Friday, September 29th 2023

AMD Zen 5 Microarchitecture Referenced in Leaked Slides

A couple of slides from AMD's internal presentation were leaked to the web by Moore's Law is Dead, referencing what's allegedly the next-generation "Zen 5" microarchitecture. Internally, the performance variant of the "Zen 5" core is referred to as "Nirvana," and the CCD chiplet (CPU core die) based on "Nirvana" cores, is codenamed "Eldora." These CCDs will make up either the company's Ryzen "Granite Ridge" desktop processors, or EPYC "Turin" server processors. The cores themselves could also be part of the company's next-generation mobile processors, as part of heterogenous CCXs (CPU core complex), next to "Zen 5c" low-power cores.

In broad strokes, AMD describes "Zen 5" as introducing a 10% to 15% IPC increase over the current "Zen 4." The core will feature a larger 48 KB L1D cache, compared to the current 32 KB. As for the core itself, it features an 8-wide dispatch from the micro-op queue, compared to the 6-wide dispatch of "Zen 4." The integer execution stage gets 6 ALUs, compared to the current 4. The floating point unit gets FP-512 capabilities. Perhaps the biggest announcement is that AMD has increased the maximum cores per CCX from 8 to 16. At this point we don't know if it means that "Eldora" CCD will have 16 cores, or whether it means that the cloud-specific CCD with 16 "Zen 5c" cores will have 16 cores within a single CCX, rather than spread across two CCXs with smaller L3 caches. AMD is leveraging the TSMC 4 nm EUV node for "Eldora," the mobile processor based on "Zen 5" could be based on the more advanced TSMC 3 nm EUV node.
The opening slide also provides a fascinating way AMD describes its CPU core architectures. According to this, "Zen 3" and "Zen 5" are new cores, while "Zen 4" and the future "Zen 6" cores are leveraged cores. If you recall, "Zen 3" had provided a massive 19% IPC uplift over "Zen 2," which helped AMD dominate the CPU market. Although with a more conservative 15% IPC gain estimate over "Zen 4," the "Zen 5" core is expected to have as big of an impact on AMD's competitiveness.

Speaking of the "Zen 6" microarchitecture and the "Morpheus" core, AMD is anticipating a 10% IPC increase over "Zen 5," new FP16 capabilities for the core, and a 32-core CCX (maximum core-count). This would see a second round of significant increases in CPU core counts.

Diving deep into the "Zen 5" core, and we see AMD introduce an even more advanced branch prediction unit. If you recall, branch predictor improvements had the largest contribution toward the generational IPC gain of "Zen 4." The new branch predictor comes with zero bubble conditional branches capabilities, accuracy improvements, and a larger BTB (branch target buffer). As we mentioned, the core has a larger 48 KB L1D cache, and an unspecified larger D-TLB. There are throughput improvement across the front-end and load/store stages, with dual basic block fetch units, 8-wide op dispatch/rename; Op Fusion, a 50% increase in ALCs, a deeper execution window, a more capable prefetcher, and updates to the CPU core ISA and security. The dedicated L2 cache per core remains 1 MB in size.
Sources: cyperalien (Reddit), Moore's Law is Dead (YouTube)
Add your own comment

111 Comments on AMD Zen 5 Microarchitecture Referenced in Leaked Slides

#51
hs4
Why is no one talking about 16 core CCX or 32 core CCX? These are signs that CCDs for servers and desktops will be separate. Maybe there will be no desktop version and it will be diverted for laptops.
Posted on Reply
#52
Assimilator
ADB1979Asses can carry a lot of weight, but I don't ask them for comments about other peoples "leaks" (NOT news).

May I kindly suggest that if you have nothing to give, then give nothing.

MLID "leaks" information, has discussions with insiders and formulates his own conclusions and then releases them to the public as HIS leaks and opinions. You could very easily do the same, if you are not able or willing to do so, then simply do not read or watch what he has to offer, and do not add your empty comments in places like this.
Awww, did I hurt the MLID fanboy's feewings? Poor widdle baby, I'm sure you'll survive.
Posted on Reply
#53
ymdhis
btk2k2I remember this slide.



Actual uplift is closer to 29%...

AMD have a history of sandbagging like crazy with Zen.

Also nT and 1T uplift can be different depending on SMT efficiency.
Didn't it come to that because it was IPC gain combined with GHz gain? The 7000 Zen chips all had a boost clock much higher (4.4 to 4.9GHz on the 5000 CPUs vs 5 to 5.7 GHz on the 7000 CPUs). The Zen 5 chips would need to come at 6GHz boost clocks to get 20%+ gain.

Which would be quite incredible to any of us who still remember the old Pentium 4 days.
Posted on Reply
#54
Nhonho
I'm not seeing real new microarchitectures made from scratch that bring big performance advances. From what I gather, they are just improving certain parts of the previous microarchitectures.
Posted on Reply
#55
Eskimonster
I would never reference MLID about anything in my life, period.
Posted on Reply
#56
kondamin
So a 32core 8950x with a 4GB HBM L4 ?
Posted on Reply
#57
AusWolf
kondaminSo a 32core 8950x with a 4GB HBM L4 ?
Yes, and an integrated GPU with 40 CUs giving you more performance than a 6700 XT with a TDP of 125 W for the whole package. :D

Seriously, it's MLID - not the most credible source of information on the planet. Just look at the slides, 5 nm is stated for 2022, 4 nm for 2023. Do you see that happen? Honestly, I think these are very old slides.
Posted on Reply
#58
Tomorrow
AusWolfJust look at the slides, 5 nm is stated for 2022, 4 nm for 2023. Do you see that happen? Honestly, I think these are very old slides.
Um hello? Zen 4 based Ryzen and EPYC are based on 5nm and were released on 2022 (Excluding Genoa-X, Siena, Bergamo and Ryzen X3D models). Zen 4 based Phoenix is 4nm and was released in 2023.

It's ridiculous that people criticizing MLID cant even get their own facts straight. And unlike MLID we all have the benefit of hindsight about how things turned out in the end. Everyone is a big critic behind anonymity but try and put you face and your name out there with your predictions and i doubt that 99% of critics would do a better job predicting things years in advance compared to who they are criticizing.
Posted on Reply
#59
AusWolf
TomorrowUm hello? Zen 4 based Ryzen and EPYC are based on 5nm and were released on 2022 (Excluding Genoa-X, Siena, Bergamo and Ryzen X3D models). Zen 4 based Phoenix is 4nm and was released in 2023.

It's ridiculous that people criticizing MLID cant even get their own facts straight. And unlike MLID we all have the benefit of hindsight about how things turned out in the end. Everyone is a big critic behind anonymity but try and put you face and your name out there with your predictions and i doubt that 99% of critics would do a better job predicting things years in advance compared to who they are criticizing.
Does Phoenix have the Nirvana/Eldora cores?
Posted on Reply
#60
SSGBryan
R0H1TWasn't it supposed to exceed (internal?) expectations or has WTFtech on YT revised his own targets, again :wtf:

10-15% isn't exactly ground breaking!
I take it you weren't around in the decade before Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#61
Totally
R0H1TWasn't it supposed to exceed (internal?) expectations or has WTFtech on YT revised his own targets, again :wtf:

10-15% isn't exactly ground breaking!
Better than 5%.
Posted on Reply
#62
chrcoluk
I prefer lower IPC gains and less frequent CPU releases as it slows down obsolescence and keeps more money in my pocket.

One thing I have learnt, is performance gains seem to now days get quickly sapped up by less efficient software, devs will just keep stealing those extra cycles.

Friend of mine made 2 versions of an app, one in basic C, the other .NET, the latter uses almost 5x the cycles to do the same thing, but the advantage to him as a developer it was way easier to make the program on the framework.

Gains from cache increases is also going to vary from one software to the next, some software might react well to an increase, others might not be affected at all. Games seem to react particularly well though.
Posted on Reply
#63
user556
DenverIt must be wrong or outdated, it says 2023...
It'll be an early 2020 slide. Before Covid-19 hit.
Zen3 is the left-most "Cerberus". Its launch got delayed until end of 2020 simply because of Covid. Then the roll-out stretched all through 2021 and also 2022.
Again, because of Covid, Zen4 didn't get launched until end of 2022. A full 1.5 years late.
Looks like Zen5 will be less than a year late. Covid recovery finally under way.
Posted on Reply
#64
atomsymbol
NhonhoI'm not seeing real new microarchitectures made from scratch that bring big performance advances. From what I gather, they are just improving certain parts of the previous microarchitectures.
Any "real new micro-architecture made from scratch with big performance advances" would have to be able to execute 2 basic blocks per cycle - the rumored Zen 5/6 architectures are trying to do that.
Posted on Reply
#65
TumbleGeorge
atomsymbolexecute 2 basic blocks per cycle
fetch=execute? How do it this in existed ZEN architectures?
Posted on Reply
#66
atomsymbol
TumbleGeorgefetch=execute? How do it this in existed ZEN architectures?
I am sorry about using loose terminology. Terminology used in Techpowerup forums is less precise than terminology used in scientific articles. From an x86 Linux/Windows application perspective, the rumored Zen 5/6 CPUs can be said to be able to execute instructions belonging to 2 basic blocks in a single clock cycle.
Posted on Reply
#67
ratirt
If it is a two digit increase in IPC it is a good increase. If the two digit increase starts with a 2 in the front it is great. Everything else after the 2 in the front is awesome.
Posted on Reply
#68
stimpy88
ratirtIf it is a two digit increase in IPC it is a good increase. If the two digit increase starts with a 2 in the front it is great. Everything else after the 2 in the front is awesome.
I think we have all been conditioned by Intel's 1-3% IPC increases gen over gen for 20 years.

I'm not happy with anything less than 20%. Not for the money they want, and the investment into the overall platform.
Posted on Reply
#69
ratirt
stimpy88I think we have all been conditioned by Intel's 1-3% IPC increases gen over gen for 20 years.

I'm not happy with anything less than 20%. Not for the money they want, and the investment into the overall platfor
10-15% is fair for me to consider the CPU IPC increase OK. If you have had decades of Intel's 1-3% increases gen over gen 10-15% is substantial in my eyes and nothing to scoff at.
Posted on Reply
#70
AusWolf
ratirt10-15% is fair for me to consider the CPU IPC increase OK. If you have had decades of Intel's 1-3% increases gen over gen 10-15% is substantial in my eyes and nothing to scoff at.
But no reason to upgrade from current gen, either.
Posted on Reply
#71
ratirt
AusWolfBut no reason to upgrade from current gen, either.
Need to upgrade is irrelevant here. Upgrading every generation does not contribute or dictate what is an OK, fair, good IPC increase gen over gen for CPU's. Wouldn't you agree? You want to have 30% IPC icnrease every gen? 1-3% as @stimpy88 mentioned, was very low and now you want the opposite of that 30 or higher % every gen so that the CPU upgrade is viable for you every gen? I don't think that is a valid argument because the advancement is not that easy nowadays as it was a decade or two ago. We will see different percentages of gen to gen IPC increases and maybe at some point 30% or higher will happen as a breakthrough but every gen? What I'm saying is, if you get two digit increase in CPU IPC being 10 or 15 or 20% it is a good increase but it does not necessarily mean you need to upgrade. Should it be viable to upgrade every gen? That is beside the point here. What you suggest is a breakthrough every time a new gen CPU is released and we, as a community, must be sane about it as well and at least understand the capabilities of the industry and obstacles companies encounter to achieve these goals.
Posted on Reply
#72
atomsymbol
ratirt10-15% is fair for me to consider the CPU IPC increase OK. If you have had decades of Intel's 1-3% increases gen over gen 10-15% is substantial in my eyes and nothing to scoff at.
Just a note: Intel increased IPC in year 1989 by approximately 100% when going from i386 (internal architecture: CISC) to i486 (internal architecture: RISC-like in case of simple x86 instructions such as ADD; MOV reg,reg; etc): ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/46766
Posted on Reply
#73
stimpy88
atomsymbolJust a note: Intel increased IPC in year 1989 by approximately 100% when going from i386 (internal architecture: CISC) to i486 (internal architecture: RISC-like in case of simple x86 instructions such as ADD; MOV reg,reg; etc): ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/46766
And that's why we must thank AMD for the competition.
Posted on Reply
#74
AusWolf
ratirtNeed to upgrade is irrelevant here. Upgrading every generation does not contribute or dictate what is an OK, fair, good IPC increase gen over gen for CPU's. Wouldn't you agree? You want to have 30% IPC icnrease every gen? 1-3% as @stimpy88 mentioned, was very low and now you want the opposite of that 30 or higher % every gen so that the CPU upgrade is viable for you every gen? I don't think that is a valid argument because the advancement is not that easy nowadays as it was a decade or two ago. We will see different percentages of gen to gen IPC increases and maybe at some point 30% or higher will happen as a breakthrough but every gen? What I'm saying is, if you get two digit increase in CPU IPC being 10 or 15 or 20% it is a good increase but it does not necessarily mean you need to upgrade. Should it be viable to upgrade every gen? That is beside the point here. What you suggest is a breakthrough every time a new gen CPU is released and we, as a community, must be sane about it as well and at least understand the capabilities of the industry and obstacles companies encounter to achieve these goals.
I just said 10-15% IPC increase doesn't give you a reason to upgrade. I never said I wanted to. ;) Back in the days, you could game on a 2600K for a decade. One could cry for no innovation, but I think it was great value. :)
Posted on Reply
#75
atomsymbol
stimpy88And that's why we must thank AMD for the competition.
Just a note: In the 1990-ties, x86 wasn't a duopoly. There were multiple companies designing and producing x86-compatible CPUs. AMD&Intel are both responsible for the fact that in year 2023 the x86 CPU market is a duopoly. The x86 duopoly is, in my opinion, an environment with a somewhat restricted competitiveness.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 16th, 2024 04:28 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts