- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 484 (0.16/day)
Zen 2 won't have anywhere near 29% more IPC, I'd have to be smoking some funny stuff to believe that again.
Zen 2 won't have anywhere near 29% more IPC, I'd have to be smoking some funny stuff to believe that again.
System Name | Custom build, AMD/ATi powered. |
---|---|
Processor | AMD FX™ 8350 [8x4.6 GHz] |
Motherboard | AsRock 970 Extreme3 R2.0 |
Cooling | be quiet! Dark Rock Advanced C1 |
Memory | Crucial, Ballistix Tactical, 16 GByte, 1866, CL9 |
Video Card(s) | AMD Radeon HD 7850 Black Edition, 2 GByte GDDR5 |
Storage | 250/500/1500/2000 GByte, SSD: 60 GByte |
Display(s) | Samsung SyncMaster 950p |
Case | CoolerMaster HAF 912 Pro |
Audio Device(s) | 7.1 Digital High Definition Surround |
Power Supply | be quiet! Straight Power E9 CM 580W |
Software | Windows 7 Ultimate x64, SP 1 |
Well, I thought so …Well, I don't see it as deceptive, because 95W is all a board manufacturer has to support.
But when you start using words like "without question" to make your point, you're kind of preventing us further discussing this. Have a nice day.
System Name | Bay2- Lowerbay/ HP 3770/T3500-2+T3500-3+T3500-4/ Opti-Con/Orange/White/Grey |
---|---|
Processor | i3 2120's/ i7 3770/ x5670's/ i5 2400/Ryzen 2700/Ryzen 2700/R7 3700x |
Motherboard | HP UltraSlim's/ HP mid size/ Dell T3500 workstation's/ Dell 390/B450 AorusM/B450 AorusM/B550 AorusM |
Cooling | All stock coolers/Grey has an H-60 |
Memory | 2GB/ 4GB/ 12 GB 3 chan/ 4GB sammy/T-Force 16GB 3200/XPG 16GB 3000/Ballistic 3600 16GB |
Video Card(s) | HD2000's/ HD 2000/ 1 MSI GT710,2x MSI R7 240's/ HD4000/ Red Dragon 580/Sapphire 580/Sapphire 580 |
Storage | ?HDD's/ 500 GB-er's/ 500 GB/2.5 Samsung 500GB HDD+WD Black 1TB/ WD Black 500GB M.2/Corsair MP600 M.2 |
Display(s) | 1920x1080/ ViewSonic VX24568 between the rest/1080p TV-Grey |
Case | HP 8200 UltraSlim's/ HP 8200 mid tower/Dell T3500's/ Dell 390/SilverStone Kublai KL06/NZXT H510 W x2 |
Audio Device(s) | Sonic Master/ onboard's/ Beeper's! |
Power Supply | 19.5 volt bricks/ Dell PSU/ 525W sumptin/ same/Seasonic 750 80+Gold/EVGA 500 80+/Antec 650 80+Gold |
Mouse | cheap GigaWire930, CMStorm Havoc + Logitech M510 wireless/iGear usb x2/MX 900 wireless kit 4 Grey |
Keyboard | Dynex, 2 no name, SYX and a Logitech. All full sized and USB. MX900 kit for Grey |
Software | Mint 18 Sylvia/ Opti-Con Mint KDE/ T3500's on Kubuntu/HP 3770 is Win 10/Win 10 Pro/Win 10 Pro/Win10 |
Benchmark Scores | World Community Grid is my benchmark!! |
Most of you guys are writing as if you're buying EPYC. I bet 99% of you are NOT. The speculation here is all what has been presented for EPYC, especially the way the package is. There's no confirmation on what Ryzen will be exactly and how it'll be packaged. Lets just be honest here about what you are all actually buying and/or willing to spend money on.
System Name | HTC's System |
---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 5 5800X3D |
Motherboard | Asrock Taichi X370 |
Cooling | NH-C14, with the AM4 mounting kit |
Memory | G.Skill Kit 16GB DDR4 F4 - 3200 C16D - 16 GTZB |
Video Card(s) | Sapphire Pulse 6600 8 GB |
Storage | 1 Samsung NVMe 960 EVO 250 GB + 1 3.5" Seagate IronWolf Pro 6TB 7200RPM 256MB SATA III |
Display(s) | LG 27UD58 |
Case | Fractal Design Define R6 USB-C |
Audio Device(s) | Onboard |
Power Supply | Corsair TX 850M 80+ Gold |
Mouse | Razer Deathadder Elite |
Software | Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS |
I doubt many of us will buy EPYC 2, but that's why we're talking about the core itself - it's independent of what SKU we're talking about.
Ryzen 3000 could come with nothing smaller than a six core CPU (I hope AMD does this - Intel could barely adapt last time when quad core became the new low end mainstream CPU).
AMD gets 800~900 usable chiplets per 7nm wafer. Assuming a $12k wafer cost (which is close) and a relatively high defect rate of 0.3/cm^2, that's just $14 per chiplet. Two of those and a $10 IO die and you have a quite similar bill of material as Ryzen originally did on launch... except now AMD has 16 cores on the mainstream desktop and can happily ask $600 for it. And I'd pay it.
You're not taking into account the fact 7 nm process isn't mature yet, dude. Also, isn't the wafer size supposed to be 300 mm?
According to this:
I chose a defect density of 0.4 because it's a new process, and with these parameters, AMD would get 612 good dies. Note the die dimensions are rounded down (from 73 mm²) to make the calculations a tad bit easier.
Here's the link for the Die Per Wafer Calculator: https://caly-technologies.com/die-yield-calculator/
We don't know the defect rate so any speculation wrt same is pointless, what's more relevant though is the price these chips command in the server space or high end retail. The price of dies is rather low, so that's not much of a problem anyway.
The headline number, for me, is the usable dies ~ which directly translates into lower/higher cost (per die) depending on defect rate. The number of usable dies is really important because it helps AMD keep up with their scheduled timelines, launch dates, demand & commitment especially towards large customers. It is said (by some) that AMD sold every chip they could produce in the Intel OEM bribing era, I can't say how true that is but AMD atm absolutely needs to fulfill the demand for Rome & compete for the growing needs of enterprise sector. Which is to say that the cost of dies is secondary, but again directly related to defect rate, right now while meeting obligations should be the primary goal, especially the Super 7 plus one.Well, a $20 chiplet would dictate that Ryzen can only really afford to have one chiplet without having two designs - one with one chiplet and another with two.
$20 represents ~600 usable dies per wafer. A silicon bill of materials in excess of $50 for Ryzen's core would be a big jump... and a big risk to bring to the mainstream market.
At $12 per chiplet - a price that will decline with time - AMD can toss two chiplets onto every Ryzen CPU, with a BoM pretty close to Ryzen's original costs.
System Name | HTC's System |
---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 5 5800X3D |
Motherboard | Asrock Taichi X370 |
Cooling | NH-C14, with the AM4 mounting kit |
Memory | G.Skill Kit 16GB DDR4 F4 - 3200 C16D - 16 GTZB |
Video Card(s) | Sapphire Pulse 6600 8 GB |
Storage | 1 Samsung NVMe 960 EVO 250 GB + 1 3.5" Seagate IronWolf Pro 6TB 7200RPM 256MB SATA III |
Display(s) | LG 27UD58 |
Case | Fractal Design Define R6 USB-C |
Audio Device(s) | Onboard |
Power Supply | Corsair TX 850M 80+ Gold |
Mouse | Razer Deathadder Elite |
Software | Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS |
0.4 would be rather bad. 14nm had 0.08 at launch, I seriously doubt 7nm HPC has anything notably higher than 0.3 - and probably closer to 0.2 or even below. I based my numbers on a range from 0.2 to 0.3 (which I probably should have stated in my comment).
6.75x9.45mm = 63.79mm^2 = 731~938 usable dies with a 0.4 defect density and 0.12 scribe h+V lanes.
Move to 0.3 defects/cm^2 and you have 827~938 usable dies.
No Zen was the first high performance chip using GF 14nm, you could count Polaris but that's not exactly apples to apples.Are you referring to the 1st chip on 14 nm or to the 1st Zen chip on 14 nm? IIRC, when Zen was introduced, there were several chips being manufactured @ 14 nm, meaning the process was much more mature then 7 nm, where it is the 2nd chip (1st is Apple's A12 chip).
What is your source of Zen 2 CCX chiplet size? From what i've read, Zen 2 CCX chiplet measurement is roughly 73 mm² while yours is almost 10 mm² smaller.
For reference, i got those measurements from this post @ Anandtech forums.
When i made the pic in my previous reply, i was under the impression the CCX chiplet size was 72 mm² and that the chiplet was a square instead of a rectangle.
According to the die calculator page, those scribe values are invalid: either 0.1 or 0.15 but not 0.12.
Base on the current information, and with a defect density of 0.25, we get this (7.3 is also an invalid number for width so i improvised):
View attachment 110433
System Name | HTC's System |
---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 5 5800X3D |
Motherboard | Asrock Taichi X370 |
Cooling | NH-C14, with the AM4 mounting kit |
Memory | G.Skill Kit 16GB DDR4 F4 - 3200 C16D - 16 GTZB |
Video Card(s) | Sapphire Pulse 6600 8 GB |
Storage | 1 Samsung NVMe 960 EVO 250 GB + 1 3.5" Seagate IronWolf Pro 6TB 7200RPM 256MB SATA III |
Display(s) | LG 27UD58 |
Case | Fractal Design Define R6 USB-C |
Audio Device(s) | Onboard |
Power Supply | Corsair TX 850M 80+ Gold |
Mouse | Razer Deathadder Elite |
Software | Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS |
No Zen was the first high performance chip using GF 14nm, you could count Polaris but that's not exactly apples to apples.
System Name | Ciel / Akane |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen R5 5600X / Intel Core i3 12100F |
Motherboard | Asus Tuf Gaming B550 Plus / Biostar H610MHP |
Cooling | ID-Cooling 224-XT Basic / Stock |
Memory | 2x 16GB Kingston Fury 3600MHz / 2x 8GB Patriot 3200MHz |
Video Card(s) | Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti / Dell GTX 1660 SUPER |
Storage | NVMe Kingston KC3000 2TB + NVMe Toshiba KBG40ZNT256G + HDD WD 4TB / NVMe WD Blue SN550 512GB |
Display(s) | AOC Q27G3XMN / Samsung S22F350 |
Case | Cougar MX410 Mesh-G / Generic |
Audio Device(s) | Kingston HyperX Cloud Stinger Core 7.1 Wireless PC |
Power Supply | Aerocool KCAS-500W / Gigabyte P450B |
Mouse | EVGA X15 / Logitech G203 |
Keyboard | VSG Alnilam / Dell |
Software | Windows 11 |
Nobody believed that Zen1 was 59% better than FX.Zen 2 won't have anywhere near 29% more IPC, I'd have to be smoking some funny stuff to believe that again.
Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING (WI-FI) |
Cooling | Corsair iCUE H115i Elite Capellix 280mm |
Memory | 32GB G.Skill DDR4 3600Mhz CL18 |
Video Card(s) | ASUS GTX 1650 TUF |
Storage | Sabrent Rocket 1TB M.2 |
Display(s) | Dell S3220DGF |
Case | Corsair iCUE 4000X |
Audio Device(s) | ASUS Xonar D2X |
Power Supply | Corsair AX760 Platinum |
Mouse | Razer DeathAdder V2 - Wireless |
Keyboard | Redragon K618 RGB PRO |
Software | Microsoft Windows 11 Pro (64-bit) |
System Name | Hotbox |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6), |
Motherboard | ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax |
Cooling | LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14 |
Memory | 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15 |
Video Card(s) | PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W |
Storage | 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro |
Display(s) | Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary |
Case | SSUPD Meshlicious |
Audio Device(s) | Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3 |
Power Supply | Corsair SF750 Platinum |
Mouse | Logitech G603 |
Keyboard | Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps |
Software | Windows 10 Pro |
The 8121U has its AVX512 units (as well as pretty much everything else) disabled.So a cheap 8121U has AVX512 and also the $359 7800X 14 nm, so mainstream AVX512 is a reality that could have been widely spread by now.
None of us will be buying EPYC. That's why we're taking what they've said about it and attempting to extrapolate what this means for Ryzen 3000 and TR3. Also, it's interesting to discuss when someone makes some actual innovations in this space, even if we're not in the target market.Most of you guys are writing as if you're buying EPYC. I bet 99% of you are NOT. The speculation here is all what has been presented for EPYC, especially the way the package is. There's no confirmation on what Ryzen will be exactly and how it'll be packaged. Lets just be honest here about what you are all actually buying and/or willing to spend money on.
I'd actually consider the same, even if I'm very happy with my 1600X.If AMD keeps their prices very competitive like they are now, I will be upgrading to Zen 2.
System Name | Apollo |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core i9 9880H |
Motherboard | Some proprietary Apple thing. |
Memory | 64GB DDR4-2667 |
Video Card(s) | AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2 |
Storage | 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External |
Display(s) | Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays |
Case | MacBook Pro (16", 2019) |
Audio Device(s) | AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers |
Power Supply | 96w Power Adapter |
Mouse | Logitech MX Master 3 |
Keyboard | Logitech G915, GL Clicky |
Software | MacOS 12.1 |
So what gives better yields then? Smaller dies at 7nm or a huge one at 14nm? Yes the I/O die is done in GloFo's 14 nm.
@Aquinus It was confirmed at the NH event that the I/O chip is on 14nm.
My guess is that it could be from GF which keeps GF in the game.
Sure but, it's still on a mainstream platform so I consider it mainstream even if it's the highest end of the MSDT market.TBH I wouldn't call the 9900K "mainstream" due to its heat, price and availability. It's pretty clearly showing the limit of the Core uarch on 14nm, and I suspect that its successor will only show up once 10nm is fixed.
Anandtech does a great job with their Bench tool on their website. It helps with conversations like this one. Here are the Full package load power measurements for the last four Intel generations:This is really not complicated. More cores will draw more power, there's no bending the laws of physics. However, if you lower the base clock, you will draw less current (power does not scale linear with frequency), thus your heat sink will be cooler. When the heat sink starts cooler, it can accommodate higher frequencies for a while, until it heats up.
Again, I see no trickery at work. Just a company finding a way to squeeze more cores on a production node they were planning to leave behind at least two years ago. Both Nvidia and AMD had to do something similar when TSMC failed with their 22nm node and everybody got stuck with 28nm for a couple more years than originally planned.
Well, I don't see it as deceptive, because 95W is all a board manufacturer has to support.
But when you start using words like "without question" to make your point, you're kind of preventing us further discussing this. Have a nice day.
System Name | Hotbox |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6), |
Motherboard | ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax |
Cooling | LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14 |
Memory | 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15 |
Video Card(s) | PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W |
Storage | 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro |
Display(s) | Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary |
Case | SSUPD Meshlicious |
Audio Device(s) | Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3 |
Power Supply | Corsair SF750 Platinum |
Mouse | Logitech G603 |
Keyboard | Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps |
Software | Windows 10 Pro |
I'm not who you're talking to, but I agree with the conclusion of AT's recent look into this: they should start having two numbers, one "Base TDP" and one "all-core boost TDP". That'd clear up everything quite nicely. Base TDP would indicate minimum performance specs and power delivery requirements, and all-core boost TDP would indicate what your cooler and motherboard need to match to provide the best possible out-of-box experience.Anandtech does a great job with their Bench tool on their website. It helps with conversations like this one. Here are the Full package load power measurements for the last four Intel generations:
i7-6700K 82.55W
i7-7700K 95.14W
i7-8700K 150.91W
i9-9900K 168.48W
There is a major change between the 7th and 8th generations. However, Intel rates them all as 95W. You don't see a problem with this?
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2194
At the top of each quoted section the thread coding lists the person you are replying too. In my case, I was replying to bug. Sorry for any confusion.I'm not who you're talking to, but I agree with the conclusion of AT's recent look into this: they should start having two numbers, one "Base TDP" and one "all-core boost TDP". That'd clear up everything quite nicely. Base TDP would indicate minimum performance specs and power delivery requirements, and all-core boost TDP would indicate what your cooler and motherboard need to match to provide the best possible out-of-box experience.
System Name | Hotbox |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6), |
Motherboard | ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax |
Cooling | LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14 |
Memory | 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15 |
Video Card(s) | PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W |
Storage | 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro |
Display(s) | Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary |
Case | SSUPD Meshlicious |
Audio Device(s) | Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3 |
Power Supply | Corsair SF750 Platinum |
Mouse | Logitech G603 |
Keyboard | Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps |
Software | Windows 10 Pro |
No confusion, I just chose to reply as I more or less agree with Bug's stanceAt the top of each quoted section the thread coding lists the person you are replying too. In my case, I was replying to bug. Sorry for any confusion.
Processor | Ryzen 7800X3D |
---|---|
Motherboard | ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI |
Memory | 2x16GB G.Skill Flare X5 DDR5-6000 CL36 (F5-6000J3636F16GX2-FX5) |
Video Card(s) | INNO3D GeForce RTX™ 4070 Ti SUPER TWIN X2 |
Storage | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO, 4TB WD Black SN850X |
Display(s) | 42" LG C2 OLED, 27" ASUS PG279Q |
Case | Thermaltake Core P5 |
Power Supply | Fractal Design Ion+ Platinum 760W |
Mouse | Corsair Dark Core RGB Pro SE |
Keyboard | Corsair K100 RGB |
VR HMD | HTC Vive Cosmos |
About that doing a great job - What in the world is the full load, exactly?Anandtech does a great job with their Bench tool on their website.
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2194
Processor | Intel i5-12600k |
---|---|
Motherboard | Asus H670 TUF |
Cooling | Arctic Freezer 34 |
Memory | 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V |
Video Card(s) | EVGA GTX 1060 SC |
Storage | 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500 |
Display(s) | Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w |
Case | Raijintek Thetis |
Audio Device(s) | Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D |
Power Supply | Seasonic 620W M12 |
Mouse | Logitech G502 Proteus Core |
Keyboard | G.Skill KM780R |
Software | Arch Linux + Win10 |
I wouldn't mind having two numbers on the box (though as I have written above, it will certainly confuse less informed users), but which numbers would Intel use? Because only the base TDP is mandatory, the other one is left to the motherboard vendor's will.I'm not who you're talking to, but I agree with the conclusion of AT's recent look into this: they should start having two numbers, one "Base TDP" and one "all-core boost TDP". That'd clear up everything quite nicely. Base TDP would indicate minimum performance specs and power delivery requirements, and all-core boost TDP would indicate what your cooler and motherboard need to match to provide the best possible out-of-box experience.
System Name | Hotbox |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6), |
Motherboard | ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax |
Cooling | LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14 |
Memory | 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15 |
Video Card(s) | PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W |
Storage | 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro |
Display(s) | Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary |
Case | SSUPD Meshlicious |
Audio Device(s) | Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3 |
Power Supply | Corsair SF750 Platinum |
Mouse | Logitech G603 |
Keyboard | Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps |
Software | Windows 10 Pro |
Which is exactly why you call one "base" (as in "base clocks", minimum in-spec performance) and one something else. This might be a bit confusing, but no more than people buying a chip with a shitty cooler and cheap motherboard, expecting matching performance from a review, yet getting 10-20% less. Which happens quite a lot.I wouldn't mind having two numbers on the box (though as I have written above, it will certainly confuse less informed users), but which numbers would Intel use? Because only the base TDP is mandatory, the other one is left to the motherboard vendor's will.
Processor | Intel i5-12600k |
---|---|
Motherboard | Asus H670 TUF |
Cooling | Arctic Freezer 34 |
Memory | 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V |
Video Card(s) | EVGA GTX 1060 SC |
Storage | 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500 |
Display(s) | Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w |
Case | Raijintek Thetis |
Audio Device(s) | Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D |
Power Supply | Seasonic 620W M12 |
Mouse | Logitech G502 Proteus Core |
Keyboard | G.Skill KM780R |
Software | Arch Linux + Win10 |
Oh, gee, that's so simple to explain. Try saying that to the average buyer, see how it faresWhich is exactly why you call one "base" (as in "base clocks", minimum in-spec performance) and one something else. This might be a bit confusing, but no more than people buying a chip with a shitty cooler and cheap motherboard, expecting matching performance from a review, yet getting 10-20% less. Which happens quite a lot.
By making the second number official (determined by, say, the average all-core-boost power draw of the bottom 10% of chips in a specific SKU under a punishing load) Intel could make implementation uniform across motherboard vendors, with a simple "TDP" BIOS option, ("95W Base" for restricted to stock (with short-term PL2 above this) "Performance" for slightly loosened but reasonable limits, and "Unrestricted" for balls-to-the-wall?). Mainly, the second number would serve as a guideline for buying a cooler and motherboard, and it could lead to motherboard makers labeling their VRM solutions with actual useful numbers instead of "X-phase". Ultimately this could lead to less confusion, as it actually serves to explain something complex to users instead of just trying to hush it up. Intel already allows for adjusting all of this in XTU (although a lot of motherboards ignore XTU power limit settings) so why not implement it across the board? Standardisation and enforcement of standards is a boon to users, not the opposite.