# CPU running at 5+ GHz, 8+ cores and using DDR5 memory modules



## Felipe.deleon (Jun 5, 2013)

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2919194#post2919194I was reading the: New A10 review and thinking????
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/A10-6800K/

Now with the PS4 and XBOX one, they have to release CPU suport to DDR5 and DDR5 memory modules, compared the today best DDR3 a DDR5 clocked at 1700 MHz is more them 10 times fast.

A APU with a IGPU clock at 1000 Mhz and using DDR5 1700 Mhz would probably kill all low and middle range VGA and would be much cheap compared to a overall system off CPU, memory, VGA and etc...

The CPU running at 5+ GHz, 8+ cores and using DDR5 will be the step forward that everyone is hoped, *5 to 10 % improve over the last ''generation'' come on!, i wanna to see 100% 200% 500% improve they can do way not? *

If the industry was really to please the consumer a would expected a APU 5+ Ghz 8+ cores and DDR5 memory modules to at least Q4 2014, But i don't believe it maybe 2015 late 2015.

The way for me is because they wanted to sell more and more of this crap CPU, APU, and over price GPU. Than comes a CEO says that the next console generation is two steps over the today PC, of course you are holding down the whole industry.

Now that AMD is producing this new CPU/GPU crap for the next game consoles, for me is the time to they over passed Intel  at least in CPU power not in money in the beginning but is a beginning to one day they pass in money too.

*Way not!!!???*

*What you think? *

See my second post to better understand ... Second post...


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 5, 2013)

Just trying to understnd what your asking?


----------



## erixx (Jun 5, 2013)

Consoles are crap, indeed. And sellers release stuff when they feel it's right. As old as the first time a human milked a cow.


----------



## natr0n (Jun 5, 2013)

The PC doesn't need more power/cores if programs aren't going to utilize them.

I don't think AMD can beat Intel's CPU designs anymore. Maybe they will have something, but I doubt it.

You're asking to many things at once almost venting about it.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 5, 2013)

natr0n said:


> The PC doesn't need more power/cores if programs aren't going to utilize them.
> 
> I don't think AMD can beat Intel's CPU designs anymore. Maybe they will have something, but I doubt it.
> 
> You're asking to many things at once almost venting about it.


Its not that far fetched as they can Do all the above already individually and some combined just not all at the same time in one chip and they probably could but it would be effin massive and a possible full house heater And very eexpensive  to make and buy


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2013)

natr0n said:


> The PC doesn't need more power/cores if programs aren't going to utilize them.
> 
> I don't think AMD can beat Intel's CPU designs anymore. Maybe they will have something, but I doubt it.
> 
> You're asking to many things at once almost venting about it.



Why can AMD's design not beat Intel's? The world is multithreaded now, AMD outperforms Intel in that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 5, 2013)

Pretty sure that's GDDR5, not DD5.  DDR4 spec I think has just recently been released to manufacturers.


----------



## radrok (Jun 5, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Why can AMD's design not beat Intel's? The world is multithreaded now, AMD outperforms Intel in that.



I still remember when AMD was a top dog and Intel was still selling more just because of it's name...


----------



## d1nky (Jun 5, 2013)

one word


MONEY!!


----------



## natr0n (Jun 5, 2013)

4 post in 5 years btw


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 5, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Why can AMD's design not beat Intel's? The world is multithreaded now, AMD outperforms Intel in that.



Not really. Not all the time. Especially in gaming. And you have to consider Intel uses less power to accomplish tasks. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Intel because of the shady practice they did a few years back. When a friend asks me for a tip in building PCs it's always AMD. AMD is considerably cheaper than both nVidia and Intel.

AMD has to fight off several competitors at the same time and I am amazed they're still in business. Funny thing about it is they are competing with themselves this time. It was a good business move, though. They have thought that people buying consoles must likely wouldn't bother building PC's anyway.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2013)

toilet pepper said:


> Not really. Not all the time. Especially in gaming. And you have to consider Intel uses less power to accomplish tasks.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't like Intel because of the shady practice they did a few years back. When a friend asks me for a tip in building PCs it's always AMD. AMD is considerably cheaper than both nVidia and Intel.
> 
> AMD has to fight off several competitors at the same time and I am amazed they're still in business. Funny thing about it is they are competing with themselves this time. It was a good business move, though. They have thought that people buying consoles must likely wouldn't bother building PC's anyway.



No go get a properly multithreaded application and compare apples to apples (3570K/3770K vs 8320/8350) and most of the time the AMD side wins. Especially if it takes advantage of the superior instruction set on the AMD chips.

Games are hit and miss. Metro performs well, Crysis 3 performs well, BF3 performs well etc.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 6, 2013)

5GHz+ not going to happen can't fit that type of cooling in a console. 8 cores can happen, DDR4 will be out late this year


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 6, 2013)

cdawall said:


> No go get a properly multithreaded application and compare apples to apples (3570K/3770K vs 8320/8350) and most of the time the AMD side wins. Especially if it takes advantage of the superior instruction set on the AMD chips.
> 
> Games are hit and miss. Metro performs well, Crysis 3 performs well, BF3 performs well etc.



Yup! I know that a reason I have an 8320 on my rig. But on Intel's side, if they win - they win by a landslide. And again by using considerably less power. 

If you could see where AMD is going and what Intel is focusing on, AMD might be able to catch-up with Intel. If softwares would be all multi-threaded then a little fine tuning with AMD's IPC and topping it off with a smaller node process (or just make it more efficient) , then Intel might be in big trouble. Intel is pretty much competing with itself at this point that's why they are pushing the mobile market.


----------



## Frick (Jun 6, 2013)

100-500% improvemet from one generation to another? I dont think that has ever happened, nor will it happen. For one making CPUs is bloody diffficult, and to get that stuff you want is bloody sodding difficult. Which brings us to money. They might be able to make a couple of chips like that, but they would have to be insanely expensive. Then we have the thing others have talked about here: needs. What would you do with that kind of power? Few peoplr would be able to utilize it. And who in their right mind would not try to cater to as many as possible?


----------



## blibba (Jun 6, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pretty sure that's GDDR5, not DD5.



Yes. GDDR5 is a form of DDR3 that prioritises bandwidth over latency. It would not constitute a performance improvement if used to replace DDR3 in desktop systems.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 6, 2013)

natr0n said:


> The PC doesn't need more power/cores if programs aren't going to utilize them.
> 
> I don't think AMD can beat Intel's CPU designs anymore. Maybe they will have something, but I doubt it.
> 
> You're asking to many things at once almost venting about it.



its not that they cant, they wont. its all a scam between intel and AMD


----------



## DinaAngel (Jun 6, 2013)

just a hope tho, cheap AMD quantum cpus, i wonder who will take the first step, either Intel or AMD. IBM has made quantum computer but a pure quantum cpu hasn't been fully made, scientists they have made some samples with Qbits but silicon cant go on forever, someone hafto make the step


----------



## Geofrancis (Jun 8, 2013)

I would like to see amd release an itx version of a ps4 8 cores, 8gb gddr5 and a good APU this could be the basis of the next steambox.


----------



## TheTechWard (Jun 8, 2013)

Intel have made 80+ core processors for the military, the hardware we see is nothing to whats created

http://news.cnet.com/Intel-shows-off-80-core-processor/2100-1006_3-6158181.html


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 8, 2013)

Felipe.deleon said:


> What you think?



I think that you don't quite know what you're talking about. If it were so easy to improve performance they would have done it by now. There also has to be a need for it, and on personal computers, it isn't there. For most purposes the i3 and i5 will suit the vast majority of people's needs. The people who actually need say an i7 or xeon(s) are very few.

So I think it's unrealistic to see more than 5-10% performance improvements as far as IPC is concerned because so much as been squeezed out of the platform (for Intel) already. As for more cores, you need software that's actually going to utilize it and the need to utilize it before you're going to see software taking advantage of it. Most software doesn't need more than 4 cores as it stands right now (in fact most software really doesn't even need that much). You're doing something pretty specific if you're running software that's going to peg 8 logical cores.

So I have one question for you: What are you doing that is getting you so worked up about the improvement from one generation to the next? It's not like CPUs are underperforming, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. I'm actually incredibly happy with the performance of my i7 3820 and I'll be holding on to it for many years to come.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 8, 2013)

I still don't understand what he was talking about because most of that is not true, the next gen consoles are not going to have 5Ghz+ cpu's like that and based on the raw performance of the CPU's I don't even think they could outperform a 2500K.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 9, 2013)

KainXS said:


> I still don't understand what he was talking about because most of that is not true, the next gen consoles are not going to have 5Ghz+ cpu's like that and based on the raw performance of the CPU's I don't even think they could outperform a 2500K.



Should have read the Op he's basically saying why can't intel or amd make an Apu with it All ie 8 FAST cores and a gpu that makes discretes pointless for most.
For pcs though , consoles were only mentionened as the apus announced sound promising but a bit light for a pc.
It's technically do able imho but not commercially viable due to die size.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 9, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> It's technically do able imho but not commercially viable due to die size.



Yields on bigger dies tend to be worse as they get bigger, so there comes a nice hefty price that comes along with it and the simple fact is, the market isn't there.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 10, 2013)

Frick said:


> 100-500% improvemet from one generation to another? I dont think that has ever happened, nor will it happen. For one making CPUs is bloody diffficult, and to get that stuff you want is bloody sodding difficult. Which brings us to money. They might be able to make a couple of chips like that, but they would have to be insanely expensive. Then we have the thing others have talked about here: needs. What would you do with that kind of power? Few peoplr would be able to utilize it. And who in their right mind would not try to cater to as many as possible?



Yes that has happened....the 286 was about 400% faster than the 8086 and the 386 was at least 100% faster then the 286....the Pentium was about 100% faster then the 486 C2Q doubled what the Pentium could do and was at least 70% faster then the Pentium D's 
But since around 2006 all we have seen is small improvements and 5 socket changes from Intel and 4 mostly backwards compatible changes from AMD...

It's not unlikely to happen because it can't happen its unlikely to happen because people will pay for 5-10% improvements every 6 months nowadays.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 10, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Should have read the Op he's basically saying why can't intel or amd make an Apu with it All ie 8 FAST cores and a gpu that makes discretes pointless for most.
> For pcs though , consoles were only mentionened as the apus announced sound promising but a bit light for a pc.
> It's technically do able imho but not commercially viable due to die size.



Heat output would be the part that really killed you. AMD is looking at 220w for the fx9000 the tdp of a 7970 isn't any lower. Now you are looking at 400-500w in a single package not to mention the wafer is approaching the size of an ipod. It might be doable but its not easily cooled nor is it feasibly produced.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 10, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Heat output would be the part that really killed you. AMD is looking at 220w for the fx9000 the tdp of a 7970 isn't any lower. Now you are looking at 400-500w in a single package not to mention the wafer is approaching the size of an ipod. It might be doable but its not easily cooled nor is it feasibly produced.



That's what I said not commercially viable.


----------



## Felipe.deleon (Jun 10, 2013)

Frick said:


> 100-500% improvemet from one generation to another? I dont think that has ever happened, nor will it happen.


I think it will... 
Delta6326 posted Crucial.com - Crucial DDR4 coming soon!







Crucial is saying that Next-gen DDR4 memory will be 2x fast compared to DDR3, for me that is 100% over one generation.
...................................

As I wrote i expected a chip like that to Q4 2014 and i'm not crazy thinking about it, for me is very possible, no one can really say how it will be, i believe it will be a chip 5+ Ghz with 8+ cores and a more advanced memory module don't now if ddr4, ddr5, Gddr5 or something call FRR189  , and that chip will have a great IGPU integrated to it.

My point of view is like this:

They already can making 16 core in the same space that they make a 8 core the example is the Opteron 6000 family 16 core's is  in the the same Dye size of a FX-8000 8 core's family, i know you can't compare those two but in term of space i will. Don't now how they can fit that in the same space, but they have the technology, this CPU's using 32 nm technology is expected to 2014 for the 16 nm technology be in use. TSMC 16nm FinFET to enter mass production within one year after 20nm ramp-up, says Chang

So using this 16 nm technology or something link that, improving the FX-9000 family a 5+ Ghz family (for it consume less energy) combined to the Opteron 6000 family a 16 core family, plus making space to put in a really good IGPU and using the next memory module technology to feed it all, I believe i will see that crazy, expensive and energy consuming chip between 2014 and 2015, and it will not be expensive and energy consuming.


For those that say it is not commercially viable, yes today it is not, but for me a 1000 VGA is not either and we all see one be brought to sale, and all their buyers satisfied even at this price Nvidia surprised the Titan outsold the year-old GTX 690, so if a 1000 CPU and 1000 memory and a 1000 MB be brought to sale it will have buyers...

I wanted is something like this friendly war between AMD and Nvidea on the GPU world, happening on the CPU world between AMD and Intel or any other company fighting for the number one spot. 


So explain a little better my thoughts, what i really what to now is...

*Do you believe a chip like that is possible? if yes when and what technology's it will use?*

I know i write too much at the same time  is because i don't have much internet time were i leave, and form my writing errors, i never have a english teacher born very far away from any english speaking country and still live far away.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 10, 2013)

DDR4 won't be twice as fast right out of the box. Clock speed and bandwidth are a fickle thing it might be 2100mhz but at what timings. As for the 16 core opterons go find a picture of them they have a pair of dies on them with a hypertransport bus onboard to interlink them. The physical chip size is double what you would find in a desktop.

Oh and 2133mhz DDR3 1.2v modules exist now http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185397

You will not see a 5 GHz octacore with am onboard high end GPU anytime soon. Keep dreaming.


----------



## Felipe.deleon (Jun 10, 2013)

cdawall said:


> DDR4 won't be twice as fast right out of the box. Clock speed and bandwidth are a fickle thing it might be 2100mhz but at what timings. As for the 16 core opterons go find a picture of them they have a pair of dies on them with a hypertransport bus onboard to interlink them. The physical chip size is double what you would find in a desktop.
> 
> Oh and 2133mhz DDR3 1.2v modules exist now http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185397
> 
> You will not see a 5 GHz octacore with am onboard high end GPU anytime soon. Keep dreaming.



yes i will see it, the industry is going to this APU thing.

about opterons size i don't now much but the TPU CPU data base is this:

Opteron 6282 SE Die Size:	316 mm²

AMD FX-8350 Die Size:	315 mm²

for me the same size?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 10, 2013)

It has two dies
















huge size difference

and you wont see ANYTHING on the mainstream side with that large of a die size coupling something like a 7970 and FX9000 together there is not cooling available nor is there a need. Maybe a couple years down the road, but right now they can barely get a midrange CPU/GPU mated together and keep a reasonable TDP.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 10, 2013)

Felipe.deleon said:


> I think it will...
> Delta6326 posted Crucial.com - Crucial DDR4 coming soon!



Do you know how long JEDEC has been working on the DDR4 spec? They started working on the DDR4 spec in 2005. It's just getting released in the near future. We're talking 8 years of research and development. Also that graph isn't accurate because it only specifies JEDEC spec speeds. DDR3 already achieves 2133Mhz and higher and most CPUs these days can't even take full advantage of it, so I don't see where more memory performance is really going to help us as far as CPU speed is concerned. Storing data is a much different animal than the CPU itself. In fact the trend that isn't shown here is that with every revision of DDR, less and less of the circuitry inside a DIMM is actually storing data and there is more control and logic circuitry now than there is memory.



Felipe.deleon said:


> yes i will see it, the industry is going to this APU thing.
> 
> about opterons size i don't now much but the TPU CPU data base is this:
> 
> ...



You missed how the Opteron 6282 SE has twice as many transistors. I'm also pretty sure that the Opteron 6282 is a two-die CPU. The two L3 caches is a dead giveaway.



cdawall said:


> It has two dies
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/130610/Capture005.jpg
> 
> ...



edit: You got to it before I did.


----------



## Ephremius (Jun 21, 2013)

Geofrancis said:


> I would like to see amd release an itx version of a ps4 8 cores, 8gb gddr5 and a good APU this could be the basis of the next steambox.



Or just buy the PS4 and login to steam through PS Store... PS3 lets you login to steam, I am sure PS4 will as well.


----------

