Wednesday, July 14th 2021

AMD Zen 4 Desktop Processors Likely Limited to 16 Cores, 170 W TDP

We have recently seen several reputable rumors confirming that AMD's Zen 4 Raphael desktop processors will be limited to 16 cores with 2 compute units. There were previous rumors of a 24 core model with 3 compute units however that now seems unlikely. While the core counts won't increase some skews may see a TDP increase up to 170 W which should offer some performance uplift. AMD is expected to debut their 5 nm Zen 4 Raphael desktop processors in 2022 which will come with support for PCIe 5.0 and DDR5. The processors will switch to a new AM5 LGA1718 socket and will compete with Intel's Alder Lake-S successor Raptor Lake which could feature 24 cores.
Source: @patrickschur_
Add your own comment

75 Comments on AMD Zen 4 Desktop Processors Likely Limited to 16 Cores, 170 W TDP

#1
sam_86314
AMD pulling an Intel here?

Sounds like they're satisfied with their place in the market and have switched to stagnation mode.
Posted on Reply
#2
ZoneDymo
sam_86314AMD pulling an Intel here?

Sounds like they're satisfied with their place in the market and have switched to stagnation mode.
Just because they arn't pushing more cores that means they stagnated?

Not to mention that threadripper exists?
Posted on Reply
#3
Devastator0
ZoneDymoJust because they arn't pushing more cores that means they stagnated?

Not to mention that thread ripper exists?
Yeah I agree with @ZoneDymo here. AMD won't want to undercut their own HEDT line of chips. Seems like they have probably decided on a happy balance.
Posted on Reply
#4
Raiju
Zen 4 with "3D V-cache" will improve performance by 20 to 30 percents. Maybe more thanks to the TDP lift.
Stronger single-core performance is more versatile than having a load of weaker cores that only performs well in compute scenarios.
Posted on Reply
#5
ZoneDymo
Devastator0Yeah I agree with @ZoneDymo here. AMD won't want to undercut their own HEDT line of chips. Seems like they have probably decided on a happy balance.
And 16 cores is still technically too many cores on a consumer platform.
There isnt much out there that makes use of that full amount and if you are a pro that need that amount of cores then threadripper would probably be a better choice.

5950x as an actual need is very niche
Posted on Reply
#6
sam_86314
ZoneDymoJust because they arn't pushing more cores that means they stagnated?

Not to mention that thread ripper exists?
Makes me want to compare to Intel going from Ivy Bridge to Haswell or something similar, however misguided I may be.

"Just because they aren't adding more cores means they stagnated?" (3770K to 4770K)

"Not to mention that HEDT parts exist." (3960X)
Posted on Reply
#7
R0H1T
RaijuZen 4 with "3D V-cache" will improve performance by 20 to 30 percents.
Well we don't know that for sure, it could be part of the segmentation they do with zen4 ~ the only thing Lisa Su confirmed that it was coming to zen3+(?) towards the end of the year.
Posted on Reply
#8
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
sam_86314AMD pulling an Intel here?

Sounds like they're satisfied with their place in the market and have switched to stagnation mode.
Erm this is speculation. And fyi Lisa Sue says keep moving forward.
ZoneDymoAnd 16 cores is still technically too many cores on a consumer platform.
There isnt.much out there that makes.use if that full amount and if you are a pro that need that.amount of cores then thread ripper would probably be a better choice.

5950x as an actual need is very niche
The same was said about 8 cores in 2012
sam_86314Makes me want to compare to Intel going from Ivy Bridge to Haswell or something similar, however misguided I may be.

"Just because they aren't adding more cores means they stagnated?" (3770K to 4770K)

"Not to mention that HEDT parts exist." (3960X)
Intel really stagnated but thats all they are good at doing, no innovation.
Posted on Reply
#9
ZoneDymo
sam_86314Makes me want to compare to Intel going from Ivy Bridge to Haswell or something similar, however misguided I may be.

"Just because they aren't adding more cores means they stagnated?" (3770K to 4770K)

"Not to mention that HEDT parts exist." (3960X)
Well between the 2600 3770 4770 6700 and 7700 there was very little difference and yeah 4 cores that we had since the Core 2 Quad.

AMD made a giant leap to make sure people noticed (gaining back some mindshare) by going for 8 cores with the 1800x for consumers and then very quickly to 16 cores, but as it stands nothing has caught up yet, so going for even more atm is just silly, Improving on IPC and efficienty etc makes more sense now.

And also lets not forget that Intel's HEDT parts were rediculously expensive, AMD made that entry point waaaay lower to the point of being able to get 16 cores on a consumer platform.
eidairaman1The same was said about 8 cores in 2012
well that still holds true though doesnt it?
how many consumer programmes really make use of 8 cores? the best all around gaming chip you can buy atm is the 5600X which is 6 cores...in 2021.
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
ZoneDymoWell between the 2600 3770 4770 6700 and 7700 there was very little difference and yeah 4 cores that we had since the Core 2 Quad.

AMD made a giant leap to make sure people noticed (gaining back some mindshare) by going for 8 cores with the 1800x for consumers and then very quickly to 16 cores, but as it stands nothing has caught up yet, so going for even more atm is just silly, Improving on IPC and efficienty etc makes more sense now.

And also lets not forget that Intel's HEDT parts were rediculously expensive, AMD made that entry point waaaay lower to the point of being able to get 16 cores on a consumer platform.



well that still holds true though doesnt it?
how many consumer programmes really make use of 8 cores? the best all around gaming chip you can buy atm is the 5600X which is 6 cores...in 2021.
Yup at least AMD in 2012 was trying to innovate, first with the Thuban 6 core then the Vishera
Posted on Reply
#11
watzupken
sam_86314AMD pulling an Intel here?

Sounds like they're satisfied with their place in the market and have switched to stagnation mode.
I disagree. Intel stagnated when they released the same Skylake architecture for 4 years with only increase in clockspeed to make it faster. AMD is still pushing for higher performance despite the core count staying the same. In my opinion, most people won't need a 16 cores processor, especially when one is only looking at it from a gaming angle.
Posted on Reply
#12
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
watzupkenI disagree. Intel stagnated when they released the same Skylake architecture for 4 years with only increase in clockspeed to make it faster. AMD is still pushing for higher performance despite the core count staying the same. In my opinion, most people won't need a 16 cores processor, especially when one is only looking at it from a gaming angle.
Posted on Reply
#13
DeathtoGnomes
Single core performance is a null and void now, unless you actually disable all but the one core.
Posted on Reply
#14
GoldenX
Remember that Intel is intended to add fricking Atoms to their CPUs, those aren't 24 equal cores.
Weird times ahead.

If you're already at 170w on consumer products, don't add more cores, get a bigger socket. We already know the disaster gen 11 is at the top end.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheDeeGee
GoldenXRemember that Intel is intended to add fricking Atoms to their CPUs, those aren't 24 equal cores.
Weird times ahead.

If you're already at 170w on consumer products, don't add more cores, get a bigger socket. We already know the disaster gen 11 is at the top end.
What 11th gen disaster?

My 11700 uses 40-45 watts during gaming.
Posted on Reply
#16
TomTomTom
DeathtoGnomesSingle core performance is a null and void now, unless you actually disable all but the one core.
JavaScript enters the chat.

i sincerely hope those are 16 *logical* and 8 *physical* cores, and in order to justify that high TDP the chip will run close to 5GHz all core turbo.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
sam_86314Makes me want to compare to Intel going from Ivy Bridge to Haswell or something similar, however misguided I may be.

"Just because they aren't adding more cores means they stagnated?" (3770K to 4770K)

"Not to mention that HEDT parts exist." (3960X)
Dude, 16 cores are already saturating dual channel RAM in any configuration. What's the point of going bigger? We're talking 4x the progress Intel managed over a decade here. And note, that trickles 'up' into HEDT too, I remember how we paid kidneys for a '6 core extreme' not too long ago.

Even 8 is pushing it, there are limits to segments in a market. You don't see 300 kph family cars either. There simply isn't a reasonable demand for it.
Posted on Reply
#18
Forza.Milan
Vayra86Dude, 16 cores are already saturating dual channel RAM in any configuration. What's the point of going bigger? We're talking 4x the progress Intel managed over a decade here. And note, that trickles 'up' into HEDT too, I remember how we paid kidneys for a '6 core extreme' not too long ago.

Even 8 is pushing it, there are limits to segments in a market. You don't see 300 kph family cars either. There simply isn't a reasonable demand for it.
and not only 16 cores but with twice threads, 32 threads, already overkill.. something rare in past.
Posted on Reply
#19
Tomgang
Seems i wount be missing out on core count at least by going for a 5950X now in sted for waiting for Zen 4. Off cause zen 4 will be faster with higher IPC and maybe higher coreclock.

But with Zen 4 there are risk of memory problems do to the move to ddr5 memory. Problems cut be something similar to Zen 1. Just a guess off cause. With zen i dont get memory problems.

So I think it was a good move to get a 5950X now. Do to i really can't afford problems and down time on my pc do to hardware issue or problems.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mussels
Moderprator
I can see a 170W TDP 16 core 'extreme, water cooled only' top end part to try and claim the king of the hill in reviews and media, with the rest being a lot more power efficient and better suited for actual gamers


A lot of AM4's appeal is that the same platform (B450, really) works from the poopy Athlon X4 950 quad core to the 5950x 16 core
The bottom end and top end parts are niche products, and NOT the main sellers
Posted on Reply
#21
ViperXTR
eidairaman1
I remember back then when Crysis 3 where AMD cpus are faster than the intel, its one of the earlier games that takes advantage of many cores
Posted on Reply
#22
csatahajos
sam_86314Makes me want to compare to Intel going from Ivy Bridge to Haswell or something similar, however misguided I may be.

"Just because they aren't adding more cores means they stagnated?" (3770K to 4770K)

"Not to mention that HEDT parts exist." (3960X)
Pretty botched comparison.

Intel kept 4 cores as top mainstream part from Nehalem to Skylake refreshes (so not just 3770K to 4770K), so 8 consecutive years! Not to mention that IPC gains were often single digit only and sometimes even nil or close to it during these years (especially SKylake and it's refreshes where only clock speeds and corecounts increased, exactly due to AMD's push on that front).

HEDT: 3960X was a 6 core part (to a 4 core 3770K desktop chip) whereas at the same time they could have had a lot more (Ivy-Bridge EX (Ivy Town?) already went up to 15 cores on workstation/server). Now TR is already at 4 times tthe corecount of the desktop chip, not 1,5X, not to mention that by the time this Zen 4 comes out probably they wil have 96-128 core parts on at least the EPYC line up (Genoa), quite poossibly coming to HEDT too.
Posted on Reply
#23
Mussels
Moderprator
csatahajosPretty botched comparison.

Intel kept 4 cores as top mainstream part from Nehalem to Skylake refreshes (so not just 3770K to 4770K), so 8 consecutive years! Not to mention that IPC gains were often single digit only and sometimes even nil or close to it during these years (especially SKylake and it's refreshes where only clock speeds and corecounts increased, exactly due to AMD's push on that front).

HEDT: 3960X was a 6 core part (to a 4 core 3770K desktop chip) whereas at the same time they could have had a lot more (Ivy-Bridge EX (Ivy Town?) already went up to 15 cores on workstation/server). Now TR is already at 4 times tthe corecount of the desktop chip, not 1,5X, not to mention that by the time this Zen 4 comes out probably they wil have 96-128 core parts on at least the EPYC line up (Genoa), quite poossibly coming to HEDT too.
More like kentsfield, back with core 2 quad. 2007 through 2017 (8700k) with quad cores as the top tier part, with slow increases in per core performance creeping along year by year (until they gave up, and it became wattage increases with the same hardware instead)
The real changes came with the transitions from DDR2 to DDR3 to DDR4 - and basically nowhere else.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheinsanegamerN
Lots of people here want to bag on intel for "muh quad cores" without realizing that 6+ cores were available in HDET and, more importantly, they offered 0 performance improvement. Often times the consumer quad core was faster in games then the HDET 6 core. So there was literally no reason to offer some super expensive 6 core in the early 2010s that simply wouldnt perform. AMD was lambasted for pushing "moar coars" in their CPUs, especially as their 6 core phenom STILL couldnt consistently beat a dual core i3 in average framerates, let alone the i5. There's a reason the phenom X6 was $200 whiel the quad core i7 was $300.

Games didnt even start requiring 4 cores to run right until very recently, as in 2019+. Even then, unlocked core i3 parts like the dual core 7350k can still hit 60 FPS in most titles. You dont need 16 cores to play games or run 99 of consumer software. GaMeRz constantly overbuy on the CPU front.

Today, AMD isnt pushing more then 16 cores. Oh boo hoo, you really need 20 cores to play minecraft, right? Instead you only get a 29% Ipc bump per generation! You dont need 17+ cores in a consumer product. If your workload needs 17+ cores, you fall into the HDET catagory and likely need more then dual channel RAM to satiate your needs anyway, so the whole point is moot.
MusselsMore like kentsfield, back with core 2 quad. 2007 through 2017 (8700k) with quad cores as the top tier part, with slow increases in per core performance creeping along year by year (until they gave up, and it became wattage increases with the same hardware instead)
The real changes came with the transitions from DDR2 to DDR3 to DDR4 - and basically nowhere else.
Yeah, OK, I guess that core 2 quads had the same per core performance on DDR3 as haswell then? Dude just stop embarassing yourself.
Posted on Reply
#25
Mussels
Moderprator
TheinsanegamerNYeah, OK, I guess that core 2 quads had the same per core performance on DDR3 as haswell then? Dude just stop embarassing yourself.
I said the core count hadnt changed, i literally said slow increases per generation... Kentsfield to haswell was 2006 to 2013 - and what, 5 generations?

And this is what we got



Then the change zen managed in 2 gens... (including a 4 core equivalent and then GASP there is no zen 3 4 core chip! how dare they progress!)


(images look different, got them from different sources, but both passmark)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Copyright © 2004-2021 www.techpowerup.com. All rights reserved.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.