Wednesday, July 25th 2018

Rumor: AMD's Zen 2, 7 nm Chips to Feature 10-15% IPC Uplift, Revised 8-core per CCX Design

A post via Chiphell makes some substantial claims on AMD's upcoming Zen 2 microarchitecture, built on the 7 nm process. AMD has definitely won the core-count war once again (albeit with a much more decisive blow to Intel's dominance than with Bulldozer), but the IPC battle has been an uphill one against Intel's slow, but sure, improvement in that area over the years. AMD did say, at the time they introduced the Zen architecture, that they had a solid understanding on Zen's choke points and its improveable bits and pieces - and took it to heart to deliver just that.
A 10 to 15% improvement should bring AMD close to Intel's Kaby Lake solutions in pure per-core, single-thread performance - with the possibility for higher performance in multithreaded workloads even at the same clocks and core counts, since AMD's SMT implementation and per-core communication seems to best that of even Intel's Coffee Lake chips. Add to that the sure clock increases AMD will bring to their Zen 2 parts - you can bet the power consumption and top frequency benefits for the 7 nm manufacturing process (some estimated 1.6X logic density, ~20% speed improvement, and ~40% power reduction compared to TSMC's 10 nm process) won't go to waste when they can be used for an even greater performance uplift.
Add to that the possibility -also posted via the Chiphell thread) of a per-CCX core-count increase of 8 cores per CCX (with 16-core parts being available for the consumer products) and a purely hypothetical claim for the performance crown now seems not only plausible, but likely. Sources: Chiphell, TSMC
Add your own comment

108 Comments on Rumor: AMD's Zen 2, 7 nm Chips to Feature 10-15% IPC Uplift, Revised 8-core per CCX Design

#26
PowerPC
7 nm next year sounds awesome. I wouldn't even be surprised to see a 16-Core CPU for consumers from AMD, just to kick Intel in the nuts again.

Man, I love me some CPU Wars. :D
Posted on Reply
#27
HTC
Seriously doubt the 10%-15% claims.

That said, 4% to 7% would still be more then what Intel achieved since like 4 - 5 years. It would close the gap quite a bit in single thread (not counting overclocking).

Still, and unless new Intel chips become less "overclocking friendly", even if AMD catches up to Intel in single thread, Intel will still be ahead for gaming. Ofc, if AMD suddenly manages to overclock more easily, this would change ...

Remember: Intel is having serious problems with their 10nm architecture(s), both in speeds they can achieve as well as yields. Add to that the security issues that forces to remove / adapt / alter the speculative prediction part of the processors, their performance could be further reduced (to which AMD is also affected, but not to the same extent).

Intel seems to be a "victim of their own high base clock / overclocks" because they are being hard pressed to come up with a chip that performs as well (preferably better) on 10nm compared to the current generation.
Posted on Reply
#28
phill
Bring on the reviews.. New systems for my daughter at least.. I'm hoping to grab a Threadripper 2... Just because :D
Posted on Reply
#29
Flyordie
All this here is why I went TR4 over AM4. lol.
Posted on Reply
#30
hat
Enthusiast
8 core CCX would be neat. That means 8 core chips (or less) wouldn't have two modules that have to communicate with eachother through Infinity Fabric.
Posted on Reply
#31
efikkan
People should learn what IPC is before trying to speculate about it.
IPC is not the same as single threaded performance, and it's not the same as single threaded performance divided by clock speed either. It's simply Instructions Per Clock, one of several important aspects of single threaded performance. AVX is a type of SIMD (vector operations), and does not increase IPC, but it does massively increase performance for applications which use it.
Posted on Reply
#32
garcheezy
efikkan said:
Please keep in mind that "performance estimates" for the 7 nm considers the theoretical potential of a mature node, which will not happen on day one.

It will take a lot of effort for AMD to become on par with Intel on IPC. It will probably not happen in one iteration, and AMD's primary focus is on core count at the moment. The areas which makes Intel's architecture better does cost a lot of die space, especially the front-end/prefetcher, but also improvements to the memory controller and cache. AVX is of course not a part of IPC, but is another area where AMD have a large room for improvements, and such improvements will cost a lot of die space.
A lot of effort? zen+ is already 6/8% behind in ipc AT WORST. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=39898
Hardware unboxed did a video testing at least 15 programs and games at the same frequency and ryzen+ is on average 5% slower.

HTC said:
Seriously doubt the 10%-15% claims.

That said, 4% to 7% would still be more then what Intel achieved since like 4 - 5 years. It would close the gap quite a bit in single thread (not counting overclocking).
i actually think it´s very doable. ryzen+ is just ryzen 1 with improved latencies and it has around a 3% ipc improvement. The base arquitecture is exactly the same. the 7nm node is a big jump in terms of the node itself and arquitecture. Probably will feature some deep changes on how zen works.
Posted on Reply
#33
Aldain
um wizzard , 15 percent IPC increase will make amd the IPC KING
Posted on Reply
#34
hat
Enthusiast
efikkan said:
People should learn what IPC is before trying to speculate about it.
IPC is not the same as single threaded performance, and it's not the same as single threaded performance divided by clock speed either. It's simply Instructions Per Clock, one of several important aspects of single threaded performance. AVX is a type of SIMD (vector operations), and does not increase IPC, but it does massively increase performance for applications which use it.
IPC has become a general term for how fast a processor is, clock for clock. AVX, being an instruction set, doesn't really contribute to that all on its own... but if someone told me Ice Lake IPC is 10% faster than Coffee Lake, I would expect that to mean it would be roughly 10% faster across the board, including applications that do and do not use AVX. Of course, the reality would likely be much more convoluted than that.
Posted on Reply
#35
GLD
Pic is dated August 23, 2016.

Back to the future news. I dig it. Happy as a clam with my new Gen 2 Ryzen rig!
Posted on Reply
#36
Captain_Tom
dj-electric said:
Intel wont like being massacred, because its mostly their decision (with just about X10 R&D budget and people like Jim Keller under their work force). There could be a window of time where AMD's CPUs could serve as "best option" for many users.
Currently 8700K and 2700X go head to head in most high end user decisions, and that's good. but, intel is also adding 33% core count, that could shrink the multitasking differences between the two.
Both might get over 8 cores for mainstream by 2020 as well.

Why expect less than a very calculated and controlled competition? nobody likes pulling all their guns on the first act. This isn't a Cinderella story, and if you've been around for enough years you know that.
I really don't get the people who go bananas and pull hair out of their heads for every possible announcement.
1. AMD is doubling core count. Game over in multi-tasking (I would argue it already is game over for this actually).

2. 20-30% overall Single-Core increase - game over at everything else.

As for why "Intel would let this happen?" I am not really sure how you think corporations work. Intel is currently doing everything they can to fight AMD - this next set of processors will be all they can muster for at least a year. Why else do you think they are actually going to changing the thermal paste? That's the last trick they have left (besides anti-competitive BS that will surely begin soon).

They are stuck on 14nm, their next gen arch was meant for 10nm (and thus not ready for 14), and there is no sign this has changed. If they could do something else, then obviously they would! lol
Posted on Reply
#37
Prima.Vera
trparky said:
Considering Intel's recent announcement around their 9th generation processors (See Top Three Intel 9th Generation Core Parts Detailed for more details), I don't think AMD will be having many issues kicking Intel's ass here. If you look at Intel's 9th generation processor it looks like they aren't even trying, it's absolutely pathetic if you ask me; Intel handed AMD a win here.
Wait. What? You mean having an 8c/16t CPU with 5Ghz it's not even trying? You're joking right? :laugh::laugh:
I wan to see a simmilar AMD CPU going on stock air cooler on the same freq without any o.c.
Posted on Reply
#38
Blueberries
As with all things AMD hype in the last 10 years...

I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted on Reply
#39
garcheezy
Blueberries said:
As with all things AMD hype in the last 10 years...

I'll believe it when I see it.
With the ryzen hype amd didnt disapoint
Posted on Reply
#40
TheGuruStud
Captain_Tom said:
You are kidding right? If this thing truly does get the rumored 15% IPC increase and 10% clockspeed increase (Over 12nm Ryzen 2), it will be a massacre for Intel.

It would be so bad that it's likely AMD's cheap R5 3600 would beat Intel's $450+ 8-core i9 at EVERYTHING. We will have to wait and see of course, but if this rumor is true - game over at every price point and use case.


P.S. Is everyone around here still unaware that Intel currently has 15% lower IPC than AMD if you use the fastest RAM? (See attachment)



I think this is what we can expect in 2019:

1) Excellent CPU products from AMD, it will be "AMD's Sandybridge moment." Tons of people will likely upgrade their rigs to Ryzen 3, and AMD will finally capture a large amount of Laptop and Server marketshare.




2) Incredible price gouging from Nvidia. 2019-2020 is likely going to be one of the darkest periods in history for PC graphics. Current rumors suggest AMD will be launching a 12nm Stop-gap GPU based on Polaris with GDDR5 9gbps in Q3/4 of this year. That would only bring it up to about GTX 1070 levels, and it will probably use 120w competing with a 75w GTX 1150 Ti!

7nm Navi will launch probably by Q3 next year - but again, it is rumored to be sub 300mm^2. This is meant to be the true spiritual successor to the RX 480. It will probably cost $200 and perform between a GTX 1080 and 1080 Ti (probably just below an 1170). It will sell well and likely fix Vega's Power usage issues in gaming, but that's it! No competition above the 1160 Ti. Big Navi might not launch till 2020, and there are even rumors it will be canceled....

The only things that will be make me optimistic is if AMD launches a "Titan Volta-like" 7nm Vega 96 in Q1 of next year, and then Navi over-performs expectations by a large margin. I certainly hope so or the 1180 Ti will be $1200, and the Titan will be $2000....
But, but I was assured by fanboys that the 1180 ti would be 700 bucks? Lololol. I fully expect the paxwell refresh will continue with just another tier increase and prices to match.
Posted on Reply
#41
Blueberries
garcheezy said:
With the ryzen hype amd didnt disapoint
Only because the architecture hadn't been updated since Bulldozer.

+ before the "Ryzen" monicker it was just "Zen" with slides promising much better performance than we saw at launch.
Posted on Reply
#42
garcheezy
Blueberries said:


+ before the "Ryzen" monicker it was just "Zen" with slides promising much better performance than we saw at launch.
Im sorry, but the slides shown before launch showed a 40% ipc uplift over excavator, and ended up being more like 50 or 55% more.
Posted on Reply
#43
Mr.Mopar392
Blueberries said:
Only because the architecture hadn't been updated since Bulldozer.

+ before the "Ryzen" monicker it was just "Zen" with slides promising much better performance than we saw at launch.
they delivered on their promises lol, do you not know how numbers work?. or are you just being a shill?
Posted on Reply
#44
ToxicTaZ
Intel built Coffeelake just to fight AMD Zen.

8700K stood up against 1800X with no problems.

2700X won't have a chance against the upcoming 9900K, I expect AMD to release 2800X try filling the gap.

2019
Intel 10nm+ Icelake to fight AMD first gen 7nm Zen 2

Both are PCIe 4.0
Intel has DDR5 Memory
Intel has DMI 4.0
Intel has two New GPUs

2019 is going to be very interesting with Both Intel and AMD having new architecture and nm....

Both Intel Z470 chipset and AMD X570 support for 32 Threads Dual channel.

So expected 8, 12, 16 Cores over the next few years from both.

The core wars has begun!
Posted on Reply
#45
theoneandonlymrk
Think pile-driver to bulldozer, they could be being conservative.
Posted on Reply
#46
Captain_Tom
ToxicTaZ said:
Intel built Coffeelake just to fight AMD Zen.

8700K stood up against 1800X with no problems.

2700X won't have a chance against the upcoming 9900K, I expect AMD to release 2800X try filling the gap.

2019
Intel 10nm+ Icelake to fight AMD first gen 7nm Zen 2

Both are PCIe 4.0
Intel has DDR5 Memory
Intel has DMI 4.0
Intel has two New GPUs

2019 is going to be very interesting with Both Intel and AMD having new architecture and nm....

Both Intel Z470 chipset and AMD X570 support for 32 Threads Dual channel.

So expected 8, 12, 16 Cores over the next few years from both.

The core wars has begun!
Someone hasn't listened to Intel's prior earnings call lol. They hinted 10nm will likely slip to 2020 before high performance cpu's are ready, and that does NOT include the much needed 40-core 10nm server chips they desperately need to fend off AMD's 64-core 7nm chips.

Good lord do you think they can just launch a 16-core 10nm chip out of the blue?! Why?!

Do you not remember the long ramp-up of Broadwell?

theoneandonlymrk said:
Think pile-driver to bulldozer, they could be being conservative.
It's more likely than not they are being conservative. AMD is the one holding most of the cards at this point, and so they SHOULD be conservative. Companies tend to overestimate when they are not in a good position.
Posted on Reply
#48
atomicus
ToxicTaZ said:
Intel built Coffeelake just to fight AMD Zen.

8700K stood up against 1800X with no problems.

2700X won't have a chance against the upcoming 9900K, I expect AMD to release 2800X try filling the gap.

2019
Intel 10nm+ Icelake to fight AMD first gen 7nm Zen 2

Both are PCIe 4.0
Intel has DDR5 Memory
Intel has DMI 4.0
Intel has two New GPUs

2019 is going to be very interesting with Both Intel and AMD having new architecture and nm....

Both Intel Z470 chipset and AMD X570 support for 32 Threads Dual channel.

So expected 8, 12, 16 Cores over the next few years from both.

The core wars has begun!
"Won't have a chance" in what context exactly lol? This kind of rheotoric alludes to the kind of e-peen fanboyism that is evident on both sides. It's embarassing, ridiculous and just laughable. Both AMD and Intel's CPUs are more than adequate offerings capable of performing all manner of tasks to a very high standard. A few percent here or there won't be noticeable in real world terms to the vast majority, and certainly doesn't equal a 'thrashing' or any meaningful victory beyond the aforementioned e-peen waving which so many fools seem to delight in. Competition is a wonderful thing, we ALL benefit from it, but there is for sure an ugly side in the way some people take that word 'competition' and run rampant and adversarial with it, treating it like some sort of 'war'. Human nature though I guess. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#49
trparky
Prima.Vera said:
Wait. What? You mean having an 8c/16t CPU with 5Ghz it's not even trying? You're joking right? :laugh::laugh:
I wan to see a simmilar AMD CPU going on stock air cooler on the same freq without any o.c.
The fact that Hyperthreading is reserved for only the most top end of the lineup is an absolute gut punch. Why are they playing these games when they have competition? I can understand pulling this kind of shit when there was no competition but that's not the case anymore, there's AMD. They should be wanting us to buy their products but doing shit like this isn't going to exactly be winning people over, if anything it's going to piss people off.
Posted on Reply
#50
ToxicTaZ
Captain_Tom said:
Someone hasn't listened to Intel's prior earnings call lol. They hinted 10nm will likely slip to 2020 before high performance cpu's are ready, and that does NOT include the much needed 40-core 10nm server chips they desperately need to fend off AMD's 64-core 7nm chips.

Good lord do you think they can just launch a 16-core 10nm chip out of the blue?! Why?!

Do you not remember the long ramp-up of Broadwell?



It's more likely than not they are being conservative. AMD is the one holding most of the cards at this point, and so they SHOULD be conservative. Companies tend to overestimate when they are not in a good position.
Intel had no competition since 2700K to 7700K.
AMD brings Zen to the table Intel countered with Coffeelake. So AMD Bring Zen 2 on first gen 7nm. Intel is countering with Second gen 10nm+ “Q3 2019 so next September 2019 paper launch...

Till then we have 9900K and probably 2800X and Ryzen 3000 series (Q2 2019) next may.

Don't even expect good 7nm yields...

Look at 12nm yields with 2700X...

2700X 12nm
8 cores 4.3GHz 105 Watts
Vs
9900K 14nm+++
8 cores 5.0GHz 95 Watts

Do forget Intel superior IPC cores Coffeelake architecture provides.

I hope very much so AMD Zen 2 brings some good IPC improvements to the table, it only pushes Intel to build better CPUs... competition is healthy for all of us customers. Win wins
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment