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

AMD Confirms 2nd Generation Ryzen Processors to Debut in Q1-2018

Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
44 (0.01/day)
System Name Dricast
Processor Intel Core i7 2600k
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H
Cooling Corsair A70
Memory 12GB Mushkin DDR3
Video Card(s) 2x EVGA Geforce GTX460@GTX560 Clocks in SLI
Storage SanDisk 120GB SSD, Hitatchi 1TB, Hitatchi 2TB
Display(s) Dell 24"
Case Antec 902
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 750TX
Software Windows 7 Ultimate
- Athlon 2240x - 3.2Ghz/3.5Ghz Boost, 2-Cores / 4 Threads - Price: $69 - Oct.

- Ryzen 2410x - 3.3Ghz/3.7Ghz Boost, 4-Cores No SMT - Price: $99 - Sept.
- Ryzen 2430x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 4-Cores No SMT - Price $129 - Late August

- Ryzen 2550x - 3.5Ghz/3.9Ghz Boost, 4-Cores / 8-Threads - Price $169 - May
- Ryzen 2570x - 3.8Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 4-Cores / 8-Threads - Price $199 - April

- Ryzen 2650x - 3.7Ghz/4.1Ghz Boost, 6-Cores/ 12-Threads - Price $239 - June
- Ryzen 2670x - 4.2Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 6-Cores/ 12-Threads - Price $279 - April

- Ryzen 2730x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $329 - March
- Ryzen 2750x - 3.9Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $409 - March
- Ryzen 2770x - 4.2Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $549 - Late Feb.

- Ryzen TR 2930x - 4.0Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 10-Cores/ 20 Threads - Price $699 - July
- Ryzen TR 2950x - 3.8Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 12-Cores/ 24-Threads - Price $849 - July
- Ryzen TR 2970x - 3.7Ghz/4.1Ghz Boost, 16-Cores/ 32-Threads - Price $999 - June

- Ryzen TR 2990x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 24 Cores/ 48 Threads - Price $1499 - Oct.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,689 (4.08/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) 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
- Athlon 2240x - 3.2Ghz/3.5Ghz Boost, 2-Cores / 4 Threads - Price: $69 - Oct.

- Ryzen 2410x - 3.3Ghz/3.7Ghz Boost, 4-Cores No SMT - Price: $99 - Sept.
- Ryzen 2430x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 4-Cores No SMT - Price $129 - Late August

- Ryzen 2550x - 3.5Ghz/3.9Ghz Boost, 4-Cores / 8-Threads - Price $169 - May
- Ryzen 2570x - 3.8Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 4-Cores / 8-Threads - Price $199 - April

- Ryzen 2650x - 3.7Ghz/4.1Ghz Boost, 6-Cores/ 12-Threads - Price $239 - June
- Ryzen 2670x - 4.2Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 6-Cores/ 12-Threads - Price $279 - April

- Ryzen 2730x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $329 - March
- Ryzen 2750x - 3.9Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $409 - March
- Ryzen 2770x - 4.2Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $549 - Late Feb.

- Ryzen TR 2930x - 4.0Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 10-Cores/ 20 Threads - Price $699 - July
- Ryzen TR 2950x - 3.8Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 12-Cores/ 24-Threads - Price $849 - July
- Ryzen TR 2970x - 3.7Ghz/4.1Ghz Boost, 16-Cores/ 32-Threads - Price $999 - June

- Ryzen TR 2990x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 24 Cores/ 48 Threads - Price $1499 - Oct.
Nice list. Do you have a source for it or is it just your letter to Santa?
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
457 (0.16/day)
If there were architectural changes, AMD would be touting them all over the place. The term "optical shrink" used in the article means no architectural changes. But you;re free to bet on whatever you want, of course.
There wont be major architectural changes on a high level to be touted as a new architecture, but being that its a new revision on a refined node it is likely to sustain higher clocks for better single threaded performance. So while IPC might be the same theoretically, real world results might still show what appears to be better IPC due to better power management etc. Keep in mind that cpus these days have become very dynamic with their clocks so measuring IPC isnt exactly as accurate as it used to be. And although ryzen was successful, AMD mentioned multiple times about it being a "worst case scenario", which i think is pretty obvious seeing how efficient it is yet still hits a block around 4.1ghz without even coming close to max thermal limits.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,740 (2.21/day)

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,689 (4.08/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) 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 wont be major architectural changes on a high level to be touted as a new architecture, but being that its a new revision on a refined node it is likely to sustain higher clocks for better single threaded performance. So while IPC might be the same theoretically, real world results might still show what appears to be better IPC due to better power management etc. Keep in mind that cpus these days have become very dynamic with their clocks so measuring IPC isnt exactly as accurate as it used to be. And although ryzen was successful, AMD mentioned multiple times about it being a "worst case scenario", which i think is pretty obvious seeing how efficient it is yet still hits a block around 4.1ghz without even coming close to max thermal limits.
If we look back at what intel did, even when they actually claimed architectural improvements, we were only getting something like 3-5% better IPC and even then, it was situational. As such, I don't expect "a new revision on a refined node" to yield anything measurable.

But like I said above, an unchanged design running a few hundred MHz faster is already enough to put pressure on Intel.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
26 (0.02/day)
If there were architectural changes, AMD would be touting them all over the place. The term "optical shrink" used in the article means no architectural changes. But you;re free to bet on whatever you want, of course.
This is not a Ryzen launch where they needed the attention to get a new product out to people. Ryzen is already here and known about they will dont and will no talk about things until the actually release them.
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
169 (0.06/day)
Nvidia volta will be manufactured in12nm. Current Titan V is 12nm
If GloFo and Samsung didn't have 14nm nodes it would be called 16nm (It was renamed to 12nm shortly before launch due market situation, similar to how GloFos upcoming "12nm" was supposed to be called 14nm but because TSMC called their 16nm refresh 12nm, GloFo calls their 14nm refresh 12nm too)
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
1,485 (0.67/day)
Location
Tokyo, Ota
Processor i5 - 7300HQ
Memory 8GB DDR4
Video Card(s) 1060 6GB
Storage 180GB m.2 SATA | 250GB 850Evo SATA
Display(s) FHD 15" Gsync IPS + Acer H243H
Mouse Rival 300 with Omron main switches.
Keyboard Apex m500 (mx red)
If GloFo and Samsung didn't have 14nm nodes it would be called 16nm (It was renamed to 12nm shortly before launch due market situation, similar to how GloFos upcoming "12nm" was supposed to be called 14nm but because TSMC called their 16nm refresh 12nm, GloFo calls their 14nm refresh 12nm too)
mb.gif
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
69 (0.05/day)
Which is why I implied it was 14nm+++ they reduced only one gate dimension to 12nm at best and greatly improved some other geometries to gain an alleged 30-40% die area improvement but its not a true new node like 10nm is and 7nm will be as you know:)

Err as far as i remember the 14nm+++ got talked about then forgotten about as it got renamed 12nm ,or that's how i percieved it but who knows what dimensions it's really packing these days.
12nm is 15% smaller than 14nm. That's even Global Foundries' claims regarding 12LP.

It should also result in a 10~15% improvement in gained efficiency due to 15% area shrinkage, but then it looks like they used that to boost performance (transistor switching rate / current) by 10~15%.

This is a proper step from 14nm to 12nm. 15% smaller than 14... is 12.17, you would NEVER expect 30% from this.

As I've mentioned many times: Intel had a similar performance improvement in the same period. So it's really nothing special.
No they didn't. Sandy Bridge bested Bulldozer out of the gate. Intel only gained about 25% total IPC over several generations. They did better with STOCK frequencies, but not much beter with overclocking (my i7-2600k could do 5GHz... and only hit ~72C). AMD went from 50% behind to a near dead heat in ONE generation.

If there were architectural changes, AMD would be touting them all over the place. The term "optical shrink" used in the article means no architectural changes. But you;re free to bet on whatever you want, of course.
The terminology used in the article isn't from AMD. AMD has remained silent regarding Pinnacle Ridge. It's a refresh on a new process.

The "Zen" part of the design is only a small component. The caches, CCX, IP blocks, IMC, infinity fabric, and everything else are NOT Zen - they're Zepplin. Pinnacle Ridge is a new Zepplin iteration - meaning any, or all, of those things could be revised... and it'd still be a Zen-powered architecture.

But, to be clear, it's likely the core has seen some minor revisions as part of its shrink.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,736 (4.36/day)
No they didn't. Sandy Bridge bested Bulldozer out of the gate. Intel only gained about 25% total IPC over several generations. They did better with STOCK frequencies, but not much beter with overclocking (my i7-2600k could do 5GHz... and only hit ~72C). AMD went from 50% behind to a near dead heat in ONE generation.
But the person you quoted said 'period'. So SB/Bulldozer to now. Sure, Intel was more iterative it wasn't a 50% jump. AMD just got off their arse with Zen, finally. :)

I don't expect to see any IPC improvements... but hopeful for a couple % anyway.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2,627 (1.09/day)
But the person you quoted said 'period'. So SB/Bulldozer to now. Sure, Intel was more iterative it wasn't a 50% jump. AMD just got off their arse with Zen, finally. :)

I don't expect to see any IPC improvements... but hopeful for a couple % anyway.
Does fixing XFR count, the one in mobile RR is what it was originally supposed to be!
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
6,828 (1.93/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo
Processor Amd R7 3800X@4.350/525
Motherboard Crosshair hero7 @bios 2703
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu Monoblock Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in two sticks.
Video Card(s) Sapphire refference Rx vega 64 EK waterblocked
Storage Samsung Nvme Pg981, silicon power 1Tb samsung 840 basic as a primocache drive for, WD2Tbgrn +3Tbgrn,
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync, LG 49" 4K 60hz ,Oculus
Case Lianli p0-11 dynamic
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi
Mouse Roccat Kova
Keyboard Roccat Iksu force fx
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy
12nm is 15% smaller than 14nm. That's even Global Foundries' claims regarding 12LP.

It should also result in a 10~15% improvement in gained efficiency due to 15% area shrinkage, but then it looks like they used that to boost performance (transistor switching rate / current) by 10~15%.

This is a proper step from 14nm to 12nm. 15% smaller than 14... is 12.17, you would NEVER expect 30% from this.



No they didn't. Sandy Bridge bested Bulldozer out of the gate. Intel only gained about 25% total IPC over several generations. They did better with STOCK frequencies, but not much beter with overclocking (my i7-2600k could do 5GHz... and only hit ~72C). AMD went from 50% behind to a near dead heat in ONE generation.



The terminology used in the article isn't from AMD. AMD has remained silent regarding Pinnacle Ridge. It's a refresh on a new process.

The "Zen" part of the design is only a small component. The caches, CCX, IP blocks, IMC, infinity fabric, and everything else are NOT Zen - they're Zepplin. Pinnacle Ridge is a new Zepplin iteration - meaning any, or all, of those things could be revised... and it'd still be a Zen-powered architecture.

But, to be clear, it's likely the core has seen some minor revisions as part of its shrink.
Unless their were defects a die shrink usually contains few changes to layout and those that are usually lie in the tweaking geometries via masking line ,so tweaked masks and process equals new node , it does to fabs nowadays I agree but it's not all that, but it is what AMD need now and might be my next pc so here's to hoping.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
69 (0.05/day)
Unless their were defects a die shrink usually contains few changes to layout and those that are usually lie in the tweaking geometries via masking line ,so tweaked masks and process equals new node , it does to fabs nowadays I agree but it's not all that, but it is what AMD need now and might be my next pc so here's to hoping.
A direct shrink would be surprising, though not necessarily a problem. AMD needs to increase frequency more than anything and they undoubtedly have some critical path issues (even at ~2V and LN2 we're only seeing a little over 5GHz). Addressing those would be a very good idea... if they know where the issues are (I suspect it's in one of the 8 or so cache types used - 5 types for the L1 alone). The CPU can detect data errors when instability strikes and locks the data buses to prevent propagation - that is what freezes the whole system (this behavior seems to have changed with AGESA 1070+ ... or more error correction is attempted).

Given that the most likely frequency bottleneck is in the caches - and process changes have an outsized impact on those same caches (since they're just arrays of memory cells that are usually the focus on process development due to their physical simplicity and uniformity) - AMD might anticipate that they can achieve their goals without any core updates.

Memory latency is certainly a problem - and the infinity fabric could certainly use some more optimization... the SATA and PCI-e controllers could also use some fine-tuning. All of this is outside of the core and could lead to higher IPC (there's safely still a good 10% more IPC left unused in that core!) - maybe enough to match/beat stock 8-core Skylake-X in single threaded performance... while having lower average inter-core latency, higher average SMT performance, and slightly more efficiency.

Now that I have my 1700X at 4GHz and 3200 CL14, I need 15% from this point to consider upgrading. A safe 4.6GHz 8-core overclock would entice me to upgrade - my current CPU would find its way into a production machine, and then I'd have its 1700 to sale or repurpose. 10% could entice me if I can do it with < $100 investment.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
5,145 (1.02/day)
Location
AZ
System Name Thought I'd be done with this by now
Processor i7 4790K 4.4GHZ turbo currently at 4.6GHZ at 1.16v
Motherboard MSI Z97-G55 SLI
Cooling Scythe Mugen 2 rev B (SCMG-2100), stock on gpu's.
Memory 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series DDR3 2400MHZ 10-12-12-31
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked replaced HIS R9 290 that was artifacting
Storage 1TB MX300 M.2 OS + Games, 4x ST31000524NS in Raid 10 Storage and Backup, external 2tb backup,
Display(s) BenQ GW2255 surprisingly good screen for the price.
Case Raidmax Scorpio 668
Audio Device(s) onboard HD
Power Supply EVGA 750 GQ
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores no one cares anymore lols
so 2019 is Zen 2 then. my 4790K should be just fine until then. VGA will come sooner but the rest should be fine. Then I can see if its a return to AMD after what will be 12 years on Intel for the main rig or just another Intel refresh...tbh just for something different it'd be nice to go back. Last main rig AMD CPU was the FX-62. Granted there have only been 3 intel in that time (Q6700>i7-950>i7-4790K)

Hoping AMD keeps rolling and Zen 2 kicks butt.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
1,787 (0.90/day)
A direct shrink would be surprising, though not necessarily a problem.
"12nm" is just a refined process, not a die shrink anyway.

AMD needs to increase frequency more than anything and they undoubtedly have some critical path issues

Given that the most likely frequency bottleneck is in the caches - and process changes have an outsized impact on those same caches
Sure, the frequency bottlenecks are due to cirical paths. A new stepping might tweak a few things, but there will be no major overhauls until "Zen2". We know there are timing issues with the micro-op cache, among other things.

Memory latency is certainly a problem - and the infinity fabric could certainly use some more optimization... the SATA and PCI-e controllers could also use some fine-tuning. All of this is outside of the core and could lead to higher IPC (there's safely still a good 10% more IPC left unused in that core!) - maybe enough to match/beat stock 8-core Skylake-X in single threaded performance... while having lower average inter-core latency, higher average SMT performance, and slightly more efficiency.
The primary component of memory latency is DRAM latency, which is a constant. The memory controller could use some tweaks, but this is not the bottleneck of Zen.
The rest of what you mention doesn't impact IPC.

Zen has more computational resources than Skylake, so if it can keep its ALUs and FPUs fed, it outperforms Skylake. This is why certain applications scale well when the prefetcher isn't bottlenecking the CPU. Designing a better front-end will close the gap vs. Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bug
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
69 (0.05/day)
"12nm" is just a refined process, not a die shrink anyway.
Semantics

12LP is a refined 14nm LPP, which is a refined 16nm, which is a refined 20nm, which is a refined... you get the idea. Not every refinement makes it to full production - some do. Not every die shrink has to be of the same magnitude. Technically, EVERY process that has a smaller feature size is a die shrink - and 12LP has 15% smaller features than 14LPP. Process refinements don't typically have smaller feature sizes, just tweaks to chemistry, processes, libraries, and (sometimes) material.

Sure, the frequency bottlenecks are due to cirical paths. A new stepping might tweak a few things, but there will be no major overhauls until "Zen2". We know there are timing issues with the micro-op cache, among other things.
Precisely why I think AMD would take the time to address at least some of these issues. Little tweaks that take only days to implement while they are already revisiting a component or pathway for the shrink can go a long way. They may, by now, have a few revisions to prevent a repeat of the segfault issue - in the very least.

The primary component of memory latency is DRAM latency, which is a constant. The memory controller could use some tweaks, but this is not the bottleneck of Zen.
The rest of what you mention doesn't impact IPC.
Not on Ryzen. The same tests where Intel achieves 19ns Ryzen may achieve only 90~100ns. 20~40ns of that is just the infinity fabric latency. The rest may be the message bundling I assume is happening - probably a highly variable latency. Otherwise RAM traffic would flood the infinity fabric. AMD may be able to take away some of the variability and shave 20ns or so. The main benefit of faster memory on Ryzen is that it reduces latency - this can be seen in applications which are not usually sensitive to memory performance actually responding (such as Cinebench).

Ryzen can't keep the cores fed when volatile data is in play (which is common in multi-thread synchronization), so every little bit here will result in higher IPC, albeit not in all scenarios - but IPC, for CPUs, is an average in any event.

Zen has more computational resources than Skylake, so if it can keep its ALUs and FPUs fed, it outperforms Skylake. This is why certain applications scale well when the prefetcher isn't bottlenecking the CPU. Designing a better front-end will close the gap vs. Intel.
Zen's front end is capable of extracting near complete ILP. Still, there are a few scenarios where being only a six issue design has drawbacks compared to Intel's peak seven issue design. I really don't know what would be the path of least resistance to address that... that would take some time to consider (and lots of tedious math... dang it, now I'm tempted...).
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2014
Messages
257 (0.14/day)
Location
San Jose, California
System Name Soon to be retired rig
Processor Intel i3-4160
Motherboard Gigabyte G1 Sniper Z5S
Cooling 2x Cooler Master Sickle Flow Green LED case fan, 1x Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus CPU cooler
Memory 8 GB (2x4) Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire Tri-X R9 280X
Storage 1TB Western Digital Caviar Blue 7200 RPM
Display(s) 27" BenQ GW2760S 1920x1080 monitor
Case Cooler Master 431 Elite Plus (custom painted)
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Seasonic M12 II EVO Edition 850W
Mouse Logitech gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G105 C.O.D Edition
Software Windows 7 64 Bit OS
- Athlon 2240x - 3.2Ghz/3.5Ghz Boost, 2-Cores / 4 Threads - Price: $69 - Oct.

- Ryzen 2410x - 3.3Ghz/3.7Ghz Boost, 4-Cores No SMT - Price: $99 - Sept.
- Ryzen 2430x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 4-Cores No SMT - Price $129 - Late August

- Ryzen 2550x - 3.5Ghz/3.9Ghz Boost, 4-Cores / 8-Threads - Price $169 - May
- Ryzen 2570x - 3.8Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 4-Cores / 8-Threads - Price $199 - April

- Ryzen 2650x - 3.7Ghz/4.1Ghz Boost, 6-Cores/ 12-Threads - Price $239 - June
- Ryzen 2670x - 4.2Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 6-Cores/ 12-Threads - Price $279 - April

- Ryzen 2730x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $329 - March
- Ryzen 2750x - 3.9Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $409 - March
- Ryzen 2770x - 4.2Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 8-Cores/ 16-Threads - Price $549 - Late Feb.

- Ryzen TR 2930x - 4.0Ghz/4.5Ghz Boost, 10-Cores/ 20 Threads - Price $699 - July
- Ryzen TR 2950x - 3.8Ghz/4.2Ghz Boost, 12-Cores/ 24-Threads - Price $849 - July
- Ryzen TR 2970x - 3.7Ghz/4.1Ghz Boost, 16-Cores/ 32-Threads - Price $999 - June

- Ryzen TR 2990x - 3.6Ghz/4.0Ghz Boost, 24 Cores/ 48 Threads - Price $1499 - Oct.
Nice list. Do you have a source for it or is it just your letter to Santa?
I was going to say the same thing, Bug. I'd like to know where he gets his crystal ball from :kookoo:
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,740 (2.21/day)
No they didn't. Sandy Bridge bested Bulldozer out of the gate. Intel only gained about 25% total IPC over several generations. They did better with STOCK frequencies, but not much beter with overclocking (my i7-2600k could do 5GHz... and only hit ~72C). AMD went from 50% behind to a near dead heat in ONE generation.
Oh please, leave those IPC bollocks for someone else. ;-)
Sandy Bridge to Kaby Lake is ~+30% performance in similar price ranges (like: i5 2500 -> 7500). And if one is also concerned by power consumption, these went down considerably as well.
(And that's still comparing to Kaby, while I SHOULD compare to Coffee Lake, since it's the direct competitor for Ryzen: 50%, easily.)

And yes, Bulldozer was a very poor architecture - way behind Sandy for sure, so the potential for improvement at Blues was smaller.
If you compare performance since when AMD and Intel had similar products, you'll see it's pretty much the same in long period. In the end it's just some transistors and silicon. There's no reason why the performance should differ significantly, ever. The features and stability, however, can differ. And they do.

So once again: why do you stress so much that AMD did it in "ONE generation"? Intel might have also stopped releasing products between Sandy Bridge and Coffee Lake and make a >50% "in one generation". Thankfully they didn't.
You might be trying to complement AMD for a large achievement, but what you're actually saying is: they were totally ignoring their customers for 5 years.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
269 (0.07/day)
Location
Richmond,VA
System Name FX-8350
Processor FX8350 @ 4.6ghz
Motherboard MSI 990FX-GD80 v2
Cooling Hyper 212 Evo
Memory 16gb G.Skill Ripjaws 1866 8-9-9-24
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7950 OC 3GB
Storage Samsung 512GB 850 Pro SSD ; 3 x 1TB Seagate Drives Standalone
Display(s) Twin Dell E2215H
Case Rosewill Blackhawk Ultra
Power Supply Seasonic 850X Full Modular
Mouse Logitec MK520
Keyboard Logitec MK520
Software Windows 10 Pro 64bit
If we can get 4.0-4.2ghz stable or higher while waiting for Ryzen 2 i'll be happy. I still on my FX-8350 waiting for Ryzen +
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
1,787 (0.90/day)
Semantics
12LP is a refined 14nm LPP, which is a refined 16nm, which is a refined 20nm, which is a refined... you get the idea. Not every refinement makes it to full production - some do. Not every die shrink has to be of the same magnitude. Technically, EVERY process that has a smaller feature size is a die shrink - and 12LP has 15% smaller features than 14LPP. Process refinements don't typically have smaller feature sizes, just tweaks to chemistry, processes, libraries, and (sometimes) material.
The node is the same, the effective density may be marginally changed. Like GV100 is ~3% denser than GP100.
Intel call their refinements of their 14nm process 14FF+ and 14FF++, TSMC and Samsung call theirs by new numbers.

Not on Ryzen. The same tests where Intel achieves 19ns Ryzen may achieve only 90~100ns. 20~40ns of that is just the infinity fabric latency.

Ryzen can't keep the cores fed when volatile data is in play (which is common in multi-thread synchronization), so every little bit here will result in higher IPC, albeit not in all scenarios - but IPC, for CPUs, is an average in any event.
The memory latency is only impacted by infinity fabric when crossing the infinity fabric first.
Core interconnection doesn't impact IPC.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
69 (0.05/day)
Oh please, leave those IPC bollocks for someone else. ;-)
Sandy Bridge to Kaby Lake is ~+30% performance in similar price ranges (like: i5 2500 -> 7500). And if one is also concerned by power consumption, these went down considerably as well.
(And that's still comparing to Kaby, while I SHOULD compare to Coffee Lake, since it's the direct competitor for Ryzen: 50%, easily.)

And yes, Bulldozer was a very poor architecture - way behind Sandy for sure, so the potential for improvement at Blues was smaller.
If you compare performance since when AMD and Intel had similar products, you'll see it's pretty much the same in long period. In the end it's just some transistors and silicon. There's no reason why the performance should differ significantly, ever. The features and stability, however, can differ. And they do.

So once again: why do you stress so much that AMD did it in "ONE generation"? Intel might have also stopped releasing products between Sandy Bridge and Coffee Lake and make a >50% "in one generation". Thankfully they didn't.
You might be trying to complement AMD for a large achievement, but what you're actually saying is: they were totally ignoring their customers for 5 years.

Let's go from Sandy Bridge all of the way to Skylake. At 3GHz, fixed, which is where I do all of my IPC testing (as does Anandtech).




Intel absolutely made very few strides in performance. Coffee Lake IPC largely remains unchanged from Skylake.

It takes four or five years to design a new CPU architecture. AMD has been working on Zen since the inception of Piledriver.

Intel made a misstep with the Pentium 4 - AMD made a misstep with Bulldozer. Neither company was able to rectify the situation quickly.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
21 (0.03/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 3700x
Motherboard MSI MPG X570 Gaming Pro Carbon
Cooling Corsair H100iv2
Memory Trident Z Royal Silver 2x8GB
Video Card(s) MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT MECH
Storage Corsair Force MP600 500GB, WD Caviar Blue 4TB
Display(s) LG 27UD68
Power Supply Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 650w
Just wondering here, why mobile cpus are growing up so fast I mean Qualcomm and Samsung able to improve the performance in their mobile cpus Snapdragon & Exynoss up to 20-30% or even double the performance from previous generation. But why in desktop, we only able to get like 5% performance increase from previous generation? (IYKWIM). Well I dont know about architechture, process of shrinking, etc. Is this because the lack of competition or it is really hard to get big performance increase?. Can somebody kindly explain this to me? :D
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,736 (4.36/day)
Let's go from Sandy Bridge all of the way to Skylake. At 3GHz, fixed, which is where I do all of my IPC testing (as


Intel absolutely made very few strides in performance. Coffee Lake IPC largely remains unchanged from Skylake..
looks like close to 25% average there, no? That also doesnt include the 5% from SB to IB.
 
Top