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

AMD Ryzen 8000 "Granite Ridge" Zen 5 Processor to Max Out at 16 Cores

Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
11,814 (1.73/day)
System Name Compy 386
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard Asus
Cooling Air for now.....
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s) 7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs, 24TB Enterprise drives
Display(s) 55" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Mouse Logitech MX518
Keyboard Razer
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
I want lower latency to cache and the ability to turn speculative cache branching predictions on per application and child threads so we can overcome "security" penalties for known applications and regain the performance.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
1,070 (0.19/day)
E-core was invented by Intel for marketing purposes, so they can slap 16cores tag on their CPUs, E-cores are bad for consumer in every way, with chiplets its even worse.
E-cores are a good way to get more multithreaded performance out of a given area of die space. Intel's E-core takes up about 1/4 the space of a P-core.
I think AMD will eventually follow suit and start incorporating E-cores into their CPUs too in the future. We'll probably get a clearer idea of what they're working towards when we see what Zen 5c is like.
 
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
193 (0.13/day)
E-cores are a good way to get more multithreaded performance out of a given area of die space. Intel's E-core takes up about 1/4 the space of a P-core.
I think AMD will eventually follow suit and start incorporating E-cores into their CPUs too in the future. We'll probably get a clearer idea of what they're working towards when we see what Zen 5c is like.
E-core still kinda power hungry, plus I think amd got enough of "FX-experience"
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Messages
328 (0.45/day)
They're space-efficient, not power-efficient. IIRC they're actually less efficient than P-cores, perf/watt-wise.

Since 4 e-cores takes the space of one P core, and they are less power efficient than P cores, does a cluster of 4 e-cores clocked at 4.5GHz take more wattage than 1 P core clocked at 5.6 to 5.7GHHz on Raptor Lake?
 
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
193 (0.13/day)
They're space-efficient, not power-efficient. IIRC they're actually less efficient than P-cores, perf/watt-wise.
so they are useless with chiplet way, since u cant use a lot of them, they will just hit power limit.
I think amd can just attach extra 10/14nm cheap zen+/zen2, and call it a day. (cheap and simple)
Adding small "idle" cores to existing CCDs is weird.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
692 (0.15/day)
Location
Australia
System Name Eula
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 7900X PBO
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X670E Plus Wifi
Cooling Corsair H150i Elite LCD XT White
Memory Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5-6000 64GB (4x16GB F5-6000J3038F16GX2-TZ5NR) EXPO II, OCCT Tested
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4080 GAMING OC
Storage Corsair MP600 XT NVMe 2TB, Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 2TB, Toshiba N300 10TB HDD, Seagate Ironwolf 4T HDD
Display(s) Acer Predator X32FP 32in 160Hz 4K FreeSync/GSync DP, LG 32UL950 32in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP
Case Phanteks Eclipse P500A D-RGB White
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z
Power Supply Corsair HX1000 Platinum 1000W
Mouse SteelSeries Prime Pro Gaming Mouse
Keyboard SteelSeries Apex 5
Software MS Windows 11 Pro
AMD desktop PC = 16 cores forever...

They need to work on their default power settings and make these chips not overvolted to the moon - regular CPU voltages, not SoC problem related.
Both AMD and intel are running their CPU's to their absolute limits, and not spending the time to tune them in at all.

All AMD's best received CPU's have been the ones without the insane balls to the wall attitude at stock.
And they made half of them OEM only after that for some reason.

Look at this for an example of how it feels some days, 63W to 144W with their OC, for what amounted to .03% FPS gains
That's what it felt like running a 5800x with PBO enabled, tons of power for nothing except R23 scores going up.
View attachment 296274View attachment 296275


Give us a solid single CCX design, slap on 3Dcache, but make it power efficient so it doesnt overheat and thermal throttle to sustain that performance without needing high end motherboards and cooling to go with it.

5800x3D smashed things so it's keeping up with the next gen hardware, but simply undervolting it changes it drastically for the better - and they're so over-volted at stock i can run -30 on curve optimiser AND undervolt it with an offset
For gaming on the AM5 platform, lower memory latency tuning has better results when compared to clock speed overclocking.

E-core still kinda power hungry, plus I think amd got enough of "FX-experience"

126869.png

On a single thread, Intel's E-Cores are close to SkyLake-S. Intel's Skylake S beats AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver.

For Core i9 13900K, Intel is effectively gluing 8 Zen 4 class CPUs with non-SMT 16 Zen 1 class CPU cores.

Both Zen 1 and E-Cores have multiple 128-bit hardware units that double pump 256-bit AVX-2.


Intel Gracemont's six X86 decoder design is superior when compared to AMD's Bulldozer/Pipeliver.
GracemontRevised.png

It's a pretty good little CPU core since the entire hardware is allocated for a single thread. Bulldozer splits its hardware resource into two threads.

Intel Gracemount will beat both AMD Jaguar and Bulldozer designs.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
10,614 (5.28/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Holiday Season Budget Computer (HSBC)
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6500 XT 4 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2, 4 + 8 TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Windows 10 Pro
AMD desktop PC = 16 cores forever...


For gaming on the AM5 platform, lower memory latency tuning has better results when compared to clock speed overclocking.



View attachment 296457
On a single thread, Intel's E-Cores are close to SkyLake-S. Intel's Skylake S beats AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver.

For Core i9 13900K, Intel is effectively gluing 8 Zen 4 class CPUs with non-SMT 16 Zen 1 class CPU cores.

Both Zen 1 and E-Cores have multiple 128-bit hardware units that double pump 256-bit AVX-2.


Intel Gracemont's six X86 decoder design is superior when compared to AMD's Bulldozer/Pipeliver.
View attachment 296458
It's a pretty good little CPU core since the entire hardware is allocated for a single thread. Bulldozer splits its hardware resource into two threads.

Intel Gracemount will beat both AMD Jaguar and Bulldozer designs.
Is beating Bulldozer/Jaguar with anything still a merit anno 2023?
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
692 (0.15/day)
Location
Australia
System Name Eula
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 7900X PBO
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X670E Plus Wifi
Cooling Corsair H150i Elite LCD XT White
Memory Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5-6000 64GB (4x16GB F5-6000J3038F16GX2-TZ5NR) EXPO II, OCCT Tested
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4080 GAMING OC
Storage Corsair MP600 XT NVMe 2TB, Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 2TB, Toshiba N300 10TB HDD, Seagate Ironwolf 4T HDD
Display(s) Acer Predator X32FP 32in 160Hz 4K FreeSync/GSync DP, LG 32UL950 32in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP
Case Phanteks Eclipse P500A D-RGB White
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z
Power Supply Corsair HX1000 Platinum 1000W
Mouse SteelSeries Prime Pro Gaming Mouse
Keyboard SteelSeries Apex 5
Software MS Windows 11 Pro
Is beating Bulldozer/Jaguar with anything still a merit anno 2023?
Cinebench R20 single thread
12900K's E-Cores = 410
Ryzen 7 2700X (Zen 1.x) = 411
Intel i5 8400 = 411
Threadripper 1950X (Zen 1.x) = 411

The latest fat X86 CPU cores almost double E-Cores' 410.


For Core i9 13900K, Intel effectively attached 16 Zen 1.0 cores (Threadripper 1950X) with 8-cores Zen 4.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Messages
328 (0.45/day)
Cinebench R20 single thread
12900K's E-Cores = 410
Ryzen 7 2700X (Zen 1.x) = 411
Intel i5 8400 = 411
Threadripper 1950X (Zen 1.x) = 411

The latest fat X86 CPU cores almost double E-Cores' 410.


For Core i9 13900K, Intel effectively attached 16 Zen 1.0 cores (Threadripper 1950X) with 8-cores Zen 4.

.
To be fair Intel P cores are actually faster than AMD Zen 4 cores at same clock speed. LIke 6% better IPC per CInebench R23

And Intel i5 8400 is way better is latency sensitive workloads than Gracemont. Cinebench is not latency sensitive even though IPC is similar.
 

MWK

Joined
May 19, 2021
Messages
24 (0.02/day)
Larger IPC gains I don't feel like amd has improved much to be honest I have a ryzen 9 16 core
3950x and it's amazing... All they will do is raise the L1 cache in zen 5 and then wow the IPC gains are huge. And some minor architectural changes so the zen cores can communicate with the IOD faster and blah blah blah.... And we as fools will fall for this crap
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
2,687 (1.48/day)
System Name Not a thread ripper but pretty good.
Processor Ryzen 9 5950x
Motherboard ASRock X570 Taichi (revision 1.06, BIOS/UEFI version P5.50)
Cooling EK-Quantum Velocity, EK-Quantum Reflection PC-O11, EK-CoolStream PE 360, XSPC TX360
Memory Micron DDR4-3200 ECC Unbuffered Memory (4 sticks, 128GB, 18ASF4G72AZ-3G2F1)
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX 5700 & EK-Quantum Vector Radeon RX 5700 +XT & Backplate
Storage Samsung 2TB 980 PRO 2TB Gen4x4 NVMe, 2 x Samsung 2TB 970 EVO Plus Gen3x4 NVMe, AMD Radeon RAMDisk
Display(s) 2 x 4K LG 27UL600-W (and HUANUO Dual Monitor Mount)
Case Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic Black (original model)
Power Supply Corsair RM750x
Mouse Logitech M575
Keyboard Corsair Strafe RGB MK.2
Software Windows 10 Professional (64bit)
Benchmark Scores Typical for non-overclocked CPU.
Larger IPC gains I don't feel like amd has improved much to be honest I have a ryzen 9 16 core
3950x and it's amazing... All they will do is raise the L1 cache in zen 5 and then wow the IPC gains are huge. And some minor architectural changes so the zen cores and communicate with the IOD faster and blah blah blah.... And we as fools will fall for this crap
My 3950x still feels amazing but my 5950x does feel more amazing. I can imagine the 7950x must feel ultra amazing.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
692 (0.15/day)
Location
Australia
System Name Eula
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 7900X PBO
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X670E Plus Wifi
Cooling Corsair H150i Elite LCD XT White
Memory Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5-6000 64GB (4x16GB F5-6000J3038F16GX2-TZ5NR) EXPO II, OCCT Tested
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4080 GAMING OC
Storage Corsair MP600 XT NVMe 2TB, Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 2TB, Toshiba N300 10TB HDD, Seagate Ironwolf 4T HDD
Display(s) Acer Predator X32FP 32in 160Hz 4K FreeSync/GSync DP, LG 32UL950 32in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP
Case Phanteks Eclipse P500A D-RGB White
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z
Power Supply Corsair HX1000 Platinum 1000W
Mouse SteelSeries Prime Pro Gaming Mouse
Keyboard SteelSeries Apex 5
Software MS Windows 11 Pro
.
To be fair Intel P cores are actually faster than AMD Zen 4 cores at same clock speed. LIke 6% better IPC per CInebench R23

And Intel i5 8400 is way better is latency sensitive workloads than Gracemont. Cinebench is not latency sensitive even though IPC is similar.
Nope, Cinebench R23 does not support AVX-512 i.e. refer to Blender.

For games,

AMD's X3D cache only shows the potential for Zen 4 cores when the memory latency issue is mitigated.

Core i9 13900K has 2 MB L2 cache per p-Core while Zen 4 has 1 MB L2 cache per core
. Zen 5 has a 2 MB to 3 MB L2 cache per core. https://wccftech.com/amd-next-gen-z...-cache-design-larger-l2-cache-per-core-rumor/

Intel has the higher near 6 Ghz p-Core clock speeds.

Larger IPC gains I don't feel like amd has improved much to be honest I have a ryzen 9 16 core
3950x and it's amazing... All they will do is raise the L1 cache in zen 5 and then wow the IPC gains are huge. And some minor architectural changes so the zen cores can communicate with the IOD faster and blah blah blah.... And we as fools will fall for this crap
I have Ryzen 9 3900X and 7900X, the 3900X is aging.

Zen 2 has two loads and one store.
Zen 3 has three loads and two stores.

From Zen 2 to Zen 4, the reorder order buffer is larger for each release.

Zen 2 CPU core's second thread has store starved situation I.e. Zen 2's SMT is less robust compared to newer x86 cores.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
6,991 (1.70/day)
Dozer/Cat cores shouldn't be grouped together! Dozer was horrible right till the end, Jaguar wasn't ~ if it weren't for Intel's contra revenue shens AMD may have gotten more market share with it & launched even better products down the line. Jaguar (Puma?) was almost on par with Intel's efficiency with a node disadvantage IIRC.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
10,614 (5.28/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Holiday Season Budget Computer (HSBC)
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6500 XT 4 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2, 4 + 8 TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Windows 10 Pro
Cinebench R20 single thread
12900K's E-Cores = 410
Ryzen 7 2700X (Zen 1.x) = 411
Intel i5 8400 = 411
Threadripper 1950X (Zen 1.x) = 411

The latest fat X86 CPU cores almost double E-Cores' 410.


For Core i9 13900K, Intel effectively attached 16 Zen 1.0 cores (Threadripper 1950X) with 8-cores Zen 4.
That's what I mean. There's no need to compare to Bulldozer when current E-cores are already at Zen 1 level.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Messages
328 (0.45/day)
Nope, Cinebench R23 does not support AVX-512 i.e. refer to Blender.

For games,

AMD's X3D cache only shows the potential for Zen 4 cores when the memory latency issue is mitigated.

Core i9 13900K has 2 MB L2 cache per p-Core while Zen 4 has 1 MB L2 cache per core
. Zen 5 has a 2 MB to 3 MB L2 cache per core. https://wccftech.com/amd-next-gen-z...-cache-design-larger-l2-cache-per-core-rumor/

Intel has the higher near 6 Ghz p-Core clock speeds.


I have Ryzen 9 3900X and 7900X, the 3900X is aging.

Zen 2 has two loads and one store.
Zen 3 has three loads and two stores.

From Zen 2 to Zen 4, the reorder order buffer is larger for each release.

Zen 2 CPU core's second thread has store starved situation I.e. Zen 2's SMT is less robust compared to newer x86 cores.


Well AVX512 another matter. Though without AVX512, Intel I think has like 6% better IPC on Raptor Cove than Zen 4.

Zen 5 will be better than Zen 4 in IPC though in all workloads. Zen 5 is supposed to have 20-25% better IPC than Zen 4 so stands to reason will have 14-19% better IPC than Raptor Cove in non AVX512 workloads and AVX512 forget it as Raptor Cove does not support it.

That's what I mean. There's no need to compare to Bulldozer when current E-cores are already at Zen 1 level.


Are current e-cores at Zen 1 level at same clock speed? Cause I have heard they are like Skylake. Isn't Skylake IPC still better than Zen 1?
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
10,614 (5.28/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Holiday Season Budget Computer (HSBC)
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6500 XT 4 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2, 4 + 8 TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Windows 10 Pro
Are current e-cores at Zen 1 level at same clock speed? Cause I have heard they are like Skylake. Isn't Skylake IPC still better than Zen 1?
I don't know, and I don't care, to be honest. If one chip is designed to run at 4 GHz, and another is designed to do only 3 GHz, there's zero reason to run them at the same clock speed.
 

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
58,413 (8.09/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles (Power efficient, <350W gaming load)
Processor Ryzen R7 5800x3D (Undervolted, 4.45GHz all core)
Motherboard Asus x570-F (BIOS Modded)
Cooling Alphacool Apex UV - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @3866 C18-22-22-22-42 TRFC704 (1.4V Hynix MJR - SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Underclocked to 1700Mhz 0.750v (375W down to 250W))
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Phillips 32 32M1N5800A (4k144), LG 32" (4K60) | Gigabyte G32QC (2k165) | Phillips 328m6fjrmb (2K144)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Fractal Ion+ 2 860W (Platinum) (This thing is God-tier. Silent and TINY)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE ( Sexy white keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S + Quest 2
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS) OpenRGB - ditch the branded bloatware!
Benchmark Scores Nyooom.
Virtually no use case requires the kind of power available even from the last two or three generations.

My suspicion is the CPU market for home will stagnate for many years.

Servers and workstations is where it will be at.
Only high FPS gaming, at any resolution.
Freesync/Gsync make that redundant when used correctly
Since they can run 2x or 3x FPS boosted up, FPS caps can give you 120FPS at 240Hz, while 121FPS can only be 121Hz
You also get the large framebuffer benefits in that situation, so you get double the length of time for a frame to reach the monitor - so it smooths out microstutter greatly.
I'm eagerly awaitng the next gen 4K displays so i can get back to that level of goodness, vs my current heavily tweaked 60Hz display

E-core was invented by Intel for marketing purposes, so they can slap 16cores tag on their CPUs, E-cores are bad for consumer in every way, with chiplets its even worse.
purely because AMD was beating them in multi threaded benchmarks, they call them E-cores when they're less efficient in every way than the P cores


On the conversation a few posts up:

12th gen E-cores had the efficiency of 10th gen intel/Zen2
1684561829447.png


I have Ryzen 9 3900X and 7900X, the 3900X is aging.
Agreed, my 3700x seems to be capped around 120FPS in a lot of titles
RAM setup definitely helps them out, running four ranks and low timings seems key since they can rarely clock RAM up high
It all depends if that's enough for the user
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
116 (0.04/day)
System Name AMD System
Processor Ryzen 7900 at 180Watts 5650 MHz, vdroop from 1.37V to 1.24V
Motherboard MSI MAG x670 Tomahawk Wifi
Cooling AIO240 for CPU, Wraith Prism's Fan for RAM but suspended above it without touching anything in case.
Memory 32GB dual channel Gskill DDR6000CL30 tuned for CL28, at 1.42Volts
Video Card(s) Msi Ventus 2x Rtx 4070 and Gigabyte Gaming Oc Rtx 4060 ti
Storage Samsung Evo 970
Display(s) Old 1080p 60FPS Samsung
Case Normal atx
Audio Device(s) Dunno
Power Supply 1200Watts
Mouse wireless & quiet
Keyboard wireless & quiet
VR HMD No
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores 1750 points in cinebench 2024 42k 43k gpu cpu points in timespy 50+ teraflops total compute power.
I have ryzen 7900 all cores 5.3GHz. Tested it on my own mandelbrot set generator benchmark and it run 15% faster than skylake dual avx512 pipelines. Skylake had 7 cycles per pixel, ryzen had 6 cycles per pixel. But only GCC v12 could compile it efficiently. https://github.com/tugrul512bit/VectorizedKernel

I have ryzen 7900 all cores 5.3GHz. Tested it on my own mandelbrot set generator benchmark and it run 15% faster than skylake dual avx512 pipelines. Skylake had 7 cycles per pixel, ryzen had 6 cycles per pixel. But only GCC v12 could compile it efficiently. https://github.com/tugrul512bit/VectorizedKernel
And funny thing is that Intel OpenCL Runtime uses Ryzen CPU better than Amd 's runtime.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2022
Messages
94 (0.15/day)
More of the same again, AMD? AMD needs to launch new things, come up with new ideas, it needs to get rid of old thoughts, old ideas, to be able to sell its chips well.

AMD has made a number of blunders in recent years:
- didn't put RDNA1 iGPU in their latest APUs (kept insisting with old, inefficient and power hungry VEGA iGPUs until Ryzen 5000G)
- did not put support for DDR4 memory on Ryzen 7000
- did not put AV1 encoder on the iGPU of Ryzen 7000
- made the recent GPUs of RDNA3 cards in MCM scheme, which greatly increased the latencies and, thus, decreased the performance and, therefore, AMD had to increase the clock and consequently the electrical consumption of these GPUs so that they have competitive performance.




AMD needs to break old thinking and do at least the obvious:

- AMD must "sit down" with software developers (from HandBrake, Avidemux, Adobe, Cyberlink, MAGIX, Blackmagic Design, Apple, etc.) to get its video encoder (from their GPUs and iGPUs) to do the video conversion (in H.264, H.265 and AV1 codecs) in 2 steps. The first major chipmaker (Intel, AMD, Nvidia) to do this will sell chips like water in the desert...
- AMD's video encoder must achieve the same image quality as Nvidia's video encoder.
- Make only single-die GPUs so they have lower latencies and, thus, higher performance.
- All AM5 motherboards had to support BIOS update without the CPU in the socket. So people could buy AM5 motherboards without worrying about having to go through the hassle of building a PC and it not turning on because the motherboard's BIOS doesn't recognize the CPU.
- Need to launch single-die Ryzen CPUs (SoC) so they have higher performance. To launch CPUs with more than 8 cores, it would be enough to put chiplets together, as it already does today.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
2,890 (1.45/day)
Location
UK, Midlands
System Name Main PC
Processor 13700k
Motherboard Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D4 - Bios 13.02
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory 32 Gig 3200CL14
Video Card(s) 3080 RTX FE 10G
Storage 1TB 980 PRO, 2TB SN850X, 2TB DC P4600, 1TB 860 EVO, 2x 3TB WD Red, 2x 4TB WD Red
Display(s) LG 27GL850
Case Fractal Define R4
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster AE-9
Power Supply Antec HCG 750 Gold
Software Windows 10 21H2 LTSC
I want lower latency to cache and the ability to turn speculative cache branching predictions on per application and child threads so we can overcome "security" penalties for known applications and regain the performance.
That is actually a really good idea. Could add it to exploit protection settings in windows, with some kind of automatic algorithm which can be overridden, so high risk apps its off, low risk its on.
 
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
193 (0.13/day)
purely because AMD was beating them in multi threaded benchmarks, they call them E-cores when they're less efficient in every way than the P cores


On the conversation a few posts up:

12th gen E-cores had the efficiency of 10th gen intel/Zen2
I am expecting E-core to be slower than P-core, but also I am expecting E-core to be alteast(!) equal or less power hungry than P-core, sooon Intel will achieve it, but until then, E-cores are lame.

And my complain was more about the "naming" of cpu, when they call it 12Cores, and not 8P/4E
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
6,991 (1.70/day)
so they are useless with chiplet way, since u cant use a lot of them, they will just hit power limit.
I think amd can just attach extra 10/14nm cheap zen+/zen2, and call it a day. (cheap and simple)
Adding small "idle" cores to existing CCDs is weird.
And how will that work? They're made for DDR4, IF is also probably not compatible(?) & they don't have PCIe 5.0 although that's not much to lose. IF is one of major reasons IMO they can't go back to older cores otherwise they'd be selling lots of them right now!
 
Top