X59 was tri channel , but that was the server socket for nehalem /westmere , after that all main stream was dual channel. Don't reinvent history. The X59 Motherboards also cost more on launch then the i7-920 (C) ( i know cuz i bought one ) .I think its matter of semantics, what one wants to call it. 4 channels was a feature of X99 or maybe even X79 more than 10 years ago. Its not to far fetched to ask to come to regular desktop already by now. I mean, if its the reason why we are stuck at 16C.
I already paid HEDT price for my current motherboard btw. 700 EUROs for Asus x670e Hero.
That will be the reality of ALL mainstream platforms moving on. You cannot ger meaningful performance increases with upcoming node shrinks so you will have to widen the cores, and increase core counts.If you really did, you'd buy a Threadripper or an Epyc.
The problem isn't that AMD couldn't increase the core count, but that they'd need a new platform that has additional memory channels to keep it fed or a big increase in LLC to alleviate bandwidth bottlenecks.
That will be the reality of ALL mainstream platforms moving on. You cannot ger meaningful performance increases with upcoming node shrinks so you will have to widen the cores, and increase core counts.
BOTH of which require additional bandwidth. So far 128 bit bus is enough but very soon it will be not enough.
I said X99 and X79, not X58, so i am not reinventing history. I had X58 as well, i know it was tri-channel. And i paid for it less than half that i paid for my current, mainstream platform mobo. Which BTW did cost more than my current CPU as well.X59 was tri channel , but that was the server socket for nehalem /westmere , after that all main stream was dual channel. Don't reinvent history. The X59 Motherboards also cost more on launch then the i7-920 (C) ( i know cuz i bought one ) .
A HEDT MB is exactly what your asking for , its not a server board and doesnt have server RAS features, so go buy a HEDT because that extra cost is for the things your asking for.....
OEMs are the ones who actually want it, if it means unification and simplification of hardware, and increasing impact of hardware-software ecosystems.OEMs are not going to be happy with increasing the bus width. Maybe that will keep a lid on moar corez.
That’s not it. There isn’t a good business case for selling 24 core tri-channel memory CPUs to the (small as it is) enthusiast market. If there was, rest assured AMD would be happy to reap those profits. That’s it. AMD exists to make profits for its shareholders and to a lesser degree, it’s OEM partners**, that’s all. Game over.I said X99 and X79, not X58, so i am not reinventing history. I had X58 as well, i know it was tri-channel. And i paid for it less than half that i paid for my current, mainstream platform mobo. Which BTW did cost more than my current CPU as well.
There is no HEDT to buy currently. Not sure why you need to defend these companies. They linger on one place in mainstream, because we apparently dont need more, but if you happen to do so, you are supposed to pay massive premium, because hurr durr, 8 channels of RAM and 2TB RAM support and god knows what... where did i ask for those? Just because i would like more than 16C, does not mean it has to be 64 or 96 right away.
X99 is definitely quad channel. I am actually posting on one right now.I said X99 and X79, not X58, so i am not reinventing history. I had X58 as well, i know it was tri-channel. And i paid for it less than half that i paid for my current, mainstream platform mobo. Which BTW did cost more than my current CPU as well.
There is no HEDT to buy currently. Not sure why you need to defend these companies. They linger on one place in mainstream, because we apparently dont need more, but if you happen to do so, you are supposed to pay massive premium, because hurr durr, 8 channels of RAM and 2TB RAM support and god knows what... where did i ask for those? Just because i would like more than 16C, does not mean it has to be 64 or 96 right away.
When did AMD state that?It's funny how AMD states "Can't do >16c it's too much for the 2ch bandwidth". Yet, Intel got a 8+16 setup and plans a 8+32 cores - all that using 2ch.
Just ARL-S and yea.8p+32e in Arrow Lake? TSMC N3B?
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-interview-ai-zen-4-strategy/2.html -> The Core Count Increases paragraph dances around the current situation.When did AMD state that?
It's funny how AMD states "Can't do >16c it's too much for the 2ch bandwidth". Yet, Intel got a 8+16 setup and plans a 8+32 cores - all that using 2ch.
AMD's IF bandwidth limitations are apparent but RAM?
When did AMD state that?
8P+16E performs similar to 16C from AMD, so that proves nothing.
There is no info about 8+32 and how many channels It will have.
Zen3 with 16C had no problem with only DDR4 3200-3600Mhz.
Now, we can buy 8000MHz memory, that's 122-150% more.
If I calculated:
100% for Zen3.
129% for Zen4 (+29%)
174% for Zen5 (+35%)
Now, If I added 50% more cores, I would end up with 261%.
I would need 8350-9400MHz memory.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-interview-ai-zen-4-strategy/2.html -> The Core Count Increases paragraph dances around the current situation.
"Can't do >16c it's too much for the 2ch bandwidth"
Feel free to provide a better translation of that PR speak.That is just disengenuois.
AMD could literally stick two Zen4 dense CCDs today in an AM5 package and have a 32 core CPU in the same form factor and power envelope of a 7950X. If they don't, it's a purely commercial choice, like limiting desktop platform to two RAM channels because of the costs.
I understand the logic in that, but sorry, my needs and desires are more important to me than profits of their shareholders. If thats all they care about, i am happy to purchase from their competition next time, or not purchase anything at all. I am not buying stuff for their convenience.That’s not it. There isn’t a good business case for selling 24 core tri-channel memory CPUs to the (small as it is) enthusiast market. If there was, rest assured AMD would be happy to reap those profits. That’s it. AMD exists to make profits for its shareholders and to a lesser degree, it’s OEM partners**, that’s all. Game over.
** to maintain a healthy ecosystem.
I understand the logic in that, but sorry, my needs and desires are more important to me than profits of their shareholders. If thats all they care about, i am happy to purchase from their competition next time, or not purchase anything at all. I am not buying stuff for their convenience.
I'm not sure only "marketing" would block it (not like AMD excelled at that part anyway). We already have seen AMD target a lot of different markets with the fewest actually different chips. So from that point of view adding yet another option should be no issue. It however does become an issue if it is deemed to weaken the overall branding, to bind significant software investment (in the case of mixing Zen4 and Zen4c CCDs), to use up stock volume in the channels for lower margin units, and whatever other more or less valid excuses different management levels could come up.The only hinderance to it will be AMD marketing, which will have trouble figuring out how to "position" it.
Hmm. Well, there always is the 'cut off my nose to spite my face' optionor not purchase anything at all.
That didn't hold back AMD from launching first gen Threadripper chips that by the time of Zen 2 were indeed obsoleted by mere Ryzen chips.You guys do understand that IPC increases can make up for the lack of increase core counts, correct? AMD or Intel could drop a whopper of a quad core chip tomorrow that beats a Threadripper (not likely, but technically possible.)
Not entirely obsolete. My 1950X has quad channel memory. It took DDR5 to win out that battle.That didn't hold back AMD from launching first gen Threadripper chips that by the time of Zen 2 were indeed obsoleted by mere Ryzen chips.
The only thing that I can think of is that the Workstation market isn't very large - compared to server and desktop/laptop. So Workstation CPUs are a lower priority - plus they still take a fair bit of time to validate. It's not like, oh sorry we just corrupted your 700GB AutoCAD file, everything is fine.That didn't hold back AMD from launching first gen Threadripper chips that by the time of Zen 2 were indeed obsoleted by mere Ryzen chips.