chrisjames61
Senior member
- Dec 31, 2013
- 721
- 446
- 136
I don't see a 16/32 cpu in the mainstream. No reason for it. That is HEDT area.
The 2950X has a 180W TDP. That's for a much bigger chip. It's going to be harder trying to cool when you put that in a chip with a smaller surface area.That's not a fair comparison as the Threadripper is using multiple dice, and a lot of the power consumption is coming not from the core.
I certainly will not buy a desktop CPU with that high of a TDP. Something like that is best suited to the ThreadRipper platform.The 2950X has a 180W TDP. That's for a much bigger chip. It's going to be harder trying to cool when you put that in a chip with a smaller surface area.
That is a threaripperI certainly will not buy a desktop CPU with that high of a TDP. Something like that is best suited to the ThreadRipper platform.
Oops sorry about that. Through I'll admit that a 12c/24t CPU will be suitable for a high end desktop with DDR5 memory.That is a threaripper
I don't see a 16/32 cpu in the mainstream. No reason for it. That is HEDT area.
I was arguing that dual and quad core CPUs would be great for heavy multitasking.That's what people said when it was leaked that Ryzen 1000 series was going to be 8c/16t. Intel disagreed with you then and they are disagreeing again with you now if you buy the latest rumor about them making a 10c CPU for the mainstream. Hell, I even seem to remember people saying the same thing when AMD made the first dual-core CPU. If Intel hadn't bribed OEM's to not use AMD back in the day we would have had 8c/16t mainstream CPUs back around 2010.
Consoles might have much lower clock speeds which means 8c chiplets that bin poorly (below ryzen 3 spec) might be suitible for use in consoles and selling those rather than throwing them away is of benefit.
On top of that it is a guaranteed demand so it means they know they can order more wafers which may help them negotiate lower costs per wafer.
Are they really that expensive? And as far as I know, Zen2 is designed specifically for TSMC 7nm HPC, so any 12/14nm would have to be Zen+, right? And PS5 will use Navi which is also TSMC 7nm HPC with larger die size than just 72mm². Sure PS5 could use a 7nm monolithic die with one 4C CCX but then if a critical defect hits the CCX the whole SoC would be unusable for PS5 and would be wasted. That's the beauty of the chiplet design, using the same 8C chiplet for vastly different markets.
Because it might not be either one or the other but both at the same time, or are you saying that they can't get enough chiplets so they have to ration? Profit is profit and in a totally different market. We could also use the same argument against the desktop Ryzen as Rome has much higher prices and margins.
Servers with 64-cores also have low clock speed so the low-leaage low clockign dies are actually the best for server CPUs which at the same time can ask for the most money. An Epyc 7601 32-core is now roughly $4200. I would expect a 64-core to cost more but let's assume not. A simple calculation of $4200 / 9 (8 chiplets + 1 IO die) = $466.67 per chiplet. Selling that same chiplet in a console when there is server demand would be a huge waste of money. And let's not forget. Servers move slowly. Till the Rome 64-core CPU is widely available and bough tit will be at least 1 rather 1.5 years from now, just look at current epyc which is only getting some traction now.
Only reason to sell the same chiplet for less than 1/4 in a console is if you expect not to have much demand in the server space.
Yes, that is what would make sense in a console. A low (2.5-3 ghz) clocked zen+ mixed with a 7nm GPU. Why? large volume of 14/12nm to fulfill the WSA. And yes I agree the GPU part must be 7nm else it will get huge for a console and because Navi was made partially with sony and is 7nm so yeah this seems given.
Of course as someone else pointed out Sony could simply take a rather large loss on the hardware upfront but I thought does days were over.
Yes if server takes of, the will certainly have a supply issue and yeah that will certainly also then reflect in Ryzen desktop prices. I outlined a basic calculation above in same post. For Ryzen AMD can take the higher leakage higher clocking parts which are less useful for server so there is less overlap to a console. And if a 16-core Ryzen sells for $500, it will still net a lot more profit than in a console (unless sony takes a loss on the hardware).
Selling that same chiplet in a console when there is server demand would be a huge waste of money.
Only reason to sell the same chiplet for less than 1/4 in a console is if you expect not to have much demand in the server space.
Yes, that is what would make sense in a console. A low (2.5-3 ghz) clocked zen+ mixed with a 7nm GPU. Why? large volume of 14/12nm to fulfill the WSA. And yes I agree the GPU part must be 7nm else it will get huge for a console and because Navi was made partially with sony and is 7nm so yeah this seems given.
Of course as someone else pointed out Sony could simply take a rather large loss on the hardware upfront but I thought does days were over.
And if a 16-core Ryzen sells for $500, it will still net a lot more profit than in a console (unless sony takes a loss on the hardware).
The 2950X has a 180W TDP. That's for a much bigger chip. It's going to be harder trying to cool when you put that in a chip with a smaller surface area.
Only the top 5% or so will be EPYCs and ThreadRippers and the more you sell those same chiplets overall the more top end chiplets you will have.
So we have total of 70 mio chiplets of which 20 mio are used for epyc and TR which would be 28% of all chiplets, very far from the 5% suggested by Adored.
Please note that not all EPYCs will be 64 core versions with 8 chiplets, only some of them will be that. There will likely be EPYC SKUs with 4 chiplets or even less, we don't know what the requirements for the IO die are and what configurations are supported. It may even be that all configurations from 1 to 8 chiplets are supported and that would drastically change your calculations.
I know that this is just speculation but kokhua have thought about different chiplet configurations. Sure that may not be exactly right but at least the 4 chiplet configuration looks very plausible.
But sure you are right that not all current EPYC SKUs use only the top 5% of chips and it could be maybe top 10-30% of the top chips. But while AdoredTV doesn't get every detail right, his main point is still valid on speed binning and a large pool of wafers to choose from.
Addition: I will give your post a like because it's good to correct and point out that not all EPYCs are only the top 5% chips.
It is a step change in our core needs, but one I think could be worthwhile if Zen 2 turns out to be pretty phenomenal. A less than phenomenal Zen 2 could go badly wrong for AMD's future prospects.
Unless ofc the 12c / 24t or the 24c / 48t chips use solely 8c chiplets + a dummy die, which i highly doubt: would make more sense to use 6c chiplets to help distribute the heat more evenly and avoid any dummy dies, when possible. This isn't Threadripper, after all.
I used percentage within "" because, as you pointed out, that number may well be much higher, though i suspect it's actually lower.
My point was, saying its not possible then citing Threadripper power doesn't apply as so much of its power use was not directly related to the core and some of it won't carryover to a consumer AM4 chip.
The PCIe lanes. The quad channel memory controller. Anything else? What would the wattage be there?
.
that 99$ 6c/12t would indeed really bring down ASPs. Even that's overkill for most people...
I highly doubt that at those price AMD will be sustainable, Unless the yields are very high.I can't help thinking that $99 6c/12t will end up being more like $129.99 at launch, which is still $30 cheaper than what you can buy a 6c/12t cpu now.