Hi James,
1. 3rd Generation Ryzen 2 7nm, will we see operating frequency ~5GHz?
2. Are there going to be more improvements to Latency?
3. When, roughly, will these products be launched?
Thank you!
Intel (INTC) Q1 2018 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
Apr. 26, 2018 8:59 PM ET
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4166652-intel-intc-q1-2018-results-earnings-call-transcript
Sounds pretty unsure about when they are going to have yields fixed. This could just be more song and dance!
Once slight correction, but overall good post!
There are three distinct problems with #Intel 10nm process that I know of. I am willing to bet there are many more. Of the three only one has a solution that I am aware of, and that was the easy one.
Following Significant Technology, Capacity and Expansion Milestones, GLOBALFOUNDRIES’ Sanjay Jha to Pass Baton to Industry Veteran Tom Caulfield
Mar 09, 2018
https://www.globalfoundries.com/news-events/press-releases/following-significant-technology-capacity-and-expansion-milestones
Sanjay is...
An Epyc Master Plan
AdoredTV
Published on Feb 21, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucMQermB9wQ&feature=youtu.be&t=2
Ryzen 2 made at TSMC. 64 Core Epyc processor.
I'm wrong and you are right. Higher score relates to lower latency when compared to other Intel processors. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7123767
i7-8700
single-core
Memory Latency
10134
42.7 ns
multi-core
Memory Latency
9981
43.4 ns
2600 has ~101ns latency for single core.
2933 CAS 14-16 vs. ? = 17% latency improvement. Going from CAS 16 to CAS 14 at 2933 will not gain you a 17% internal latency improvement. The RAM would have to be significantly faster, or we can choose the more reasonable option that CPU is designed with improved latency.
We can call it 12nm, but that is mostly a marketing term. Since there is a move from the 9T library to 7.5T library for the transistors, there is a logic density change by virtue of smaller cells. But it's unlikely given the information so far that 12nm, originally labeled 14nm+, will offer much...
People have made predictions of 200-400MHz, but that remains to be seen. The 2400G despite delidding, and liquid metal cooling was not able to achieve higher clocks.
There are a lot of inconsistencies with benchmarks on that website. Here is a link and you can see what I'm seeing...
Here is a 1600X@3.6GHz version 4.0.4. It is 200MHz higher base clock, but I would say the single and multi-threaded scores are within "ball park" numbers.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/2253116
The sample spotted on geekbench.com has some strange differences, which make it likely that it's just an engineering sample. I just wanted to show everyone an easy to see clock for clock comparison.
in my original post here...
A side by side clock for clock comparison@3.4GHz. 1600X@3.4GHz 4,118 vs. 2600@3.4GHz 4,269 offering a clock for clock gain of 3.5%. 1600X@3.4GHz 18,906 vs. 2600@3.4GHz 20,102 offering a clock for clock gain of 5.9%. http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6690641...
Its hard for me to believe in your doomsday scenarios with China winning within 5 years with there X generation XYZ processor, which just announced 5th Generation KaiXian comparable ~6 gen i3. I personally see a movement from cell phones to some form a AR/VR glasses, which will eventually...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.