Discussion Zen 7 speculation thread

[Joe NYC]

8 core N+1 gen is also typically faster than 8 core N gen. And:
16 core N gen is typically faster than 8 core N gen.

Normalizing the clocks (16 core typically gets extra 200 MHz), there would be a lot of ties within the same generation, and N+1 8 core would get clearer wins over 16 core N generation if 8 core was not held back by ~200 MHz.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Normalizing the clocks (16 core typically gets extra 200 MHz), there would be a lot of ties withing the same generation, and N+1 8 core would get clearer wins over 16 core N generation if 8 core was not held back by ~200 MHz.

But the real-life clocks in the actual SKUs are not normalized.

You could also ”normalize” for X3D difference and conclude that 9950X and 9950X3D perform the same.

 

[inquiss]

Because no X3D.

And because cross cc'd penalty is high. They are not gaming chips. Some people buy them but it's tiny as a proportion of chips sold. Boo me wants high core count CPUs (well, people think they do but the hobbyists want them but won't pay and the people who really do but epyc). Gaming will, forever, by the single CCD option with max cache.

 

[inquiss]

Ahh yes they messed up AVX-512 but they are the biggest reason for it's existence not to mention NVL give us APX/AVX 10.2 and Zen 6 will be stuck with ISA of server GLC (except AMX) so the same thing applies to AMD as well

By the time people use those zen will have them, well, the bits people use.

 

[adroc_thurston]

By the time people use those zen will have them, well, the bits people use.

yes, plus Zen7 is a big tock

 

[inquiss]

These extensions are a non issue for now. Later maybe they will help, but it's gonna take a long while for the baseline to include them. You have to add them in to not miss out on the future, but for now it doesn't matter

 

[Fjodor2001]

Boo me wants high core count CPUs (well, people think they do but the hobbyists want them but won't pay and the people who really do but epyc). Gaming will, forever, by the single CCD option

…and the single CCD will get higher core count too in the next generations, whether you like it or not.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Boo me wants high core count CPUs (well, people think they do but the hobbyists want them but won't pay and the people who really do but epyc).

The hobbyists will get 52C with NVL-S about 1 year from now without having to pay HEDT prices. And they don’t need EPYC.

 

[poke01]

The hobbyists will get 52C with NVL-S about 1 year from now without having to pay HEDT prices. And they don’t need EPYC.

Dual channel. That’s why it’s cheap

 

[marees]

The hobbyists will get 52C with NVL-S about 1 year from now without having to pay HEDT prices. And they don’t need EPYC.

I am not a fan of such high core counts unless bottlenecks in other areas are addressed

I remember that high core count intel cores failed when performing UE5 decompression — the software was exactly designed to utilize the high core count of intel CPUs

 

[Fjodor2001]

I am not a fan of such high core counts unless bottlenecks in other areas are addressed

I remember that high core count intel cores failed when performing UE5 decompression — the software was exactly designed to utilize the high core count of intel CPUs

The memory speed will be increased. 8000 MT/s official, and potential for 10000 MT/s. Caches will be improved on NVL-S too.

So we don’t know if/what bottlenecks there will actually be per type of workload, if any. We have to wait for test results.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The hobbyists will get 52C with NVL-S about 1 year from now without having to pay HEDT prices. And they don’t need EPYC.

Nova Lake-S won't be an adequate replacement for EPYC/Threadripper.

 

[511]

Nova Lake-S won't be an adequate replacement for EPYC/Threadripper.

It will be for people who want more core for cheap if it had more PCI lanes than it would have replaced thread ripper at lower end

 

[DrMrLordX]

It will be for people who want more core for cheap if it had more PCI lanes than it would have replaced thread ripper at lower end

Nah, that thing won't replace even a 32C Threadripper, much less a 64C one. Don't overestimate the value of e-core spam.

 

[511]

Nah, that thing won't replace even a 32C Threadripper, much less a 64C one. Don't overestimate the value of e-core spam.

i am pretty sure the 52C SKU will be beat a Z5 thread ripper in multi threaded workload like these

 

[DrMrLordX]

i am pretty sure the 52C SKU will be beat a Z5 thread ripper in multi threaded workload like these

Are you seriously posting about a Zen5 CPU in a Zen7 speculation thread? Cmon now. At least use Zen6 for your comparison.

 

[511]

Are you seriously posting about a Zen5 CPU in a Zen7 speculation thread? Cmon now. At least use Zen6 for your comparison.

it will beat Zen 6 24C CPU for Sure in CPU MT Task no way it will beat Zen 7.

 

[DrMrLordX]

it will beat Zen 6 24C CPU for Sure in CPU MT Task no way it will beat Zen 7.

Do not be so confident, never mind that 24C would be pretty low-end for EPYC/Threadripper.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Nova Lake-S won't be an adequate replacement for EPYC/Threadripper.

Depends on the workloads. Not everyone needs more cores than NVL-S.

It’ll grab a lot of market share currently covered by low-mid TR SKUs. Simply because NVL-S will have a lot better perf/$ in that MT perf range.

 

[Fjodor2001]

It will be for people who want more core for cheap if it had more PCI lanes than it would have replaced thread ripper at lower end

NVL-S will get more PCIe lanes too. Not as many as TR, but for a lot of use cases in the MT perf range that NVL-S covers you don’t need all those TR PCIe lanes anyway.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Not everyone needs more cores than NVL-S.

What workload needs more than 48t but less than 64t?

NVL-S will get more PCIe lanes too.

More than what?

 

[511]

More than what?

It only got 24 PCI-E Lanes from CPU and 24 From chipset with Integrated TB5 lower than TR.

 

[MS_AT]

it will beat Zen 6 24C CPU for Sure in CPU MT Task no way it will beat Zen 7.

So what makes you so sure? Or is that a wishful thinking that Intel will finally deliver?

Unless we are talking CB24, then well who cares

 

[Fjodor2001]

What workload needs more than 48t but less than 64t?

Idk where you got that range from. It's not like a workload usually needs an exact number of threads or cores. They'll just execute faster the more you have (until you run into some bottleneck). Also, not only T count, but C count matters. And perf/$ matters too. So you basically buy something that provides sufficient perf within your budget.

If you're looking for something in the range of MT perf that 52C NVL-S provides it'll be a good option. For the next step up you'll have to enter into the TR platform, which will be be substantially more expensive and thus usually not worth it if it's only a little faster than NVL-S. But if you're looking for higher end of TR, then NVL-S is not an option.

 

[Fjodor2001]

More than what?

ARL-S