Question Zen 6 Speculation Thread

[OneEng2]

Indeed, they've accelerated Cinebench. The question is how much faster in these embarrassingly parallel programs with no memory bottlenecks.

And not to ignore the fun people are having here estimating that ratio but when does it justify the additional area/cost? Look at the 9800X3D vs 285K. The Intel chip is 75-80% faster in CB for not much more money, usually 10%. And yet the 9800X3D has 108 pages of completed builds on PCPartPicker and the 285K 4 pages. bLLC should make that less one-sided but it seems like CB nT - after a certain point - doesn't map to $$$.

I have a feeling that Intel is going to lean into marketing on this one. 52 CORES! More than double the competition.

I think it is very hard to market benchmarks, but that is what AMD will have to do.

That's why I still believe this battle will be decided with ST performance.

You are probably correct.

Perfect, so we the forum dwellers know more than they do. Which proves the point that 'link', for non-public info does not a confirmation make

Fair.

If there is no source or even reasoning provided along with a claim, then how can it be trusted to be correct?

Some people on Internet forums often tend to claim that whatever fact is for certain, when it's actually just guesses / speculation.

This is where I stand as well. It's hard to convince anyone of your speculation without

1. A good reasoned argument
2. Link to a leak (we can then discuss the validity)
3. Link to an official statement

Some people here have credibility because of their past leaks, but it's up to you to decide whether you believe them or not. Still, it's ridiculous to ask for a link or a source of a leak.

Why is it ridiculous to ask for a link or source (of any kind)? Why is it ridiculous to ask for reasoning?

Even a link to well reasoned speculation is worth having.

 

[StefanR5R]

Why is it ridiculous to ask for a link or source (of any kind)? Why is it ridiculous to ask for reasoning?

It is not ridiculous to do so when the claim is encountered for the first time.
It becomes r...edundant when "A:claim. - O:link?" enters an infinite loop.

 

[OneEng2]

It is not ridiculous to do so when the claim is encountered for the first time.
It becomes r...edundant when "A:claim. - O:link?" enters an infinite loop.

How about reasoning then? Is that also ridiculous?

 

[inquiss]

I have a feeling that Intel is going to lean into marketing on this one. 52 CORES! More than double the competition.

I think it is very hard to market benchmarks, but that is what AMD will have to do.

You are probably correct.

Fair.

This is where I stand as well. It's hard to convince anyone of your speculation without

1. A good reasoned argument
2. Link to a leak (we can then discuss the validity)
3. Link to an official statement

Why is it ridiculous to ask for a link or source (of any kind)? Why is it ridiculous to ask for reasoning?

Even a link to well reasoned speculation is worth having.

Let's say I know something and maybe I shouldn't know it. Maybe it's second hand info from someone I know. It's not come out in the media yet. It won't for a long time.

I can hint at it in forums, I can talk about it maybe. You don't know if I'm bluffing or not. There is no link to provide. It's non public info. Say I know more than the leak websites. Maybe another leaker has leaked it and wccftech has picked it up. However, wccftech picking up on the rumour from a leaker has the exact same credibility as the random forum poster here. Ultimately you're trusting the article only as much as you trust the original leaker. We're back to square one. Asking for a link to validate non-public info makes no sense. It's non public. It's up to you to trust or not trust.

 

[gdansk]

I have a feeling that Intel is going to lean into marketing on this one. 52 CORES! More than double the competition.

We have twice the cores of the competition but e.g. 25% more Cinememe points. Does that messaging work?

 

[Covfefe]

We have twice the cores of the competition but e.g. 25% more Cinememe points. Does that messaging work?

Oh, how time have changed.

Spoiler: more cores

Mods plz no ban

 

[Josh128]

AMD said, during their earnings call, that customers are already running Venice in their datacenters.

For this to be true (and it is), the tape out would have to have taken place early 2025. So we are way past tape outs.

The only argument (and you can judge plausibility) is that AMD, for the first time since Zen was introduced, broke the commonality of the CCDs between Server and Client.

While the rumors are pointing to the opposite direction, that AMD is increasing commonality of the main CCD to include not only Server and Desktop, but also some Mobile models.

CSPs have Venice. CLOUD service providers. You know who Zen4C and Zen5C were purposely designed to target? You guessed it, cloud service providers. The commonality between server and client CCDs have been broken for 3 years now, since Bergamo first launched.

 

[adroc_thurston]

CSPs have Venice. CLOUD service providers. You know who Zen4C and Zen5C were purposely designed to target? You guessed it, cloud service providers. The commonality between server and client CCDs have been broken for 3 years now, since Bergamo first launched.

You do know that Amazon and MS both ship classic parts in the cloud right.
The ones with Classic CCDs and all.

 

[Doug S]

Asking for a link to validate non-public info makes no sense. It's non public. It's up to you to trust or not trust.

It makes perfect sense to ask for the source. If it was some post on Twitter, link to it so others can judge for themselves. If wccftech or whoever posts something and their article says it was reported by leaker xxx then say "it was from wccfetch via xxx". If your college roommate was GW III and he told you what's upcoming for Qualcomm and you don't want to burn him, you say "I got it from someone I trust but can't name".

In any of those cases it is up to people who read it to decide whether the source is worthy. For example Mark Gurman is right more than often not when it comes to Apple related stuff so he can probably be trusted, but he's been wrong before (whether that's because he got bad info or Apple changed their plans we don't know) so it shouldn't be taken as gospel.

If it is some leaker no one has ever heard of then whoever is repeating that info here should not be surprised when others will laugh at anyone who thinks because they choose to believe it that everyone else should too. If it is some non public info you got yourself from someone you know (directly, not friend of a friend of a friend kinda bs) then whether people believe you or not will be based on your reputation in the forum. And also whether you choose to present it as "here's what I know from a source I trust, it is up to you to believe it or not" versus "this is true because I say it is and all discussion of anything to the contrary needs to end right now". We've seen examples of both here.

 

[inquiss]

It makes perfect sense to ask for the source. If it was some post on Twitter, link to it so others can judge for themselves. If wccftech or whoever posts something and their article says it was reported by leaker xxx then say "it was from wccfetch via xxx". If your college roommate was GW III and he told you what's upcoming for Qualcomm and you don't want to burn him, you say "I got it from someone I trust but can't name".

In any of those cases it is up to people who read it to decide whether the source is worthy. For example Mark Gurman is right more than often not when it comes to Apple related stuff so he can probably be trusted, but he's been wrong before (whether that's because he got bad info or Apple changed their plans we don't know) so it shouldn't be taken as gospel.

If it is some leaker no one has ever heard of then whoever is repeating that info here should not be surprised when others will laugh at anyone who thinks because they choose to believe it that everyone else should too. If it is some non public info you got yourself from someone you know (directly, not friend of a friend of a friend kinda bs) then whether people believe you or not will be based on your reputation in the forum. And also whether you choose to present it as "here's what I know from a source I trust, it is up to you to believe it or not" versus "this is true because I say it is and all discussion of anything to the contrary needs to end right now". We've seen examples of both here.

I think you're confused. I'm saying when the information isn't coming from a leaker that has said something on twitter, when it's coming from something you directly know, what's the point of asking for a link? It's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.

 

[OneEng2]

Let's say I know something and maybe I shouldn't know it. Maybe it's second hand info from someone I know. It's not come out in the media yet. It won't for a long time.

I can hint at it in forums, I can talk about it maybe. You don't know if I'm bluffing or not. There is no link to provide. It's non public info. Say I know more than the leak websites. Maybe another leaker has leaked it and wccftech has picked it up. However, wccftech picking up on the rumour from a leaker has the exact same credibility as the random forum poster here. Ultimately you're trusting the article only as much as you trust the original leaker. We're back to square one. Asking for a link to validate non-public info makes no sense. It's non public. It's up to you to trust or not trust.

If someone states something that is non-sensical to me, I ask for justification in the form of a link to their source, or their own rationale of why it is actually sensical.

If their response is "I am under NDA" and they already made the technical statement, then it is just BS. If their argument is "I got it from someone that directly knows", that works too.

If their argument is "trust me" .... not so much.

We have twice the cores of the competition but e.g. 25% more Cinememe points. Does that messaging work?

. Well, I suppose having a winning score in SOME benchmark of SOME kind is better than losing every benchmark. Still, this requires a consumer to do research. MOST consumers can tell the difference between 24 cores and 52 cores and calculate 52 is bigger than 24 (most ).

I am quite positive that this method wont work within this forum!

 

[Fjodor2001]

I think you're confused. I'm saying when the information isn't coming from a leaker that has said something on twitter, when it's coming from something you directly know, what's the point of asking for a link? It's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.

This was the post sequence that started it all:

Realistic FUD about a part that taped out a while ago?

Link please.

Now you tell me how we’re supposed to know what the source of the info in the first quote is supposed to be?

How do you know whether it’s supposed to come from ”something you directly know”, or from some official info, or some public leak, or speculation, or whatever?

 

[inquiss]

This was the post sequence that started it all:


Now you tell me how we’re supposed to know what the source of the info in the first quote is supposed to be?

How do you know whether it’s supposed to come from ”something you directly know”, or from some official info, or some public leak, or speculation, or whatever?

I think you're supposed to make your own judgement. I mean, that's it. That's literally it. Just that.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I think you're supposed to make your own judgement. I mean, that's it. That's literally it. Just that.

No it’s not just that. Because it doesn’t say anything about where the info comes from (official info, public leak, ”something you know”, speculation, or whatever) so we have no way of judging it’s credibility.

 

[blackangus]

Let's say I know something and maybe I shouldn't know it. Maybe it's second hand info from someone I know. It's not come out in the media yet. It won't for a long time.

I can hint at it in forums, I can talk about it maybe. You don't know if I'm bluffing or not. There is no link to provide. It's non public info. Say I know more than the leak websites. Maybe another leaker has leaked it and wccftech has picked it up. However, wccftech picking up on the rumour from a leaker has the exact same credibility as the random forum poster here. Ultimately you're trusting the article only as much as you trust the original leaker. We're back to square one. Asking for a link to validate non-public info makes no sense. It's non public. It's up to you to trust or not trust.

It makes perfect sense.
In this case your answer is - I cannot provide a link (or here is the link)

If you have a link, cool, people can read the link info as supplemental info for decision making/judgement making/or just extra knowledge.
If you dont then say no, but here is my reasoning.

 

[Doug S]

No it’s not just that. Because it doesn’t say anything about where the info comes from (official info, public leak, ”something you know”, speculation, or whatever) so we have no way of judging it’s credibility.

If someone here posted something like that and refused to even categorize HOW he claims to know it I'd give it the zero credibility it deserves.

 

[Thunder 57]

If someone states something that is non-sensical to me, I ask for justification in the form of a link to their source, or their own rationale of why it is actually sensical.

If their response is "I am under NDA" and they already made the technical statement, then it is just BS. If their argument is "I got it from someone that directly knows", that works too.

If their argument is "trust me" .... not so much.

. Well, I suppose having a winning score in SOME benchmark of SOME kind is better than losing every benchmark. Still, this requires a consumer to do research. MOST consumers can tell the difference between 24 cores and 52 cores and calculate 52 is bigger than 24 (most ).

I am quite positive that this method wont work within this forum!

Are CPU's even marketed anymore? People just look at i3/i5/i7. The funny thing is Intel thought "Netburst" and high GHz would sell CPU's and then their new models came out that beat them in every metric at lower clock speeds so what did they do? Model numbers!

Besides, how many 52 core SKU's do you think there will be? I'm counting DIY since those people should know better.

 

[Kepler_L2]

This was the post sequence that started it all:


Now you tell me how we’re supposed to know what the source of the info in the first quote is supposed to be?

How do you know whether it’s supposed to come from ”something you directly know”, or from some official info, or some public leak, or speculation, or whatever?

Lisa Su confirmed both that Venice is on 2nm and that it has taped out for a while.

 

[Markfw]

Lisa Su confirmed both that Venice is on 2nm and that it has taped out for a while.

Didn't somebody here say that Lisa said that Venice chips were out to some OEMS ?

 

[adroc_thurston]

Didn't somebody here say that Lisa said that Venice chips were out to some OEMS ?

Yeah this ER call.
And not OEMs but CSPs.

 

[Joe NYC]

CSPs have Venice. CLOUD service providers. You know who Zen4C and Zen5C were purposely designed to target? You guessed it, cloud service providers. The commonality between server and client CCDs have been broken for 3 years now, since Bergamo first launched.

Commonality has not been broken. Dense cores are just a new type of CCD, additional to classic core CCDs - which the CSPs are continuing to buy.

And it just happens that until now, the classic cores came before dense cores. It may or may not be the same this time, but surely, there is not going to be a big gap between them.

 

[Josh128]

Commonality has not been broken. Dense cores are just a new type of CCD, additional to classic core CCDs - which the CSPs are continuing to buy.

And it just happens that until now, the classic cores came before dense cores. It may or may not be the same this time, but surely, there is not going to be a big gap between them.

The point is that the Venice that CSPs are currently testing could be the dense version only and thus cant be used as proof that non-dense CCDs use 2nm or will be released in the same time frame as the dense.

Lisa Su confirmed both that Venice is on 2nm and that it has taped out for a while.

The only Venice that Lisa mentioned officially was "up to" 256 core dense version, period, which is definitely the 2nm version. That doesnt negate the possibility that non-dense versions might not be using 2nm, unless someone has something more than what I saw, which is this:

We remain on track to launch our next-generation 2-nanometer Venice processors in 2026. Venice silicon is in the labs and performing very well, delivering substantial gains in performance, efficiency and compute density. Customer pull and engagement for Venice are the strongest we have seen, reflecting our competitive positioning and the growing demand for more data center compute. Multiple cloud OEM partners have already brought their first Venice platforms online, setting the stage for broad solution availability and cloud deployments at launch.

Lisa Su - AMD CEO

 

[Joe NYC]

The point is that the Venice that CSPs are currently testing could be the dense version only and thus cant be used as proof that non-dense CCDs use 2nm or will be released in the same time frame as the dense.



The only Venice that Lisa mentioned officially was "up to" 256 core dense version, period, which is definitely the 2nm version. That doesnt negate the possibility that non-dense versions might not be using 2nm, unless someone has something more than what I saw, which is this:

View attachment 133355

We are 5 days away from AMD presenting its new roadmap.

With only 5 days left to really go wild on the speculation of 12 core Venice / desktop and mobile CCD being on N3P. Before Lisa shuts it down for good.

We are closing in on 300 pages, and it seems like at least 30 of these pages were on Zen 6 CCD being on N3P, despite the fact that there is literally nothing in leaks or official statementd that would point to N3P.

 

[Josh128]

We are 5 days away from AMD presenting its new roadmap.

With only 5 days left to really go wild on the speculation of 12 core Venice / desktop and mobile CCD being on N3P. Before Lisa shuts it down for good.

We are closing in on 300 pages, and it seems like at least 30 of these pages were on Zen 6 CCD being on N3P, despite the fact that there is literally nothing in leaks or official statementd that would point to N3P.

This is great news, the fact that we may be SOME news. Until then I suppose I'll just have to endure more scolding from Mr. Teenage Angst Thurston lecturing me about Liberace and stuff.

 

[marees]

We are closing in on 300 pages, and it seems like at least 30 of these pages were on Zen 6 CCD being on N3P, despite the fact that there is literally nothing in leaks or official statementd that would point to N3P.

The remaining 270 pages are (wrongly?) speculating that server zen p (non-dense) ccd is on 2nm (despite the precedence of zen 5)