Samsung and GlobalFoundries, in partnership with IBM, unveiled the world’s first 5nm silicon chip based on EUV technology and GAAFETs earlier in the year. In Samsung’s recent roadmap, the company is expecting to debut GAA technology by the time it reaches 4nm, replacing FinFET which will likely be exhausted after 5nm, even with new materials. The downside of GAAFETs is that the nanowiring is more difficult to manufacture than traditional FinFETs, and the process will therefore be much more expensive.
http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/iedm-2017-intel-inches-closer-to-euv-lithography/
TL : DR
Using when viable
The exposure source, however, continues to cause issues with overall system uptime. The industry goal is 84 percent this year and 88 percent in 2018, but "we are lucky to be at 75 percent tool availability," Turkot said, due to long periods of unscheduled downtime.
7HPC for desktop Ryzen CPU is a good choice. Base clocks will be at the sweet spot of the 7HPC curve (close to start of the 7HPC curve in the graph below). Single core turbo will be at the top end of the voltage/freq curve. So for stock performance efficiency will be decent. But expect that to go out the window if you want to hit 5 Ghz across all cores.
It is on millions of phones/tablets from Huawei and Apple.That is news to me, but I am not aware of any other product using 10nm anyway, so this 10nm is more like an testing ground for 7nm. Which was when I thought would be TSMC using quad patterning.
Both TSMC and GF has a much larger market to help with R&D compared to the old days. So it is not surprising Intel lost / will lose the lead soon.
Both TSMC and GF has a much larger market to help with R&D compared to the old days. So it is not surprising Intel lost / will lose the lead soon.
HPC doesn't appear as appealing when put that way. That said Fmax should be significantly higher anyway.Overall GlobalFoundries is promising a 2.8x increase in density, and either a 40 percent boost in performance or 55 percent reduction in power at the same performance. The high-performance version can deliver another 10 percent boost
http://www.zdnet.com/article/iedm-2017-globalfoundries-announces-7nm-chipmaking-process/
HPC doesn't appear as appealing when put that way. That said Fmax should be significantly higher anyway.
How do you know what AMD's pricing will be?Yeah, but don't forget it's going to wrapped up in a 6 core ~$200 and 8 core for ~$329. Pretty nice
That was a guess that prices would be relatively the same based on previous pricing. Of course we won't know until AMD makes an official announcement.How do you know what AMD's pricing will be?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/iedm-2017-globalfoundries-announces-7nm-chipmaking-process/
HPC doesn't appear as appealing when put that way. That said Fmax should be significantly higher anyway.
I think the switch to 7.5T libraries at 12nm will gives us a good idea what to expect(Fmax) with 7nm and 6T libraries. 6 core per CCX(6 core gaming cpu), and if they can stabilize IF frequency/reduce intra core latency would be huge for Ryzen, and I hope this is the path they take. We could see over 5GHz(5.3GHz maybe). We live in interesting times!7HPC is all about 5+ Ghz for IBM/AMD. Obvious tradeoff - leakage power. But who cares about power when overclocking to 5 Ghz. I think we could see a 12C/24T Ryzen 3000 series with base clocks in the 3.6-4.0 Ghz range and max single core turbo of 5 Ghz.
Both TSMC and GF has a much larger market to help with R&D compared to the old days. So it is not surprising Intel lost / will lose the lead soon.
7HPC is all about 5+ Ghz for IBM/AMD. Obvious tradeoff - leakage power. But who cares about power when overclocking to 5 Ghz. I think we could see a 12C/24T Ryzen 3000 series with base clocks in the 3.6-4.0 Ghz range and max single core turbo of 5 Ghz.
Well power still matters when overclocking large core count CPUs. Just look at the issues with Skylake-X with over driven VRMs.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/iedm-2017-globalfoundries-announces-7nm-chipmaking-process/
Overall GlobalFoundries is promising a 2.8x increase in density, and either a 40 percent boost in performance or 55 percent reduction in power at the same performance. The high-performance version can deliver another 10 percent boost
HPC doesn't appear as appealing when put that way. That said Fmax should be significantly higher anyway.
7HPC is all about 5+ Ghz for IBM/AMD. Obvious tradeoff - leakage power. But who cares about power when overclocking to 5 Ghz. I think we could see a 12C/24T Ryzen 3000 series with base clocks in the 3.6-4.0 Ghz range and max single core turbo of 5 Ghz.
Fake news?I mean the 40% boost in performance we know is obviously fake.
L-lies? L-lies!1800x has 3.6/4.0 and 40% more would be 5.0/5.6. Never going to happen. But that isn't a huge issue as even something like 4.2/4.7 would already be huge improvement and pretty bad for intel.
Thaaaaaaaat's why they are doing client-only Pinnacle Ridge.AMD doesn't have the cash for separate designs (and masks).
Doing one extra die every two years is very different cost model to two extra dies every two years.Fake news?
Dude that's an actual HP node.
L-lies? L-lies!
Thaaaaaaaat's why they are doing client-only Pinnacle Ridge.
(emphasis mine)I mean the 40% boost in performance we know is obviously fake. 1800x 3.6/4.0 and 40% more would be 5.0/5.6. Never going to happen. But that isn't a huge issue as even something like 4.2/4.7 would already be huge improvement and pretty bad for intel.
The figures are at a certain voltage level. 40% doesn't necessarily mean 40% higher Fmax, just that at some point on the power/frequency curve, you can get 40% higher performance at the same power.I mean the 40% boost in performance we know is obviously fake. 1800x has 3.6/4.0 and 40% more would be 5.0/5.6. Never going to happen. But that isn't a huge issue as even something like 4.2/4.7 would already be huge improvement and pretty bad for intel.
HPC is for IBM only, obviously. AMD server chips will need to be on SOC and hence so will be all other Zen2-based chips. AMD doesn't have the cash for separate designs (and masks). Just not worth it. Better to sell lower performance for lower price. The cool thing about current design is that the can recuperate the cost of R&D by selling server chips. The consumer chips don't need to have R&D cost included in price and hence can sell at a relatively low price and still make a lot of money. If you include R&D price will go up and volume will go down. This is also against what AMD needs. they need high volume to build market share and because of the WSA.
(emphasis mine)
IMO the 4.0 turbo claim is often very poorly understood by people who don't own Ryzen chips.
I cannot comment on the 1800X , but in my experience, my "3.4/3.8" 1700X with Tomahawk B350 might as well be labelled as a 3.5 Ghz chip, period (and I think it's exactly the same for 1800 @ 3.7).
3.5 is it's all-core-boost and @stock it is glued to that frequency 99,9% of the time. Yes, 3.5. It doesn't matter if your temps are excellent (e.g <40°C die with my Noctua cooler). Even if you close everything and run only a single-threaded benchmark (e.g. CPU-Z or Cinebench) it will stay at 3.5 Ghz. Likewize, you can run Prime95 on all cores for hours ... it will still be 3.5 and never need to downclock base.
I have played with power-profiles, BIOS settings etc ... and I have literally seen ST turbo kick in 3 times (usually when everything is closed in windows and say, opening chrome) and even then only for for intervals of 1-2 secs max (with voltage being >1.4v, while on idle it's 0.9v and usually fluctuating around 1.2v-1.3v).
Is this my isolated experience, or is it the same with more expensive boards?
Anyway, this is why Precision Boost 2 will be such a big deal for a 12nm Ryzen. Even if the Single Core turbo clock is only, say 4.2 - 4.3, but it can actually sustain that clock in lightly-threaded games (dipping maybe 50-100Mhz at times), the actual clock speed improvement would still be closer to 15% rather than 10% compared to 1800X.
(I'm personally hoping for a 4.4+ ST-Turbo clock for top-line Ryzen @12nm, this is just an example)
TL;DR:
A 7nm 1800X successor will "only" have to hit 5.1-5.2 Ghz ST-boost for a 40% improvement, in real- world use cases, because of the limitations of Precision Boost 1.
Thanks, definitely need to check that out! Good to know that i might have been wrong.This can further be verfied using known benchmarks. A stock 1800x wouldn't get the ~160-165 ST r15 score it does if it wasn't running at least 4Ghz. As proven by the fact if you pin it to 4Ghz (typical max 24/7oc) your ST scores barely change, if at all.
I mean the 40% boost in performance we know is obviously fake. 1800x has 3.6/4.0 and 40% more would be 5.0/5.6. Never going to happen. But that isn't a huge issue as even something like 4.2/4.7 would already be huge improvement and pretty bad for intel.
HPC is for IBM only, obviously. AMD server chips will need to be on SOC and hence so will be all other Zen2-based chips. AMD doesn't have the cash for separate designs (and masks). Just not worth it. Better to sell lower performance for lower price. The cool thing about current design is that the can recuperate the cost of R&D by selling server chips. The consumer chips don't need to have R&D cost included in price and hence can sell at a relatively low price and still make a lot of money. If you include R&D price will go up and volume will go down. This is also against what AMD needs. they need high volume to build market share and because of the WSA.