Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD's Zen 2 CPUs will launch before Navi GPUs

QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,501
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13909/ces-2019-amd-ceo-dr-lisa-su

The exact quote is:

"So with Radeon 7, very quickly you'll see it on shelf in February. I think the next big thing is our 3rd Generation Ryzen.  I know there's a lot of anticipation about that. You know the key point is the part looks good. The part looks really good, and we'll put it out sometime in the middle of the year. We haven't decided the exact month yet, there's a little bit more tuning to be done."

So basically, third generation Ryzen with Zen 2 cores on a TSMC 7 nm process node will launch around the middle of this year.  That's going to be AMD's next major launch after the Radeon VII.

She also said that AMD will talk more about Navi and the next Threadripper later this year.  That's not a promise of a launch later this year, though it would certainly be disappointing if they don't launch this year.

Also, she didn't quite confirm 16 CPU cores in socket AM4, but did come pretty close:

"Ok, alright, so there is some extra room on that package and I think you might expect that we will have more than 8 cores. I didn't say how many more...I said more."

Considering that their base CPU chiplet has 8 cores, two chiplets gets you to 16.  Of course, the picture of the part she showed off certainly led people to expect that.
Gorwe

Comments

  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188
    I think there will be 12c Zen2 too and that TR will move to 24c and 36c. Won't be any need for a 16c TR. A 12c Zen2 too will kill off Intels 10c, and come close to doubling the performance of an 8 core part (with IPC, Clocks and more cores) they then can price and segment the 16c right so it won't cross into the 12c Zen2 segment. So 8c, 12c, 16c Zen2 and 24c & 36c ThreadRipper.
    Ozmodan



  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,501
    Why a 36 core Threadripper as the top end?  That's not a multiple of 8.

    With the socket size being what it is, they probably can't go over 16 cores on Socket AM4.  But they could probably make a 64 core Threadripper if they want to.  That might be a kind of dumb part for lack of memory bandwidth, though.
    AmazingAvery
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    edited January 2019
    I was going to make a joke about having enough cores to replace an Intel GPU with software rendering... But that has long since passed. I'm most likely going to upgrade to Ryzen 2. The more cores on my system the better. But this time I am going to wait a few weeks to see what quirks they have. The first batch of Ryzen CPUs had issues with memory that subsequent batches of the same processor didn't.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,501
    Cleffy said:
    I was going to make a joke about having enough cores to replace an Intel GPU with software rendering... But that has long since passed. I'm most likely going to upgrade to Ryzen 2. The more cores on my system the better. But this time I am going to wait a few weeks to see what quirks they have. The first batch of Ryzen CPUs had issues with memory that subsequent batches of the same processor didn't.
    If you need a lot of cores, then wait until you see what they do with Threadripper.  With the I/O die separate from the CPU core chiplets, it shouldn't have the problems of dies with no memory controllers that the 24- and 32-core Threadripper 2 CPUs had.  It will still be capped at 4 memory channels unless they introduce a new socket, but that's twice as many as Socket AM4 has.
  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188
    Quizzical said:
    Why a 36 core Threadripper as the top end?  That's not a multiple of 8.

    With the socket size being what it is, they probably can't go over 16 cores on Socket AM4.  But they could probably make a 64 core Threadripper if they want to.  That might be a kind of dumb part for lack of memory bandwidth, though.
    I agree, likely to be a 48c too. Would be nice to see higher clocks on that too!



  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    Quizzical said:
    Cleffy said:
    I was going to make a joke about having enough cores to replace an Intel GPU with software rendering... But that has long since passed. I'm most likely going to upgrade to Ryzen 2. The more cores on my system the better. But this time I am going to wait a few weeks to see what quirks they have. The first batch of Ryzen CPUs had issues with memory that subsequent batches of the same processor didn't.
    If you need a lot of cores, then wait until you see what they do with Threadripper.  With the I/O die separate from the CPU core chiplets, it shouldn't have the problems of dies with no memory controllers that the 24- and 32-core Threadripper 2 CPUs had.  It will still be capped at 4 memory channels unless they introduce a new socket, but that's twice as many as Socket AM4 has.
    I already have an AM4 board and don't want to invest in a new professional mobo.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,501
    Gorwe said:
    Quizzical said:
    Why a 36 core Threadripper as the top end?  That's not a multiple of 8.

    With the socket size being what it is, they probably can't go over 16 cores on Socket AM4.  But they could probably make a 64 core Threadripper if they want to.  That might be a kind of dumb part for lack of memory bandwidth, though.
    Why does it need to be a multiple of 8? Afaik, it only has to be a 2 on power n, like a lot of things in IT. I get it, it's their core core count, but that's 2 on 3rd power rather than a random number in itself. Sorry for being so pedantic. :)
    AMD's Zen 2 chiplets have 8 cores each.  To make a CPU with more than eight cores, they put multiple chiplets into a package.  For their upcoming Rome EPYC server CPUs, they can go as high as eight chiplets for 64 cores in total.

    They certainly could use salvage parts that have some of the cores disabled.  But I'd expect that to be more for mainstream consumer parts where you only have 4 or 6 or whatever cores enabled in the package in total.
  • PyndaPynda Member UncommonPosts: 856
    You guys are all thinking about doing something else with your cool new 12, 16, 32, and 64 core cpu's other than gaming, right? Because while I'm not a true techie like many of you are, I have been building my own gaming desktops for over twenty years now. And personally, the way the gaming industry operates these days, I see absolutely zero point in having a PC that is notably more powerful than the current generation of consoles is. But even further, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible that my high quality, well tuned and lovingly overclocked 5 year old quad core (with upgraded GPU) may in fact turn out to be a better machine than even the next generation of consoles is destined to be? Is this PC really going to last me 15 or 20 years?

    Anyway, sorry to interrupt. I didn't mean to be a killjoy, hehe. I guess I'm primarily just lamenting the downfall of PC gaming.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,619
    edited February 2019
    Pynda said:
    You guys are all thinking about doing something else with your cool new 12, 16, 32, and 64 core cpu's other than gaming, right? Because while I'm not a true techie like many of you are, I have been building my own gaming desktops for over twenty years now. And personally, the way the gaming industry operates these days, I see absolutely zero point in having a PC that is notably more powerful than the current generation of consoles is. But even further, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible that my high quality, well tuned and lovingly overclocked 5 year old quad core (with upgraded GPU) may in fact turn out to be a better machine than even the next generation of consoles is destined to be? Is this PC really going to last me 15 or 20 years?

    Anyway, sorry to interrupt. I didn't mean to be a killjoy, hehe. I guess I'm primarily just lamenting the downfall of PC gaming.
    Look down at my sig, I too my think old i5-750@4ghz is till working pretty decent for its age that said....

    I definitely some games where my quad core is lacking and could use a couple more core that are also natively faster.  Maybe not so much that the games are using all 6 cores but who games with only the game running nowadays which is where the two extra core would come in.

    End result is once I upgrade from the PC in my sig below to these new ryzen coming sometime this year I am pretty damned sure I will see a nice jump in performance that will actually be noticeable in real time and not just in benchmarks.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Pynda said:
    You guys are all thinking about doing something else with your cool new 12, 16, 32, and 64 core cpu's other than gaming, right? Because while I'm not a true techie like many of you are, I have been building my own gaming desktops for over twenty years now. And personally, the way the gaming industry operates these days, I see absolutely zero point in having a PC that is notably more powerful than the current generation of consoles is. But even further, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible that my high quality, well tuned and lovingly overclocked 5 year old quad core (with upgraded GPU) may in fact turn out to be a better machine than even the next generation of consoles is destined to be? Is this PC really going to last me 15 or 20 years?

    Anyway, sorry to interrupt. I didn't mean to be a killjoy, hehe. I guess I'm primarily just lamenting the downfall of PC gaming.
    Actually just gaming I always have multiple applications open these days and could still use more cores.  Definitely getting a Zen 2 when they become available.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,501
    Asm0deus said:
    Pynda said:
    You guys are all thinking about doing something else with your cool new 12, 16, 32, and 64 core cpu's other than gaming, right? Because while I'm not a true techie like many of you are, I have been building my own gaming desktops for over twenty years now. And personally, the way the gaming industry operates these days, I see absolutely zero point in having a PC that is notably more powerful than the current generation of consoles is. But even further, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible that my high quality, well tuned and lovingly overclocked 5 year old quad core (with upgraded GPU) may in fact turn out to be a better machine than even the next generation of consoles is destined to be? Is this PC really going to last me 15 or 20 years?

    Anyway, sorry to interrupt. I didn't mean to be a killjoy, hehe. I guess I'm primarily just lamenting the downfall of PC gaming.
    Look down at my sig, I too my think old i5-750@4ghz is till working pretty decent for its age that said....

    I definitely some games where my quad core is lacking and could use a couple more core that are also natively faster.  Maybe not so much that the games are using all 6 cores but who games with only the game running nowadays which is where the two extra core would come in.

    End result is once I upgrade from the PC in my sig below to these new ryzen coming sometime this year I am pretty damned sure I will see a nice jump in performance that will actually be noticeable in real time and not just in benchmarks.
    There are diminishing returns to more cores in gaming, but not really a hard cap on how many cores you can make use of in gaming in a broad sense, even if there largely is for particular games.  Two cores is definitely better than one.  Four is sometimes better than two.  There are significant situations where eight is better than four.  I'm sure that there are situations where sixteen is better than eight, but at that point, you'd really have to search to find them.  Simulations where you have to wait for a large number of AI competitors seems like a promising place to look.

    If you were to buy a new computer, you'd likely benefit more from the new cores being faster than from having more of them.  But anything modern has faster cores, at least apart from Intel's Atom cores and the new Excavator-based CPU that AMD is launching for Chromebooks.

    Intel and AMD both price their CPUs such that the CPU with more cores also has a higher max turbo, at least up to the point at which that becomes hard to do.  Thus, unless you want to roll the dice on overclocking, the way to get the fastest cores is also to get a lot of them--at least eight, and probably going up in the future.

    There's also a price/performance argument that, even if you don't think that six cores will give you that much benefit over four, it doesn't cost that much to get a six-core CPU, either.  A Ryzen 5 2600 currently costs $165 on New Egg, and if that's your budget, I'd take that over any quad core that you could get for that price unless you need an integrated GPU.

    Eight cores is a bit of a tougher sell for gaming at the moment, and ten or more much harder to justify.  But that will change in coming years, due as much to die shrinks making it ever easier to pack in more cores at an affordable price as to anything that will change in software.
Sign In or Register to comment.