Question Zen 6 Speculation Thread

[Hulk]

Difference is that the 48 AMD threads will be slower than the 48 Intel threads. Because for AMD it's 24C/48T, but for Intel it's 48C/48T.

(And yeah I know for Intel it's a mix of P+E cores while AMD uses only P cores, but the difference above will trump that.)

Since both look to be more than capable when it comes to MT, I believe will be decided based ST compute prowess/who can hit high clocks with low power/thermal load?

Let's face it 24C/48T or 48C/48T, for the desktop that's A LOT of MT compute. Outside of CB not a lot of benchmarks/apps (not counting running apps simultaneously) are going to hit all of those cores. But ALL apps/benchmarks will hit a handful of cores really hard.

 

[ETI4711]

Probably.

No one wants that.

Tom's Hardware (TH): When you view Zen 5c compact cores, do you think they only have a place in power-constrained environments \[mobile]? Could you see this coming over to desktop PCs, where power isn't a consideration?

Mike Clark (MC): \[...] If we keep building the compact cores in the way that we talked about—which I think we will; I don't know why I said it a little more theoretically—the hard part is really making sure we hit the right frequency point so that it's balanced with however many \[cores] you're going to put down. But let's say you're really good at that, then there's no reason not to put a compact core on a desktop.

Whether it's the same performance at a given core count to the customer and cheaper because there's less area used, or we can squeeze in even more cores on a desktop because of the compact cores. And we couldn’t leverage them \[performance cores] anyway because they were TDP-constrained when you got out to that many cores, so you may as well have used a compact core. I think as we get more experienced with Windows and see that the scheduling does work, well, I think you'll see us, in desktop, using the compact cores to both get more cores and be more cost-effective. Because it's wasted area \[for performance cores] because we can't run everything at that 5.7 GHz frequency.

An interview with AMD's Mike Clark, the Father of Zen — 'Zen Daddy' says 3nm Zen 5 is coming fast; also talks compact cores for desktop chips

AMD expands on its Zen 5 architecture.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[poke01]

Link please.

Look at M3 vs M4. M4 has higher clocks and better perf/w.

Since both look to be more than capable when it comes to MT, I believe will be decided based ST compute prowess/who can hit high clocks with low power/thermal load?

Let's face it 24C/48T or 48C/48T, for the desktop that's A LOT of MT compute. Outside of CB not a lot of benchmarks/apps (not counting running apps simultaneously) are going to hit all of those cores. But ALL apps/benchmarks will hit a handful of cores really hard.

I also think the flagship SKUs don’t matter anymore, it’s not about ST performance in DIY anymore but gaming perf. Who has the best gaming CPU will win that generation.

 

[511]

Link please.

Here N3 is N3B

 

[Fjodor2001]

Let's face it 24C/48T or 48C/48T, for the desktop that's A LOT of MT compute. Outside of CB not a lot of benchmarks/apps (not counting running apps simultaneously) are going to hit all of those cores. But ALL apps/benchmarks will hit a handful of cores really hard.

This depends on the type of workloads. There are already CPUs with a lot more cores than this.

Also, note that it may not only be a single App you’re using. You could e.g. be transcoding movies, compiling source code, running some anti-virus Sw, OS maintenance tasks, and watching movies / web pages or reading email, all at the same time. Most of those workloads can be executed in the background, and only the last few ones require human interaction.

 

[Thunder 57]

This depends on the type of workloads. There are already CPUs with a lot more cores than this.

Also, note that it may not only be a single App you’re using. You could e.g. be transcoding movies, compiling source code, running some anti-virus Sw, OS maintenance tasks, and watching movies / web pages or reading email, all at the same time. Most of those workloads can be executed in the background, and only the last few ones require human interaction.

Lol who is doing all of that at once? Probably nobody, ever. You are looking for ways to piss on AMD and make Intel look good in an AMD thread. You've been doing it for pages now.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Lol who is doing all of that at once? Probably nobody, ever. You are looking for ways to piss on AMD and make Intel look good in an AMD thread. You've been doing it for pages now.

It was just examples. Not everybody will be executing the same type of workloads at the same time. But many will be executing at least some workloads in parallel some of the time, which was the point.

Also, this is not an AMD vs Intel thing. Both will have 48T on DT in the next CPU generation, remember?

 

[poke01]

transcoding movies, compiling source code, running some anti-virus Sw, OS maintenance tasks, and watching movies / web pages or reading email, all at the same time.

What are all these people using now? Threadrippers?

You can do all of this on a 12-16 core machine. We need faster cores not more…

 

[adroc_thurston]

Also, note that it may not only be a single App you’re using. You could e.g. be transcoding movies, compiling source code, running some anti-virus Sw, OS maintenance tasks, and watching movies / web pages or reading email, all at the same time

You need maybe 8c for all that