Monday, May 23rd 2022

AMD Unveils 5 nm Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" Desktop Processors & AM5 DDR5 Platform

AMD today unveiled its next-generation Ryzen 7000 desktop processors, based on the Socket AM5 desktop platform. The new Ryzen 7000 series processors introduce the new "Zen 4" microarchitecture, with the company claiming a 15% single-threaded uplift over "Zen 3" (16-core/32-thread Zen 4 processor prototype compared to a Ryzen 9 5950X). Other key specs about the architecture put out by AMD include a doubling in per-core L2 cache to 1 MB, up from 512 KB on all older versions of "Zen." The Ryzen 7000 desktop CPUs will boost to frequencies above 5.5 GHz. Based on the way AMD has worded their claims, it seems that the "+15%" number includes IPC gains, plus gains from higher clocks, plus what the DDR4 to DDR5 transition achieves. With Zen 4, AMD is introducing a new instruction set for AI compute acceleration. The transition to the LGA1718 Socket AM5 allows AMD to use next-generation I/O, including DDR5 memory, and PCI-Express Gen 5, both for the graphics card, and the M.2 NVMe slot attached to the CPU socket.

Much like Ryzen 3000 "Matisse," and Ryzen 5000 "Vermeer," the Ryzen 7000 "Raphael" desktop processor is a multi-chip module with up to two "Zen 4" CCDs (CPU core dies), and one I/O controller die. The CCDs are built on the 5 nm silicon fabrication process, while the I/O die is built on the 6 nm process, a significant upgrade from previous-generation I/O dies that were built on 12 nm. The leap to 5 nm for the CCD enables AMD to cram up to 16 "Zen 4" cores per socket, all of which are "performance" cores. The "Zen 4" CPU core is larger, on account of more number-crunching machinery to achieve the IPC increase and new instruction-sets, as well as the larger per-core L2 cache. The cIOD packs a pleasant surprise—an iGPU based on the RDNA2 graphics architecture! Now most Ryzen 7000 processors will pack integrated graphics, just like Intel Core desktop processors.
The Socket AM5 platform is capable of up to 24 PCI-Express 5.0 lanes from the processor. 16 of these are meant for the PCI-Express graphics slots (PEG), while four of these go toward an M.2 NVMe slot attached to the CPU—if you recall, Intel "Alder Lake" processors have 16 Gen 5 lanes toward PEG, but the CPU-attached NVMe slot runs at Gen 4. The processor features dual-channel DDR5 (four sub-channel) memory, identical to "Alder Lake," but with no DDR4 memory support. Unlike Intel, the AM5 Socket retains cooler compatibility with AM4, so the cooler you have sitting on your Ryzen CPU right now, will work perfectly fine.

The platform also puts out up to 14 USB 20 Gbps ports, including type-C. With onboard graphics now making it to most processor models, motherboards will feature up to four DisplayPort 2 or HDMI 2.1 ports. The company will also standardize Wi-Fi 6E + Bluetooth WLAN solutions it co-developed with MediaTek, weaning motherboard designers away from Intel-made WLAN solutions.

At its launch, in Fall 2022, AMD's AM5 platform will come with three motherboard chipset options—the AMD X670 Extreme (X670E), the AMD X670, and the AMD B650. The X670 Extreme was probably made by re-purposing the new-generation 6 nm cIOD die to work as a motherboard chipset, which means its 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes work toward building an "all Gen 5" motherboard platform. The X670 (non-extreme), is very likely a rebadged X570, which means you get up to 20 Gen 4 PCIe lanes from the chipset, while retaining PCIe Gen 5 PEG and CPU-attached NVMe connectivity. The B650 chipset is designed to offer Gen 4 PCIe PEG, Gen 5 CPU-attached NVMe, and likely Gen 3 connectivity from the chipset.
AMD is betting big on next-generation M.2 NVMe SSDs with PCI-Express Gen 5, and is gunning to be the first desktop platform with PCIe Gen 5-based M.2 slots. The company is said to be working with Phison to optimize the first round of Gen 5 SSDs for the platform.
All major motherboard vendors are ready with Socket AM5 motherboards. AMD showcased a handful, including the ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Extreme, the ASRock X670E Taichi, MSI MEG X670E ACE, GIGABYTE X670E AORUS Xtreme, and the BIOSTAR X670E Valkyrie.

AMD is working to introduce several platform-level innovations like it did with Smart Access Memory with its Radeon RX 6000 series, which builds on top of the PCIe Resizable BAR technology by the PCI-SIG. The new AMD Smart Access Storage technology builds on Microsoft DirectStorage, by adding AMD platform-awareness, and optimization for AMD CPU and GPU architectures. DirectStorage enables direct transfers between a storage device and the GPU memory, without the data having to route through the CPU cores. In terms of power delivery Zen 4 uses the same SVI3 voltage control interface that we saw introduced on the Ryzen Mobile 6000 Series. For desktop this means the ability to address a higher number of VRM phases and to process voltage changes much faster than with SVI2 on AM4.
Taking a closer look at the AMD Footnotes, "RPL-001", we find out that the "15% IPC gain" figure is measured using Cinebench and compares a Ryzen 9 5950X processor (not 5800X3D), on a Socket AM4 platform with DDR4-3600 CL16 memory, to the new Zen 4 platform running at DDR5-6000 CL30 memory. If we go by the measurements from our Alder Lake DDR5 Performance Scaling article, then this memory difference alone will account for roughly 5% of the 15% gains.

The footnotes also reference a "RPL-003" claim that's not used anywhere in our pre-briefing slide deck, but shown in the video presentation. In the presentation we're seeing a live demo comparison between a "Ryzen 7000 Series" processor and Intel's Core i9-12900K "Alder Lake." It's worth mentioning here that AMD isn't disclosing the exact processor model, only that it's a 16-core part, if we follow the Zen 3 naming, that would probably be the Ryzen 9 7950X flagship. The comparison runs the Blender rendering software, which loads all CPU cores. Here we see the Ryzen 7000 chip finish the task in 204 seconds, compared to the i9-12900K and its 297 seconds time, which is a huge 31% difference—very impressive. It's worth mentioning that the memory configurations are slightly mismatched. Intel is running with DDR5-6000 CL30, whereas the Ryzen is tested with DDR5-6400 CL32—lower latency for Intel, higher MHz for Ryzen. While ideally we'd like to see identical memory used, the differences due to the memory configuration should be very small.
AMD is targeting a Fall 2022 launch for the Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" desktop processor family, which would put this sometime between September thru October. The company is likely to detail the "Zen 4" microarchitecture and the Ryzen 7000 SKU list in the coming weeks.

Update 21:00 UTC: AMD has clarified that the 170 W PPT power numbers seen are the absolute max limits, not "typical" like the 105 W, on Zen 3, which were often exceeded during heavy usage.

Update May 26th: AMD further clarified that the 170 W number is "TDP", not "PPT", which means that when the usual x1.35 factor is applied, actual power usage can go up to 230 W.

You can watch the whole presentation again at YouTube:
Add your own comment

211 Comments on AMD Unveils 5 nm Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" Desktop Processors & AM5 DDR5 Platform

#51
jesdals
Looks good but will still wait for gen 2 AM5 motherboards because of DDR5 implementation - but hopefully we will se Intels counter showing the true performance with DDR5. But nice to see progress.
Posted on Reply
#53
Verpal
ARFThe scary thing here is if AMD decided to make the Radeon RX 7400 with PCIe 5 x2 connectivity. Then we are all screwed all along :banghead:

:kookoo:
I wanted to laugh at this statement but I also laughed at the idea of AMD will launch something with pcie x4 before so......
Posted on Reply
#54
Pumper
Disappointing. Only 15% up when the CPU is boosting 400-500MHz higher is really not impressive.

And what is up with that comparison to 12900K? In 5950x vs Zen4 they are using 3600CL16 vs 6000CL30, but vs Intel they use the same 6000CL30 for Intel and 6400CL32 for Zen4, for whatever reason - why not use the same RAM, especially when you already have the Zen4 +6000CL30 RAM system at hand?

MT looks impressive, but then again they are using some in house benchmark for that instead of Cinebench, which they could have used instead, so it's impossible to tell if it will perform that good in the real world (5950X is only ~5% faster than 12900K in rendering, according to TPU tests).

No gaming numbers also shows that AMD is not confident in the performance advantage vs the current Intel CPU, not to mention their own 5800X3D. No wonder they chose not to release 5900X3D and 5950X3D as these would just end up beating Zen4.

Was waiting for Zen4 to see if I should upgrade from my 3900X to 5950X, now that these are going for 500€. Looks like there is no point in going for Zen4, especially when it requires a new mobo, new ram and new cooling on top of the CPU.
Posted on Reply
#55
zlobby
We now need the mobile parts!
Posted on Reply
#56
ARF
PumperDisappointing. Only 15% up when the CPU is boosting 400-500MHz higher is really not impressive.

And what is up with that comparison to 12900K? In 5950x vs Zen4 they are using 3600CL16 vs 6000CL30, but vs Intel they use the same 6000CL30 for Intel and 6400CL32 for Zen4, for whatever reason - why not use the same RAM, especially when you already have the Zen4 +6000CL30 RAM system at hand?

MT looks impressive, but then again they are using some in house benchmark for that instead of Cinebench, which they could have used instead, so it's impossible to tell if it will perform that good in the real world (5950X is only ~5% faster than 12900K in rendering).

Was waiting for Zen4 to see if I should upgrade from my 3900X to 5950X, now that these are going for 500€. Looks like there is no point in going for Zen4, especially when it requires a new mobo, new ram and new cooling on top of the CPU.
Well, I guess the potential negative reviews will push AMD to decrease the prices of the platform.
Because otherwise, AMD will not sell well. The prices are too high as is.
Posted on Reply
#57
Denver
oxrufiioxoMaybe but the wording in their slide saying ST performance and not IPC leads me to believe they are factoring in the clock speed increases already.

Also the MT performance increase was pretty underwhelming the 5950X is already about 20% faster in Blender vs the 12900k so 11% beyond that is pretty meh.

Hopefully I'm wrong or they are underselling it.
Nope.
Posted on Reply
#58
Daven
The biggest missing spec is the L3 cache configuration, specifically 3D V-cache. I wonder if AMD is still deciding on what to do.

Edit: oh and also AMD is staying max power is 170W but most sites think this means base power. To me it seems like 170W is the power at max boost which would compare to the 240W of Alder Lake.

Edit: upon further looking at MSI AM5 mboard marketing material, it compares the 65-105W TDP of AM4 to 65-170W TDP of AM5. Nothing released today insinuates 170W base TDP so I’m guessing this is future proofing for higher core counts.

Edit: even more confusing, we have a 5.5 ghz clock in a gaming demo and a 15% ST gain in cinebench. Impossible to tell if clocks were the same in both cases.

Edit: I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say clocks were similar between the 5950X and the Zen 4 processor. The 15% is probably mostly IPC. Since IPC is usually the mean or median clock for clock increase in performance between two parts over like 30 applications, I don’t think AMD has this number yet. They are still tuning for more apps and final specs may not be set in stone yet.
Posted on Reply
#59
Denver
I realized now that the difference is 45%, not 31%. 12900k is 45% slower.

Ps. The AMD marketing team's terrible.
Posted on Reply
#60
Valantar
DenverI realized now that the difference is 45%, not 31%. 12900k is 45% slower.

Ps. The AMD marketing team's terrible.
Those two numbers are literally the same thing. 204s is 31% faster than 297s; 297s is 45% slower than 204s. They chose the more conservative wording, which uses the existing product as the baseline for comparison. That's the only sensible, good-faith comparison to make - especially as a "slower than" wording in marketing is guaranteed to be flipped into a "faster than" wording by readers who don't consider how this changes the percentage. And that would be a shitshow for AMD.




While I haven't watched the presentation, I have to say this sounds a tad underwhelming. If that 15% is IPC, that's pretty good even when accounting for DDR5. If it's ST performance? That's underwhelming, especially when you take into account a 10% clock speed increase. Also a bit disappointed to not see any major packaging changes here - the CCDs are stacked closer, but other than that it looks like we're still getting through-package IF with its high power draw. And that's a damn shame. Here's hoping 7000 APUs will be the true focus of this generation, with MCM APUs finally entering the ring.
Posted on Reply
#61
Daven
ValantarThose two numbers are literally the same thing. 204s is 31% faster than 297s; 297s is 45% slower than 204s. They chose the more conservative wording, which uses the existing product as the baseline for comparison. That's the only sensible, good-faith comparison to make - especially as a "slower than" wording in marketing is guaranteed to be flipped into a "faster than" wording by readers who don't consider how this changes the percentage. And that would be a shitshow for AMD.




While I haven't watched the presentation, I have to say this sounds a tad underwhelming. If that 15% is IPC, that's pretty good even when accounting for DDR5. If it's ST performance? That's underwhelming, especially when you take into account a 10% clock speed increase. Also a bit disappointed to not see any major packaging changes here - the CCDs are stacked closer, but other than that it looks like we're still getting through-package IF with its high power draw. And that's a damn shame. Here's hoping 7000 APUs will be the true focus of this generation, with MCM APUs finally entering the ring.
The 5.5 Ghz number was in a game demo. The 15%+ number was in a list with a 5 ghz+ number with footnotes that it was a cinebench test. It’s crazy confusing.
Posted on Reply
#62
Chrispy_
So this is the official reveal, when is the official launch (and review embargo date?)

As cool as Zen4 is likely to be Zen2 and Alder Lake were both troubled launches, Zen3 was smoother because it was so similar to Zen2 and fully platform-compatible. I'd be inclined to let some other guinea-pigs pay through the nose to beta-test the new platform for me for at least a couple of months.
Posted on Reply
#63
529th
I got the same impression as most sentiments here. This will be an interesting launch to hold back on, purchase wise, and watch what things really boil down to let alone AGESA changes. I have a feeling the 3D will be close to AM4 performance in gaming.
Posted on Reply
#64
thegnome
Err they must be sandbagging or something for later... Zen 4 has a better node and higher clocks that would alone make up ground to Alderlake mostly... Zen 3 was 19% higher IPC compared to Zen 2, and that was with a few design changes and slightly higher clocks, thats without a new node, memory, cache, etc.
Posted on Reply
#65
Arkz
So B550 will be PCI-E 4.0 on the 16 lane slot, but then 5.0 on the M.2 slots. Hmm, well that's probably still fine. I don't think any GPU comes close to saturating all 16 lanes in 4.0. Hell a 3080 on a 3.0 slot runs fine.
Posted on Reply
#66
ARF
Chrispy_So this is the official reveal, when is the official launch (and review embargo date?)
Sometime September or October this year.

I wonder why they hurried so much to reveal it today... is it anything to do to get the partners ready for the software ecosystem update?
ArkzSo B550 will be PCI-E 4.0 on the 16 lane slot, but then 5.0 on the M.2 slots. Hmm, well that's probably still fine. I don't think any GPU comes close to saturating all 16 lanes in 4.0. Hell a 3080 on a 3.0 slot runs fine.
You probably talk about the B650, and by the way, are there any PCIe 5-ready M.2 SSDs?
Even if there are, they would be price-wise prohibitive. Just get a good-old PCIe 3 NVMe M.2 SSD :)
Posted on Reply
#67
Arkz
ARFSometime September or October this year.

I wonder why they hurried so much to reveal it today... is it anything to do to get the partners ready for the software ecosystem update?



You probably talk about the B650, and by the way, are there any PCIe 5-ready M.2 SSDs?
Even if there are, they would be price-wise prohibitive. Just get a good-old PCIe 3 NVMe M.2 SSD :)
Yeah B650 ha ha. And yeah probably not, although there will be eventually. But until all new games start supporting Direct Storage I'm not that fussed with NVMe drives anyway. Generally the performance in games isn't even that different between a decent NVMe and a SATA SSD.
Posted on Reply
#68
Valantar
thegnomeErr they must be sandbagging or something for later... Zen 4 has a better node and higher clocks that would alone make up ground to Alderlake mostly... Zen 3 was 19% higher IPC compared to Zen 2, and that was with a few design changes and slightly higher clocks, thats without a new node, memory, cache, etc.
Zen3 was a ground-up redesign, not "a few design changes".
Posted on Reply
#69
R0H1T
Come on it's obvious they have something up their sleeve, these are either zen4c cores or they have x3d designs lined up for later!
birdieIt's still quite underwhelming considering a 100% increase in L2 cache, a lot more memory bandwidth and 10% higher clocks. And Zen 3 was launched almost two years ago.
I guess you've benchmarked them, right?
Posted on Reply
#70
ratirt
I'm really confused with some comments here. 15% ST gain is quite a bit in my opinion. Then you have the IPC gain which some people misinterpret. AL has the same IPC as 5000 Series AMD CPUs. According to GURU 3d.


So 15% increase is not nothing I would think. Also you have the frequency boost. I'm puzzled how AMD measures the IPC to be honest.
Consider this. The 5800x3d has the same IPC as 5800x and 12900k according to guru3d and yet it is way faster in games due to 3dvcache but lacks in other apps like MT apps in comparison to 5800x due to lower frequency. So IPC is one thing, ST performance is another and general performance is totally different thing. I haven't watched the presentation yet but I'm really going to refrain from speculations and guess what it will be like. Especially, if this is supposed to be something totally different than 5000 series CPUs.
What I'm trying to say is, the IPC and frequency etc. is misleading in any way. You have to look at the bigger picture here.
Posted on Reply
#71
R0H1T
ratirtThe 5800x3d has the same IPC as 5800x and 12900k according to guru3d
For CB15, Intel & AMD generally use a suite of benchmarks to avg IPC gains across a variety of workloads. ADL is definitely faster than zen3, but not that much (purely) on IPC.
Posted on Reply
#72
noel_fs
oxrufiioxoI also feel it won't be enough especially if the rumored 10-15% ST performance improvements for Raptor Lake are true... In some applications Zen 3 is 30% behind in ST performance vs Alderlake.
what applications 30% behind?

they need to work on marketing jesus christ


Anyway, seems good enough, maybe would have expected a little better but im positive that benchmarks will only make it look better


Some people saying amd is behind intel is quite delusional imo. Intel is the one a year behind, Alder lake barely outperformed zen3 while being considerably less efficient. There is no way intel will come out with a >15% ipc improvement when they struggled to get alder lake out.


I believe its actually around around 30% performance improvement when taking clocks into account, thats really good.

Pcie5 also makes the platform more future proof for early adopters.
Posted on Reply
#73
phanbuey
noel_fswhat applications 30% behind?
Just some:
Adobe Premier, Handbrake, Microsoft Office (Word, Excel etc.), older single threaded titles (age of empires 4 etc.).

Still though, I would be surprised if Zen 4 isn't faster than Raptor lake. 3Dcache +15% IPC + massive clock boosts + 16 full fat cores vs big.little should be able to beat Raptor Lake, but we'll see.

If intel boosts cache size, ring speeds, pumps clocks and adds more cores they might be able to keep up in some things, but I just don't see Raptor Lake beating a 7950 X3D in anything except a few ST outlier apps.

The mid range will be a price-performance fight tho, which is exciting.
Posted on Reply
#74
ratirt
R0H1TFor CB15, Intel & AMD generally use a suite of benchmarks to avg IPC gains across a variety of workloads. ADL is definitely faster than zen3, but not that much (purely) on IPC.
Well, You say purely on IPC but on GURU3d it looks like these 2 are equal. IS there a different way to measure IPC than GURU3d did? If so, which is is the right one since they can't be two ways and each one gives a different result. Maybe different application gives different impression of the CPU's speed. If that is the case (i believe it is) maybe we should wait for the general performance metric instead of believing something that cannot be clearly quantified with numbers.
Posted on Reply
#75
R0H1T
IPC numbers can be different depending on applications, Intel & AMD generally use 10+ varying workloads to show avg IPC gains.
ratirtIf so, which is is the right one since they can't be two ways and each one gives a different result.
Both strictly speaking, since we're not solely depending on just one benchmark.
ratirtMaybe different application gives different impression of the CPU's speed.
Yes & even (different) RAM configurations will give different "IPC" numbers.
ratirtmaybe we should wait for the general performance metric instead
I'll wait for that fully loaded zen4 (4d?) die!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 11:05 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts