Discussion Zen 7 speculation thread

[eek2121]

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

No, it absolutely will not. 🤣

Didn’t know we had comedians on the forum.

 

[LightningZ71]

Personally, I see Nova Lake as having a reasonable chance at being better than the 3990x in MT in situations where memory accesses are sequential and rarely venture far from the L3. 64 cores of Zen2 on a heavily trailing process tech, while impressive, aren't going to get it done. ST should easily be substantially led by Nova Lake. When you star talking about Milan, you get to a better CCX design, larger L3 cache pools, and notably better RAM bandwidth. Yes, in situations that are sparse, you'll see Nova Lake stretch it's legs on the basis of it's much higher ST throughput, but, when you start to really stress high MT situations, it won't be able to keep up.

None of this has anything to do with Zen7 though, so I'm going to leave this here.

 

[Joe NYC]

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.

Question was about cores. About "future proofing" by buying CPU with more cores.

Then you shifted to "future proofing" by buying higher core count CPU for extra 200 MHz, because those are the actual SKUs.

It works that way only because of poor market segmentation. The idea was to hold back 8 core CPUs (people use for gaming) and make more money by upselling gamer to 16 cores to get extra 200 MHz.

Maybe (hopefully), AMD has realized this was all ill-conceived, and there is more money (a lot more money) to be made by offering gaming optimized CPU. 9850x3d seems to be evidence of that hypothesis.

The way AMD realized that, by making far more money on 8 core 9800x3d than on 16 core 9950x3d.

Intel will realize the same with NVL, when it turns out that the number of buyers for 2 CCD NVL is miniscule, after it is shown that it adds nothing to gaming performance.

 

[DrMrLordX]

ARL-S

That's not going to make it platform-competitive with EPYC or Threadripper, though. Certainly not Zen6 or Zen7 (and Zen7 is far enough out that it won't be the direct competitor anyway).

 

[DrMrLordX]

Idk where you got that range from.

Nova Lake-S tops out at 48t, that's where.

 

[Joe NYC]

Nova Lake-S tops out at 48t, that's where.

One way or another, the market for workstation class PCs is likely going to shrink, after both AMD and Intel double the core counts of the desktop PCs.

 

[511]

No, it absolutely will not. 🤣

Why so it's 24C/48T vs 48C/48T

Didn’t know we had comedians on the forum.

Exactly people don't know the difference between SMT and real cores 😛

 

[Fjodor2001]

Question was about cores. About "future proofing" by buying CPU with more cores.

Then you shifted to "future proofing" by buying higher core count CPU for extra 200 MHz, because those are the actual SKUs.

No, it was about future proofing by buying whatever CPU is best suited for that, which will be a combo of core count, MHz, X3D, iGPU, PCIe lanes, NPU, or whatever. Yes, the focus was on core count, but not solely, since more than that matters.

Also, it was you that started tossing other things than cores into the mix, when you only compared 16C SKUs without X3D to 8C SKUs with X3D.

The way AMD realized that, by making far more money on 8 core 9800x3d than on 16 core 9950x3d.

In total or per unit sold?

Intel will realize the same with NVL, when it turns out that the number of buyers for 2 CCD NVL is miniscule, after it is shown that it adds nothing to gaming performance.

Those that only need 8 cores already only buy 8 core CPUs. If they would only produce such SKUs they would only grab that market share and miss out on those that need more cores. Why leave that market share on the table? Also, it’s certainly not miniscule market share.

With Zen6 AMD will bump max core count on DT to 24, and then further to 32 in Zen7. Why do that, if you think they will only sell 8 core CPUs?

As for NVL-S, all SKUs except the bottom one in the lineup will have 16 cores or more.

So sorry to disappoint you, but the market is going in the opposite direction of your quest against more cores.

 

[Fjodor2001]

That's not going to make it platform-competitive with EPYC or Threadripper, though. Certainly not Zen6 or Zen7 (and Zen7 is far enough out that it won't be the direct competitor anyway).

It’ll be sufficient for a lot of users. Not everyone needs all PCIe lanes that TR provides.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Nova Lake-S tops out at 48t, that's where.

It tops out at 52C/52T, where as Zen6 tops out at 26C/52T. Or 48C/48T vs 24C/48T if you exclude LPE cores.

2C/2T > 1C/2T

Also, still don’t understand your 48t to 64t range anyway.

 

[DrMrLordX]

It’ll be sufficient for a lot of users. Not everyone needs all PCIe lanes that TR provides.

16c/32t (or less) is also sufficient for a lot of users. We're not talking about a lot of users.

It tops out at 52C/52T, where as Zen6 tops out at 26C/52T. Or 48C/48T vs 24C/48T if you exclude LPE cores.

Yes, I'm excluding the LPE cores. And if you don't then I don't know what else to say, especially since it has little to nothing to do with Zen7. Products like NVL-S 48c will probably be a one-off that hopefully Intel will not be foolish enough to attempt in the future.

 

[511]

Yes, I'm excluding the LPE cores. And if you don't then I don't know what else to say, especially since it has little to nothing to do with Zen7. Products like NVL-S 48c will probably be a one-off that hopefully Intel will not be foolish enough to attempt in the future.

48C/T is not a magical config ... There is just an extra CCD same like Zen 6 how are we still arguing on the feasibility of 48C/T they can simply reuse the tile for other config same with Zen 6

 

[DrMrLordX]

48C/T is not a magical config ... There is just an extra CCD same like Zen 6 how are we still arguing on the feasibility of 48C/T they can simply reuse the tile for other config same with Zen 6

It's two tiles with multiple separate core clusters featuring different cores and a TDP expected to be over 300W. Had Intel updated Coyote Cove significantly and featured two tiles with 8-12 Coyote Coves per tile then they might be on to something. Especially if they could keep power to 200W or less. But that's not what they're doing. It's a ridiculous product born out of desperation.

 

[511]

It's two tiles with multiple separate core clusters featuring different cores and a TDP expected to be over 300W. Had Intel updated Coyote Cove significantly and featured two tiles with 8-12 Coyote Coves per tile then they might be on to something. Especially if they could keep power to 200W or less. But that's not what they're doing. It's a ridiculous product born out of desperation.

It's not 300W it's 250W PL1 and as for tiles the most optimal thing should be reducing the die size of the Tile while keeping it 8+16 having two 8-12 Coyote Cove tiles would have been worse for perf/mm2.
It's not desperation but careful planning Coyote Cove don't have SMT and it makes it a issue of thread to be likely on another CCD more likely with 12C/12T Coyote CCD vs 8+16 CCD what do you think will have lower Chances of thread going cross CCD

 

[StefanR5R]

38.7% of the "Zen 6 Speculation Thread":

"Is, or isn't, Intel Nova Lake-S the best thing since sliced bread?"​

72.4% of the "Zen 7 Speculation Thread":

"Is, or isn't, Intel Nova Lake-S the best thing since sliced bread?"​

PS: For those who don't know, "Zen" is the name of a family of AMD CPU microarchitectures.

 

[jpiniero]

38.7% of the "Zen 6 Speculation Thread":

"Is, or isn't, Intel Nova Lake-S the best thing since sliced bread?"​

72.4% of the "Zen 7 Speculation Thread":

"Is, or isn't, Intel Nova Lake-S the best thing since sliced bread?"​

PS: For those who don't know, "Zen" is the name of a family of AMD CPU microarchitectures.

And "We luv Cinebench!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Fjodor2001]

16c/32t (or less) is also sufficient for a lot of users. We're not talking about a lot of users.

For a lot of users of the NVL-S 52C CPU of course. I thought that was obvious from the context.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Products like NVL-S 48c will probably be a one-off that hopefully Intel will not be foolish enough to attempt in the future.

AMD will go 32C/64T on DT with Zen7, so you can be pretty sure Intel will try to counter that with more than 48C/48T.

 

[adroc_thurston]

AMD will go 32C/64T on DT with Zen7

Or they ship an asymmetrical 16+8 config.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Or they ship an asymmetrical 16+8 config.

Or why not only 6C and 8C SKUs since that all that sells anyway? Perhaps even a retro style 4C, similar to what vinyl is for HiFi enthusiasts. 🎤🎧

 

[adroc_thurston]

Or why not only 6C and 8C SKUs since that all that sells anyway?

That's why they have the 8c CCD indeed.
The 16c one is for SP8 pmuch

 

[jones377]

38.7% of the "Zen 6 Speculation Thread":

"Is, or isn't, Intel Nova Lake-S the best thing since sliced bread?"​

72.4% of the "Zen 7 Speculation Thread":

"Is, or isn't, Intel Nova Lake-S the best thing since sliced bread?"​

PS: For those who don't know, "Zen" is the name of a family of AMD CPU microarchitectures.

Is it really necessary to segregate the forum this way today? Why not have a single "Future x86 CPU architectures" thread where both AMD and Intel can be discussed and compared/speculated upon? Is it a legacy from a time when there were many more snowflakes/fanboys around?

 

[Bigos]

Is it really necessary to segregate the forum this way today? Why not have a single "Future x86 CPU architectures" thread where both AMD and Intel can be discussed and compared/speculated upon? Is it a legacy from a time when there were many more snowflakes/fanboys around?

I come here to look for Zen 7 speculation and rumors. Not to read once again how 52C Nova Lake will be awesome.

If you want a thread where everything is mixed and compared, please create one.

 

[Covfefe]

Is it really necessary to segregate the forum this way today? Why not have a single "Future x86 CPU architectures" thread where both AMD and Intel can be discussed and compared/speculated upon? Is it a legacy from a time when there were many more snowflakes/fanboys around?

It's irritating to have to filter through endless posts about Nova Lake to get to actual Zen6/Zen7 discussion. If it was just a few posts I wouldn't care, but it's non-stop. I think certain users post about Nova Lake 48 core in the Zen6/7 threads because they want to argue, and it degrades the quality of the discussion on this forum. If that makes me a snowflake, then I'm a snowflake.

 

[OneEng2]

With Zen6 AMD will bump max core count on DT to 24, and then further to 32 in Zen7. Why do that, if you think they will only sell 8 core CPUs?

Good question. I think that 8c would be the minimum spec SKU on Zen 7.

16c/32t (or less) is also sufficient for a lot of users. We're not talking about a lot of users.

True; however, it isn't what the customer "needs", it what they "want".

AMD will go 32C/64T on DT with Zen7, so you can be pretty sure Intel will try to counter that with more than 48C/48T.

Certainly.

I am of the belief that we will see the beginning of core wars now that the end of clock speed wars has been ended by physics .

For the foreseeable future, it is hard to imagine consumers "needing" more than 16c. I can easily imagine people being taught to "want" more though.