AMD is going to use a huge amount of cream-of-the-crop Epyc chips for this bad boy alone and, if we apply the "rule" of only the best 5% of chiplets go to Epyc and only the best of those goes to the top chip, than that's a heck of allot "not good enough" 8c chiplets after the binning process.
I'm pretty sure initial yields are much less ... shall we say ... favorable ... then AMD would have us believe, simply because it's a new process. This will ofc improve with time and then it's quite possible AMD will end up sacrificing perfectly good chips for lower solutions, depending on the needs.
Not true. I just think people are expecting some kind of instantaneous migration. There are a lot more games out there now that utilize more Mt than people realize. Ones that on PC even see significant performance upgrades with more cores. But it's a slow switch, it wasn't till late 2015 early 2016 that games started to hit the market that were designed from the start with the PS4/Xbone as primary development platforms. One of the reasons we don't see significant performance increases with more cores on a lot of new games is due to how simplified the coding is for CPU work because of the Cat cores they are using. All that changes if they are using Zen cores. Now the primary development platform will be on the "enthusiast" side of feature sets (even if its a bit midgrade for us). 8 Medium clocked Zen cores will go a long way to pushing what should be much simpler ports, for PC's, into driving high core count processing requirements for games in the future.Maybe. The Xbox One and PS4 both had 8 cores. I believe 1 core was set for the OS, so the games had 6-7 cores to access. We still saw very little progress for multi core gaming.
I expect it to happen right away personally. But it will probably be tiered. There will always be the issue of cheaper processors selling in more volume. I think it's a while before AMD disables an 8c chiplet down to 2 or even 4 cores. But I expect most of the chips on a 4c Ryzen to be made up of 2 probably 4+ core capable dies, 6c CPU's with again 4c+ dies, 8 for 6c+ capbable dies 10 and 12 with 8c capable dies.
That's a possibility, I suppose, and it would go along with the idea that those CPUs were for OEMs. (Although, the lack of an iGPU would seem to me to put off OEMs from integrating it, if they had to provide an additional dGPU just to get things to function.)If there is a $100 6-core part, it would almost certainly have a locked multiplier
Maybe. The Xbox One and PS4 both had 8 cores. I believe 1 core was set for the OS, so the games had 6-7 cores to access. We still saw very little progress for multi core gaming.
Not true. I just think people are expecting some kind of instantaneous migration. There are a lot more games out there now that utilize more Mt than people realize. Ones that on PC even see significant performance upgrades with more cores. But it's a slow switch, it wasn't till late 2015 early 2016 that games started to hit the market that were designed from the start with the PS4/Xbone as primary development platforms. One of the reasons we don't see significant performance increases with more cores on a lot of new games is due to how simplified the coding is for CPU work because of the Cat cores they are using. All that changes if they are using Zen cores. Now the primary development platform will be on the "enthusiast" side of feature sets (even if its a bit midgrade for us). 8 Medium clocked Zen cores will go a long way to pushing what should be much simpler ports, for PC's, into driving high core count processing requirements for games in the future.
The cores in PS4 and Xbone are weak Jaguar cores, the cores that will be in PS5 and NeXtbox should be 8 Zen2 cores, imagine what developers will be able to do with that much power at hand.
So now we have this contest, from an AMD contracted company, with submissions ending on Dec 14.
Who's still claiming Q3-Q4 for Ryzen 3xxx?
https://www.techpowerup.com/250412/...-korea-teases-amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-5-3600x
The point was that we have had 6-7 cores on consoles for a while. We have had multi core desktops with 4 and high end systems with more than 4 cores. Its possible that we see more usage, but, I think its also possible that we don't see much progress.
Intel kept max cores on the desktop at 4 cores for so long that most developers have only really ever coded for a max of 4 cores. AMD had to release an 8c/16t desktop part to advance everything forward itself because Intel wasn't going to do it willingly. Why should developers pour time and money into taking advantage of more cores than are available to the PC segment?
I hope they do use more than 4 cores now that we have Zen pushing intel. My worry is that the big boost in console cores will create a lag. I think eventually it will have the effect of pushing more cores but, that big jump will make a lot of companies take shortcuts in the beginning.
But, it could be the case that PCs having more cores could push coding to be more multi threaded for consoles. It will be interesting.
Last gen consoles were as close to PC as they have ever been. This next gen should bring them even closer.
I guess AMD could do something like have the R3 be a 6 core Zen 1, maybe for WSA reasons.
It's possible but I am discounting it for now. On TR and Epyc because of the Rome design I suspect they could use 4 instead of 8 chips as doing so won't unbalance the cooling. But My personal guess is that all AM4 Zen2 based CPU's will be 3 chip affairs if 16c Ryzen is going to exist. If for only because I get the feeling not dedicating manufacturing lines to single chip versions will be cheaper and not wanting to unsettle the cooling balance where 2 chips would skew the heat on the heatplate to one side.You don't have to use 2 dies for Ryzen, since the memory controller is on the IO die.
You could do something like this and it would work just fine:
R9: 2 6-core dies
R7: 2 4-core dies
R5: One 6 core die
R3: One 4 core die
I guess AMD could do something like have the R3 be a 6 core Zen 1, maybe for WSA reasons.
a Ryzen 2400G (or 6C/12T / 16 CU )with 8 GB HBM at price $150 is enough to kill all Low-end CPUs/Cards.
I don't think you're getting 8 GB of HBM for $150. That's just not going to happen.
That might be possible with HBM3 or HBM4 but not HBM or HBM2.
My Point is we do see games spawning more the threads but for now outside about 5-8 games the upper end is still capped by the overall compute ability of the CPU''s in the console and any post port optimization has been for 4c8t CPU's. Drive up the compute power on the consoles and in 3 years base compute power of the Consoles and to a degree their thread count become a bare min on PC.The point was that we have had 6-7 cores on consoles for a while. We have had multi core desktops with 4 and high end systems with more than 4 cores. Its possible that we see more usage, but, I think its also possible that we don't see much progress.
1. The chips that EPYC will like , low leakage , low clocking are the polar opposite of the chips we want, high leakage , high clocking chips
2. A chiplet is smaller then the A12 and it has been in production for 1/2 a year right now, so 1 full year next june
3. much like the 6 core ryzen i think there will be plenty of "sacrificing" of fully functional chips for lower end product right off the bat.
True, but that's how it always goes. Still when yields are lower, there's more of those salvageable partially working dies. That's why later on (when yields get better) it would be very beneficial for AMD and Sony/MS to share the benefits of the binning from the same much larger pool of 8C chiplets.
That's exactly right. EPYCs (low leakage, high perf/W) come mostly from different bin than TRs (high leakage, high clockspeeds) . There are some (low volume) exceptions and likely Rome will have similar SKUs (16C or 32C). Still it's important to be aware that the top 5% bin of chips for ThreadRippers is using a different metric than the top 5% bin of chips for (higher end) EPYCs. Still as we know, most of everything (including chips) tends to be avarage.
That's not what i was trying to get across: if 5% of total chiplets are "Epyc 64c / 128t chip worthy" and the super-computer i mentioned earlier uses 80K of those, that's 1.6M chiplets right there (total pool from which the 80K were selected from).
But i seriously doubt 5% of all chiplets will make the cut for 64c / 128t Epyc chip: doubt it will reach 1%, even, and that means the total chiplet pool could be as high as 8M chiplets or more. 5% might make the cut for the lowest of Epyc chips but the highest? Seriously doubt it.