Info [Toms, Anand] AMD EPYC Benchmarks

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,013
667
116
Only reason to move I/O die to any other process at the present or near future would be to finally cut off GF. 7nm would probably be suitable. Just more expensive.
Or they could move it to one of the FDX lines at GF.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,626
711
126
But what's the topology within the IO die itself? That would help as to deciding how many chiplets they can actually put in there.

With this new design(Chiplets and Central IO) what would be the core limit per CPU of future Zen3/4/5(if they keep the 4ccx/8c chiplet)? For example if they get down to 5nm? according to this article: https://hothardware.com/news/tsmc-5nm-node-doubles-density-amd-ryzen-3000-7nm the density is nearly doubled, would that mean a 128 Core, 256 Threads single Socket Epyc CPU? 32 Core Mainstream CPU? Perhaps that would be restricted for Data Center CPUs as I can't even fathom such a massive CPU for mainstream
Power consumption might be an issue, unless they are talking about upping the TDP. TSMC says that 5 nm is 30% lower power (compared to 7 and not 7+), not like the 60+% that TSMC 7 is compared to GloFo 14.

I would say 96 for Genoa.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,013
667
116
But what's the topology within the IO die itself? That would help as to deciding how many chiplets they can actually put in there.



Power consumption might be an issue, unless they are talking about upping the TDP. TSMC says that 5 nm is 30% lower power (compared to 7 and not 7+), not like the 60+% that TSMC 7 is compared to GloFo 14.

I would say 96 for Genoa.
This is another reason I think that they will move the I/O die to a smaller process.
 

Yotsugi

Senior member
Oct 16, 2017
919
412
96
Only reason to move I/O die to any other process at the present or near future would be to finally cut off GF. 7nm would probably be suitable. Just more expensive.
Or to CoWoS/SoIC stuff because TSMC's internal pkg services are only for TSMC wafers.
 

Tuna-Fish

Senior member
Mar 4, 2011
984
404
136
I don't think they will be doing a 7nm IO chip at all since the reason for them not doing it along with the chiplet is that it will not scale linearly and very little gains will be obtain from 14/12nm process
Or they could move it to one of the FDX lines at GF.
Precisely. The FDX processes are not great for high-performance logic, but they are better for analog parts than finfets. The IO-die made on 12nm FDX should save a lot of power doing all the same things as the current die. I would be genuinely surprised if AMD didn't eventually move the io die there. The process is probably not ready yet for the volumes, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Yotsugi

Senior member
Oct 16, 2017
919
412
96
Precisely. The FDX processes are not great for high-performance logic, but they are better for analog parts than finfets. The IO-die made on 12nm FDX should save a lot of power doing all the same things as the current die. I would be genuinely surprised if AMD didn't eventually move the io die there. The process is probably not ready yet for the volumes, though.
I dunno how viable >400mm^2 FDSOI dies but I'm pretty sure not very.
 

Guru

Senior member
May 5, 2017
664
245
86
There is no doubt that the latest Ryzen Epyc processors are clear winners in every aspect. More cores, more speed, lower power consumption, more memory channels, more pci-e channels, faster pci-e channels, cheaper prices, better motherboard support, more longevity, safer, more future proof, more forward looking, can scale easily, etc...

There is literally zero reason to purchase an Intel server cpu right now, unless you are in a niche low level server market that needs very low power consumption processors that are also very slow, but when AMD releases the new Threadripper processors they will undoubtedly eat into that space as well, with 16 to 32 core threadrippers at low power consumption and faster speeds than intel counterparts.

The only thing that needs to happen is for game companies to start better optimizing for more cores and Ryzen cpu's in order for AMD to win in all aspects. We actually see it in few games where 3900x wins against 9900k, even tying with a 5GHz oc'd 9900k.

Lisa Su confirmed that next gen Ryzen is finished, so Zen 3 is ready, hopefully we see better latency reduction in memory, even 5-6% percent improvement there would be huge, if they can further optimize their scheduler, hopefully with a more mature 7nm or 6nm process next year they can squeeze out 300-400mhz more and that could give them further 4-5% IPC improvements.

TSMC announced their 6nm which is based on their first gen 7nm technology, it allows for about 15% better performance or power consumption and is fully compatible with 7nm and all of the tools and packaging current 7nm uses.

Their 7nm+ is actually more advanced than 6nm, but it would also require new development and tools to use it. So my bet is that AMD is going to use 6nm next year, maybe even test it out with Threadripper as I believe they will release those processors in Q1 2020, and then roll it out completely with their Zen 3, probably sometime in Q3 2020.

Then jump to TSMC's 5nm process which TSMC's CEO said would be their long term process, one that they would use for a longer period, as he expects improvements with lower process nodes to be smaller and way more difficult.

So 2019 use 7nm for all their products, continue using it through 2020, maybe test 6nm with Threadripper in Q1 2020, otherwise introduce 6nm with Zen 3 in H2 2020, move to 5nm when it's ready, most likely H2 2021.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,626
711
126
Their 7nm+ is actually more advanced than 6nm, but it would also require new development and tools to use it.
AMD has already said they are using 7+ for Zen 3. The consoles are likely using 7+ too.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
75,765
5,912
126
Hey, thats only 800 watts. a nice 1200 watt PSU should be just fine. And that 512 threads, 2 boards x 2 cpu's per board=256 cores = 512 threads.
64*8 = 512 cores... Each of those modules are dual cpu and four modules in one 2u enclosure.

1.8kw on cpu alone lol
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,358
5,680
136
64*8 = 512 cores... Each of those modules are dual cpu and four modules in one 2u enclosure.

1.8kw on cpu alone lol
thats 1600 watts, not 1800. But whos counting...

That is just a monster of a system, says right on the page that it comes with dual (redundant) 2200 watt PSU's titanium level.

And try to imagine 1024 threads in a 2u system !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
75,765
5,912
126
thats 1600 watts, not 1800. But whos counting...

That is just a monster of a system, says right on the page that it comes with dual (redundant) 2200 watt PSU's titanium level.

And try to imagine 1024 threads in a 2u system !
7742 tdp 225w*8=1800w :colbert:
At lease google tells me it is 1800. I don't have that many fingers and toes.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,358
5,680
136
7742 tdp 225w*8=1800w :colbert:
At lease google tells me it is 1800. I don't have that many fingers and toes.
But then there is this note:

* 200W CPUs are supported under certain configurations. Please contact Supermicro Technical Support for additional information about specialized system optimization

So I assume that 225 watt are NOT supported. Maybe not 200 watt if all of them are that much.

Edit: found this also:

Support CPU TDP / cTDP up to 200W*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

ASK THE COMMUNITY