Base 1.6 Boost 3.0 ?

Obviously, since this is stepping A0 it means it's the first tape out, meaning it's a waste of time to look at clock speeds.

Anyway, Zen 3 it's clearly on it's way to the EPYC line, meanwhile still no Xeon competitor in sight.

Epyc Xeon destroyer ;)

btarunrtowards increasing performance by doing away with the CCX

The CCX is just going to be 8 cores instead of 4. They cannot ”do away with the CCX” unless they go for monolithic dies.

DrediThe CCX is just going to be 8 cores instead of 4. They cannot ”do away with the CCX” unless they go for monolithic dies.

Considering the latency penalty for the CCX and node refinement they could put the CCX on multiple dies and stack them together at higher speed.

SteevoConsidering the latency penalty for the CCX and node refinement they could put the CCX on multiple dies and stack them together at higher speed.

They would still have CCX based architecture unless they unify the L3 cache. CCX = group of processor cores that share L3 cache.

DrediThey would still have CCX based architecture unless they unify the L3 cache. CCX = group of processor cores that share L3 cache.

Yes this is true. But the main thing about CCX is how Inter-core communication is done. In a CCX, the core to core communication can be done directly where between CCX, the data have to go thru the Infinity Fabric to the I/O die back to the Other CCX.

This lead to greatly increased latency. If we ignore thermal, frequency and other stuff, a CPU with 2x 4+0 CCD or chiplet will behave the same way as a 4+4 single CCD/chiplet.

A full die is considered a CCD. Since not only you remove the requirement to use the Infinity Fabric but also merge the L3 cache, you end up removing at all the concept of CCX to only keep a 8 core CCD. Altought there, it's more playing with the words. The whole concept of CCX is to split a CCD. if the CCD is no longer split, what is the CCX?

Don't really matter in the end but the good things we will get rid of the inter-core latency between CCX. That is the main thing.

A Shared L3 cache will probably help if the latency isn't too much affected. The problem with bigger cache is the larger it is, the longer it take to perform the cache lookup, hence reducing the latency.

The rumors are that AMD will use a new techology using hash for managing larger cache. We will see.


For workload like Blender render, Cinebench or other highly multithreadable application, the inter-core latency have probably low impact because there isn't much to do anyway. But for things like video game that use a lot of core, it's very probable that there will be significative gains from that change alone.

PunkenjoyYes this is true. But the main thing about CCX is how Inter-core communication is done. In a CCX, the core to core communication can be done directly where between CCX, the data have to go thru the Infinity Fabric to the I/O die back to the Other CCX.

This lead to greatly increased latency. If we ignore thermal, frequency and other stuff, a CPU with 2x 4+0 CCD or chiplet will behave the same way as a 4+4 single CCD/chiplet.

A full die is considered a CCD. Since not only you remove the requirement to use the Infinity Fabric but also merge the L3 cache, you end up removing at all the concept of CCX to only keep a 8 core CCD. Altought there, it's more playing with the words. The whole concept of CCX is to split a CCD. if the CCD is no longer split, what is the CCX?

Don't really matter in the end but the good things we will get rid of the inter-core latency between CCX. That is the main thing.

A Shared L3 cache will probably help if the latency isn't too much affected. The problem with bigger cache is the larger it is, the longer it take to perform the cache lookup, hence reducing the latency.

The rumors are that AMD will use a new techology using hash for managing larger cache. We will see.


For workload like Blender render, Cinebench or other highly multithreadable application, the inter-core latency have probably low impact because there isn't much to do anyway. But for things like video game that use a lot of core, it's very probable that there will be significative gains from that change alone.

CCX is a memory topology concept while CCD is a physical component. Both can be of the same size and them being the same size does in no way invalidate the concept of CCX. Of cource for a 8 core gaming pc this means no more dealing with CCX peculiarities, but for this news items 64 core EPYCs it makes only a small-ish difference of 8 CCX’s vs 16. The change has more to do with effectively having more cache as less of data needs to be copied into multiple L3 caches in some workloads. Also for single/low threaded tasks you effectively double the amount of cache available.