Except he was either wrong or counting mobile, which does indeed have a 12-18 month cadence.
Pat Gelsinger, is that you? 😅We are reaching a point where single thread performance is hamstrung by throwing too much into one CPU. To get great IPC you need high dollar systems loaded with a bunch or extra cores that do not benefit your gaming experience. For consumers they should focus on raw IPC in 2 or 4 cores and then throw multiple core operations on chiplets or co-processors.
Didn't see that with zen 4 mate. don't want to call amd users cheap or tyre kickers but they had the right idea. zen 4 didn't make sense for many over zen 3 unless you ere on much older hardware more than 5 years old. if zen 5 repeats on itself like zen 4 then they stand to alienate even more loyal customers.Everyone knows that gaming enthusiasts will gladly spend $$$ for marginal performance uplifts. Intel would be throwing away a large amount of profit selling a 4-core CPU with clock rate similar to their xx900K part. It's the same reason that AMD isn't offering a 7600X3D even though it would probably be just as good (or arguably better since it can selectively disable cores to get the best 6) as their other v-cache gaming chips.
Granite Ridge is just a CCD swap (on essentially the same node as Zen4), there's no reason to believe that would take 2 years to release.Except he was either wrong or counting mobile, which does indeed have a 12-18 month cadence.
Zen 2-Zen 3 was okay, Zen 3–>Zen 4 was not.
AMD’s last 3 releases have been H2. Announcements and/or have traditionally (Zen 2 and beyond) been done at Computex, which is in June.
Mobile parts are announced around CES time, which is January.
Intel‘s Arrow Lake will drop somewhere between September and December. AMD will launch either a bit before or a bit after. I suspect the release date will be determined by how competitive Zen 5 is, but don’t hold your breath for a Jan-July release for desktop.
Mobile? no idea. Logic would dictate January, but launching a new architecture on mobile first? That would be a new one for AMD. No, I suspect we will see Phoenix 2 next year and mobile Zen 5 in 2025. I could be wrong, however. It does make sense. AMD could pump out mobile hybrid CPUs to ensure they are competitive with Meteor Lake.
If I had to make a guess:
Phoenix 2 in Jan 2024 with additional skus dropping throughout the year. Possible Zen 5 preview in January.
Zen 5 announcement at/around Computex. Launch in October 2024.
I could be wrong, of course (I hope I am, I want a new toy to play with), but given the fact that AMD felt Zen 4 was “rushed”, they will likely wait for a reason to launch…we might even get a surprise refresh of certain Zen 4 chips prior.
Different node (N5 vs N4 or maybe N3). Different size CCD. Even if the differences are “minor”. Also, completely different design. It also sounds like we will be getting a new IO die.Granite Ridge is just a CCD swap (on essentially the same node as Zen4), there's no reason to believe that would take 2 years to release.
Where are you getting this from? The second slide is only about the cores.It also sounds like we will be getting a new IO die.
Zen4 isn't the problem. The problem is the platform change and cost associated. I'd upgrade to 7800X3D if there wasn't a mobo/ram upgrade mandatory.Didn't see that with zen 4 mate. don't want to call amd users cheap or tyre kickers but they had the right idea. zen 4 didn't make sense for many over zen 3 unless you ere on much older hardware more than 5 years old. if zen 5 repeats on itself like zen 4 then they stand to alienate even more loyal customers.
problem adjacent then. If the platform costs were halved tomorrow people would be whinging about ddr5 prices, which have gone down roughly 40% since am5's launch. there's always going to be those types of people out there. if zen 4 had provided 1.5 or 2x the ipc it did provide in some magical world you'd get through the use of drugs, most people would ignore the mobo costs and buy into the platform because it zoinks the hell out of intel.Zen4 isn't the problem. The problem is the platform change and cost associated. I'd upgrade to 7800X3D if there wasn't a mobo/ram upgrade mandatory.
Besides, my 5600X is just fine IMO
N5 and N4 are the same thing, give or take.Different node (N5 vs N4 or maybe N3)
Not in client, no.It also sounds like we will be getting a new IO die.
AMD never used the vanilla 2020 N5, just N5p.There's a notable improvement from N5 to N4P
Lol I agree. I mean, contrary to a lot of people, I don't see a problem at all with zen4 performance. It is VERY good.problem adjacent then. If the platform costs were halved tomorrow people would be whinging about ddr5 prices, which have gone down roughly 40% since am5's launch. there's always going to be those types of people out there. if zen 4 had provided 1.5 or 2x the ipc it did provide in some magical world you'd get through the use of drugs, most people would ignore the mobo costs and buy into the platform because it zoinks the hell out of intel.
28% better power efficiency since the number is 22% lower power.22% higher power efficiency
The GPU is apparently updated. Guess where that lives?Where are you getting this from? The second slide is only about the cores.
Except you just said they are the same in a prior post. Hint: They aren’t. Also see the above post about N4X.AMD never used the vanilla 2020 N5, just N5p.
N5p (aka v1.1) to N4p is like 6% higher speed or twice that in power; pocket change stuff.
It's good but not for those coming from zen 3. zen 2 maybe depending on your individual needs. zen and the + sure. don't bang too hard on those intel processors. they were very good for what they were and were fantastic for low end systems or media pcs. the cost to get into am5 today is still high, not that it's great with intel which i'm not advocating for here. mobos should not be trading at prices that were what they were nearly a year ago. especially as amd plans on pushing a refreshed x670 chipset to cater to new technologies.Lol I agree. I mean, contrary to a lot of people, I don't see a problem at all with zen4 performance. It is VERY good.
It is just that not so long ago I was with a G4560,gtx1060 6G, 8G 2400 DDR4.
The upgrade to R2600X changed some things and the next upgrade to 5600X, 32G 3200 DDR4 and RX6800XT are quite good enough for me.
So, changing again is too much investment (to me) right now.
The costs with AM5 are pretty normal for a new platform. Just not the time for me.
They pretty much are.Except you just said they are the same in a prior post
AMD never even remotely touches overdrive nodes.Also see the above post about N4X.
Intel tried to stay at 4 cores for the mainstream market for way too long so that they could charge really high prices for anything above that. AMD came along and offered a much more reasonalble price up to 16 cores and then dominated almost everything else with Epyc scalability. Above 4 was very expensive Xeon or HEDT territory previously. This was very annoying for those of us who could use more cores. I am still stuck with a 4 core / 4 thread Xeon workstation at work to this day. I mostly use it to run a vnc into big AMD machines at this point, so no reason to upgrade it. Current flavor is 48 core / 96 threads (dual socket 24 core milan parts). Will be going up to 32 core genoa parts soon for 64 core 128 thread dual socket systems.Pat Gelsinger, is that you? 😅
Seriously though Intel pushed that narrative for years while AMD was in dire straits and completely uncompetitive during the Bulldozer era, because they wanted to sell consumers less cores for more money - and to be fair it was a sound if non progressive business strategy.
But a business strategy is all that it was.
They are now doing less of that, because AMD changed the market by making competitive IPC 8+ core systems affordable to consumers.
It is a bit odd, there is still a big price difference between 6 or 8 cores and anything above that. A 6 core part with 32MB L3 is going to perform well for most games. Looking at the steam survey, 4 core parts are actually increasing. It was near 50% 6 core parts and now that is down near 30% with 6 and 8 cores increasing. This may be due to more people playing games on laptops. I know a lot of people that play not very demanding games, like WoW and such, on laptops. I am still using an ancient Apple dual core laptop. It works fine for what I use it for. A lot of people just are not upgrading. My phone is 6 cores though and is probably the fastest and lowest power cpu in the house.This to me seems unfathomably odd.
Given that the first 8 core console CPUs caem into play 10 years ago roughly it seems extremely off that there isn't more of a baseline around that spec by now, for gaming if nothing else - even if the 8 Jaguar cores of that generation were so weak in IPC and clock frequency.
AMD charging $200 for 6 cores is mad. 6 cores ought to be relegated to low end build costs or taken over by 8 core class processors for $220-240. After nearly a decade of Intel being asses with 4 cores it's now both of them being asses with 6 core design.
Lol nooooo 😂a whole 27 dollars. ohhhhhhhh the horrors. back to my pinot noir.
or as I'm sure @soresu would enjoy in the dredge of his youth as most of us did, a bucks fizz for breakfast tomorrow. breakfast of digital gladiators and champions alike.
a whole 27 dollars. ohhhhhhhh the horrors. back to my pinot noir.
or as I'm sure @soresu would enjoy in the dredge of his youth as most of us did, a bucks fizz for breakfast tomorrow. breakfast of digital gladiators and champions alike.
A big part of the reason efficiency went out the window for Intel was AMD releasing 6-8 core enthusiast parts. Intel had to more than double core counts to keep up.Intel tried to stay at 4 cores for the mainstream market for way too long so that they could charge really high prices for anything above that. AMD came along and offered a much more reasonalble price up to 16 cores and then dominated almost everything else with Epyc scalability. Above 4 was very expensive Xeon or HEDT territory previously. This was very annoying for those of us who could use more cores. I am still stuck with a 4 core / 4 thread Xeon workstation at work to this day. I mostly use it to run a vnc into big AMD machines at this point, so no reason to upgrade it. Current flavor is 48 core / 96 threads (dual socket 24 core milan parts). Will be going up to 32 core genoa parts soon for 64 core 128 thread dual socket systems.
It is a bit odd, there is still a big price difference between 6 or 8 cores and anything above that. A 6 core part with 32MB L3 is going to perform well for most games. Looking at the steam survey, 4 core parts are actually increasing. It was near 50% 6 core parts and now that is down near 30% with 6 and 8 cores increasing. This may be due to more people playing games on laptops. I know a lot of people that play not very demanding games, like WoW and such, on laptops. I am still using an ancient Apple dual core laptop. It works fine for what I use it for. A lot of people just are not upgrading. My phone is 6 cores though and is probably the fastest and lowest power cpu in the house.