Ryzen on 12nm might get a 50% core increase

[Taf the Ghost]

21 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

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.

X99 sold to a lot of enthusiasts because they could find ways to leverage both the larger core count and, via cooling, higher clocks. (Part of the reason that X299, without the big, big core counts has been disappointing to a lot of people.)  The difference between the 7700k and the 8700k isn't that much in a lot of games for the moment, but it's generally faster in other tasks by a good margin (due to both clocks and faster cache speed). That'll keep growing for a while, as well.

 

The main thing is the 7600k vs the 8400. At stock, those processors are extremely close together on paper, but the 8400 will normally be a small % faster and have better minimums in gaming. While the 8400 will slaughter the 7600k in all of the non-gaming tasks. You can close most of that gap by OC'ing the 7600k really far, but you've now paid 8700k money to get a ~200 USD CPU in return. Along with more heat.

 

6c/12t is going to be the rough "gaming CPU" saturation point for a while. The return on parallelization diminishes as you add more cores/threads, unless you have near perfect code to split. 6c/12t should be hard to saturate for at least another 2 generations of GPUs. (This is why I predict that the 8700k will be the "gaming CPU" to buy for a rather long time. Especially if Intel leaves the Ring Bus.) This is also why the Ryzen 5 1600 has been such a monster seller, as it's "enough" and it's going to last for a long while. (And it's why you can expect Intel to constrain the 8400 supply, for the exact same reason.) 

[DocSwag]

4.5 ghz base on 12 cores is absolutely not realistic.

 

Higher clocks and maybe more cores is realistic for 12nm Ryzen but this is ridiculous.

[Nowak]

Fake news, this was posted on r/AyyMD (an AMD circlejerk sub) a month ago and the media just now fell for it.

 

 

[Space Reptile]

24 minutes ago, Daring said:

Fake news, this was posted on r/AyyMD (an AMD circlejerk sub) a month ago and the media just now fell for it.

 

 

the picture was made on 4chan (/g/) also i mod that sub

[Nowak]

Just now, Space Reptile said:

the picture was made on 4chan (/g/) also i mod that sub

:thinking:

 

Point remains, fake news.

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, Daring said:

:thinking:

 

Point remains, fake news.

Why would you stop AMD's hype train? We need more great products like Vega!

[Bananasplit_00]

2 hours ago, Daring said:

Fake news, this was posted on r/AyyMD (an AMD circlejerk sub) a month ago and the media just now fell for it.

finaly, sucks that its not true but good to know its not in a way

[PETRGangKing]

11 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

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

Ice melts at 0°C. In fact, 71°C is nearly twice the temperature at which human cells begin to die at.

 

????

[ravenshrike]

On 12/10/2017 at 8:18 PM, PETRGangKing said:

Ice melts at 0°C. In fact, 71°C is nearly twice the temperature at which human cells begin to die at.

Wut? In adults human cells don't start to die off till around 41 degrees Celsius at the low end.

[PETRGangKing]

7 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Wut? In adults human cells don't start to die off till around 41 degrees Celsius at the low end.

Yes....and 41x2=82...and 72 is near 82.

[Agosto]

5 hours ago, PETRGangKing said:

Yes....and 41x2=82...and 72 is near 82.

*multiplying relative values like temperature expressed in °C makes no sense at all*

[cj09beira]

please stop this weird conversation, it has derailed for too long

[asus killer]

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-ryzen-2-launch

 

if it's real ryzen 2 will launch 2nd quarter 2018

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, asus killer said:

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-ryzen-2-launch

 

if it's real ryzen 2 will launch 2nd quarter 2018

That image looks more like late 1st quarter, than early 2nd quarter.

[cj09beira]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

That image looks more like late 1st quarter, than early 2nd quarter.

so probably late February early march

[Taf the Ghost]

25 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

so probably late February early march

Seems like announcement in late Feb and shipping somewhere in late March. Something like 1 year + a few weeks after the original Ryzen 7 launch.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Seems like announcement in late Feb and shipping somewhere in late March. Something like 1 year + a few weeks after the original Ryzen 7 launch.

hopefully by then i would be ready (read have the money) to buy one

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

hopefully by then i would be ready (read have the money) to buy one

https://twitter.com/InstLatX64/status/941279542416760833

 

Interesting that Raven Ridge now has a lower clocks needed to call the L3. Gaming performance might see more of a saturation than I expected in the clock bump if that holds true for Pinnacle Ridge.

 

Ryzen's "gaming problem" (which people really mean with 1080 TI or Titan Xp) is down to the L3 Cache structure and the balanced Core-to-Core latency with the Ring Bus. Nvidia's drivers are simply able to extract more that way. If they can lower the L3 Cache latency and increase the clocks, Ryzen 2000s should saturate the 1080 Ti about as much as possible given optimization realities.

[Maticks]

5.1Ghz on 12 cores.. umm thats a lot of heat unless AMD can half the voltage usage stable.

i doubt this is real.

[DanielMDA]

On 12/9/2017 at 12:00 PM, Jade said:

I'd be cool with more ipc gain rather than more cores. I didn't like the Bulldozer strat. Fewer fast cores > many mediocre cores.

18 hours ago, Maticks said:

5.1Ghz on 12 cores.. umm thats a lot of heat unless AMD can half the voltage usage stable.

i doubt this is real.

18 hours ago, Maticks said:

5.1Ghz on 12 cores.. umm thats a lot of heat unless AMD can half the voltage usage stable.

i doubt this is real.

We are going to expect a 10-15% IPC increase and clock speed thanks to the die shrink. This will put it in front of Covfefe Lake. Intel CPU`s are faster than Ryzen on single threaded because of the higher clockspeeds. For example take a 1200/1300X, give it a 15% clock speed bonus and it will match Coffee Lake, and if you add the 10-15% IPC increase it would surpass by a nice margin the 8100 and 8350K, respectively.

 

I think this is much more likely to see in Ryzen+, I honestly dont believe AM4 can power 12 Cores, if it could we would have seen the TR 1920X on AM4:

 

Ryzen 7+: 8C/16T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 5+: 6C/12T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 3+: 4C/8T (4.4-4.6GHz)

Edited December 15, 2017 by W-L
Consolidation

[DanielMDA]

On 9/12/2017 at 11:24 AM, AresKrieger said:

They weren't using 28nm though so they should be able to increase it beyond what they currently have it clocked to......actually maybe not I keep forgetting to factor in that an AMD chip at 16nm isn't actually a 16nm design if using the same standards of ibm or intel

 

I guess we'll see soon enough (though I still have my doubts)

Yeah AMD 14nm is more like 16-18nm, and their 12 nm is like 14nm++ from Intel

[Trixanity]

17 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

We are going to expect a 10-15% IPC increase and clock speed thanks to the die shrink. This will put it in front of Covfefe Lake. Intel CPU`s are faster than Ryzen on single threaded because of the higher clockspeeds. For example take a 1200/1300X, give it a 15% clock speed bonus and it will match Coffee Lake, and if you add the 10-15% IPC increase it would surpass by a nice margin the 8100 and 8350K, respectively.

 

I think this is much more likely to see in Ryzen+, I honestly dont believe AM4 can power 12 Cores, if it could we would have seen the TR 1920X on AM4:

 

Ryzen 7+: 8C/16T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 5+: 6C/12T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 3+: 4C/8T (4.4-4.6GHz)

15% IPC increase? Don't count on it. 5% would be surprising. Clock speed? 10% expected from the process. I think people put too much stock into Pinnacle Ridge. It's a refresh. The node shrink is pretty much the prerequisite for the performance gains AMD wants and needs. I expect it'll be a slight improvement on what Raven Ridge brought to the table with the 10% clock speed increase (perhaps add an extra 5 for whatever changes AMD may do to the pipeline). When all is said and done this is primarily a speed bump. Nothing major on the architectural front from what is known currently.

[cj09beira]

22 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

We are going to expect a 10-15% IPC increase and clock speed thanks to the die shrink. This will put it in front of Covfefe Lake. Intel CPU`s are faster than Ryzen on single threaded because of the higher clockspeeds. For example take a 1200/1300X, give it a 15% clock speed bonus and it will match Coffee Lake, and if you add the 10-15% IPC increase it would surpass by a nice margin the 8100 and 8350K, respectively.

 

I think this is much more likely to see in Ryzen+, I honestly dont believe AM4 can power 12 Cores, if it could we would have seen the TR 1920X on AM4:

 

Ryzen 7+: 8C/16T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 5+: 6C/12T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 3+: 4C/8T (4.4-4.6GHz)

am4 can power higher core count cpus, but probably not under 14nm or 12nm, 

1920x is a 2 die chip, so it wouldn't work, but with a smaller die (using say 7nm) we can probably get 12 cores on am4

[Taf the Ghost]

19 hours ago, DanielMDA said:

We are going to expect a 10-15% IPC increase and clock speed thanks to the die shrink. This will put it in front of Covfefe Lake. Intel CPU`s are faster than Ryzen on single threaded because of the higher clockspeeds. For example take a 1200/1300X, give it a 15% clock speed bonus and it will match Coffee Lake, and if you add the 10-15% IPC increase it would surpass by a nice margin the 8100 and 8350K, respectively.

 

I think this is much more likely to see in Ryzen+, I honestly dont believe AM4 can power 12 Cores, if it could we would have seen the TR 1920X on AM4:

 

Ryzen 7+: 8C/16T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 5+: 6C/12T (4.4-4.6GHz)

 

Ryzen 3+: 4C/8T (4.4-4.6GHz)

There's no system design changes, so IPC uplift will be under 5%. More likely around 3% due to improved Infinity Fabric tweaks and improved IMC efficiency. For both Intel & AMD, getting instructions to the Core is the issue more than the ability to actually efficiently maximize the core itself. This is actually where Intel has put most of their design focus for the last several generation. 

 

At around 4.4 Ghz on a 6c/12t CPU, a Ryzen 2000 series should saturate Nvidia's current driver approach for how it interacts with AMD hardware. Intel will have the ultra-high end gaming advantage in the DX9 to DX11 era and there is little AMD can do about it. Current Gaming GPU approaches are simply better with the lower core-to-core latency of the Ring Bus and the inclusive L3 Cache, which has an lower latency as well. We'll see what the Vulkan/DX12 era creates over time, especially if Nvidia finally releases an actual DX12 card.

 

The top SKU 8c of the Ryzen 2000 series probably comes in at 4.7-4.8 Ghz, since those will be the best binned chips. (Though if they end up in a TR2 on 12nm process, then maybe 5 Ghz?) 

18 hours ago, Trixanity said:

15% IPC increase? Don't count on it. 5% would be surprising. Clock speed? 10% expected from the process. I think people put too much stock into Pinnacle Ridge. It's a refresh. The node shrink is pretty much the prerequisite for the performance gains AMD wants and needs. I expect it'll be a slight improvement on what Raven Ridge brought to the table with the 10% clock speed increase (perhaps add an extra 5 for whatever changes AMD may do to the pipeline). When all is said and done this is primarily a speed bump. Nothing major on the architectural front from what is known currently.

Those clocks will matter more than people realize, especially in Gaming. Most Bottlenecks are soft ones that eventually become a hard bottleneck. (Something lost on most technology press.) Getting the Zen uArch to the saturation level for the 1080 TI-class GPUs is all AMD needs to do. Getting 3600 CL12 memory would be a nice bonus, especially if DRAM prices ever drop.

 

It's also important because it'll mean that the upcoming 1180 will be saturated by any of the Ryzen CPUs, so we're back to the "Buy the 8700k or get AMD" advice again. Which is a little funny because Intel put out the first decent value proposition lower SKU in a while.

18 hours ago, cj09beira said:

am4 can power higher core count cpus, but probably not under 14nm or 12nm, 

1920x is a 2 die chip, so it wouldn't work, but with a smaller die (using say 7nm) we can probably get 12 cores on am4

Most of the X370 could actually handle a 12c at 14nm without too much issue at stock, as you'd really only be looking at around 140w TDP. Overclocked they wouldn't, but that's not the discussion.  Once we're to 7nm, it's probably more than doable. Power per Frequency drops again by 40-50%, so it'll fit quite easily. Still not sure if we're getting 12c on 7nm, but we easily could. (Frankly, I'm not sure what else AMD plans to put in that saved die space, so more cores makes a lot of sense.)

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

(Frankly, I'm not sure what else AMD plans to put in that saved die space, so more cores makes a lot of sense.)

The other option is to do either a smaller core count increase or none and add in extra instruction sets to give targeted performance uplift. Things like improving AVX, increasing cache sizes, double the memory channels (16 channel EPYC ftw), increase the CCX core count and remove the on die IF link and only use it for inter-die, decouple the IF from the memory controller if doing previous mentioned removal of IF intra-die.