They basically announced 3 new server CPUs over the next 18 months. Crazy when you consider how competitive Milan already is. Sapphire Rapids needs to be really good for Intel.
Hopefully the desktop gets more than the scraps. But with the repeated delay or disappearance of Chagall it seems they are focused on servers.
I've seen it referenced a few times on these forums that there is a SLIGHT latency hit from 3d stacking the L3 cache. It's either related to having expanded tables for the larger size, or the fact that the electrical distance from each core to each L3 cell is still physically slightly longer (though, we're still talking extremely tiny amounts. With the clock speeds associated, it does matter).
Yeah, I'm sure in edge cases there will be a huge jump in performance, way higher than that 15% mark.
I'm just wondering, is there a point of diminishing returns with huge caches? Or is it literally the more the merrier?
I'm aware that latency has a huge role to play in this, but I'm asking in the assumption that latency differences are minimal, as it seems to be from the latest leaks.
If the application is running nearly completely out of cache, there is nothing more to gain.
But if the application has memory accesses and cache misses, there will be gains.
The rule of thumb used to be that every doubling of the size of the cache gave you approx. same increment of performance. Which means that one side has to rise exponentially for the other side to rise linearly. But that is just a general guide, each application will behave differently...
Yeah, that makes sense. I know this is looking at 10th gen Intel CPUs, but its quite interesting to see the variance in gaming performance between the different cache sizes, everything else being equal:
Some games like BF:V actually gain close to 20% from 12MB to 20MB L3, but others (maybe due to a GPU bottleneck) show almost no gains. I have a feeling Zen 3D will exhibit similar traits, with some huge uplifts in certain games followed by others with minimal gains. Hence that 15% 'average' figure.
I think that even after a no show of Zen 3D when it mattered,
Zen3D isn't late.
I wasn't clear, Zen 3D is fine ahead of schedule, running on Azure Cloud.
But desktop Ryzen 3D missed the ideal window to launch, from which it will not recover, PR-wise. It will take a lot more to regain the performance crown than what would have taken to keep it, PR-wise.
You keep saying this when it hasn't been confirmed! Please link a source or stop posting this.Zen4 is 25% higher performance per Core, you add more Cores and higher bandwidth you can still see Zen4 EPYC>>MilanX>Milan for general purpose CPUs. For sure there will be Zen4 3D Cache options down the line for special purpose CPUs
But do we know if zen4 comes without 3d cache from start?
No, Milan X is a special CPU, there will be Genoa-X just before Bergamo is released.But do we know if zen4 comes without 3d cache from start?
That's the process not the products. Read the fine print at bottom. It even has a hedge with "goal improvements are".
Yeah, I see that thanks for pointing that out, it should be>1.25 so that could be the least at ISO powerThat's the process not the products. Read the fine print at bottom. It even has a hedge with "goal improvements are".
For N5 eLVT you mean. N5 HPC eLVT would add another 10% on top of that according to your quoted graph (thanks!).25% performance seems to align with this figure for N5 HPC
But desktop Ryzen 3D missed the ideal window to launch
Well, as I said before, it doesn't say per core. Since this is HPC, we don't know what this vague '1.25x perf' corresponds to. I hope Zen 4 gives 25% performance per core, or more. It's just not what AMD is saying right now.
What are you on about? When Zen 3D comes out it will be close enough to Intel in most regards that if you're already on AMD's platform and looking to upgrade from Zen 2 without dropping a lot of money for a new board and DDR5 you've got a solid option.
Zen 4 shouldn't have any trouble taking a notable lead over Intel's offerings at the moment. How many people are going to jump on Zen 3D as complete newcomers when there was always the option of waiting for Zen 4, especially if you're building a new system as opposed to upgrading.
I think you have some fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Zen 3D as a product and are drawing bad conclusions from bad assumptions.
But do we know if zen4 comes without 3d cache from start?
Amd could care less about Rocket lake sales going up when compared to Desktop Ryzen, Their priority is the Client market and they just had a few big wins recently, they can charge premium per CCD as compared to desktop where people made a fuss about a $50 increase for for the 5000 lineNo, Rocket Lake sales are up vs. AMD CPUs because AMD did not have Zen 3D in comparisons against Alder Lake.
That has to be a rather odd custom configuration. Only way I see an Epyc chip reach 36 cores is with 6 chiplets with 6 active cores each. Wonder what about that makes it more suitable to 95W TDP than other possible configurations.Facebook Meta AMD EPYC North Dome CPU and Platform Details
Details on the big AMD EPYC win at Facebook-Meta were shown with the 36C 95W TDP EPYC in the North Dome OCP platformwww.servethehome.com