Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)

Page 438 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
809
1,412
136
Except for the details about the improvements in the microarchitecture, we now know pretty well what to expect with Zen 3.

The leaked presentation by AMD Senior Manager Martin Hilgeman shows that EPYC 3 "Milan" will, as promised and expected, reuse the current platform (SP3), and the system architecture and packaging looks to be the same, with the same 9-die chiplet design and the same maximum core and thread-count (no SMT-4, contrary to rumour). The biggest change revealed so far is the enlargement of the compute complex from 4 cores to 8 cores, all sharing a larger L3 cache ("32+ MB", likely to double to 64 MB, I think).

Hilgeman's slides did also show that EPYC 4 "Genoa" is in the definition phase (or was at the time of the presentation in September, at least), and will come with a new platform (SP5), with new memory support (likely DDR5).

Untitled2.png


What else do you think we will see with Zen 4? PCI-Express 5 support? Increased core-count? 4-way SMT? New packaging (interposer, 2.5D, 3D)? Integrated memory on package (HBM)?

Vote in the poll and share your thoughts! :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: richardllewis_01

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,798
2,156
136
[I'm vastly over simplifying this]

On the same die, even when constricted to one uniform design library, there are still different cell types with different densities, different cell and circuit padding rules, different leakages and different switching rates. Some of this is controlled with cell heights and others are controlled by the dark silicon that's left between each transistor.

It is possible that AMD is implementing a 2 core CCX based on a high performance and moderate leakage cell library that optimizes for performance over density and power and then a quad core CCX that uses a slower, higher density cell library that is optimized for low power use and accepts lower performance targets. These are cell libraries that live within the overarching process design library. For each process, as we know, there are different sets of design libraries available to choose from. Each of those design libraries defines the process lithography rules and includes a set of defined cell libraries. Each die is a collection of cells such as cpu cores, SRAM, I/O, gpu functional units, etc.

The innovation that TSMC was touting is the ability to use different die design rules on the same die in different areas, increasing cell type and performance flexibility.

Perhaps the C in Zen4C indicates that they chose high density cell libraries and use a different core circuit layout as a result of the different cell design rules involved, but it retains effectively the same logic layout and capabilities of regular Zen4.
 

turtile

Senior member
Aug 19, 2014
623
299
136
Why not monolithic? IMHO there is no reason it couldn't.
The CCX are giving me headaches as well. For this SKU to fly they need to design a new 2c Zen4 CCX as well as a 4c Zen4c CCX. Hard to believe that this is worth it.
Also as @moinmoin pointed out the differences between the two categories seem to be rather small (frequency being the big unknown).

Zen 4 and Zen 4c are on different nodes. So there is no way they can do this without shrinking Zen 4. And Zen 4c uses 8 core CCXs according to the rumors. Zen 5 and Zen 5c are on different nodes as well. So technically, Zen 5 and Zen 4c could be on the same die (both 4N). I'm not sure that they would do this because the ISA is different.
 

BorisTheBlade82

Senior member
May 1, 2020
680
1,069
136
Zen 4 and Zen 4c are on different nodes. So there is no way they can do this without shrinking Zen 4. And Zen 4c uses 8 core CCXs according to the rumors. Zen 5 and Zen 5c are on different nodes as well. So technically, Zen 5 and Zen 4c could be on the same die (both 4N). I'm not sure that they would do this because the ISA is different.
Maybe you are a bit late to the party. The current rumour is that there will indeed be a 2xZen4+4xZen4c low-cost/low-power SKU. And if that comes to life I am pretty confident that it's going to be monolithic.
 

turtile

Senior member
Aug 19, 2014
623
299
136
Maybe you are a bit late to the party. The current rumour is that there will indeed be a 2xZen4+4xZen4c low-cost/low-power SKU. And if that comes to life I am pretty confident that it's going to be monolithic.

I'm aware of that. While I agree that AMD will do monolithic for all low-end processes because it's not worth the cost-benefit, the rumor itself makes no sense. The only way Zen 4 and Zen 4 c can be together is by two different chiplets. I can only see this happening if Samsung offered 3nm for super cheap and it was worth porting.
 

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,798
2,156
136
The rumor isn't necessarily stupid. There is a bit of merit to the rumored approach. A quad of density/power optimized Zen4c combined with a pair of performance optimized Zen4 cores would compete well with Intel's 2p+8e die, such as exists in the 1235/1255u products that are saturating the market right now. A 2 WGP RDNA3 iGPU with high clocks would perform adequately against an 80/96 eu Xe iGPU running at half the clocks. Throw in having it on N4 (which I feel is a stretch, would expect N5, but, it would be tiny on N4) and it would likely outpace the 1235/1255 in ST and stay with it in MT in most cases and easily outpace it in AVX-512 code (vs alternate code paths) that it would retain compatibility with.

With the support for hybrid architectures being present in Windows 11, it would be odd to not take advantage of it. I also think that both Intel and AMD see the competition that Apple is offering with the M series, especially in mobile, and I think that they are both taking steps to make sure that they can stay in that race. An N4 mobile Zen4 can easily hang with the M2 in ST when presented with good code. A 12 thread hybrid PHX2 should easily keep ahead of the fewer thread M2 in MT tasks. Power draw should be broadly similar when adjusted for actual work done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Shamrock

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,441
567
136

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
Another grain of salt, but there is a graph (scroll down to Quasarzone), it compares the 7950x to the 7950x3d. "supposedly" 37% faster. Completely murderlizes the 13900k, as well.

Given how far off the 5800x3d numbers are there compared to typical results, seems like more than a grain of salt is warranted.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,171
15,325
136
Given how far off the 5800x3d numbers are there compared to typical results, seems like more than a grain of salt is warranted.
Considering how the 7950x absolutely kills the 5950x, and double the cache from the 5800x3d, I would believe anything from this processor. Look at Milan-x ???? (I want one of those)
 

carrotmania

Member
Oct 3, 2020
76
206
106
Given how far off the 5800x3d numbers are there compared to typical results, seems like more than a grain of salt is warranted.
What?
The 5800X3D results are ~20%, ~28% and ~40% over a standard 5800X. The 40% game is probably F1 or FS21, and there are plenty of other games where X3D gets 20-25% over an X.

I'm not saying these results are legit, but your reasoning is reasonable. Unsurprisingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaluan and scineram

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
Considering how the 7950x absolutely kills the 5950x, and double the cache from the 5800x3d, I would believe anything from this processor. Look at Milan-x ???? (I want one of those)
The Zen 4 baseline increase would already have been accounted for. And it's only double the cache for double the core count config, so that doesn't really change anything on a per core basis. Gaming should mostly stay on one CCX anyway. Nor would double the cache even per core result in double the performance.
What?
The 5800X3D results are ~20%, ~28% and ~40% over a standard 5800X. The 40% game is probably F1 or FS21, and there are plenty of other games where X3D gets 20-25% over an X.

I'm not saying these results are legit, but your reasoning is reasonable. Unsurprisingly.
Most gaming benchmarks show an average of about 15% for the 5800X3D vs the 5800X, so where are these numbers coming from? At best, they're cherry picked outliers that are worthless for a meaningful discussion. At worst, they're complete nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carfax83 and ondma

BorisTheBlade82

Senior member
May 1, 2020
680
1,069
136
Most gaming benchmarks show an average of about 15% for the 5800X3D vs the 5800X, so where are these numbers coming from? At best, they're cherry picked outliers that are worthless for a meaningful discussion. At worst, they're complete nonsense.
These numbers aren't stock comparisons of 5800X vs. 3D - they are at normalised 4,4Ghz frequency, increasing the relative advantage. The reasoning being that the frequency gap will be much less this time.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,171
15,325
136
The Zen 4 baseline increase would already have been accounted for. And it's only double the cache for double the core count config, so that doesn't really change anything on a per core basis. Gaming should mostly stay on one CCX anyway. Nor would double the cache even per core result in double the performance.

Most gaming benchmarks show an average of about 15% for the 5800X3D vs the 5800X, so where are these numbers coming from? At best, they're cherry picked outliers that are worthless for a meaningful discussion. At worst, they're complete nonsense.
Again, you only speak for some people, not the DC community. The upcoming project (tomorrow) would be killer if both ccds' had 96m cache. See the DC forum for details, but stop speaking for everyone.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,700
5,434
136
The Zen 4 baseline increase would already have been accounted for. And it's only double the cache for double the core count config, so that doesn't really change anything on a per core basis. Gaming should mostly stay on one CCX anyway. Nor would double the cache even per core result in double the performance.

Most gaming benchmarks show an average of about 15% for the 5800X3D vs the 5800X, so where are these numbers coming from? At best, they're cherry picked outliers that are worthless for a meaningful discussion. At worst, they're complete nonsense.
The question is, as I see it, which types of games see the most uplift. Personally I don’t find it very important that games like CS:GO, and other older games that are really not that bottlenecked don’t see any improvement. On the other hand when a cpu bound modern game see a uplift 30-40% then it is pretty significant, even though the average over several games is only 15%.
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
Considering how the 7950x absolutely kills the 5950x
Well ye, but the 7950x is still ~10% slower than the 13900k
and double the cache from the 5800x3d
I don't think the extra V-cache on the second chiplet is going to be well used if at all by the other chiplet. It's the same reason why the 5950x is barely any faster than the 5800x barring the extra cores and slightly higher clocks- the L3 on the other chiplet, to my knowledge, isn't used by the first chiplet.
Also didn't AMD claim at one point that there is no gaming benefit from an additional stacked CCD?
Look at Milan-x ????
No one is using or tested Milan-x for gaming.... what does Milan X have to do anything with supposed gains from the 7950x 3D?
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
Again, you only speak for some people, not the DC community. The upcoming project (tomorrow) would be killer if both ccds' had 96m cache. See the DC forum for details, but stop speaking for everyone.
Why does it matter? When speaking about performance, we use averages because that's what applies to MOST people. He isn't speaking for everyone or anything lmao, idk what's up with this "white knighting" for the DC community.
Also he already mentioned this to the post you replied too, but I'm also pretty sure this is true, but having an additional CCD with extra cache won't cause a performance boost I'm pretty sure.
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
These numbers aren't stock comparisons of 5800X vs. 3D - they are at normalised 4,4Ghz frequency, increasing the relative advantage. The reasoning being that the frequency gap will be much less this time.
The problem here being that the 5800x3d boosts less than 5% less than the 5800x. The average gaming performance isn't going from ~15% on average to 25% from that.
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
The question is, as I see it, which types of games see the most uplift. Personally I don’t find it very important that games like CS:GO, and other older games that are really not that bottlenecked don’t see any improvement. On the other hand when a cpu bound modern game see a uplift 30-40% then it is pretty significant, even though the average over several games is only 15%.
Isn't CSGO like ONLY CPU bottlenecked? Like new CPUs still get pretty good gains on CSGO, the 7950x gained nearly 40% over the 5950x, and the 13900k gained like 10%.
Also games released from 2018 and below actually gained more performance from the 5800x3d vs the 5800x compared to games released in 2021 and 2022. Being modern actually seems to hurt the 5800x3d gaming performance relative to the 5800x (techpowerup).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carfax83

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,700
5,434
136
Isn't CSGO like ONLY CPU bottlenecked? Like new CPUs still get pretty good gains on CSGO, the 7950x gained nearly 40% over the 5950x, and the 13900k gained like 10%.
Also games released from 2018 and below actually gained more performance from the 5800x3d vs the 5800x compared to games released in 2021 and 2022. Being modern actually seems to hurt the 5800x3d gaming performance relative to the 5800x (techpowerup).
My point was, that some games which runs 200+ fps are not bottlenecked at all, except for benchmarking purposes. So these games are to me irrelevant when deciding which cpu to buy, because all CPUs released within the last 5 years can play them without any problems.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,171
15,325
136
Well ye, but the 7950x is still ~10% slower than the 13900k

I don't think the extra V-cache on the second chiplet is going to be well used if at all by the other chiplet. It's the same reason why the 5950x is barely any faster than the 5800x barring the extra cores and slightly higher clocks- the L3 on the other chiplet, to my knowledge, isn't used by the first chiplet.
Also didn't AMD claim at one point that there is no gaming benefit from an additional stacked CCD?

No one is using or tested Milan-x for gaming.... what does Milan X have to do anything with supposed gains from the 7950x 3D?
and where did I mention gaming ? The world does not revolve around gaming, in fact the opposite. The process we are now running in DC needs affinity set so 8 cores can be on the same chiplet to use the L3 cache, as this really page a difference in speed. And with 2 chiplets, we need extra cache on both.

And NO, the 7950x is not 10% slower than a 13900k, maybe 2%. Show me the 10% (and not on benchmark outlier)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaluan