AMD's Future Chips & SoC's: News, Info & Rumours.

Page 59 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is that the "top of the line" for the 2xxx gen? There should be a Ryzen 7 2800X coming at some point, correct?

Well, but comparing 1700X to 2700X of the leak, it's a base clock jump of 300Mhz under the same TDP. That plus the small tweaks should be really good for a mid-step generational upgrade. Not earth shattering, but respectable.

I'd say, so far, it's good news? As always: "cautiously optimistic".

Cheers!
 


2700X having 4.2ghz turbo something that can't even be done on a 1800x says that yeah they improved things. Obviously the 2800X will be higher who's to say by how much maybe 100-200mhz even higher.

Most people on 1700x and 1700 can't even get to 4.0 at reasonable voltage and a lot of 1800x can't even get past 4075mhz. Pretty sure no one here thought we would see 5ghz ryzen CPU's with a slight improvement in the fabrication process and some quick tuning.

 


It's 300mhz faster not 100 or 200mhz. At least that is, it's still an eng sample so ya never know.
 


My mistake. I mixed the specs of 1700X and 1800X in my head. 🙁

This 2700X isn't an engineering sample. This 2700X has actually 300--400MHz extra over the 1700X, depending if the turbo is 4.1GHz or 4.2GHz, because reports are a bit conflictive. I believe that 4.1GHz is turbo and 4.2GHz is XFR.

Those clocks agree with my prediction of 200--400MHz extra

https://mobile.twitter.com/juanrga/status/964573713311191040?p=p
 
I'd say a 4.1-4.2GHz one core boost with a 4.2-4.3GHz XFR boost. And I think you won't be able to overclock beyond the XFR boost. I think you'll see a ceiling around ~4.4GHz on Ryzen refresh.

Coffee Lake has a ceiling around ~5.4GHz, delidded.
 


Sandy Bridge's ceiling is around 5.2Ghz lidded (I know so, I have one). Ivy's was around that same speed delidded, etc etc... So, what is your point? Trash AMD's 12nm process before even seeing the real silicon out there in the wild?

Jeez...
 


Sandy was 32nm. CoffeLake is 14nm. The smaller the node the higher are both the thermal density and the difficulty to cool adequately the device.

Also it is not needed to wait to see real silicon to have a good idea of what expect about 12LP. We have the specs for the 2700X the 300MHz extra is a clear symptom that the chip will not get 5GHz on air.
 
It's getting closer though IPC wise can't wait for the 2800x they probly wait until they ramp production maybe tweak the process a little to release it, just a guess but it would make sense to do so. When 7nn hit's AMD will be well ahead in IPC, really looking forward to that. Also I think they are doing the right thing hitting the data centres first with it. Nice to see the desktop version but even Intel is targeting the Data Centres first now with new silicon.
 


You missed the point, but it's not surprising, since you always take the information at face value. I'm sure others will understand what I meant, so it's fine.

Analyze TDP over the generations and speeds versus the little move from 14nm and 12nm with these new Ryzen models across the board. Intel has made great processes and still has an edge, but they've kept their ceiling around the same speed for this meta-design of their mainstream CPUs / SoCs while increasing their average TDP and max-power under normal conditions. AMD is now on Intel's heels and all I ever read is you and a few others dissing this *fact* like trying to convince yourselves that AMD won't ever put out a better product than Intel. That is so tiresome to read every single time, you wouldn't believe.

Anyway, AMD is doing fine for now and I just hope they continue making the right decisions. If they follow this trend, they might even surprise everyone with Zen v2 and make a CPU that basically closes the gap to 0, supported with the 7nm process battling Intel's 10nm on similar footing (which, given the information, looks to be an interesting match between them).
 


If AMD keeps gaining IPC, and Intel holds tradition for their last 3 generations...then it is an inevitability, unless you can provide a hard source that shows otherwise.
 


I have been reading this kind of comments since Bulldozer. Do you want me to link to older posts with some people stating how Steamroller was going to crush Haswell? Or old links about how Zen was going to kill Intel? It didn't happen.

CofeeLake is a good 30% ahead Zen core-per core. This is why 6-core i7 is able to beat 8-core Zen even in well-threaded workloads as Blender. This 2700X will bring about 10% higher performance. So the gap will be closed to about 2/3, yes, but Intel Icelake is coming and it will bring a huge performance gain. Then AMD will try to catch up again with Zen2 and the history will repeat again.
 


There is no hard source showing that AMD will keep gaining IPC until surpassing Intel. So the claim that AMD will be "ahead" by 7nm isn't supported by anything.

Also "last 3 generations" aren't Intel's tradition, but an exception. The original plan was Icelake to replace Skylake. Then 10nm got delayed and Intel had to release Kaby and CoffeeLake as stopgaps.
 


But if the 2700X has that what will the 2800X have? Again no one realistically expected 5.0ghz most said 4.4 would be nice.

Upgrading from a sandy base system or lower to Ryzen+ or coffeelake is a nice upgrade in a lot of cases including gaming.
 


Kind of reminds me of the K6 days haha Amd will always be playing catch up anyone who really thinks otherwise is kidding themselves but at least we do have competition and just like in the 90's it's nice to have another option that isn't objectively crap. I mean Ryzen 1600 and 1700 really did give consumers who needed that type of product an option instead of the same old 4 core with HT.

My CPU screams in handbrake encodes i love it i wish i could have gotten a 8700K as it is a more rounded CPU but that wasn't out at the time.
 
Eh, Sandy Bridge doesn't overclock that well. Maybe a very lucky chip? An 8700K that does 5.6GHz at lower than 1.5V and passes a Cinebench test exists, so there's that.

Eh, I doubt it will go any higher than 4.4GHz. Maayybe 4.5GHz. We'll see.
 


1800X is 200MHz higher than 1700X. I think we can expect similar gap between 2800X and 2700X.
 


AMD was in front of Intel with the K7 and K8 though. The "Thunderbird" where a tad better than the original Pentium 3s and, obviously, the initial Pentium 4s. They even OC'ed better AFAIK. I remember that, because I had a Pentium 3 coppermine and I was raging whenever I read Athlon reviews, haha.

Point is, whatever the reason, AMD has been ahead of Intel before. I just don't see why everyone is being so cynical about AMD maybe pulling a rabbit out of their hats. Not probable, but not impossible either. They've done it before.



Well, I do have a 2700K, so you could argue it is closer to a "golden" sample than regular 2600K, but still a Sandy and widely sold at the time.

I'm also not expecting 5Ghz on water and lidded from Zen "v1.5" (or "v1 rev B", whatever you wanna call it), but we just have some specs in a leak that mention the CPU itself could clock up to 4.3-4.4 Ghz on its own (projecting to the 2800X given the 2700X info). XFR, much like Turbo, is meant to really use all the available headroom in the CPUs, which is something I kind of like. That saves me the trouble of OC and tweaking to get 90%+ of the available CPU performance. All Intel CPUs have a lot of headroom, but they go outside of TDP and you have to account for that. Ironic that I'm complaining about it, but if you think a bit, it's actually good for mainstream.

Also, yeah, Intel might be able to clock higher, but they still have 2 cores less with similar power consumption. Differences in performance not-withstanding, it is impressive for the process AMD is using and it is an advantage, like it or not.

Cheers!
 


No. The K7 and K8 were derived from Alpha technology. AMD acquired virtually the whole Alpha team for the K7. In fact the chief architect for K7 had been a lead engineer on multiple Alpha microprocessors during his previous employment at DEC. Alpha was the Ferrari of the CPUs in the epoch.

Second, the real problem was Intel failing miserably with Pentium 4 introduced in the same year than the legendary Thunderbird. Intel failed because engineers projected an evolution of the silicon that didn't happen. Intel engineers used classic laws for scaling and didn't expect that classic scaling would cease to stop at smaller nodes. As a consequence their design was hot, inefficient, and slower than expected. The target was 10GHz, the chip never got 4GHz.

So, AMD didn't pull "any rabbit out of their hats", but Intel did make a strong mistake, and AMD used the opportunity. Of course, once Intel corrected the mistake by abandoning Pentium and developing a new muarch (Core 2), AMD momentum was gone.

Since then some people try to convince us that the glorious K7/K8 days are returning. But they aren't K10 was supposed to be the game changer, then Bulldozer was supposed to be the game changer, and the same for Piledriver, Steamroller... I remember perfectly all the hype around Zen before launch, with many fans in forums pretending that Zen was "the new K8", "Intel is killed",... It did NOT happen. So I find funny all this is happening one again in an endless loop...



Power scales quadratically with IPC and quadratically/cubically with frequency. So Intel chips consuming similar power with 2 less cores is something totally normal.

Increasing clocks from 3.7GHz to 4.8GHz increases power by about 30%. And an extra 15% IPC means another ~30% extra power consumptino. So a 6-core with higher clocks and higher IPC would consume about 70% more, which means its power consumption is equivalent to 10-cores from the competence. However, AMD only can give 8-cores in similar power envelopes, which is a consequence of 14LPP being inferior.

In fact, 10-core is a 25% more than 8-core, which is more or less the density difference between Glofo 14nm and Intel 14nm. So there is not anything "impressive" here neither about Zen muarch nor about 14LPP.
 


Yeah, you're being awfully cynical. Does it matter if the original design of the Athlon is a derivation of something else? AMD went with it to battle Intel and it was better. End of story. You're missing the point by 8 light years, realize it and move on.

Plus, you're arguing MY POINT, not someone else's. Stick to what I wrote and stop pulling arguments from a dark place.



I wasn't arguing specifics of each process. I know Intel's process is slightly better and has been for quite a while. Although what you point out is true, I do like AMD having a trade off between 2 extra cores and max speed, because "max speed" is a restriction of the process. My point was around they maxing out the process nicely and squeezing out as much as they can, whereas Intel leaves a lot of headroom for some reason.
 


Of course it matters. All times AMD has been very competitive has been because they purchased external technology superior to Intel or directly copied and improved Intel technology. And as mentioned above the K7 had the luck its competition was the bad Pentium 4. If the K7 had confronted to something as Core 2 then K7 had been another "meh".



AMD is the one playing to caught up. Intel is safe with their margins.
 


Sigh... I don't even know why I bother...

You do realize that CPU design is not really 100% original IP from anyone? Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung and a long list of designers and manufacturers buy IP, improve on top of it and put their own products? AMD buying a design for a CPU, then modifying it and producing its own is fair game. You think Intel has designed in-house 100% of the things they use? You're either simplifying the topic too much, or, you know, just being awfully cynical.



Speed margins you say? Yeah, they've been increasing the speed to account for a lack of IPC increase in tasks that don't really use the new stuff they put while increasing the TDPs or, at beast, maintaining them. That worked fine until this generation.
 
what you basically say is "FX 83xx was a good chip but AMD engineers did a wrong forecast about their chip hitting 5-6Ghz on air. So they fall behind Intel".

I remember those times. Some magazines assume P3-P4 (not sure) would hit 10GHz and will be the market leader. But it did not. So those products was not GOOD ones just like FX83xx series.

This is the rule of the market. You forecast the technological advances. You design a product that will be using that technology which you assume would be ready by the time you relise your product. and if your assumption is wrong you loose. Inte lost.

Than what intel did to save its ground? make illegal agreements with main OEM's about not to use AMD chips. Which caused AMD to suffer financially. Yes intel had to pay alot of money to AMD but by the time they pay it, AMD was already deep in shit.

Also I would like to remind you the CPU prices back when Intel was the only producer. If AMD fails to compete Intel will start again a harsh pricing policy and we will all suffer.

Furthermore if you comparet the cash flow of both companies, Intel has more businesses, more revenue and their RnD budged solely is alot more than AMD's total revenue. so you expect Intel to have the upper hand in both production capacity and chip desing. What AMD had offered here with limited resources and terrible financial situation is a very good chip. And I hope they continue to improve their desing.

Finally I am not a fan boy. However right now AMD needs to be supported. And I will be supporting them as a few FPS or seconds less performance in general tasks doesn't effect my daily work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom