chrcolukThere is even palettes in retailers ready for orders. I dont like to speculate, but the time frame just seems so short and really coincidental with the schedule for Intel's new microcode.

The reason they gave was very vague, and the timeline to fix was ridiculously short for any serious redistribution, extremely specific, and identical to the timeline given by intel... I mean - i'm not a biologist but....

ratirtI think the hyper threading was revolutionary in terms of added performance, when it hit the market. it did boost performance exponentially. Could call that revolutionary. Now it is bullshit but ecore vs pcore scheduling is revolutionary?
Mixing 2 cores (not architectures) is revolutionary? Is it though? These ecores are literally cut down older cores Intel used previously in a product. I'm sorry, but that is not revolutionary to me. What would have been revolutionary if you put x86 arch cores and Arm arch cores together. That could've been revolutionary.

Fair point. I guess it was kind of revolutionary to me, as I've seen nothing like it before (not on desktop at least). Although, as I said, due to software schedulers and Windows 11, the concept never convinced me that it's something I'd ever want.

AusWolftraditional oldschool homogenous gaming performance with no thread scheduling bullshit.

This^

We're on desktop. All them E-cores (ZENc ones as well) belong to the mobile segment.

Sunny and 75This^

We're on desktop. All them E-cores (ZENc ones as well) belong to the mobile segment.

IDK - if they can get it right, the e-cores and especially zenC arfe stronger than HT cores by a good bit, and they allow more aggro prefetching and fewer security nanny issues -- I could see it working. They just came out with an e-core only xeon that absolutely slaps in MT.

fevgatosEcores and ccds are different solutions to the same problem. How to increase performance per die without increasing man costs. They both have strengths and weaknesses but for my personal tastes ecores are better than splitting the cores on 2 ccds.

I don't like / want 16 ecores (8 are fine) but I don't like cores split on 2 ccds either. So I'm probably skipping both for now until amd decides to move to 12core single ccds with 3d on top, or intel increases their pcore count.

But let's not pretend amds solution is better, it's not. They both have their issues for now. I'll admit though amd seems closer to the perfect solution (the 12core chip I mentioned above).

You focus on irrelevant things instead of looking at the metrics that give you a perspective of the product. For me, it does not matter if the CPU has CCD's or not. You dont want 16 cores, accusing AMD for stagnation (which is ridiculous in my opinion) and advocate for increasing ecores. I dont want this and, that getting into dislike the CCD config, that doesnt mean crap if the performance is there. I really dont think, ecores and CCD are solving the same problem. Maybe along the lines you can say that but that is not the main purpose of those. In my eyes ecores are for lower power consumption without loosing too much performance. Nobody is pretentding anything about AMD's solution. They have the solution and increased cores to 16 in the desktop segment. You have server segment were cores matter and the number of cores there is staggering with AMD products. ecores are ecores only not real performance cores. Never will be.

ratirtYou focus on irrelevant things instead of looking at the metrics that give you a perspective of the product. For me, it does not matter if the CPU has CCD's or not. You dont want 16 cores, accusing AMD for stagnation (which is ridiculous in my opinion) and advocate for increasing ecores. I dont want this and, that getting into dislike the CCD config, that doesnt mean crap if the performance is there. I really dont think, ecores and CCD are solving the same problem. Maybe along the lines you can say that but that is not the main purpose of those. In my eyes ecores are for lower power consumption without loosing too much performance. Nobody is pretentding anything about AMD's solution. They have the solution and increased cores to 16 in the desktop segment. You have server segment were cores matter and the number of cores there is staggering with AMD products. ecores are ecores only not real performance cores. Never will be.

E-cores are for increasing core count without significantly increasing die area (I don't think power consumption has got a lot to do with it). CCDs are for increasing core count without significantly increasing manufacturing costs. Neither of them are meant for people whose application performance is hurt by inter-core latency or software scheduling. They are meant for people looking for multi-threaded performance and nothing else.

ratirtIn my eyes ecores are for lower power consumption without loosing too much performance. Nobody is pretentding anything about AMD's solution.

But what it is in your eyes is irrelevant, isn't it? 8Pcores at 65w (just an example) are faster than 8ecores at 65w, therefore OBVIOUSLY ecores have nothing to do with power.

AusWolfE-cores are for increasing core count without significantly increasing die area (I don't think power consumption has got a lot to do with it).

Exactly.

ratirtYou have server segment were cores matter and the number of cores there is staggering with AMD products. ecores are ecores only not real performance cores. Never will be.

Well great, but I don't care about server products. At the 300 to 400$ segment they are stuck at 6 and 8cores for how many years now? 7?

fevgatosWell great, but I don't care about server products. At the 300 to 400$ segment they are stuck at 6 and 8cores for how many years now? 7?

That's because that segment is directed at home users and gamers who still don't need more than 8 cores. On the other hand, we've been getting some decent performance increases across those 8 cores, which is exactly what a gamer needs, imo.

AusWolfThat's because that segment is directed at home users and gamers who still don't need more than 8 cores. On the other hand, we've been getting some decent performance increases across those 8 cores, which is exactly what a gamer needs, imo.

That's not a reason. If you don't need 8 cores and you are fine with 6 youll buy the 6 core part of course, but it doesn't need to be priced at 299. Did people need more cores back in 2017 or 2018? Cause let me remind you, you could grab the R5 1600 for 80$ in 2018-2019. Now we are in 2024 and the 7600x, 2 years later is over 200$.


I'm not gonna argue whether 6 and 8 cores are fine - that's down to your usecase I guess - but the point is you can't have your baseline model starting at 6 cores and 299$. Now some rumors about zen 5 are hinting at a 229$ price for the 6core chip which is okay. Not great, but it's a step forward.

fevgatosThat's not a reason. If you don't need 8 cores and you are fine with 6 youll buy the 6 core part of course, but it doesn't need to be priced at 299. Did people need more cores back in 2017 or 2018? Cause let me remind you, you could grab the R5 1600 for 80$ in 2018-2019. Now we are in 2024 and the 7600x, 2 years later is over 200$.


I'm not gonna argue whether 6 and 8 cores are fine - that's down to your usecase I guess - but the point is you can't have your baseline model starting at 6 cores and 299$. Now some rumors about zen 5 are hinting at a 229$ price for the 6core chip which is okay. Not great, but it's a step forward.

I don't disagree with the sentiment of cheaper hardware. I'd like to get mine at 2016 prices, too, even if adjusted for inflation. But unfortunately, that's not the world we live in today when there's price gouging on all sides, including at TSMC and other chip manufacturers.

AusWolfI don't disagree with the sentiment of cheaper hardware. I'd like to get mine at 2016 prices, too, even if adjusted for inflation. But unfortunately, that's not the world we live in today when there's price gouging on all sides, including at TSMC and other chip manufacturers.

That would be correct but the price increase happened way before the covid inflation bs. Zen 3 basically didn't introduce the cheaper non X variant on launch which resulted in literally a 50% increase between zen 2 and zen 3 on the same core count chips. If i'm not mistaken 3600 launched at 199$, 5600x a year later launched at 299$.

But anyways, pray to god the rumors are correct pricing on zen 5 looks a big more tolerable. 229 and 299 for the 6 and 8 core part ain't atrocious.

fevgatosBut what it is in your eyes is irrelevant, isn't it? 8Pcores at 65w (just an example) are faster than 8ecores at 65w, therefore OBVIOUSLY ecores have nothing to do with power.

Because you should be judging a product for what it offers so I it is " not in my eyes" or a personal preference thing but CPUs performance not how many CCD's it has. That is ridiculous in my opinion. It's like judging a car for its color. You may have a preference for features but not something, that impacts nothing and the product is one of the best in the market.
That is just my opinion but you do you. Shape of a processor may matter to you too but does it really change things?

fevgatosThat would be correct but the price increase happened way before the covid inflation bs. Zen 3 basically didn't introduce the cheaper non X variant on launch which resulted in literally a 50% increase between zen 2 and zen 3 on the same core count chips. If i'm not mistaken 3600 launched at 199$, 5600x a year later launched at 299$.

At that point they had objectively the best products, and could increase the prices to match that fact. It’s a company, like intel, trying to make money, not some charity.

ratirtBecause you should be judging a product for what it offers so I it is " not in my eyes" or a personal preference thing but CPUs performance not how many CCD's it has. That is ridiculous in my opinion. It's like judging a car for its color. You may have a preference for features but not something, that impacts nothing and the product is one of the best in the market.
That is just my opinion but you do you. Shape of a processor may matter to you too but does it really change things?

Are you saying multiple CCDs have the same drawbacks as the shape of the processor? Okay man.

DrediAt that point they had objectively the best products, and could increase the prices to match that fact. It’s a company, like intel, trying to make money, not some charity.

And I'm a consumer so why would I defend said company when it literally goes against my own benefit?

fevgatosThat would be correct but the price increase happened way before the covid inflation bs. Zen 3 basically didn't introduce the cheaper non X variant on launch which resulted in literally a 50% increase between zen 2 and zen 3 on the same core count chips. If i'm not mistaken 3600 launched at 199$, 5600x a year later launched at 299$.

Do you remember what was the price for an 8 core Intel counterpart was or 6c? Need I remind you? You compare x to non x. non x are always cheaper. Not convinced sorry.

fevgatosAre you saying multiple CCDs have the same drawbacks as the shape of the processor? Okay man.

:D sure bro. Now try reading it backwards maybe you will get it.

Nvm, let's stick to zen 5

fevgatosAnd I'm a consumer so why would I defend said company when it literally goes against my own benefit?

I’m not defending anyone, I’m simply stating how things are. Welcome to capitalism, I guess?

Just typo：笑：

TomWengJust typo：笑：

Ian probably just meming. There would be no point in having SI’s strip down already built systems, considering that the packaging is not even provided to them. Some sources indicated weird performance issues on select few processors in gaming workloads, which sounds a lot more reasonable.

phanbueyIDK - if they can get it right, the e-cores and especially zenC arfe stronger than HT cores by a good bit, and they allow more aggro prefetching and fewer security nanny issues -- I could see it working.

That's a big if though.

Will observe ARL and BTL launches to gather more knowledge on the matter.

AusWolfE-cores are for increasing core count without significantly increasing die area (I don't think power consumption has got a lot to do with it). CCDs are for increasing core count without significantly increasing manufacturing costs. Neither of them are meant for people whose application performance is hurt by inter-core latency or software scheduling. They are meant for people looking for multi-threaded performance and nothing else.

Bingo. You are the first person mentioning the legacy issue here.

DrediIan probably just meming. There would be no point in having SI’s strip down already built systems, considering that the packaging is not even provided to them. Some sources indicated weird performance issues on select few processors in gaming workloads, which sounds a lot more reasonable.

x.com/9550pro/status/1817575639580655821


Ryzen 9 9700X instead of 7

TomgangA wise desision from AMD's side, if there are any doubt on cpu's stability and function. A delay is apselutely better than a huge mess of defective cpu's after launch. That will only hurt amd image negatively.

We have just seen the mess intel has been in and still is in with there gen 13/14 cpu's. But we must not forget either the early state of amd zen 4 launch where some cpu's litterly burned up or melted perhaps even self destructed.

Zen 4 and Intels latest gens problems. Kind of confirms my worries/suspicion on that in the hunt to be the one to have the fastest cpu over the competiter. Amd and intel pushing the cpu's to far all ready at stock and lower the lifespan or degrade them to fast. We have seen Intels and amd latest chip runs hot and consume a high amount of power. Off cause naughty motherboard venders running the cpu out of spec as stock dosent help the situation either. But a cpu running at 95-100 C at high load can't be healthy. Despite intel/amd claims it by design.

Laptop CPUs have been regularly running 90+ degrees reliably for over 15 years now. I think the engineers know better then us at what temps these CPUs can run at.

TheinsanegamerNLaptop CPUs have been regularly running 90+ degrees reliably for over 15 years now. I think the engineers know better then us at what temps these CPUs can run at.

Even with my 12700k I don't really care about the temp as long as it does not throttle. What does it really matter, they know the max of these CPUs so I'm sure they can 'probably' run it 24/7 without damage. Since I went from custom loop back to air, I don't even monitor temps any more.

3x0x.com/9550pro/status/1817575639580655821


Ryzen 9 9700X instead of 7

There's Ryzen 9 9600X's out there too lmao.

If this is the case, it's a very strange issue to have but obviously would have no impact to performance.

FoulOnWhiteEven with my 12700k I don't really care about the temp as long as it does not throttle. What does it really matter, they know the max of these CPUs so I'm sure they can 'probably' run it 24/7 without damage. Since I went from custom loop back to air, I don't even monitor temps any more.

I legit don't get the temperature issue unless there's substantial throttling. I have a 3950X hovering between 90-95'C in one of the systems running 24/7 for three years straight and it still runs like it did on day one. That's what the CPU's were designed to run at and I can't care any less if it's running at 40'C or 95'C. It's not like running at 95'C is dumping any more heat into the room.

If you're really nitpicking then sure, 40'C would probably shave a few watts off all else being equal. But I have no issues with the power draw to start with so that's a non-issue.