What is Richland? AT users vote.

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by inf64, Dec 31, 2012.

?

What is Richland APU?

  1. 32nm SOI,PD based, VLIW4 with same SP count and clock bump-"Trinity 2.0"

  2. 32nm SOI,PD based,GCN GPU core(HSA improvements)

  3. 28nm bulk,PD based,GCN GPU core(HSA),clock bump on CPU and GPU side

  4. 28nm bulk,PD+ based,GCN core(HSA),clock bump on CPU and GPU side

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    7
    So now that we know Kaveri(28nm) is a 2014 product and Richland took its place, what do you guys think Richland is?
     
  2. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,074
    Likes Received:
    13
    What if 28nm gives a clock decrease instead from going SOI to Bulk?

    But due to the GloFo agreement option 2 is much more pausible. Even tho there are better economics in option 3, had the GloFo agreement not been in place.

    Option 1 and 4 is exculded from AMDs own information.
     
    #2 ShintaiDK, Dec 31, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  3. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sure that's possible. But what would warrant a 6000 model number if CPU/GPU sides would "suck" when compared to 2012 5000 series? :)
    I think in this case I could redefine the poll with "possible clock bump" for option number 3/4.

    edit: Sorry I can't modify the poll,no option that I can see.
     
  4. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,074
    Likes Received:
    13
    You could say GPU wise it would be warranted.
     
    #4 ShintaiDK, Dec 31, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  5. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yeah but they cannot screw things more than they are now :). I even have doubts this thing will be 28nm at all(but still voted for 3) . They will make some changes in IMC to bring more memory BW which points out to somewhat better GPU,but CPU side will probably be the same and only thing that can make it better is clock increase to say ~4Ghz. But since Trinity almost always hits 4Ghz in normal desktop stuff users run on it, Richland would have to reach higher on the clock scale to make any difference in common benchmarks. This will be hard to do no matter what node it's being made on.
     
  6. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,074
    Likes Received:
    13
    Thinking more about it. I am actually positive that Richland is 32nm and with CGN cores.

    AMDs own slides already excluded 1 and 4 since it will be CGN cores and Pilediver. And by the colour used for Richland its supposed to be 32nm. Exlcuding option 3 as well. So only number 2 left. :)

    (I actually misclicked for option 3 myself.)
     
    #6 ShintaiDK, Dec 31, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  7. CHADBOGA

    CHADBOGA Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think Richland is likely to be one of the most insignificant products of all time.
     
  8. NTMBK

    NTMBK Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,957
    Likes Received:
    19
    This.

    It will probably make as much impact as Brazos 2.0 did.
     
  9. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yeah but I don't think changing votes is possible :p.
    I hope we will know more after CES 2013.
     
  10. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    I chose option 3 "28nm bulk,PD based,GCN GPU core(HSA),clock bump on CPU and GPU side" as a balance between what seems possible (albeit not the most probable) and what I wish/hope AMD is able to do.

    I do not see a "PD+" core being at all possible, neither Llano nor Trinity carried "+" versions of the CPU cores at the time and I doubt Richland would either.

    If you want the poll text changed then it can be changed by a mod, just let me know in exact detail what you want changed (specifics in regards to "from -> to").

    If you want a new poll that is possible as well. Start a new thread with your new poll exactly as you want it and then let me know. I will merge this thread with the new poll thread, and in doing so I will keep this thread (all the posts) but I will keep the newer thread's poll.

    It basically substitutes the existing poll with an entirely new one, causing this thread's poll to disappear as well as the other thread (the new thread you'd make w/ the right poll) to disappear.
     
  11. pablo87

    pablo87 Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    I pick #2
     
  12. Abwx

    Abwx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,738
    Likes Received:
    30
    Picked 2....

    It wouldnt be a 2.0 version if only frequencies are the difference ,
    while a 28nm version seems a bit early given that the current process
    is barely two years old in respect of industrial scale production.
     
  13. VirtualLarry

    VirtualLarry Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    33,341
    Likes Received:
    26
    I hope it's 3, but I picked 2, being a little more realistic.
     
  14. IntelUser2000

    IntelUser2000 Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,057
    Likes Received:
    1
    I chose #3.

    28nm, because previous roadmaps on Kaveri was indicating 28nm. PD, because I agree with IDC's post. GPU is probably not that much different from what was supposed to be in the original Kaveri. It's Trinity's CPU cores + Kaveri GPU on a 28nm process. While clocks might have to go down, 28nm will offer some density increases, keeping Richland at similar die sizes to Trinity despite having enhanced GPU.
     
    #14 IntelUser2000, Dec 31, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  15. Centauri

    Centauri Golden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hoping for 4, voting for 1.
     
  16. Haserath

    Haserath Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    0
    4, good luck

    3, unlikely

    2, probable

    1, wouldn't surprise me

    I'm wavering between 1&2. Kaveri was planned as SR and GCN, but Richland only recently replaced it. Makes me think it's a filler with no time for change over Trinity. Graphics are a bit easier to bolt only Trinity cores though, especially since they have them worked out already... But that's on 28nm bulk, and Trinity(PD) isn't on 28nm bulk...

    I choose 1 as most probable.
     
  17. parvadomus

    parvadomus Senior member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Picked 2. Sadly this is Kaveri's replacement for 2013. It will pack GCN cores and hybrid cross fire Mars XTX based low end GPUs.
    And the only reason for AMD to launch this is to counter Haswell IGP performance. Steamroller will be ready and polished for 2014 (or skipped directly to excavator or SR+).
     
  18. jpiniero

    jpiniero Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    4
    No option for Cancelled?
     
  19. Centauri

    Centauri Golden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would there be?
     
  20. Homeles

    Homeles Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gotta start our inane AMD-bashing circlejerk somehow.
     
  21. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    7
    Richland cancelled? You are not following AMD then I suppose :). Richland is filling in for missing Kaveri on 2013 roadmap ;). If they cancel the replacement ,what would they use as a replacement for a replacement?

    Richland is coming for sure, we just don't know what it is exactly hence this little poll. Soon we will know who had hit the closest to the real spec :).
     
  22. NostaSeronx

    NostaSeronx Golden Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    8
    The clock decrease will come with a much lower voltage with it.
     
  23. sm625

    sm625 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    7,709
    Likes Received:
    8
    If you know AMD then you are expecting 1 and hoping for maybe 2 lol.
     
  24. ViRGE

    ViRGE Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    31,073
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ditto. That ended up being my exact train of thought.
     
  25. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    The technical issue with going "32nm SOI/HKMG -> 28nm bulk/HKMG" is not that Idrive will remain flat or go down (because it won't, Idrive assuredly will go up with 28nm over 32nm) but the static and dynamic leakage value ought to markedly increase with the 28nm non-SOI process over that which AMD is already relying on with the existing 32nm SOI process.

    That much must be true unless the existing SOI-implementation in 32nm is so shoddy, so crappy and so un-optimized, that its removal from the process flow results in nary a difference in static or dynamic leakage.

    So we must either assume them to be fools for going to the expense of using SOI at 32nm, or assume them to be fools for bothering to pay for taping out chips for 28nm that don't have SOI, because process-technology wise this should result in little more than trading six of one thing for a half dozen of another.

    The primary benefit here from such a node transition "32nm SOI/HKMG -> 28nm bulk/HKMG" is AMD and the cost per die. The wafers will certainly yield more dies/wafer because the 28nm xtors will have higher density (smaller die) and without the SOI tax the wafers will only be slightly more expensive than the existing 32nm ones.

    So AMD gets to sell chips which cost them much less per chip, but the chips themselves would not be expected to perform any better (nor worse) than today's chips in terms of clockspeeds and power consumption - but there is the opportunity for IPC improvements of course.

    (unless 32nm SOI is just so badly borked that 28nm without SOI does actually turn out to still be just that much better...)