But if the desktop is capped to same 16 cores as mobile, there are no additional cores you could feed with the power you saved by having more efficient cIOD.The cIOD power is taken into account for package power limit. As an example if a Threadripper processor has a 350W limit the cIOD is probably taking up ~60W leaving the cores ~300W to consume. If a 7800X3D is using 60W while gaming there’s a really solid chance that more than 1/3 of it is the cIOD (especially if you’re running a DDR5-6000 Expo kit).
It will reduce uncore power and increase max theoretical bandwidth. It’ll be an objectively better configuration for desktop DIY enthusiasts.
IOD does contribute (a bit) to the heat load the IHS is forced to deal with when cooling the chip. However the socket itself and the VRMs are more than capable of feeding extra power to the socket for the IOD, especially in cases when you allow the system to exceed normal power limits (PBO).But if the desktop is capped to same 16 cores as mobile, there are no additional cores you could feed with the power you saved by having more efficient cIOD.
If 7800x3D did hypothetically have this better IOD and you saved that 1/3 of watts, how would that help you gain more FPS? There are no other cores and it would not really clock any faster - maybe couple hundred MHz, but thats negligible.
Yeah, 1/2 more cores for only 3x higher price, truly enticing offer. Not to mention this happened only recently, after 4 barren years, and there is no guarantee it wont be cancelled once again for the next gen.For instance, this "nonsense" is about that you don't need 24 very wide cores on a small socket, when they are available to you on the appropriate big socket.
Good only for enterprise since that's where the money is. They could release higher than 16C using only Zen 5c CCDs in a client product but don't think they will do that unless Intel strikes first with a fully E-core based CPU with something like 40 or 48 cores. Sadly, the biggest hurdle on the client side is core scaling. There are very, very few mainstream applications that can use more than 32 cores. Until that hurdle is crossed, I cannot realistically see the core or thread count increasing beyond 32.I thought AMD was that "good" company.
Then you were very naive.I thought AMD was that "good" company.
Literally their competitors have been hit with anti-trust suits over and over again, whereas the worst thing on record AMD has done was sponsor starfield or have a rough launch.I just can't understand why some people have this false belief that AMD is good.
I think most people would rather have 16 faster cores than 32 slower ones. I definitely value fast exports and render times, but I've yet to use a program that actually uses more than a few cores while in the main workflow. Most software isn't even tailored for 8 cores yet let alone 16 or 32.Anyway, are we stuck at 16C forever now, like we were on 4C with Intel not so long ago? I thought AMD was that "good" company.
It was bit of a sarcasm, really. I dont have any illusions about them. But i keep seeing that belief/sentiment.Then you were very naive.
I just can't understand why some people have this false belief that AMD is good.
It's just a company, and every company exists to generate profits for shareholders, there is no such thing as a good or bad company.
I am not neccesarily asking for 32 cores on desktop. I am just not a fan of merging it with mobile, when mobile will be the one to be the priority.Literally their competitors have been hit with anti-trust suits over and over again, whereas the worst thing on record AMD has done was sponsor starfield or have a rough launch.
I think most people would rather have 16 faster cores than 32 slower ones. I definitely value fast exports and render times, but I've yet to use a program that actually uses more than a few cores while in the main workflow. Most software isn't even tailored for 8 cores yet let alone 16 or 32.
"Company" as business entity - the only aim of a company is to generate profit. This is economics 101. There is no good in business, only $$$ of profit.I thought AMD was that "good" company.
Yeah. So the ball is in Intel's court now. THEY have to be the ones to fire the volley shot of moar cores.* Zen 3/4 went in some areas ahead of Intel. This allowed for charging way more compared to Zen 1/2 times with no need for any moar cores strategy.
Then you were very naive.
I just can't understand why some people have this false belief that AMD is good.
It's just a company, and every company exists to generate profits for shareholders, there is no such thing as a good or bad company.
The question is who are going to benefit from more than 16 cores, let alone 8 cores? Going from 4 to 6 to 8 still benefitted most users including gamers. Which users and software are really going to benefit from more cores? Sure more cores are nice, but even as en enthusiast it is <5% of my usage that can benefit from more than 8 cores. The other problem with intel was that their 4 core CPU's gained so little ST performance for each generation it was just like 12th->13th->14th (at best). If they had gained between 20-25% each gen, I think the situation would have been different.Anyway, are we stuck at 16C forever now, like we were on 4C with Intel not so long ago? I thought AMD was that "good" company.
Totally agree, we need healthy competition to get the best products at the best prices. (Looking at you GPU market....)Then you were very naive.
I just can't understand why some people have this false belief that AMD is good.
It's just a company, and every company exists to generate profits for shareholders, there is no such thing as a good or bad company.
Intel unlike AMD was a monolopy. Can you guarantee AMD wouldn't have done the same exact thing, If they were a monolopy loosing ground?Literally their competitors have been hit with anti-trust suits over and over again, whereas the worst thing on record AMD has done was sponsor starfield or have a rough launch.
Well we have to kill the time somehow, till the next Zen5 rumor at very least :-D#-|
Why don't people who "need" 24 cores cheap just buy two 12-core computers? Don't they know anymore how to build an Ethernet cluster for their highly parallel daily workloads? (Edit: An InfiniBand cluster is very affordable too if you put at most 3 nodes in it.)
Seriously. What are you all planning to do with a 24+ cores/ 48+ threads single-OS-image system? And how come this workload will be well supported by, say, a discounted LGA 1718 socket platform?
And about the Zen 6 related discussion about desktop chips purportedly getting closer in design to mobile vs. server: How much do you all already know about the intricate details of AMD's 6th EPYC generation's system-level design, as well as their upcoming mobile system-level designs, and the attached economics, to know what the more viable design to borrow for desktop is going to be?
/off topic
Well we have to kill the time somehow, till the next Zen5 rumor at very least :-D
I could technically use 24 cores for Vray rendering. Surely single 24c machine is more convenient than 2x 12 core ones. I dont need multiple computer cases in my house. You could say buy 24 core TR, but again thats 1500, when 16C 7950x is like one third of that nowadays. Its not exactly cost-effective, is it.
For instance, this "nonsense" is about that you don't need 24 very wide cores on a small socket, when they are available to you on the appropriate big socket.
As for availability and roadmaps: High-core-count high-frequency CPU offerings on an up-to-date core architecture have been available continuously for quite a while now, from both players. Not always with a "HEDT" sticker on it, but which enthusiast cares deeply for marketing labels? As for the price, opinions on whether or not high markups in (sort of) a niche market can be stomached appear to vary within the PC enthusiast crowd...Yeah, 1/2 more cores for only 3x higher price, truly enticing offer. Not to mention this happened only recently, after 4 barren years, and there is no guarantee it wont be cancelled once again for the next gen.
This is a PC enthusiast site. We overclock and buy garishly expensive hardware for our own personal use.
If compute density is desired for convenience, yes, there is indeed a price attached to that but there are also obvious gains. I can relate to that, as I have several dense compute systems at home, most of the time crammed into a single room which has got two 230V 16A circuits. The density of these computers meant higher purchase cost, but in turn also lower maintenance cost and lower cost of housing this gear.I could technically use 24 cores for Vray rendering. Surely single 24c machine is more convenient than 2x 12 core ones. I dont need multiple computer cases in my house. You could say buy 24 core TR, but again thats 1500, when 16C 7950x is like one third of that nowadays. Its not exactly cost-effective, is it.
No one really needs more cores on purely mainstream platform.I'm not convinced they won't increase core count because of economic reasons.
It's also more BOM and higher ASP means lower total addressable volume so the tradeoffs are very sharp.Because more cores = higher ASP = more money.
I've heard that they are extremely competitive with each other. So no. I don't think they discuss their company secrets whenever they meet or chat.BTW, I just found out that Lisa Su and Jensen Huang are blood relatives.
Nahhh jebaitman just goofed up the messaging which is bad in a cult-like environment that is client graphics.And I think the same reason for the recent departure of the Radeon group head
You mean this? https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/07/amd-says-nvidia-fell-for-its-pricing-trap/Nahhh jebaitman just goofed up the messaging which is bad in a cult-like environment that is client graphics.
I hate to agree since I am always wanting more cores. But there is threadripper for mainstream "moar cores" and then server .No one really needs more cores on purely mainstream platform.
The interesting part about AMD is that historically it started making a name by repeatedly proving to be a trustworthy second source, often delivering while scrutinized more than the original first source.Intel unlike AMD was a monolopy. Can you guarantee AMD wouldn't have done the same exact thing, If they were a monolopy loosing ground?