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

Page 99 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hans Gruber

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 2006
2,307
1,218
136
Depends on how you look at it.

I'd rather have a 32 core CPU running at 3 Ghz than a 16 core running at 4.5 Ghz ish.

Something tells me that the former would be more efficient too, even with a wider core than Zen4.
Did something tell you running 3ghz with 32 cores vs 16 cores @ 4.5Ghz is a server chip?
 

Thibsie

Senior member
Apr 25, 2017
865
973
136
Depends on how you look at it.

I'd rather have a 32 core CPU running at 3 Ghz than a 16 core running at 4.5 Ghz ish.

Something tells me that the former would be more efficient too, even with a wider core than Zen4.
Yeah, of course if we multiply cores at the same time. But those need to be fabbed. Probably a lot less expensive to drive them to higher frequencies (if doable).
 

soresu

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2014
3,230
2,515
136
Probably a lot less expensive to drive them to higher frequencies (if doable).
If the current formula for Zen4 CCD -> Zen4c CCD holds it's supposed to be only a 10% greater area per die.

So less expensive certainly, but not a lot less expensive until you account for the V$ dies.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
Depends on how you look at it.

I'd rather have a 32 core CPU running at 3 Ghz than a 16 core running at 4.5 Ghz ish.

Something tells me that the former would be more efficient too, even with a wider core than Zen4.
Why should I choose only from those options?
I would rather have a combination of both cores, so I will have the best performance regardless of use case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
Why should I choose only from those options?
I would rather have a combination of both cores, so I will have the best performance regardless of use case.
That's a little surprising. For me, I want more high-clockspeed cores wherever possible. 16c is already massive overkill for most non-workstation/server builds, and just adding more cores on top of that with "efficiency" cores seems stupid outside of maybe power-constrained scenarios.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
If the current formula for Zen4 CCD -> Zen4c CCD holds it's supposed to be only a 10% greater area per die.

So less expensive certainly, but not a lot less expensive until you account for the V$ dies.
32C/64T would make sense technically speaking, if we look at Computerbase CB R23 tests the 7950X does 38 600 pts at a 205W measured power for their sample, and 30 200 pts@88W, so 4 chiplets in a 32C/64T whould roughly do 60 000 pts@180W.

Thing is that there would be very few buyers for a 1500$ SKU, not counting that it would be in competition with TR and Epyc, although the low count memory channels wouldnt fare well with a lot of apps.
 

soresu

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2014
3,230
2,515
136
That's a little surprising. For me, I want more high-clockspeed cores wherever possible. 16c is already massive overkill for most non-workstation/server builds, and just adding more cores on top of that with "efficiency" cores seems stupid outside of maybe power-constrained scenarios.
Needz core count to maximum - gots to get all the threads for offline 3D rendering 😎

I'd love to see some Bergamo benches for Cinebench/Cycles/Arnold renderers and other CG related tasks like FLIP or MPM sims.

I think there may be a better future for such absurdly parallel DCC tasks when more frameworks exist that support both SYCL/OneAPI and HIP aswell as the popular CUDA - but we are still far from that sadly 😭

I hope that someday everyone might use a framework like OpenSYCL (formerly hipSYCL) which supports all the major API backends - but it's definitely got some ways to go before it has that level of maturity.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
Needz core count to maximum - gots to get all the threads for offline 3D rendering 😎
Now you're on more of a workstation workload though. Yes some hobbyists might want moar coarz for 3D rendering, but for "serious" users they'll be picking products like EPYC or Threadripper.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
Now you're on more of a workstation workload though. Yes some hobbyists might want moar coarz for 3D rendering, but for "serious" users they'll be picking products like EPYC or Threadripper.
But realistically, other than E-peen, that's what the dual CCD chips are for. Or maybe not so much rendering, but rather things like video/photo editing. It would be a pretty narrow slice of workloads that would benefit from >8c but be disadvantaged by the dense cores.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
It would be a pretty narrow slice of workloads that would benefit from >8c but be disadvantaged by the dense cores.

There's always a tradeoff. Cost/power/interconnect penalties etc. AMD has demonstrated the ability to add an extra CCD without paying too high a price for it, other than tacking on a higher MSRP.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,678
14,279
136
An old joke I like a lot tells the story of a cute little bunny who visits a baker shop daily, asking for very very little loafs. Every day the baker answers that he makes no such loafs and offers normal size ones. The little bunny walks away sad and discouraged. One day the baker wakes up earlier than usual and makes one extra round of loafs... the very very little kind. When the cute little bunny enters the shop, it is is greeted by a smiling baker: We have very very little loafs for sale! The bunny is pleasantly surprised, taps it's paws and quickly answers: I'm very curious if anyone will buy them!

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.
 
Jul 27, 2020
20,040
13,739
146
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.
8P + 24D or 8P + 32D would be a lot more enticing.

Heck, even just 32D with V-cache could be pretty compelling.

32D with V-cache AND 32GB or 48GB LPDDR5X + RDNA4 = Apple M3 Pro competitor!
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
That would put the waffer at roughly 50k$, wich wasnt the case, cost is rather in the 30$/CCD at the die level.
The number quoted was not just raw silicon cost, but also packaging, etc. I will admit the number may be off (haven’t had time to dig into it), but even if you use half that as a baseline, you are still looking at a considerable markup.

The only way I can see AMD doing it is for high end only.

You also have to figure that AMD has had no issues competing with Intel despite having fewer cores. Zen 5 will likely bring considerable performance uplift , likely more than Intel’s Next 2 releases.

If, for example, Zen 5 featured only 15% higher performance and mobile variants dropped in January, it would beat Raptor Lake Refresh and Meteor Lake pretty soundly. There is also the possibility it would compete well with Arrow Lake, but it is too early to tell.

Knowing AMD, they will likely stick with a tried-and-true configuration.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
8P + 24D or 8P + 32D would be a lot more enticing.

Heck, even just 32D with V-cache could be pretty compelling.

32D with V-cache AND 32GB or 48GB LPDDR5X + RDNA4 = Apple M3 Pro competitor!
Meh, they could just rename Threadripper to EPYC Workstation, introduce a new socket that supports quad channel memory and 32 PCE Gen 5 lanes, then sell Threadripper 8950x, 8960X, and 8970X with 16, 24, and 32 cores @5.6ghz peak. Also release X3D versions. Those chips could occupy the $600-$1,500 price point.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
That's a little surprising. For me, I want more high-clockspeed cores wherever possible. 16c is already massive overkill for most non-workstation/server builds, and just adding more cores on top of that with "efficiency" cores seems stupid outside of maybe power-constrained scenarios.
In desktop efficient cores are not needed unless they massively increased the core count. 7950X manages ~5240MHz using 32 threads at 230W.
Even at 120W in CB It manages ~4327MHz or 3839MHz at ~100W.

On the other hand, in laptop It could be more interesting.
The question is what is the highest frequency where It's still more efficient than a standard one. 3GHz or 3.5GHz?
I wouldn't mind a 16C32T clocked at 3.5GHz consuming only 45W at full load.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
In desktop efficient cores are not needed unless they massively increased the core count. 7950X manages ~5240MHz using 32 threads at 230W.
Even at 120W in CB It manages ~4327MHz or 3839MHz at ~100W.

On the other hand, in laptop It could be more interesting.
The question is what is the highest frequency where It's still more efficient than a standard one. 3GHz or 3.5GHz?
I wouldn't mind a 16C32T clocked at 3.5GHz consuming only 45W at full load.
…you mean like the 7945hx? Base clocks are a bit slower, but a node shrink would fix that.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,064
8,032
136
8P + 24D or 8P + 32D would be a lot more enticing.
If we are still talking about AM5 as context, two CCDs appear to be the max on the current package, so your config is impossible. In laptops I guess we'll first see how popular 2 CCDs Dragon Range really is. The more cores the more niche the product will be.

Heck, even just 32D with V-cache could be pretty compelling.
Do we know yet whether v-cache is even supported on the Zen 4c CCDs?

For Zen 5 (which this thread is about) all bets are off obviously.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
…you mean like the 7945hx? Base clocks are a bit slower, but a node shrink would fix that.
On AMD's webpage, the base clock is 2.5GHz. That's not just a bit slower. ;)
But doesn't matter, I didn't specify If 3.5GHz at 45W is base clock or during CB R23. During CB R23 7945HX at 45W should clock higher, just not sure how much higher.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
So the idea is to replace the second CCD with Zen5c? Questionable. That kind of slams the door on people (eventually) coding games etc. that might benefit from more than 8 cores.
Why would it close that door? There's nothing about gaming that demands the same performance on every thread, and there are even some games today that will make use of Intel's E-cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97