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

[Vattila]

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).

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!

 

[Saylick]

Why would AMD disable AVX512?

Disable? Where did you hear they will disable AVX512?

 

[nicalandia]

Zen4 found On Genoa/Ryzen 7000 Desktop CPUs

Cyan area: 2x 256-bit vector registers
Green: 1 MiB L2$




The Zen4 Die is Longer than Zen3(10.7 mm vs 10.15 mm) due to extra L2$ and AVX512 registers but Narrower(6.75 mm vs 7.3 mm), Huge amount of die area allocated for L2 and AVX512.

 

[biostud]

Disable? Where did you hear they will disable AVX512?

Nowhere, but for some reason Intel chooses to do so on their desktop CPUs.

 

[Markfw]

I will answer the why question that you quoted. Because Raptor Lake comes out later this year. If that is more powerful than Zen 4. AMD will be 15 months out from Zen 5. After Raptor Lake Intel will be on 7nm silicon. When you are #1 you get to charge a premium. By not releasing Zen 4 ASAP, there is no premium. AMD fanboys here do not accept that AMD is in 2nd position right now behind Alder Lake.

First, I am not a fanboy. Second, Alder lake is NOT in first position. The 5800x3d wins most gaming benchmarks and the 5950x wins MOST productivity benchmarks. I would say overall AMD is ahead. If you have reputable benchmarks showing Alder Lake ahead in everything please link to them.

And of course, AMD still is ahead in server, HEDT, and possibly even mobile (I don't follow that as closely).

 

[Anhiel]

MLID never was an AMD leaker to me because I don't think he has real sources (this is my impression), I was surprised he posted such IPC claims like he was 100% sure.

From the looks of it, it seems he was given benchmark values and then made his own calculations to derive at his numbers.
But as I've noticed a long time ago he's not competent and likely his calculation were simple, hence, wrong.
It's just that many presumed AMD would do the same balancing as before instead of heavily going for clock speed. Admittedly you could have seen it coming if you take clock speed competition into account. Then again it was said a long time ago Zen4 was more like a refresh than a new arch, yet, with reasonable IPC. So it was definitely a change of plans regarding balancing.

IPC is an ambiguous claim I never take that too seriously, if you see the Zen3vsZen2 perf summary that was released by AMD in 2020 you can see the R15 is boosted up to ~18% IPC while other items are far from 18%, and AMD claimed Zen3 is ~19% IPC uplift. If you take official '>15% ST' seriously then you fall into another trap whatever you trying to deprecate or hype.

Everything is relative. Not all functions are implemented equally in equal ratio. Non the less IPC represents a throughput of instructions. So it's the best you can get at consistent metric. The only problem is that not all x86 instruction sentences are equally long either. Again we arrive at another ratio. So it doesn't change the value of IPC.

AMD said it was 31% faster but from the 204s and 297s for Zen 4 and 12900K respectively their figure is wrong.

Zen 4 is actually 45% faster than the 12900K in this test. As it is a short blender run the 12900K is about the same or a bit faster than the 5950X but even a 40% uplift in CB R23 MT would put a 16c Zen 4 part at around 40,000 points.

I see many have this wrong logic going on in evaluating this.
Zen4 93s faster than 12900K => 204/297=0._68_ => 1-0.6868 = 31%
12900K 93s slower than Zen4 => 297/204=1.46
Anyhow, I'm skeptical about time values in general because from my experience this often includes the time the data needs to be put on screen. And this process is not consistent and skewed the real time needed for the calculations.

 

[nicalandia]

First, I am not a fanbiy. Second, Alder lake is NOT in first position. The 5800x3d wins most gaming benchmarks and the 5950x wins MOST productivity benchmarks. I would say overall AMD is ahead. If you have reputable benchmarks showing Alder Lake ahead in everything please link to them.

And of course, AMD still is ahead in server, HEDT, and possibly even mobile (I don't follow that as closely).

Hey don't even bother with that kind of posters.

1. Raptor Lake will be released on Q1 of 2023 so Ryzen 7000 will be free to curbstomp at will.

2. Alder Lake was pushed beyond sense to compete at the top in gaming and in productivity, it competes well vs the 5950X wining some, losing some, but the 5800X3D is the Gaming King.

3. Intel is getting curbstomped on the most profitable CPU market which is in Servers and HPC, Rome Clobbered Skylake 14nm CPUs, Milan is doing the same to 10nm Ice Lake CPUs and Sapphire Rapids is MIA and set to be released by Q1 2023, just in time for a beating from Genoa. Intel can't catch a break here.

 

[Hans Gruber]

First, I am not a fanboy. Second, Alder lake is NOT in first position. The 5800x3d wins most gaming benchmarks and the 5950x wins MOST productivity benchmarks. I would say overall AMD is ahead. If you have reputable benchmarks showing Alder Lake ahead in everything please link to them.

And of course, AMD still is ahead in server, HEDT, and possibly even mobile (I don't follow that as closely).

Every reputable publication has said Alder Lake is ahead of Zen 3. The only CPU in Zen 3 that can hold it's own against Alder Lake is the 5950x. Those are not my words but from publications. I can look them up but I am going by memory. Zen 4 is a year behind the original release schedule.

Intel CEO's said that AMD was in it's windshield and they survived and planned to put AMD in their rearview mirror. I think Zen 4 will be fine or good enough. The problem is the 7nm Intel process. Their silicon/cores are more dense than TSMC. Intel has already announced they are rapidly speeding up their timeline for releasing products.

The roadmap is not looking good for AMD because Intel has already caught up. Zen 4 will put them back in front for the short term. Intel 7nm means the core count advantage AMD has had will be gone. A major IPC (Raptor Lake) increase from Intel cuts into the core count lead on Zen 4.

My concern is that Meteor Lake (7nm) will arrive well ahead of Zen 5. AMD had a good run. It's not over yet but the future is not looking very bright for AMD. I was hoping that AMD would have a better showing in the GPU arena. So many miners here, I am not one of them. I don't believe in wasting energy chasing pipe dreams.

 

[nicalandia]

AMD had a good run. It's not over yet but the future is not looking very bright for AMD. I was hoping that AMD would have a better showing in the GPU arena. So many miners here, I am not one of them. I don't believe in wasting energy chasing pipe dreams.

Could you be more delusional? AMD it's not done yet beating Intel and it's only gonna get worst for Intel.

 

[Timorous]

I see many have this wrong logic going on in evaluating this.
Zen4 93s faster than 12900K => 204/297=0._68_ => 1-0.6868 = 31%
12900K 93s slower than Zen4 => 297/204=1.46
Anyhow, I'm skeptical about time values in general because from my experience this often includes the time the data needs to be put on screen. And this process is not consistent and skewed the real time needed for the calculations.

I see many cannot do maths and do not understand speed = distance / time.

How much faster is an 8.83ms frame time vs a 16.67ms frame time?

 

[coercitiv]

I see many have this wrong logic going on in evaluating this.
Zen4 93s faster than 12900K => 204/297=0._68_ => 1-0.6868 = 31%

You're also using wrong logic on this, as you ignore the difference between time and rate.

To check your formula assume Zen4 finishes a benchmark in 150s and 12900K does the same bench in 300s. According to you the calculation should be 150/300=0.5 => 1-0.5=50% However, you can clearly see from the numbers that a CPU that finishes a workload in half the time is 100% faster, not 50% faster.

The correct way is to translate the time numbers into rate or speed.

• In one second Zen 4 completes R1=1/204 of the bench.
• In the same one second the 12900K completes R2=1/297 of the bench.

If we want to see how much faster Zen4 is, we can now compare the rates R1/R2=(1/204)/(1/297)=297/204=1.45

 

[biostud]

The problem is the 7nm Intel process. Their silicon/cores are more dense than TSMC. Intel has already announced they are rapidly speeding up their timeline for releasing products.

And as the history has clearly shown, intel has always been able to deliver new process nodes following their planned release schedule....

 

[nicalandia]

Oh boy, did AMD made a Number on High School Dropouts with that Blender Render Time....

 

[tamz_msc]

Intel struggles to get a clear-cut win even today. They resort to obscene amounts of power to be competitive with the 5950x. A lot of people are expecting more out of Raptor Lake, but the reality of it is, doubling the E-cores takes power (around 50W) away from the P-Cores. If Intel decides to prioritize P-Cores, then E-cores are not going to run at full clocks. Adding 8 additional e-cores to a power limited chip is not going to provide the gains most people are expecting. Gracemont will be using 100w of the power budget, leaving 130 or so watts for the p cores. This is down from 180w with alder lake.

You're forgetting that Intel can improve the characteristics of its Intel 7 node from ADL to RPL. Right now it's ~50W for the Gracemont cluster and ~190W for 8 Golden Cove cores, with a PL2 of 241W. If 13900K PL2 is 250W hypothetically, then it is still possible for them to reduce the power consumption of the Gracemont clusters to say 40W each, that'll still leave 170W for 8 Raptor Cove cores.

I don't see why an improved Intel 7 process can't allow for similar clock speeds with reduced power consumption; moreover there's the rumor that the -mont and Cove clusters and uncore in RPL will be on different voltage planes, unlike the situation in ADL. So yeah, I have full confidence that RPL will be a hard hitter in MT workloads.

 

[AtenRa]

You're also using wrong logic on this, as you ignore the difference between time and rate.

To check your formula assume Zen4 finishes a benchmark in 150s and 12900K does the same bench in 300s. According to you the calculation should be 150/300=0.5 => 1-0.5=50% However, you can clearly see from the numbers that a CPU that finishes a workload in half the time is 100% faster, not 50% faster.

The correct way is to translate the time numbers into rate or speed.

• In one second Zen 4 completes R1=1/204 of the bench.
• In the same one second the 12900K completes R2=1/297 of the bench.

If we want to see how much faster Zen4 is, we can now compare the rates R1/R2=(1/204)/(1/297)=297/204=1.45

Correct but we can also take "less time" as faster or "more time" as slower

In context of time , 31% less time can be translated in to 31% faster and yes you need to be 45,6% faster in performance in order to finish the benchmark in 31% less time

 

[Markfw]

Every reputable publication has said Alder Lake is ahead of Zen 3. The only CPU in Zen 3 that can hold it's own against Alder Lake is the 5950x. Those are not my words but from publications. I can look them up but I am going by memory. Zen 4 is a year behind the original release schedule.

Intel CEO's said that AMD was in it's windshield and they survived and planned to put AMD in their rearview mirror. I think Zen 4 will be fine or good enough. The problem is the 7nm Intel process. Their silicon/cores are more dense than TSMC. Intel has already announced they are rapidly speeding up their timeline for releasing products.

The roadmap is not looking good for AMD because Intel has already caught up. Zen 4 will put them back in front for the short term. Intel 7nm means the core count advantage AMD has had will be gone. A major IPC (Raptor Lake) increase from Intel cuts into the core count lead on Zen 4.

My concern is that Meteor Lake (7nm) will arrive well ahead of Zen 5. AMD had a good run. It's not over yet but the future is not looking very bright for AMD. I was hoping that AMD would have a better showing in the GPU arena. So many miners here, I am not one of them. I don't believe in wasting energy chasing pipe dreams.

Why don't you link ONE of those publications, as I have not seen it. Speaking of fanboys.... Look at the posts here ? Does anybody else think they are ahead ?

 

[Exist50]

Why don't you link ONE of those publications, as I have not seen it. Speaking of fanboys.... Look at the posts here ? Does anybody else think they are ahead ?

You were talking about workstation usage right?

12th Gen Intel Core CPU Review Roundup

Intel has launched their new 12th Gen Intel Core desktop processors (code-named "Alder Lake") featuring support for DDR5, PCIe 5.0, as well as a completely new hybrid architecture using a mix of Performance and Efficient-cores. This is a lot of new technologies in one product which makes it hard...

www.pugetsystems.com

 

[Markfw]

You were talking about workstation usage right?

12th Gen Intel Core CPU Review Roundup

Intel has launched their new 12th Gen Intel Core desktop processors (code-named "Alder Lake") featuring support for DDR5, PCIe 5.0, as well as a completely new hybrid architecture using a mix of Performance and Efficient-cores. This is a lot of new technologies in one product which makes it hard...

www.pugetsystems.com

I never said the 5950x wins EVERY benchmark. Photoshop is one it does well on. I mean a balanced set of benchmarks, the 5950x beats the 12900k on more than half. But gaming is another matter, and the 5800x3d wins that one.

 

[coercitiv]

In context of time , 31% less time can be translated in to 31% faster

No, it definitely cannot. Write the sentence again using 50% less time as basis of calculation.

 

[nicalandia]

You were talking about workstation usage right?

12th Gen Intel Core CPU Review Roundup

Intel has launched their new 12th Gen Intel Core desktop processors (code-named "Alder Lake") featuring support for DDR5, PCIe 5.0, as well as a completely new hybrid architecture using a mix of Performance and Efficient-cores. This is a lot of new technologies in one product which makes it hard...

www.pugetsystems.com

From that article: "What is interesting is that a lot of Intel's biggest wins are in highly threaded tasks like CPU rendering, which until now, was where the higher core count of the Ryzen series has typically made AMD the stronger option"

Wait What???

 

[Timorous]

In context of time , 31% less time can be translated in to 31% faster and yes you need to be 45,6% faster in performance in order to finish the benchmark in 31% less time

No.

UK GCSE revision topic

In the UK going from 297s to 204s would always be described as a 31% reduction in time (or other synonyms like less time). If you were to use the term faster you either need to state it as Zen 4 is 93s faster than 12900K or you need to calculate the speed and compare on that basis which makes it 45% faster.

If I was to answer an exam question using the working of some people here, on reddit, over at TPU etc I would have failed GCSE maths and physics.

 

[Hitman928]

How much faster is an 8.83ms frame time vs a 16.67ms frame time?

You're also using wrong logic on this, as you ignore the difference between time and rate.

To check your formula assume Zen4 finishes a benchmark in 150s and 12900K does the same bench in 300s. According to you the calculation should be 150/300=0.5 => 1-0.5=50% However, you can clearly see from the numbers that a CPU that finishes a workload in half the time is 100% faster, not 50% faster.

Another easy question to ask to check the math/logic is to frame it going the other direction. An example would be, in how many seconds would Zen4 need to finish the benchmark in order to be 100% faster than the 12900K?

Doing it the right way, you get 148.5s, or half the time. Doing it the wrong way, you get 0s. In fact, no matter how long the 12900K took to complete the benchmark, the answer doing it the wrong way would always be 0s, which is obviously wrong.

 

[blckgrffn]

No.

UK GCSE revision topic

In the UK going from 297s to 204s would always be described as a 31% reduction in time (or other synonyms like less time). If you were to use the term faster you either need to state it as Zen 4 is 93s faster than 12900K or you need to calculate the speed and compare on that basis which makes it 45% faster.

If I was to answer an exam question using the working of some people here, on reddit, over at TPU etc I would have failed GCSE maths and physics.

I love this answer. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[Exist50]

I never said the 5950x wins EVERY benchmark. Photoshop is one it does well on. I mean a balanced set of benchmarks, the 5950x beats the 12900k on more than half. But gaming is another matter, and the 5800x3d wins that one.

If you actually click the link, there are many tests covered, and Alder Lake is the clear winner across the bunch. Most real world workstation uses have a substantial single or lightly threaded component, where Golden Cove's superior single thread performance pulls it ahead. Comparatively few things are embarrassingly parallel and run on a CPU.

 

[Markfw]

From that article: "What is interesting is that a lot of Intel's biggest wins are in highly threaded tasks like CPU rendering, which until now, was where the higher core count of the Ryzen series has typically made AMD the stronger option"

Wait What???

View attachment 62095

View attachment 62096

View attachment 62097

Exactly. The Alder lake is stronger and ONE or TWO cores can run at 5 ghz+ and lightly threaded tasks thus do well. But overall the 5950x is the winner in everything (on average) except gaming, which the 5800x3d has locked up. And efficiency ? Yup, AMD wins that easily.

But if you are an Alder lake fan, facts are useless. They will just ignore them if they don't like them.

 

[Exist50]

Exactly. The Alder lake is stronger and ONE or TWO cores can run at 5 ghz+ and lightly threaded tasks thus do well. But overall the 5950x is the winner in everything (on average) except gaming, which the 5800x3d has locked up. And efficiency ? Yup, AMD wins that easily.

But if you are an Alder lake fan, facts are useless. They will just ignore them if they don't like them.

It's pretty ironic to complain about people ignoring facts when you first claimed that no such review exists, and then proceeded to not even read it when I gave you an example. Turns out not everything is Blender.