- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
Depends on how you look at it.But not the frequency deficit.
Did something tell you running 3ghz with 32 cores vs 16 cores @ 4.5Ghz is a server chip?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).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.
Almost certainly but my PC desires are seldom realistc 😂Did something tell you running 3ghz with 32 cores vs 16 cores @ 4.5Ghz is a server chip?
If the current formula for Zen4 CCD -> Zen4c CCD holds it's supposed to be only a 10% greater area per die.Probably a lot less expensive to drive them to higher frequencies (if doable).
Why should I choose only from those options?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Needz core count to maximum - gots to get all the threads for offline 3D rendering 😎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.
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.Needz core count to maximum - gots to get all the threads for offline 3D rendering 😎
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.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.
It would be a pretty narrow slice of workloads that would benefit from >8c but be disadvantaged by the dense cores.
This is comparing both options with two CCDs.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.
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.This is comparing both options with two CCDs.
8P + 24D or 8P + 32D would be a lot more enticing.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.
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.That would put the waffer at roughly 50k$, wich wasnt the case, cost is rather in the 30$/CCD at the die level.
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.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!
In desktop efficient cores are not needed unless they massively increased the core count. 7950X manages ~5240MHz using 32 threads at 230W.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.
…you mean like the 7945hx? Base clocks are a bit slower, but a node shrink would fix that.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.
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.8P + 24D or 8P + 32D would be a lot more enticing.
Do we know yet whether v-cache is even supported on the Zen 4c CCDs?Heck, even just 32D with V-cache could be pretty compelling.
As I understood from folks on this forum, v-cache and dense cores don't play well together, in the sense that the necessary vias are probably sacrificed to increase density.Do we know yet whether v-cache is even supported on the Zen 4c CCDs?
On AMD's webpage, the base clock is 2.5GHz. That's not just a bit slower.…you mean like the 7945hx? Base clocks are a bit slower, but a node shrink would fix that.
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.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.
Coding games, not playing them ^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.
