Thursday, July 26th 2018
No 16-core AMD Ryzen AM4 Until After 7nm EPYC Launch (2019)
AMD in its Q2-2018 investors conference call dropped more hints at when it plans to launch its 3rd generation Ryzen processors, based on its "Zen2" architecture. CEO Lisa Su stated in the Q&A session that rollout of 7 nm Ryzen processors will only follow that of 7 nm EPYC (unlike 1st generation Ryzen preceding 1st generation EPYC). What this effectively means is that the fabled 16-core die with 8 cores per CCX won't make it to the desktop platform any time soon (at least not in the next three quarters, certainly not within 2018).
AMD CEO touched upon the development of the company's 7 nm "Rome" silicon, which will be at the heart of the company's 2nd generation EPYC processor family. 2nd generation EPYC, as you'd recall from our older article, is based on 7 nm "Zen2" architecture, and not 12 nm "Zen+." 3rd generation Ryzen is expected to be based on "Zen2." As of now, the company is said to have completed tape-out of "Rome," and is sending samples out to its industry partners for further testing and validation. The first EPYC products based on this will begin rolling out in 2019. The 7 nm process is also being used for a new "Vega" based GPU, which has taped out, and will see its first enterprise-segment product launch within 2018.
With "Zen 2" based client-segment product being slated for 2019, there doesn't appear to be any immediate counter from AMD to Intel's 14 nm 8-core "Whiskey Lake" silicon; beyond maybe launching existing 12 nm "Pinnacle Ridge" based products with higher clocks, or lowering prices. The company will be launching its 2nd generation Ryzen Threadripper processors within 2018, but those are HEDT products not designed to compete with "Whiskey Lake." Any interim new 12 nm "Zen+" silicon with >8 cores would go against what Dr. Su stated in her Q&A, and is hence unlikely. "Rome" was the only CPU development mentioned by Dr. Su.
Source:
AMD
AMD CEO touched upon the development of the company's 7 nm "Rome" silicon, which will be at the heart of the company's 2nd generation EPYC processor family. 2nd generation EPYC, as you'd recall from our older article, is based on 7 nm "Zen2" architecture, and not 12 nm "Zen+." 3rd generation Ryzen is expected to be based on "Zen2." As of now, the company is said to have completed tape-out of "Rome," and is sending samples out to its industry partners for further testing and validation. The first EPYC products based on this will begin rolling out in 2019. The 7 nm process is also being used for a new "Vega" based GPU, which has taped out, and will see its first enterprise-segment product launch within 2018.
29 Comments on No 16-core AMD Ryzen AM4 Until After 7nm EPYC Launch (2019)
AMD's biggest USP is (more) cores, not the only one but the most obvious. So there will definitely be a 12 core part released before 16 one, IMO anyway.
So if they're gonna sell Ryzen & it's derivatives over the next half a decade, then it makes sense to pace the increase in core count to a more sustainable level.
The vast majority of people is better served with CPUs with less cores and more aggressive clocks.
For those who need lots of cores for very specific tasks, that's what HEDT is for.
This "Intel wins" because overall performance is x.1111% better is becoming nauseating.
I might actually stick with Intel on this one. :fear:
Definitely'll be swapping the 1180 for an AMD equivelant if that arrives though, and if AMD can improve per-core performance enough AND increase corecount, I might have a team red pc before the end of next year!
If that 8-core CCX is true, AMD will more than likely just reap benefits from lower manufacturing costs as well as avoiding all the cross-CCX latency issues.Cost is where AMD currently wins. 2600X is not doing very well against 8700K.
And if we consider price then there's no match.
2600X is 6c/12t @ 3.6/4.2
8700K is 6c/12t @ 3.7/4.7
Depends on your definition of well, I guess.
Even in best case scenario tests for Ryzen like Cinebench R15, 8700K consistently does 5+% better. More in most other productivity tests.
They should have a substantial MT advantage (even a 8c8t will) in overall performance and at more modest clocks the efficiency differences are insignificant to most users (desktop power efficiency is not as critical as server).
Intel's current IMC has a good track record while AMD's struggles to get much further than 3000MHz so intel has plenty of headroom in the memory bandwidth.
AMD also will need to start offering significantly better ST performance to really get a stronghold on the desktop market, and the current indications hint that they will at best be closing the gap to in the order of 10%.
AMD can slash prices all they want but the fact that intel will continue to hold the best overall desktop performance means AMD is cut out of what intel has shown to be a very profitable product bracket.
That said, for now, intel has to get whatever sales they can in the desktop market because that is the only place where their current architecture has a real advantage. They are getting destroyed on the server side by TR and AMD is only going to build a bigger lead as it stands.
For the time being, topping at 8 cores on the desktop seems to be perfectly fine for all but hardcore users, maybe 99% of desktop users (not just us enthusiasts, but everybody). Adding an iGPU to it would make the proposition great for businesses that just need a working computer, no add-in cards needed (most office PCs are like that, very few workers need a powerfull GPU). It's what AMD needs to enter the volume market. At 7 nm, they should be able to cram 8 cores in a CCX (as the rumours circulating imply) plus a more than decent iGPU.
Then they would have the second die, with two 8 cores CCXs: that would allow the desktop to reach 16 cores on the AM4 socket, although without iGPU, the HEDT (Threadripper) to get to 32 cores (or even 64 if they use 4 working dies as is rumoured already for TR2, maybe limiting other features to segment the products and avoid cannibalizing the Epyc line, probably keeping 4 channel memory), and Epyc to reach 64c/128t with 8 channel memory and all the server grade features.
You have to consider the attainable clocks on an arch if you want to look at practical performance, just stating per clock performance is irrelevant. At the moment ryzen isn't showing that it will push 10% extra clock speed out of the blue, even on a new process, intel is already at those clocks, I already mentioned that all they need to get right is the TIM and motherboard manufacturers need to actually ship good VRMs on sub $200 boards.
I only spent $220 for it and will give someone a good deal when I sell it to grab the latest and greatest and wont have lost much money compared to if I bought a 2700x (~$320) now.
Of course you have to consider attainable clocks when judging performance, that's why I specified AMD needs to increase clock speeds. If AMD could clock even close to Intel they would be in great shape.
I don't know how you can claim that a new process won't help.
where my X470 ITX can rock the same number of cores (with improvement) within maybe a year.
Look at SB to IVB and HSW to BDW, both cases the new node lost somewhere around 300MHz. Not to mention that the newer skylake iterations are faster by nature of being on the same node after several refinements.