No 16-core AMD Ryzen AM4 Until After 7nm EPYC Launch (2019)

[GorbazTheDragon]

Of course you have to consider attainable clocks when judging performance, that's why I specified AMD needs to increase clock speeds. If AMD could clock even close to Intel they would be in great shape.

I don't know how you can claim that a new process won't help.

There are plenty of examples of process upgrades being downgrades in peak performance. These nodes are not optimised for peak clocks most of the time, they have to work well in ranges required by the majority of the market which is servers in the case of zen and laptops/workstations/servers in the case of intel's offerings. In all of these configurations power efficiency is key, so what they get at the high end is really just a bonus most of the time.

Look at SB to IVB and HSW to BDW, both cases the new node lost somewhere around 300MHz. Not to mention that the newer skylake iterations are faster by nature of being on the same node after several refinements.

 

[brian111]

There are plenty of examples of process upgrades being downgrades in peak performance. These nodes are not optimised for peak clocks most of the time, they have to work well in ranges required by the majority of the market which is servers in the case of zen and laptops/workstations/servers in the case of intel's offerings. In all of these configurations power efficiency is key, so what they get at the high end is really just a bonus most of the time.

Look at SB to IVB and HSW to BDW, both cases the new node lost somewhere around 300MHz. Not to mention that the newer skylake iterations are faster by nature of being on the same node after several refinements.

Sure, new process nodes can possibly lead to lower clocks (Intel's troubled 10nm process is rumored to face this dilemma as it will follow a very refined, high clocking 14++. So much so that any architectural improvements may not make up for the lost clock speeds).

Global Foundries 14nm wasn't thought to be an especially "fast" process to begin with. It may be PR fluff, but they are touting clock speed approaching five gigahertz for 7nm. We will see. Luckily for AMD they will have TSMC fabbing at least some of the Zen 2 cores. Having said all that there are no guarantees, but it's difficult for me to imagine anyone saying out of hand that there will be no clock speed improvements

 

[SKD007]

What’s the point of having 36threads if we can’t use anything more then 64GB ram. I did a mistake of buying 1800x and now stuck with 64GB. I should have at least waited for threadripper.

 

[R0H1T]

There are plenty of examples of process upgrades being downgrades in peak performance. These nodes are not optimised for peak clocks most of the time, they have to work well in ranges required by the majority of the market which is servers in the case of zen and laptops/workstations/servers in the case of intel's offerings. In all of these configurations power efficiency is key, so what they get at the high end is really just a bonus most of the time.

Look at SB to IVB and HSW to BDW, both cases the new node lost somewhere around 300MHz. Not to mention that the newer skylake iterations are faster by nature of being on the same node after several refinements.

Servers & mobile i.e. portables in case of consumers. Though tbf each new node takes time to master, AMD went from Bulldozer to FX 9590 in about two(?) years. This is what you can expect from Zen2/3 a couple of years from now i.e. much higher clock speeds.

Well this is the exact reason why we won't see ICL anytime soon. The max (OCed) speeds on CFL ensure that Intel cannot releases a successor with little to no improvements, IPC or clocks, hence the recurring delays.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

32nm was a very fast node anyway, both sandy and FX were nuts from the start.

FX-9590 is 5 years old so AMD had a good bit of time to work on Zen which is understandable because they had to do all the core development for the multichip arch.

Like I mentioned in another thread, I don't think making a more heavily multithreaded chip really makes much sense at the moment for the desktop market. The limitations of current frequency dual channel memory and the fact that only workstation and server workloads are optimised enough at the moment means that a significantly larger chip will not really have a good place in the market.

And yeah I doubt 10nm will be coming to the desktop platform any time soon, it might end up being a bit like broadwell was.