Thursday, July 19th 2018

MSI Drops First Hint of AMD Increasing AM4 CPU Core Counts

With Intel frantically working on an 8-core socket LGA1151 processor to convincingly beat the 8-core AMD Ryzen 2000 series processor, AMD could be working on the next cycle of core-count increases for the mainstream-desktop platform. Motherboard maker MSI may have dropped the first hint that AMD is bringing >8 cores to the socket AM4 mainstream-desktop platform by mentioning that its upcoming motherboards based on the AMD B450 chipset support 8-core "and up" CPU in a marketing video.

AMD will get its next opportunity to tinker with key aspects of its CPU micro-architecture with "Zen 2," being built on the 7 nm silicon fabrication process. If it decides to stick with the CCX approach to multi-core processors, the company could increase per-CCX core counts. A 50 percent core-count increase enables 12-core processors, while a 100 percent increase brings 16-cores to the AM4 platform. MSI video confirms that these >8-core processors will have backwards-compatibility with existing 400-series chipsets, even if they launch alongside newer 500-series chipset.
The video follows.

Add your own comment

88 Comments on MSI Drops First Hint of AMD Increasing AM4 CPU Core Counts

#1
dj-electric
I'd really like an IPC increase instead of moar cores. Just this once. I know that its an insane request, but that would be really cool... Leave cinebench records for TR4
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
dj-electric said:
I'd really like an IPC increase instead of moar cores. Just this once. I know that its an insane request, but that would be really cool... Leave cinebench records for TR4
AMD gave more IPC increase between 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen than Intel did between its past 3 generations; despite Zen and Zen+ being the same chip physically. I'm hopeful.
Posted on Reply
#3
brian111
I don't know how well a ten or even twelve core cpu would run on a four phase motherboard.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
btarunr said:
AMD gave more IPC increase between 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen than Intel did between its past 3 generations; despite Zen and Zen+ being the same chip physically. I'm hopeful.
The IPC thing with Intel has always been talked about, but never actually proven. They only gained performance from ramping up clocks, just look the Core i7 6700 and 7700. All the performance difference came from higher clock and not IPC.
Posted on Reply
#5
Nephilim666
Why is no one talking about how incredibly cringey the video is?!

:twitch:
Posted on Reply
#6
dj-electric
btarunr said:
AMD gave more IPC increase between 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen than Intel did between its past 3 generations; despite Zen and Zen+ being the same chip physically. I'm hopeful.
I'd like this jump again... like... 3 times over. I'd prefer it over more cores. Gamers can do F*#k all with 12C\24T. And no, at the same frequency Zen+ CPUs do not give more performance. Luckily they do give more frequency.

Nephilim666 said:
Why is no one talking about how incredibly cringey the video is?!
Most videos from MSI are. Look at their catalog of videos
Posted on Reply
#7
Tsukiyomi91
MSI & other vendors usually make cringe-worthy videos on their marketing part, though most cheesy ones is MSI... no offense.
Posted on Reply
#8
noname00
btarunr said:
AMD gave more IPC increase between 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen than Intel did between its past 3 generations; despite Zen and Zen+ being the same chip physically. I'm hopeful.
So munch IPC increase it actually ran away from the test PC - https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/04/19/amd_2nd_gen_ryzen_2_2700x_zen_cpu_review/3 :)))

Hopefully, techpowerup will make a review using all Core generations at the same frequency, to have a good test on the IPC of intel generations
Posted on Reply
#9
Tsukiyomi91
processors with more than 8 cores are better off for creating contents like video, image etc IMO...
Posted on Reply
#10
GoldenX
RejZoR said:
The IPC thing with Intel has always been talked about, but never actually proven. They only gained performance from ramping up clocks, just look the Core i7 6700 and 7700. All the performance difference came from higher clock and not IPC.
It's not seen usually on games, but the architecture gets improvements, just asks console emulator developers, a Coffee Lake is a LOT faster than a Sandy Bridge on Dolphin Emulator at the same clock speed (and core/thread count).

Tsukiyomi91 said:
processors with more than 8 cores are better off for creating contents like video, image etc IMO...
Having those processors at lower price points is not something good? We already were stuck at 4 cores 8 threads for a decade.
Posted on Reply
#11
RejZoR
GoldenX said:
It's not seen usually on games, but the architecture gets improvements, just asks console emulator developers, a Coffee Lake is a LOT faster than a Sandy Bridge on Dolphin Emulator at the same clock speed (and core/thread count).



Having those processors at lower price points is not something good? We already were stuck at 4 cores 8 threads for a decade.
That's usually mostly due to new instruction sets available on newer CPU's and not so much from actual IPC. Emulators are known to heavily utilize every possible option to run faster. Could be some other emulator specific thing thugh where IPC shows somehow, but in general, from most reviews I've seen, higher performance was entirely obtained from higher clocks.
Posted on Reply
#12
Durvelle27
brian111 said:
I don't know how well a ten or even twelve core cpu would run on a four phase motherboard.
If the phases are good then it should ran fine at stock speeds.
Posted on Reply
#13
GoldenX
brian111 said:
I don't know how well a ten or even twelve core cpu would run on a four phase motherboard.
A Pentium D needs twice the power of a current 6 core i7, and it's a dual core.

RejZoR said:
That's usually mostly due to new instruction sets available on newer CPU's and not so much from actual IPC. Emulators are known to heavily utilize every possible option to run faster. Could be some other emulator specific thing thugh where IPC shows somehow, but in general, from most reviews I've seen, higher performance was entirely obtained from higher clocks.
True, I forgot about all those new toys. AVX2 should be the biggest one.
Posted on Reply
#14
dj-electric
GoldenX said:
A Pentium D needs twice the power of a current 6 core i7, and it's a dual core.
You can make a stock 8700K consume well over 150W all by itself. That is not budget-board friendly what-so-ever. Especially not how cheaply made some of the 75$ boards are.

We gonna go again into a loop of motherboard minefields with some presumably OK boards being discovered as very inadequate for proper cooling and power supply
Posted on Reply
#15
GoldenX
You could overclock that Pentium D to 5GHz in 2006, reaching over 250w (a la FX). That was always a problem, not just now. There were a lot of 65w only motherboards on all sockets (both AMD and Intel), socket 775 specifically was a huge mess.
If you are going to overclock, get an expensive, RGB infested board, that's the only way to be sure.
Posted on Reply
#16
Tsukiyomi91
@GoldenX not saying its bad... sure we can benefit on having 6-8 cores at affordable prices, but after going past 8 cores, like 10 or more... that's where the diminishing point is at.
Posted on Reply
#17
Dammeron
RejZoR said:
That's usually mostly due to new instruction sets available on newer CPU's and not so much from actual IPC. Emulators are known to heavily utilize every possible option to run faster. Could be some other emulator specific thing thugh where IPC shows somehow, but in general, from most reviews I've seen, higher performance was entirely obtained from higher clocks.
Check https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i5_8600k_rzeznik_zwany_coffee_lake?page=0,26 and other pages labeled "OC". Skylake @ 4,5GHz gets scores around 10-25% higher than SB @ 4,5Ghz. So the progress is there. But a little one, looking how many years apart are those two.

Finally AMD is in play again so Intel can't be lazy anymore. Looking foward to Zen 2 vs "whatever the blue one shows at that time".
Posted on Reply
#18
Tomorrow
dj-electric said:
I'd really like an IPC increase instead of moar cores. Just this once. I know that its an insane request, but that would be really cool... Leave cinebench records for TR4
Wich there will be with Ryzen 3xxx series. There were minimal archidectural improvements in Ryzen 2xxx compared to 1xxx and yet AMD still managed a small IPC increase. With bigger changes in 3xxx i'm hopeful that they will achieve IPC parity with Intel's latest and greatest (wich will be CF refresh by the looks of it). The more cores thing is just an added bonus of 7nm shrinking most of the metal layers inside.
Current IPC deficit is about 6-7% from 2700X to 8700K. Assuming AMD improves by 10% and Intel improves by 3% with i9-9900K they will be at parity next year. Depending how Spectre patches affect Intel they be even lose by 1-2% next year compared to 3xxx tho so that's something to watch.

Also this will mean cheaper 4,6 and 8 core parts unless AMD introduces a new price tier above 400€ for 12c/24 parts. So if you don't need 12 cores then you should hopefully get a 6 or 8 core cheaper than today except it will be faster. That is what peope forget when they complain about increasing core counts. I mean look at what happened to quadcores with HT. They used to be the top dogs in mainstream platforms. But thanks to increasing core counts at the mainstream top you can now get a cheaper quad core with HT/SMT. So increasing core count benefits both those who can utilize all those cores and those who want lower number of cores for cheaper than what's available today.
Posted on Reply
#19
cucker tarlson
More cores in CCX means less demand for CCX-CCX data request and reduced latency, better gaming performance as a result. So we might actually see a decent gaming performance improvemt on 12 cores compared to 8 cores, even though games don't scale that high.
Anyway,this is very good news since 6/8 cores would now move down the price ladder, maybe they'd sell as Ryzen 3's and 5's.
Posted on Reply
#20
Tomorrow
cucker tarlson said:
More cores in CCX means less demand for CCX-CCX data request and reduced latency, better gaming performance as a result. So we might actually see a decent gaming performance improvemt on 12 cores compared to 8 cores, even though games don't scale that high.
That's a really good point that i had not even thought about until you brought it up.
Posted on Reply
#21
RejZoR
cucker tarlson said:
More cores in CCX means less demand for CCX-CCX data request and reduced latency, better gaming performance as a result. So we might actually see a decent gaming performance improvemt on 12 cores compared to 8 cores, even though games don't scale that high.
Anyway,this is very good news since 6/8 cores would now move down the price ladder, maybe they'd sell as Ryzen 3's and 5's.
They need to design that CPU alwas works preferential to a single CCX unit as much as possible (if they aren't already doing it). To avoid communications between separate CCX units which are slower than within same CCX.
Posted on Reply
#22
cucker tarlson
Tomorrow said:
That's a really good point that i had not even thought about until you brought it up.
They'd still be slower than 8 core intels, but I bet that using 6 core ccx's can bring those 12 cores very,very close to i5 levels in gaming. Now 2700x usually gets beaten even by 8400,and I personally blame the ccx-ccx latency.

RejZoR said:
They need to design that CPU alwas works preferential to a single CCX unit as much as possible (if they aren't already doing it). To avoid communications between separate CCX units which are slower than within same CCX.
Yup,otherwise it won't bring any changes. 12 core ryzen would still get beaten by a 6 core i5 in gaming.
I bet if people could get i5 8600k performance in gaming and 7900x performance in productivity tasks at $400-$420 then most of them would not choose the 9th gen i7. Hell, I might even be tempted. Me, a known Intel shill :laugh: Let's just take it easy for now cause the bubble might burst.
Posted on Reply
#23
Xaled
LOL,By such moves MSI is trying to clean its image after the GPP scandal. I was a fan them before that but i will never get an MSI nor an Asus product no matter what.
Posted on Reply
#24
cucker tarlson
Xaled said:
LOL,By such moves MSI is trying to clean its image after the GPP scandal. I was a fan them before that but i will never get an MSI nor an Asus product no matter what.
No.
Posted on Reply
#25
Assimilator
I reckon we'll see at most 12c/24t parts on AM4, as anything higher would cannibalise Threadripper. Plus it will make the chips even more expensive to produce.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment