• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD "Zen 2" IPC 29 Percent Higher than "Zen"

Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,722 (1.19/day)
Location
Buenos Aires, Argentina
System Name System V
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus Prime X570-P
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 // a bunch of 120 mm Xigmatek 1500 RPM fans (2 ins, 3 outs)
Memory 2x8GB Ballistix Sport LT 3200 MHz (BLS8G4D32AESCK.M8FE) (CL16-18-18-36)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte AORUS Radeon RX 580 8 GB
Storage SHFS37A240G / DT01ACA200 / WD20EZRX / MKNSSDTR256GB-3DL / LG BH16NS40 / ST10000VN0008
Display(s) LG 22MP55 IPS Display
Case NZXT Source 210
Audio Device(s) Logitech G430 Headset
Power Supply Corsair CX650M
Mouse Microsoft Trackball Optical 1.0
Keyboard HP Vectra VE keyboard (Part # D4950-63004)
Software Whatever build of Windows 11 is being served in Dev channel at the time.
Benchmark Scores Corona 1.3: 3120620 r/s Cinebench R20: 3355 FireStrike: 12490 TimeSpy: 4624
I think I'll keep my hopes for IPC improvement at 10-15 percent. Nearly 30% improvement is a bit too much to ask, although if it happens, well, that'd be nice.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
157 (0.07/day)
System Name N/A
Processor Intel Core i5 3570
Motherboard Gigabyte B75
Cooling Coolermaster Hyper TX3
Memory 12 GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming Z RTX 2060
Storage SSD
Display(s) Samsung 4K HDR 60 Hz TV
Case Eagle Warrior Gaming
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Coolermaster Elite 460W
Mouse Vorago KM500
Keyboard Vorago KM500
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores N/A
It is clear as day from the design of new EPYC. It includes 8 chiplets of 8 cores each next to the IO controller to complete 64 cores.
The chiplets themselves are quite small, and 2 of them could very possibly fit into a dual-chiplet AM4 CPU with 16 cores.


It is clear that chiplets have 8 cores, not 8 cores per CCX, that hasn't been confirmed yet.

It could still be 4 cores per CCX, from AT ~
The biggest downside from this being the insane number of IF links to make Rome o_O

Very pretty topology, where does it come from?

You're right to point out historically numbers in advance din't do AMD ant favors. However, in this case we already know there was work left to do mainly around the memory controller. Some at AMD confirmed this much around Zen launch. So we knew there was (at least theoretical) untapped potential in Zen. Of course, the proof is still in the pudding, but unlike Bulldozer and Excavator (which everyone knew were built on shaky ground), I believe AMD is at least worth the benefit of doubt this time around. Plus, even if an average the improvement isn't 29%, but 20%, it would still be enough to gain a solid lead on Intel.

Could 20% be enough to have a lead on Intel? I thought Zen was still way behind Intel in single threaded performance or IPC.

The biggest benefit of moving I/O off to a different die is that it makes the CCXs smaller if you don't make them bigger because all of that logic isn't in the CCX anymore and is instead located in the centralized I/O hub. Smaller dies means better yields, better yields means an opportunity to add more cores.

Personally my concern is with latency but, I'm not sure if that's an unfounded issue or not. It's likely the case that it's more beneficial to move the I/O components. It's also possible that the I/O hub might not need to be done on the same process as the CCXs which might further improve yields if the larger die is being done on a more mature process.

So what gives better yields then? Smaller dies at 7nm or a huge one at 14nm? Yes the I/O die is done in GloFo's 14 nm.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,780 (5.97/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
It is clear that chiplets have 8 cores, not 8 cores per CCX, that hasn't been confirmed yet.



Very pretty topology, where does it come from?



Could 20% be enough to have a lead on Intel? I thought Zen was still way behind Intel in single threaded performance or IPC.



So what gives better yields then? Smaller dies at 7nm or a huge one at 14nm? Yes the I/O die is done in GloFo's 14 nm.

15-20% is what they need to catch Intel clock-for-clock. Zen was way behind on *clocks*, not on IPC. But combine the two and you have a gap, yes. I do believe Zen 2 will comfortably close that gap, if it can clock to 4.5 ~ 4.6, Intel has nothing left to offer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
157 (0.07/day)
System Name N/A
Processor Intel Core i5 3570
Motherboard Gigabyte B75
Cooling Coolermaster Hyper TX3
Memory 12 GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming Z RTX 2060
Storage SSD
Display(s) Samsung 4K HDR 60 Hz TV
Case Eagle Warrior Gaming
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Coolermaster Elite 460W
Mouse Vorago KM500
Keyboard Vorago KM500
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores N/A
20% will put them on the level of Coffee Lake, give or take some insignificant workload specific gaps. Way behind on IPC? Not at all. Zen was way behind on *clocks*.

So CFL is clock to clock similar to Zen in IPC? Or in addition to higher IPC they clocked much faster? Anyway if Zen 2 can catch CFL, Intel should cancel Cannon Lake and launch Ice Lake next year to keep having the leadership. Intel should have published some preliminary data about IPC gains of Ice Lake by now.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,780 (5.97/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
So CFL is clock to clock similar to Zen in IPC? Or in addition to higher IPC they clocked much faster? Anyway if Zen 2 can catch CFL, Intel should cancel Cannon Lake and launch Ice Lake next year to keep having the leadership. Intel should have published some preliminary data about IPC gains of Ice Lake by now.

Excuse my ninja edits.

CFL is ahead of Zen (1) and Zen 2 will probably close that gap, yes. Hopefully not just IPC but also clocks.

Intel should do a lot of things, but the reality is they have nothing on the table unless they can move to a smaller node.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
3,187 (0.60/day)
Location
Czech republic
Processor Ryzen 5800X
Motherboard Asus TUF-Gaming B550-Plus
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S
Memory 32GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon Rx 580 Nitro+ 8GB
Storage HP EX950 512GB + Samsung 970 PRO 1TB
Display(s) HP Z Display Z24i G2
Case Fractal Design Define R6 Black
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster AE-5
Power Supply Seasonic PRIME Ultra 650W Gold
Mouse Roccat Kone AIMO Remastered
Software Windows 10 x64
I don't care if it's only 10% above Zen+. I already considered buying the +, so this will only be better.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
43 (0.02/day)
Processor Ryzen 5950X
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aurus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i
Memory 32GB (16x2) Crucial DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) Powercolor Radeon RX 480 Red Devil 8GB
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200, 1TB Corsair MP510, 4TB WDC Red, 3TB WDC Black, 6TB Ironwolf, 250GB 850 evo
Display(s) LG 4k 27"
Case Nanoxia Deep Silence 6
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z906
Power Supply 660W Seasonic Platinum Prime
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Logitech
Software Windows 10
Could 20% be enough to have a lead on Intel? I thought Zen was still way behind Intel in single threaded performance or IPC.

They trade blows in the IPC department with the worst case AMD being 15% behind and best case 8% ahead. So depending on how things go with Zen 2 then it is possible that Zen 2 depending on the task will at least be level with Intel and in most cases be ahead in IPC. In the case of a 20% average IPC increase that would mean that clock for clock AMD would always be faster than any Coffeelake chip out there. But if this 29% increase is true then Intel has problems as even in the worst case with 85% of the performance a 29% boost means AMD is now ~9.7% faster clock for clock (20% would mean 2% faster).

For the source of this info ->
https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,163 (4.07/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Could 20% be enough to have a lead on Intel? I thought Zen was still way behind Intel in single threaded performance or IPC.

Neah, Zen's IPC is neck to neck with Intel's. Intel wins in singe-thread performance because having fewer cores they can push higher frequencies. But since they can't push 20% higher frequencies, 20% better IPC (even if maintaining the same clocks) will be enough to push AMD ahead.

(And yes, I'm aware there are specific scenarios where the IPC gap can be noticeable, but I'm talking about the average usecase here).
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
157 (0.07/day)
System Name N/A
Processor Intel Core i5 3570
Motherboard Gigabyte B75
Cooling Coolermaster Hyper TX3
Memory 12 GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming Z RTX 2060
Storage SSD
Display(s) Samsung 4K HDR 60 Hz TV
Case Eagle Warrior Gaming
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Coolermaster Elite 460W
Mouse Vorago KM500
Keyboard Vorago KM500
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores N/A
Excuse my ninja edits.

CFL is ahead of Zen (1) and Zen 2 will probably close that gap, yes. Hopefully not just IPC but also clocks.

Intel should do a lot of things, but the reality is they have nothing on the table unless they can move to a smaller node.

Intel should have (re)designed Ice Lake arch on 14+(++,+++) nm. It would be in the market by now, but they are so stubborn that the next arch will come till 10 nm. With that in mind next arch after Ice Lake would come in 7 nm by 2025:eek:?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
100 (0.02/day)
Location
Thailand
System Name amy-pc
Processor ryzen 5 2600
Motherboard asus a320m-k
Cooling stock cpu fan
Memory 16gb(8*2) bus 3200
Video Card(s) msi rx560 4gb
Storage wd black 500gb sn750 nvme, 2x120gb apacer sata (raid0), 8tb nas synology ds220j
Display(s) msi optix g24 series, freesync 75hz
Audio Device(s) nubwo southpaw ns-12
Power Supply cooler master 550w
Mouse g102
Keyboard philips spk8901
Software windows 11 insider
I want AMD 8 cores that is as fast as 9900K and prices 350usd.
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2016
Messages
382 (0.13/day)
System Name 06/2023
Processor R7 7800X3D
Motherboard ROG STRIX B650E-I GAMING WIFI
Cooling Custom 240mm cooling (for CPU) with noctua nfa12x25 and Phantek T30
Memory 32gb Gskill 6000 CL30
Video Card(s) RTX 4070 dual asus deshrouded with 120mm NF-A12x25
Storage 2tb samsung 990 pro + 4tb samsung 870 evo
Display(s) Asus 27" Oled PG27AQDM + Asus 27" IPS PG279QM
Case Ncase M1 v6.1
Audio Device(s) Steelseries arctis pro wireless + Shure SM7b with Steinberg UR
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Corsair scimitar pro (this mouse need an overall guys pls) + Logitech G Pro wireless with powerplay
Keyboard Sharkoon purewriter
Software windows 11
Benchmark Scores Over 9000 !
I think I'll keep my hopes for IPC improvement at 10-15 percent. Nearly 30% improvement is a bit too much to ask, although if it happens, well, that'd be nice.

Don't worry 10-15 percent IPC increase is already pipe dream. And i am not talking about specific application performance bump bullshit.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Messages
115 (0.05/day)
29% IPC uplift claim is too much if the previous claim of "no dignificant bottleneck" of Zen is true.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
116 (0.05/day)
it will be a goal if amd will be on par with intel, ipc wise. X86 is a more then mature arch., any improvement can only be small improvement. Yes improve latencies etc can be important in some scenarios, but 29% more ipc is madness. Sure, zen done +40% but we here we have excavator as a refer...
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
157 (0.07/day)
System Name N/A
Processor Intel Core i5 3570
Motherboard Gigabyte B75
Cooling Coolermaster Hyper TX3
Memory 12 GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming Z RTX 2060
Storage SSD
Display(s) Samsung 4K HDR 60 Hz TV
Case Eagle Warrior Gaming
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Coolermaster Elite 460W
Mouse Vorago KM500
Keyboard Vorago KM500
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores N/A
They trade blows in the IPC department with the worst case AMD being 15% behind and best case 8% ahead. So depending on how things go with Zen 2 then it is possible that Zen 2 depending on the task will at least be level with Intel and in most cases be ahead in IPC. In the case of a 20% average IPC increase that would mean that clock for clock AMD would always be faster than any Coffeelake chip out there. But if this 29% increase is true then Intel has problems as even in the worst case with 85% of the performance a 29% boost means AMD is now ~9.7% faster clock for clock (20% would mean 2% faster).

For the source of this info ->
https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/

Just read the review, very nice but my conclusions are different than yours, the only win for Ryzen 2600X was PCMark in Gaming Score hahaha, that 8%. Ryzen 2600X is 5% slower on average on productivity and apps and 12% slower in gaming, against 8700K both a 4Ghz.

Neah, Zen's IPC is neck to neck with Intel's. Intel wins in singe-thread performance because having fewer cores they can push higher frequencies. But since they can't push 20% higher frequencies, 20% better IPC (even if maintaining the same clocks) will be enough to push AMD ahead.

(And yes, I'm aware there are specific scenarios where the IPC gap can be noticeable, but I'm talking about the average usecase here).

Check that review https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/page2.html you should find out that Ryzen 2600X is still behind Intel 8700K.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
251 (0.05/day)
Rome: 2x FP performance increase per core and FP increase per socket. That is significant even if it does not translate into real-world benchmarks.

Intel at a point was in the lead with 2 manufacturing steps.
Now Intel has nothing to answer this with and is behind in every aspect except marketing dirty tricks (oh... 'deals').
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,163 (4.07/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.08/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
It could still be 4 cores per CCX, from AT ~
The biggest downside from this being the insane number of IF links to make Rome o_O
While you're right that we don't know yet that the CCXes have grown to 8 cores (though IMO this seems likely given that every other Zen2 rumor has been spot on), that drawing is ... nonsense. First off, it proposes using IF to communicate between CCXes on the same die, which even Zen1 didn't do. The sketch directly contradicts what AMD said about their design, and doesn't at all account for the I/O die and its role in inter-chiplet communication. The layout sketched out there is incredibly complicated, and wouldn't even make sense for a theoretical Zen1-based 8-die layout. Remember, IF uses PCIe links, and even in Zen1 the PCIe links were common across two CCXes. The CCXes do thus not have separate IF links, but share a common connection (through the L3 cache, IIRC) to the PCIe/IF complex. Making these separate would be a giant step backwards in terms of design and efficiency. Remember, the uncore part of even a 2-die Threadripper consumes ~60W. And that's with two internal links, 64 lanes of PCIe and a quad-channel memory controller. The layout in the sketch above would likely consume >200W for IF alone.

Now, let's look at that sketch. In it, any given CCX is one hop away from 3-4 other CCXes, 2 hops from 3-5 CCXes, and 3 hops away from the remaining 7-10 CCXes. In comparison, with EPYC (non-Rome) and TR, all cores are 1 hop away from each other (though the inter-CCX hop is shorter/faster than the die-to-die IF hop). Even if this is "reduced latency IF" as they call it, that would be ridiculous. And again: what role does the I/O die play in this? The IF layout in that sketch makes no use of it whatsoever, other than linking the memory controller and PCIe lanes to eight seemingly random CCXes. This would make NUMA management an impossible flustercuck on the software side, and substrate manufacturing (seriously, there are six IF links in between each chiplet there! The chiplets are <100mm2! This is a PCB, not an interposer! You can't get that kind of trace density in a PCB.) impossible on the hardware side. Then there's the issue of this design requiring each CCX to have 4 IF links, but 1/4 of the CCXes only gets to use 3 links, wasting die area.

On the other hand, let's look at the layout that makes sense both logically, hardware and software wise, and adds up with what AMD has said about EPYC: Each chiplet has a single IF interface, that connects to the I/O die. Only that, nothing more. The I/O die has a ring bus or similar interconnect that encompasses the 8 necessary IF links for the chiplets, an additional 8 for PCIe/external IF, and the memory controllers. This reduces the number of IF links running through the substrate from 30 in your sketch (6 per chiplet pair + 6 between them) to 8. It is blatantly obvious that the I/O die has been made specifically to make this possible. This would make every single core 1 hop (through the I/O die, but ultimately still 1 hop) away from any other core, while reducing the number of IF links by almot 1/4. Why else would they design that massive die?

Red lines. The I/O die handles low-latency shuffling of data between IF links, while also giving each chiplet "direct" access to DRAM and PCIe. All over the same single connection per chiplet. The I/O die is (at least at this time) a black box, so we don't know whether it uses some sort of ring bus, mesh topology, or large L4 cache (or some other solution) to connect these various components. But we do know that a layout like this is the only one that would actually work. (And yes, I know that my lines don't add up in terms of where the IF link is physically located on the chiplets. This is an illustration, not a technical drawing.)
9114301_e1a94b72c27cb164aa4fbd4656b4bbf8.png




More on-topic, we need to remember that IPC is workload dependent. There might be a 29% increase in IPC in certain workloads, but generally, when we talk about IPC it is average IPC across a wide selection of workloads. This also applies when running test suites like SPEC or GeekBench, as they run a wide variety of tests stressing various parts of the core. What AMD has "presented" (it was in a footnote, it's not like they're using this for marketing) is from two specific workloads. This means that a) this can very likely be true, particularly if the workloads are FP-heavy, and b) this is very likely not representative of total average IPC across most end-user-relevant test suites. In other words, this can be both true (in the specific scenarios in question) and misleading (if read as "average IPC over a broad range of workloads").
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,277 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
The chiplets themselves are quite small, and 2 of them could very possibly fit into a dual-chiplet AM4 CPU with 16 cores.

There are two ways AMD could built a 16-core AM4 processor:
  • Two 8-core chiplets with a smaller I/O die that has 2-channel memory, 32-lane PCIe gen 4.0 (with external redrivers), and the same I/O as current AM4 dies such as ZP or PiR.
  • A monolithic die with two 8-core CCX's, and fully integrated chipset like ZP or PiR. Such a die wouldn't be any bigger than today's PiR.
I think option two is more feasible for low-margin AM4 products.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,163 (4.07/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
There are two ways AMD could built a 16-core AM4 processor:
  • Two 8-core chiplets with a smaller I/O die that has 2-channel memory, 32-lane PCIe gen 4.0 (with external redrivers), and the same I/O as current AM4 dies such as ZP or PiR.
  • A monolithic die with two 8-core CCX's, and fully integrated chipset like ZP or PiR. Such a die wouldn't be any bigger than today's PiR.
I think option two is more feasible for low-margin AM4 products.
At the same time, for low-margins 8 core is more than enough ;)
But let's wait and see.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,277 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
At the same time, for low-margins 8 core is more than enough ;)
But let's wait and see.

AMD wants to moar-koar the sh** out of Intel's R&D budget, so they spend their money on moar-koaring to keep up, because software ecosystem is finally waking up to moar-koar. At the same time, it's mindful that when Intel gets its 10 nm off the ground, it will introduce its first major IPC uplifts since 2015, or perhaps even since Nehalem. So it needs double-digit percentage IPC increments in addition to 100% core-count increases across the board, while keeping the energy-efficiency edge from 7 nm.

It's somewhat like the USA-PRC military equation. For every dollar that China spends on developing a new military technology, the US probably spends $5 to keep its edge (thanks to lubricating K-street, the hill, MIC, higher costs, etc.).
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
80 (0.02/day)
System Name Custom build, AMD/ATi powered.
Processor AMD FX™ 8350 [8x4.6 GHz]
Motherboard AsRock 970 Extreme3 R2.0
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock Advanced C1
Memory Crucial, Ballistix Tactical, 16 GByte, 1866, CL9
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon HD 7850 Black Edition, 2 GByte GDDR5
Storage 250/500/1500/2000 GByte, SSD: 60 GByte
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster 950p
Case CoolerMaster HAF 912 Pro
Audio Device(s) 7.1 Digital High Definition Surround
Power Supply be quiet! Straight Power E9 CM 580W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate x64, SP 1
Neah, Zen's IPC is neck to neck with Intel's. Intel wins in singe-thread performance because having fewer cores they can push higher frequencies. But since they can't push 20% higher frequencies, 20% better IPC (even if maintaining the same clocks) will be enough to push AMD ahead.

(And yes, I'm aware there are specific scenarios where the IPC gap can be noticeable, but I'm talking about the average usecase here).
Excuse me sir, but you misspelled IPS! When people will finally learn the difference ffs?!

There's the IPC, and then there's IPS.
IPC or I/c → Instructions per (Clock-) Cycle
IPS or I/s → Instructions per Second

The letter one, thus IPS, often is used synonymously with and for actual Single-thread-Performance – whereas AMD no longer and surely not to such an extent lags behind in numbers compared to Intel now as they did at the time Bulldozer was the pinnacle of the ridge.

Rule of thumb:
IPC does not scale with frequency but is rather fix·ed (within margins, depends on context and kind of [code-] instructions¹, you got the idea).
IPS is the fixed value of the IPC in a time-relation or at a time-figure pretty much like the formula → IPC×t, simply put.

So your definition of IPC quoted above would rather be called „Instructions per Clock at the Wall“ like IPC@W.
So please, stop using right terms and definitions for wrong contexts, learn the difference between those two and get your shit together please!
blinx15x18.gif


¹ The value IPC is (depending on kind) absolute² and fixed, yes.
However, it completely is crucially depending on the type and kind of instructions and can vary rather stark by using different kind of instructions – since, per definition, the figure IPC only reflects the value of how many instructions can be processed on average per (clock-) circle.

On synthetic code like instructions with low logical depth or level and algorithmic complexity, which are suited to be processed rather shortly, the resulting value is obviously pretty high – whereas on instructions with a rather high complexity and long length, the IPC-value can only reach rather low figures. In this particular matter, even the contrary can be the case, so that it needs more than one or even a multitude of cycles to process a single given complex instruction. In this regard we're speaking of the reciprocal multiplicative, thus the inverse (-value).
… which is also standardised as being defined as (Clock-) Cycles per Instruction or C/I, short → CPI.
² In terms of non-varying, as opposed to relative.

Read:
Wikipedia • Instructions per cycle
Wikipedia • Instructions per second
Wikipedia • Cycles per instruction



Smartcom
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
53 (0.02/day)
System Name maxedoutgamer
Processor i5-4670k @4.2ghz
Motherboard Asrock z87
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory 16GB ddr3 2133
Video Card(s) gtx 1080 (Palit Jetstream)
Storage 512GB Samsung 840pro
Display(s) Acer B286HK - 4K, baby
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Power Supply evga nex650g
Benchmark Scores eeeexcelent
when Intel gets its 10 nm off the ground, it will introduce its first major IPC uplifts since 2015, or perhaps even since Nehalem
since Sany Bridge it was year 2009 no more than 5% IPC gains from Intel, and in last 2 "generations" = 0% IPC gains... lets hope it will be in early 2020.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.08/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
AMD wants to moar-koar the sh** out of Intel's R&D budget, so they spend their money on moar-koaring to keep up, because software ecosystem is finally waking up to moar-koar. At the same time, it's mindful that when Intel gets its 10 nm off the ground, it will introduce its first major IPC uplifts since 2015, or perhaps even since Nehalem. So it needs double-digit percentage IPC increments in addition to 100% core-count increases across the board, while keeping the energy-efficiency edge from 7 nm.

It's somewhat like the USA-PRC military equation. For every dollar that China spends on developing a new military technology, the US probably spends $5 to keep its edge (thanks to lubricating K-street, the hill, MIC, higher costs, etc.).
While you have a point, wouldn't that also mean using partially disabled 16-core dice for even =/< 8-core chips (including the low end) given that this would then be the only chip with the required I/O? This sounds too inflexible to make sense for the wide range of SKUs needed for this market. Even if they push high-end MSDT to 16 cores, majority sales volume will be in the 4-6 core range (unless these chips are crazy cheap), with 8 cores likely being the enthusiast sweet spot. That would require a lot of partially disabled silicon. As such, doesn't it sound more likely to keep the chiplets across the range (possibly excluding mobile)? This might be slightly more expensive in assembly, but on the other hand disabling >/= 50% of your die for 80-90% of your sales doesn't exactly make economical sense either. I'd bet the former would be cheaper than the latter, as you'd get more than 2x the usable dice out of a wafer this way.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
667 (0.25/day)
System Name Unimatrix
Processor Intel i9-9900K @ 5.0GHz
Motherboard ASRock x390 Taichi Ultimate
Cooling Custom Loop
Memory 32GB GSkill TridentZ RGB DDR4 @ 3400MHz 14-14-14-32
Video Card(s) EVGA 2080 with Heatkiller Water Block
Storage 2x Samsung 960 Pro 512GB M.2 SSD in RAID 0, 1x WD Blue 1TB M.2 SSD
Display(s) Alienware 34" Ultrawide 3440x1440
Case CoolerMaster P500M Mesh
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Titanium 850W
Keyboard Corsair K75
Benchmark Scores Really Really High
Bulldozer, Excavator, ... no thank you. No more hyping until the community benches are out. :rolleyes:

Remember when Ryzen first came out? That shit was hyped through the roof.

So 15% real world seems very doable. Oh, intel, luz. Better luck next time with your 15% in 8 yrs lol

So HOW long did AMD take to get "here" (Zen+)? They are still not ahead. We shall see Zen 2.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,780 (5.97/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
Intel should have (re)designed Ice Lake arch on 14+(++,+++) nm. It would be in the market by now, but they are so stubborn that the next arch will come till 10 nm. With that in mind next arch after Ice Lake would come in 7 nm by 2025:eek:?

Should have... would they be able to? A new node enables a new design I think and the compromises to do it on 14nm would kill the advantage anyway. 14nm is clearly pushed to the limit, and even over it for some parts if you look at their stock temps, (9th gen hi).

Excuse me sir, but you misspelled IPS! When people will finally learn the difference ffs?!


Eh... IPS in my mind is In Plane Switching for displays.

He spelled it fine, you didn't read it right.
 
Top