Tuesday, February 7th 2017

AMD's Ryzen Chips 10% Smaller Than Comparable Intel Skylake Dies

At the International Solid State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), AMD presented a whitepaper in which they demonstrated how its upcoming Zen x86 core fits into a 10 percent smaller die area than Intel's currently shipping second-generation 14nm processor. According to reports, analysts and Intel engineers in the session said the Zen core is clearly competitive, though many as-of-yet unknown variables will determine whether the die advantage translates into lower costs for AMD. That said, one thing is clear: the chip will have to perform in addition to being smaller, if AMD wants to ever capitalize on the potentially higher margins a smaller die could grant them.

One of the ways AMD improved upon its ZEN core in comparison to its previous products has been on switching capacitance for their new chips, with a reported overall 15% improvement. In addition, AMD has apparently moved on to a metal-insulator-metal capacitor design, thus achieving lower operating voltages as well as as more fine-grained per-core voltage and frequency control (on to become part of their SenseMI technology suite). Looking at the image, which pits an AMD ZEN chip to a comparable Intel solution, we see that AMD saves additional die space by making do with only 12 metal layers as well as overall lower L2 and L3 cache footprints.
Source: EETimes
Add your own comment

46 Comments on AMD's Ryzen Chips 10% Smaller Than Comparable Intel Skylake Dies

#26
Arrakis9
TheGuruStud, post: 3597611, member: 42692"
I believe pics have already surfaced of the ESs delidded and are liquid metal. Granted , that's not production. Intel's cheapskating is a pretty big deal among enthusiasts, so I don't really see AMD going that route. Also, it makes a big difference in temps, so why have XFR if it will just throttle immediately?
Not liquid metal it was indium solder. :)
Posted on Reply
#27
TheinsanegamerN
probably due to the lack of an iGPU, they can include larger cahces and still have a smaller die size.

Wonder how this will affect cooling.
Posted on Reply
#28
efikkan
Don't forget the production node used for Ryzen is really "20 nm" compared to Intel's 14 nm, so Intel will pack a significantly larger number of transistors here.
Posted on Reply
#29
TheGuruStud
Arrakis+9, post: 3597813, member: 41759"
Not liquid metal it was indium solder. :)
Close enough when you play with it? I just want a T-1000 dammit.

efikkan, post: 3597851, member: 150226"
Don't forget the production node used for Ryzen is really "20 nm" compared to Intel's 14 nm, so Intel will pack a significantly larger number of transistors here.
Here we go again with circle jerk fab numbers where ALL of them are bullshiting lol
Posted on Reply
#30
Xzibit
natr0n, post: 3597777, member: 102496"
It's like wiener size. I just depends on how you use it and it's efficiency/effectiveness.

or something like that
Posted on Reply
#31
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Foobario, post: 3597790, member: 169740"
BTW, Intel already announcing price cuts as of yesterday. Writing is on the wall for team blue.
Yes, but no. Price cuts may be in response, however, AMD doesn't have the capacity to product enough chips to meet the market's needs, and in fact, can only supply a very small share of the market anyway. Intel has nothing to worry about.

YOU, as a consumer, need to worry, because if AMD's chips kill Intel's across the board, AMD's chips will receive price gouges at the retailers in the least, and at worst, will be priced so either no one can afford them, or so that they sell so fast that nobody can buy them and they are that rare bird that only comes out when the moon is at the right angle.

AMD will do well regardless of what Intel does. Intel will still do billions more in sales than AMD; none of that is going to change by a single CPU release.
Posted on Reply
#32
Foobario
cadaveca, post: 3597907, member: 25138"
Yes, but no. Price cuts may be in response, however, AMD doesn't have the capacity to product enough chips to meet the market's needs, and in fact, can only supply a very small share of the market anyway. Intel has nothing to worry about.

YOU, as a consumer, need to worry, because if AMD's chips kill Intel's across the board, AMD's chips will receive price gouges at the retailers in the least, and at worst, will be priced so either no one can afford them, or so that they sell so fast that nobody can buy them and they are that rare bird that only comes out when the moon is at the right angle.

AMD will do well regardless of what Intel does. Intel will still do billions more in sales than AMD; none of that is going to change by a single CPU release.
AMD doesn't need to take over the entire CPU market. Keeping GLOFO in Malta running at full capacity and Samsung providing their unbooked spare capacity will be more than enough to impact Intel in a material way.

Intel is barely funding their dividend, share buyback and CAPEX for their fab albatross, even now, with no competition. Any loss in sales or margins will negatively impact Intel beyond what their blind investor base could ever imagine.

Six months from now it will be interesting to see where Intel's share price will be.
Posted on Reply
#33
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Foobario, post: 3597978, member: 169740"
AMD doesn't need to take over the entire CPU market. Keeping GLOFO in Malta running at full capacity and Samsung providing their unbooked spare capacity will be more than enough to impact Intel in a material way.

Intel is barely funding their dividend, share buyback and CAPEX for their fab albatross, even now, with no competition. Any loss in sales or margins will negatively impact Intel beyond what their blind investor base could ever imagine.

Six months from now it will be interesting to see where Intel's share price will be.
Yeah, there could be some impact there, but Intel has tonnes of cash that will keep them afloat under pretty much any scenario. We all want chips, and Intel and AMD alone can't supply them, so Intel will do what AMD cannot should there be a complete role-reversal, and that's supply the masses with their tech addiction. But then, I'm not one to speculate on such things, because the market is a very fickle thing and I know better than to even care. I just play with the stuff these companies send me and enjoy this lovely little hobby of mine while it lasts. :P
Posted on Reply
#34
Arrakis9
TheGuruStud, post: 3597877, member: 42692"
Close enough when you play with it? I just want a T-1000 dammit.



Here we go again with circle jerk fab numbers where ALL of them are bullshiting lol
its not actually, indium has the same consistency as gold, its a soft metal, the melting point of indium is 156 degrees Celsius. most of the liquid metal TIM on the market today is gallium based which has a melting temp of 8 degrees Celsius, there is a pretty significant difference.
Posted on Reply
#35
londiste
Foobario, post: 3597790, member: 169740"
A FX 8350 is 100mm2. Retails at $150. If AMD held the line on retail pricing for Zen their profitability would double should Zen be 50mm2.
fx8350 is 315 mm2. zen will definitely be at least in the range of 60-70mm2, if not larger.
Posted on Reply
#36
R-T-B
Arrakis+9, post: 3598041, member: 41759"
its not actually, indium has the same consistency as gold, its a soft metal, the melting point of indium is 156 degrees Celsius. most of the liquid metal TIM on the market today is gallium based which has a melting temp of 8 degrees Celsius, there is a pretty significant difference.
Well, actually Gallium doesn't, but the eutectic alloy that is usually produced from it to make liquid metal compounds by mixing it with amongst other things, Indium, usually does. (It's commonly known as Gallinstan)

Elemental gallium actually has a melting point of basically a warm summer day, or "302.9146 K (29.7646 °C, 85.5763 °F)."

That's from wikipedia.
Posted on Reply
#37
efikkan
TheGuruStud, post: 3597877, member: 42692"
Here we go again with circle jerk fab numbers where ALL of them are bullshiting lol
It's a known fact that Intel's transistors are smaller.
Posted on Reply
#38
TheGuruStud
efikkan, post: 3598204, member: 150226"
It's a known fact that Intel's transistors are smaller.
Also not 14nm, either lol (but none will agree on what to measure anyway). And some are bigger than others depending on what part of the chip. It's all marketing at this point.
Posted on Reply
#39
Jism
TheinsanegamerN, post: 3597850, member: 127292"
probably due to the lack of an iGPU, they can include larger cahces and still have a smaller die size.

Wonder how this will affect cooling.
65W up to 95W. Dont worry about it.
Posted on Reply
#40
deu
ssdpro, post: 3597746, member: 131037"
10% smaller? WOW, now I am sold! I was just starting to run out of room in my chassis.
Hehe the space translate to 10% cheaper to produce which either translate into 10% cheaper or 10% more profit to AMD (theoretical numbers) :) BUT INT THE END; this also drives the shrinking of your hardware! :D
Posted on Reply
#41
deu
EarthDog, post: 3597701, member: 79836"
@deu - Well aware.. we just simply disagree on what is driving prices. This 10% smaller is not a huge factor considering all the other variables involved as well as assumptions (like yields being the same on a brand new process for amd) ;)

We can go around in circles all you want, but, I just realized now (an edit nearly 12 hours later) the article even said what I am saying... LOL
We proberbly do :) My point just is; its not ONE thing; but if I where to rank them right now marketshare is WAY more important that margin to AMD. (as long margin is plus)
Posted on Reply
#42
EarthDog
deu, post: 3599216, member: 164351"
Hehe the space translate to 10% cheaper to produce which either translate into 10% cheaper or 10% more profit to AMD (theoretical numbers) :)
lol, again, more variables than that. Blanket statements FTL!!
Posted on Reply
#43
deu
EarthDog, post: 3599263, member: 79836"
lol, again, more variables than that. Blanket statements FTL!!
Wauw people in here are either troll or not that smart: I wrote a generalizing statement to explain WHY the size matter and you completely misses the "theoretical numbers" just to try to find another girl to argue with... GL!
Posted on Reply
#44
EarthDog
Maybe i missed something? Your generalization/theory has little merit.. which was my point and the article even says that. Let's be honest with each other. If NOTHING changed (yields/binning % etc...) and the die shrank 10%, then yes, you are spot on. The problem comes with the variables I mentioned and the article. So there is opportunity to do as you say, but considering the other variables, not so much.

I digress..it's clear this is, for some reason, contentious to you to have a discussion. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#45
deu
EarthDog, post: 3599290, member: 79836"
Maybe i missed something? Your generalization/theory has little merit.. which was my point and the article even says that. Let's be honest with each other. If NOTHING changed (yields/binning % etc...) and the die shrank 10%, then yes, you are spot on. The problem comes with the variables I mentioned and the article. So there is opportunity to do as you say, but considering the other variables, not so much.

I digress..it's clear this is, for some reason, contentious to you to have a discussion. :ohwell:
Ye maybe you missed something! Good thing that you can acknowledge that!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment