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!

 

[HurleyBird]

OTOH a '7970X3D' with an 8c Zen 4 CCD with v-cache and a 16c Zen 4c CCD would absolutely dominate everything, it has the v-cache ccd for workloads where cache is king and it has additional cores for workloads where cores are king. It would need better scheduling or some forced profiles in Ryzen Master to work at its best but that is probably doable. This would make an excellent refresh product IMO.

Doable? Probably. Would never be perfect of course, and would take a huge amount of work to get anywhere worth going to. But who knows, maybe AMD has a "Thread Director" hidden somewhere in the IOD.

 

[Doug S]

"O'Brien is the ZEN4-XE3D online yet?"

"No sir, I had to re-calibrated the phase modulator, but the power coupler was emitting a high phase variance."

"Try reversing the polarity?"

"Aye Sir"

Reversing the polarity is the Star Trek version of "try turning it off and on again"

 

[nicalandia]

It's baffling AMD didn't do this in the first place. They knew they were going to be extremely uncompetitive with low end RL, they knew demand had fallen off a cliff well before the Zen 4 launch, and they're still cost competitive even with 2 CCDs, but they went ahead and launched the 7600X and 7700X anyway. Who do they think they are, Nvidia?

Hyperbolic Much? Zen4 is anything but "Extremely Uncompetitive", Lay off the pipe would you

 

[LightningZ71]

The 7600x and 7700x are in the stack to give gamers something approachable cost wise for AM5 to help with platform volume. Looking at the benchmarks, there isn't a game out there that they can't give you a good framerate on at any resolution with the appropriate video card. Lets not kid ourselves, with consoles having 8 cores, with one or two of them likely reserved for console housekeeping, there isn't going to be a game produced anytime soon that is going to absolutely require more than 6 physical cores to run well enough. They may run slightly better with a few more, but nothing will be unplayable with a 7600x.

What you get when you buy that 7600x is a platform that is advertised byvthe manufacturer to see at least two more full generation upgrades available, taking you through a good 4 years or more of being relevant. That's not what Intel is offering for just a little less money overall for low end boards.

 

[nicalandia]

Get a 7600X today so in a couple of years you get to upgrade to a 7800X3D(second hand by then, or lowered price) and bet set for a few more years...

 

[Mopetar]

IMO AMD/Lisa should sit down and think really hard about working on adding Zen 4c cores to Ryzen right now.

7950X is winning most MT productivity benchmarks vs 13900k, so the idea of adding more cores to be competitive seems wasteful and silly. A 7950X3D would run the table on nearly everything.

They have Threadripper for anyone who wants more than 16 cores. Most consumers don't need more than 8 so ballooning core counts further just adds cost for people who'd rather not pay it. If 3D rendering or some other compute task is really important and not just a hobby, you can justify the cost of a professional workstation chip. If you're balking at the extra $$$$ for a system that more than doubles productivity over multiple years of use, your time obviously isn't that valuable.

 

[HurleyBird]

Hyperbolic Much? Zen4 is anything but "Extremely Uncompetitive", Lay off the pipe would you

Zen 4 is a very competitive architecture. But the 7600X and 7700X are very uncompetitive products and the 13600K makes them look silly.

 

[Timmah!]

They have Threadripper for anyone who wants more than 16 cores. Most consumers don't need more than 8 so ballooning core counts further just adds cost for people who'd rather not pay it. If 3D rendering or some other compute task is really important and not just a hobby, you can justify the cost of a professional workstation chip. If you're balking at the extra $$$$ for a system that more than doubles productivity over multiple years of use, your time obviously isn't that valuable.

For 2500 the cheapest one. Thank you but no thank you.
And no, you cannot justify it. You may think that doing 3D rendering for living is being so paid so generously, that 2500+ EUR for "professional workstation chip" is just an afterthought. Here is the thing, it is not, definitely not for everyone and everywhere. That myth has to die.

 

[gdansk]

Zen 4 is not bad. But it would need:

1. More cores on the high end. This would easily allow 40% more performance in MT in the same power envelope.
2. More cores on the low end. 7600X should be 8 cores by now.
3. Lower CPU prices. Lower board prices. Lower DDR5 prices.
4. 3D cache variants.

if AMD wanted to keep Intel noncompetitive. Instead they basically gave Intel the low end, midrange, and high end gaming. Leaving only high end MT in desktops and servers as AMD's domain.

 

[nicalandia]

The 7600X and 7700X are very uncompetitive products and the 13600K makes them look silly.

No, the 13600K is making YOU look Silly by saying Silly things. The 7600X and 770X are very competitive CPUs at the very Top End of Gaming CPUs.. Please Stop making yourself look Silly

 

[nicalandia]

Zen 4 is not bad. But it would need:

1. More cores on the high end.

What are you on About? Just Watch AMD Release The 96C/192T Genoa Monster on November 10th and decimate any current and Future Sapphire Rapids/Emeral Rapids

 

[gdansk]

What are you on About? Just Watch AMD Release The 96C/192T Genoa Monster on November 10th and decimate any current and Future Sapphire Rapids/Emeral Rapids

High end desktop. AMD did follow their standard more core strategy on server because they actually care about being competitive there.

 

[ondma]

Zen 4 is a very competitive architecture. But the 7600X and 7700X are very uncompetitive products and the 13600K makes them look silly.

I dont understand this, or the hype for the 13600k. The 7600x, 7700x, 13600k and 13700k trade blows in gaming with the respective chip (results seem all over the place depending on the site) at similar prices. Only place where the intel models have a significant lead is in productivity, due to the e cores. That is an advantage I guess, but if one is interested in productivity, I would think they would move up the stack to a 7900x or 7950x. So to me 7600x vs 13600k is a toss up.

 

[nicalandia]

High end desktop. AMD did follow their standard more core strategy on server because they actually care about being competitive there.

High en Desktop as in HEDT? Well AMD has not released Zen4 HEDT yet, but the current line of TR PRO is enough to crush the competition.

Oh you mean the 7950X? Well 16C/32T is clearly enough to match or exceed the 13900K in MT tasks.

 

[desrever]

Instead of e cores, AMD can release a 24 core part if they needed the absolute multi threaded win but that market is very small. Also they have a lot of room to lower prices if they want. Each 7950x likely costs less than Raptor Lake to produce. They can price the 7900x at the same price as Intel i5s easily enough if they had the financial pressure to do so but they are obviously allocating their wafers elsewhere instead.

From AMD's perspective, this gen will be a lower volume one either way because the slow adoption of AM5 and DDR5, they won't be able to change that much until market improve there. Lowering their CPU prices won't make either of those things improve. A $200 7600x is pointless if motherboard is $250 and DDR5 is $150. AMD's goal here is to target the high end to drive some sales to people who want the best.

The 3D parts will come and take the gaming crown but AMD lowering prices at the lower/mid range won't affect sales much imo.

 

[HurleyBird]

I dont understand this, or the hype for the 13600k. The 7600x, 7700x, 13600k and 13700k all trade blows in gaming (results seem all over the place depending on the site) at similar prices for the respective chips. Only place where the intel models have a significant lead is in productivity, due to the e cores. That is an advantage I guess, but if one is interested in productivity, I would think they would move up the stack to a 7900x or 7950x. So to me 7600x vs 13600k is a toss up.

What an utterly incoherent argument. May as well have said "quad cores are enough for gaming, but if you are interested in productivity go buy x299" at the time of the Zen 1 launch.

The entire RL and Zen 4 product stacks are more than sufficient for any gamer with the possible exception of competitive E-sports players. If literally the only thing you're interested in is gaming, buy the cheapest CPU in either product line, or even go back a generation. Going for a 7900X, 13700K, or higher, isn't a great return on investment.

Productivity matters. A lot more than gaming where you aren't going to notice a difference between any of these products in the real world outside of extreme edge cases. The 13600K beats the snot out of single CCD Zen 4 SKUs in productivity. Saying "then go up a price bracket or two or three and buy a 7900X or a 7950X" is just so obtuse.

 

[eek2121]

And they're wrong!

Well, no, they aren't. A Zen 4c Chiplet (hint: guess what the "c" actually stands for?) does not clock as high as a desktop chip. It is density optimized, and will run hotter, but runs great at the frequencies EPYC runs at. Zen 4 runs hot enough as it is, and doubling up on density would only make thins worse. They may eventually do something similar to Zen 4c, but with a slightly different approach (Either cut down L3 cache or using 3D V-Cache in place of L3 Cache), but it won't be the same chiplet.

At any rate, nothing AMD has announced or leaks have indicated point to a client 16 core chiplet, and further, from a business standpoint, one isn't needed. The 7950X is competitive with the top Intel offering, and AMD has some more chips coming next year (X3D parts, lower end 'value' parts, the 'missing' 7800X, etc.) to ensure the KS doesn't steal the show.

Further, from what I understand from leakers, AMD actually has the capability to push out a faster, cooler, and more efficient SKUs if they wanted to. It is entirely possible we will see a Zen 4 refresh late next year (outside of X3D) if some leaks are any indication.

Shoot, AMD could simply fix the heat spreader issue and probably give themselves another 5-10%.

 

[nicalandia]

What an utterly incoherent argument.

Dude, really take a break..! You are looking beyond Silly..!

 

[eek2121]

What an utterly incoherent argument. May as well have said "quad cores are enough for gaming, but if you are interested in productivity go buy x299" at the time of the Zen 1 launch.

The entire RL and Zen 4 product stacks are more than sufficient for any gamer with the possible exception of competitive E-sports players. If literally the only thing you're interested in is gaming, buy the cheapest CPU in either product line, or even go back a generation. Going for a 7900X, 13700K, or higher, isn't a great return on investment.

Productivity matters. A lot more than gaming where you aren't going to notice a difference between any of these products in the real world outside of extreme edge cases. The 13600K beats the snot out of single CCD Zen 4 SKUs in productivity. Saying "then go up a price bracket or two or three and buy a 7900X or a 7950X" is just so obtuse.

It's going to take Intel to bring back HEDT. Threadripper isn't an HEDT chip, it is a workstation chip. On the desktop, AMD quite simply can't bring us more cores. There is no room on AM5 (All the mockups are ignoring the additional stuff require to wire a third chiplet up, provide power, etc.) Lower in the stack, AMD won't add a separate chiplet because they would destroy margins.

I do wish AMD would bring back proper HEDT, but I just don't see it happening. I will be keeping an eye on Sapphire Rapids, if it ever launches.

 

[HurleyBird]

It's going to take Intel to bring back HEDT. Threadripper isn't an HEDT chip, it is a workstation chip. On the desktop, AMD quite simply can't bring us more cores.

It would have been nice, but AMD doesn't need 24-cores. 16-cores with v-cache should easily be enough to take the undisputed crown.

AMD's problem is that they must have figured they had Nvidia mindshare on desktop (even as demand for Zen 3 was falling off a cliff) and just like Nvidia, could charge more for less at the low end.

Then they proceeded to totally screw up their product stack.

The 7600X should not exist. The lowest end SKU should have 8 cores. The CCDs that would have went into the 7600X could go into a lower clocked 12 core SKU instead. Next you could have the current 7900X. Then either a 14-core or a lower clocked 16 core SKU, and then finally the 7950X. That's one possible stack that would line up much, much better against RL, but there's plenty of range to do it other ways too.

Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done. It's AMD can't exactly snap their fingers and change the Zen 4 product stack to be something better. They may try to slowly morph it, but moving too quickly will put egg on their face. The X3D launch may give an opportunity for a bit of a redo though.

 

[nicalandia]

Then they proceeded to totally screw up their product stack.

The 7600X should not exist.

Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done. It's AMD can't exactly snap their fingers and change the Zen 4 product stack to be something better.

You have cleary lost your mind...!

 

[nicalandia]

Lets forget about the Ravin Lunatic for a moment and appreciate The 7950X Incredible Performance..

ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench

Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an AMD Ryzen 9 7950X processor.

browser.geekbench.com

 

[Schmide]

Well, no, they aren't. A Zen 4c Chiplet (hint: guess what the "c" actually stands for?) does not clock as high as a desktop chip. It is density optimized, and will run hotter, but runs great at the frequencies EPYC runs at. Zen 4 runs hot enough as it is, and doubling up on density would only make thins worse. They may eventually do something similar to Zen 4c, but with a slightly different approach (Either cut down L3 cache or using 3D V-Cache in place of L3 Cache), but it won't be the same chiplet.

Is it "cut down" ? "crammed in there" ? Do I have to check the cloud to find out ?

I imagine it is not designed to run hot but rather lower power. Less power delivery, less traces needed to power the chip. Less power budget, less cache you can power.

 

[gdansk]

High en Desktop as in HEDT? Well AMD has not released Zen4 HEDT yet, but the current line of TR PRO is enough to crush the competition.

Oh you mean the 7950X? Well 16C/32T is clearly enough to match or exceed the 13900K in MT tasks.

No as in high-end. Not workstations. It isn't hard to understand. The 7950X is less of a MT beast than it should be. It looks inefficient because it doesn't have enough cores to be in Zen 4's best power envelope.

And matching the 13900K isn't enough for AMD. The 7950X is behind in games, cost, and platform maturity. It needs to dominate MT to make it worthwhile. AMD were too conservative in the core counts. The first time that's happened in the Zen era.

 

[alexruiz]

My take on the core count and prices:

AMD pulled one from nvidia's page.
By pricing the 7000 series high, it makes the existing stock of 5000 series CPUs look like a great deal.
The spoiler here is that raptor lake is priced very aggressively, and it is performing very strong. The larger L2 is doing wonders for them.

While at the top the 7950x is still king, and the 7900x arguably 3rd overall in performance, they are quite more expensive than their intended rivals (13900k and 13700k)
The 13700k is in fact priced like the 7700x while performing almost like a 7900x, and the 13600k is priced like a 7600x while performing a little faster than the 7700x.

What I see here is fairly simple.
Once the stock of Ryzen 5000 dries up for 5700x and higher, AMD will discount the parts.
A 7600x at around $229 will be uncontested if B650 boards are available around $150.
A 7700X at around $319 goes head to head with the 13600k.
A 7900x at around $429 gets the upper hand vs the 13700k, slightly more expensive but also slightly faster.

I do not think that more cores are needed this generation
What is needed is pricing the core count comparable to the competition.

For next gen, however:
Ryzen 3: 6 cores
Ryzen 5: 8 cores
Ryzen 7: 12 cores
Ryzen 8: 16 cores
Ryzen 9: 20 cores

Make 12 cores the mainstream.
e-core spam from the other guys will the core count higher.