They should be great for the CCD's given they are less than 75 mm2.
I strongly suspect that few of the 6 core dies actually have 2 dead cores - perhaps 1 or 2 that don't clock as well, but not dead.
They should be great for the CCD's given they are less than 75 mm2.What are the yields? What are they for AMD chiplets and SoCs? How about large ASICS? Has TSMC released any data?
What are the yields? What are they for AMD chiplets and SoCs? How about large ASICS? Has TSMC released any data?
Well saidis if this is progress for progress’s sake or if there is genuine utility in having so many more cores in the mainstream.
Well, at least we have one data point point , D0. This shows How many dice are 'dead'. Then there are device related functional yields, how many dice operate With reduced functionality (like 2 dead’s cores). And finally, parametric yield - dice that function but have electrostatic issues like reduced frequencies, etc. There are other issues that occur after the fab. So at least we have some data, and on that score TSMC is doing well. But we still don't have the full picture.TSMC's 7nm node is apparently on-par with their 12/16nm nodes with respect to defect density (0.09 defects per cm^2). Using a silicon yield calculator, someone determined that the CCDs were ~93% yield for perfectly good dies. The effective yield is probably closer to 98-99% if you consider that the majority of defective dies can be easily salvaged as 6 core parts since the majority of die space in a CCD are the cores, so the defect most likely lands on a core or two instead of knocking out the Infinity Fabric link which would render the entire die worthless.
Only creators make use of that many cores - RAM on the other hand is a problem and always has been, it invariably gets filled no matter how much you buy.I wonder what bloatware will be implemented to win10 to create the need to buy the 32t desktop cpus
This topic could be very interesting, then you go ahead and make a comment that offers nothing but cynicism. Stay on 4C forever and get rid of the bloatware.Well said
Idle power 70W load 250W, yes we need Green planet and waste CPU cycles or pretend productivity
I wonder what bloatware will be implemented to win10 to create the need to buy the 32t desktop cpus
You're being dramatic.Well said
Idle power 70W load 250W, yes we need Green planet and waste CPU cycles or pretend productivity
I wonder what bloatware will be implemented to win10 to create the need to buy the 32t desktop cpus
What are the yields? What are they for AMD chiplets and SoCs? How about large ASICS? Has TSMC released any data?
No I am not. This are was before targeted for HEDT, now its a standard for the best desktop CPUs in pure CPU workloads.You're being dramatic.
Those are system power draws. The CPU itself is lower, but finding direct comparisons is hard. The point being that no business is realistically looking into 3900X for pencil-pushers. It'll be 3400G, 3600 at most. And those processors are both quite efficient, and if placed in eco mode, the 3600 can be more efficient than the 8350T.No I am not. This are was before targeted for HEDT, now its a standard for the best desktop CPUs in pure CPU workloads.
This a big fat no. Pretty much everything around us tried to go down with impact on the enviroment. But no the forum warriors disagree.
I have enough cores at home. 2x apple A9, 1x apple a12, 1xHUAWEI Kirin 970, 1x apple A12x and 1x ryzen 3900X
Just the mobile CPUs are enough for everything except gaming, where you can't wait for frametimes (maybe I am stupid enough, if someone knows how to connect them together and make home wifi transcode farm then tell please)
yeah GPUs are already "there", CPUs can't stay behind, can they ?
btw the numbers for 8500T looks super high, idle should be around 40W or less
I wonder when the governments start to regulate the max power of home desktop machines
And if you told someone 5 years ago that a 4C/4T processor might not be enough to handle even basic office workloads in 2019, I think they'd have laughed you out of the room. But here we are, the software is able to utilize it and it's making everyday life a lot better, for fairly cheap too.
ofc, but that is importantThose are system power draws.
I am not talking about threads. I am talking about the direction where the desktop is moving. Like with GPUs, it started with one additional power connector to the PCI-E slot itself an you see where we are now.Anyway, the idea that Janet in HR needs more than 8 threads is silly, I agree.
All these power numbers are greatly inflated by disabled or partially enabled power saving tech on all desktop platforms by default, both Intel and AMD.Notebook check measured the i5-8500T 6C/6T in my work Dell minibox, supposedly a great efficient option for enterprises.
Idle 64W, up to 133W in Prime95 V28 stress test
ofc, but that is important
one couldn't care less about pure CPU, that is why I am pissed with my 3900X at default 105W TDP CPU consumes 240W as whole system while encoding
where are those watts? ram, gpu idling, chipset, ssd? come on
I am not talking about threads. I am talking about the direction where the desktop is moving. Like with GPUs, it started with one additional power connector to the PCI-E slot itself an you see where we are now.
Have as many threads as you like, but stay within like 120W wall power for the top end desktop CPUs in pure CPU workloads. What is happening last 2 years is increasing core count but the power increases too, it doesn't stay the same on desktop. The efficiency is very small. And I am not talking about devices like Ipad Pro. Desktop looks ridiculous.
I expected to be less in 2019, not just throwing brute force and be happy with it.
One of my companies has an office 25 ppl and everyone has an Iphone SE. Everyone.
Connect them togethet and any workload can be distributed and shared. There is a very small % of chance everyone needs the computing power at the same time.
We are moving in the wrong direction
is it really? have you tried measuring OEE in the enviroment you work? you need computing power, but that can be achieved by better ways by just brute force increasing core counts on desktopWe're getting bigger and bigger CPU TDPs because it's worth it, because multiple cores and the software to take advantage of that increases productivity in compute intensive environments. We have more choices than ever before to build productivity machines, from fully fledged workstations to NUCs the size of an open palm - 6C/12T CPUs with 25W TDP. Complaining about the status quo only highlights the tech bubble some of us live in.
However, today's CPUs are for more efficient than CPUs from say 10 years ago.
is it really? have you tried measuring OEE in the enviroment you work? you need computing power, but that can be achieved by better ways by just brute force increasing core counts on desktop
if you give ppl more resources, they will use it..and waste it
the environment will adjust to it as a standard
don't get me wrong, I have nothing against more cores approach, but without constantly increasing the standard power for desktop systems...
with current direction gaming system in 5 years =need for 1KW PSU
are they? idle definitely, but load? it went down nicely with i7 6700K, where the whole system consumed about 130W wall powerIntel Core i7-980X Extreme: Hello, Six-Core Computing
Already the performance leader in desktop processing, Intel is following its quad-core Bloomfield design up with Gulftown, a hexa-core design sporting 12MB of shared L3 cache. Is the lone Gulftown model, Core i7-980X Extreme, worth a $1,000 asking price?www.tomshardware.com
since then, we are going back up
apple will soon laugh at the need of 250W for desktop performance computing
What is your point? My post clearly outlined that current computing offerings are extremely flexible and include any sort of productivity hardware from SFF desktops with laptop-like power consumption up until 300W+ monsters with extreme computational power. The place where I work uses both, and multiple types of machines in between.is it really? have you tried measuring OEE in the enviroment you work? you need computing power, but that can be achieved by better ways by just brute force increasing core counts on desktop
if you give ppl more resources, they will use it..and waste it
the environment will adjust to it as a standard
Speak for yourself - I'd be more than content with a 2.7-3 Ghz 16C in the range of 65-70W, or a TR 32C at 130-140W with similar clocks.PS If someone buys a HEDT CPU they aren't looking for the most power efficiency.
Speak for yourself - I'd be more than content with a 2.7-3 Ghz 16C in the range of 65-70W, or a TR 32C at 130-140W with similar clocks.
I want the oomph but not a jet engine strapped to my motherboard, or a liquid cooling system either.
AMD did come out with a new feature in Ryzen Master called Eco-Mode. Eco-Mode has been added for all 3rd Gen Ryzen processors from the Ryzen 5 3600 all the way up to the new Ryzen 9 3950X that allows them to have a configurable TDP. Essentially, this will let you run your processor at one TDP grade lower than it shipped at. So 105W part like the Ryzen 9 3950X will run at 65W and a 65W part will run at 45W.
It's enough for Word, Powerpoint, Excel, browsing - on their own - for sure. But the line of discussion was about corporate environments.How do you work out that a 4C/4T processor is not enough to handle even basic office workloads?
TDP as exact number has zero value today, unless you understand each manufacturers way to measure itOkay I get your argument, but while the highest end desktop CPU available has a massive 280W TDP power draw it also has 32 cores, each with SMT.
However, a 6-core CPU in 2019 (Ryzen 5 3600) comes in at a mere 65W TDP which is far lower (and hence, more power efficient) than a 6-core i7-980X at 130W TDP.
TDP is only increasing at the very high end which is currently chasing performance over everything else. I highly doubt a 1KW PSU will ever be 'needed' for a gaming rig.
you are asking the wrong questionThese high wattage machines consume high amounts of energy when they perform actual work, so every joule is worth it. Would you rather have less powerful but more efficient CPUs and more people working on more workstations to solve the same workload? The human being consumes ~100W at idle.
That setup is quite comparable to the environment I have to work in. Such was the reason why I made use of a bring your own PC program that IT supported a few years back in order to have a 4C 'workstation' laptop rather than the 2C ultrabooks which were being provided. The difference between them was quite notable exactly as you'd expect.It's enough for Word, Powerpoint, Excel, browsing - on their own - for sure. But the line of discussion was about corporate environments.
I work in healthcare but not in IT. In healthcare all corporate computers where I work have special needs from a security/HIPAA standpoint, I'm not sure the details, but all of them run:
...
Since there are 16 million people employed in healthcare I don't think this is even close to a fringe situation. If you're in an environment that does not have all the other corporate bloatware that we have here, then perhaps 4C/4T might work well. It just doesn't work all that well in most of our settings and I imagine any setting where there is not just office suite / browsing but also corporate antivirus/security suites, remote support stuff, HR/timekeeping/management software, and proprietary stuff.
Agree, regarding the laptops, in some situations. That's why all my considerations in above posts were using desktop CPUs - 8350T, 2700, 3400G/3600 eco mode, etc.That setup is quite comparable to the environment I have to work in. Such was the reason why I made use of a bring your own PC program that IT supported a few years back in order to have a 4C 'workstation' laptop rather than the 2C ultrabooks which were being provided. The difference between them was quite notable exactly as you'd expect.
But that's also why I'd wholeheartedly disagree that 4 cores isn't adequate for non-productivity workloads. Even with all the corporate bloatware installed the current 4C thin and light laptops have no issues running all office applications, e-mail client, and other non-productivity programs without a hitch. Sure once you run a threaded workload more cores would help, but if that's a regular work task then it shouldn't be getting done on a 4C thin and light laptop in the first place.
Here's to hoping that software continues to progress. But AMD's age old "moar cores" marketing stance isn't going to magically make it happen. There are workloads which are threaded and there are those which are never going to be within the current computing paradigm. Pushing the standard up to 4C is a good thing for consumers. Pushing it beyond that will do little more than raise prices.
It's enough for Word, Powerpoint, Excel, browsing - on their own - for sure. But the line of discussion was about corporate environments.
I work in healthcare but not in IT. In healthcare all corporate computers where I work have special needs from a security/HIPAA standpoint, I'm not sure the details, but all of them run:
McAfee DLP
Citrix
DameWare remote connect
Corporate messaging
Kronos
Dell / Intel / Adobe update and monitoring services
Electronic medical record system (Epic / Cerner)
Employee-specific software depending on job
Since there are 16 million people employed in healthcare I don't think this is even close to a fringe situation. If you're in an environment that does not have all the other corporate bloatware that we have here, then perhaps 4C/4T might work well. It just doesn't work all that well in most of our settings and I imagine any setting where there is not just office suite / browsing but also corporate antivirus/security suites, remote support stuff, HR/timekeeping/management software, and proprietary stuff.