- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
I know what you mean, but I don't think it's possible to have cores invisible to the OS like that. Or at least not practical. It's almost certainly not how MTL does it, at any rate.Sorry, maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I just mean cores present on the I/O die that Windows can't access directly but are present for background tasks (I can't define that right now). I'm pretty sure there was discussion about cores on the Intel Meteor lake SOC die. What are the chances AMD does something like that?
Et tu, Videocardz?Here is your answer for hybrid:
![]()
AMD confirms Ryzen 3 7440U features 6-core Phoenix2 APU with Zen4 hybrid design - VideoCardz.com
The smaller AMD Phoenix APU features hybrid architecture Ryzen 7540U and 7440U have a combination of Zen4 and Zen4c cores. AMD Phoenix2 APU, Source: Golden Pig Upgrade In a recent exchange with XDA-Developers, AMD has officially acknowledged that the AMD Phoenix APU used in the Ryzen 3 7440U...videocardz.com
AMD confirms Ryzen 3 7440U features 6-core Phoenix2 APU with Zen4 hybrid design
While AMD stopped short of confirming that the underlying design used a hybrid architecture, the details line up so perfectly with the rumor that it's all but certain.
What about the possibility of "shadow" cores that aren't OS transparent but are present on the I/O die? I think Meteor Lake has 2 low power cores on the SOC die that aren't OS transparent?
The cores can be hidden from the OS pretty easily. The thing is that you don’t want to do this. You WANT Windows/Linux to see a normal core. Ideally, you would provide an instruction for an OS to call that describes the topology of the system and let the OS figure out scheduling. Things like core grouping (for shared caches, thread grouping, etc), speed relative to other cores, latency, power limits, etc. would ideally all be provided. However, this is not the case currently. You can sniff out a lot of this stuff using other methods, but they can be error prone.It's possible, most SoC have cores that are not "visible" to the OS for special stuff, for example Zen SoC has an ARM Cortex for their security stuff (AMD Secure Processor). Those cores also run their own OS/Kernel.
For Meteor Lake, that's more complicated as those cores are "exposed" to the OS, but maybe a future Windows version will support DPU-like usage of "special cores".
The problem with the high core count products for desktop is that after you ran Cinebench and got the score, their useful life has ended.I too would like to see AMD offer 8P + 16D at the same time as 8P + 8P, so that we can finally see for ourselves what part of the desktop consumer market is willing to buy dense cores over performance cores.
Would you say this is 98% of unit sales? Or maybe 99% of the desktop unit market?8 cores is only really for gamers, or light use desktop purposes.
I am not sure I have enough data for a great guess, but I would guess in the 70-80 % range could get by with 8.Would you say this is 98% of unit sales? Or maybe 99% of the desktop unit market?
My understanding is that for Zen 1-4 this has been a single core ARM Cortex A5. Any chance they move to RISC-V for Zen 5 or a different ARM core?It's possible, most SoC have cores that are not "visible" to the OS for special stuff, for example Zen SoC has an ARM Cortex for their security stuff (AMD Secure Processor). Those cores also run their own OS/Kernel.
For Meteor Lake, that's more complicated as those cores are "exposed" to the OS, but maybe a future Windows version will support DPU-like usage of "special cores".
I thought there was some patent about transparently switching a thread between a high and low performance core based on what the thread actually needs. This can be done in a transparent manner where the high performance and the low power core look like the same core to the OS. This would remove the need for scheduling tweaks on the OS side. I don't know how else you have a hidden core unless it is something like a gpu accelerator. The OS doesn't schedule threads in a gpu, the hardware/driver handles that.The cores can be hidden from the OS pretty easily. The thing is that you don’t want to do this. You WANT Windows/Linux to see a normal core. Ideally, you would provide an instruction for an OS to call that describes the topology of the system and let the OS figure out scheduling. Things like core grouping (for shared caches, thread grouping, etc), speed relative to other cores, latency, power limits, etc. would ideally all be provided. However, this is not the case currently. You can sniff out a lot of this stuff using other methods, but they can be error prone.
Similarly, applications should be able to request a specific type of thread (low speed/low power/etc). Unless Microsoft has changed things, you don’t have much control over where your thread ends up.
(note my knowledge on both x86 instructions and general low level or systems programming is out of date, so it is possible this situation could have improved. I don’t develop at that level any longer)
iirc MS now mandates all CPU cores to be OS-visible.I thought there was some patent about transparently switching a thread between a high and low performance core based on what the thread actually needs. This can be done in a transparent manner where the high performance and the low power core look like the same core to the OS. This would remove the need for scheduling tweaks on the OS side. I don't know how else you have a hidden core unless it is something like a gpu accelerator. The OS doesn't schedule threads in a gpu, the hardware/driver handles that.
Desktop parts are of frankly little relevance.I mean it doesn't delay desktop parts if Zen 5c CCD isn't done at the same time as Zen 5 CCD.
They're very close.I didn't get that impression.
Tsk, that's all I care about...Desktop parts are of frankly little relevance.
Yeah, but my point was unlike Intel they do not have to get both Zen 5 and Zen 5c done exactly simultaneously to ship their part like Intel needs to do.They're very close.
Well, it is what it is.Tsk, that's all I care about...
Eh, Strix isn't far off, and it's both Z5 and Z5c, so there's that.but my point was unlike Intel they do not have to get both Zen 5 and Zen 5c done exactly simultaneously to ship their part like Intel needs to do.
Strange. Maybe I would be the last one who would still think 'C' suffix cores are for server/datacenter only. The sources are fighting each others until these products release in the future.
new info about zen5 apu
Ain't that sweet. Offering the worst scheduler in the industry but demand that hardware must not circumvent it.iirc MS now mandates all CPU cores to be OS-visible.
It's OK.Offering the worst scheduler in the industry
Strange. Maybe I would be the last one who would still think 'C' suffix cores are for server/datacenter only. The sources are fighting each others until these products release in the future.![]()
My understanding is that for Zen 1-4 this has been a single core ARM Cortex A5. Any chance they move to RISC-V for Zen 5 or a different ARM core?
Not confirmed but current estimates are Q1-Q2 for granite, Q2-Q3 for strix. I don't think strix is arriving earlier than granite.What are the current rumors on the launch window for different Zen 5 products?
Has there been any speculation/leaks that's more precise than the confirmed "in 2024"?. Is Strix really arriving before Granite Ridge?
No idea, but if AMD sticks with normal cadence, mobile parts will be announced in January and gradually release throughout the year, while desktop parts will release late Q3 or sometime in Q4 of next year.What are the current rumors on the launch window for different Zen 5 products?
Has there been any speculation/leaks that's more precise than the confirmed "in 2024"?. Is Strix really arriving before Granite Ridge?
If AMD sticks with normal cadence then desktop parts can launch even relatively early next year. AFAIK Zen 4 was intentionally delayed to market by 1-2 quarters and AMD's "usual" target between gens is lower than 18 months.No idea, but if AMD sticks with normal cadence, mobile parts will be announced in January and gradually release throughout the year, while desktop parts will release late Q3 or sometime in Q4 of next year.
