Tuesday, February 2nd 2016

AMD Zen Architecture Supports Up to 32 Cores per Socket: Leaked Linux Patch

AMD's next-generation "Zen" x86-64 CPU micro-architecture will support up to 32 cores per socket, according to leaked Linux kernel patch on LKML. We know from older reports, that AMD clumps groups of four cores in subunits it calls "Zen quad-core units." Not to be confused with its current "module" design, a quad-core unit is a group of four completely independent cores, which share nothing other than an L3 cache. TechFrag used this bit to deduce that the "Zen" architecture is scalable up to eight quad-core units per socket, or 32 cores per socket.


Source: TechFrag
Add your own comment

46 Comments on AMD Zen Architecture Supports Up to 32 Cores per Socket: Leaked Linux Patch

#1
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
interesting
Posted on Reply
#2
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
If the L3 isn't shared amongst them all, that implies there could be an EDRAM L4 on the 32 core chip, no? Unless those L3s are really slow, there should be a pretty big gap between L3 and DDR4.
Posted on Reply
#4
xvi


Please don't cost millions, please don't cost millions, please don't cost millions.

Edit: For the sake of recouping money, it'll probably cost millions. =/
Posted on Reply
#5
Serpent of Darkness
Fluffmeister said:

Intel's Graph has no units for it's x and y. Thus, I cannot take your diagram--you draw really nice on photoshop-- seriously. I must reject the super serious-ness and informative sketch from your reply. Good day to you sir!

Looking at it from another point of view:

Intel has 2 threads aka My Little Pony-Cores (because it's run on black-devil pony magic) per Big Boy core. On the other hand, AMD will start to have 4 cores per Zen Core x 8 (4 x 8 = 31 super zentastic cores + 1 derp-a core), I am curious how that's going to improve performance for AMD in the bigger scheme of things. Furthermore, if these Zen, Thermal-Nuclear Reactors on a socket, are cheap, they would be ideal and really nice rendering pharms--that's phat and tight!!!! 2 Physical sockets, 64 mega-licous core on VRays, that's hawt! The upcoming hobbit movies will render a lot faster on these things if the rest of the silicon isn't derpped up.
Posted on Reply
#6
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
If Core 2 Duo is any indicator, it means Zen (or at least these chips that have had details leaked) will have a minimum core count of four. We already know each core accepts two threads. We're talking about 64 concurrent threads here. AMD has been surviving mostly off of the enterprise buyers because AMD is offering more cores for less money. I have little doubt this chip will best Intel in the enterprise environment and probably do so at half the cost...for a time anyway.

I don't think they'd let 32 cores slip if they didn't think the silicon could support it.
Posted on Reply
#7
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Fluffmeister said:

This is now the background on my work PC
Posted on Reply
#8
Solaris17
Creator Solaris Utility DVD
FordGT90Concept said:
If Core 2 Duo is any indicator, it means Zen (or at least these chips that have had details leaked) will have a minimum core count of four. We already know each core accepts two threads. We're talking about 64 concurrent threads here. AMD has been surviving mostly off of the enterprise buyers because AMD is offering more cores for less money. I have little doubt this chip will best Intel in the enterprise environment and probably do so at half the cost...for a time anyway.

I don't think they'd let 32 cores slip if they didn't think the silicon could support it.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/windows-server-2016-moving-to-per-core-not-per-socket-licensing/

thats going to kill people running business servers on windows as well, m$ changed there billing scheme to per core instead of per socket which means that actually licensing these machines is now more expensive.
Posted on Reply
#9
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
That applies to Intel processors too. Windows Server may become much less popular because of that decision, especially where virtualization is concerned.
Posted on Reply
#10
Andi.Biront
FordGT90Concept said:
If Core 2 Duo is any indicator, it means Zen (or at least these chips that have had details leaked) will have a minimum core count of four. We already know each core accepts two threads. We're talking about 64 concurrent threads here. AMD has been surviving mostly off of the enterprise buyers because AMD is offering more cores for less money. I have little doubt this chip will best Intel in the enterprise environment and probably do so at half the cost...for a time anyway.

I don't think they'd let 32 cores slip if they didn't think the silicon could support it.
AMD does not exist on the Enterprise. Period. Their performance per core is extremely lacking, and efficency (that matters a lot when you have hundreds of CPUs) is crap.

Been working on Datacenters for 10 years, and it has been 5 years since the last AMD I saw (since I specialized in virtualzation). In fact, the last one was a Dual Socket dual core Opteron K8 based... that I insisted on buying against the shittiest uarch ever made (Netburst).

It really does not compete. Even in workstations workloads, I can beat a Dual Socket 24 core Interlagos with a single socket Haswell 8 core.

I really hope Zen will chage that. 32c/64t on Opteron parts is possible. I doubt we will see Desktop SKUs with more than 8c/16t, maybe 16c later on.
Posted on Reply
#12
BoyGenius
How about this one.

Serpent of Darkness said:
Intel's Graph has no units for it's x and y. Thus, I cannot take your diagram--you draw really nice on photoshop-- seriously. I must reject the super serious-ness and informative sketch from your reply. Good day to you sir!

Looking at it from another point of view:

Intel has 2 threads aka My Little Pony-Cores (because it's run on black-devil pony magic) per Big Boy core. On the other hand, AMD will start to have 4 cores per Zen Core x 8 (4 x 8 = 31 super zentastic cores + 1 derp-a core), I am curious how that's going to improve performance for AMD in the bigger scheme of things. Furthermore, if these Zen, Thermal-Nuclear Reactors on a socket, are cheap, they would be ideal and really nice rendering pharms--that's phat and tight!!!! 2 Physical sockets, 64 mega-licous core on VRays, that's hawt! The upcoming hobbit movies will render a lot faster on these things if the rest of the silicon isn't derpped up.
Posted on Reply
#13
xfia
watson : graphical data does not compute. please eat this egg, orange and vitamin for optimal brain functionality. are you ready for your daily lesson plan? .........
Posted on Reply
#14
johnspack
I so want to be an Amd fanboi again... ever since my amd286 machine, I ran amd cpus all the way to athlon x2..... give me a reason to switch back zen!
Posted on Reply
#15
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Someone make dual socket desktop boards with overclocking capabilities.
Posted on Reply
#16
geon2k2
I hope this means the minimum number of real cores will be 4 as a Zen modules has, and we will end this 2 core (HT, module, no HT) nonsense, 10 years after dual core was introduced for consumer market.
Posted on Reply
#17
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
AMD has already said the cores are complete. It isn't the spawn of Bulldozer but an entirely new microarchitecture. The simutaneous multithreading in Zen is similar to Hyper-Threading where the processor is given more threads to mull over at any given time. There are no hardware resources dedicated to each thread like Bulldozer and sons.
Posted on Reply
#19
Eukashi
32cores(per 4 SMT)=128Threads? it is so interesting. in desktop,8cores(per 4 SMT)=32Threads, wow!
Posted on Reply
#20
the54thvoid
Please, let's not get too excited about desktop cores. I'm sure I remember recently the Broadwell-E thread effectively being cold to more cores.
In fact, that thread wanted better IPC, especially from AMD. Given that we would like AMD to catch up with Intel on that front, puling in more cores doesn't help the desktop position and the power draw figures will have to be good for OEM use.
I can't be alone in my current position. I have a 6 core Sandy E but keep thinking about side grading to a 4 core Skylake because the 6 core CPU is meaningless to me.
Yes, a very few will use more cores but in general, more cores isn't going to swing sales. An IPC to match Kabylake and comparable power draw will be needed. That's what will bring AMD business.
Posted on Reply
#21
RejZoR
I just hope Zen will be all AMD was expecting from it. Intel's lazy ass needs to be kicked because only that way both AMD and consumers will benefit from it.
Posted on Reply
#22
xfia
watson : where i was born everyone is a engineer and come from both amd and intel, even a lot of the same universities. they teach me funny jokes when they get together.
i have friends now, their names are galaxy and cortana. now they become more evolved like me everyday.
Posted on Reply
#23
Parn
FordGT90Concept said:
That applies to Intel processors too. Windows Server may become much less popular because of that decision, especially where virtualization is concerned.
Once you have a business infrastructure or product based on virtualization fully set up, you can't easily switch the underlying hypervisor. So I don't think M$ is really worried about people moving away.

A lot of the VM platforms out there are based on either VMware technologies or Hyper-V. So I guess VMware will probably follow M$ steps soon in order to give a boost to their profit.

That leaves KVM/Xen and VirtualBox the only choices for the poor.
Posted on Reply
#24
Parn
I guess the 32c/64t is reserved for the enterprise sector. We will probably never see more than 8c/16t on desktop during the lifespan of Zen. Maybe the successor of Zen will standardise on 8c/16t and push on 12c or 16c (provided the performance of Zen is adequate to keep AMD afloat).
Posted on Reply
#25
alucasa
Personally, I can use up to only 8 threads. So, if Zen's 8 core CPU beats Skylake by a good margin, I'd switch. Of course, the TDP needs to stay below 95w. I don't want 220w TDP CPU.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment