Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)

[DisEnchantment]

Speculate at will

 

[A///]

Back to your wine you should go. $27 isn't much over $200 for a hex core. Step back a bit and the 4600/5600X are both $144. Talk about getting pissy over nothing. Or is the wine that makes you unhappy as could only get a bottle or two less?

Neither is $20 over. The point was that those prices are ridiculous at this point for a 6 core product. Why are you bringing up a 3 year old processor which is a value buy when someone wants the latest? Maybe you need a glass or two to get your brain in order. If it hadn't occurred to you now then it didn't then when these processors were revealed at higher launch prices. 7600x launched @ 300, then was taken down to 250 less than 60 days later, then it was taken down a further 20 bucks to where it sits now give or take a few dollars. 5600x also launched for @ 300. Stupid

 

[A///]

Lol nooooo 😂

Never was a drinking in the morning kind of person even when I was still drinking.

Stick with 28 ml a pour with fresh orange juice. That's how I've always done it. Last time I was back home I'd asked for one and it was a 60/40 to a 50/50 pour that had me reeling. There's some proper nightmare inducing drinks from the past that needn't be brought up again. Recall buckfast? Remember an older lad in our village who'd get cockered off the stuff every so often and you could on a quiet evening hear him hurling his poor guts out. his family were good people, the father the brother of the local parish lead. he had some issues, the son. think they'd categorise it as depression these days.

 

[Abwx]

Neither is $20 over. The point was that those prices are ridiculous at this point for a 6 core product. Why are you bringing up a 3 year old processor which is a value buy when someone wants the latest? Maybe you need a glass or two to get your brain in order.

If they sell their latest hardware too cheap then they will no more have the necessary ressources to fund their RD, Intel will be dominant again and you ll end with 400$ 6C CPUs, may i remind you that 5 years after the i7 2600K was relesased 4C/8T were still north of 350$.?.

And then adjust for inflation, how much is 200$ today in comparison of say 2017.?.

 

[A///]

If they sell their latest hardware too cheap then they will no more have the necsessary ressources to fund their RD, Intel will be dominant again and you ll end with 400$ 6C CPUs...

and what did amd do less than 60 days after launching their processors due to poor sales? they reduced prices. the 7600x launched @ 300 usd. the pricing on this was reduced by 50 usd less than 60 days later. Barely a month later this price was further reduced by $20 where it has remained the same. All public info points toward the am4 processors selling more than the am5 processors in this performance bracket, or Intel stealing sales for the better value. If AMD were so concerned they wouldn't have come out with their half baked price in the first place and wasted two months plus of meandering sales. The rest of AMD's lineup also saw those price cuts in November. Some saw further cuts in December and then once more in February and March to try and spur greater sales. Zen 4 is good no doubt but its botched launch via pricing decisions may have hampered its adoption rate.

The 13600K was the better processor at the low end this past launch season. Not only does it come with 6 p cores, it comes with 8 e cores. At its heart it's a 6 core design if you disabled those e cores, and it still performed better. Thermals and power usage ignored, the intel option which I've been moaning about for months was always the better buy. The best buy with amd right now is the 7800x3d, 7900x, 7950x and any other 3d version at the high end.

13th gen low end is perfect vs amd but their high end is utter junk. No person in their right mind would opt for a 13700K or 13900K over a higher end AMD processor, especially had the 7950x3d has seen pricing cuts that make it more affordable long run and versatile than Intel's junk.

 

[Abwx]

and what did amd do less than 60 days after launching their processors due to poor sales? they reduced prices. the 7600x launched @ 300 usd. the pricing on this was reduced by 50 usd less than 60 days later. Barely a month later this price was further reduced by $20 where it has remained the same. All public info points toward the am4 processors selling more than the am5 processors in this performance bracket, or Intel stealing sales for the better value. If AMD were so concerned they wouldn't have come out with their half baked price in the first place and wasted two months plus of meandering sales.

They priced according to performance and perf/Watt in respect of the competition, they lowered the prices after Intel lowered their prices.

You can bet that if the tables were turned with AMD being process late and relying on e-cores as a mean to badly catch up in MT perfs they would be in a dire position, but it happens that Intel marketing muscle manage to trick unsuspicious and uninformed buyers in believing that they have something as competitive as their opponent ,wich is not the case, the 13900K FI is vastly inferior to a 7950X.

 

[A///]

They priced according to performance and perf/Watt in respect of the competition, they lowered the prices after Intel lowered their prices.

When did Intel lower their prices? The 13600K currently sits at $317. If you're going to bs me try to be convincing.

Intel Core i5-13600K Review

Intel's Core i5-13600K is pricier, power-hungrier, and hotter-running than its predecessor, but it's hard to argue with the raw performance this CPU gives you for the money, especially for PC gamers.

www.pcmag.com

For all its positive attributes, there is at least one somewhat concerning factor we should point out: the processor’s price. With an MSRP of $329, the Core i5-13600K costs $40 more than its predecessor did at launch. (The Core i5-12600K launched at $289.) Not taking performance into consideration, it’s disheartening to see the entry price for any Core i5 processor, even a deluxe, unlocked "K" one, now sitting north of $300.

If you're referring to Amazon or Newegg pricing guess what, they can price the product at whatever they want if there's enough demand. you forget the 13900k was going for nearly $800 on some sites due to demand while the amd processors weren't moving much.

You can bet that if the tables were turned with AMD being process late and relying on e-cores as a mean to badly catch up in MT perfs they would be in a dire position, but it happens that Intel marketing muscle manage to trick unsuspicious and uninformed buyers in believing that they have something as competitive as their opponent.

Right, but say what? The 13600K is better than the 7600x. Either the e cores are useless like many claim they are or they're something that was meant to catchup and surpass amd's equivalent processor. Which one is it? At all stages of this product generation the Intel processors will outperform AMD's processors in some scenarios or be dead even. It took Intel 1 year to get there from Alderlake, which was already a decent series minus bugs. It took 2 years for amd to get here and surpass alderlake, but not put enough distance between it and raptorlake unlike zen 3 to the 4th or 5th rendition of skylake at 10 cores. Ignoring the bastard child that was rocket lake.

this is a tech circle is it not. most of us visit enthusiast sites. We've seen people opt for Intel over AMD. These aren't intel's rabid fans or idiots as you claim. people were opting for Intel due to amd's asinine pricing at launch but even now nearly 10 months later I'd say they're even, with am4 still leading sales. this was the most unimaginative and lame processor launch by both companies in years excluding the dozer eras. it was all limp noodle supported by stupid high board prices which have hardly dropped in almost a year. ddr5 has dropped considerable. nand has dropped considerably. Processors and mobo? not so much.

If there were ever a time to hold off buying a new computer it would be now. The choices suck. Wait for Arrowlake and wait for Zen 5.

 

[Abwx]

When did Intel lower their prices? The 13600K currently sits at $317. If you're going to bs me try to be convincing.

Intel Core i5-13600K Review

Intel's Core i5-13600K is pricier, power-hungrier, and hotter-running than its predecessor, but it's hard to argue with the raw performance this CPU gives you for the money, especially for PC gamers.

www.pcmag.com

If you're referring to Amazon or Newegg pricing guess what, they can price the product at whatever they want if there's enough demand. you forget the 13900k was going for nearly $800 on some sites due to demand while the amd processors weren't moving much.


Right, but say what? The 13600K is better than the 7600x. Either the e cores are useless like many claim they are or they're something that was meant to catchup and surpass amd's equivalent processor. Which one is it? At all stages of this product generation the Intel processors will outperform AMD's processors in some scenarios or be dead even. It took Intel 1 year to get there from Alderlake, which was already a decent series minus bugs. It took 2 years for amd to get here and surpass alderlake, but not put enough distance between it and raptorlake unlike zen 3 to the 4th or 5th rendition of skylake at 10 cores. Ignoring the bastard child that was rocket lake.

Does the 13600K cost the same price as a 7600X..?..

It s rather in the league of a 7700X price wise.

That being said say that a P or Zen 4 core has a 100 throughput and a lowly clocked e-core about 60.

Send 8 threads in a 7700X and it will output a 800 score, do the same in the 13600K and its output is 720.

Now do the reasonning for a 7950X and a 13900K and you ll understand why i said that the former is vastly superior, it s not only a matter of perf and perf/watt but also of actual perf when not all ressources are used.

 

[A///]

Does the 13600K cost the same price as a 7600X..?..

Why ask when the information has been presented? At launch the Intel cost more, but outperformed the 7600x with the latter being dead in the water. Right now it's still dead in the water. Why purchase into AMD if it's not financially feasible to opt for a 7800X3D processor or higher? The Intel option is still cheaper. You're comparing $/core when you should be comparing performance. A used Intel 6 core processor from 3-4 years ago is cheaper than a 7600X if you go by $/core, but you wouldn't because you're not stupid.

It s rather in the league of a 7700X price wise.

That being said say that a P or Zen 4 core has a 100 throughput and a lowly clocked e-core about 60.

And performs better than a 7700X.

And still performs better than those two.

Now do the reasonning for a 7950X and a 13900K and you ll understand why i said that the former is vastly superior, it s not only a matter of perf and perf/watt but also of actual perf when not all ressources are used.

No one is arguing this. Have you not been paying attention to my lengthy posts for the last year? AMD sucks at the low end, Intel is better. Intel is junk trash at the high end while AMD is better. If given a choice between a 13700K and a 7900X the latter is better even if they perform dead even. The higher end of Intel makes no sense if you plan to use it more than a year or two because of how limited the chipset tech on it is. Meanwhile the am5 board is viable for many years just because they come loaded with features. Especially if you go with a decent Asrock board who don't try to stab you in the back with insane pricing.

Low end/entry: Intel
Mid to high end: AMD

Been arguing about this for a year and people still think I'm advocating for Intel. You buy Intel at the high end if you need Intel for a specific reason or you're a berk and love wasting money. The raptor lake refresh is the saddest product from Intel coming out other than the 5 years of skylake they had. Arrow Lake is a make or bust for Intel. Raptor is the first generation where they caught up and mildly blew past AMD in years. For that they should be applauded, for contributing to global warming they ought to be castrated.

 

[Abwx]

Why ask when the information has been presented? At launch the Intel cost more, but outperformed the 7600x with the latter being dead in the water. Right now it's still dead in the water. Why purchase into AMD if it's not financially feasible to opt for a 7800X3D processor or higher? The Intel option is still cheaper. You're comparing $/core when you should be comparing performance. A used Intel 6 core processor from 3-4 years ago is cheaper than a 7600X if you go by $/core, but you wouldn't because you're not stupid.


And performs better than a 7700X.

And still performs better than those two.


No one is arguing this. Have you not been paying attention to my lengthy posts for the last year? AMD sucks at the low end, Intel is better. Intel is junk trash at the high end while AMD is better. If given a choice between a 13700K and a 7900X the latter is better even if they perform dead even. The higher end of Intel makes no sense if you plan to use it more than a year or two because of how limited the chipset tech on it is. Meanwhile the am5 board is viable for many years just because they come loaded with features. Especially if you go with a decent Asrock board who don't try to stab you in the back with insane pricing.

Low end/entry: Intel
Mid to high end: AMD

Been arguing about this for a year and people still think I'm advocating for Intel. You buy Intel at the high end if you need Intel for a specific reason or you're a berk and love wasting money. The raptor lake refresh is the saddest product from Intel coming out other than the 5 years of skylake they had. Arrow Lake is a make or bust for Intel. Raptor is the first generation where they caught up and mildly blew past AMD in years. For that they should be applauded, for contributing to global warming they ought to be castrated.

Even for low end entry Intel is not a good choice for the very reason that you exposed in your post, that is, that AM5 will support future CPUs, by going Intel low entry you ll be left with no better than existing CPUs for an eventual future upgrade, and Intel chips do not see big prices reductions when a new gen is released, you ll be left paying almost full bill for old CPUs.

Now put a just little more for the CPU and take a 7600 and you can later upgrade either to a more notably price reduced Zen 4 or eventually to a lowish Ryzen 8000 and even, who knows, much later to the cheapest Ryzen 9000.

 

[A///]

Even for low end entry Intel is not a good choice for the very reason that you exposed in your post, that is, that AM5 will support future CPUs, by going Intel low entry you ll be left with no better than existing CPUs for an eventual future upgrade, and Intel chips do not see big prices reductions when a new gen is released, you ll be left paying almost full bill for old CPUs.

Yes but how many upgrade their processor? This argument is always made for AMD but who in their right mind that is budget orientated will be upgrading in a year or two with the next processor release. Very few will find the financial reasoning to spend another $300 on an already aged platform when am5 board refreshes are inbound and we'll be seeing pcie6 and ddr6 in a couple of years?

Now put a just little more for the CPU and take a 7600 and you can later upgrade either to a more notably price reduced Zen 4 or eventually to a lowish Ryzen 8000 and even, who knows, much later to the cheapest Ryzen 9000.

Oh bless you for thinking AMD will let am5 live as long as am4 did.

 

[H433x0n]

They priced according to performance and perf/Watt in respect of the competition, they lowered the prices after Intel lowered their prices.

You can bet that if the tables were turned with AMD being process late and relying on e-cores as a mean to badly catch up in MT perfs they would be in a dire position, but it happens that Intel marketing muscle manage to trick unsuspicious and uninformed buyers in believing that they have something as competitive as their opponent ,wich is not the case, the 13900K FI is vastly inferior to a 7950X.

You’re a bit out of touch I think. Only power users / enthusiasts even take into account stuff like perf/watt. The real world pricing right now has the Intel products priced higher than AMD’s equivalent tiers (i5 vs r5, i7 vs r7 and i9 vs r9). The top selling CPUs on NewEgg and Amazon have the higher tier RPL (13900K/13700K) in the top 5, while the first Zen 4 product (7800X3D) usually doesn’t make the top 10 with the 7950X not making it into the top 25.

I’ve owned a 7950X and a 13900K and I can tell you first hand if you were to do a blind test the difference would be imperceptible.

People aren’t as in the weeds and analytical as your average anandtech forum contributor.

 

[aigomorla]

I think this is drifting way off topic... There is a lot of Zen4 discussion without comparisons or expectations to Zen5. And i did say keep Intel very Light in this thread, which i see this page has Raptor lake plastered on it.

I am watching all of you.

Moderator Aigo

 

[A///]

Agree. This generation is best left on ignore unless you're someone like me who needs a series of systems that don't put out enough heat to ffset any cooling by central air... OTOH Zen 5 needs to get here in q2 of 2024 and not the late 2024 like someone here was claiming. Way to be a party pooper, that one person. I'm not expecting anything life changing from team blue. Personally I believe in the cult of Papermaster.

 

[Thunder 57]

...If AMD were so concerned they wouldn't have come out with their half baked price in the first place and wasted two months plus of meandering sales. The rest of AMD's lineup also saw those price cuts in November. Some saw further cuts in December and then once more in February and March to try and spur greater sales. Zen 4 is good no doubt but its botched launch via pricing decisions may have hampered its adoption rate.

Expensive mobos and requiring new memory can't be discounted. Though I will agree the launch prices were... ambitious.

EDIT

Just saw the warning after I had already posted. I will refrain from straying off topic.

 

[A///]

Expensive mobos and requiring new memory can't be discounted. Though I will agree the launch prices were... ambitious.

True. I think Intel were smart with how they handled it at the expense of their IMC being rather middling when pushed. That should change with Arrow Lake. I feel bad for the people who spent $400-700 on DDR5 that's now down 50-75% from prices in October. I feel particularly bad for the people who spent $400 on a 4 TB NVME not long ago when they're going for nearly $270 and extra now. Contrary to reports I don't see these going up anytime soon. DDR6 pricing may come down even faster if this whole AI bs keeps going on and on. Am5 mobos are good but the features introduced and requirements for those features don't justify their high msrp. there's is some large margins on some board models. I expect the same in 2-3 years when am6 comes out. AMD is in the process of getting partners to release usb 4 capable board or was it tb4. next year with zen 5 they'll launch a new chipset with pcie6. and the year after or two years after that they'll release am6 with possibly pcie7 as it arrived in 2025 and ddr6 for a late 2026 launch. pcie means nothing as the new drives are too hot to work with but you get more flow with the limited number of lanes in terms of bandwidth usage by older gen devices while still having leftover. something you don't get the luxury of with intel's outdated board designs.

 

[Thunder 57]

True. I think Intel were smart with how they handled it at the expense of their IMC being rather middling when pushed. That should change with Arrow Lake. I feel bad for the people who spent $400-700 on DDR5 that's now down 50-75% from prices in October. I feel particularly bad for the people who spent $400 on a 4 TB NVME not long ago when they're going for nearly $270 and extra now. Contrary to reports I don't see these going up anytime soon. DDR6 pricing may come down even faster if this whole AI bs keeps going on and on. Am5 mobos are good but the features introduced and requirements for those features don't justify their high msrp. there's is some large margins on some board models. I expect the same in 2-3 years when am6 comes out. AMD is in the process of getting partners to release usb 4 capable board or was it tb4. next year with zen 5 they'll launch a new chipset with pcie6. and the year after or two years after that they'll release am6 with possibly pcie7 as it arrived in 2025 and ddr6 for a late 2026 launch. pcie means nothing as the new drives are too hot to work with but you get more flow with the limited number of lanes in terms of bandwidth usage by older gen devices while still having leftover. something you don't get the luxury of with intel's outdated board designs.

I certainly do not expect to see PCIe 6 on Zen 5, maybe not even Zen 6. Let alone PCIe 7.

 

[adroc_thurston]

I certainly do not expect to see PCIe 6 on Zen 5, maybe not even Zen 6. Let alone PCIe 7.

Yeah don't think PCIe6 is coming to client any time soon.

 

[Abwx]

Agree. This generation is best left on ignore unless you're someone like me who needs a series of systems that don't put out enough heat to ffset any cooling by central air... OTOH Zen 5 needs to get here in q2 of 2024 and not the late 2024 like someone here was claiming. Way to be a party pooper, that one person. I'm not expecting anything life changing from team blue. Personally I believe in the cult of Papermaster.

Doesnt matter when it s precisely released, most important is that Zen 5 is supported by current AM5 MBs, according to AMD support of this plateform will go through 2026, this mean that their 18-24 months cadence would still have Zen 6 supported as well since it will likely be only a mild iteration of Zen 5.

 

[adroc_thurston]

since it will likely be only a mild iteration of Zen 5.

Core incremental, yes.
Everything else very very different.

 

[A///]

I certainly do not expect to see PCIe 6 on Zen 5, maybe not even Zen 6. Let alone PCIe 7.

pice4 was finalized in 2017 due to it being over extended over several years. it's original due date was years before its introduction in 2020. pcie5 was finalised in 2019 and it hit client in 2022 but hit non x86 enterprise in 2020. pcie6 was finalized in 2022 and is due to hit client in 2025. Pcie7 doubles up on bandwidth on pcie6 and introduces very little. It'll be approved in 2025 and hit non x86 enterprise in the year following. pci sig is not going to wait until AMD or Intel are ready. It also lets intel and amd charge you more for a new feature. pcie4 was so late due to lack of competition and there needing to be that kind of transport speed. That's all changed now. There's bigger fish to fry than amd or intel consumer processors. Samsung plans to have DDR6 memory ready by 2025 for commercial use by the arm vendors in the server space. It should arrive on client in a year and a half later. It's neither AMD nor Intel's intention to keep relying on older memory standards or pcie standards when they can implement it and offer it as a feature worth buying. Even if it means nothing to the end user due to the lack of hardware. You think they wouldn't implement it just to sell you a more expensive mobo? How's USB4 and TB working out for Windows and Linux users? There's less than a dozen consumer price ranged products relying on that standard.

No one is going to wait on AMD and Intel to release new tech. And neither one will let the other release a new standard without offering it themselves. If Zen 5 comes out in late 2024, and Zen 6 comes out in late 2026, why would they use a pcie5 standard that was finalized 7 years before and implemented in 2022?

You ever ask yourselves why x670 or Intel Z790 boards come with 4-7 NVME slots when most people stick with 1 NVME, maybe 2 NVME drives and use other SSD or rust spinners for extra storage? Why doesn't Intel or AMD have boards that only have 2 slots, and maybe offer more than 1 or 2 boards with 2 DIMM slots. Because they know they can charge you more for materials and wiring that costs less than you think it does. Ask yourself why they'd spend the money on making sure signal integrity is there along with the complex design of including all that extra stuff that won't ever be used, which at scale may come down to a few extra dollars per board, but they'll gladly charge you a $200-300 premium over.

 

[Abwx]

Core incremental, yes.
Everything else very very different.

Should be the same as Zen+ to Zen 2 or from this latter to Zen 3, since Zen 5 is supposed to be a bigger departure from Zen 4 than thoses previous itérations we can expect it to be some sort of pipe cleaner like Zen 1 in its time.

If Zen 5 IPC improvement is substancial comparatively to Zen 4 it would be logical that Zen 6 would bring significantly less IPC uplift, they ll surely focus on perf/Watt with a 2nm node jump.

 

[adroc_thurston]

they ll surely focus on perf/Watt with a 2nm node jump.

Vanilla Zen6 is all N3p, N2 only for Dense CCD iirc.

 

[A///]

Vanilla Zen6

?

 

[adroc_thurston]

?

There's the mainline Zen and then there's Dense.

 

[A///]

There's the mainline Zen and then there's Dense.

That's what I thought. I thought you were trying to be one of those people who think AMD would release a hybrid core processor for mainstream desktop, because it worked so well for team blue cheese.