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!

 

[biostud]

This is a heavily biased AMD forum. Every major computer review site says that Intel is better than AMD right now. That may change with the 3D v-cache in the next month. For the unbiased, I think people are waiting for Intel 7nm and 5nm silicon.

As for me. I prefer a CPU that sips power and I will probably be on a Zen 4 non X CPU in the next 6 months. The motherboard prices are really hurting AMD right now in the value segment.

I don't think this forum is biased towards AMD, I think most prefer a good performance/watt even though it might mean they are 10% slower than the competition. Also the longevity of the platform favors AMD. I really don't care which brand I buy, but currently AMD has the products that ticks the right boxes for me.

 

[kschendel]

born on the early 50's, beat you all

Maybe by a year or two, depending on how you define "early".

 

[Markfw]

This is a heavily biased AMD forum. Every major computer review site says that Intel is better than AMD right now. That may change with the 3D v-cache in the next month. For the unbiased, I think people are waiting for Intel 7nm and 5nm silicon.

As for me. I prefer a CPU that sips power and I will probably be on a Zen 4 non X CPU in the next 6 months. The motherboard prices are really hurting AMD right now in the value segment.

It sounds like you are taking this purely from a gamers perspective. Definitly in power and many other aspectsAMD wins, but otherwise, yes, Intel wins the desktop gaming title.

But in servers its all AMD, mobile is split, and HEDT is AMD and soon to be even better, and as you said, desktop gaming is Intel, but AMD may soon have that back. . I would not say that qualifies your remark "Every major computer review site says that Intel is better than AMD right now." as true.

 

[maddie]

Maybe by a year or two, depending on how you define "early".

I guess a lot of us are dissident old fogies.

 

[IEC]

Z790 is a dead end, mature platform that fine-tuned the lessons from Alder Lake+Z690. What you see today is what you will get. Even if a rumored Raptor Lake refresh comes out it's not likely to add much except perhaps in efficiency.

AM5 is a months-old, new platform with AMD blundering out of the gate and motherboard makers way behind in supporting proper memory subtiming profiles for common DDR5 (this happened on Z690 as well - early DDR5 was a mess, so it's not unique to AM5).

As HWUB's video shows you can have up to 20% difference in performance between a bad auto-config XMP profile and Buildzoid's "should work on every Hynix A/M-die kit" DDR5-6000 profile (which I am currently running). Suddenly, the corner cases (e.g. Spiderman) where Raptor Lake looks way better are now a wash. And with DDR5-6000 CL30 32GB kits of guaranteed Hynix being under $150 USD recently, that sweet spot shouldn't be hard to achieve.

X3D chips shouldn't be as memory sensitive due to the increased L3 cache, so it'll be interesting to see how much improvement we see in these corner cases where we run into the lack of memory optimization. Zen 4's memory controller actually scales better than RPL per HWUB results, so there's plenty of low-hanging fruit ripe for the plucking.

 

[Markfw]

Z790 is a dead end, mature platform that fine-tuned the lessons from Alder Lake+Z690. What you see today is what you will get. Even if a rumored Raptor Lake refresh comes out it's not likely to add much except perhaps in efficiency.

AM5 is a months-old, new platform with AMD blundering out of the gate and motherboard makers way behind in supporting proper memory subtiming profiles for common DDR5 (this happened on Z690 as well - early DDR5 was a mess, so it's not unique to AM5).

As HWUB's video shows you can have up to 20% difference in performance between a bad auto-config XMP profile and Buildzoid's "should work on every Hynix A/M-die kit" DDR5-6000 profile (which I am currently running). Suddenly, the corner cases (e.g. Spiderman) where Raptor Lake looks way better are now a wash. And with DDR5-6000 CL30 32GB kits of guaranteed Hynix being under $150 USD recently, that sweet spot shouldn't be hard to achieve.

X3D chips shouldn't be as memory sensitive due to the increased L3 cache, so it'll be interesting to see how much improvement we see in these corner cases where we run into the lack of memory optimization. Zen 4's memory controller actually scales better than RPL per HWUB results, so there's plenty of low-hanging fruit ripe for the plucking.

To be sure I get the right thing, could you link hat Hynix memory in newegg for me ? NO RGB ?

 

[biostud]

It sounds like you are taking this purely from a gamers perspective. Definitly in power and many other aspectsAMD wins, but otherwise, yes, Intel wins the desktop gaming title.

But in servers its all AMD, mobile is split, and HEDT is AMD and soon to be even better, and as you said, desktop gaming is Intel, but AMD may soon have that back. . I would not say that qualifies your remark "Every major computer review site says that Intel is better than AMD right now." as true.

Also, my guess would be that >95% gamers are GPU limited before they are CPU limited. Obviously this does not mean that it is not important to choose the right CPU, but a similar priced CPU from either company will give you the same gaming experience in most cases, and therefore it is other parameters you should factor in when buying a CPU.

 

[Markfw]

Also, my guess would be that >95% gamers are GPU limited before they are CPU limited. Obviously this does not mean that it is not important to choose the right CPU, but a similar priced CPU from either company will give you the same gaming experience in most cases, and therefore it is other parameters you should factor in when buying a CPU.

Like which will heat your house or run your electric bill up. While you can undervolt/underclock both to sane levels, AMD will use less power at the same performance level.

 

[In2Photos]

To be sure I get the right thing, could you link hat Hynix memory in newegg for me ? NO RGB ?

Check out the G Skill Flare X5 series.

 

[Timorous]

Also, my guess would be that >95% gamers are GPU limited before they are CPU limited. Obviously this does not mean that it is not important to choose the right CPU, but a similar priced CPU from either company will give you the same gaming experience in most cases, and therefore it is other parameters you should factor in when buying a CPU.

Doubtful. Look at the steam stats to see what people are playing and plenty of the top 100 games are CPU limited more than GPU limited.

 

[biostud]

Doubtful. Look at the steam stats to see what people are playing and plenty of the top 100 games are CPU limited more than GPU limited.

You would have to know which resolution, CPU and GPU each user has, and I’m only talking about desktops. Also it depends on what your target fps is, if you’re aiming for very high fps, sure a lot of players will be CPU limited, but my guess would be that most of those with a weak CPU also have a fairly weak GPU.

 

[Thunder 57]

This is a heavily biased AMD forum. Every major computer review site says that Intel is better than AMD right now. That may change with the 3D v-cache in the next month. For the unbiased, I think people are waiting for Intel 7nm and 5nm silicon.

As for me. I prefer a CPU that sips power and I will probably be on a Zen 4 non X CPU in the next 6 months. The motherboard prices are really hurting AMD right now in the value segment.

That may have been true, but I don't think it is anymore. Lately it seems the Intel crowd has been making more noise.

 

[aigomorla]

AMD EPYC 9554 vs AMD Threadripper 5995WX, Gb5

Supermicro Super Server vs LENOVO 30E0014GUK - Geekbench

WTF does anyone find this sort of off?

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX @ 7.02 GHz
1 Processor, 64 Cores, 128 Threads

I could of sworn the WR for threadripper was 5.15ghz.. and not 7.02ghz.

AMD Threadripper 5995WX 64-Core CPU Overclocked To 5.15 GHz With LN2 On MSI WS WRX80, Scores A Cinebench-Ripping World Record

AMD's Threadripper Pro 5995WX 64-Core CPU has been overclocked to 5.15 GHz on MSI's WS WRX80 with LN2 cooling & rips through Cinebench.

wccftech.com

Are there any good HEDT gaming options coming up? For Intel or AMD? Last time I saw this was probably X99.

Though shall not say the H word....
Well everytime i ask, someone always has to bring up the infamous, why do you need it? The Ryzen 7950x blah blah blah... blah blah blah.... mur meh blah....

 

[maddie]

That may have been true, but I don't think it is anymore. Lately it seems the Intel crowd has been making more noise.

Noise you say, well put.

 

[exitorious]

So I used the tweaked ddr5 6000 memory settings from Hardware Unboxed with my 7950x and compared them to my 13900k with ddr5 7200 and the 7950x at regular xmp ddr6000 speeds with both systems using a Geforce 4090 with dlss 3. The lows went up 15 fps in Cyberpunk for the 7950x and match the 13900k now.




Red Dead 2 results with dlss. Lows increased some, so now they match the 13900k. Average is about the same tweaked or not:





I also tested Borderlands 3, it went up 10fps from the memory tweaks on the 7950x.

 

[HurleyBird]

This is a heavily biased AMD forum.

I think there's certainly a small bias, and at the very most you might argue a moderate one. I wouldn't say the forum has a heavy bias in any direction though.

Every major computer review site says that Intel is better than AMD right now. That may change with the 3D v-cache in the next month.

The general consensus is that it's very close, and there's a case for either vendor depending on use.

I think that only a few months back, just due to DDR5 prices, 13th gen Intel + DDR4 was the obvious choice for most people, Ryzen 7000 for if you lived by a microcenter and could get free RAM, and 5800X3D for a minority (Eg. Stellaris players).

But now DDR5 is cheap enough that that if you want to go that route, it makes sense to go AMD for the platform longevity, or for Intel if you don't anticipate upgrading for at least another couple of generations.

I built a 13700K + DDR4 rig for my parents in November, and a 7900X rig for myself early this month.

For the unbiased, I think people are waiting for Intel 7nm and 5nm silicon.

That's a strange thing to say. Some people may be waiting for DDR5 prices to fall further, but why would ostensibly unbiased people be specifically waiting to see what Intel's next generation brings and not AMD's?

As for me. I prefer a CPU that sips power and I will probably be on a Zen 4 non X CPU in the next 6 months.

Intel still has lower idle power thanks to monolithic, so that's something to consider.

The motherboard prices are really hurting AMD right now in the value segment.

Agreed.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I think there's certainly a small bias, and at the very most you might argue a moderate one. I wouldn't say the forum has a heavy bias in any direction though.



The general consensus is that it's very close, and there's a case for either vendor depending on use.

I think that only a few months back, just due to DDR5 prices, 13th gen Intel + DDR4 was the obvious choice for most people, Ryzen 7000 for if you lived by a microcenter and could get free RAM, and 5800X3D for a minority (Eg. Stellaris players).

But now DDR5 is cheap enough that that if you want to go that route, it makes sense to go AMD for the platform longevity, or for Intel if you don't anticipate upgrading for at least another couple of generations.

I built a 13700K + DDR4 rig for my parents in November, and a 7900X rig for myself early this month.



That's a strange thing to say. Some people may be waiting for DDR5 prices to fall further, but why would ostensibly unbiased people be specifically waiting to see what Intel's next generation brings and not AMD's?



Intel still has lower idle power thanks to monolithic, so that's something to consider.



Agreed.

I must be an important forum member to be quoted 5x in one post.

 

[Geddagod]

I must be an important forum member to be quoted 5x in one post.

No because you made a wild and proactive claim. Why troll?

 

[BorisTheBlade82]

I must be an important forum member to be quoted 5x in one post.

I'd consider it polite to give a specific and appropriate answer to each point you made.

 

[Hans Gruber]

No because you made a wild and proactive claim. Why troll?

Let me welcome you to the forum, new guy. If I was trolling Hurley Bird, why would I upvote his post?

 

[Schmide]

Let me welcome you to the forum, new guy. If I was trolling Hurley Bird, why would I upvote his post?

2 years or 2 decades. The second you stick around you are no longer new. If that's the argument you choose you lose.

 

[Geddagod]

Let me welcome you to the forum, new guy. If I was trolling Hurley Bird, why would I upvote his post?

Why bother claiming that a sub is biased, in favor of the company the sub is about?
Didn't say you were trolling him specifically, but the "x sub is biased" take certainly isn't related to technology or the topic of this thread at all, at the very least it's not a serious comment...

 

[Geddagod]

Though perhaps I should have commented that to the guy who originally brought it up as well, and said it was a way stronger bias. But that guy already got lambasted on by a bunch of people anyway.
But either way, would be much appreciated if we got back... to you know... the actual topic of this thread. Zen 4. Rather than which sub is biased for who.

 

[Timorous]

You would have to know which resolution, CPU and GPU each user has, and I’m only talking about desktops. Also it depends on what your target fps is, if you’re aiming for very high fps, sure a lot of players will be CPU limited, but my guess would be that most of those with a weak CPU also have a fairly weak GPU.

64% are at 1080p. 1650Ti/1060/2060/3060 laptop GPU are the most popular GPUs and the most popular game played on steam in CS:GO with DOTA2 2nd. If you look at the list stuff like Football Manager, Civ 6, Civ 5, Stellaris, Factorio, Stardew Valley, CK3, Hearts of Iron 4, Cities Skylines, Path of Exile, EU4 are all in the list. Even Skyrim is in the list and I play that at 60 FPS max settings at 4K on a 6600XT which is not a 4K GPU by any stretch of the imagination yet for that game it does just fine.

There is also the fact that in a large number of games FPS is basically solved at 60FPS or higher. Take Civ 6. Does someone who gets 200+ FPS from their GPU have a better experience over someone who is using the strategy map only so they get get 80 FPS out of it on a 2200g? No, they do not objectively (subjectively I prefer the strategy map view, it just looks nicer to my eyes and is like if Civ 6 was a board game 1st that got ported to PC). What would create a better experience though is having a stronger CPU so that late game turn times are shorter, this allows you to have bigger maps with more civs and more city states if you so choose, it allows you to play a totally different style of game than someone with a weak CPU who is forced to use smaller maps to keep late game turn time sane. Same goes for Cities skylines where the tic rate is the limiting factor and if you want to make a very high population mega city you need a strong CPU and a ton of patience as the simulation rate slows to a crawl. Or what about Stellaris if you want to play on the largest maps with lots of AI to have that real space opera style game. Better have a strong CPU because otherwise you will be playing that game for months due to how slow it gets late game. Path of Exile late game mapping is the same, don't even try hardcore if your CPU cannot keep up because your character will die at some point due to an fps hitch or something.

The idea that >95% of gamers are GPU limited just seems off based on the numbers. Perhaps it is true when they are playing the new hotness like Hogwarts at the moment but once they go back to their usual games like Football Manager or Stellaris or CIv 6 or CS:GO or DOTA2 or whatever it is people turn to between releases of games they want to play I suspect they are CPU limited far more often.

 

[biostud]

64% are at 1080p. 1650Ti/1060/2060/3060 laptop GPU are the most popular GPUs and the most popular game played on steam in CS:GO with DOTA2 2nd. If you look at the list stuff like Football Manager, Civ 6, Civ 5, Stellaris, Factorio, Stardew Valley, CK3, Hearts of Iron 4, Cities Skylines, Path of Exile, EU4 are all in the list. Even Skyrim is in the list and I play that at 60 FPS max settings at 4K on a 6600XT which is not a 4K GPU by any stretch of the imagination yet for that game it does just fine.

There is also the fact that in a large number of games FPS is basically solved at 60FPS or higher. Take Civ 6. Does someone who gets 200+ FPS from their GPU have a better experience over someone who is using the strategy map only so they get get 80 FPS out of it on a 2200g? No, they do not objectively (subjectively I prefer the strategy map view, it just looks nicer to my eyes and is like if Civ 6 was a board game 1st that got ported to PC). What would create a better experience though is having a stronger CPU so that late game turn times are shorter, this allows you to have bigger maps with more civs and more city states if you so choose, it allows you to play a totally different style of game than someone with a weak CPU who is forced to use smaller maps to keep late game turn time sane. Same goes for Cities skylines where the tic rate is the limiting factor and if you want to make a very high population mega city you need a strong CPU and a ton of patience as the simulation rate slows to a crawl. Or what about Stellaris if you want to play on the largest maps with lots of AI to have that real space opera style game. Better have a strong CPU because otherwise you will be playing that game for months due to how slow it gets late game. Path of Exile late game mapping is the same, don't even try hardcore if your CPU cannot keep up because your character will die at some point due to an fps hitch or something.

The idea that >95% of gamers are GPU limited just seems off based on the numbers. Perhaps it is true when they are playing the new hotness like Hogwarts at the moment but once they go back to their usual games like Football Manager or Stellaris or CIv 6 or CS:GO or DOTA2 or whatever it is people turn to between releases of games they want to play I suspect they are CPU limited far more often.

I was only referring to fps, when talking about CPU limitations and also only desktop computers.