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

[randomizer]

It seems like we forgot about Zen 4.

 

[jdwii]

Also the news about Zen 5 and Intel new generation chips are fascinating yet I am more interested in the next gen Zen, Zen3 and next gen node. Will 7nm be better than Intel's 10nm?

I don't know about better core for core, but it will be a very close race from the looks of it. Intel will not have it's typical process advantage over AMD.

While a move from 14 nm to 7 nm was expected to provide, at the very best, a halving in the actual size of a chip manufactured in 7 nm compared to 14 nm, Gary Patton is now saying that the are should actually be reduced by up to 2.7 times the original size. To put that into perspective, AMD's 1000 series processors on the Zeppelin die and 14 nm process, which come in at 213 mm² for the full, 8-core design, could be brought down to just 80 mm² instead.

Patton said that he expects this design to be able to scale pretty well to some 5 GHz operating frequencies.

https://www.techpowerup.com/242148/globalfoundries-7-nm-to-enable-up-to-2-7x-smaller-dies-5-ghz-cpus

I for one will wait to i at least see samples first i mean Amd might have stopped the hype train but that doesn't mean global foundries has

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/268379-troubling-news-amd-moves-7nm-gpu-production-back-to-tsmc

"Troubling News: AMD Moves 7nm GPU Production Back to TSMC" Based off of their reputation(history) i simply gather that evidence and put it together to conclude that maybe i should remain skeptical.

Who knows though they might pull that off 2.7 smaller could mean Amd can add AVX 512bit heck even per core while making each core wider i just hope they don't just cram moar cores in it and don't focus on their only weaknesses described above. Hell i'd take 5% more IPC over 5% more frequency any day of the week. Jim keller moving to Intel seriously does concern me though like i know he is just one person but man, who knows though he might have some brand new idea that no one really thought about or even thought was possible and Amd simply didn't have the money he needed to do it.

 

[goldstone77]

"Troubling News: AMD Moves 7nm GPU Production Back to TSMC" He is trying to incite something here with that title.

Heck, it’s even possible that the old agreement that required AMD to move all production to GF has been waived or amended to give AMD more flexibility.

They did exactly that already:
AMD Amends GlobalFoundries Wafer Supply Agreement Through 2020, Gaining New Flexibility & New Costs
by Ryan Smith on September 1, 2016 6:00 AM EST

As for AMD’s total wafer buys, the company also announced that by the end of 2016 AMD will have purchased $650 million in wafers from GlobalFoundries for the year. This is composed of $155M in wafer buys in Q1 under the old amendment, and a further $495M in Q2 through Q4 under the new agreement.

Looking at the broader picture, AMD isn’t saying how future products are being divided up among GlobalFoundries and third-party fabs, only that they’ve entered into this agreement based on what they project their future needs will be. So whether this is for CPUs, APUs, GPUs, semi-custom, or all of the above remains to be seen.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10631/amd-amends-globalfoundries-wafer-supply-agreement-through-2020

512 AVX is more for HEDT or Server processors.

 

[-Fran-]

I've always thought AVX2 and AVX512 could be off loaded to the GPU anyway... The FP units in the GPUs might be a tad "weaker", but they compensate on parallelism... At least, the theoretical part is sound. I wonder if in terms of implementation that is not the case... Uhm...

Cheers!

 

[aldaia]

It seems like we forgot about Zen 4.

There is no Zen 4.
Zen 5 follows Zen 3.
Reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia

 

[aldaia]

TSMC is rumoured to fab a new 7nm console chip, presumably designed by AMD.

 

[goldstone77]

TSMC is rumoured to fab a new 7nm console chip, presumably designed by AMD.

SemiAccurate had released some information on it.
https://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?9106-Semiaccurate-PS4-3-or-PS5-information

 

[gamerk316]

TSMC is rumoured to fab a new 7nm console chip, presumably designed by AMD.

SemiAccurate had released some information on it.
https://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?9106-Semiaccurate-PS4-3-or-PS5-information

Not a PS5 chip; too early in the lifecycle, not enough gain in performance to justify a new console at this point. This is a new PS4 refresh if anything.

 

[goldstone77]

TSMC is rumoured to fab a new 7nm console chip, presumably designed by AMD.

SemiAccurate had released some information on it.
https://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?9106-Semiaccurate-PS4-3-or-PS5-information

Not a PS5 chip; too early in the lifecycle, not enough gain in performance to justify a new console at this point. This is a new PS4 refresh if anything.

Weather it's called a PS5 is unknown, but Charlie Demerjian details the hardware as custom 8 core Zen with Navi GPU along with possible dates, 2019. The original article is hidden behind a paywall, and the link I provide is for the article discussion on the forum.

 

[-Fran-]

TSMC is rumoured to fab a new 7nm console chip, presumably designed by AMD.

SemiAccurate had released some information on it.
https://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?9106-Semiaccurate-PS4-3-or-PS5-information

Not a PS5 chip; too early in the lifecycle, not enough gain in performance to justify a new console at this point. This is a new PS4 refresh if anything.

They're touting both ideas in the thread, but another "in-between" PS4 sounds like a waste of people's time after the PS4 Pro. How many refreshes does Sony usually do per gen? 2 or 3? The PS3 had 2, right? Original and Slim. The PS2 had 3?

I would imagine it will come down to what Sony has planned, but early in the lifecycle this is not. They have to lift a lot of things by changing the uArch if they want to keep some level of backwards compatibility. That might be a good selling point for Sony? Given the complexities of the OS and other built-in capabilities they've been adding to the consoles, their validation cycles might have been extended by a lot. Plus, they need to have working hardware for early devs as well.

Anyway, they're also saying it could even be Intel+nVidia in the next gen instead, so it's really hard to say anything with a lot of certainty.

Cheers!

 

[goldstone77]

Anyway, they're also saying it could even be Intel+nVidia in the next gen instead, so it's really hard to say anything with a lot of certainty.

Cheers!

That was a forum member speculating, and he was shot down shorty after that comment. CD has leaked console information before, so their is probably some truth in it.

 

[Gon Freecss]

TSMC is rumoured to fab a new 7nm console chip, presumably designed by AMD.

SemiAccurate had released some information on it.
https://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?9106-Semiaccurate-PS4-3-or-PS5-information

Not a PS5 chip; too early in the lifecycle, not enough gain in performance to justify a new console at this point. This is a new PS4 refresh if anything.

They're touting both ideas in the thread, but another "in-between" PS4 sounds like a waste of people's time after the PS4 Pro. How many refreshes does Sony usually do per gen? 2 or 3? The PS3 had 2, right? Original and Slim. The PS2 had 3?

I would imagine it will come down to what Sony has planned, but early in the lifecycle this is not. They have to lift a lot of things by changing the uArch if they want to keep some level of backwards compatibility. That might be a good selling point for Sony? Given the complexities of the OS and other built-in capabilities they've been adding to the consoles, their validation cycles might have been extended by a lot. Plus, they need to have working hardware for early devs as well.

Anyway, they're also saying it could even be Intel+nVidia in the next gen instead, so it's really hard to say anything with a lot of certainty.

Cheers!

Playstation 1 had the original and the slim, the Playstation 2 had the original and the slim, the Playstation 3 had the original (+ original w/ only emulation and then the original w/o PS2 backwards compatibility), the slim, and the super slim. The Playstation 4 has the original, the slim, and the Pro. I doubt we're seeing anymore of the PS4. Next stop is the PS5.

Also, keep in mind Sony did not increase performance (by any considerable margin anyway) in previous Playstations, where they did with the PS4 (the Pro), so this is their half way stop gap.

 

[jdwii]

Remember when people said the switch would fail yeah that didn't happen lol Nintendo for real knows the market power has never equaled sales if it did PC gaming would have won years ago

edit haha i was wondering why i said that then i read the post above.

Consoles just don't make sense to me when PC gaming and steam sales from sites like kinguin are available i do hope that the PS5 or Xbox whatever, that they use Zen and stop putting weak CPU's with strong GPU's more people are wanting 60fps and stable frame rates i'm happy sites like digital foundry exist to show how these ports measure up.

 

[aldaia]

Seems that the latest Ryzen refinement is doing well. Toms selection for best gaming CPUs consists of 3 AMD and 1 Intel processor.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

More surprising is that $300+ Best Pick is the AMD 2700X and not 8700K

In gaming at 1080p, our tests show the Ryzen 7 2700X pulls near enough to the Core i7-8700K that the two are effectively tied. And AMD’s latest top-end mainstream chip easily wins the value proposition over Intel because of the inclusion of a premium, RGB-lit Wraith Prism cooler, not to mention backwards-compatibility with older, less-expensive 300-series boards.

On top off that, the Ryzen 7 2700X’s eight cores and 16 threads helps it pull well ahead of the six-core, 12-thread Core i7-8700K in multi-threaded tasks like rendering. With Intel’s chip costing $30 more (as of this writing) for fewer cores and threads, with no in-box cooler, it’s easy to make the call in favor of the Ryzen 7 2700X.

Edit: and it seems it's not just a Toms preference:
https://www.techradar.com/news/best-processors
https://www.pcgamesn.com/best-cpu-for-gaming

 

[-Fran-]

The 2700X is a great all-rounder. Then you include it's nearly unbeatable for streaming and has a really good boxed cooling solution at that price point (I just got one, the Wraith Prism is really impressive). It's hard to give Intel the "best CPU for the money" when it only excels at games and OC.

Plus, it's been a very long time since AMD was recommended without a second thought from so many outlets. It's refreshing to see it up there.

EDIT: In Tom's case, it's actually weird they gave the top pick to the 2700X on a closer read... The list if specifically for gaming, so it does sound weird to me... Maybe they need to word that a little better in the title? It is explained well enough in the selection, but it's still a tad misleading.

In regards to the console talk...

I don't know what Sony wants to do from a strategy perspective... They are pushing for VR and high resolutions, but we've all known that Sony doesn't like being at the forefront of any niche like Nintendo (to jdwii's point), so it's really hard to read it from the external side. Technology wise, the Intel+AMD combi sounds like the best fit for their plans over the next generation with a second good guess of having a strong ARM-based CPU with AMD graphics.

What I'd like to see? Zen v3 + Navi in the same package (not APU, but like Threadripper).

Cheers!

 

[goldstone77]

What I'd like to see? Zen v3 + Navi in the same package (not APU, but like Threadripper).

Cheers!

I think their is a good chance we will start seeing more integration like this going into the future. Not sure their is a market for it with ThreadRipper, but for consoles/small form factors/phones I absolutely see this trend continuing.

 

[goldstone77]

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/
Gaining traction!

 

[Gon Freecss]

The 2700X is a great all-rounder. Then you include it's nearly unbeatable for streaming and has a really good boxed cooling solution at that price point (I just got one, the Wraith Prism is really impressive). It's hard to give Intel the "best CPU for the money" when it only excels at games and OC.

Plus, it's been a very long time since AMD was recommended without a second thought from so many outlets. It's refreshing to see it up there.

EDIT: In Tom's case, it's actually weird they gave the top pick to the 2700X on a closer read... The list if specifically for gaming, so it does sound weird to me... Maybe they need to word that a little better in the title? It is explained well enough in the selection, but it's still a tad misleading.

In regards to the console talk...

I don't know what Sony wants to do from a strategy perspective... They are pushing for VR and high resolutions, but we've all known that Sony doesn't like being at the forefront of any niche like Nintendo (to jdwii's point), so it's really hard to read it from the external side. Technology wise, the Intel+AMD combi sounds like the best fit for their plans over the next generation with a second good guess of having a strong ARM-based CPU with AMD graphics.

What I'd like to see? Zen v3 + Navi in the same package (not APU, but like Threadripper).

Cheers!

Nothing is really "unbeatable" when it comes to streaming. The 7900X, for example, wrecks it. It even beats the 1950X.

Also, the Wraith Prism can't handle an overclock, so meh.

They're gonna push Zen 2 with Navi.

 

[-Fran-]

Nothing is really "unbeatable" when it comes to streaming. The 7900X, for example, wrecks it. It even beats the 1950X.

Also, the Wraith Prism can't handle an overclock, so meh.

They're gonna push Zen 2 with Navi.

That is a big strawman argument though. You're discounting platform cost like it doesn't matter. It does matter and in the context of the list, they all have price points.

So, you're saying the real competitor of the 2700X is not the 8700K, but the 7900X?

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/
Gaining traction!

That is a big jump in market share in the Steam survey. That leaves outside some other niche products, but for the mainstream, it should be really telling of the traction AMD has. I hope they keep the momentum for a bit longer.

Cheers!

 

[goldstone77]

Comparing a 7900X Recommended Customer Price $989.00 - $999.00 vs. 2700X $329.99 for streaming at nearly 3 times the price not counting platform costs....

 

[Gon Freecss]

Nothing is really "unbeatable" when it comes to streaming. The 7900X, for example, wrecks it. It even beats the 1950X.

Also, the Wraith Prism can't handle an overclock, so meh.

They're gonna push Zen 2 with Navi.

That is a big strawman argument though. You're discounting platform cost like it doesn't matter. It does matter and in the context of the list, they all have price points.

So, you're saying the real competitor of the 2700X is not the 8700K, but the 7900X?

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/
Gaining traction!

That is a big jump in market share in the Steam survey. That leaves outside some other niche products, but for the mainstream, it should be really telling of the traction AMD has. I hope they keep the momentum for a bit longer.

Cheers!

Nah, I'm just saying it's nowhere near being unbeatable.

9th generation is looking more and more promising...

 

[jdwii]

The 2700X is a great all-rounder. Then you include it's nearly unbeatable for streaming and has a really good boxed cooling solution at that price point (I just got one, the Wraith Prism is really impressive). It's hard to give Intel the "best CPU for the money" when it only excels at games and OC.

Plus, it's been a very long time since AMD was recommended without a second thought from so many outlets. It's refreshing to see it up there.

EDIT: In Tom's case, it's actually weird they gave the top pick to the 2700X on a closer read... The list if specifically for gaming, so it does sound weird to me... Maybe they need to word that a little better in the title? It is explained well enough in the selection, but it's still a tad misleading.

In regards to the console talk...

I don't know what Sony wants to do from a strategy perspective... They are pushing for VR and high resolutions, but we've all known that Sony doesn't like being at the forefront of any niche like Nintendo (to jdwii's point), so it's really hard to read it from the external side. Technology wise, the Intel+AMD combi sounds like the best fit for their plans over the next generation with a second good guess of having a strong ARM-based CPU with AMD graphics.

What I'd like to see? Zen v3 + Navi in the same package (not APU, but like Threadripper).

Cheers!

Nothing is really "unbeatable" when it comes to streaming. The 7900X, for example, wrecks it. It even beats the 1950X.

Also, the Wraith Prism can't handle an overclock, so meh.

They're gonna push Zen 2 with Navi.

Well i can build a whole system with the 2700x for the price(plus the cost of motherboards for that platform) of a 7900x i mean that's like saying the gtx 1050Ti sucks cause the GTX 1070Ti can totally beat it

Also not much reason to OC the 2700X if anything you lose single core performance when you do that.

 

[Gon Freecss]

The 2700X is a great all-rounder. Then you include it's nearly unbeatable for streaming and has a really good boxed cooling solution at that price point (I just got one, the Wraith Prism is really impressive). It's hard to give Intel the "best CPU for the money" when it only excels at games and OC.

Plus, it's been a very long time since AMD was recommended without a second thought from so many outlets. It's refreshing to see it up there.

EDIT: In Tom's case, it's actually weird they gave the top pick to the 2700X on a closer read... The list if specifically for gaming, so it does sound weird to me... Maybe they need to word that a little better in the title? It is explained well enough in the selection, but it's still a tad misleading.

In regards to the console talk...

I don't know what Sony wants to do from a strategy perspective... They are pushing for VR and high resolutions, but we've all known that Sony doesn't like being at the forefront of any niche like Nintendo (to jdwii's point), so it's really hard to read it from the external side. Technology wise, the Intel+AMD combi sounds like the best fit for their plans over the next generation with a second good guess of having a strong ARM-based CPU with AMD graphics.

What I'd like to see? Zen v3 + Navi in the same package (not APU, but like Threadripper).

Cheers!

Nothing is really "unbeatable" when it comes to streaming. The 7900X, for example, wrecks it. It even beats the 1950X.

Also, the Wraith Prism can't handle an overclock, so meh.

They're gonna push Zen 2 with Navi.

Well i can build a whole system with the 2700x for the price(plus the cost of motherboards for that platform) of a 7900x i mean that's like saying the gtx 1050Ti sucks cause the GTX 1070Ti can totally beat it

Also not much reason to OC the 2700X if anything you lose single core performance when you do that.

Well, if you're only spending $900 on a system with a $330 CPU, I don't know what to say.

Also, no. That's like saying the GTX 1060 is unbeatable when it comes to playing games, which is plainly wrong. Higher tier graphics cards can beat it.

 

[jdwii]

The 2700X is a great all-rounder. Then you include it's nearly unbeatable for streaming and has a really good boxed cooling solution at that price point (I just got one, the Wraith Prism is really impressive). It's hard to give Intel the "best CPU for the money" when it only excels at games and OC.

Plus, it's been a very long time since AMD was recommended without a second thought from so many outlets. It's refreshing to see it up there.

EDIT: In Tom's case, it's actually weird they gave the top pick to the 2700X on a closer read... The list if specifically for gaming, so it does sound weird to me... Maybe they need to word that a little better in the title? It is explained well enough in the selection, but it's still a tad misleading.

In regards to the console talk...

I don't know what Sony wants to do from a strategy perspective... They are pushing for VR and high resolutions, but we've all known that Sony doesn't like being at the forefront of any niche like Nintendo (to jdwii's point), so it's really hard to read it from the external side. Technology wise, the Intel+AMD combi sounds like the best fit for their plans over the next generation with a second good guess of having a strong ARM-based CPU with AMD graphics.

What I'd like to see? Zen v3 + Navi in the same package (not APU, but like Threadripper).

Cheers!

Nothing is really "unbeatable" when it comes to streaming. The 7900X, for example, wrecks it. It even beats the 1950X.

Also, the Wraith Prism can't handle an overclock, so meh.

They're gonna push Zen 2 with Navi.

Well i can build a whole system with the 2700x for the price(plus the cost of motherboards for that platform) of a 7900x i mean that's like saying the gtx 1050Ti sucks cause the GTX 1070Ti can totally beat it

Also not much reason to OC the 2700X if anything you lose single core performance when you do that.

Well, if you're only spending $900 on a system with a $330 CPU, I don't know what to say.

Also, no. That's like saying the GTX 1060 is unbeatable when it comes to playing games, which is plainly wrong. Higher tier graphics cards can beat it.

When it comes to saying the 2700x is just unbeatable he wasn't talking about benchmarks he was talking about the actual experience its gonna be hard to push that processor and actually feel the slow down.
Jayztwocents even said it in his recent video side by side he can't even tell a difference anymore say that with faildozer.

Some people do more then just game on their machine 2700X+B350+16GB of ram is around 600$ 110$ for the Case and power supply and then you could get a 1tb drive for 50$ and then a cheap SSD for 50$. Basically that leaves enough money for a GT 1030 boom 900$ for a workstation which Intel simply is impossible to match in that case.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700x_review,8.html

Going here looking at the 2700x and comparing it to the 7900x it just shows how great of processor the 2700x is for the money.

WPrime 1024M
2700X 95 sec
I9 7900X(10 core) 76 sec

7900X 25% Faster

HandBrake 2017
Took the 7900X 52.14
2700X 48.29

7900X 8% faster

Google Chrome Mozilla Kraken v1.1
7900X 844ms
2700X 965ms

7900X 14% faster

R15 MT
7900X 2198
2700X 1828

7900X 20% faster

7-zip 16.04 compressing mb/s
7900x 48MB/s
2700X 38MB/s

7900X 26.3% faster

On average off of these results 18.66% faster lets just say 20% faster then the 2700K for 280% of the cost of a 2700X. Cheapest 2066 board on newegg is 189.99$ as well when a 2700X can be paired with a B350 board and like i said with the 2700X for most people running it at stock would probably be better so the VRM on most B350 boards should be fine.

7900X has 20% more cores too and as reported here the 7900X runs at 4ghz on all cores which the 2700X basically runs at 3950-4050mhz on all cores under load.

I will note that the 7900X is using a mesh architecture not a ring architecture but basically its making Ryzen competitive core to core except again in those AVX2 situations.

 

[Gon Freecss]

The 2700X is a great all-rounder. Then you include it's nearly unbeatable for streaming and has a really good boxed cooling solution at that price point (I just got one, the Wraith Prism is really impressive). It's hard to give Intel the "best CPU for the money" when it only excels at games and OC.

Plus, it's been a very long time since AMD was recommended without a second thought from so many outlets. It's refreshing to see it up there.

EDIT: In Tom's case, it's actually weird they gave the top pick to the 2700X on a closer read... The list if specifically for gaming, so it does sound weird to me... Maybe they need to word that a little better in the title? It is explained well enough in the selection, but it's still a tad misleading.

In regards to the console talk...

I don't know what Sony wants to do from a strategy perspective... They are pushing for VR and high resolutions, but we've all known that Sony doesn't like being at the forefront of any niche like Nintendo (to jdwii's point), so it's really hard to read it from the external side. Technology wise, the Intel+AMD combi sounds like the best fit for their plans over the next generation with a second good guess of having a strong ARM-based CPU with AMD graphics.

What I'd like to see? Zen v3 + Navi in the same package (not APU, but like Threadripper).

Cheers!

Nothing is really "unbeatable" when it comes to streaming. The 7900X, for example, wrecks it. It even beats the 1950X.

Also, the Wraith Prism can't handle an overclock, so meh.

They're gonna push Zen 2 with Navi.

Well i can build a whole system with the 2700x for the price(plus the cost of motherboards for that platform) of a 7900x i mean that's like saying the gtx 1050Ti sucks cause the GTX 1070Ti can totally beat it

Also not much reason to OC the 2700X if anything you lose single core performance when you do that.

Well, if you're only spending $900 on a system with a $330 CPU, I don't know what to say.

Also, no. That's like saying the GTX 1060 is unbeatable when it comes to playing games, which is plainly wrong. Higher tier graphics cards can beat it.

When it comes to saying the 2700x is just unbeatable he wasn't talking about benchmarks he was talking about the actual experience its gonna be hard to push that processor and actually feel the slow down.
Jayztwocents even said it in his recent video side by side he can't even tell a difference anymore say that with faildozer.

Some people do more then just game on their machine 2700X+B350+16GB of ram is around 600$ 110$ for the Case and power supply and then you could get a 1tb drive for 50$ and then a cheap SSD for 50$. Basically that leaves enough money for a GT 1030 boom 900$ for a workstation which Intel simply is impossible to match in that case.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700x_review,8.html

Going here looking at the 2700x and comparing it to the 7900x it just shows how great of processor the 2700x is for the money.

WPrime 1024M
2700X 95 sec
I9 7900X(10 core) 76 sec

7900X 25% Faster

HandBrake 2017
Took the 7900X 52.14
2700X 48.29

7900X 8% faster

Google Chrome Mozilla Kraken v1.1
7900X 844ms
2700X 965ms

7900X 14% faster

R15 MT
7900X 2198
2700X 1828

7900X 20% faster

7-zip 16.04 compressing mb/s
7900x 48MB/s
2700X 38MB/s

7900X 26.3% faster

On average off of these results 18.66% faster lets just say 20% faster then the 2700K for 280% of the cost of a 2700X. Cheapest 2066 board on newegg is 189.99$ as well when a 2700X can be paired with a B350 board and like i said with the 2700X for most people running it at stock would probably be better so the VRM on most B350 boards should be fine.

7900X has 20% more cores too and as reported here the 7900X runs at 4ghz on all cores which the 2700X basically runs at 3950-4050mhz on all cores under load.

I will note that the 7900X is using a mesh architecture not a ring architecture but basically its making Ryzen competitive core to core except again in those AVX2 situations.

If you could actually read my response, it was about streaming. The 2700X is not nearly unbeatable for streaming.

And that's a really horrible build.

Clock for clock, core for core, the Skylake-X core is ~20% faster than the Zen+ core, when it comes to applications, on average.

The 7900X has 25% more cores, and can clock around ~15% higher on average.