Good to know - I figured there was some physical change to the IMC but I suppose not!
Good to know - I figured there was some physical change to the IMC but I suppose not!No, the silicon is essentially the same (the slightly denser 12nm allows for better spacing thus the higher reachable frequencies). The higher latency on consumer Zen was actually a bug and not by design, they were fixed in Epyc and Threadripper, but not in Ryzen until Zen+.
The only thing that i dont understand is why they allowed Picasso stock to run so low, they could have produced more Picassos instead of the 1600AF/1200AF. The APUs are produced at a diferent fab or something? The 3400G is gone and at this rate the 3200G will follow, why that happened when they are wasting 12nm production for the 1600AF/1200AF is beyond me.
Everything that does not come directly from AMD is.So, conjecture.
The thing is the 2600 is nowhere near of being EOL, at the same time they are producing the 1600AF, so back to my original statement, with this many skus middle area being cheaper and not that slower, do you really think the 3600 is selling as well as it should? I think not, so the 3100 existence is not a suprise to me, they need a faster way to sell of Zen 2 chips ahead of Zen 3 launch, otherwise they would have left that spot to Renoir.Not really. If they EOL the 2600 and push everyone to the 3600 while producing the 1600AF for pennies and selling it to the downmarket, it just expands their marketshare.
AMD has a huge 6C/12T lineup performance-wise ranging from 1600AF to 3600X. I think the problem of course for 2600 is that 1600AF is just a more poorly-binned 2600, and the price difference is too big to justify that ($85 vs $150) given the minimal performance difference. And the price difference between 2600 and 3600 is too narrow ($150 vs $175) with too big a performance gap to justify buying a 2600 in that case. And the 3600X is barely pricier than the 3600, only $20 more, with a better cooler.The thing is the 2600 is nowhere near of being EOL, at the same time they are producing the 1600AF and 1200AF, so back to my original statement, with this many skus middle area being cheaper and not that slower, do you really think the 3600 is selling as well as it should and stock is not pilling up? As i see this every day, the 3100 existence is not a suprise to me, they need a faster way to get rid of Zen 2 chips ahead of Zen 3 launch, otherwise they would have left that spot to Renoir.
AMD has a huge 6C/12T lineup performance-wise ranging from 1600AF to 3600X. I think the problem of course for 2600 is that 1600AF is just a more poorly-binned 2600, and the price difference is too big to justify that ($85 vs $150) given the minimal performance difference. And the price difference between 2600 and 3600 is too narrow ($150 vs $175) with too big a performance gap to justify buying a 2600 in that case. And the 3600X is barely pricier than the 3600, only $20 more, with a better cooler.
Right now I don't really see a reason to buy a 2600, 2600X, or 3600 over a 1600AF or 3600X.
I don't know what's going on there. I would say it's poorly binned chiplets they're trying to get rid of, but 3300X boosts to 4.3 (higher than 3600). It could be that the chips are well-binned but had one CCX entirely defective? Or, as you said, it could be that they're done with Zen2 and are just dumping chiplets.
The thing is the 2600 is nowhere near of being EOL,
Based on what? Are they making more of them?
Im convinced that they are going to come out with something like "Picasso2" for Athlon 4000s, most likely 4/4 and 4/8 Zen+ Athlons with something like Vega 4-6. Both for desktop and notebooks. While keeping 14nm Raven2 on 2/4 Vega 3 on entry level for as long as they have to keep buying 14nm.It'd be nice if they had a lower frequency bin than the 3400g; I guess something like an AF version of the 2400g. Same CU's and threads but milder frequencies.
As far as i know, no 12nm CPU or APU is EOL. Not even the 3400G, at least not until we get word from 100% official channels.
The only reason that make sence for the 1600AF (and 1200AF) to exist is because they have far too many 2600 produced already and they still have to buy the 12nm production so they came out with another, cheaper model so they can dump that production faster.
I dont expect any 12nm CPU to be EOL until they switch all 12nm production into making new Athlons that may be a cut-down version of Picasso. Just like Raven2 on 14nm.
Anything recent made by Global Foundries won't be EOLed for a while. AMD IS moving to 7nm as quickly as possible, however.
Best I can tell they are selling their 14nm/12nm parts at relatively low margins just to dump wafers. I expect they will continue to do that until their obligations are met. I also expect Zen 4000 and up to use 100% 7nm (and below). 14nm/12nm will be restricted to the budget sector.
I honestly think Global Foundries screwed up by dumping everything below 12nm. They would have made a ton of money had they remained partnered with AMD, and there is no doubt in my mind AMD would not have hesitated to remain partnered with them if GloFo had delivered.
Why? Maybe those SKUs just don't fit into their price hierarchy very well and they need to clear stock, so they'll focus 12nm wafer supply on other CPUs like the 1600AF etc.?
It's clear neither you nor I have enough information to logically conclude that the 1600AF represents a "problem" for AMD. You're ignoring the fact that the downmarket has been suffering over the last . . . 1 1/2 - 2 years now from Intel chip shortages. It's not necessarily a bad thing for AMD to have a bunch of excess Pinnacle Ridge stock when they pay very little to take the wafers they're using and can keep selling them at relatively-healthy volumes.
There isn't any evidence at all to suggest that the 1600AF has hurt sales of anything AMD still has in the channel, at least not in any way that's deleterious to the brand.
Some people are not happy, that they cant blame AMD for BOSD or system stability if AMD had enabled PCI-e 4.0 on PCI-e 3.0 motherboard.B550 != A320. If you will recall, one of the major things AMD had to change moving to PCIe4.0 was trace routing. Thin PCBs with traces routed for PCIe 3.0 were AT BEST working only for the first PCIe slot typically reserved for dGPUs. You weren't getting PCIe 4.0 to any of your m.2 slots or to any of the other PCIe slots further away from the CPU socket. B550 would have been designed from the ground-up to be compliant with the guidelines PCISIG established for PCIe 4.0 wrt proper routing of traces and meeting the minimum standards for motherboard layers (which supposedly was 6-layer, though some x570s are only 4-layer boards, hmm). It would have supported multiple PCIe slots and m.2 slots at PCIe 4.0 speeds. Unlike any of the 400 and 300-series chipsets. You can't infer anything about B550 from observations about A320.
Fact is that 300 and 400-series chipset boards were in no way, shape, or form compliant with the standards established by PCI SIG. Advertising them as PCIe 4.0 boards would have been dishonest, even if you could (maybe )get one PCIe slot working at those speeds as a hack. That it drove additional sales of x570 was a nice bonus, and probably motivated AMD to just pull the plug anyway because, why fret over it? It's not like anyone in the consumer market would benefit from PCIe 4.0 compliance in one PCIe slot anyway.
MB makers are used to Intel changing sockets every time a drunkard farts in public. We'll forgive them for their insolence.Some people are not happy, that they cant blame AMD for BOSD or system stability if AMD had enabled PCI-e 4.0 on PCI-e 3.0 motherboard.
Those who STILL blaming AMD for no PCI-e 4 no non PCI-e 4 platform, those MB maker didn't put bigger UEFI chip when AMD explicitly said that they will support AM4 through 2020. And you guys assuming that those same MB maker will put PCI-e 4 supported trace on PCI-e 3 board??
Think.
Where you guys getting those imaginary 1600AF and 1200AF cpus??
Who was the stupid that calling those 1600, 1600AF??
Anything recent made by Global Foundries won't be EOLed for a while.
Best I can tell they are selling their 14nm/12nm parts at relatively low margins just to dump wafers.
2600 stock is still strong
There are far too many CPUs below $150
Last week: 2600: 560, 3900X: 520.mindfactory managed to sell about as many 2600s as 3900xs in February. They clearly had some stock back then. Today? Maybe not.
IIRC Mindfactory is basically similar to Amazon/PCPartPicker/Newegg sales here in US.With AMD outselling Intel by more than 6 to 1 in Europe, why is the US still stuck buying a decent share of Intel ?
Last week: 2600: 560, 3900X: 520.
With AMD outselling Intel by more than 6 to 1 in Europe, why is the US still stuck buying a decent share of Intel ?
Most PC's, both in the US and Europe, are sold as prebuilt. Mindfactory sells to people who build their own machines.