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

Page 6 - 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
807
1,411
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

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
807
1,411
136
For the desktop 7000-series, I hope we will see a core count increase across all of the performance tiers — Ryzen 3, 5, 7, 9 — with 6, 8, 12 and 24 cores for the top SKU in each tier, respectively. I want to see a relegation of 6 cores and below to the value tier (Ryzen 3), thereby establishing 8 cores as the mainstream (Ryzen 5) configuration for gaming. This would align PC and console gaming configurations in terms of core count.

Here is my attempt at a good SKU line-up and a simplified model naming scheme for the 7000-series:

HEDT Tier (old "Ryzen 9", replacing "Ryzen Threadripper"):
  • Ryzen 7950X — 24C/48T + V-Cache
  • Ryzen 7950 — 24C/48T
  • Ryzen 7900X — 16C/32T + V-Cache
  • Ryzen 7900 — 16C/32T
Premium Tier (old "Ryzen 7"):
  • Ryzen 7750 — 12C/24T
  • Ryzen 7700X — 8C/16T + V-Cache
Mainstream Tier (old "Ryzen 5"):
  • Ryzen 7500 — 8C/16T
Value Tier (old "Ryzen 3"):
  • Ryzen 7350 — 6C/12T
  • Ryzen 7300 — 4C/8T
Here the second digit in the model number is the old tier number (3|5|7|9), making separate numbering of the tier redundant, allowing simpler model naming. The first digit of the model number is the generation. The two last digits designate the positioning within the tier, with higher number for more performance. Suffix "X" now designate V-Cache and is reserved for the premium and HEDT tiers.

For the workstation market, with core counts spanning 16-64 cores, replacing the "Ryzen Threadripper PRO" brand by "EPYC Threadripper", using the rumoured cut-down SP6 server socket, sounds like a good and plausible way to go, rather than maintain a dedicated Threadripper socket.
 
Last edited:

yuri69

Senior member
Jul 16, 2013
535
958
136
  • Raptor Cove brings up to 10-15% more performance over Golden
  • Zen 4 bring more than 15% more performance over Zen 3
Choose your underwhelming upgrade now!
Zen 4 looks underwhelming in light of the current state of released info.

* 2 years vs 1 year after its predecessor
* presented as the big upgrade (Zen 3, Zen 3X, Zen 4) vs a compatible refresh sharing the same socket, etc.
* breaking the lineage of consecutive 15+ IPC gains vs "Tick" - "Tock" IPC (Ice Lake - Tiger Lake; Alder Lake - Raptor Lake)
* not being able to achieve the top ST perf vs keeping the top ST perf
 
  • Like
Reactions: exquisitechar

Asterox

Golden Member
May 15, 2012
1,037
1,821
136
Thing is that Cinebench isn't even a good representation of how rendering workloads perform. Compare the 12900KS in Cinebench (20% lead over 5950X) to Blender, V-Ray or Corona and you'll find the two are matched in most reviews, or the 5950X pulls ahead.

The advantage you're seeing in workloads like Cinebench is down to what I mentionned before - the extremely high branch prediction rates in R20/R23. The >99% hit rate for Zen 3 comes from CnC FYI, not from an article but from discussions with them. All you're seeing is Golden Cove's 512 ROB really flex it's legs, and you're attributing that to "the core itself being faster", without realising all you're doing is measuring part of the capabilities of each of the cores.

Cinebench is just a fast test, or you don't need to download the real normal app you use every day for work or fun etc.Cinebench does not show realistic CPU performance, which can be written in stone.

Here is one example, R5 4500 test or comparison in various normal everyday aplication.:mask:


Cinebench R23, MT i5 12400 is 16% faster vs R5 4500

Autodesk Maya/Rendering Project, i5 12400 is only 4% faster vs R4 4500
 

nicalandia

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2019
3,331
5,282
136
Why do you assume 5GHz+ all cores means 5.5GHz all core?
I just generalized/Rounded the speed of two Prototypes. The early one done on January was a 8 Core prototype said to be boosting at 5 Ghz All Cores and Then the 16C Pre-Production Prototype was seen boosting at 5.5Ghz(was later confirmed to be all cores)

Also
1653678481713.png
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
That would depend on the V/f curve of the N5P node AMD is using, isn't it? We don't know that yet so we can't know if they are forgoing efficiency yet.

That is what i include in "unknowns", just like exact % performance increase, price etc.

What i am worried about is that we have what I call "marketing retard mark*" embedded in this preview:

5950x is 142W PPT CPU
7950x could be 230W PPT CPU

That would be 62% more peak power. Obviously we don't know, it might be using 100W full core 5.5Ghz CB23 and this 230W PPT is reserved for some future SKU that runs AVX512 y-Cruncher @ 5.5Ghz.
But AMD might also be pushing V/F curve too far and in doing so ruining efficiency for their SKUs to win benchmarks.

Do note that it's impossible to stop good CPU design on leading TSMC node: enthusiasts can take 7950x, underclock it to where V/F is more sensible and enjoy best efficiency and great performance @ say 4.75ghz all core. So what if it looses to 255W equally retarded 13900K by several cb23 points?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryanjagtap

jamescox

Senior member
Nov 11, 2009
644
1,105
136
What's my point? You already quoted It.
I will repeat, my point was that the top model with 170W TDP(230W PPT) will have most likely worse power efficiency(perf/W) than 5950x and that AMD with this SKU chose to go for max performance even If It means worse power efficiency than Its predecessor.

What's your point in bringing up overclock? You think I don't know that Zen4 will reach much higher clocks than Zen3 and that at those It would be more efficient? I simply compared TOP Zen3 SKU vs the future TOP Zen4 SKU in power efficiency, because I find It interesting. If you consider It an unfair comparison, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to It like I am to mine.
I really don’t know why I find your “AMD is sacrificing power efficiency for performance” so ridiculous, but I do, so I guess I still have to try to write a reply.

Zen 4 will be significantly more power efficient than Zen 3 just about anyway you look at it. They are increasing the power limits since they will have a lot higher max all core clock, but it isn’t like that doesn’t deliver significantly more performance. I expect it will be a large difference in many cases. Base clock for the 5950x is only 3.4 GHz; I think someone said they can run all core at 3.7, presumably without extreme cooling. If Zen 4 does all core over 5 GHz, the performance will be truly amazing in comparison.

I bring up overclocking because no matter what clock speed you compare, Zen 4 will almost certainly be more efficient. If you compare the same performance, then Zen 4 will likely be significantly more efficient everywhere also. They probably did a lot of power optimization on the IO die, so I expect idle power is significantly improved. So what if your absolute performance per watt might be slight lower at extreme clocks, but absolute performance is something like 40 percent higher or more? I do not consider this worse power efficiency; it is in a range that Zen 3 can’t reach without taking ridiculously more power.

Saying that they are sacrificing efficiency seems misleading at best. If they are pushing Zen 4 significantly farther up the frequency / power curve, where you get huge increase in power for a small increase in performance, then I would say they are sacrificing efficiency. We don’t have any evidence that they are doing that. They are increasing the max power, but that appears to be coming with a reasonable increase in performance for that power. It isn’t unexpected with a new socket after so many years of AM4.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,064
8,032
136
Over Zen 2 the redesigned Zen 3 core managed to improve performance more than it increased MTr. That most likely happened because both are on the same node. But I'd still expect AMD to try to aim for similar improvements in Zen 4 even if it should just happen in some selective and not general workloads. It's obvious that aside the leaked (and now officially confirmed through announced NN/AI support) AVX 512 implementation and increased L2$ size we still know very little about the next Zen core.

AMD is already dominating Intel in most server workloads. Adding even more cores would let AMD dominate those workloads a bit more, but Intel would still have the AVX 512 niche all to themselves.
AMD does both, with Zen 4 introducing AVX 512 and likely some other significant changes not yet known for 50% more MTr.
Genoa serves 50% more cores, while Bergamo pushes the same amount on top again.

It's also possible that AMD made a purposeful density tradeoff to chase clock speeds.
That's already the case for all non-mobile Zen chips. That's why Apple chips have significantly higher density on the same node as AMD's non-mobile chips.
 

jamescox

Senior member
Nov 11, 2009
644
1,105
136
As much as I like amd. Zen's success is largely due to intel 10nm delays and intel culture. As there has been no report of of any drama plus intel's fabs getting on track, it is very possible for intel to win the long race. Normally it takes 4-5 years to realize one's vison, that coincides with lunar lake/ royal cove leaks thus far.

Not that I'm saying amd is doom, it's that intel's current delays are not the delays of the past.

There is always a bunch of stuff about the empire striking back, which was true previously, but isn’t actually true any more. Intel will have a tough time surpassing AMD. Even if Intel had executed much better, they would still have needed to accelerate there plans significantly, because of ARM. I read a phoronix review a while ago (Linux server and HPC) where it was AMD and ARM trading blows and Intel in third place for some benchmarks. There were still a few that Intel could win, but not many. I suspect that will be near zero after Genoa hits. Bergamo seems to be aimed more at ARM competitors than Intel.

Why is it different now? It is different because this isn’t AMD vs. Intel. This is AMD + TSMC vs. Intel. TSMC holds more than 50% of the semiconductor market. By breaking the Intel monopoly, we may actually be creating another monopoly on the fab side. Anyway, thinking that Intel will suddenly be able to dominate again is likely just not true. A large part of their previous market domination was due to better process tech than the competition. I am fine with intel not making a strong comeback yet since to really break the intel monopoly requires AMD to dominate for a bit longer. It would be great if AMD (or Intel) can nock Nvidia down a bit also, but the cuda vendor lock-in is strong.
 

Hans Gruber

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 2006
2,302
1,216
136
That's a really stupid way to measure cache.



Somehow you've just become less believable than Amber Heard.
I have a Zen 2 build and a Zen 3 build. How can you compare me to ****?

Profanity is not acceptable in the tech forums, please don't do this again, not to mention the insults to a person, even if a celebrity. -AT Moderator Shmee
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Wow
Reactions: igor_kavinski

nicalandia

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2019
3,331
5,282
136
He just had a modification of the Genoa list, claimed the clocks are conservative all-core turbo given by OEM materials, so....... it looks to be just speculation. And reputation of that guy seems doubtful......
The dude has full access to Sapphire Rapids, Milan and now has full access to Genoa. I trust that source.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
Why can't you just learn that people are reacting to plain FACTS. The fact that you apparently support Intel does not make their CPUs go any faster. The Sapphire Rapids QS is getting beaten very badly by a Genoa ES. FACT. Production of both chips could be different, but a QS E3 sample is very close to production. Most likely the difference will be even more when Genoa gets to production, or even QS.
So let's get this straight. Despite all your lip service to "waiting for benchmarks", you unconditionally believe a leak that directly contradicts known performance and power characteristics of Golden Cove, but do not believe Genoa numbers from the same source showing it failing vs its own predecessor?
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
A number of leaks have all pointed to the same thing.
This is literally the first numbers we've gotten, and no leaker or any other source has claimed anything to match these scores.

The fact that you think they are wrong does not make my belief that they are correct wrong.
No, common sense is sufficient for that.

Think about this, If the 12900f 8 P-cores uses about 230 watts(maximum), then the 56 cores of SR if clocked the same would be 1617 watts. You know there is no way thats going to happen. So you need to ignore what you know about golden cove
You can find dozens of reviews of Golden Cove at <5GHz frequencies and surprise, it consumes far less power. By your logic, the 12400 should be impossible.

But it's very illuminating how you claim to care about "facts" while telling us to ignore everything we know about the product in question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yuri69

FangBLade

Senior member
Apr 13, 2022
201
395
106
Stop it fanboy amd aint giving you stock. Lol

You were already told not to use the term 'fanboy' and yet here you are using it again.
Maybe you can't comprehend what you're told?

Iron Woode

Super Moderator
If you can't stand criticism for Intel, delete your account. This is forum, we can love or hate Intel, it is our right. I'v seen you in other forums, you are not different than any hardcore fanboy of any company, Intel didn't live up to expectations, AMD will most likely crush it, deal with it.

Did you also fail to understand the OP's error?
Don't use the term 'fanboy' here again.

Iron Woode

Super Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
4,243
2,297
136
You are delusional if you think Raptor Lake will have better ST and MT than the 7950X. Leaks have shown no gaming performance gains(to be expected). Synthetic benchmarks are a Meh.. Remember how good Rocket Lake looked on Geekbench?


Release review showed how much of a waste of sand it was.. Raptor Lake will be a side grade to Alder Lake to most people.


He is delusional because a leaked chinese test with pre final hardware/software doesn't show gains, really? The real reviews will show who is delusional and I'm sure it's you. It's logical that something is off and the test is flawed. 5.5 Ghz vs 4.9 Ghz and no gains, makes sense.....if it was GPU bottlenecked. Also DDR5-6400 vs 6400 is not representative when every official review is using DDR5-4400/4800 for ADL-S. Raptor Lake supports 5200/5600.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kaluan

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,512
7,766
136
AMD's marketing for Zen is now blue/sliver. I like the change. It's refreshing. I bet AMD changed it cause sliver/blue is a calm and cold color denoting Zen 4/5
efficiency and pref/w advantage.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that slide deck... AMD has traditionally used blue for slide decks that are enterprise or investor focused, i.e. when it's not towards your average consumer. Everything in that slide deck was in blue, but I don't think that means Ryzen and RDNA 3 will be blue themed moving forward.

Red = passion, power, exciting = consumer products
Blue = cool, conservative, reliable = enterprise products
 

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,512
824
136
It's much easier to rebrand full on EPYC processors as ThreadRipper Pro(the fact that two of them can work on a 2S Motherboard confirms that) than having to keep investing on a CPU Castrated CPU brand

then again why we as customers should care about whats easier for them
if i was trx40 owner, i would be lively about TR5000s not being available for my board
 

Hans Gruber

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 2006
2,302
1,216
136
We can only guess(in 2023), how AMD will arrange Zen 4 processors and prices in the end.The Desktop cpu market it is obviously not AMD's priority, especially now at the beginning of the AM5 life cycle.

AM5 is launching very soon, and then during 2023 everything will slowly fall into place.

Old/very long-lived AM4 is still very desirable, and that won't change anytime soon.


On the other side, Intel 1700 socket is dead after only two CPU generations. :mask:
CPU sales and GPU sales are in the tank. CPU sales are probably worse than GPU sales. Zen 3 is still a very capable CPU. Intel released a dire warning for the CPU industry. My take is who cares, that means cheap CPU's for us. Now watch both Intel and AMD make pricing mistakes with the new CPU's.
 

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,512
824
136
These boards were model compared to the same x570 model was 220$ ish which compared to the same x670 model at 500$.
The 300$ board was the lowend x670 chipset.
Which is where my concern comes from.
That just seems outlandish.

i saw the preliminary prices for Asus boards on wccftech. I hope its not true and someone pulled those from you know where, cause cheapest 670E was like 800 EUROs, the Hero was like 1100 EUROs and Crosshair Extreme 1475 EUROs. I was like what. You could have WRX80 boards at those prices. It would explain the "E" in the naming though, extreme for extreme pricing. Cause sure as hell there is nothing "extreme" about it otherwise.