• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Zen 6 Speculation Thread

Page 308 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thunder 57 said:
8P cores + 16E cores. The no HT thing is a joke. It hardly affects gaming and was there there is always the option to disable it. Is this the level of cope that we are at these days?
Click to expand...
E cores are plenty fast tbh and with Arctic wolf it's another Big Jump
 
Fjodor2001 said:
Yes, so 24C. Also, how many cores do you expect to be needing max ST perf? For some tasks E cores will be sufficient. And what happens on Zen6 if more than 12C will be needed.
Click to expand...

Some people have been begging for 12P core Bartlett Lake thinking it would be the holy grail in gaming. Just look for the Bartlett Lake thread. I disagreed but some are convinced, just like the mythical dual 3D cache Zen.

511 said:
E cores are plenty fast tbh and with Arctic wolf it's another Big Jump
Click to expand...

So you say. Apparantly according to you just about anything Intel puts out is going to be a "big jump". I'm not sold on Intel until they start to deliver. ARL brought power under control which is nice but regressed in gaming. Maybe NVL gets it right but until then I will continue question them.
 
Thunder 57 said:
So you say. Apparantly according to you just about anything Intel puts out is going to be a "big jump". I'm not sold on Intel until they start to deliver. ARL brought power under control which is nice but regressed in gaming. Maybe NVL gets it right but until then I will continue question them.
Click to expand...
Look at E cores track record they are unlike P cores they did 2 30% IPC Improvements in a row i don't have any doubt they would do 20% IPC Improvement this time on top of introducing APX/AVX 10.2
 
Some folks seem to suffer an angst about whether or not AMD can keep up with Intel (on the desktop) soon.
I think they should rather center their worries around which products Intel is going to cancel next.

:-P
 
StefanR5R said:
Some folks seem to suffer an angst about whether or not AMD can keep up with Intel (on the desktop) soon.
I think they should rather center their worries around which products Intel is going to cancel next.

:-P
Click to expand...
Intel has money glitch with them with IFS 🙂 on the product side anything not making money will be canned so no cool projects
 
Fjodor2001 said:
And what happens on Zen6 if more than 12C will be needed.
Click to expand...
That question amounts to "what happens in 5-8 years".

Right now, the 9800X3D still demolishes the 8+16 285K in gaming, and a 50% core upgrade for Zen6X3D will push back the "not enough cores" point by a bunch more years, so whatever.

Games are developed with the lowest common denominator in mind, that's currently 6C+SMT on AMD's side and 2P+8E/4P+4E on Intel's side.
On consoles it's currently 8 Zen2 cores, and will be 10-11 Zen6(c) cores with next gen consoles.

So yeah, 12C+SMT will be a non-issue.

511 said:
Look at E cores track record they are unlike P cores they did 2 30% IPC Improvements in a row i don't have any doubt they would do 20% IPC Improvement this time on top of introducing APX/AVX 10.2
Click to expand...
The last one was a jump from Intel 7 to N3B, and accomplished by >=60% more area, normalized to the same process.

Skymont is a massive upgrade, no doubt, but it was far from free, and node bumps are getting smaller from here on out.
 
Thunder 57 said:
It's not just ARL that has had issues with L3. It goes back to ADL IIRC. Intel hasn't been able to fix it, as it actually got worse going to ARL. I have no faith in them overcoming all the hurdles you mentioned in one go.
Click to expand...
Not saying those optimizations will necessarily fix/overcome everything. If they are enough to compete well or they mitigate most of the issues, time will tell. Some level of latency optimization in NVL is guaranteed(eg. 4MB shared L2 per 2 cores). There should be more with D2D/NGU/Ring/L3 combinations.
ARL latency issues are more than just some L3 regression from RPL.
ADL took the fastest gaming CPU at launch, RPL too was very good at it barring 7000 X3D chips and even with them it could compete to an extent. Can't say RPL has big L3 issues, it takes more cycles than competition but then its L2 and fabric are different, just different designs. But yeah some skepticism is fine for what they can get from their designs esp. bLLC versions and how well these do for gaming and outside of that.

EDIT: Removed an unconfirmed detail
 
Last edited:
adroc_thurston said:
Indeed.
8c is all you need.
Click to expand...
So the 4 extra cores going from Zen5 to Zen6 will idle while gaming? A new 4C die waste unit? 😉
adroc_thurston said:
Makes zero difference.
Click to expand...
Well, if you go above 12T on 12C/24T Zen6, those additional threads will be really slow due to being SMT threads. Much slower than the E cores you usually complain about.

So if you really care about having perf per thread high, then better to have many cores without SMT, than few cores with SMT.
 
@Fjodor2001, you did not ask how many cores it takes. You asked how many of the available cores should be fast cores (and in extension, how many can be left as weak cores). You received the answer that all of the cores of a CPU should be fast ones (and in extension, there shouldn't be any slow ones, acting as a honey trap for the critical program path). Context: desktop CPUs, games.
 
Fjodor2001 said:
So the 4 extra cores going from Zen5 to Zen6 will idle while gaming
Click to expand...
Yeah.
Fjodor2001 said:
A new 4C die waste unit?
Click to expand...
Indeed. Most SKUs sold will be 6c/8c anyway.
Fjodor2001 said:
Well, if you go above 12T on 12C/24T Zen6, those additional threads will be really slow due to being SMT threads. Much slower than the E cores you usually complain about.

So if you really care about having perf per thread high, then better to have many cores without SMT, than few cores with SMT.
Click to expand...
If you care about perf per thread you ship 7GHz cores.
 
Fjodor2001 said:
Funny since you've been pushing the 8C is all we need mantra like 4-ever.

You wanna turn that off for gaming.

Because X3D, but NVL-S will have bLLC.
Click to expand...

Hilarious how some are now defending the lack of SMT as a good thing because Intel did it. It's like people defending Intel for changing sockets so often because "I always get a new motherboard anyway". I like choices. SMT is a choice. Speaking of turning it off in games, that is very outdated information.

www.techpowerup.com

We found the Missing Performance: Zen 5 Tested with SMT Disabled

Reviews of AMD’s Zen 5 processors this week surprised many, with lower-than-expected results. After some investigation, we discovered that turning off Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) can yield notable performance gains, particularly in gaming. This article presents our findings, including...
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Look at that, a sensationalist article about finding the missing Zen 5 performance! The results? Turning off SMT gained 1.5-3.3% in games depending on resolution. Nothing you would ever notice.

Also, AMD has gone through three generations of Vcache with proven results. You can't just say "but but bLLC!" and claim it will fix everything. Maybe it does, but myself and others have given you reasons as to why that doesn't seem likely.

511 said:

Discussion - Nova Lake vs Zen 6 Thread

Zen 6 zen 6 uArch 12C CCX on N2/N2P for Zen 6 Desktop/Server 32 CCX on N2/N2P Zen6C for Server Zen 6 X3D Zen 6 on N3P for Mobile Zen 6 Halo Nova Lake P Cores -> Coyote Cove P cores with 4MB Shared L2 between 2 Cores E Cores -> Arctic Wolf E cores Both Have APX/AVX 10.2 8+16/4+8/8+16 bLLC die...
forums.anandtech.com forums.anandtech.com
how about a dedicated thread of Zen 6 vs NVL ?
Click to expand...

How about staying on topic?
 
StefanR5R said:
@Fjodor2001, you did not ask how many cores it takes. You asked how many of the available cores should be fast cores (and in extension, how many can be left as weak cores). You received the answer that all of the cores of a CPU should be fast ones (and in extension, there shouldn't be any slow ones, acting as a honey trap for the critical program path). Context: desktop CPUs, games.
Click to expand...
Well, when adding SMT into the mix, it’s not really only fast vs slow cores, but fast vs slow threads we should be talking about.

The point was that once you go past 12T on 12C/24T Zen6, those additional threads will be SMT threads, which are much slower than e.g. E cores that some have been complaining about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top