they're all 4M L3$ per core now.
dense just means lower fmax, L3$ config can be whatever.
It does not exist.
There is no time, platforms are frozen, parts have taped out awhile ago.
You do have a point here. Guess what? There was leaks about Zen6 and Zen6c core count and power consumption in the past; I can't seem to locate it. But I did remember there are 8 x Zen6 (96-core) with 400W TDP and 4 x Zen6c (128-core) with 350W TDP. Both should be available for SP8 platform.
) and therefore we get back to 120...128C again.350W to 400W sounds about right. We have 400W and 400W for the two different Zen 5/5c 96C/128C SKUs. But as above written, I expect clockrates to increase for the 96C model. That could explain the difference. Or N2 delivers some magic with its dense libraries or 350W is simply much heat dissipation for just 4x 32C chiplets. The 256C model with 700W would then deliver the exact same clockrates as the 128C model. Does not sound too bad for me.
How about HB-DIMM ?
www.notebookcheck.net
Thanks for the detailed response.
- One popular SKUs is e.g. the 64C 9575F. Zen 6 and N2(P) might allow high frequency variant for the 96C SKU
- Many applications like single threaded performance. Or the software licensing stuff kills core count benefits
- With "only" 96C you can increase the clock rates. The 128C Zen 5 model clocks only at 4.1 GHz whereas the 96C model clocks at 4.5 GHz
- Would be funny: If AMD releases Zen 6 "F" variants with 6.0 GHz
- N2(P), NanoFlex and the same L3$ size could bring Zen 6c closer to the non-dense variant. I expect ~4.5 GHz boost clockrate for Zen 6c and ~5 GHz or a bit above for the non-dense version (maybe 5.3 GHz?)
- 5 GHz vs. 4.5 GHz would be a similar difference like 4.5 GHz to 4.1 GHz today on Zen 5. We would have the same situation as today regarding clockrate difference of 96C and 128C SKU. And you get the full L3$ per core also on Zen 6c. From outside it would look the same, just that you can use Zen 6c cores on the 128C model.
Oh, I totally agree that should AMD walk backwards with Venice (from Turin) on full core counts, that they will return those cores in Zen 7. I am just curious how a core count reduction of full Zen 6 is not considered a step backwards?Another point to consider is Zen 7. Rumours say the core count will get increased to 15...16 (hmm, a 3x5 or better 4x4 core layout would make sense then 4x8+ for the bigger CCD
So dense has the same L3/core as classic this time, instead of half?
The core area difference has never taken L3 into consideration to begin with. So it's due to lower fmax (means you can use denser libraries/2-1 or 2-2 fin cells in the case of Finflex), same as it's always been.
For GPUs or stuff that favours fewer but higher performing cores.
... and thus my query
.Or c) cloud providers want lots of dense cores so they get that and others want more frequency optimised cores so they get that. It's c) everyone is telling you it's c). For the record, it's c)... and thus my query
Either:
A) Classic offers nothing over Dense in Zen 6 - Then why offer it?
OR
B) Zen 6 Classic having 33% fewer cores than Zen 5 Classic is a step backwards.
Are you referring to ≥96c/socket? Or is your question more general?
You removed important context.
You are drawing the wrong picture. Yes, you have less "classic" cores. But you do not have a performance regression in any way:
| Core count | Boost clock | Base clock | L3$ per core | |
| Z5 classic | 96 | 4.5 GHz | 2.6 GHz | 4 MByte |
| Z5 classic | 128 | 4.1 GHz | 2.7 GHz | 4 MByte |
| Z5 dense | 128 | 3.7 GHz | 2.4 GHz | 2 MByte |
| Z6 classic | 96 | 5.2 GHz | 3.5 GHz | 4 MByte |
| Z6 dense | 128 | 4.5 GHz | 3.0 GHz | 4 MByte |
5+ GHz SKUs won't be possible without Classic. And there are lower coure count models (48 core etc.) which could clock higher than just 4.5 GHz of what Zen 6c might bring to the table.
Facebook
Twitter