Ryzen on 12nm might get a 50% core increase

[Space Reptile]

17 hours ago, cj09beira said:

as we can see we have:  (assume boosts are single core)

ryzen 2700   with 10 cores 4ghz    base clock and 4.5 boost with a price of 329

ryzen 2800   with 12 cores 4.4ghz base clock and 4.9 boost with a price of 399

ryzen 2800x  with 12 cores 4.6ghz base clock and 5.1 boost with a price of 449

what about the R5 line ? 9core18 thread? or just 8/16 

[AlTech]

 

1 hour ago, Space Reptile said:

what about the R5 line ? 9core18 thread? or just 8/16 

I fully expect 8c/16t to be the max for R5.

 

Here's what I'd like to see.

 

4c/4t $80 R3

4c/8t $100-110 R3

6c/6t $170 R5

6c/12t $200 R5

8c/16t $250 R5

10c/20t $330 R7

12c/24t $400 R7

12c/24t $500 XFR R7

 

But maybe that's just wishful thinking.

[System Error Message]

18 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

we dont NEED this amount of cores, like REALLY, but damn i cant say that i think a $400 12 core at potentially 5GHz is a bad chip

in 5 years time you'll be saying the opposite. Computing is moving into manycore designs because clock speeds cant be pushed much further easily. 5Ghz is quite high for both intel and AMD. For example, how high does kabylake overclock for us regular users on air or water?

 

So we are reaching the limits of silicon where clockspeed cant be pushed further without potentially damaging it. As the nodes get smaller so does the voltage that causes rapid disintegration. The solution is to cram more cores rather than try a few hundred Mhz more at much higher power.

 

Dont forget, AMD's core manufacturing is modular, rather than doing as intel and pushing for clocks, they can push for more cores cheaper than clocks. Intel fanboys will say who needs that many cores, well i can tell you that most of us use our PC for work, and so many tasks benefit from core count. Heres a nice long list that benefits from having more cores vs more clocks:

Routing and firewall

code compilation ( for coders, the more cache and cores you throw at it, the faster. The bulldozer was good at this)

graphics rendering

video editing

editing in general (like photoshop)

future games (vulkan for example is not tied to CPU performance, only GPU)

online services (think microsoft and its many services and softwares that actively run, apple and theirs too, not to mention users will have many services online and offline (like NAS), so all these things + social run all the time)

real time video encoding for your own NAS (this is getting popular in homes)

web browsing (google chrome is multi threaded you know)

 

So many more daily things that benefit from many cores but i list the ones that you find in homes.

The more you say, "who needs this many cores, i want clocks!" the more they'll rip you off with it instead. For instance both intel and AMD would then sell you a part for the same price, shave off cores and put a couple more Mhz and call it a gaming product if that was the demand. Dont you ever take gaming performance as a benchmark, only a tiny percentage of the PC and mobile user actually game, most use their computing device to do work, communicate, watch news and entertainment, all of which do benefit from more cores at lower clocks, not to mention the use cases at work. Game devs will have to learn to use and make games that are manycore scalable rather than reliance on clock. Would you like intel/AMD/nvidia to do what lenovo did and troll the market demand?

 

Let me give the lenovo example. People wanted a return to the old ways of thinkpads. New thinkpads arent spillproof despite claims, they arent the kind of laptops now that they were in the past. Other than lacking the physical features and design, lenovo put a low resolution (like 720p rather than a high res 16:10 screen), combined with low performing and outdated hardware (they still sell nvidia 900 series mobile GPUs, lack of quad cores), no choice either for hardware configs all for a huge price. Now imagine if intel, amd and nvidia doing the same. Rather than putting more cores, intel and AMD today sold you higher clocked quad cores for more money. Nvidia and AMD selling you power hungry GPUs that are clock based rather than having a lot of cores and the other units that come in GPUs, limited their models and have products that make no sense.

 

Stop leaving out the daily user. Why does the intel atom exist? there are 4 and 8 core intel atoms around for regular users and servers. These dont need the high cost of a large core so it makes no sense to waste money (bigger silicon chip = higher cost) combined with wasting money on electricity. AMD has been smart by catering to the highest demand which isnt gaming, but rather those that use their PCs daily for basic tasks to productivity and the server market.

[DildorTheDecent]

1 hour ago, PETRGangKing said:

I'm running my 7700k (with a delid, obviously a big factor) 5.1ghz @ 1.41v, under a custom loop. Running prime95, My max temperature last time I ran it was 64, and my average temp was closer to 55. Granted, that was definitely not the case with my 6700k, I had to push that thing to 1.395v to keep it stable at 4.7ghz. Pushing the voltage any further than that and I would start getting temps up to 90 degrees. I won't run an overclock that gets me temps over 80C in prime95 so I left it at 4.7ghz. I do sometimes wonder what I would have been able to do with that chip with a delid, although I dont think it would be nearly as big a factor as with the 7700k. It is also worth noting that when I first got the7700K I  would hit 80 under load at stock speeds.  I sent it off to silicon valley the next day, for the delid as well as the frequency testing.

I'm talking about X99 (and 5820K) needing 1.45V+ for 5.0. But needing to push volts to get a high oc is stable is on the ball anyway.

 

Really makes you think what this new Ryzen chip is running for stock volts and what it ramps up to under load especially if one core hits 5.1 and maybe two hit 5.0. Hopefully the efficiency is better on Ryzen 2 or "+" or whatever it is. Ryzen was pretty poo in that region.

[asus killer]

i don't believe this is true. So we would be able to overclock a ryzen to what 6Ghz? they couldn't compete with intel speeds a couple of months ago.

[Stefan1024]

Even if they pull of this much of a performance increase, the price will be higher. It would be just stupid to not increase the price, given the performance boost.

[cj09beira]

9 hours ago, Notional said:

 

Damn. The core count is insane enough as it is, but 4.5Ghz to 5.1Ghz? Holy mother of silicon! That's Intel levels! And guaranteed speeds for each model too! Too put it into perspective, it's more than 25% perf. increase per core on clock rate alone. 

 

Of course, it could be an elaborate fake, but if it isn't. Man.

Thanks for the better res pic

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

i don't believe this is true. So we would be able to overclock a ryzen to what 6Ghz? they couldn't compete with intel speeds a couple of months ago.

no, it would mean a overclock of around 4.6-4.8 on all cores, maybe 5 on golden samples (big maybe)

9 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

Even if they pull of this much of a performance increase, the price will be higher. It would be just stupid to not increase the price, given the performance boost.

its amd we are talking about, they always give us good prices, at least we will have better perf at the same price

[Stefan1024]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

its amd we are talking about, they always give us good prices, at least we will have better perf at the same price

They price the product accurding to the market. They like to sell a lot of chips and get less profit per chip, but they don't underprice the product.

But they are not as greedy as nvidia and intel, but that's a very low bar to measure.

[asus killer]

11 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

 

no, it would mean a overclock of around 4.6-4.8 on all cores, maybe 5 on golden samples (big maybe)

 

you're right, i got it.

 

so in theory and comparing actual ryzen we would be able to OC all of them to 4.6/4.8? maybe 5?

[mynameisjuan]

8 hours ago, ApolloFury said:

hat backwards thinking is the reason why we were stuck on quad cores for a long time. We also have recent games from EA, Ubisoft and Bethesda beginning to scale with more cores so its no longer exclusively for rendering or editing.

You can say its backwards thinking but Im just saying the average person doesnt even fully use all cores on a 1800x. I mean I am all for devs finally using more cores but quad cores are still a huuuuuuge majority and there are still a lot of people using laptops to game which are typically dual core, maybe quad, so you cant blame devs for not being enticed to utilize more cores. 

 

Other than games slowly using more cores, most are not gaming 24/7, and the browsers and one off programs they use dont utilize multicore either. Also like I mention, dont bring rendering or editing into this because apparently to LTT, since ryzen, 99% of people render now...... 

 

Im not saying dont be excited about more cores. Just when people saying this is game changing or now I regret my ryzen or 8th gen intel, it just pisses me off because you can add more cores but in the real world would probably notice next to no difference. 

[Trixanity]

10 hours ago, Notional said:

 

Damn. The core count is insane enough as it is, but 4.5Ghz to 5.1Ghz? Holy mother of silicon! That's Intel levels! And guaranteed speeds for each model too! Too put it into perspective, it's more than 25% perf. increase per core on clock rate alone. 

 

Of course, it could be an elaborate fake, but if it isn't. Man.

Boy oh boy are people gonna go apeshit when we get around to February and this isn't happening.

 

12nm isn't even a half node and somehow it'll increase core count by 50% and clock speed by 27%? Not to mention the pricing. Processors are usually priced according to performance and it completely craps all over Ryzen for the same price. Then we get into the fact that we're in December and it seems like SKUs and pricing is already finalized yet we have no torrent of leaked benchmarks to back it up? No fine print at the bottom either which would mean it was either cropped out or deliberately omitted because the creator couldn't come up with something to put there without giving it away.

 

This really looks like one of three scenarios: 1) the wet dream of an AMD fanboy. 2) the poisoning of the well by an Intel fanboy. 3) Clickbait news to generate ad revenue.

[Jon Jon]

6 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Boy oh boy are people gonna go apeshit when we get around to February and this isn't happening.

 

12nm isn't even a half node and somehow it'll increase core count by 50% and clock speed by 27%? Not to mention the pricing. Processors are usually priced according to performance and it completely craps all over Ryzen for the same price. Then we get into the fact that we're in December and it seems like SKUs and pricing is already finalized yet we have no torrent of leaked benchmarks to back it up? No fine print at the bottom either which would mean it was either cropped out or deliberately omitted because the creator couldn't come up with something to put there without giving it away.

 

This really looks like one of three scenarios: 1) the wet dream of an AMD fanboy. 2) the poisoning of the well by an Intel fanboy. 3) Clickbait news to generate ad revenue.

You have to remember that Zen hasn't been temperature limited, but architecture limited.

 

My Noctua D15 keeps my R7 ice cold on a silent fan profile. Even with a 4ghz OC, it only hits 71C~ during Prime95.

 

If they managed to fix the issues that do not let Zen scale like Intels' lineup, I don't see why the chips couldn't hit those frequencies with adequate cooling.

 

23 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

You can say its backwards thinking but Im just saying the average person doesnt even fully use all cores on a 1800x. I mean I am all for devs finally using more cores but quad cores are still a huuuuuuge majority and there are still a lot of people using laptops to game which are typically dual core, maybe quad, so you cant blame devs for not being enticed to utilize more cores. 

 

Other than games slowly using more cores, most are not gaming 24/7, and the browsers and one off programs they use dont utilize multicore either. Also like I mention, dont bring rendering or editing into this because apparently to LTT, since ryzen, 99% of people render now...... 

 

Im not saying dont be excited about more cores. Just when people saying this is game changing or now I regret my ryzen or 8th gen intel, it just pisses me off because you can add more cores but in the real world would probably notice next to no difference. 

People like to forget that your PC isn't a console. You have a lot of background tasks that need to eat up clock cycles to function. This is honestly the only reason why for high FPS gaming, people recommend the i7 vs the i5. You have more headroom to diversify your compute, thus getting the necessary OS + third party applications to stop pulling from resources necessary to maximize your fps.

 

More true cores is a good thing, as it opens the door for more compute performance overall. Heck, everyone is so excited over the i7 8700(k), yet I am sure there are PLENTY of people who were on the previous Intel HEDT platforms that are STILL happy with their purchases into today, with no real bottlenecks. I would love to see a review comparing the i7 8700K to the old HEDT 6C/12T counterparts to see what the performance difference is in both gaming and productivity workloads.

 

I will say that 8C/16T is a great high end spot, where as 6C/12T should be the new standard (why R5 and new i5/i7 make so much sense right now). So while I see a lot of truth in what you are saying, I just think that hexacore is necessary now to keep up with increasing compute demands from modern software to not interfere with each other's performance.

[spat55]

Even if the clocks are only 4 Ghz I'll still buy it instead of waiting for Icelake, I've been waiting long enough to upgrade from 3570k.

[XenosTech]

29 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

This really looks like one of three scenarios: 1) the wet dream of an AMD fanboy. 2) the poisoning of the well by an Intel fanboy. 3) Clickbait news to generate ad revenue.

I'd say a mix of all 3 but I highly doubt this is what we're getting in feb for zen+ might be zen2 hype for 2019/2020 when that finally launches. I mean we've been seeing i9 teasers for years and look what happened this year lol

[Taf the Ghost]

11 hours ago, Notional said:

 

Damn. The core count is insane enough as it is, but 4.5Ghz to 5.1Ghz? Holy mother of silicon! That's Intel levels! And guaranteed speeds for each model too! Too put it into perspective, it's more than 25% perf. increase per core on clock rate alone. 

 

Of course, it could be an elaborate fake, but if it isn't. Man.

The slide is fake. It's not coming out in February. Nothing from the people with actual connections puts Ryzen 2000 series out, for AM4, before March.

 

However, those clocks may be close to correct. At least the lower ones. I kind of expect the top SKU to be around 4.7 Ghz at max.

[Taf the Ghost]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

AMD beating Intel this early with SC....

 

 

There's actually just two videos on the account.

 

The supposed Ryzen 2300X is 4c/4t with CB15 scores of: 236 Single / 855 Multi. 

Supposed Ryzen 2600X is 6c/12t with CB15 scores of: 250 Single / 1823 Multi.

 

 

The ratios look correct for Ryzen processors. So, these benchmarks seem "real", but whether they're not gamed by some means is a different question. Those 5 Ghz Zen dies do seem to exist, but they were never put into full production, it seems. (Most likely because of Power Draw; they weren't useful for server processors.) It could be one of those that someone was having fun with.

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Jon Jon said:

You have to remember that Zen hasn't been temperature limited, but architecture limited.

 

My Noctua D15 keeps my R7 ice cold on a silent fan profile. Even with a 4ghz OC, it only hits 71C~ during Prime95.

 

If they managed to fix the issues that do not let Zen scale like Intels' lineup, I don't see why the chips couldn't hit those frequencies with adequate cooling.

I'd say Ryzen is limited by both architecture and process node. GloFo's process is an adapted Samsung low power node (LPP) meant for mobile. It isn't necessarily a copy + paste job as desktop processors are a different beast but it's not made for high performance. 12nm LP is supposed to be a small evolution of the 14nm process leading it it to become more performance oriented which in this case means higher frequencies. Perhaps AMD will use the area reduction from the die shrink to lengthen the pipeline to improve the frequency like they did on Vega. This would mean we would get a twofold advantage to frequency increases and we might just see a 4.5+ GHz SKU.

[Jon Jon]

5 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I'd say Ryzen is limited by both architecture and process node. GloFo's process is an adapted Samsung low power node (LPP) meant for mobile. It isn't necessarily a copy + paste job as desktop processors are a different beast but it's not made for high performance. 12nm LP is supposed to be a small evolution of the 14nm process leading it it to become more performance oriented which in this case means higher frequencies. Perhaps AMD will use the area reduction from the die shrink to lengthen the pipeline to improve the frequency like they did on Vega. This would mean we would get a twofold advantage to frequency increases and we might just see a 4.5+ GHz SKU.

If that is the case, then an IPC improvement and a 4.5ghz SKU would be enough for most people to be satisfied with Zen+, I would think.

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Jon Jon said:

People like to forget that your PC isn't a console. You have a lot of background tasks that need to eat up clock cycles to function. This is honestly the only reason why for high FPS gaming, people recommend the i7 vs the i5. You have more headroom to diversify your compute, thus getting the necessary OS + third party applications to stop pulling from resources necessary to maximize your fps.

 

More true cores is a good thing, as it opens the door for more compute performance overall. Heck, everyone is so excited over the i7 8700(k), yet I am sure there are PLENTY of people who were on the previous Intel HEDT platforms that are STILL happy with their purchases into today, with no real bottlenecks. I would love to see a review comparing the i7 8700K to the old HEDT 6C/12T counterparts to see what the performance difference is in both gaming and productivity workloads.

 

I will say that 8C/16T is a great high end spot, where as 6C/12T should be the new standard (why R5 and new i5/i7 make so much sense right now). So while I see a lot of truth in what you are saying, I just think that hexacore is necessary now to keep up with increasing compute demands from modern software to not interfere with each other's performance.

Again you are making it seem like I am saying its a bad thing when over and over and over I am not. And you think I dont know that there are 100s of processes in the background using CPU? But the thing is those processes even if be other applications dont use a lot. Like at all. Again, my defense is the comments on how this will be ground breaking when in reality the average user wont notice a difference. 

 

Also people were so excited about the 8700k because ryzen. Overnight people were completely fine with the 7700k almost never running into bottle necks, then ryzen was released and all of a sudden 8/16 is an absolute MUST!!!! Thats where my anger is coming from. People began buying ryzen left and right and after some time, my friends who upgraded from a 7700k to the 1700x notice almost no difference in every day use, yet everyone in the tech world are still attacking intel for not having an 8 core because of what reason exactly??? Nothing, other than find a reason to bitch about. 

 

And further more, you mention the "increasing demand of modern software".....Hate to break it to you but software over the past years is being more focused on optimizing and using LESS resources, even games. Less CPU usage, less RAM usage, less GPU usage. This isnt 10 years ago where software drove hardware because the hardware wasnt there to make full use of the software. Now hardware has surpassed software and software doesnt need as much to accomplish the same task. Fuck, look at any battlefield/battlefront games, arguably the best looking games every made and run better than almost all the other trash games out their trying to look good. Also this is for battery life too. Applications are used on all types of hardware and still most people have laptops so devs have to take that into account. Software is only demanding more and more with applications focused around that like rendering, editing, running games at 240fps....other than that software is using less and less. 

 

Finally, for the fourth fucking time, I am not saying more cores is a bad thing. More is always better. Just dont fucking start a shit show about how its game changing and the performance is unmatched. Because even when these new 12/16 ryzens are released, guaranfuckingtee in every day use no one will notice a difference from an 8700k or even the 1800x

[Taf the Ghost]

23 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I'd say Ryzen is limited by both architecture and process node. GloFo's process is an adapted Samsung low power node (LPP) meant for mobile. It isn't necessarily a copy + paste job as desktop processors are a different beast but it's not made for high performance. 12nm LP is supposed to be a small evolution of the 14nm process leading it it to become more performance oriented which in this case means higher frequencies. Perhaps AMD will use the area reduction from the die shrink to lengthen the pipeline to improve the frequency like they did on Vega. This would mean we would get a twofold advantage to frequency increases and we might just see a 4.5+ GHz SKU.

 

15 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

If that is the case, then an IPC improvement and a 4.5ghz SKU would be enough for most people to be satisfied with Zen+, I would think.

Zen is also on the most dense of the libraries for GloFo's 14nm process. A lot of information points to AMD going with at least a less dense set of libraries for Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge). This makes a lot of sense, as the Zen dies will be going into servers for at least another 1.5 years. It'll allow the refreshed Ryzens to clock a good chunk higher. Between 10-15% it looks like.

 

Which is actually all that AMD needs on the first generation Zen design. DX11 will saturate on Nvidia's cards & drivers around 4.4 Ghz. Intel at high clocks will offer better gaming performance in certain titles because of specific optimizations, but we're back to the "if you're not spending 2k USD, Ryzen is a better buy" territory. 

[Space Reptile]

12 hours ago, Notional said:

 

Damn. The core count is insane enough as it is, but 4.5Ghz to 5.1Ghz? Holy mother of silicon! That's Intel levels! And guaranteed speeds for each model too! Too put it into perspective, it's more than 25% perf. increase per core on clock rate alone. 

 

Of course, it could be an elaborate fake, but if it isn't. Man.

fun fact : its fake , made by 4chan 

[Jon Jon]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

-snip-

Who was happy with the 7700K? It performed clock for clock identical to the 6700K at launch. the i7 8700K was (and is) an exciting product because of the additional cores and overclock-ability. I think people who were "perfectly happy" with the 7700K and then magically weren't, were probably just fanboys of some sort anyway. the 7700K is still a great chip, but now we have chips that are overall better, which is what we should want.

 

I would dispute applications have become more and more optimized. If this were the case, My old AMD Athlon64 X2 4400+ would still tear through 20+ tab Firefox windows with antivirus running among other tasks. Today, that thing is a snail doing the same exact tasks. Operating systems do more in the background than they ever have, and the needs and requirements for a more feature rich internet require more compute as well.

 

No need to "hate to break it to me", but i feel like you really didn't read my last two paragraphs, since I was making it abundantly clear that hexacore is a sweet spot for high performance workloads to coincide with your everyday tasks without slowdown. Quad-cores do not do this, especially without hyperthreading. I mean, we have seen enough benchmarks to prove otherwise, unless the i7 with 4 more logical cores also magically has faster IPC in comparison to the equivalent i5 counterpart.

 

No need to get so defensive, yeesh. It's a conversation.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Also people were so excited about the 8700k because ryzen. Overnight people were completely fine with the 7700k almost never running into bottle necks, then ryzen was released and all of a sudden 8/16 is an absolute MUST!!!! Thats where my anger is coming from.

The answer to your confusion is in your own post.  Ryzen was a game changer, waking people to the fact that they can have HCC processors that performed well for a good price, and suddenly Intel's quad-core fixation wasn't as appealing.  Don't be angry because people woke up to the benefits of HCC CPUs, be angry that Intel held back progress for so many years by stagnating the market with quad-cores.

[mynameisjuan]

32 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Don't be angry because people woke up to the benefits of HCC CPUs, be angry that Intel held back progress for so many years by stagnating the market with quad-cores.

Not angry that HCC are now a thing, angry at how most people will bash anything that isnt 8 core min because they apparently NEED it. 

[Jito463]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Not angry that HCC are now a thing, angry at how most people will bash anything that isnt 8 core min because they apparently NEED it. 

Why does that make you angry?  Why do you care what people want or desire?  I'm honestly confused by your reaction.