AMD confirms "Early March Launch" for Ryzen, and announces "twice as much L2 cache compared to Intel 6th gen.

[Clanscorpia]

Has anyone actually ever had not enough cache honestly

[othertomperson]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You said it was on a smaller process node right after saying the 6900k is cheaper to make. Now please explain to me how that is relevant when talking about the price to manufacture unless you were stating it for just the fun of it. In the end the result is still the same. There is no real way for you to know which is cheaper to produce because there isn't enough information to calculator that. There are so many different aspects of manufacturing a cpu that to say it would cost less to produce one cpu over the other without know all of those aspects is about as accurate as flipping a coin. 

"but also because the Ryzen CPU will be a native 8-core part. The 6900k is a 10-core with two cores disabled. Intel has a whole host of products across both their Xeon line, and their £1500 6950X that that CPU could have been. Their entire Broadwell-E platform is geared around milking that 10-core for all it is worth. "

 

I suggest reading more than the first half of the first sentence, dear. It can help you avoid embarrassing situations like this in future.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, othertomperson said:

"but also because the Ryzen CPU will be a native 8-core part. The 6900k is a 10-core with two cores disabled. Intel has a whole host of products across both their Xeon line, and their £1500 6950X that that CPU could have been. Their entire Broadwell-E platform is geared around milking that 10-core for all it is worth. "

 

I suggest reading more than the first half of the first sentence, dear. It can help you avoid embarrassing situations like this in future.

you seriously don't get what I'm trying to say do you. you have no clue as to the cost of manufacturing either of those chips so don't act like you know. to say one cost less to manufacture than the other with such little information is basically the same as saying it with no information. you can bring up the fact that you talked about it being based off of a 10 core but that still changes nothing. you are still taking about the price to manufacture without enough information. 

[leadeater]

@othertomperson @Brooksie359

Remember guys, keep it civil and friendly. 

[othertomperson]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

you seriously don't get what I'm trying to say do you. you have no clue as to the cost of manufacturing either of those chips so don't act like you know. to say one cost less to manufacture than the other with such little information is basically the same as saying it with no information. you can bring up the fact that you talked about it being based off of a 10 core but that still changes nothing. you are still taking about the price to manufacture without enough information. 

I do get what you're saying. You're saying that the assumption that Intel makes any money whatsoever out of the entire range of X99 Broadwell CPUs based off various SKUs taken from this one single chip, including but not limited to 6950X, 6800K, 6850k, E5-2630 and not to mention the 6900k itself, is an assumption too far. Intel has so many different ways to bin this CPU and make a profit off of it that are not open to AMD because this is the highest, fully enabled version of the CPU available.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

I do get what you're saying. You're saying that the assumption that Intel makes any money whatsoever out of the entire range of X99 Broadwell CPUs based off various SKUs taken from this one single chip, including but not limited to 6950X, 6800K, 6850k, E5-2630, is an assumption too far. Intel has so many different ways to bin this CPU and make a profit off of it that are not open to AMD because this is the highest, fully enabled version of the CPU available.

I still fail to see your point. AMD is doing the same thing with their 8 core..

[othertomperson]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I still fail to see your point. AMD is doing the same thing with their 8 core..

No they aren't. They have already announced that they are not going to have any 6-core parts. They obviously can't make a higher SKU for either professional or enthusiasts from this chip. They have drastically limited the number of products they can sell this single part as compared with Intel.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

No they aren't. They have already announced that they are not going to have any 6-core parts. They obviously can't make a higher SKU for either professional or enthusiasts from this chip. They have drastically limited the number of products they can sell this single part as compared with Intel.

where did amd ever say they weren't going to have a 6 core? I believe you are talking about another rumor. 

[Dabombinable]

Considering my Xeon X5450 has more L2 cache than all of the L1, 2 and 3 cache of my 4790K combined.....

Edit: 2x6MB L2 cache vs 9.25MB L1-3

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

No they aren't. They have already announced that they are not going to have any 6-core parts. They obviously can't make a higher SKU for either professional or enthusiasts from this chip. They have drastically limited the number of products they can sell this single part as compared with Intel.

AMD Naples server line uses the same Zen core architecture, as far as we know, which goes up to 32 cores. Internally to the die, cores are grouped in to 4 core packages and they can deploy these together with as many as they like to get the core counts desired. Where Naples differs to Ryzen it that is has a different memory controller and more PCIe lanes, likely some other stuff too.

 

What we don't know is if AMD can disable any of the cores in these 4 core packages or not, this would be the technical limitation to whether or not AMD can do a 6 core SKU.

[othertomperson]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

where did amd ever say they weren't going to have a 6 core? I believe you are talking about another rumor. 

We'll see soon enough, won't we?

 

Of course, even if there is a six core part, it will be a decidedly more mainstream, and therefore cheaper to buy, six core part compared to the highly priced SKUs Intel is getting out of its Broadwell-E parts.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

AMD Naples server line uses the same Zen core architecture, as far as we know, which goes up to 32 cores. Internally to the die cores are grouped in to 4 core packages and they can deploy these together with as many as they like to get the core counts desired. Where Naples differs to Ryzen is that is has a different memort controller and more PCIe lanes, likely some other stuff too.

 

What we don't know is if AMD can disable any of the cores in these 4 core packages or not, this would be the technical limitation to whether or not AMD can do a 6 core SKU.

 

You cannot get 32 cores from disabling parts of an 8 core chip, dear. That CPU would need to be an altogether new (more expensive) CPU, and not simply a way of scavenging more money from binning this one single part.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

AMD Naples server line uses the same Zen core architecture, as far as we know, which goes up to 32 cores. Internally to the die cores are grouped in to 4 core packages and they can deploy these together with as many as they like to get the core counts desired. Where Naples differs to Ryzen is that is has a different memort controller and more PCIe lanes, likely some other stuff too.

 

What we don't know is if AMD can disable any of the cores in these 4 core packages or not, this would be the technical limitation to whether or not AMD can do a 6 core SKU.

The problem with a cut down 6 core sku is that it would cost the same to manufacture as a if it had all 8 cores enabled.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

We'll see soon enough, won't we?

 

Of course, even if there is a six core part, it will be a decidedly more mainstream, and therefore cheaper to buy, six core part compared to the highly priced SKUs Intel is getting out of its Broadwell-E parts.

 

 

You cannot get 32 cores from disabling parts of an 8 core chip, dear. That CPU would need to be an altogether new (more expensive) CPU, and not simply a way of scavenging more money from binning this one single part.

AMD Naples is a different die, using the same Zen architecture. Architecture != die.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

We'll see soon enough, won't we?

 

Of course, even if there is a six core part, it will be a decidedly more mainstream, and therefore cheaper to buy, six core part compared to the highly priced SKUs Intel is getting out of its Broadwell-E parts.

I'm still confused how any of what you said earlier justifies you original statement that the 6900k is cheaper to make. cost of manufacturing and profit are to very different things. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

The problem with a cut down 6 core sku is that it would cost the same to manufacture as a if it had all 8 cores enabled.

You would only look at doing a 6 core SKU to salvage dies with faults that are isolated to cores. This is what Intel does, to a lesser extend now days particularly in the desktop/enthusiast SKUs. I think it was after Haswell Intel introduced a different die for 2 core SKUs.

[othertomperson]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

AMD Naples is a different die, using the same Zen architecture. Architecture != die.

No shit it's a different die, that's the point I was making. You cannot disable parts of an 8 core to get a 32 core as you suggested. You can, however, manufacture a 10 core and salvage the maximum amount of it by using it for multiple SKUs.

 

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I'm still confused how any of what you said earlier justifies you original statement that the 6900k is cheaper to make. cost of manufacturing and profit are to very different things. 

You could have solved a lot of time for both of us if you had just opened with the fact that you are justtrying to start fights over semantics and deliberately misunderstanding someone's choice of words.

 

It's pretty fucking obvious I'm talking about offsetting the cost of manufacture most effectively.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, othertomperson said:

No shit it's a different die, that's the point I was making. You cannot disable parts of an 8 core to get a 32 core as you suggested. You can, however, manufacture a 10 core and salvage the maximum amount of it by using it for multiple SKUs.

Yes but nowhere did I say anything about the Ryzen die and 32 cores. Don't be so quick to reply to comments and take a little more time to read them, and also be a little less aggressive in the replies. There is no need for it or to try and beat anyone down for any reason, even if you are correct or more knowledgeable.

[Dabombinable]

Just thinking about it, AMD could save a lot of wastage with a 6 core sku, with configurations of 2+4 and 3+3. Although any die with 2 dead/faulty cores would probably just end up as AMD's entry level i3 equivalent.

[othertomperson]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yes but nowhere did I say anything about the Ryzen die and 32 cores. Don't be so quick to reply to comments and take a little more time to read them, and also be a little less aggressive in the replies. There is no need for it or to try and beat anyone down for any reason, even if you are correct or more knowledgeable.

You did though. This entire conversation is about AMD having fewer options for SKUs for this one specific die compared to Intel for its 6950X die. You're the one who, in response to this, said that AMD are making a 32 core part. From this die? If not, then how is it relevant to this argument at all?

 

I'm not being aggressive, but it is frustrating when someone's entire argument with me seems to stem from the fact that they have not bothered to read the discussion that they are wading into, and then for them to tell me that I haven't read what they said!

[Brooksie359]

14 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

No shit it's a different die, that's the point I was making. You cannot disable parts of an 8 core to get a 32 core as you suggested. You can, however, manufacture a 10 core and salvage the maximum amount of it by using it for multiple SKUs.

 

 

You could have solved a lot of time for both of us if you had just opened with the fact that you are justtrying to start fights over semantics and deliberately misunderstanding someone's choice of words.

 

It's pretty fucking obvious I'm talking about offsetting the cost of manufacture most effectively.

"By rights the 6900k should be the cheaper of the two to produce" this is what you said. now if you meant to say profit not price to produce then you shouldn't have worded it like that because it makes it very unclear what you are trying to say. its not our job to infer what you meant based on the supporting evidence given.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

You're the one who, in response to this, said that AMD are making a 32 core part. From this die? If not, then how is it relevant to this argument at all?

 

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

AMD Naples server line uses the same Zen core architecture, as far as we know, which goes up to 32 cores.

No as stated above I said Naples will. Then proceeded to talk about how the internal die makeup is handled in the Zen architecture. Using that information you can then talk about potential SKUs AMD could make with the existing die, or any other die they may decide to make in future for example one that uses three 4 core packages rather than the current two for the highest SKU.

 

Knowing that the cores are grouped in to 4 could be rather important for a potential 6 core SKU to exist, if cores within the group cannot be disabled. If that is the case SKUs can only be in 4 core increments. 

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

You did though. This entire conversation is about AMD having fewer options for SKUs for this one specific die compared to Intel for its 6950X die. You're the one who, in response to this, said that AMD are making a 32 core part. From this die? If not, then how is it relevant to this argument at all?

 

I'm not being aggressive, but it is frustrating when someone's entire argument with me seems to stem from the fact that they have not bothered to read the discussion that they are wading into, and then for them to tell me that I haven't read what they said!

i believe what he was saying is that the Naples is made up of 4 core clusters/packages and that this is why people thought a 6 core wasn't possible because it would be the same setup with ryzen. it was purely talking about the feasibility of a 6 core sku in the new ryzen lineup. 

[Humbug]

6 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

AMD had escapes and options 4 years ago.  Ryzen coming in 2017 is like throwing a fire extinguisher on an oil rig fire.  Intel can take a "see you in hell" approach and sell chips at any price point to destroy AMD.  

they started work on Zen in 2011. It takes time. AMD's financial position is now much better than it used to be and they are pretty much breaking even. Vega and Ryzen will push them strongly into profitability without a doubt. The challenge then is to keep iterating annually and keep making progress. They can't stagnate after ryzen.

 

yes intel can still destroy AMD's CPU division if they want to. They can lower prices and afford to selling their parts at low or no margins for a while until it kills AMD. But it's a moot point because intel does not want to do that.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

they started work on Zen in 2011. It takes time. AMD's financial position is now much better than it used to be and they are pretty much breaking even. Vega and Ryzen will push them strongly into profitability without a doubt. The challenge then is to keep iterating annually and keep making progress. They can't stagnate after ryzen.

 

yes intel can still destroy AMD's CPU division if they want to. They can lower prices and afford to selling their parts at low or no margins for a while until it kills AMD. But it's a moot point because intel does not want to do that.

And even at a 50/50 market share in just the desktop segment, or the entire CPU market, Intel will still be a multi-billion dollar company making huge profits.

 

Also Intel does far more than just make CPUs, it is their big ticket item.

[Master Disaster]

Given motherboard sizes are defined in standard sizes how is a smaller CPU offering any benefit to the customer?