Monday, February 19th 2024

AMD "Zen 5c" CCDs Made On More Advanced 3 nm Node Than "Zen 5"

AMD is reportedly building its upcoming "Zen 5" and "Zen 5c" CPU Core Dies (CCDs) on two different foundry nodes, a report by Chinese publication UDN, claims. The Zen 5 CCD powering the upcoming Ryzen "Granite Ridge" desktop processors, "Fire Range" mobile processors, and EPYC "Turin" server processors, will be reportedly built on the 4 nm EUV foundry node, a slightly more advanced node than the current 5 nm EUV the company is building "Zen 4" CCDs on. The "Zen 5c" CCD, or the chiplet with purely "Zen 5c" cores in a high density configuration; on the other hand, will be built on an even more advanced 3 nm EUV foundry node, the report says. Both CCDs will go into mass production in Q2-2024, with product launches expected across the second half of the year.

The "Zen 5c" chiplet has a mammoth 32 cores spread across two CCXs of 16 cores, each. Each CCX has 16 cores sharing a 32 MB L3 cache. It is to cram these 32 cores, each with 1 MB of L2 cache; and a total of 64 MB of L3 cache, that AMD could be turning to the 3 nm foundry node. Another reason could be voltages. If "Zen 4c" is anything to go by, the "Zen 5c" core is a highly compacted variant of "Zen 5," which operates at a lower voltage band than its larger sibling, without any change in IPC or instruction sets. The decision to go with 3 nm could be a move aimed at increasing clock speeds at those lower voltages, in a bid to generationally improve performance using clock speeds, besides IPC and core count. The EPYC processor with "Zen 5c" chiplets will feature no more than six such large CCDs, for a maximum core count of 192. The regular "Zen 5" CCD has just 8 cores in a single CCX, with 32 MB of L3 cache shared among the cores; and TSV provision for 3D Vertical Cache, to increase the L3 cache in special variants.
Sources: UDN, Wccftech
Add your own comment

78 Comments on AMD "Zen 5c" CCDs Made On More Advanced 3 nm Node Than "Zen 5"

#76
chrcoluk
john_You ignore 3/4 of the post that doesn't suits you and you talk about selective memory.
Funny.
I will be quite frank, and I dont say this stuff often.

I have read all your posts in this thread, and they are typed in a way as if you have a point to prove. You have been rude to multiple members in pursuit of that mission. Normally I dont give posters like you even a reply, and you wasnt even grateful for that.

What do you want from the discussion?
Posted on Reply
#77
john_
chrcolukI will be quite frank, and I dont say this stuff often.

I have read all your posts in this thread, and they are typed in a way as if you have a point to prove. You have been rude to multiple members in pursuit of that mission. Normally I dont give posters like you even a reply, and you wasnt even grateful for that.
Oh, now we try lies and baseless accusations in the form of a personal attack. It gets better I guess.

Are you going to keep doing that? Does it really work?
I mean, does it work to accuse the other person for what you are doing or what you are about to do? It is a standard practice by people who don't have arguments, but does it really work?
What do you want from the discussion?
You rush in here and start throwing insults. Again you use the same tactic. You ask the other person the question you should be answering.
Posted on Reply
#78
mkppo
kapone32That is what I like to call them since they are not full Zen cores. Since they are not even real yet. I can call them whatever I want. You are again moving the goal posts though.
Not to mention, for many server workloads that actually need a bucket ton of cores and can scale across them, having two different ISA's like intel e/p core does is a major drawback. The Zen4c cores circumvents this issue altogether. Sure, with windows scheduler and a ton of e-cores the consumer side is better suited for this configuration and mostly works fine but server workloads are a different matter. Intel id also having pretty hard time cramming those P cores in large quantities, due to both power as well as area.

Also, the 4c cores are stupid small for their performance. Keep in mind that regular zen4 is already pretty small by modern high performance chip standards. To reduce that by close to 40% is pretty wild.

It makes sense for AMD to fab the 5c cores at a lower node. Since mobile designs are being manufactured on the smallest nodes, they're well suited for the power/frequency area where the c cores operate at.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 8th, 2024 23:21 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts