- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
That s right but at the same time Zen 4-5 consume quite less power in CB 2024, so what is lost on one hand is gained on the other .I see what you mean now.
Edit: I like to add that was R23. An M2/M3 core is significantly better in CB 2024.
AMD is more than fine for 2024 and 2025 but in 2026 when Nova Lake releases and AMD will be on Zen 5 that is not good.
Soon™.When is Turin expected to launch?
It's a foundry targeted core, backporting is a pretty low effort job.I dont know if anyone has mused this yet, but any chance these weird PBO results (good gains with HUGE power increases) may somehow be similar to the 11900K backport debacle
Rocket Lake was port of Sunny Cove (the Ice Lake CPU core) to 14nm, not Golden Cove.I dont know if anyone has mused this yet, but any chance these weird PBO results (good gains with HUGE power increases) may somehow be similar to the 11900K backport debacle? Like, maybe this architecture was actually designed for 3nm, but worked for a 4nm release, but at the cost of a lot of power for good speed?
Rocket Lake seemed like a turd, and supposedly it was just a backport of Golden Cove-- when Golden Cove was released on 10nm it was super impressive performance. Maybe Zen 5 is similar in some way? I didnt believe that it was a backport, but from what we are seeing, it certainly seems like it could be exactly what we are seeing...
I dont know if anyone has mused this yet, but any chance these weird PBO results (good gains with HUGE power increases) may somehow be similar to the 11900K backport debacle? Like, maybe this architecture was actually designed for 3nm, but worked for a 4nm release, but at the cost of a lot of power for good speed?
Rocket Lake seemed like a turd, and supposedly it was just a backport of Golden Cove-- when Golden Cove was released on 10nm it was super impressive performance. Maybe Zen 5 is similar in some way? I didnt believe that it was a backport, but from what we are seeing, it certainly seems like it could be exactly what we are seeing...
Now reading through so might be repeating.
If that is the case then yikes. Zen 5 being severely underwhelmed also doesn't help.Kepler_L2 said Zen 6 is planned for 2027.
It must be wrong like other things he said. But if it is true and Microsoft heard of the roadmaps it is rational, not obsessive, to redouble their ARM efforts.
No but the slide which accurately estimated Zen 5 performance also said "NEW - 32 core complex" for Zen 6.Was there a confirmation of 16 big core CCX for Zen6? I certainly missed that, I thought the consensus (of unreliable rumors) was still 8c?
I don't know where you get that, without cherypicking the worst review of the day, 10%-25% which is right in line with AMD's 16% number.Zen ±5%
If that is the case then yikes. Zen 5 being severely underwhelmed also doesn't help.
Way ahead of youI was hoping we would cool it with rumors for a bit after what has happened with Zen 5. But apparantly not. Next thing they will be talking about Zen 6 launching on 6/6/2026 with LPDDR6 and PCIe 6.
Here I can make one:
6% more IPC
6 GHz
64 threads
LPDDR6
$699
6/6/2026
There. We have our Zen 6 hype train
I was hoping we would cool it with rumors for a bit after what has happened with Zen 5. But apparantly not. Next thing they will be talking about Zen 6 launching on 6/6/2026 with LPDDR6 and PCIe 6.
Not sure about 2025 too, when QCOM, Apple launch again and if the ARM pressure ramps up with Nvidia too. I get the feeling that AMD will launch a Zen 5+, as Zen 5 was originally poised for what's now N3E, but AMD had to readjust due to TSMC's issues. Turin will make use of the node anyway, and they could even go for N3P next year or beginning of 2026 for a 5+ optimization. Another 5-10% and just chip away with more efficiency for both laptops & desktop. Then, Zen6 in '27 is ok if it's worth the wait.AMD is more than fine for 2024 and 2025 but in 2026 when Nova Lake releases and AMD will be on Zen 5 that is not good.
I think there's still good time if it's not going to launch before Oct/Nov 2025 or early 2026. Will only be a refinement and not an all new design, and Zen 5 being a ground-up design taped out late in 2023 for a mid-2024 launch. So, I hope it happens and there's news.Problem is, if AMD wanted to make 3nm Zen 5+ for desktop, we would likely know about it, it would be about to tape out.
OTOH, a 9990X unit with 8x Zen5 + 16x Zen5c chiplet (that already exists), that sounds doable on shortish notice, likely? Question how well would be accepted. The clocks on the dense cores would be nowhere near the clocks on the classic die, so the performance uplift would be limited. And you can't do 32core dense-only, because the same people that whine about Zen 5 being a "flop" in games would eat them alive.
The same chiplets that are on Ryzen are on all server CPUs. Its been this way since the Naples CPUs. The only difference is binning. Hence the design change for Ryzrn/TurinZen5 is more of a epyc arch, not ryzen.
AyeEven the server landscape is changing rapidly.
1. On one hand you have the HPC applications - compute clusters in university labs, supercomputers in government research etc. These demand peak performance, and where the increased FP perf will matter.
Wrong. Z5 is precisely what you just described, or trying to.2. Everything else is better served by a product like Sierra Forest - which is most of your cloud applications. Here, peak performance matters less, often a significant portion of the cores will remain idle or very little utilization at best. Per core perf/Watt matters more than total perf/watt when all cores are active, and for security reasons the cloud providers will disable SMT anyway - so the so-called MT advantage of Epyc is moot.
The most important thing is that Category 1 is dwarfed by Category 2.
AMD is slow to catch up to the bifurcation in the DC landscape.