Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)

[Vattila]

Except for the details about the improvements in the microarchitecture, we now know pretty well what to expect with Zen 3.

The leaked presentation by AMD Senior Manager Martin Hilgeman shows that EPYC 3 "Milan" will, as promised and expected, reuse the current platform (SP3), and the system architecture and packaging looks to be the same, with the same 9-die chiplet design and the same maximum core and thread-count (no SMT-4, contrary to rumour). The biggest change revealed so far is the enlargement of the compute complex from 4 cores to 8 cores, all sharing a larger L3 cache ("32+ MB", likely to double to 64 MB, I think).

Hilgeman's slides did also show that EPYC 4 "Genoa" is in the definition phase (or was at the time of the presentation in September, at least), and will come with a new platform (SP5), with new memory support (likely DDR5).

What else do you think we will see with Zen 4? PCI-Express 5 support? Increased core-count? 4-way SMT? New packaging (interposer, 2.5D, 3D)? Integrated memory on package (HBM)?

Vote in the poll and share your thoughts!

 

[Rigg]

I was talking about new builds between ZEN 4 and RL.

ps. AM4 in the end of 2022 is worse vs socket 1700. Take as example two users today, one with Ryzen 5600X and another with i5 12400f.
next year the AM4 users will only have an option for 5800X3D at $400 (for gaming) , where 12400 users will have an option for 13700k at $400. 13700k will be faster in both gaming and MT vs 5800X3D.

There's a few questionable assumptions there.

1. There are no more AM4 CPU's to be released.

Hallock left the door open for more CPU's to be released

Antony: Is the 5800X3D the last processor we’ll see launched on Socket AM4?

Robert: I would say probably not. I don't really know what we plan to do with Socket AM4 but I think you saw Lisa talk about AM4 will continue, it will live on and it certainly has huge demand both from DIY builders and system customers. Could there be more AM4? Probably? But I don;t have anything specific to say on that.

2. The 13700k will be $400.

Unlikely. The MSRP on the 12700k is $450. Intel have said they will increase prices up to 20%.

The price increases could come into effect in autumn and the percentage increases are likely to range from a minimal single-digit increase to more than 10% and 20% in some cases, Nikkei reported.

3. The 5800x3D will still be $400 next year.

Unlikely. AMD have consistently done significant price drops on previous gen CPU's when new ones release. Micro Center was selling 2700x CPU's for $130 at the end of 2019.



4. 13700k will beat 5800x3D in gaming.

Probably, but not necessarily on the kind of budget DDR4 board the 12400 owner is likely to own. Unlikely the budget LGA 1700 buyer has a fast DDR4 kit or a powerful enough GPU to see any potential gains anyway. A 13700k upgrade also has the potential to overwhelm the VRM's (not to mention the CPU cooler) on this type of board in MT scenarios, potentially significantly reducing performance. These are all non issues (besides the GPU part) for the AM4 owner looking to upgrade to 5800x3D on all but the absolute garbo tier of AM4 boards.

 

[Det0x]

No, stock it's about 1.3 Volts. The one that reaches 65 Watts its basically Ecomode and it's less than 1 volt

Hmm this could sound like clock stretching.. I hope not

If he sat manual static OC @ 5050mhz then its not clock stretching. (if it behave same as on Zen3)

If he sat minus vcore offset / static vcore and still let the cpu boost itself, then it very well could be clock stretching..

We need to see performance numbers to decide

 

[Rigg]

Hmm this could sound like clock stretching.. I hope not

If he sat manual static OC @ 5050mhz then its not clock stretching. (if it behave same as on Zen3)

If he sat minus vcore offset / static vcore and still let the cpu boost itself, then it very well could be clock stretching..

We need to see performance numbers to decide

Reminds me of the day Zen 2 launched and I could barely contain myself when my 3900x was maintaining incredible clocks while sipping power with a huge negative vcore offset. Then I ran cinebench.

 

[PJVol]

Some Bios bugg issues causing high heat. Manual settings lower the temp..

"Leakers" are not allowed to show Vcore telemetry or don't know how?

 

[coercitiv]

"Leakers" are not allowed to show Vcore telemetry or don't know how?

Telemetry data would be too controversial. What we want is pure belief that Zen 4 can do 5Ghz @ 65W with one weird trick.

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

Some Bios bugg issues causing high heat. Manual settings lower the temp..

View attachment 66970

View attachment 66969

I have to wonder which SKU It is. 7600x or 7700x?

No, stock it's about 1.3 Volts. The one that reaches 65 Watts its basically Ecomode and it's less than 1 volt

67.924/122.212=0.56
If at 122W we have 1.3V then for 67.9W we need ~0.975V.

 

[AtenRa]

There's a few questionable assumptions there.

1. There are no more AM4 CPU's to be released.

Hallock left the door open for more CPU's to be released



2. The 13700k will be $400.

Unlikely. The MSRP on the 12700k is $450. Intel have said they will increase prices up to 20%.



3. The 5800x3D will still be $400 next year.

Unlikely. AMD have consistently done significant price drops on previous gen CPU's when new ones release. Micro Center was selling 2700x CPU's for $130 at the end of 2019.

View attachment 66973

4. 13700k will beat 5800x3D in gaming.

Probably, but not necessarily on the kind of budget DDR4 board the 12400 owner is likely to own. Unlikely the budget LGA 1700 buyer has a fast DDR4 kit or a powerful enough GPU to see any potential gains anyway. A 13700k upgrade also has the potential to overwhelm the VRM's (not to mention the CPU cooler) on this type of board in MT scenarios, potentially significantly reducing performance. These are all non issues (besides the GPU part) for the AM4 owner looking to upgrade to 5800x3D on all but the absolute garbo tier of AM4 boards.

1. Faster than 5800X3D ??? I highly doubt it.

2. Two things, they said up to 20% and all products will not see the same price increase.

3. AMD already have made price cuts and introduced new cheaper AM4 models like the $200 5600 and $300 5700X. Since 7600X is at $300 they will not price 5800X3D lower than $400 because it will cannibalize the ZEN4.

4. Using the 13700K at default there are no issues with motherboard VRMs . There is also the option for the 65W 13700 that is cheaper , at way lower TDP and only 2-3% slower vs 13700K in gaming. I bet it will still be at least as fast vs 5800X3D in gaming and way faster in MT.

 

[Det0x]

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X CPU Cinebench R23 Benchmark Leaked, Up To 34% Faster Single-Core & 23% Faster Multi-Core Uplift Versus 5950X

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565585672689242112

This multicore score is way too low...
Zen3 get this MT score @ around 4.5ghz allcore.
Zen4 7950x baseclock are supposed to be 4.5ghz

Clearly something is wrong

*edit*
Yeah seems like he used way too weak cooling for this cpu, throttling the results


And this is the same guy from the other leak saying that he could not cool a 120w cpu (hitting 92 temperature)

*edit2*
Even official AMD side says 7950x should be +48% MT in Cinebench


*edit3*
More bogus from him


Dont think hes numbers can be used for any comparisons to say it lightly

*edit4*


That also makes yesterdays "Undervolting Can Leave A Lot of Frequency & TDP Headroom, Also Drops Temps Significantly"-leak void..

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

I can't say I am impressed with Zen 4 Desktop SKUs.
Zen4 SKUs released by AMD are less energy efficient than their predecessors even though they are on 5nm. High clocks are simply killing any efficiency gains from the process.
Ryzen 5 5600X vs Ryzen 5 7600X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 7 5700X vs Ryzen 5 7700X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5900X vs Ryzen 5 7900X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5950X vs Ryzen 5 7950X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
I am more interested in model without X in their name and back to 65 and 105W TDP.

In my opinion, AMD should have made 2 CCD's. One with 6 cores and one with 8 cores.
This way they could release
6C - 1 CCD6
8C - 1 CCD8
10C - 2x CCD6 (1 core deactivated per CCD)
12C - 2x CCD6
14C - 2x CCD8 (1 core deactivated per CCD)
16C - 2x CCD8
Another problem is, that they didn't release anything bigger than 16 cores.

 

[leoneazzurro]

I can't say I am impressed with Zen 4 Desktop SKUs.
Zen4 SKUs released by AMD are less energy efficient than their predecessors even though they are on 5nm. High clocks are simply killing any efficiency gains from the process.
Ryzen 5 5600X vs Ryzen 5 7600X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 7 5700X vs Ryzen 5 7700X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5900X vs Ryzen 5 7900X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5950X vs Ryzen 5 7950X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
I am more interested in model without X in their name and back to 65 and 105W TDP.

If you consider "energy efficiency" simply as a measure of the total energy consumption of a CPU, sure, but the common understanding about "energy efficiency" is perf/W and at the moment we have no data to say it got worse, instead we have AMD's claims (which turned out fairly accurate in the past) of the exact opposite. Let's also not forget that big part of this is also due first to to Intel raising their power consumption a lot in order to be competitive with the top AMD models, because many users look only at pure performance without considering how that performance is obtained. Of course is also Intel's merit to have created a hybrid architecture that is more competitive for the lower end (due to more cores in the form of Gracemont, mainly) forcing AMD to raise clocks on the lower SKUs. It will be interesting to see what happens in two years, when Zen5 lands, and that from current leaks is supposed to be something like an hybrid architecture too.

 

[lobz]

Does it matter? Probably not. Good memory scaling benchmarks are difficult to find because most reviewers are either incompetent or lazy. I can't tell you how many times I've seen memory scaling benches done at GPU limited settings, which defeats the entire point.

At any rate, I already said why I had a problem with AMDs methodology when it comes to how they configured the Intel setup. Alder Lake is not restrained from benefitting from faster memory frequencies while Zen 4 is.

Therefore any review which tries to equalize memory frequency is automatically suspect in my opinion. I can't say I expected any different from AMD since they have the most to gain from doing a stunt like this, but what I am saying applies mostly to the third party reviewers.

So after everything that's happened around first party benchmarks over the past 5 years, now you're saying AMD is pulling a stunt here? You have got to be kidding.

 

[lobz]

From the leaks, they are saying the max IFC will be 3ghz, which means to run at 1:1 ratio you will need to pair it with DDR5 6000. You will be able to use faster memory to be sure in gear 2 mode (and increase bandwidth) but the scaling won't be there and performance will suffer because latency will increase. It's just like Zen 3.

In fact, that slide you posted shows memory latency at 63ns which is already more than what Alder Lake can achieve. According to Techpowerup, 12900K plus DDR5 6600 gets 59ns.

That to me will put it at a disadvantage to Raptor Lake which will be capable of hitting even higher memory frequencies than Alder Lake due to a more robust memory controller.

DDR5 7000 should be in the mid 50s.

When you're saying it's 'more' than what ADL can achieve, you're forgetting that Zen4 still has its memory controller off-CCD and still achieving comparable latency despite the fact, while keeping all the benefits of utilizing a chiplet design.

I'd call that a huge win in that area.

 

[exquisitechar]

I can't say I am impressed with Zen 4 Desktop SKUs.
Zen4 SKUs released by AMD are less energy efficient than their predecessors even though they are on 5nm. High clocks are simply killing any efficiency gains from the process.
Ryzen 5 5600X vs Ryzen 5 7600X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 7 5700X vs Ryzen 5 7700X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5900X vs Ryzen 5 7900X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5950X vs Ryzen 5 7950X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
I am more interested in model without X in their name and back to 65 and 105W TDP.

It is what it is, AMD didn't want to leave performance at the table when Intel is pushing 253W and has more cores. You can always lower the power consumption and enjoy vastly better power efficiency and performance than Vermeer, still. If I had to build a new PC soon, that's what I would do with a 7950X.

 

[lobz]

I can't say I am impressed with Zen 4 Desktop SKUs.
Zen4 SKUs released by AMD are less energy efficient than their predecessors even though they are on 5nm. High clocks are simply killing any efficiency gains from the process.
Ryzen 5 5600X vs Ryzen 5 7600X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 7 5700X vs Ryzen 5 7700X -> 65W vs 105W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5900X vs Ryzen 5 7900X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
Ryzen 9 5950X vs Ryzen 5 7950X -> 105W vs 170W (+62%)
I am more interested in model without X in their name and back to 65 and 105W TDP.

In my opinion, AMD should have made 2 CCD's. One with 6 cores and one with 8 cores.
This way they could release
6C - 1 CCD6
8C - 1 CCD8
10C - 2x CCD6 (1 core deactivated per CCD)
12C - 2x CCD6
14C - 2x CCD8 (1 core deactivated per CCD)
16C - 2x CCD8
Another problem is, that they didn't release anything bigger than 16 cores.

if you've already run comprehensive power consumption tests, why don't you share the actual data with us, instead of throwing around sentiments like having failed to be impressed?

Because I assume you're not basing your post on TDP figures, that would be..... I don't know, that would be weird.

 

[coercitiv]

I am more interested in model without X in their name and back to 65 and 105W TDP.

Keep in mind nobody is forcing you to run 105W and 170W TDP. Just like with Intel, you have multiple levers to fully customize your build.

I keep my 12700K @ PL1=PL2=125W and it's perfect for me. Back when I configured my 1600X build using semi-passive cooling, I didn't even adjust power limits but went for custom temperature target instead. I liked it so much than even with my Intel build I'm attempting to emulate that behavior by lowering max temp setting to 90C instead of auto.

The non-X SKUs will be great for value builds, but if you REALLY value efficiency like you say, then you want the better binned SKUs with custom power limits.

 

[Det0x]

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X CPU Cinebench R23 Benchmark Leaked, Up To 34% Faster Single-Core & 23% Faster Multi-Core Uplift Versus 5950X

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565585672689242112

This multicore score is way too low...
Zen3 get this MT score @ around 4.5ghz allcore.
Zen4 7950x baseclock are supposed to be 4.5ghz

Clearly something is wrong

*edit*
Yeah seems like he used way too weak cooling for this cpu, throttling the results
View attachment 66993

And this is the same guy from the other leak saying that he could not cool a 120w cpu (hitting 92 temperature)

*edit2*
Even official AMD side says 7950x should be +48% MT in Cinebench
View attachment 66995

*edit3*
More bogus from him
View attachment 66996

Dont think hes numbers can be used for any comparisons to say it lightly

*edit4*
View attachment 66997

That also makes yesterdays "Undervolting Can Leave A Lot of Frequency & TDP Headroom, Also Drops Temps Significantly"-leak void..

LOL this guy

Update: The same user has uploaded new results, now under a 360mm AIO liquid cooler. The CPU retains its stock 5.0 GHz all-core boost frequency but delivers a far better multi-threaded score of 36256 points.

 

[exquisitechar]

The same user has uploaded new results, now under a 360mm AIO liquid cooler. The CPU retains its stock 5.0 GHz all-core boost frequency but delivers a far better multi-threaded score of 36256 points.

That's in line with what AMD claimed.

 

[nicalandia]

With the 7950X is Water Cooling for the best experience

 

[nicalandia]

13900k At 250W



Vs

7950X at 240 Watts.

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

if you've already run comprehensive power consumption tests, why don't you share the actual data with us, instead of throwing around sentiments like having failed to be impressed?

Because I assume you're not basing your post on TDP figures, that would be..... I don't know, that would be weird.

Yes, I am basing It on TDP and not actual power consumption tests, because there are none yet.
105-170W TDP (142-230W PPT) or 62% increase happened for a reason.
Do you think those values are only for AVX-512 and in everything else It will be a lot less? I am not so optimistic.

 

[naad]

I'd gladly run a 7950X at under 100W, don't need that much MT perf, but definitely want that top notch ST perf and low latency memory subsystem

 

[rainy]

Yes, I am basing It on TDP and not actual power consumption tests, because there are none yet.
105-170W TDP (142-230W PPT) or 62% increase happened for a reason.
Do you think those values are only for AVX-512 and in everything else It will be a lot less? I am not so optimistic.

What about possibility of higher number of cores in the future?
With 105W TDP it would be effectively impossible, at 170W there's at least a chance for 24 or maybe even 32 cores (Zen 5 + Zen 5c).

 

[eek2121]

Yes, I am basing It on TDP and not actual power consumption tests, because there are none yet.
105-170W TDP (142-230W PPT) or 62% increase happened for a reason.
Do you think those values are only for AVX-512 and in everything else It will be a lot less? I am not so optimistic.

So you are arguing about nothing….I see.

Zen 4 is far more efficient than Raptor Lake or Alder Lake. AMD raised power limits, which raised TDP, in order to unlock multicore performance. There is nothing wrong with this. Intel has high power limits because they are using a design that would not otherwise be competitive.

Just because of you, I am putting a 7950x in a mini ITX build.

 

[mikk]

So you are arguing about nothing….I see.

Zen 4 is far more efficient than Raptor Lake or Alder Lake. AMD raised power limits, which raised TDP, in order to unlock multicore performance. There is nothing wrong with this. Intel has high power limits because they are using a design that would not otherwise be competitive.

Just because of you, I am putting a 7950x in a mini ITX build.

It's barely faster with a full node advantage. Power consumption not much difference. Look above, only 10W difference. It seems like Zen 4 needs water cooling, if not performance drops. This might be a serious issue, even most reviewer using a traditional air cooler. Raptor Lake is much easier to cool down.

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

If you consider "energy efficiency" simply as a measure of the total energy consumption of a CPU, sure, but the common understanding about "energy efficiency" is perf/W and at the moment we have no data to say it got worse, instead we have AMD's claims (which turned out fairly accurate in the past) of the exact opposite.

I am talking about performance/W here for Desktop SKUs they just announced.
These models won't have 62% higher performance in MT than their predecessors. Maybe some extreme case, but I am pretty certain not on average.

P.S. If we compare at the same TDP, then of course Zen4 will win, It would be weird If It lost.