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

[DisEnchantment]

Speculate at will

 

[MS_AT]

And shutting me up about that is really easy. Give me a working 9184X CPU/mobo combo for $1500 or less

Since, I hope you are aware, it's pointless for gaming, then why not rent it from azure, test whatever workloads you are interested in and no longer wonder if it is worth it?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Cycle of disappointment and longing awaits!

Hoping for progress in the next 56 years (assuming I live to be 100)

 

[inquiss]

Since, I hope you are aware, it's pointless for gaming, then why not rent it from azure, test whatever workloads you are interested in and no longer wonder if it is worth it?

As are dual vache CPUs that he longs for. You don't want cross CCD talk anyway. So you want to pin the game to one CCD. Appreciate this is not the topic I've quoted, just in the spirit of asking for products that make no sense.

 

[inquiss]

Hoping for progress in the next 56 years (assuming I live to be 100)

If you hope companies to sell product to you for a dime they can sell to companies for dollars then I don't think it matters how long you live..

 

[igor_kavinski]

Since, I hope you are aware, it's pointless for gaming, then why not rent it from azure, test whatever workloads you are interested in and no longer wonder if it is worth it?

I would want to test everything which includes games too. No such VMs available in Azure, not with a consumer GPU and certainly not 9184X that I could have all to myself.

 

[fastandfurious6]

too much intra-CCD latency, each only has 2 cores...

768MB L3 cache sounds exciting performance but it's not unified

 

[Thunder 57]

I see you're also a connoisseur of pointless things

A dual vache CCD still has the inherent cross CCD penalty. It doesn't really help.

Instead what you should be asking for, is an overall larger CCD with vcache on it that doesn't have cross CCD penalty. Maybe with 12 cores.. that's actually what you want. Lucky, that. It's the quickest way to a performance improvement. It's the thing you should be asking for when you ask for the wrong thing

So many people fail to realize this. They think X3D makes games great. 2x 3D must make games better! I'm sure it helps in some cases. Games isn't one of them.

 

[LightningZ71]

Yeah, all those EPYC processors that have all VCache CCDs are completely pointless! Just constantly suffering from that cross CCD penalty in every case and with horrible benchmarks to show for it...

Oh wait, they don't! In fact, they were, in some situations, the highest performing parts available last generation. Why? Because there ARE SOME applications where it helps a whole lot. People that use those applications are VERY cognizant of that. A dual VCache Ryzenx3d can certainly have some specific use cases where they shine.

It's just that AMD would much rather for those users to pay over $2000 for such a part instead of the much lower cost Ryzen platform.

 

[Thibsie]

Yeah, but since those vCache Epyc are used day to day for gaming and benchmarked that way, I guess you know better, huh ?

Where are the numbers?

 

[Thunder 57]

Yeah, all those EPYC processors that have all VCache CCDs are completely pointless! Just constantly suffering from that cross CCD penalty in every case and with horrible benchmarks to show for it...

Oh wait, they don't! In fact, they were, in some situations, the highest performing parts available last generation. Why? Because there ARE SOME applications where it helps a whole lot. People that use those applications are VERY cognizant of that. A dual VCache Ryzenx3d can certainly have some specific use cases where they shine.

It's just that AMD would much rather for those users to pay over $2000 for such a part instead of the much lower cost Ryzen platform.

Yes they do some thing well. Gaming isn't one of them. Also, as bolded by me, is there anything wrong with that? Assume tey do gaming well. Are you willing to spend $2000+ like others are for a 5090?

 

[fastandfurious6]

bruh just how expensive can Vcache be... 20 bucks a hit? should be thrown into every chip AMD makes lol

 

[adroc_thurston]

bruh just how expensive can Vcache be... 20 bucks a hit? should be thrown into every chip AMD makes lol

Really not a price issue at all.
Also $20 of BOM for any chip is tough to swallow.

 

[Markfw]

bruh just how expensive can Vcache be... 20 bucks a hit? should be thrown into every chip AMD makes lol

Sometimes it does not help, other times it is huge ! Thats why there are different things offered. For one, the chip can't run as fast with the cache.

 

[Schmide]

Segments matter. If everything is one price, some people can't afford that price.

 

[LightningZ71]

Yes they do some thing well. Gaming isn't one of them. Also, as bolded by me, is there anything wrong with that? Assume tey do gaming well. Are you willing to spend $2000+ like others are for a 5090?

Where did I say that what it did great is gaming? There are other things in life besides gaming! They already have a product segment where this would go, the Epyc 4000 series. And, with their game center solution, with one CCD disabled, it should be no worse than a 9950x3d in gaming anyway!

It is absolutely a sellable product, and they could command a decent price for it.

 

[aigomorla]

bruh just how expensive can Vcache be... 20 bucks a hit? should be thrown into every chip AMD makes lol

wait til you see the EPYC and Threadripper prices that come with Vcache.

Its gonna be way more then 20 dollars. Just because AMD knows they will have people waiting in lines for a Game Ready Thread Ripper with a X3D performance.

I heard it would be almost 50% more then the regular Threadripper price just for Vcache, which goes into the motto, lets rip off gamers as much as they can, because they will pay for it, because they are gamers.

Like how Gamer Gear is now on PAR with Enterprise Gear in the high end segement, which is ironic, because thats why both intel and AMD came out with a CONSUMER line to keep prices away from Enterprise Gear when Overclocker's gear got too expensive.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I mean, it's kind of like beautiful women taking advantage of vulnerable men

AMD, seriously you can do better!

I was looking few days ago at an article about how ASROCK enabled 512GB RDIMMs (ECC disabled) on X299 platform but then Intel forced out a microcode update that removed that functionality. Like, it's sickening how much these people who think they are humans, love to exploit actual human beings. What would be so bad about letting people have some RAM? Your enterprise stuff goes up to terabytes of RAM. Half a terabyte isn't going to tank your enterprise sales, dammit!

 

[Abwx]

KRK 350 based laptop review :

https://www.notebookcheck.net/A-1-100-nit-OLED-and-AMD-Zen-5-in-a-creator-s-laptop-The-Lenovo-IdeaPad-Pro-5-14-G10-review.997910.0.html

 

[inquiss]

Yeah, all those EPYC processors that have all VCache CCDs are completely pointless! Just constantly suffering from that cross CCD penalty in every case and with horrible benchmarks to show for it...

Oh wait, they don't! In fact, they were, in some situations, the highest performing parts available last generation. Why? Because there ARE SOME applications where it helps a whole lot. People that use those applications are VERY cognizant of that. A dual VCache Ryzenx3d can certainly have some specific use cases where they shine.

It's just that AMD would much rather for those users to pay over $2000 for such a part instead of the much lower cost Ryzen platform.

Ryzen is the consumer line, people use it for gaming and other compute tasks. The point is they are all consumer tasks. Really you get the single core CCD with vcache of you game, and if you want it for dual use as a workhorse you get the single CCD vcache.

If you really want to use the applications that benefit from vcache and large amounts of cores the last part of your paragraph is the important one. The product already exists and it's not for consumer. To provide it to consumer would mean lopping off lots of commercial income. The clamour for expensive hardware for cheap is, pointless. It's not a segment AMD will provide for you. It would be mad for them to do so...

 

[inquiss]

bruh just how expensive can Vcache be... 20 bucks a hit? should be thrown into every chip AMD makes lol

Great! Now they can only make 1/20th of the processors they make today because now they are constrained by packaging supply. Nice plan

 

[Win2012R2]

The product already exists and it's not for consumer.

Not true - there is no 3D version of Turin and official message is that they won't do it this gen, so no - you can't get Zen 5 with both chiplets having 3D cache at all, for any money.

wait til you see the EPYC and Threadripper prices that come with Vcache.

AMD said that they won't come this gen.

 

[eek2121]

I see you're also a connoisseur of pointless things

A dual vache CCD still has the inherent cross CCD penalty. It doesn't really help.

Instead what you should be asking for, is an overall larger CCD with vcache on it that doesn't have cross CCD penalty. Maybe with 12 cores.. that's actually what you want. Lucky, that. It's the quickest way to a performance improvement. It's the thing you should be asking for when you ask for the wrong thing

It’s not like the chip suddenly ceases to function when the second CCD is used.

As are dual vache CPUs that he longs for. You don't want cross CCD talk anyway. So you want to pin the game to one CCD. Appreciate this is not the topic I've quoted, just in the spirit of asking for products that make no sense.

So many people fail to realize this. They think X3D makes games great. 2x 3D must make games better! I'm sure it helps in some cases. Games isn't one of them.

X3D isn’t just used for gaming. There are workloads outside of gaming that benefit as well.

I’ve a development workload that would benefit. The dual-CCD latency issue isn’t a big deal because of the way things are multithreaded.

Ryzen is the consumer line, people use it for gaming and other compute tasks. The point is they are all consumer tasks. Really you get the single core CCD with vcache of you game, and if you want it for dual use as a workhorse you get the single CCD vcache.

If you really want to use the applications that benefit from vcache and large amounts of cores the last part of your paragraph is the important one. The product already exists and it's not for consumer. To provide it to consumer would mean lopping off lots of commercial income. The clamour for expensive hardware for cheap is, pointless. It's not a segment AMD will provide for you. It would be mad for them to do so...

There, you found the whole issue. There is a market segment between Ryzen and Threadripper/EPYC that isn’t being properly addressed. AMD tries to squeeze them up into TR, many choose to drop down into Ryzen instead.

Storm Peak did somewhat address this, however low peak boost clocks and the lack of X3D skus limit usefulness. Pricing also isn’t great. (example: The 32 core sku should cost at most $1,799, but it costs way more)

 

[Tuna-Fish]

bruh just how expensive can Vcache be... 20 bucks a hit? should be thrown into every chip AMD makes lol

The integration capacity is still limited. AMD keeps buying more capacity every generation, but it's slow to build. They cannot put vCache on every chip next year by just spending some money.

 

[StefanR5R]

A dual vache CCD still has the inherent cross CCD penalty. It doesn't really help.

That's what people claim. But the actual impact on particular games (or other workloads) has never been measured.

Instead what you should be asking for, is an overall larger CCD

Small core complexes are an enabler of low latency of the L3 caches.

 

[reaperrr3]

That's what people claim. But the actual impact on particular games (or other workloads) has never been measured.

I don't think that's true.
It's just hard to test, because most games are designed around 6-8 cores being mainstream and don't heavily utilise more cores to begin with.
AMD making games run only on the VCache-CCD of the x9x0X3D models doesn't help the difficulty of measuring it, but it's a strong indication that AMD's own testing suggested that cross-CCD latency hurts more than limiting games to 8C max, which is kind of telling.

There have been other indications in the past, like Matisse vs. Vermeer and Rembrandt.

A 5700X is up to ~60% faster than a 3700X in some games, even though the IPC in most non-gaming tasks is only 11% higher and clocks aren't that much higher, either.

Meanwhile, the 5700G with only half as much L3 (but same amount of maximum L3 available to 1 core as Matisse, if not all cores are fully utilised) craters down to being only about 20% faster in those games than a 3700X, but still beating the 11% IPC uplift we see in many other workloads.

That means up to 2/3 of the Zen3 performance uplift in games is coming from the doubled L3 size per core vs. Zen2, but a few more percentage points may be coming from avoiding cross-CCD latency.

Small core complexes are an enabler of low latency of the L3 caches.

For low-threaded workloads that always fit into L3, maybe.
But for a lot of workloads, a few cycles less L3 latency pale in comparison to having twice as much L3 to work with before having to go off-CCD/CCX, both in terms of power and latency.

AMD wouldn't be increasing core count + L3 per CCX/CCD for no good reason.