Monday, May 23rd 2016

AMD "Summit Ridge" Die Pictured?

At its 2016 Annual Shareholders Meeting website, AMD reportedly posted a wafer shot of its upcoming 14 nm "Summit Ridge" CPU die. The "Summit Ridge" silicon is rumored to drive a number of performance-thru-enthusiast processor SKUs for AMD. The die pictured features eight CPU cores based on the "Zen" micro-architecture, a dual-channel DDR4 memory controller, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache split between two blocks of four CPU cores, each.

"Summit Ridge," much like the "Bristol Ridge" APU silicon, will be a true SoC, in that it integrates the southbridge on the processor die. With "Summit Ridge," AMD is also introducing a new inter-socket interconnect replacing its ageing HyperTransport technology. The new Global Memory Interconnect (GMI) bus provides a 100 GB/s path between two sockets. The "Summit Ridge" die features two such interconnect ports.
Source: SemiAccurate
Add your own comment

56 Comments on AMD "Summit Ridge" Die Pictured?

#1
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
512 KB L2...that sounds like it is on the low side.
Posted on Reply
#2
TheLostSwede
FordGT90Concept
512 KB L2...that sounds like it is on the low side.
Per core, so that's 4MB, plus 16MB L3 for 20MB in total, no different than Intel's current 8 core processors.
Posted on Reply
#3
Jism
FordGT90Concept
512 KB L2...that sounds like it is on the low side.
To keep the thing going, it's using a 512KB L2 cache rather bigger since it would make a larger pipeline for instructions to follow. They use the L3 cache to store larger chunks of data and communicate between the 2.

Remember this thing is completely redesigned with Jim on top of that team. We are going to get some competition back in the ring from AMD vs Intel.
Posted on Reply
#4
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
TheLostSwede
Per core, so that's 4MB, plus 16MB L3 for 20MB in total, no different than Intel's current 8 core processors.
Oh wow, I'm behind the times. Skylake only has 256 KB L2/core. :eek:
Posted on Reply
#6
Naito
Not one for anything AMD, but would be great to see them do well again. Always interested in new tech.
Posted on Reply
#7
RejZoR
So, this is 8 physical cores and if SMT is confirmed, also 16 threads. I really hope this is it for AMD. They really need a technological breakthrough after rather disastrous Bulldozer series. Their latest CPU's only matured about now and even that in mid end segment where they compete well with price, but not as much in performance.
Posted on Reply
#8
john_
At least in their slide, where that die shot is, it still says 2016. That's good news.

Unfortunately they still aren't going to offer models with 6 or 8 excavator cores. I don't think it would cost them much in R&D. That means that AM4 will look pretty low-mid range socket when it comes out with only 4 core APUs and people interested in Zen will not care going to AM4 from now. They will wait. I also expect motherboards that costs over $100 to have poor sales. No one pays for an expensive motherboard to use it with an APU. And, OK, let's say that Zen comes out in the end of 2016. What will AMD be offering between the APUs and an 8 core Zen? DDR3 AM3+ FX processors?
Except if Zen comes at really low prices, with the 4 core model starting at $100-$150 and the 8 core model not going over $200-$250. If this is the plan, you have to wonder about Zen's performance and if it is a true Phenom successor or just a better Bulldozer - even if AMD says the opposite, even if it's architecture looks different and closer to Intel's.
Posted on Reply
#9
Basard
john_
At least in their slide, where that die shot is, it still says 2016. That's good news.

Unfortunately they still aren't going to offer models with 6 or 8 excavator cores. I don't think it would cost them much in R&D. That means that AM4 will look pretty low-mid range socket when it comes out with only 4 core APUs and people interested in Zen will not care going to AM4 from now. They will wait. I also expect motherboards that costs over $100 to have poor sales. No one pays for an expensive motherboard to use it with an APU. And, OK, let's say that Zen comes out in the end of 2016. What will AMD be offering between the APUs and an 8 core Zen? DDR3 AM3+ FX processors?
Except if Zen comes at really low prices, with the 4 core model starting at $100-$150 and the 8 core model not going over $200-$250. If this is the plan, you have to wonder about Zen's performance and if it is a true Phenom successor or just a better Bulldozer - even if AMD says the opposite, even if it's architecture looks different and closer to Intel's.
I'd pay $250+ for an AM3+ Zen! Seeing as I just blew 240 on this GA-990FX-Gaming and an FX-8300.... LOL.

Naito
Not one for anything AMD, but would be great to see them do well again. Always interested in new tech.
Why not? AMD was pretty much spanking Intel for an entire decade not too long ago. Until they sold all their fabs and bought ATI.... (Hmm, yeah, I guess AMD is kinda stupid)
Posted on Reply
#10
TheLostSwede
I don't understand all the negative comments about AMD and why price is an issue.
If they make a CPU that beats Intel on performance, people will pay for it, it's that simple. If they don't beat Intel, which most people seem to doubt and I'm not saying they will, then they're going to have to compete on price. No-one but AMD knows how well these chips perform, so it's no point to say this or that until we some some actual reviews of the chips. Besides, the world needs a competitive AMD, or we'll be stuck in the current situation where Intel offers 2-5% performance increases on a yearly basis, so here's hoping that AMD can come up with something competitive across the board.
Posted on Reply
#11
medi01
What are those "Orochi" and "Summit"?



"high performance desktops" ^^
I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Posted on Reply
#12
mastrdrver
FordGT90Concept
512 KB L2...that sounds like it is on the low side.
Not so much as it's been rumored that AMD is going to a writethrough cache design for Zen.
Posted on Reply
#13
techy1
8 physical zen cores (that is expected to be on intels SandyBridge level) suddenly makes AMD very interesting... one could say: "IPC sandy bridge level? pfff - that is so 2010".... answer is - yes and it is good... because intel have not evolved much away from that SanyBridge (maybe 20% max for Skylake) but intel still thinks that IPC like that and 4 cores - it is good enough (tough data shows that noone wants to upgrade and PC market is in slump - wonder why). but now amd will pack just a little bit slower 8 cores for same price.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheinsanegamerN
john_
At least in their slide, where that die shot is, it still says 2016. That's good news.

Unfortunately they still aren't going to offer models with 6 or 8 excavator cores. I don't think it would cost them much in R&D. That means that AM4 will look pretty low-mid range socket when it comes out with only 4 core APUs and people interested in Zen will not care going to AM4 from now. They will wait. I also expect motherboards that costs over $100 to have poor sales. No one pays for an expensive motherboard to use it with an APU. And, OK, let's say that Zen comes out in the end of 2016. What will AMD be offering between the APUs and an 8 core Zen? DDR3 AM3+ FX processors?
Except if Zen comes at really low prices, with the 4 core model starting at $100-$150 and the 8 core model not going over $200-$250. If this is the plan, you have to wonder about Zen's performance and if it is a true Phenom successor or just a better Bulldozer - even if AMD says the opposite, even if it's architecture looks different and closer to Intel's.
And nobody buys a brand new AM4 motherboard to slap a 6 core bulldozer on it either. And why would they, when zen will most likely grind excavator into the ground? Any cost associated with putting a 8 core excavator chip (considering the excavator has no variants with l3 cache or more then 4 cpu cores, and NO construction cores have ever been made on 14nm finfet) on AM4 would be better spent on getting zen out the door. Even the AM4 excavator APUs are still 28nm.

You will have 2 and 4 core APUs, and a six and eight core zen. You dont need anything in the middle there. Gamers will go for the 6 and 8 core, the 2 and 4 core will find its way into OEM and mini itx builds. And I dont see why their $100+ mobos would sell any worse then intels, and those sell pretty well. Even AM3+ sold well considering it was so badly outdated. A modern AMD chipset with a modern CPU will sell like hotcakes.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheLostSwede
techy1
but now amd will pack just a little bit slower 8 cores for same price.
Who says it'll be at the same price? I'd expect these to cost more than Intel's equivalent if the performance is there.
Posted on Reply
#17
ZoneDymo
Basard
I'd pay $250+ for an AM3+ Zen! Seeing as I just blew 240 on this GA-990FX-Gaming and an FX-8300.... LOL.




Why not? AMD was pretty much spanking Intel for an entire decade not too long ago. Until they sold all their fabs and bought ATI.... (Hmm, yeah, I guess AMD is kinda stupid)
Fanboysm cannot be explained by logic, its just another flaw in many a human mind.
Posted on Reply
#18
ZoneDymo
RejZoR
So, this is 8 physical cores and if SMT is confirmed, also 16 threads. I really hope this is it for AMD. They really need a technological breakthrough after rather disastrous Bulldozer series. Their latest CPU's only matured about now and even that in mid end segment where they compete well with price, but not as much in performance.
Eh the bulldozer series was fine, dont exaggerate like that.
Truthfully AMD would be in much better waters atm if Intel did not do that shady price fixing bs they got a fined for by at least Europe.
Most people by far dont even need something as good as many a bulldozer chip.
Posted on Reply
#19
Jism
Basard
I'd pay $250+ for an AM3+ Zen! Seeing as I just blew 240 on this GA-990FX-Gaming and an FX-8300.... LOL.
AM3+ is still being sold today, as motherboard vendors still create different type of mobo's such as GAMING and whatsoever, selling stuff on the budget.

Admitted; the AM3+ platform with a decent FX CPU holds well. Pair that with a good gfx card and you'll ready for most of the games on a decent resolution.

AMD CPU's OC very well as well. I am still going on a Phenom X6 1055T @ 4.2Ghz which shines in many MT programs and games.

I am awaiting first benches of the ZEN cpu and simply upgrade the complete package. AMD just as well could make the AM3+ CPU on a smaller node, being more power efficient, have some small upgrades and engineer-magic, and be OC'ed the shit out of with 6GHz or even higher.

Should still kick-ass :)
Posted on Reply
#21
Jism
Oh man... :D Now if that price for the complete package would be RIGHT... AMD has a winner, and Keller defenitly has another reward on his CV.
Posted on Reply
#22
Slizzo
Sounds intriguing. Maybe get me to get this and ditch Sandy Bridge if price/perf are up there.
Posted on Reply
#23
HisDivineOrder
TheLostSwede
I don't understand all the negative comments about AMD and why price is an issue.
If they make a CPU that beats Intel on performance, people will pay for it, it's that simple. If they don't beat Intel, which most people seem to doubt and I'm not saying they will, then they're going to have to compete on price. No-one but AMD knows how well these chips perform, so it's no point to say this or that until we some some actual reviews of the chips. Besides, the world needs a competitive AMD, or we'll be stuck in the current situation where Intel offers 2-5% performance increases on a yearly basis, so here's hoping that AMD can come up with something competitive across the board.
I don't think history bears that out. If McDonalds makes a fine dining hamburger that's matching their competition's, do you think people are going to buy it? Because every attempt by McDonalds to go with a more expensive hamburger has failed to impact.

The reason is people don't go to McDonalds for an expensive hamburger. People don't go to AMD expecting an expensive CPU. AMD has spent far too many years hanging out in the low-cost bar to now come out and say, "We're premium now!"

They're going to have to build up to that. And unfortunately for them, they may not have the time to do that. No company goes from being the low-end, low cost competitor to the high end, premium product maker overnight without some build-up to get there. It's about mindshare as much as market share. Not even just with consumers, but also with companies building computers.

It just isn't as simple as they show up with a premium product that merely matches Intel and suddenly they're warranting high prices and see huge sales. The worst part for AMD is the very second AMD arrives with something approaching Intel like performance, Intel is going to use their control over manufacturing to drop prices across the board on all their products and squeeze AMD's profits out. And since Intel's been a premium product maker for the same number of years AMD has been slumming it in the low-cost sector, they'll suffer few to no consequences for it in the short term.

It's called momentum. What one has done is what one expects to be done for a while. By the time AMD finally convinces people their product is premium, Intel will have iterated to wreck it again. And the cycle will resume. The only thing working in AMD's favor is that CPU performance is not as important as it once was. Their best bet will be if THEY can initiate the price drop out from under Intel's pricing. That is, don't try to go high end and let Intel undercut them. Their product needs to have been designed from the get-go to undercut Intel's while offering equivalent performance.

If they did that, then they might have a fighting chance because it'll play to what customers expect.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheLostSwede
HisDivineOrder
I don't think history bears that out. If McDonalds makes a fine dining hamburger that's matching their competition's, do you think people are going to buy it? Because every attempt by McDonalds to go with a more expensive hamburger has failed to impact.

The reason is people don't go to McDonalds for an expensive hamburger. People don't go to AMD expecting an expensive CPU. AMD has spent far too many years hanging out in the low-cost bar to now come out and say, "We're premium now!"

They're going to have to build up to that. And unfortunately for them, they may not have the time to do that. No company goes from being the low-end, low cost competitor to the high end, premium product maker overnight without some build-up to get there. It's about mindshare as much as market share. Not even just with consumers, but also with companies building computers.

It just isn't as simple as they show up with a premium product that merely matches Intel and suddenly they're warranting high prices and see huge sales. The worst part for AMD is the very second AMD arrives with something approaching Intel like performance, Intel is going to use their control over manufacturing to drop prices across the board on all their products and squeeze AMD's profits out. And since Intel's been a premium product maker for the same number of years AMD has been slumming it in the low-cost sector, they'll suffer few to no consequences for it in the short term.

It's called momentum. What one has done is what one expects to be done for a while. By the time AMD finally convinces people their product is premium, Intel will have iterated to wreck it again. And the cycle will resume. The only thing working in AMD's favor is that CPU performance is not as important as it once was. Their best bet will be if THEY can initiate the price drop out from under Intel's pricing. That is, don't try to go high end and let Intel undercut them. Their product needs to have been designed from the get-go to undercut Intel's while offering equivalent performance.

If they did that, then they might have a fighting chance because it'll play to what customers expect.
Either you're too young or you've forgotten the days when an AMD FX processor would cost you $999...
AMD has had plenty of premium products that have sold for more than Intel's equivalent, so that's not what we're talking about there.

Oh and people do go to McD for silly burgers that are far more expensive than their regular menu items, so that's kind of a bad comparison as well, unless you live somewhere McD doesn't offer premium products.

But yes, you do have a point that AMD can't start charging $999 with it's first generation of hopefully competitive products, but at the same time, they're not going to sell a $500 for $200, as it doesn't make financial sense.

How AMD, which is not a fabless semiconductor manufacturer is going to be able to compete on price with Intel, I do not know, as that's not really going to be possible. That'd be like, taking your McD example, having Five Guys sell their burgers at McD prices...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment