Discussion Variance in CPU quality and how it affects reviews and user experience

[Mopetar]

AMD is almost certainly disabling fully capable hardware to make 6-core parts because it's unlikely that they have enough defective hardware to meet the demand for 6-core parts. There aren't enough people willing to buy 8-core CPUs so some get the chop. Granted this also means that the bin for an 8-core CPU becomes better. They can find the clock speed that whatever percentage of chips they want for that segment to hit and set the bar there.

It's no different than the Phenom II days when people were buying x3 CPUs because most of them could be unlocked and work as a fully functional x4 part. A lot of people on these forums would buy an x3 to save $50 or so.

We probably have more variability in the top and bottom bins these days because there's fewer products on offer. Right now AMD has 10 Zen 4 CPUs. Half of them are 2 chiplet CPUs. Additionally there is at least one v-cache model in each of those halves. If you're getting a non-v-cache single chiplet Zen 4 CPU then you have four options, again segmented by core count.

If we use the Phenom II x4 as a comparison, AMD had 12 different product models for just their 4-core CPUs. You basically bought the CPU at 100 MHz clock increments for a large part of the product range. Intel wasn't all that different at the time either. All of the variability was wrung out by having so many different products.

AMDs economics are completely different due to chiplets. Before measuring the capabilities of one it could wind up in $10,000 server CPU or a $200 desktop CPU. The flexibility is something that didn't exist to such a broad extent previously and it makes AMD far more adaptable to changes in the market. Intel is going in this direction, but lead times on new designs are so long that anything that Pat has pushed forward won't emerge for a few years still. He might look ridiculous for cheerleading a few turkeys, but that's his job as CEO as much as getting better products to market.

 

[TheELF]

Silicon lottery would only matter within the specific model grade would it not? we've established that the binning goes from epyc down to the 7600x. they would be the lowest quality silicon but still viable for amd to use and ship off.

Yes, call them lowest tier binning which they are and not trash.

AMD's economics are sound with little to no waste.

AMD uses twice the amount of full cores that intel does, seems pretty wasteful to me.
Now they have to add a crapton of vcache on top of the CPU to make sales, that's even more wasteful.

With TSMC increasing prices all the time it's only a matter of time for this to become a serious issue for AMD.

AMDs economics are completely different due to chiplets. Before measuring the capabilities of one it could wind up in $10,000 server CPU or a $200 desktop CPU. The flexibility is something that didn't exist to such a broad extent previously and it makes AMD far more adaptable to changes in the market.

That's only a lot of flexibility if all or close to all chiplets were good enough to go into servers, and if they were then that's where all of them would be going because AMD would want to get that 10,000 bucks instead of the 200.
They already stopped years ago making smaller CPUs for just this reason.

 

[coercitiv]

Being offended by the term "trash silicon" is akin to thinking that "golden sample" is shinier by nature.

AMD uses twice the amount of full cores that intel does, seems pretty wasteful to me.
Now they have to add a crapton of vcache on top of the CPU to make sales, that's even more wasteful.

Please keep the trolling outside of this thread. The Meteor Lake discussion on L4 is here.

 

[VirtualLarry]

AMD uses twice the amount of full cores that intel does, seems pretty wasteful to me.
Now they have to add a crapton of vcache on top of the CPU to make sales, that's even more wasteful.

With TSMC increasing prices all the time it's only a matter of time for this to become a serious issue for AMD.

Having the top-tier gaming CPU, is "wasteful"?? LOL. Having the most power-efficient chip (with vcache) is "wasteful"?

 

[A///]

AMD uses twice the amount of full cores that intel does, seems pretty wasteful to me.

and intel needs 24 cores working in unison to achieve their nT scores that barely pass 16 fat cores on amd plus 50-100w of extra power. don't spin the little propeller on your hat too hard.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Silicon lottery would only matter within the specific model grade would it not? we've established that the binning goes from epyc down to the 7600x. they would be the lowest quality silicon but still viable for amd to use and ship off. the general variance among that line can't be too great where silicon lottery may play a factor. my personal opinion from long ago still stands imo, if you're buying into zen 4 then or now and not wanting a faster model or the 7800x3d you're wasting money unless you plan on to upgrade to zen 5. the intel models at that range offered more, although I haven't kept up with my pricing models and the the 7950x is possibly on offer in combo for less than 600 these days invalidating intel's low end attempt to squeeze into amd's zone.

You can argue for AMD or Intel with current pricing.

The 7600 and 7600x are as good at gaming as the 13600k, but lose at productivity. But they are cheaper and use less power.

The 7700 and 7700x loses at productivity to the 13600k and is slightly more expensive. But it is 8 fat cores so for games that exceed 6 core, it is a better buy.

The 13700k is in the same price range as the 7800x3d and 7900/7900x. It is on par with the 7900x but uses more power and loses to the 7800x3d in gaming.

The 13900k competes with the 7950 but it uses way more power.

AMD motherboards are more expensive (Qt least the x670(e)/b650(e)) but one could argue they have beefier specs, specially on the power delivery department. If AM5 supports zen6 almost everyone could have a drop in upgrade. If it only goes to zen5 it is less of a value.