch MacBook Pro). It is unclear if they will just increase L2 size, or re-architect it a bit. I am wondering if it would actually make sense to go back to 2 cores sharing a single larger L2, then from the L3 perspective, it looks somewhat like a 4 core CCX again. That would make very efficient use of resources, but it may affect software scheduling optimizations again.
The current CCD is only around 75 square mm, which is probably smaller than most mobile chips which include a gpu and a bunch of other fixed function hardware. They may reduce the die size by moving to chip stacking of some form so they will not need 32-bit (single direction) serdes links between CCD and IO die. Increasing the L2 cache sizes may increase the die area slightly, but it may not be significant due to the node shrink. If they share the L2 among 2 cores or something, then that could allow them to be much more efficient on die area. At 5 nm they may be able to add a lot of functionality with minimal increase in die size.
They would still want to sell the CCD in the higher mid-range and high end desktop parts. Basically, they make massive numbers of CCD, which isn’t hard to do given the number of die per wafer at such a small size. The higher leakage, higher clocking die go to the desktop market where a 65 watt 6-core is okay. The lower leakage parts get stockpiled for Epyc. There is a good chance that the Ryzen CCDs just aren’t good enough to be Epyc processors except for some of the weird 2 CCD Epyc parts. The 5950x may be be one high leakage, high clock die paired with a lower leakage, more Epyc-like die (higher price). Given the pricing structure, they want you to buy the 6-core or the 12-core, which are probably both not good enough power consumption bin for Epyc.
I don’t think we are going to see increased L3 with Zen 4. It just doesn’t really seem to make much sense. The latency penalty would be high, but I guess larger L2 could make up for it, so I guess we can’t rule it out. They could make multiple types of CCD eventually. They could use a 64 MB CCD for high end database applications and HPC, but I don’t know if it would be necessary if Epyc gets L4 (infinity cache). I don’t think they would add L4 cache to the desktop IO die; 32MB is already huge. We may see some more APUs in the desktop market and those could be candidates for staying on 7 nm or 6 nm while leaving the 5 nm allocation for Genoa CCD with essentially salvage CCD for high-end desktop. Zen 3 is pretty much only higher end mid-range and high end desktop plus presumably stockpiles for Milan currently. We don’t have <300$ Ryzen 5000 yet; anything less than the 5600x might still be an APU.