Ryzen 3000 series might have more than 8 cores

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Rune said:

An 8 core soldered cannonlake chip is all I want.

Make it so, Intel.

Cannonlake on Desktop was canceled two years ago. We don't know what they'll be doing with Icelake. Or even the time frame for the schedule.

[Emberstone]

4 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

10700k

Is it bad that I read this as "ten-de-seven-hundred-K?"

[Belgarathian]

AMD going down the FX route again. 

 

8c/16t is plenty, please chase IPC now. 

 

Increase core count for your HEDT platform and server chips. 

[Humbug]

7 hours ago, TheSLSAMG said:

Seems like fun to me, though there's no chance that the anemic VRM on that board will happily handle a 10-12 core.

It may since they will be 7nm cores with better power characteristics.

[bcredeur97]

we're going beyond the # of cores a consumer will reasonably fully utilize 

 

which is cool I guess.. why not? if it doesn't affect anything else. More incentive for better multi core optimization for apps and programs and games will be sooooo nice

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'd like to see that too, but unfortunately you have to add something lest you look like you're falling behind.

 

And I'm not so thrilled about trying to add more cores for the sake of adding more cores. Maybe for the enthusiast and the would-be gamer/streamer, but that's like a tiny portion of the market.

To me it would make more sense to use that new die space for more/better FMA units to close the AVX gap with Intel and maybe go with an extra memory channel per die to feed that beast. 3 channel Ryzen, 6 channel Threadripper, 12 channel EPYC sounds go to me and helps all 3 product lines equally (EPYC the most in regards to NVDIMMs becoming more a thing).

 

Even though Zen doesn't clock as high as Intel most of the areas Intel CPUs are faster aren't actually directly due to the high clocks but more complex CPU cores.

[The Benjamins]

4 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Call me in another 2+ years when improvements over gen 1 Ryzen is worth upgrading from.

Why not sooner? We are expecting a 50% core bum in 9~ months

[NumLock21]

If this turns out to be true,then AMD has basically cannibalized their Threadripper platform because, why spend more on a Threadripper when Ryzen can also go beyond 8 cores. Intel segments their platform for a reason is so that anyone that wants more cores, will have to spend more on a higher end platform like the X299.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

If this turns out to be true,then AMD has basically cannibalized their Threadripper platform because, why spend more on a Threadripper when Ryzen can also go beyond 8 cores. Intel segments their platform for a reason is so that anyone that wants more cores, will have to spend more on a higher end platform like the X299.

Depends on what you actually need, anyone wanting 10GbE and more than an M.2 or 2 would still go with TR even at the same core count as what Ryzen can do. Comes down to if you just have CPU performance requirements or higher end platform requirements, which is the bigger mistake Intel has done with their HEDT lineup.

 

Why would anyone want to step up to HEDT on Intel when half the product stack is artificially capped at a reduced lane count so motherboard AIC and M.2 utilization is a pain to figure out and you don't really have any more than the desktop line with all the cost of HEDT. Intel HEDT is purely a wallet competition at this point, all practically has been thrown out the window.

[Arika]

consumers don't need that many cores though...

[schwellmo92]

52 minutes ago, Arika S said:

consumers don't need that many cores though...

We only don't need that many cores because we have never had that many cores. Look at mobile phones for instance, 8 core processors were common in mobile phones well before desktops, and I would say they're still not common in desktops.

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

We only don't need that many cores because we have never had that many cores. Look at mobile phones for instance, 8 core processors were common in mobile phones well before desktops, and I would say they're still not common in desktops.

and i would say that octo-core processors in phones are unnecessary 

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

consumers don't need that many cores though...

Yes let's just not progress and sit at the same core count for 7 gens again, that was much better.

[WereCat]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

consumers don't need that many cores though...

With this logic we would be stuck on 4c/8t for another few years. 

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, WereCat said:

With this logic we would be stuck on 4c/8t for another few years. 

if it means better optimization of multicore workloads then sure, sign me up for more 4c/8t Cpus. but throwing more cores at something when the regular consumer and a large amount of software wont benefit from the additional cores just feels like a "hey look what we can do" instead of making a sensible product.

[WereCat]

4 minutes ago, Arika S said:

if it means better optimization of multicore workloads then sure, sign me up for more 4c/8t Cpus. but throwing more cores at something when the regular consumer and a large amount of software wont benefit from the additional cores just feels like a "hey look what we can do" instead of making a sensible product.

The beautiful thing about Ryzen is that the yields are amazing. 

There is no point going for less cores as that would cost the same or even more since there are diminishing returns.

 

Its definitely not just "hey,  look what we can do!". 

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, WereCat said:

The beautiful thing about Ryzen is that the yields are amazing. 

There is no point going for less cores as that would cost the same or even more since there are diminishing returns.

 

Its definitely not just "hey,  look what we can do!". 

if that's the case, fantastic, if they don't charge more for more cores then that's a good move.

 

I still feel that the additional cores will sit largely unused until software catches up with the core count, but by that time there's likely going to be a few generations of CPUs released

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

 

I still feel that the additional cores will sit largely unused until software catches up with the core count, but by that time there's likely going to be a few generations of CPUs released

Oh definitely, we were sitting at 4c for ages so SW will have to catch up now. 

But many people seem to like stream nowadays so more cores can only help in this aspect and it is still within consumers use case. 

[schwellmo92]

28 minutes ago, Arika S said:

if that's the case, fantastic, if they don't charge more for more cores then that's a good move.

 

I still feel that the additional cores will sit largely unused until software catches up with the core count, but by that time there's likely going to be a few generations of CPUs released

The point is, if we aren't continually pushing the core count software has nothing to catch up to.

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I still feel that the additional cores will sit largely unused until software catches up with the core count, but by that time there's likely going to be a few generations of CPUs released

And no software developer would develop for a hardware market that doesn't exist or is worth catering for. It's rather common for hardware to come before software support for it.

[Arika]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And no software developer would develop for a hardware market that doesn't exist or is worth catering for. It's rather common for hardware to come before software support for it.

the issue is that we've gone from 4 to 6 to 8 and now 8+ in a very short amount of time, so they have been working with 4c/8t which i would argue still is not fully taken advantage of so we're now just pushing 6c and 8c to the wayside which will be even less optimized if we're going to 12 or 16 core what ever AMD decide to make. software is going to be a jumbled mess

[cj09beira]

7 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Call me in another 2+ years when improvements over gen 1 Ryzen is worth upgrading from.

it will be worth it with zen 2, as it will have more cores more clocks and more ipc (acording to oc3d its 10-15% which is a huge jump), clocks should be between (oc) 4.5-4.8ghz which is more than enough

3 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

AMD going down the FX route again. 

 

8c/16t is plenty, please chase IPC now. 

 

Increase core count for your HEDT platform and server chips. 

no they are not, to amd now adding more cores to a design isn't expensive at all so they can improve core performance and give you more cores, its a win win scenario and acording to oc3d ipc gains might be in the neighborhood of 10-15% which is a lot

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

If this turns out to be true,then AMD has basically cannibalized their Threadripper platform because, why spend more on a Threadripper when Ryzen can also go beyond 8 cores. Intel segments their platform for a reason is so that anyone that wants more cores, will have to spend more on a higher end platform like the X299.

for some people yes but am4 still only gets 2 channel ram so i bet that in many cases the 12 cores on TR will be faster (same gen of course), plus TR is a beast of a platform with many features pulling people in

[cj09beira]

18 minutes ago, Arika S said:

the issue is that we've gone from 4 to 6 to 8 and now 8+ in a very short amount of time, so they have been working with 4c/8t which i would argue still is not fully taken advantage of so we're now just pushing 6c and 8c to the wayside which will be even less optimized if we're going to 12 or 16 core what ever AMD decide to make. software is going to be a jumbled mess

devs many times have to code for the slowest common denominator which has been 2 cores 4 threads, moving that to 4 cores 8 threads allows devs to add more cpu intensive features without reducing their adressable market, devs of games like The Elder Scrolls,  Witcher and other open world games will be able to finally have a higher density of npcs which will make the worlds more believable (in TES case if they improve their engine first, which right now sucks)

[dizmo]

I'd be happy with perfect memory support and parity with Intel's IPC.

Don't go overboard on cores AMD. We get it. Fix the other shit first.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

3 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

AMD going down the FX route again. 

 

8c/16t is plenty, please chase IPC now. 

 

Increase core count for your HEDT platform and server chips. 

Well, I *would* like more cores as well, but YES please chase IPC now!!  I think even a couple years ago we should have already had CPUs that would do over 200 single-threaded Cinebench R15 at under 4 GHz.  By now we should be doing 300 CB at 4 GHz single-threaded, if not more.

 

My current desktop's i7-4790K has about double the score in single-threaded Cinebench, as I'd think my previous desktop's multi-threaded score on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ would have been.  I'd at least like my next CPU to make a similar jump over the 4790K, without having to resort to like 20 GHz clockspeeds which are unattainable with current tech, as I understand it.

 

Or for an even better improvement ... my dad's 486-120 he bought in October 1995 was I believe about seventy TIMES or so faster than the 286-10 (bought in January 1989) it replaced, and was about 1/3 the cost.  To start, the CPUs should catch up to where they would be if that pace of improvement had not slowed down.

 

Also I really want to be able to simultaneously encode multiple 4K HEVC lossless video in "placebo" preset at >120 fps each in Handbrake (BEFORE considering GPU assistance), not the ~ 0.0 fps (or taking FOUR(!) HOURS 16 MINUTES or longer to render a 17-SECOND video, and this on SSDs too!) my 4790K in desktop and 6700K in laptop currently d, without having to spend a fortune (as in more than $200-250) on a CPU.

 

 

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

We only don't need that many cores because we have never had that many cores. Look at mobile phones for instance, 8 core processors were common in mobile phones well before desktops, and I would say they're still not common in desktops.

I wonder why people think consumers don't need many cores?  Is it because we're not expected to run more than one or two things at once?

 

I do a little light multitasking here and there (and have a couple VMs running as well), although I'd really like to be able to step up the multitasking *WITHOUT* having to get an HEDT or server board.
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also I'd like to see RAM support greatly increased, and not just doubling - for example my next non-HEDT (4-DIMM) system needs to be able to support 1 TB of RAM at least before considering RDIMMs.

 

 

Anyway ... I'm hoping that performance will be met with my next planned upgrade, which for now is planned either when DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 are out on mainstream, or the 7-year warranty on my Corsair AX760 (bought in January 2015) expires.