Tuesday, March 28th 2017

AMD 16-core Ryzen a Multi-Chip Module of two "Summit Ridge" Dies

With core performance back to competitiveness, AMD is preparing to take on Intel in the HEDT "high-end desktop" segment with a new line of processors that are larger than its current socket AM4 "Summit Ridge," desktop processors, but smaller in core-count than its 32-core "Naples" enterprise processors. These could include 12-core and 16-core parts, and the picture is getting clearer with an exclusive report by Turkish tech publication DonanimHaber. The biggest revelation here that the 12-core and 16-core Ryzen processors will be multi-chip modules (MCMs) of two "Summit Ridge" dies. The 12-core variant will be carved out by disabling 1 core per CCX (3+3+3+3).

Another revelation is that the 12-core and 16-core Ryzen processors will be built in a new LGA package with pin-counts in excess of 4,000 pins. Since it's an MCM of two "Summit Ridge" dies, the memory bus width and PCIe lanes will be doubled. The chip will feature a quad-channel DDR4 memory interface, and will have a total of 58 PCI-Express gen 3.0 lanes (only one of the two dies will put out the PCI-Express 3.0 x4 A-Link chipset bus). The increase in core count isn't coming with a decrease in clock speeds. The 12-core variant will hence likely have its TDP rated at 140W, and the 16-core variant at 180W. AMD is expected to unveil these chips at the 2017 Computex expo in Taipei, this June, with product launches following shortly after.
Source: DonanimHaber (YouTube)
Add your own comment

62 Comments on AMD 16-core Ryzen a Multi-Chip Module of two "Summit Ridge" Dies

#51
idx
HopelesslyFaithfulyou said you don't need AA which is factually wrong and spreads bad info. AA still makes a significant differences especially 2x AA.

Stop trying to save face.

This gmae does really well without AA but still 2x makes a good difference
www.extremetech.com/gaming/180402-five-things-to-know-about-4k-gaming-were-glitching-our-way-to-gaming-nirvana/3

I play mostly older games and AA makes a world of a difference. I think newer games have done better at not needing AA as much.
Save face ? what kind of mentality are you...

Anyway, what I am saying is a fact, everyone agree that having 4x the pixels (as real physical pixels) is way better than having 4x AA that is trying to repeat pixels in order to fill up the aliasing in pictures.
Posted on Reply
#52
pantherx12
HopelesslyFaithfulyour dumb. You need AA at 4K 27 in monitor.
Surely someone's AA requirements depend on many factors.

Here's a few!

Distance from screen, people all tend to have a preference for how close or far away a screen is.

Eyesight, people may not be able to distinguish between no AA and 8xAA thanks to poor genetics or other factors.

Performance : Is the visual improvement worth the performance hit, can the end users hard ware handle the game.


Game engine : Some games engines handle edges better than others and barely need AA in the first instance.


Try not to get your personal preferences confused with "needs". Less friction that way and every body gets to enjoy the forum without being insulted.

Anywhom!



Anyone going to be buying one of these 16 core behemoths?

What do you intend to use yours for.
Posted on Reply
#53
HopelesslyFaithful
bugI was never able to see 2xMSAA's benefits. 4x is the minimum required. 2x makes a little difference that I can only see in screenshots or if I sit still in game and look for details.

And those pictures tell us squat. Of course you're going to see jaggies when you look at a 4k screenshot on a FHD monitor (you're actually zooming in). The question is: are those jaggies visible when the pixel is physically 4x smaller?
I have 27in 1440P and 27 in 4K screen...I play at 4K all the time but mostly older games and AA helps a ton.
idxSave face ? what kind of mentality are you...

Anyway, what I am saying is a fact, everyone agree that having 4x the pixels (as real physical pixels) is way better than having 4x AA that is trying to repeat pixels in order to fill up the aliasing in pictures.
never said 4x pixels wasn't better. I simply said its fact that AA helps even on 4K.
Posted on Reply
#54
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
HopelesslyFaithfulnever said 4x pixels wasn't better. I simply said its fact that AA helps even on 4K.
I bet you couldn't see the difference on my monitor.
Posted on Reply
#56
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
HopelesslyFaithfulhuh?
I would bet money you would not be able to tell the difference between 16af/8aa on my monitor and none.
Posted on Reply
#57
HopelesslyFaithful
cdawallI would bet money you would not be able to tell the difference between 16af/8aa on my monitor and none.
I don't know what monitor you have so can't comment.

any AA makes a difference but going from 8x-16x or whatever is not anywhere as near dramatic as no AA to 2/4x AA.

More AA usually helps but there are diminishing returns.

It also depends the game on content on screen.

Older games show jaggedness way more than new games due to graphics differences.

old games had far more straight lines/
Posted on Reply
#58
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
HopelesslyFaithfulI don't know what monitor you have so can't comment.

any AA makes a difference but going from 8x-16x or whatever is not anywhere as near dramatic as no AA to 2/4x AA.

More AA usually helps but there are diminishing returns.

It also depends the game on content on screen.

Older games show jaggedness way more than new games due to graphics differences.

old games had far more straight lines/
It is listed in my sys specs... 23.8" 4k
Posted on Reply
#59
bug
cdawallIt is listed in my sys specs... 23.8" 4k
I would bet money he's one of the people that can tell 4k from FHD on a 5" smartphone ;)
Posted on Reply
#60
HopelesslyFaithful
bugI would bet money he's one of the people that can tell 4k from FHD on a 5" smartphone ;)
4K vs FHD...yes...thats still in the range of human eye. 8K vs 4K no (beyond human eye). 4K vs 1440P not likely for me. I know people who can.

Human eye can see 720 PPI at 1 foot away. That is why prints are done at 600-720 DPI.

Again you prove to be a twit and fail to understand basic knowledge.

1080P 5 in=440.58ppi
1440P 5 in =587.44 PPI
4K 5 in = 881.16 PPI

300 DPI prints vs 600 DPI prints are very noticeable. I must prefer 600 DPI prints.
“If the average reading distance is 1 foot (12 inches = 305 mm), p @0.4 arc minute is 35.5 microns or about 720 ppi/dpi. p @1 arc minute is 89 microns or about 300 dpi/ppi. This is why magazines are printed at 300 dpi – it’s good enough for most people. Fine art printers aim for 720, and that’s the best it need be. Very few people stick their heads closer than 1 foot away from a painting or photograph.”
techdissected.com/ask-ted/ask-ted-how-many-ppi-can-the-human-eye-see/
Posted on Reply
#61
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
bugI would bet money he's one of the people that can tell 4k from FHD on a 5" smartphone ;)
I never argued that I argued the ability for him specifically to see the difference between aa and not on my specific monitor.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 19th, 2024 07:51 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts