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

No 16-core AMD Ryzen AM4 Until After 7nm EPYC Launch (2019)

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,283 (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
AMD in its Q2-2018 investors conference call dropped more hints at when it plans to launch its 3rd generation Ryzen processors, based on its "Zen2" architecture. CEO Lisa Su stated in the Q&A session that rollout of 7 nm Ryzen processors will only follow that of 7 nm EPYC (unlike 1st generation Ryzen preceding 1st generation EPYC). What this effectively means is that the fabled 16-core die with 8 cores per CCX won't make it to the desktop platform any time soon (at least not in the next three quarters, certainly not within 2018).

AMD CEO touched upon the development of the company's 7 nm "Rome" silicon, which will be at the heart of the company's 2nd generation EPYC processor family. 2nd generation EPYC, as you'd recall from our older article, is based on 7 nm "Zen2" architecture, and not 12 nm "Zen+." 3rd generation Ryzen is expected to be based on "Zen2." As of now, the company is said to have completed tape-out of "Rome," and is sending samples out to its industry partners for further testing and validation. The first EPYC products based on this will begin rolling out in 2019. The 7 nm process is also being used for a new "Vega" based GPU, which has taped out, and will see its first enterprise-segment product launch within 2018.



With "Zen 2" based client-segment product being slated for 2019, there doesn't appear to be any immediate counter from AMD to Intel's 14 nm 8-core "Whiskey Lake" silicon; beyond maybe launching existing 12 nm "Pinnacle Ridge" based products with higher clocks, or lowering prices. The company will be launching its 2nd generation Ryzen Threadripper processors within 2018, but those are HEDT products not designed to compete with "Whiskey Lake." Any interim new 12 nm "Zen+" silicon with >8 cores would go against what Dr. Su stated in her Q&A, and is hence unlikely. "Rome" was the only CPU development mentioned by Dr. Su.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
6,729 (1.68/day)
The 12 core AM4 chip is also rumored to be a part of the lineup, could be 6 core CCX or 6 (enabled) core per CCX, with 2 cores disabled for better yield? The 16 core chip will not be released anytime soon, not unless AMD absolutely have to. I'm personally more curious about TR3 or TR4, can AMD push 64c/128t in HEDT o_O
 
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 !
The 12 core AM4 chip is also rumored to be a part of the lineup, could be 6 core CCX or 6 (enabled) core per CCX, with 2 cores disabled for better yield? The 16 core chip will not be released anytime soon, not unless AMD absolutely have to. I'm personally more curious about TR3 or TR4, can AMD push 64c/128t in HEDT o_O

Dont expect 12 cores if there isn't 16 cores available.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
165 (0.04/day)
Location
Australia
Here’s hoping for a ryzen 2800x in the mean time or some price cuts
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
6,729 (1.68/day)
Dont expect 12 cores if there isn't 16 cores available.
What do you mean? I doubt they'll go straight from 8 cores, mainstream, to 16 cores.
AMD's biggest USP is (more) cores, not the only one but the most obvious. So there will definitely be a 12 core part released before 16 one, IMO anyway.
So if they're gonna sell Ryzen & it's derivatives over the next half a decade, then it makes sense to pace the increase in core count to a more sustainable level.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
299 (0.14/day)
No surprise, actually. 16 cores on a mainstream platform does not make much sense for now.

The vast majority of people is better served with CPUs with less cores and more aggressive clocks.

For those who need lots of cores for very specific tasks, that's what HEDT is for.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
626 (0.18/day)
there doesn't appear to be any immediate counter from AMD to Intel's 14 nm 8-core "Whiskey Lake" silicon
I find R5 2600X and R7 2700X to be perfect "counters" to whatever Intel is bringing, maybe an eventual 2800X.
This "Intel wins" because overall performance is x.1111% better is becoming nauseating.
 
D

Deleted member 172152

Guest
No surprise, actually. 16 cores on a mainstream platform does not make much sense for now.

The vast majority of people is better served with CPUs with less cores and more aggressive clocks.

For those who need lots of cores for very specific tasks, that's what HEDT is for.
My thoughts exactly. In fact, 8-core mainstream Intel is more exciting to me than 16-cores mainstream AMD! 12-cores could be nice though if single-core performance doesn't suffer. Would likely cost more though, like 400-500 euros or roughly as much as the 9700k and 9900k depending on version.

I might actually stick with Intel on this one. :fear:

Definitely'll be swapping the 1180 for an AMD equivelant if that arrives though, and if AMD can improve per-core performance enough AND increase corecount, I might have a team red pc before the end of next year!
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,475 (1.33/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB
Keyboard Corsair K60
VR HMD HTC Vive
Why do we think there might be 16 cores on AM4?
If that 8-core CCX is true, AMD will more than likely just reap benefits from lower manufacturing costs as well as avoiding all the cross-CCX latency issues.

I find R5 2600X and R7 2700X to be perfect "counters" to whatever Intel is bringing, maybe an eventual 2800X.
This "Intel wins" because overall performance is x.1111% better is becoming nauseating.
Cost is where AMD currently wins. 2600X is not doing very well against 8700K.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,863 (3.36/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
Why do we think there might be 16 cores on AM4?

The density leap will make 16 core parts just as easy and cheap to manufacture as the current 8 core parts. It will simply be a matter of choice on their part if they think it's worth doing that against what the competitions has.
 
D

Deleted member 172152

Guest
Why do we think there might be 16 cores on AM4?
If that 8-core CCX is true, AMD will more than likely just reap benefits from lower manufacturing costs as well as avoiding all the cross-CCX latency issues.

Cost is where AMD currently wins. 2600X is not doing very well against 8700K.
One 8-core cluster could certainly be better for the average consumer than two of 6/8. Threadripper and Epyc will get a corecount increase for sure though, which will help differentiate HEDT and consumer lineups again!
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
626 (0.18/day)
If that 8-core CCX is true, AMD will more than likely just reap benefits from lower manufacturing costs as well as avoiding all the cross-CCX latency issues
Well reasoned; a single CCX 8-core may well make more sense (on mainstream platforms) than 2x8-core CCXs.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,475 (1.33/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB
Keyboard Corsair K60
VR HMD HTC Vive
If you're talking performance I think it does well indeed.
And if we consider price then there's no match.
I know we all assume Intel continues to be greedy and price technically similar CPUs way higher. But like I said cost is where AMD currently wins. Technically, both these CPUs are very close.
2600X is 6c/12t @ 3.6/4.2
8700K is 6c/12t @ 3.7/4.7
Depends on your definition of well, I guess.
Even in best case scenario tests for Ryzen like Cinebench R15, 8700K consistently does 5+% better. More in most other productivity tests.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
1,533 (0.42/day)
Location
Grunn
System Name Indis the Fair (cursed edition)
Processor 11900k 5.1/4.9 undervolted.
Motherboard MSI Z590 Unify-X
Cooling Heatkiller VI Pro, VPP755 V.3, XSPC TX360 slim radiator, 3xA12x25, 4x Arctic P14 case fans
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 2x16GB 4000 16-19-19 (b-die@3600 14-14-14 1.45v)
Video Card(s) EVGA 2080 Super Hybrid (T30-120 fan)
Storage 970EVO 1TB, 660p 1TB, WD Blue 3D 1TB, Sandisk Ultra 3D 2TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2546K, Dell P2417H
Case FD Define 7
Audio Device(s) DT770 Pro, Topping A50, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, Røde VXLR+, Modmic 5
Power Supply Seasonic 860w Platinum
Mouse Razer Viper Mini, Odin Infinity mousepad
Keyboard GMMK Fullsize v2 (Boba U4Ts)
Software Win10 x64/Win7 x64/Ubuntu
I think intel can make a killing off their 8 core chips providing the TIM and the motherboards are not barriers to pushing around 5GHz on AIO cooling.

They should have a substantial MT advantage (even a 8c8t will) in overall performance and at more modest clocks the efficiency differences are insignificant to most users (desktop power efficiency is not as critical as server).

Intel's current IMC has a good track record while AMD's struggles to get much further than 3000MHz so intel has plenty of headroom in the memory bandwidth.

AMD also will need to start offering significantly better ST performance to really get a stronghold on the desktop market, and the current indications hint that they will at best be closing the gap to in the order of 10%.

AMD can slash prices all they want but the fact that intel will continue to hold the best overall desktop performance means AMD is cut out of what intel has shown to be a very profitable product bracket.

That said, for now, intel has to get whatever sales they can in the desktop market because that is the only place where their current architecture has a real advantage. They are getting destroyed on the server side by TR and AMD is only going to build a bigger lead as it stands.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
53 (0.02/day)
Location
Spain
Processor AMD Ryzen 3700X
Motherboard Gigabyte AB350N-Gaming
Memory 16 GB Corsair Vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Nvidia RTX 2080
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 512 GB
Display(s) 1 x ASUS Predator 3440x1440 | 2 x HPZR24w 1920x1200
Case Corsair Obsidian 800D
Power Supply EVGA 600B
Software Windows 10 Home
Just as until now, with Zen 1, AMD had 2 dies (one with 2 CCXx with 4 cores each used throughout server, HEDT and consumer segments, and another with 1 CCX and a iGPU), it would make sense in terms of costs to keep 2 dies for everything with Zen 2: one with 2 CCXs with 8 cores each to reach 64c/128t at the server level, and another with just one 8 cores CCX and an iGPU.

For the time being, topping at 8 cores on the desktop seems to be perfectly fine for all but hardcore users, maybe 99% of desktop users (not just us enthusiasts, but everybody). Adding an iGPU to it would make the proposition great for businesses that just need a working computer, no add-in cards needed (most office PCs are like that, very few workers need a powerfull GPU). It's what AMD needs to enter the volume market. At 7 nm, they should be able to cram 8 cores in a CCX (as the rumours circulating imply) plus a more than decent iGPU.

Then they would have the second die, with two 8 cores CCXs: that would allow the desktop to reach 16 cores on the AM4 socket, although without iGPU, the HEDT (Threadripper) to get to 32 cores (or even 64 if they use 4 working dies as is rumoured already for TR2, maybe limiting other features to segment the products and avoid cannibalizing the Epyc line, probably keeping 4 channel memory), and Epyc to reach 64c/128t with 8 channel memory and all the server grade features.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
123 (0.03/day)
I don't think anyone was expecting anything other than a Zen 2 launch in 2019. This isn't surprising or news. Only then will with a six or eight core CCX make higher core Ryzen cpus possible.

AMD also will need to start offering significantly better ST performance to really get a stronghold on the desktop market, and the current indications hint that they will at best be closing the gap to in the order of 10%.

As it stands right now IPC is already within 10%. What they really need is clockspeed.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
1,533 (0.42/day)
Location
Grunn
System Name Indis the Fair (cursed edition)
Processor 11900k 5.1/4.9 undervolted.
Motherboard MSI Z590 Unify-X
Cooling Heatkiller VI Pro, VPP755 V.3, XSPC TX360 slim radiator, 3xA12x25, 4x Arctic P14 case fans
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 2x16GB 4000 16-19-19 (b-die@3600 14-14-14 1.45v)
Video Card(s) EVGA 2080 Super Hybrid (T30-120 fan)
Storage 970EVO 1TB, 660p 1TB, WD Blue 3D 1TB, Sandisk Ultra 3D 2TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2546K, Dell P2417H
Case FD Define 7
Audio Device(s) DT770 Pro, Topping A50, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, Røde VXLR+, Modmic 5
Power Supply Seasonic 860w Platinum
Mouse Razer Viper Mini, Odin Infinity mousepad
Keyboard GMMK Fullsize v2 (Boba U4Ts)
Software Win10 x64/Win7 x64/Ubuntu
As it stands right now IPC is already within 10%. What they really need is clockspeed.

Uh even in the more AMD favoured metrics they will have at least 10% deficit. CB should be around 2200 at 4.9 GHz (remember that 5.1-5.2 is very attainable on the 8700k) while a 4.2 GHz 2700x will be around the low 1900s.

You have to consider the attainable clocks on an arch if you want to look at practical performance, just stating per clock performance is irrelevant. At the moment ryzen isn't showing that it will push 10% extra clock speed out of the blue, even on a new process, intel is already at those clocks, I already mentioned that all they need to get right is the TIM and motherboard manufacturers need to actually ship good VRMs on sub $200 boards.
 

Fx

Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
1,332 (0.24/day)
Location
Portland, OR
Processor Ryzen 2600x
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix X470-F Gaming
Cooling Noctua
Memory G.SKILL Flare X Series 16GB DDR4 3466
Video Card(s) EVGA 980ti FTW
Storage (OS)Samsung 950 Pro (512GB), (Data) WD Reds
Display(s) 24" Dell UltraSharp U2412M
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Sennheiser GAME ONE
Power Supply EVGA SuperNOVA 650 P2
Mouse Mionix Castor
Keyboard Deck Hassium Pro
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Why do we think there might be 16 cores on AM4?
If that 8-core CCX is true, AMD will more than likely just reap benefits from lower manufacturing costs as well as avoiding all the cross-CCX latency issues.

Cost is where AMD currently wins. 2600X is not doing very well against 8700K.

It is in my book and I just bought one. It easily performs well enough for the gaming/productivity that I do. More importantly, it is on a platform (AM4) that isn't going anywhere any time soon. So what this means, is I bought this 2600x now and upgrade to the 3700x/3800x when it is released.

I only spent $220 for it and will give someone a good deal when I sell it to grab the latest and greatest and wont have lost much money compared to if I bought a 2700x (~$320) now.
 

JRid

New Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
4 (0.00/day)
I will go for AMD just because of Intel think they are better and sell theyre shit for hi prices, just changing sockets, scaming costimers
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
302 (0.08/day)
Location
Michigan, USA
Processor AMD 1700X
Motherboard Crosshair VI Hero
Memory F4-3200C14D-16GFX
Video Card(s) GTX 1070
Storage 960 Pro
Display(s) PG279Q
Case HAF X
Power Supply Silencer MK III 850
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech G105
Software Windows 10
I will go for AMD just because of Intel think they are better and sell theyre shit for hi prices, just changing sockets, scaming costimers
Welcome to the forum! That is the best Pro-AMD argument ever made on the Techpowerup. Perfectly sums up the AMD movement in many ways.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
123 (0.03/day)
Uh even in the more AMD favoured metrics they will have at least 10% deficit. CB should be around 2200 at 4.9 GHz (remember that 5.1-5.2 is very attainable on the 8700k) while a 4.2 GHz 2700x will be around the low 1900s.

You have to consider the attainable clocks on an arch if you want to look at practical performance, just stating per clock performance is irrelevant. At the moment ryzen isn't showing that it will push 10% extra clock speed out of the blue, even on a new process, intel is already at those clocks, I already mentioned that all they need to get right is the TIM and motherboard manufacturers need to actually ship good VRMs on sub $200 boards.

My comment about AMD being within 10% is in regards to IPC, (which it is https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/)

Of course you have to consider attainable clocks when judging performance, that's why I specified AMD needs to increase clock speeds. If AMD could clock even close to Intel they would be in great shape.

I don't know how you can claim that a new process won't help.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
246 (0.07/day)
Location
Japan
System Name ChronicleScienceWorkStation
Processor AMD Threadripper 1950X
Motherboard Asrock X399 Taichi
Cooling Noctua U14S-TR4
Memory G.Skill DDR4 3200 C14 16GB*4
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon VII
Storage Samsung 970 Pro*1, Kingston A2000 1TB*2 RAID 0, HGST 8TB*5 RAID 6
Case Lian Li PC-A75X
Power Supply Corsair AX1600i
Software Proxmox 6.2
That's what I can call a fast advancement - my less than 1-year-old Threadripper 1950X will soon be obsolete,
where my X470 ITX can rock the same number of cores (with improvement) within maybe a year.
 
Top