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

Page 82 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
Last rumours at NBC, from an usual suspect, some infos seems legit since they could have been guessed without much risks :

 

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,513
832
136
i take back what i said earlier, iw ould love to see 2x 8+16 dies on ryzen. 16 big cores with smt and 32 small cores with cache and smt. cmon amd, make us happy and we'll shower you with our money.
8+16 per die and 2 such dies on Ryzen would be indeed more enticing, but i kinda doubt it. Going from 8 to 24 cores on a chip is rather massive increase, the c cores are not really smaller, right? Just have smaller cache.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,064
8,032
136

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,531
7,858
136
An IPC of 19% over Zen 4 sounds kinda disappointing. I hope that's not true. Am I the only one who thinks that TSMC nodes have trouble hitting high frequencies?
It sounds disappointing only because Zen 5 has been hyped up so much, but yeah, I too wish Zen 5 has more gains. You'd think with a major overhaul plus a widened front end that Zen 5 should have the largest IPC gain in the Zen family to date (not counting going from Bulldozer to Zen 1).

No, I don't think TSMC nodes have trouble hitting high frequencies. A few hundred extra MHz falls in line with what I'd expect for N5 to N4P.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,701
5,432
136
An IPC of 19% over Zen 4 sounds kinda disappointing. I hope that's not true. Am I the only one who thinks that TSMC nodes have trouble hitting high frequencies?
IPC has nothing to do with the clock speed, but overall if anyone think that generational performance increase (IPC*clockspeed increase) is more than 20-30%, then prepare to be disappointed.
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,784
4,746
136
IPC has nothing to do with the clock speed

IPC has plenty to do with clockspeed. IPC will be higher than slower you clock, because DRAM is fewer cycles away. A design that targets a higher clock speed also has to increase cache latency (in terms of clock cycles) at every level; i.e. an L1 able to work at 1 cycle latency at clock x will require 2 cycles latency at clock 2x.

If they increase IPC by 19% it is very unlikely they will be able to maintain the same clock speed. I'm extremely skeptical of any claims that IPC can be increased by that much and clock rates can be increased as well. Sure, they are getting some "free" clock increase due to process, but there's less and less of that available with each process generation.
 
Jul 27, 2020
20,040
13,738
146
Zen 5's arch is supposed to be the Zen 1 type of clean sheet performance and efficiency overhaul. Why was Mike Clark so excited about it if it's just 19% improved over Zen 4? Why was he so anxious to want to "buy" it? Something doesn't compute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
I don't think we're going to get +10% clocks, more like 4% (going from 5.7 GHz to 5.9 GHz max ST boost).

Unless the IPC gains are in the low 20s, Zen 4 might bring more of a ST uplift than Zen 5.

AMD s Mike Clarck more or less hinted that it would be a bigger improvement than Zen 4 13% IPC uplift over Zen 3, frequency wise that should be within 3-4% uplift over Zen 4 wich can clock up to 5.8 in some instances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
8+16 per die and 2 such dies on Ryzen would be indeed more enticing, but i kinda doubt it. Going from 8 to 24 cores on a chip is rather massive increase, the c cores are not really smaller, right? Just have smaller cache.
how do you plan on cooling this monstrosity Tim?
 

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,531
7,858
136
AMD s Mike Clarck more or less hinted that it would be a bigger improvement than Zen 4 13% IPC uplift over Zen 3, frequency wise that should be within 3-4% uplift over Zen 4 wich can clock up to 5.8 in some instances.
I would hope so. For an overhaul of the core, it ought to be >15%.

Tbh, I think the bigger question that many aren't discussing is if Zen 5 supports much faster DDR5, ideally 7200 MT/s or higher. Memory latency has been a big weak point of Zen 4 and the AM5 platform, so it would be nice if AMD could ameliorate it in the next generation.
 
Jul 27, 2020
20,040
13,738
146
Tbh, I think the bigger question that many aren't discussing is if Zen 5 supports much faster DDR5, ideally 7200 MT/s or higher. Memory latency has been a big weak point of Zen 4 and the AM5 platform, so it would be nice if AMD could ameliorate it in the next generation.
I think base will be 6400 and OCers may get that upto 6800 or 7000. 7200 might be elusive for them. They have a bad track record with IMC having speed parity with Intel's that they couldn't shrug off with Zen 4. I mean, what are the chances that the I/O die will be a complete redesign instead of recycling/tweaking Zen 4's?
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
I think base will be 6400 and OCers may get that upto 6800 or 7000. 7200 might be elusive for them. They have a bad track record with IMC having speed parity with Intel's that they couldn't shrug off with Zen 4. I mean, what are the chances that the I/O die will be a complete redesign instead of recycling/tweaking Zen 4's?
Depends. last gen amd had an advantage because the processor was more sensitive to ram speeds. amd operating @ 3600 with fast ddr4 was blitzingly good. this gen neither are winning favours. there's a decent uplift from 5200 to 6000 and then it's very small after. as i posted recently you begin to see very good game performance at very high 7000 and beyond on intel. this is currently unrealistic due to the intel imc giving up in the low 7000's for most people. the zen 4 iod was already a relatively new design. amd's pain point is the speed being influenced by if limitaitons.

neither platform will a large performance jump at the speeds you suggest. Add another thousand at min.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
I would hope so. For an overhaul of the core, it ought to be >15%.

Tbh, I think the bigger question that many aren't discussing is if Zen 5 supports much faster DDR5, ideally 7200 MT/s or higher. Memory latency has been a big weak point of Zen 4 and the AM5 platform, so it would be nice if AMD could ameliorate it in the next generation.
It'll be interesting to see if amd can repeat their past success by delivering a processor running at those clocks, say 6-6.1 ghz while intel will be pushing 6.5 to 6.8 or more in the coming generations, but matching or wiping the floor clean with intel's attempt. ignoring the decade of incompetence amd has always been better than intel at much lower clocks and temps. Except core. Core had both a freq regression that didn't affect its performance and a large noticeable turn back the clock on thermals. It was very impressive work by intel.

when the holiday season approached stores set combo sales or reduced the price very little and the lines to got very long if you wanted to enter to get a chance to get one of them. I remember almost getting into fisticuffs with two separate men because they kept trying to cut people off.

these days you leave your mobile number with a ticket and they call you up if your number gets picked. sleeping inside your car in the parking lot with the heat on is a lot nicer than standing out in the snow or freezing rain. even have a snack in the card, like a butter and preserves sandwich and a banana on the side. with igor it'd be a few bunches of bananas as he read back love sonnets to them.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
It'll be interesting to see if amd can repeat their past success by delivering a processor running at those clocks, say 6-6.1 ghz while intel will be pushing 6.5 to 6.8 or more in the coming generations, but matching or wiping the floor clean with intel's attempt. ignoring the decade of incompetence amd has always been better than intel at much lower clocks and temps. Except core. Core had both a freq regression that didn't affect its performance and a large noticeable turn back the clock on thermals. It was very impressive work by intel.

when the holiday season approached stores set combo sales or reduced the price very little and the lines to got very long if you wanted to enter to get a chance to get one of them. I remember almost getting into fisticuffs with two separate men because they kept trying to cut people off.

these days you leave your mobile number with a ticket and they call you up if your number gets picked. sleeping inside your car in the parking lot with the heat on is a lot nicer than standing out in the snow or freezing rain. even have a snack in the card, like a butter and preserves sandwich and a banana on the side. with igor it'd be a few bunches of bananas as he read back love sonnets to them.
I personally don't care too much about clocks, but rather, overall perf/watt and absolute performance.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
I personally don't care too much about clocks, but rather, overall perf/watt and absolute performance.
Clocks matter if an app likes the frequency better than the amount of data pushed by each clock cycle. there's not a lot of freq loving apps out there and this isn't a big deal for many, but it is for the few.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,064
8,032
136
Why was Mike Clark so excited about it
It's not only about the improvements directly achieved but also the new technologies introduced (which can then be refined) and future improvements enabled by the changes (the usual even Zen gen).

Also the excitement may be not only about the Zen cores but also the package layout with CCDs and one IOD that with Zen 4 was still essentially unchanged since Zen 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and soresu