Zen 2?!?!

[Foist2017]

Kind of answers the "How does AMD plan to follow up Ryzen" question  

http://wccftech.com/amd-talks-ryzen-zen-2-ipc-clock-speed/

 

Edit: Too lazy to "fix" the post. It can stay where it's at ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit2: Check out the interview they reference: 

[PCGuy_5960]

Fix your post: 

 

[TheRandomness]

-Thread moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory until post adheres to TN&R guidelines, as linked by @PCGuy_5960 @Foist2017

[CostcoSamples]

Boom! forum police dun rekt you!

 

I wonder what the naming convention will be for zen 2... I'm thinking Ryzen 7 2800x, 2700, etc..  

[dogetorhue]

10 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

Boom! forum police dun rekt you!

 

I wonder what the naming convention will be for zen 2... I'm thinking Ryzen 7 2800x, 2700, etc..  

I wish they'd remove the X entirely because it makes no sense...

[TheRandomness]

Just now, dogetorhue said:

I wish they'd remove the X entirely because it makes no sense...

The X makes sense. Stands for eXtended frequency range (what's with not using E...) and basically the CPU can turbo higher like GPU boost turbos GPUs higher when power and thermals allow. Also, they'd naturally be better binned, therefore requiring less voltage/producing less heat.

[CostcoSamples]

1 minute ago, dogetorhue said:

I wish they'd remove the X entirely because it makes no sense...

Yes I agree... I think the X is supposed to make it sound better but really it's kind of dumb IMO.

[DocSwag]

Zen2 is still what's exciting to me. 7nm is gonna lead to much higher transistor density. It probably will lead to higher clocks. There are lots of tweaks they can probably make to increase IPC. And they probably will have time to fix infinity fabric induced gaming performance impacts.

 

It's just like the Athlon. The Athlon XP was good, but the 2nd gen product, the Athlon 64, was the kicker that destroyed Intel.

[Mira Yurizaki]

8 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

The X makes sense. Stands for eXtended frequency range (what's with not using E...)

Because X makes anything cool

 

8 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Zen2 is still what's exciting to me. 7nm is gonna lead to much higher transistor density. It probably will lead to higher clocks. There are lots of tweaks they can probably make to increase IPC. And they probably will have time to fix infinity fabric induced gaming performance impacts.

 

It's just like the Athlon. The Athlon XP was good, but the 2nd gen product, the Athlon 64, was the kicker that destroyed Intel.

I wouldn't really call the Athlon 64 a 2nd gen product to the Athlon XP. Athlon/Athlon XP were using the K7 architecture, whereas Athlon 64 used K8.

 

I also wouldn't put much hope in AMD outright wrecking Intel anymore. Intel has a formidable architecture unlike Prescott back in the day.

[DocSwag]

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I wouldn't really call the Athlon 64 a 2nd gen product to the Athlon XP. Athlon/Athlon XP were using the K7 architecture, whereas Athlon 64 used K8.

 

I also wouldn't put much hope in AMD outright wrecking Intel anymore. Intel has a formidable architecture unlike Prescott back in the day.

That's true. But what is true is that usually it's the second gen product that's really impressive. Core duo vs core 2 duo. Phenom vs phenom ii. 

 

I agree, AMD probably won't outright destroy Intel since IPC isn't an easy thing to improve anymore. But it's totally possible that AMD will achieve IPC that is at least as good as Skylake/Kaby Lake with Zen2.

[Foist2017]

17 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Zen2 is still what's exciting to me. 7nm is gonna lead to much higher transistor density. It probably will lead to higher clocks. There are lots of tweaks they can probably make to increase IPC. And they probably will have time to fix infinity fabric induced gaming performance impacts.

 

It's just like the Athlon. The Athlon XP was good, but the 2nd gen product, the Athlon 64, was the kicker that destroyed Intel.

I wonder what the smaller architecture will mean for socket/mobo/chipset compatibility? I would love to be able to upgrade my gen 1 to a gen 2 chip without a new mobo

[DocSwag]

Just now, Foist2017 said:

I wonder what the smaller architecture will mean for socket/mobo/chipset compatibility? I would love to be able to upgrade my gen 1 to a gen 2 chip without a new mobo

It's gonna be compatible still. A process node shrink doesn't mean incompatibility (e.g. Ivy Bridge and Sandy were different process nodes but used the same socket). 

 

I believe AMD has stated AM4 will be getting new CPUs until 2020 so... It's a very "future proof," for lack of a better term, socket.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, DocSwag said:

That's true. But what is true is that usually it's the second gen product that's really impressive. Core duo vs core 2 duo. Phenom vs phenom ii.

I had a look back at reviews of processors back in the 2000s, and I'm going to sound like a negative Nancy or whatnot, but those offered incremental performance improvements. The Phenom only had a problem with the TLB bug which I think was a rare thing to hit but AMD decided to issue the nuclear button.

 

And actually even across generations performance improvements were more ho-hum on the IPC level. Except for Pentium D to Core. It's to a point now where I'm convinced that we've always had incremental improvements on IPC, with maybe an exception or two.

[DocSwag]

8 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I had a look back at reviews of processors back in the 2000s, and I'm going to sound like a negative Nancy or whatnot, but those offered incremental performance improvements. The Phenom only had a problem with the TLB bug which I think was a rare thing to hit but AMD decided to issue the nuclear button.

 

And actually even across generations performance improvements were more ho-hum on the IPC level. Except for Pentium D to Core. It's to a point now where I'm convinced that we've always had incremental improvements on IPC, with maybe an exception or two.

Core 2 offered large clock speed improvements compared to the original Core. 

 

Phenom II offered better performance/$. Not really a performance improvement I guess, more of a better value proposition.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Core 2 offered large clock speed improvements compared to the original Core.

Not according to http://www.anandtech.com/show/2056

 

EDIT: You said clock speed and I glossed over it, which yah, Core was a mobile processor only.

[Foist2017]

58 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

Boom! forum police dun rekt you!

 

I wonder what the naming convention will be for zen 2... I'm thinking Ryzen 7 2800x, 2700, etc..  

How will they brand the 14nm+ chips for that matter?

[PianoPlayer88Key]

29 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I had a look back at reviews of processors back in the 2000s, and I'm going to sound like a negative Nancy or whatnot, but those offered incremental performance improvements. The Phenom only had a problem with the TLB bug which I think was a rare thing to hit but AMD decided to issue the nuclear button.

 

And actually even across generations performance improvements were more ho-hum on the IPC level. Except for Pentium D to Core. It's to a point now where I'm convinced that we've always had incremental improvements on IPC, with maybe an exception or two.

But what about these improvements?

 

And how about this, for price vs performance?

I think adding the same parts to the 486 that were bundled with the 286 brought it up to  about $300-320 IIRC.

 

I'd love to see the industry catch up to where we would be if that pace of perf/$ gains had not slowed.

[Mira Yurizaki]

18 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

But what about these improvements?

 

And how about this, for price vs performance?

I think adding the same parts to the 486 that were bundled with the 286 brought it up to  about $300-320 IIRC.

 

I'd love to see the industry catch up to where we would be if that pace of perf/$ gains had not slowed.

Some comments in list form because I can't figure out how to sort this in paragraphs

• On the Wikipedia table you screencapped, the column I'm most concerned with is "Instructions per clock per core". That hasnt changed much over the years
• Most of the improvements in the 80s to 90s was either a sizable increase in clock speed which has a direct performance impact, because some new hardware feature was implemented (e.g., superscalar pipeling), or because something that was external to the CPU was integrated into it (e.g., L2 cache)
• We don't run applications that require loads of CPU time most of the time. So total throughput means little as opposed to IPC.

Much of what the 90s represented was getting the building blocks in place. It's very similar to gun technology. Guns really haven't really innovated much since the 1920s. Anything you see that seems to be new and innovative was probably done already at some point.

[redteam4ever]

8 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

what's with not using E...

AMD uses E for low TDP chips. As in A12-9800E (35W) and A12-9800 (65W). The abbreviaton of Extended Frequency Range is also XFR.

[He_162]

They trademarked "Kyzen" So I assume that's what they will use.

[MyName13]

-coffee lake comes out

-r3 gets smt and we get 170$ hexa core

-intel either adds HT to i3 or pushes six cores to the i3

-amd drops hexa cores to r3 no matter what Intel does

-hexa cores for everyone and octa cores on the medium end

 

This should definitely happen by 2020.

[He_162]

On 9/5/2017 at 11:47 PM, MyName13 said:

-coffee lake comes out

-r3 gets smt and we get 170$ hexa core

-intel either adds HT to i3 or pushes six cores to the i3

-amd drops hexa cores to r3 no matter what Intel does

-hexa cores for everyone and octa cores on the medium end

 

This should definitely happen by 2020.

The majority of Zen based chips are Ryzen 5 1400 chips, they disable most of the defective cores and sell them as lower core count parts, for a reason. If they make the lesser amount of their functional chips the only ones being sold and throw out the rest of the chips, they will lose a very large sum of money. Intel doesn't have to worry so much, because they have a much more efficient and cost effective manufacturing process, and many more chips per batch, due in part to larger wafers.

Now, if Kyzen offers a high IPC gain, and makes R3 hyperthreaded, they are already beating intel, there is no way intel is gonna make 8 cores standard until after Coffee Lake, and that's too late, because AMD's 7nm chips will be out, so they'll probably be on the losing end, and be producing the worse performing product for a little while.

The only thing they can do right now is lower prices, I hope I will see a 8700k going for 300 - 320$.

[gbergeron]

On 9/5/2017 at 1:32 PM, DocSwag said:

Zen2 is still what's exciting to me. 7nm is gonna lead to much higher transistor density. It probably will lead to higher clocks. There are lots of tweaks they can probably make to increase IPC. And they probably will have time to fix infinity fabric induced gaming performance impacts.

 

It's just like the Athlon. The Athlon XP was good, but the 2nd gen product, the Athlon 64, was the kicker that destroyed Intel.

i remember my athlon xp 3200+ ? I also have a memory of anothger I had , a 2200+ is it possible ? been many years  it was indeed amazing 

You remember when they used to call it numbers with +

[MyName13]

3 hours ago, He_162 said:

The majority of Zen based chips are Ryzen 5 1400 chips, they disable most of the defective cores and sell them as lower core count parts, for a reason. If they make the lesser amount of their functional chips the only ones being sold and throw out the rest of the chips, they will lose a very large sum of money. Intel doesn't have to worry so much, because they have a much more efficient and cost effective manufacturing process, and many more chips per batch, due in part to larger wafers.

Now, if Kyzen offers a high IPC gain, and makes R3 hyperthreaded, they are already beating intel, there is no way intel is gonna make 8 cores standard until after Coffee Lake, and that's too late, because AMD's 7nm chips will be out, so they'll probably be on the losing end, and be producing the worse performing product for a little while.

The only thing they can do right now is lower prices, I hope I will see a 8700k going for 300 - 320$.

You mean they are made from ryzen 1700, not 1400 chips?Everything is made from octa cores.Is intel's manufacturing really cheaper than amd's?AMD seems to have huge yields so they could actually offer hexa cores on the low end (if 7nm+ gets equally high yields).I wonder what will Intel do once r3 gets smt, higher clock rates and IPC, both of them have nothing else to do but to offer hexa cores on the low end and octa cores on medium end.

[DocSwag]

10 hours ago, gbergeron said:

i remember my athlon xp 3200+ ? I also have a memory of anothger I had , a 2200+ is it possible ? been many years  it was indeed amazing 

You remember when they used to call it numbers with +

I wasn't around back then  

 

Hell, when it was first announced I wasn't even born